Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 54103 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #50 on: February 26, 2020, 04:42:40 PM »
So you don't think when a hospital runs out, they'll turn to the retail market? Interesting.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2020, 05:00:33 PM »
So you don't think when a hospital runs out, they'll turn to the retail market? Interesting.

I don't think there will be a great deal of supply in the retail market until the hospitals and health providers get what they want. 

Look.  We always have enough N95s for regular flu season in the US.  That demand may be doubled, but it will not fall at the exact same time.  The problem is that right now is also the height of the flu season.  In one month the flu season will be close to over.   Production will continue to flow into the hospitals to maintain a 4 week supply.  The increased demand is from increased use in some very small areas, and from increase demand from regular joes.  Production is increasing.  Manufacturing can be ramped up.  It will cost, but if there is anything that those evil capitalists are good at, it is meeting demand.  Honeywell and 3M are not going to just sit around. 

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2020, 11:59:33 AM »
Saw this tweeted this morning:

How not to die during the coronavirus pandemic:

1. Wear a seatbelt
2. Eat well and exercise
3. DO NOT look at your 401K
4. Get a flu shot
5. Wash your hands
6. Don’t eat bats

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2020, 12:39:15 PM »
Quote
3. DO NOT look at your 401K

Yeah.  At some point it would be interesting to think about the lasting economic effect of COVID19.  I know the stock market crash and Chattegrabber's stock buying advice has been brought up, but I see that as a discussion generally focused on a market correction.  I'm talking lasting economic effects to the tune of economic recession or depression. 

I think we can fairly say that it looks like 2020 is not going to be a boom year economically worldwide.  From what I gather, so much of supply is tied up in China, and they've locked down. 

A lot depends on how bad things really get, which is general speculation, but even with best case scenarios, I think we may be looking at economic slowdown. 

To ponder:

1.  What will the effects be domestically in the US?  Other than the major correction/crash that we are seeing.  As it has been pointed out, stocks can crash on a panic and then come back up in 6 months.  A correction doesn't lead to layoffs etc.  I'm talking about those kinds of economic repercussions that we saw from the Tech bubble/housing bubble/oil price bubble, etc. 

2.  Political ramifications for the Great-4th-Grade-Communicator.  I think this has already been touched upon briefly.  It's generally not good, but the question will remain going forward whose policies would be better for a recovery?  The Drainer-of-Swamps, or Bernie? 

You can argue that things should be better for certain sectors, and that L'Orange's economic policies havn't had all that much effect, but the overall picture is that the economy has been pretty good over the last 3 years. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2020, 03:25:41 PM »
This whole thing is, as of right now, pretty overblown. Yes, it’s serious and we should take precautions but it’s not near as deadly as the regular flu seasons we get every single year. I think a little over 32,000 in the US have died from the flu this year. A couple years ago it was something like 65,000.

The fatality rate for Coronavirus is barely measurable for people under 60, well under 1%. It’s the really old or already immune system compromised at risk - just like for regular flu. I understand that something like 20% of the infected never even become symptomatic. There is an incredible overreaction that is simply not warranted at this point.

I get the reasons the media want this to spin out of control but fanning the flames of this to create a panic is grossly irresponsible.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2020, 03:26:25 PM »
That being said, I did look at my 401k. All I could do was laugh. It’ll bounce back by summer.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2020, 04:41:37 PM »
Not being symptomatic is not actually a good thing in this case, as it makes impeding transmission more difficult... given that estimates of mortality run in the 1% to 3% range, depending on whose numbers you believe, if covid 19 does run amok, we'll likely see many more deaths before it's done.

Will it rise to the level of the seasonal flu? It's impossible to say at this point.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2020, 05:25:22 PM »
This whole thing is, as of right now, pretty overblown. Yes, it’s serious and we should take precautions but it’s not near as deadly as the regular flu seasons we get every single year. I think a little over 32,000 in the US have died from the flu this year.

