Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 64969 times)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #400 on: March 24, 2020, 06:19:27 AM »
And another chloroquine poisoning: Arizona man dies

Oh my god. They drank fish tank cleaner. Stop spreading this kind of misinformation. Seriously asking, what is wrong with you?

Crunch, I assume you did a google search, but somehow the dozen or so sites on the first page of results I got that say things similar to this didn't come up for you:

Quote
Chloroquine phosphate is in a class of drugs called antimalarials and amebicides. It is used to prevent and treat malaria. It is also used to treat amebiasis. This medication is sometimes prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information.

What the couple did was unquestionably stupid, but they're hardly alone in grasping at rumors and hearsay out of fear.  In this case, Trump is partially responsible for the death by promoting chloroquine as a wonder drug before any medical guidance has been issued for its efficacy to treat COVID-19.  A little over a week ago I had to go to 3 supermarkets to get garlic.  It seems that some people are thinking that if it works on vampires, maybe it will work for this.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #401 on: March 24, 2020, 06:25:21 AM »
I'm trying to find the quote of Trump warning the public that although Chloroquine is being studied regarding possible uses against the coronavirus, that it can be toxic, can lead to death if misused, and should only be used as directed by a physician...
« Last Edit: March 24, 2020, 06:28:04 AM by DonaldD »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #402 on: March 24, 2020, 06:35:16 AM »
You obviously won't find it.  Trump knows (on some reptilian level) that people will die if he "restarts" the economy and if they rush to try each miracle cure he touts.  He's getting support from right wing outlets and commentators, and even from elected officials like:

Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

How many of us are willing to do whatever it takes to win one for the gipper?  Sorry, that's better stated as How many should we let die because Trump thinks old people are expendable?  Start looking around at your neighbors to see who among them we can do without.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #403 on: March 24, 2020, 07:20:16 AM »
This is a whole new level of TDS. Some of you have truly cracked. Fish tank cleaner is not even remotely a drug to be used on humans nor has anyone suggested it is.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2020, 07:23:58 AM by Crunch »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #404 on: March 24, 2020, 07:25:35 AM »
This is a whole new level of TDS. Some of you have truly cracked. Fish tank cleaner is not even remotely a drug to be used on humans nor has anyone suggested it is.

You missed the quote from the Texas Governor?  Let me repeat it for you:

Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

What's the opposite of TDS?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #405 on: March 24, 2020, 07:45:00 AM »
You might want to get some rest too.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #406 on: March 24, 2020, 11:10:31 AM »
Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

How many of us are willing to do whatever it takes to win one for the gipper?  Sorry, that's better stated as How many should we let die because Trump thinks old people are expendable?  Start looking around at your neighbors to see who among them we can do without.

I haven't looked into the TX quote, but I doubt it's as intellectually vapid as you're suggesting.

Saving even one life is worth doing whatever it takes feels virtuous but is complete nonsense. There are many scenarios in which "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. They're just really difficult and unpleasant to wrestle with.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #407 on: March 24, 2020, 11:43:55 AM »
Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

How many of us are willing to do whatever it takes to win one for the gipper?  Sorry, that's better stated as How many should we let die because Trump thinks old people are expendable?  Start looking around at your neighbors to see who among them we can do without.

I haven't looked into the TX quote, but I doubt it's as intellectually vapid as you're suggesting.

Saving even one life is worth doing whatever it takes feels virtuous but is complete nonsense. There are many scenarios in which "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. They're just really difficult and unpleasant to wrestle with.

That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #408 on: March 24, 2020, 11:50:33 AM »
Quote
That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

Some hard questions. I would probably be fine however my parents, aunts and uncles, other peoples families... probably not.  What am I, what are we, willing to sacrifice???


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #409 on: March 24, 2020, 11:54:59 AM »
Let's take a quick walk through

Quote
Patrick, who said he turns 70 next week, would be among the high-risk population that is most affected by the coronavirus. But he said people like him have to weigh the hazards to their personal health that the virus poses with the challenges to health of the American economy brought on by social distancing guidelines.

"No one reached out to me and said, 'As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?' And if that is the exchange, I'm all in," Patrick told Fox News.

He added, "My messages is that let's get back to work, let's get back to living. Let's be smart about it and those of us who are 70+, we'll take care of ourselves. But don't sacrifice the country."

So, as usual, there is an ongoing mischaracterization to fit a certain narrative so that the economy can continue crashing and hurt Trump in the election.

Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die. Patrick said he would be willing to take that risk. He said to be smart about it (do I need to unpack that for you, can you guys be that deep in the TDS fever?) and let the 70+ team make the call about their own health (their body, their choice, right?).

We can't destroy the economy. That has its own health risks. There are solutions other than killing everyone over 65 or completely destroy the economy.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #410 on: March 24, 2020, 12:03:01 PM »
Quote
That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

Some hard questions. I would probably be fine however my parents, aunts and uncles, other peoples families... probably not.  What am I, what are we, willing to sacrifice???

Really hard.  In some senses it could turn out to be a Sophie's Choice for individuals to put themselves in harm's way on the belief that others will survive even if they don't.  Doctors are soon going to be making that choice for us, since there won't be nearly enough hospital beds, respirators if the number of cases rises as expected even with restrictions in place.  In that very likely scenario the care given to each patient will have to be triaged and evaluated against others with similar needs but different personal circumstances.  I know how I would choose if were forced to, but that's not how I would choose if there were other options.  Fortunately for all of us, there are.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #411 on: March 24, 2020, 12:04:20 PM »
Quote
That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

Some hard questions. I would probably be fine however my parents, aunts and uncles, other peoples families... probably not.  What am I, what are we, willing to sacrifice???

Thank you. It feels like these are topics that nobody dares raise. I reject the notion on any number being "acceptable" but I know I'm just playing word games.

Bottom line is I don't know. We have the world's best epidemiologists trying to project best actions and outcomes, but  I haven't seen any leading economists being consulted on the potential effects of large scale collapse. It feels like the disease mitigation should be the first order discussion, but I can't help but think that measures resulting in a 50% unemployment rate carry massive destructive (read:fatalities) consequences of their own.

Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #412 on: March 24, 2020, 12:05:42 PM »
Quote
Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die.

No one said he did, so why do you say that?  (Hint, for the usual reason)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #413 on: March 24, 2020, 12:07:55 PM »
Quote
Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.

Right, my number is inflated, but I don't have a better one.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #414 on: March 24, 2020, 12:12:34 PM »
Right so if this were a big Sim City game and we were making choices that had radical, adverse effects on 100% of the population with the intent of preserving < .5% of the population, we'd lose the game.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #415 on: March 24, 2020, 12:13:53 PM »
Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.

Yes, they are still valid as a worst case. Starting back up while the virus is still active just allows the process to start all over again. The probably 75k-200k who are going to get it in this wave aren't enough to provide any herd immunity benefits to society so the virus just starts spreading like crazy again and you are left with the choice to shut everything down again or let it overwhelm the health system.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #416 on: March 24, 2020, 12:16:51 PM »
Yes, they are still valid as a worst case.

Do you have any links or sources that support this more recently?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #417 on: March 24, 2020, 12:21:18 PM »
Right so if this were a big Sim City game and we were making choices that had radical, adverse effects on 100% of the population with the intent of preserving < .5% of the population, we'd lose the game.

Unless we also pumped a couple trillion into the economy for 2 months of shutdown and let the economy grow back to where it was pretty rapidly post shutdown. Would there still be some people who lost jobs/businesses permanently - most likely, would the overall economy rebound reasonably quickly - yes. Airlines and cruise ships are going to take it the worst. Its going to be longer than 2 months before we can reopen the wide spread flow of people. Given the right resources/help/cash most businesses will be able to weather the storm and come out on the other side ready to satisfy some pent up demand.

There already are some new opportunities for laid off wait staff. Amazon is hiring like crazy to keep up with demand, likewise other delivery services. Uber drivers can take a gig job delivering groceries. Its going to be bad, but this is the part of the problem that the government can solve by throwing money at it. Make unemployment insurance easy to get, sent out a UBI for 2-3 months, and make sure small businesses have the resources to open back up in 2-3 months.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #418 on: March 24, 2020, 12:23:47 PM »
Yes, they are still valid as a worst case.

Do you have any links or sources that support this more recently?

A worst case if we do nothing? Or a realistic worst case taking into account the various shut downs and isolation that is going on?