I think this is a ridiculous statement and I'll explain why.  It hasn't killed as many people in the US as the regular flu, yet, because it hasn't hit the United States yet and the flu season is nearly over.  Seasonal influenza has a mortality rate of around 0.1%.  If COVID19 has a mortality rate of 1-2% in the United States, it would kill 10 to 20 times the amount of people this year that died from flu.  It is in fact MORE deadly than influenza, and everybody else seems to understand this.  Increased precautions in China, the US, and the rest of the world may actually curtain the total deaths from COVID 19, but these precautions are being put in place precisely BECAUSE it is more deadly than influenza.  Things seem to be winding down in China.  The worst hit area of China may only end up with .1-.2% deaths to total population.  But that is precisely because they put the place on lockdown. 

Quote
The fatality rate for Coronavirus is barely measurable for people under 60, well under 1%. It’s the really old or already immune system compromised at risk - just like for regular flu.

This may be true, but the deaths of the elderly are still deaths.  If the point here is that COVID19 mainly only kills the elderly, you are correct.  If the point is that we shouldn't care or that it's ok, that's a callous POV. 

Quote
I get the reasons the media want this to spin out of control but fanning the flames of this to create a panic is grossly irresponsible.

I honestly don't believe that "the media", particularly mainstream media, are responsible for fanning flames or spinning things out of control.  Most of the disinformation I've seen has been from social media sources, and most of the fanning has been from people who don't believe anything that comes out of China and conspiracy theorists. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2020, 06:50:01 PM »
Quote
If the point is that we shouldn't care or that it's ok, that's a callous POV. 

Is that your point of view? It’s not mine nor did I even remotely try to make that point. It’s pretty much something you made up.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2020, 06:56:00 PM »
Quote
Increased precautions in China, the US, and the rest of the world may actually curtain the total deaths from COVID 19, but these precautions are being put in place precisely BECAUSE it is more deadly than influenza.

It’s more deadly? Is it? As of this post, less than 2,500 deaths are officially recorded worldwide. We get 10 to 20 times that every year in the US alone from influenza.  How do you get Coronavirus being more deadly?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2020, 06:59:52 PM »
2.  Political ramifications for the Great-4th-Grade-Communicator.  I think this has already been touched upon briefly.  It's generally not good, but the question will remain going forward whose policies would be better for a recovery?  The Drainer-of-Swamps, or Bernie? 

You can argue that things should be better for certain sectors, and that L'Orange's economic policies havn't had all that much effect, but the overall picture is that the economy has been pretty good over the last 3 years.

The political ramifications for any sitting president when something like this happens are almost always negative. You can bet that if this happened when Obama was president, the right would be making hay off it, including looping it into border security somehow. I fully suspect the left will follow suit and claim that somehow Trump policies are making this worse. Although, technically "this" is quite literally nothing at this point in the US.

Lol, @ pretty good.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2020, 07:25:34 PM »
Actually, the right is already looping this into border security.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #62 on: February 29, 2020, 08:02:29 AM »
For some perspective, let’s look back at April 2009:

Quote
Since the H1N1 flu pandemic began in April, millions of people in the United States have been infected, at least 20,000 have been hospitalized and more than 1,000 have died, said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Six months later, Obama declared a national emergency. Looking at the archives, I generally don’t see any serious concerns expressed by anyone.  A few questions about if it’s appropriate to call it a pandemic or not and how everyone is overreacting but that’s about it.

Contrast that with the current reactions.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 08:06:21 AM by Crunch »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #63 on: February 29, 2020, 09:36:20 AM »
I think we need to be careful about dismissing covid-19 before it actually spreads to its full extent.

The full mortality effects of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic were re-estimated years later, in 2013, to be 10 times higher than initially measured.  That's probably why the medical community has changed in how it responds to pandemics.

If covid-19 manages to infect even 1/10 those normally infected by a common flu strain, we will see mortality 2-3 times that of a 'regular' flu season.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #64 on: February 29, 2020, 09:43:51 AM »
It’s more deadly? Is it? As of this post, less than 2,500 deaths are officially recorded worldwide. We get 10 to 20 times that every year in the US alone from influenza.  How do you get Coronavirus being more deadly?

Crunch, if you can't get the point from the previous post, I don't think anything else is going to help.  But here we go. 

The deadliness of a thing is generally a measure of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or injury, rather than the amount of death or injury it actually has caused. 