The worst case if we do nothing is the same 1 month ago vs going back to normal today or in a week. I didn't look it up but none of the underlying modeling changes.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #419 on: March 24, 2020, 12:29:33 PM »
"if we do nothing" is no longer valid, that was my point to the original guess no longer being valid if that was it's underlying assumption

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #420 on: March 24, 2020, 12:38:05 PM »
"if we do nothing" is no longer valid, that was my point to the original guess no longer being valid if that was it's underlying assumption

The discussion was going around - cut our economic losses - reopen everything and go back to life "as normal." At that point the worst case is still the same worst case. That's the down side of shutting down everything as our primary tool - if you open back up too early it has no lasting effect. So the worst case is still valid for a Trump, get things back to normal in 2 weeks approach.

Under current conditions we will probably need 3-4 weeks of "shut down" to see the benefits. I think the most likely scenario is that the US surpasses both China and Italy in the total number of infections and end up with between 100k-200k infected. But that's just based off my own simple modeling and the hodgepodge reaction we're taking to it. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #421 on: March 24, 2020, 12:48:39 PM »
Well, the worst case is probably somewhat less bad - since there will be at that point a number of people who will be immune, and we will have reset the clock on overloading the medical system by one month.  Additionally, the number of immune will have a slowing effect on the overall transmission speed of the virus.

That being said, the number of previously-infected will be so small that the beneficial effects will likely be almost negligible.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #422 on: March 24, 2020, 01:18:05 PM »
The concern as I understand it is that resuming 'normal' life will likely mean a increase in the loss of life and overwhelm health care system.
Questions
- are we putting off the inevitable?
- is any loss of life acceptable? If so is their a tipping point? (When it affects our family) Who decides what is acceptable?
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
- Is their a way to find a balance between economics and health?

I think a balance is possible if everyone participates in the precautions. Problem their will always be those that won't and I suspect that number of people that won't doesn't have to be very big to undo any good of others taking the precautions. Back to is the question of inevitability... no... character, morals, virtue, values demand we try because if we don't what does that say about the world we are creating for ourselves to live in. What would be the point of living in such a world?

Will character and values matter in this partisan either or world or have we already been bought and sold?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #423 on: March 24, 2020, 01:28:23 PM »
Depends what you mean by inevitable... by using a suppression philosophy, there will almost certainly be a reduction in total infections over the span of the pandemic.  Is it inevitable that the medical system will be overwhelmed?  The educated guess is 'No' so that is not inevitable, but a real risk.

Is any loss of life acceptable?  Well, it had better be, because there is no way to prevent 100% of deaths.   But yes, at some point, there will be diminishing returns tot he benefits of personal actions.  Should everybody quarantine themselves a year from now to avoid 1000 deaths per month?  No.


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #424 on: March 24, 2020, 02:05:29 PM »
Questions
- are we putting off the inevitable?
Maybe? Experts seem to think so.
Quote
- is any loss of life acceptable? If so is their a tipping point? (When it affects our family) Who decides what is acceptable?
We've proven that tens of thousands of annual deaths are acceptable (flu) before we would take these kinds of measures. Not really sure how you'd define who made that decision. Society?
Quote
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
Dunno. I haven't seen any reasonable data or forecasts around actual numbers.
Quote
- Is their a way to find a balance between economics and health?
There better be. Trump and the "experts" are going to make some tough decisions that will be unpopular with many. That's the nature of dealing with a crisis.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #425 on: March 24, 2020, 02:07:51 PM »
Here's a potentially valuable test that would show who had developed coronavirus antibodies.  In theory (hopefully in practice, too), someone who tests positive for the antibodies can resume a normal lifestyle socially and at work. There are still questions about how long an immunity lasts and what percentage of the population would have to have immunity in order to roll back more widespread behavioral restrictions.

Quote
Just how many people actually have Covid-19? How long will it be before we can safely begin to ease social distancing? And is this a one-off crisis or are we now facing the threat of repeated waves of coronavirus pandemics on an annual basis?

These are all questions to which scientists around the globe are racing to answer through serological testing – detecting tell-tale antibodies in the blood to identify the real number of people in a population who have ever come in contact with the virus. Over the coming months, the results will determine everything from how long society’s shutdown needs to be, to evaluating the effectiveness of the new vaccines on the horizon.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #426 on: March 24, 2020, 02:15:41 PM »
Quote
Dunno. I haven't seen any reasonable data or forecasts around actual numbers.
I'm not sure why you haven't seen this yet, but here you go: Imperial College COVID19 modelling.
Quote
In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.