POTENTIALITY
vs
ACTUALITY

A gun may not have actually caused any deaths or harm.  Yet it is still a deadly weapon, because of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or harm. 
VX gas may not have caused very many deaths or injuries.  Yet it is still a very dangerous chemical weapon, because of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or harm. 
Clorox may not kill very many people through ingestion every year.  Yet it is still a deadly poison because of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or harm. 
Coronavirus may not have killed as many people as influenza this year, yet, because it's just started and the flu season is almost over.  But COVID19 has a higher mortality rate than influenza, and a similar transmissibility, so it's POTENTIAL to kill more people than influenza is higher, making it more deadly. 






Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #65 on: February 29, 2020, 10:08:53 AM »
A large meteor has the POTENTIAL to eliminate all life on earth. POTENTIAL!! ALL LIFE!!

Should we shut down everything for it and run around like our hair is on fire? I mean, if it's all about POTENTIAL. ::)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #66 on: February 29, 2020, 10:37:59 AM »
Should we shut down everything for it and run around like our hair is on fire? I mean, if it's all about POTENTIAL. ::)

That's a different subject, Crunch.  You said that COVID 19 wasn't as deadly as the regular flu and quoted the total number of deaths for flu season.  I pointed out that it was ridiculous and why.  Case closed. 

BUT.... since you brought it up.   The POTENTIAL of a large meteor ending all life on earth this year is actually much lower than the POTENTIAL of 400,000 people in the US dying from COVID 19 this year.  That would be a whole lot more than the 32,000 that died from the flu last year. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #67 on: February 29, 2020, 10:49:18 AM »
Observing that covid-19 may have a higher mortality rate than seasonal flu or swine flu, and that it may be just as communicable, and clarifying misstatements about those points, doesn't necessarily lead to rash policy proposals.

It may be too soon to calculate true mortality rates, and to understand perfectly how communicable the infection is, but we don't know nothing - it is transmissible in much the same way as other known viruses are, and has similar incubation periods as other known viruses, so we can actually make a pretty good model of how the virus will spread through the population.  And it seems unlikely, given the incubation period and the human response to the virus, that it will not spread to every country in the world.

I think one of the main pushes right now is to limit the immediate spread of the virus so that the seasonal flu (in the northern hemisphere) peters out before the primary effects of covid-19 are felt, reducing the strain on health systems.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #68 on: February 29, 2020, 11:06:18 AM »
I think we need to be careful about dismissing covid-19 before it actually spreads to its full extent.

The full mortality effects of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic were re-estimated years later, in 2013, to be 10 times higher than initially measured.  That's probably why the medical community has changed in how it responds to pandemics.

If covid-19 manages to infect even 1/10 those normally infected by a common flu strain, we will see mortality 2-3 times that of a 'regular' flu season.

Absolutely, and I don't think anyone is dismissing it. I can say let's have a reasonable response and that what is happening is an overreaction and still not dismiss the virus and its impact. "If" and "could be" is essentially fear-mongering. Are you stockpiling food and water?

Interesting question, have any of you guys done anything to prepare for the apocalypse of cornonavirus?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #69 on: February 29, 2020, 11:07:49 AM »
Should we shut down everything for it and run around like our hair is on fire? I mean, if it's all about POTENTIAL. ::)

That's a different subject, Crunch.  You said that COVID 19 wasn't as deadly as the regular flu and quoted the total number of deaths for flu season.  I pointed out that it was ridiculous and why.  Case closed. 
I know you think you did. Good for you. ;)


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #70 on: February 29, 2020, 11:18:33 AM »
Interesting question, have any of you guys done anything to prepare for the apocalypse of cornonavirus?

My hot water tank can serve as fresh water for a good two weeks. That’s my prep so far.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #71 on: February 29, 2020, 11:26:37 AM »
I've had a trip to Europe cancelled, but that wasn't my call (though I am paying attention to outbreaks, and will make decisions based on new information).

Preparation?  For a viral pandemic, there is little to do to prepare.  When the infection rates rise in NA, I'll avoid two-cheek kiss and handshake greetings, I'll be assiduous about handwashing and proper mucous disposal, I may telecommute slightly more and will avoid air travel and public transit.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #72 on: February 29, 2020, 11:35:59 AM »
I did go to the grocery store this morning and whatever was on my list I bought a couple of extra. Nothing all that huge, instead of everything I need for next week I probably have enough for the following week as well now. My main thing was to have enough on hand that I could avoid going out for a couple of weeks. It seems like overkill though.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #73 on: February 29, 2020, 12:05:15 PM »
I will also point out that, at the moment, yes, about 2,5% of the symptomatic infected die (compared to a 0,1-0,2%  depending on the year for flu), but that around 15% develop sufficiently severe respiratory symptoms to require multi-week hospitalization, and 5% are bad enough to require respirators.

Right now there are, here at least, few enough infected so that hospitals can take care of everybody at an adequate level, but if the numbers start to really scale up, we are going to see many doctors and healthcare personnel get sick themselves, hospitals getting flooded by sick people, and the level of care will go down dramatically.
This will not help keeping the mortality down.

I think even if its not stated loudly this is the main reason behind containment rules: they are not going to *really* stop the virus, its too contagious, but if you keep the spread slow enough, the healthcare system will be able to manage the flux of sick people without undue strain, and hopefully the hot season will then help putting an end to it.

Anyway, Italian status bulletin: here yesterday night official bulletin (the next will come out in a couple of hours) was 821 infected and 21 deaths, keeping in line with the 2,5% we have seen all week.
So, we've seen an increase of 10 times the infected in about 5-6 days.

Of course, as the world did not end in 2 days after the start of the panic (most people do not properly understand the power of a geometric progression), now everybody is starting making noises to stop all these bothersome containment measures and let students go to school, restart the economy etc... but it seems for the moment the recommendations of the WHO are still winning, so at least the schools will remain close for further 8 days in the 3 most infected regions.

(Notes about my own "apocalypse preparations": I always keep in my pantry one or two weeks worth of non perishable food, nothing fancy like those "prepper rations" somebody goes for, simply stuff that I use normally but that can last a lot and don't require cooking, like canned peas or beans, canned tuna and meat, crackers, honey, that kind of stuff.
In these days I'm simply making sure to use mostly fresh food and vegetables and avoid touching the canned reserve... ).

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #74 on: February 29, 2020, 12:26:49 PM »
When the infection rates rise in NA, I'll avoid two-cheek kiss and handshake greetings, I'll be assiduous about handwashing and proper mucous disposal, I may telecommute slightly more and will avoid air travel and public transit.

All good stuff.  But I just want to remind everyone that the reports of confirmed cases by the CDC or Johns Hopkins or whatever you're getting on local news is going to be a week behind reality. 

Patient zero in any given community (not THE patient zero) is not going to present for testing for the virus until they've been symptomatic roughly 5-7 days, when the respiratory problems become severe (if they even become severe).  So they've already transmitted the virus to an average of 2-4 people.  That's just an average.  One lady in ROK went to megachurch and brunch and possibly got 1000 people sick.  Given an incubation period of 2-5 days, it's possible to catch some of the close contacts of patient zero and test them and quarantine them before they are symptomatic, but it's not a given.  A admissibility of 2-4 is just fine.  But it's those in large cities and using public transportation or large social gatherings like church that can cause problems. 

There have been some recent reports of new community cases of COVID19 in the US, starting last night I think.  It's possible that we get a hold of it here, but there is also a chance that it is loose and the outbreak has begun.  It all depends on what these people did since they became symptomatic.  There is no way for us to know, but we can know that the risk in the US just ticked up a little bit.  As someone already mentioned, if you have a patient that does not develop severe symptoms, they can continue to spread the virus without ever knowing they had it. 

At any given time, for every new confirmed case, there could be an average of 2-4 more cases out there. 

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #75 on: February 29, 2020, 12:52:55 PM »
Quick update as today numbers are out: 1128 infected, 29 death, and the first 50 recovered.
We've also some more numbers about the severity, as 401 of those are hospitalized, plus other 105 that are in intensive care. The rest are on self-quarantine at their homes.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #76 on: February 29, 2020, 02:18:06 PM »
When the infection rates rise in NA, I'll avoid two-cheek kiss and handshake greetings, I'll be assiduous about handwashing and proper mucous disposal, I may telecommute slightly more and will avoid air travel and public transit.

All good stuff.  But I just want to remind everyone that the reports of confirmed cases by the CDC or Johns Hopkins or whatever you're getting on local news is going to be a week behind reality. 