<snip>

For an uncontrolled epidemic, we predict critical care bed capacity would be exceeded as early as the second week in April, with an eventual peak in ICU or critical care bed demand that is over 30 times greater than the maximum supply in both countries (Figure 2).
Those numbers are for an uncontrolled/unmitigated epidemic.  Clearly, some measures have been put into place.

If you remove those measures prematurely and willy nilly, you risk simply delaying the spike and not actually reducing total mortality significantly.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #427 on: March 24, 2020, 02:18:32 PM »
On the testing front.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/24/820157519/to-end-the-coronavirus-crisis-we-need-widespread-testing-experts-say

Quote
Stay inside, don't meet with friends, don't go to work — these are the messages coming from public health officials at every level of government. But increasingly, experts say they believe those stark warnings must be augmented with another message:

If you think you might be sick, even a little sick, get tested for coronavirus.

"Everyone staying home is just a very blunt measure. That's what you say when you've got really nothing else," says Emily Gurley, an associate scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "Being able to test folks is really the linchpin in getting beyond what we're doing now."
...
Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, says he believes that the Trump administration has some reason to set those guidelines. Early missteps created a huge shortage of tests in the U.S. "They're dealing with a reality, which is we have far fewer tests than we need right now," he says.

In addition to the lack of tests themselves, there are also reported shortages in basic equipment like personal protective gear and swabs. Given all that, Jha agrees that health care workers and the very ill should be getting tested most often.

But Jha and other experts say as soon as we can, we need to take the following measures:

Massively expand testing
...
Isolate the sick and trace their contacts
...
Gradually loosen shelter in place
...

...
"Things are definitely going to get worse before they get better," agrees Gurley. But she adds, "the sooner that we can get testing up and running, the better off we're going to be."

So if testing can scale up massively and we can get the initial surge under control, there is a potential path to getting things more back to normal. But here is the catch, the estimates are for needing on the order of 100,000 tests per day to do that. We don't have the lab capacity to do that right now. So we need more rapid tests that don't need to be processed by experts in a lab.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #428 on: March 24, 2020, 02:57:41 PM »
It's somewhat ironic that Trump is touting himself as a "wartime President," since any wartime leader would have a battle plan that deals with many operational fronts.  If I were king - er, I mean a wartime President, I would build my effort along the following lines:

First, the very basic elements.  We are under attack, so...

* First, protect people from harm.  The lockdowns help, but they are being developed and implemented differently in each state, while the enemy is the same everywhere.  So, construct a tiered safety system that all states are required to follow with more stringent rules in higher risk areas and less strict guidelines where the disease is less prevalent and less likely to proliferate.  Federal economic assistance would be provided as necessary.

* Plan a month or more ahead for anticipated medical capacity based on multiple scientific models.  That means requiring Governors where needed to increase hospital facilities and require manufacturers to ramp up production of necessary equipment and materials.  All of these things would be paid for by the federal government.

* Identify lifeline supply chains and end-point delivery systems.  The most important of these are food stores and the supply chain that provides them with their stock all the way back to the initial producers through the packaging and delivery industries. Identify other essential services/industries and do the same for them. Industry can pay for these things as they are part of their normal business activities.

Next,

* Enlist researchers, pharmaceutical companies and bioscientists to investigate, recommend and test potential treatments to prevent the illness, mitigate its course and cure or resolve it in patients at all risk and infection levels. The federal government would pay for expedited development and testing of promising approaches.

* Analyze the path of the virus through society and determine which segments of the population can be allowed to resume some portion or all of their pre-virus routines. The first of these would be to re-open K-12 schools as soon as possible, wherever possible.  Since children are at very low risk of contracting COVID-19 and have the least severe symptoms, they should be allowed to congregate.  Use schools for that purpose and extend school hours so their parents can work wherever possible. 

* In most cases, parents of young students are also in low-risk age groups, so allow them to work from home or to return to their external work environments.  If testing is not available, make sure that vulnerable family members are sequestered from their younger relatives.  If testing is available, allow all age and risk groups to share spaces if they all test negative for the virus.

Rinse, repeat.  This is a progressive plan that allows healthy people to resume their lives and takes some stress off of the economic system and commercial activities.  Over time and after a long series of catastrophes, declare victory and get on with our lives.

What did I miss?  Where am I going wrong?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #429 on: March 24, 2020, 03:09:31 PM »
...