Patient zero in any given community (not THE patient zero) is not going to present for testing for the virus until they've been symptomatic roughly 5-7 days, when the respiratory problems become severe (if they even become severe).  So they've already transmitted the virus to an average of 2-4 people.  That's just an average.  One lady in ROK went to megachurch and brunch and possibly got 1000 people sick.  Given an incubation period of 2-5 days, it's possible to catch some of the close contacts of patient zero and test them and quarantine them before they are symptomatic, but it's not a given.  A admissibility of 2-4 is just fine.  But it's those in large cities and using public transportation or large social gatherings like church that can cause problems. 

There have been some recent reports of new community cases of COVID19 in the US, starting last night I think.  It's possible that we get a hold of it here, but there is also a chance that it is loose and the outbreak has begun.  It all depends on what these people did since they became symptomatic.  There is no way for us to know, but we can know that the risk in the US just ticked up a little bit.  As someone already mentioned, if you have a patient that does not develop severe symptoms, they can continue to spread the virus without ever knowing they had it. 

At any given time, for every new confirmed case, there could be an average of 2-4 more cases out there.

Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. Why you’re so upbeat.

Quote
Could the coronavirus be the magic bullet to kill off the Trump presidency? Desperate Democrats certainly hope so; they imagine the spreading disease will knock confidence and our robust economy for a loop, undermining President Trump’s best argument for reelection.

Get some intense fear going, a decent body count if you’re lucky, could be a win for Democrats. Very machiavellian.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #77 on: February 29, 2020, 02:58:39 PM »
Get some intense fear going, a decent body count if you’re lucky, could be a win for Democrats. Very machiavellian.

You caught me, Crunch.  This has been our plan all along.  Secretly develop the virus and release it in order to kill millions of people worldwide, create a worldwide recession, and then blame The Dear Leader, so that he can be replaced by Bernie Sanders. 

The only thing you have wrong though.... is that I'm not a Democrat. 

I'm a secret associate of Chase Manhattan, embedded in an oil production company. 

But I should have known that you, Crunch, my arch-enemy, would discover our nefarious scheme, with your powerful and insightful intellect.  (Machiavellian is capitalized, by the way).  Though I see you had some help from Liz Peek, our old foe at CIT.  I suppose I was too upbeat and it gave me away.  Blast you, Crunch!   

Just know that you cannot stop our devious plans to remove The Chosen One from the Presidency and replace him with Sanders.    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #78 on: February 29, 2020, 03:25:37 PM »
Near Perfect response. Just missing about a dozen 9’s.

I know who you are, and I see your embarrassment.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #79 on: February 29, 2020, 04:01:55 PM »
Quote
Health officials in Washington state said on Saturday a coronavirus patient has died, marking the first death in the U.S. from COVID-19, the illness associated with the virus.

Well, looks like the panic has been 100% fully justified.  I mean, if one person died, the POTENTIAL is, I dunno, like 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 could die. It’s panic time.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #80 on: February 29, 2020, 06:51:00 PM »
Global update

Quote
The number of cases in China is already falling. Where once the graph of coronavirus cases in China showed an exponential climb, it has now leveled off substantially. Just three weeks ago, China was recording more than 3,000 new cases per day

There were just 318 new cases in China in the 24 hours of Feb 28. Infections are falling dramatically. However POTENTIAL remains infinite.

Quote
The vast majority of cases are mild, and the death rate is likely lower than reported. A large study of 72,000 confirmed COVID-19 patients in China found that 81% of cases were mild, another 14% were severe (characterized by difficulty breathing), and 5% were critical.

Overall, the death rate was 2.3 percent. More recently, the WHO reported a death rate of 3.8% in China, but noted that it is rapidly falling as standards of care quickly improve. Early on, the city of Wuhan (where the disease originated) was inundated with patients and hospitals could not provide proper care due to overwhelming demand. For Chinese patients whose symptoms started after February 1st, the death rate is just 0.7 percent.

The death rate could be even lower, as very mild cases of COVID-19 that resemble a common cold likely go unreported.

Right. Reasonable care being available, pretty treatable. No big deal.

Quote
There have been no reported deaths in young children. Though the outbreak has endured for more than nine weeks, there still have been no fatalities in children under the age of nine, with almost all infected simply experiencing cold-like symptoms. Moreover, only 2.4% of cases are in individuals under the age of 18. Kids and teenagers have been surprisingly resistant to the virus.

The death rate for people aged 10 to 39 currently stands at just 0.2 percent. Those genuinely at risk from COVID-19 are the elderly. People aged 80 and up have a 14.8% to 21.9% chance of dying if infected.

Se bottom line, it’s the over 80 crowd skewing the fatality rate of virus. If you’re under 80, in a country with reasonable care, your odds of survival are excellent - roughly on par with the flu if you include all those cases where people barely knew they even had it or never became symptomatic at all. 

Still, if we go with the POTENTIAL standard championed above, could be the end of the world because, you know, POTENTIAL.


DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #81 on: February 29, 2020, 07:09:21 PM »
Quote
The death rate for people aged 10 to 39 currently stands at just 0.2 percent.
If accurate, that means covid-19 has roughly twice the mortality rate for that age group as compared to seasonal flu across all age groups, or 7 times the mortality rate for the same age group. I don't think this observation supports your point the way you think it does.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #82 on: February 29, 2020, 07:29:24 PM »
Another thing to consider is just the quarantines themselves. Say you don't get it or maybe you do but you recover easily. However, you went somewhere at the same time as someone who was diagnosed, like at a church or an elementary school or a gym. Or perhaps it was just a family member you live with who went there. Now there is potential exposure. So the CDC starts tracking and testing all of the people they can find. And now you are quarantined, maybe on a voluntary basis or perhaps not so voluntary. Or you avoid going to those kinds of places where you risk exposure and avoid the possibility of getting quarantined altogether. You get your food late at night when the 24 hour supermarket is less crowded and they make you do the self-checkout. Stuff like that.

But the point is that one thing that is different about this virus is that our government is doing actual quarantines of large numbers of people. That doesn't happen with the flu.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #83 on: March 01, 2020, 07:56:37 AM »
Quote
The death rate for people aged 10 to 39 currently stands at just 0.2 percent.
If accurate, that means covid-19 has roughly twice the mortality rate for that age group as compared to seasonal flu across all age groups, or 7 times the mortality rate for the same age group. I don't think this observation supports your point the way you think it does.

My point is that the fatality rate is 0.2%. So that observation supports my point perfectly.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #84 on: March 01, 2020, 08:56:00 AM »
Quote
At the moment, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allows for testing only symptomatic people who traveled to China recently or those who have had contact with someone who tested positive for coronavirus. (Officials have said the criteria may be re-evaluated.)

“We could be missing a great number of cases that don’t fit into those criteria,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

How great a number could we be missing?
Quote
A far higher portion of asymptomatic cases was found on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, where 322 of 621 people tested positive but showed no symptoms.

That’s over 50% of infected that never would’ve shown up in mortality calculations since they had no symptoms or symptoms so mild they didn’t consider themselves sick. Is that an outlier or an average? We don’t really know.

This is a serious virus and it should be aggressively addressed but it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #85 on: March 01, 2020, 09:24:45 AM »
This is a serious virus and it should be aggressively addressed but it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for.
Wait - what?  Who are the "you" to which you are referring, and how did you get the idea that they are hoping that the virus becomes serious?

This seems to be another example of people being unable to accept facts because of possible interpretations that might be advanced as a result of the existence of facts, and then an associated transference of this process to others.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #86 on: March 01, 2020, 09:27:10 AM »
All good stuff.  But I just want to remind everyone that the reports of confirmed cases by the CDC or Johns Hopkins or whatever you're getting on local news is going to be a week behind reality. 
True - but infection rates generally increase geometrically, so a week's delay in getting absolute numbers is less important than the trend for these purposes.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #87 on: March 01, 2020, 09:57:53 AM »
  True - but infection rates generally increase geometrically, so a week's delay in getting absolute numbers is less important than the trend for these purposes.

It depends on who is using the data, what it is being used for, and if they understand exactly what the numbers mean.  The people who are putting out the numbers and doctors and other health care professions understand what the numbers mean and what they can be used for.  The general public maybe not so much. 

I feel that the general public, or even public officials without training or advisors, can misunderstand that the numbers are definitive and use it to form risk analysis that is faulty.  It can also create a level of panic when people see the numbers continue to grow and they don't understand why measure are not being taken or are not effective. 