* Analyze the path of the virus through society and determine which segments of the population can be allowed to resume some portion or all of their pre-virus routines. The first of these would be to re-open K-12 schools as soon as possible, wherever possible.  Since children are at very low risk of contracting COVID-19 and have the least severe symptoms, they should be allowed to congregate.  Use schools for that purpose and extend school hours so their parents can work wherever possible. 
...
What did I miss?  Where am I going wrong?

Children can still get the disease. It just happens to be mild in children. Which is problematic for the spread, because they are very likely to continue to interact with other children and their parents while infected. Also teachers aren't always young, healthy, and likely to have mild cases. Schools due to the density of people are actually one of the last things that should reopen.

Quote
Many (41.5%) had fever, and cough and throat redness were also common. Twenty-seven (15.8%) had no symptoms or signs of pneumonia on x-ray, while 12 (7.0%) had signs on x-ray but no symptoms, for an asymptomatic rate of 22.8%. "Determination of the transmission potential of these asymptomatic patients is important for guiding the development of measures to control the ongoing pandemic," the authors wrote.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/childrens-covid-19-risks-unique-chinese-studies-find

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #430 on: March 24, 2020, 03:28:20 PM »
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/24/820797301/fact-check-trump-compares-coronavirus-to-the-flu-but-they-are-not-the-same?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates

Differences between flu and covid-19.

Quote
...
2. This strain of coronavirus appears to infect two to 2.5 people versus 1.3 with the flu, so coronavirus seems to be about twice as contagious as the flu;

3. Some 20% of coronavirus patients are in serious enough condition to go to the hospital, 10 times the number who wind up in the hospital because of the flu;

4. Hospital stays for the coronavirus are twice as as long as for the flu;

5. About 8% of people get the flu every year. Some estimates are 25% to 50%, possibly up to 80%, could get the coronavirus without drastic actions being taken by individuals, states and municipalities and the federal government;

6. The coronavirus could be 10 times deadlier than the flu — about 0.1% who get flu die. It's estimated that about 1% of those who have gotten coronavirus have died from it;
...

Lots of good information in that list as to why this is being taken so much more seriously than the flu.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #431 on: March 24, 2020, 03:54:33 PM »
Quote
* Analyze the path of the virus through society and determine which segments of the population can be allowed to resume some portion or all of their pre-virus routines. The first of these would be to re-open K-12 schools as soon as possible, wherever possible.  Since children are at very low risk of contracting COVID-19 and have the least severe symptoms, they should be allowed to congregate.  Use schools for that purpose and extend school hours so their parents can work wherever possible. 

* In most cases, parents of young students are also in low-risk age groups, so allow them to work from home or to return to their external work environments.  If testing is not available, make sure that vulnerable family members are sequestered from their younger relatives.  If testing is available, allow all age and risk groups to share spaces if they all test negative for the virus.
I think you may be underestimating just what very low risk means, especially as it concerns hospitalizations.

Early numbers suggested a fairly homogeneous fatality rate of about 0.2% of those infected in the age group of 10 years to 40 years, where acute cases made up slightly more than twice the fatality rate.  So call that about a 0.5% rate of acute care for those infected in those aged 10-40years.

About 50% of the US population is less than 40 years old - call it 160,000,000 people.  If you assume a surge infection rate of just 5% at any given time, that would be about 8,000,000 infected people below the age of 40.  If 0.5% of them needed acute care, that would be 40,000 acute cases - much higher than the available surge critical care bed capacity.

And that is only if 5% are actively infected at the peak.  What if it is 7.5% or 10%?  That also ignores that allowing young people to spread the virus amongst themselves will lead to much greater spread amongst the older population because it is simply not reasonable that you will get 100% segregation of the populations.  And if it gets into those populations, the rate of hospitalizations will be much higher.

What you described is pretty close to the initial UK mitigation strategy that led to estimates of 250,000 UK deaths, just delayed slightly.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #432 on: March 24, 2020, 04:01:54 PM »
The idea that those previously infected could be 'let loose' is an interesting idea... though probably not practical, as the available pool of labour would not be uniformly, or maybe effectively, distributed, across skill sets... you couldn't just open a manufacturing plant without the properly trained people, and enough of them.