Joe Blow sees that there are 100 confirmed cases of COVID19 in New York City.  That's not a great deal for such a big place.  He knows they have been identified and are quarantined in the hospital.  Maybe he feels pretty safe.  Then he is surprised when schools are shut down or public transport is shut down. 

What Joe Blow doesn't get is that the 100 confirmed cases that are now bad enough to be tested have probably created 200-400 cases that are currently symptomatic but have not been confirmed.  In addition, these 200-400 symptomatic patients that have not been confirmed have further infected 400-1600 patients that are non-symptomatic and are in the incubation process.  So 100 confirmed cases means a possible 400 to 1600 total infected.  That's just using an average R0.  The explosion in ROK goes to show just how bad things could get in high density areas. 

The reason I think it's important to understand this for the general public and for public servants is so they can make adequate risk assessments based on their community.  Public servants need to be able to know the right time to shut down things like schools or public transport or sporting events, etc.  The public need to understand when to up the level of their own social distancing and preventive measures. 

But the fact of the matter is that nobody is really talking about this other than me I think.  So the result of this is going to be public servants making decisions that may seem unfathomable to the general public which can cause further alarm.  There is already too much paranoia, conspiracy thinking, and general distrust in the general public.  Particularly online. 



DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #88 on: March 01, 2020, 10:15:08 AM »
"for these purposes" meaning, for what I need to know for my own precautions.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #89 on: March 01, 2020, 10:53:07 AM »
I wonder if we'll get to the point where there are so many people infected that we just give up on quarantines because they will cost the economy too much money. We'll help people to recover and we'll take some common sense measures to reduce the risk of it spreading but shutting people away for weeks will no longer be the norm even when they test positive.

It would be like trying to quarantine everyone who has the flu. We don't do it. We just accept the death rate and the illnesses and move on. It looks like the death rate is much higher with this but then so is the infection rate and ease of spread so although we could save more lives than we could with the flu we'd also have to quarantine tens of millions of people, maybe hundreds of millions if the 70% eventual population infection rate happens.

I'm not seeing any very serious efforts by our government to contain this. Like with Reagan and AIDS, people need to try to keep themselves from being infected because nobody else is going to do it for you. A lot of people don't seem to care either. "I'm not going to change my lifestyle just for this."

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #90 on: March 01, 2020, 11:15:51 AM »
I wonder if we'll get to the point where there are so many people infected that we just give up on quarantines because they will cost the economy too much money.

I don't think we're going to end up going the Chinese route and shutting down whole cities.  I think we'll possibly end up shutting down schools, public events, etc, while most individuals choose to minimize discretionary social contact.  This is all speculatory on my part, however.  My big questions is what is going to happen with public transportation and supermarket access.  Then all the problems involved with closing schools.  Daycare centers are IMO even worse than public schools for limiting disease.  Daycare centers may as well change their name to Plague Centers IMO, and I don't mean that in a good way. 

The cac is going to get wild, and I really don't know how it will shape up.  But when outbreaks begin in New York City, Miami, Boston, and Los Angeles, things are going to get real interesting. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #91 on: March 01, 2020, 12:14:17 PM »
There are some benefits in slowing the short-term spread of the virus that may not, in the end, reduce the eventual total infection extent:
1. More time to prepare infrastructure, treatments, anti viral medications, etc.
2. Spreading out the effects so as to reduce load spikes in medical care facilities and on care providers.
3. More time to educate the public.
4. The further into the warm season the spread can be delayed, the more likely it will be that the warm weather will slow the spread of the virus, in the same way as seasonal flu viruses have more difficulty spreading in warmer, more humid air.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #92 on: March 01, 2020, 12:32:28 PM »
This is a serious virus and it should be aggressively addressed but it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for.
Wait - what?  Who are the "you" to which you are referring, and how did you get the idea that they are hoping that the virus becomes serious?

This seems to be another example of people being unable to accept facts because of possible interpretations that might be advanced as a result of the existence of facts, and then an associated transference of this process to others.

For example, the NYT labelling it the “Trump Virus”. Or maybe Pelosi calling out CDC budget cuts only to fund it never happened the way she said it did. Or maybe get out of the bubble and review social media. You’ve got tons of options beyond MSNBC.

What you have there is another example of being unable to accept anything that contradicts your viewpoint and a willingness to say anything you can to support that viewpoint no matter how illogical or deceptive it is.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #93 on: March 01, 2020, 12:42:31 PM »
So addressing your post to "a few of you" was meant for Nancy Pelosi and the NYT?  Aside from neither Pelosi nor "the NYT" being likely to ever read your post, so then not likely accurately described as "you", I'll also point out that the NYT cannot accurately be described as just "a few" people, so that seems unlikely, but... OK. 

FYI, I have read nothing by either Pelosi nor the NYT on this topic.  As for social media - yes, we understand that your social media echo chamber is likely where you get most of your 'info'

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #94 on: March 01, 2020, 12:44:09 PM »
That’s precisely what I’m talking about, you literally just demonstrated my point. Literally

FYI, did you know that social media is dominated by liberal views? You should check it out sometime. It’s not what you’re making it up to be.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 12:49:03 PM by Crunch »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #95 on: March 01, 2020, 01:03:55 PM »
No, you really need to read what people write.

Here's a hint: you wrote "it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for."
I responded asking "Who are the "you" to which you are referring" pointing out (I had hoped) that nobody on this thread had attempted to peg this on Trump (with the exception of Wayward, in a single post) never mind was "hoping" that it was the big one.
To which you retreated by blaming people not posting here of bad actions.

I won't continue beating a dead horse, but it was clear you mistakenly were attributing actions and motives to people on this thread for which there is simply no evidence, and when challenged, you pretended to be talking to Nancy Pelosi and the NYT, as opposed to about them. (Realistically, we understand that you lump all people you perceive as in opposition to your beliefs together, so points made by Nancy Pelosi can therefore be fairly attributed to, say, Grant or The Drake.)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #96 on: March 01, 2020, 01:10:39 PM »
If you want to be pedantic, and obviously you do, go ahead. I don’t care.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #97 on: March 01, 2020, 01:15:37 PM »
No, you really need to read what people write.

Here's a hint: you wrote "it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for."
I responded asking "Who are the "you" to which you are referring" pointing out (I had hoped) that nobody on this thread had attempted to peg this on Trump (with the exception of Wayward, in a single post) never mind was "hoping" that it was the big one.
To which you retreated by blaming people not posting here of bad actions.

I won't continue beating a dead horse, but it was clear you mistakenly were attributing actions and motives to people on this thread for which there is simply no evidence, and when challenged, you pretended to be talking to Nancy Pelosi and the NYT, as opposed to about them. (Realistically, we understand that you lump all people you perceive as in opposition to your beliefs together, so points made by Nancy Pelosi can therefore be fairly attributed to, say, Grant or The Drake.)

When people like Crunch aren't pretending that people who don't think like him are out to get him, he's probably laughing about how drunk Nancy Pelosi is whenever she talks.  Neigh! The dead horse has a few kicks left in him. Neigh, I say!

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #98 on: March 02, 2020, 01:38:49 AM »

If you get put into a mandatory quarantine by the CDC do you have to pay for that?

Also, apparently you have to pay an arm and a leg to get tested too.

"Last month, a man in Miami who returned from a work trip to China feeling sick went to a hospital to be tested for coronavirus. The test came back negative, but his high-deductible health insurance provider told him he would have to pay at least $1,400, the Miami Herald reported, and provide three years of medical records to prove that the flu he got was not related to a preexisting condition. Without producing the records, he would owe $3,270 for getting tested."

It seems like this might be an area where taxpayer funded healthcare makes a lot of sense. If people have to pay three large to get tested that's going to hurt efforts to find out who has it and contain it.


https://theintercept.com/2020/02/28/american-evacuated-wuhan-us-billed-flight-mandatory-quarantine/

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #99 on: March 02, 2020, 04:35:07 AM »
Just bumped in an interesting article on the "Scientific American" website: does not say anything it have not been said already, but it does say it quite better and with more data:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/preparing-for-coronavirus-to-strike-the-u-s/

Quote
(...) if we can slow the transmission of the disease—flatten its curve—there will be many lives saved even if the same number of people eventually get sick, because everyone won’t show up at the hospital all at once. Plus, if we can flatten that curve, there is more time to develop a vaccine or find antivirals that help.

On related news, yesterday evening last bulletin in Italy was 1694 infected, including 83 recovered and 41 dead.
According to WHO, the end of this week will be the first when we start see if the containment measures are working or not.