Maybe people could volunteer to go on COVID-19 vacations, where they decide to actively have themselves infected, and be quarantined in a hospice with the best possible care until they recover or die.  Just get it over with.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #433 on: March 24, 2020, 05:05:06 PM »
To our (erstwhile) English fathers, what do you think of the English antibody initiative?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #434 on: March 24, 2020, 05:36:49 PM »
Some tweaks/additions to your proposal:
1. Aggressive education of the populace - hygiene, proper uses of protective devices, social gatherings, responsibility, etc.
2. Maintain isolation of the general population for at least 3 times the length of the virus lifecycle (3 * 14 days) but preferably longer, especially if the public is on board.
3. Keep kids out of school for at least 2 months - but possibly longer.  Children in schools are the most effective transmitters of disease for a number of reasons.
4. Put in place distance learning opportunities, as well as other distance activities.
5. increase ICU capacity during that time.
6. Evaluate the status of the population at that point, as well as throughout the period.
7. If the analysis suggests that isolation can be relaxed, do so for adults first, for work purposes, with only a subset of industries.
8. Re-evaluate
9. Relax restrictions slowly on subsets of industry as ongoing analysis confirms that viral spread is within an acceptable range.
10. Maintain physical distance rules in all settings where at all practical.  Maintain limits on public gatherings.  This will need to be in place much longer than the harsher distancing and isolation strategies


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #435 on: March 24, 2020, 06:18:40 PM »
Saving even one life is worth doing whatever it takes feels virtuous but is complete nonsense. There are many scenarios in which "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. They're just really difficult and unpleasant to wrestle with.

That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

"Hammer and the Dance" presented a scenario with a 75% infection rate in the US with a 4% mortality rate, the number that presented was about 4.1 Million deaths. While a 25% infection rate and 1% mortality brings it down to just over half-a-million dead.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #436 on: March 24, 2020, 06:22:54 PM »
Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.

They're valid until either a successful vaccine is deployed, or they find a way to treat it successfully.

There is every possibility that we'll be right back where we started just weeks after the quarantine is lifted, even if it lasted into August. You're not putting this genie back in the bottle.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #437 on: March 24, 2020, 06:27:18 PM »
"if we do nothing" is no longer valid, that was my point to the original guess no longer being valid if that was it's underlying assumption

The discussion was going around - cut our economic losses - reopen everything and go back to life "as normal." At that point the worst case is still the same worst case. That's the down side of shutting down everything as our primary tool - if you open back up too early it has no lasting effect. So the worst case is still valid for a Trump, get things back to normal in 2 weeks approach.

Under current conditions we will probably need 3-4 weeks of "shut down" to see the benefits. I think the most likely scenario is that the US surpasses both China and Italy in the total number of infections and end up with between 100k-200k infected. But that's just based off my own simple modeling and the hodgepodge reaction we're taking to it.

Not quite, the longer we remain shut down, the longer it will take for the contagion to flare up again. But you can expect it to flare up again, we can only hope it is identified quickly enough to prevent if from going global again.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #438 on: March 24, 2020, 06:30:07 PM »
The concern as I understand it is that resuming 'normal' life will likely mean a increase in the loss of life and overwhelm health care system.
Questions
- are we putting off the inevitable?
- is any loss of life acceptable? If so is their a tipping point? (When it affects our family) Who decides what is acceptable?
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
- Is their a way to find a balance between economics and health?

An over-whelmed health care system also means "collateral damage" as the guy who just had a heart attack that would normally be survivable today becomes fatal because there are no resources available to treat him. Ditto for strokes, accidents with major injures, etc. It isn't just the Covid19 patients who would die.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #439 on: March 24, 2020, 06:34:57 PM »
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
Dunno. I haven't seen any reasonable data or forecasts around actual numbers.

Closest thing I've seen to this only speaks to the viral side, and now for it's third appearance on this forum in 5 days:
Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #440 on: March 25, 2020, 11:14:02 AM »
Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die. Patrick said he would be willing to take that risk. He said to be smart about it (do I need to unpack that for you, can you guys be that deep in the TDS fever?) and let the 70+ team make the call about their own health (their body, their choice, right?).

Except it isn't only him that he is risking.

Having the disease means he can spread it to others.  So unless he isolates himself from his friends and family, he will most likely give it to one of them.  And if he does isolate himself...well, that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? ;)

Remember, from the latest I've heard, you can be contagious without symptoms.  So if he isolate himself when he feels sick, it is too late.

Second, spreading the disease means more people will die.  Because social distancing is not preventing everyone from getting it.  It is preventing our medical infrastructure from being overwhelmed.  Right now, hospitals and first responders do not have enough protective equipment to insulate them from the virus.  Nurses are using used surgical masks because they don't have replacements.  There are a limited number of respirators for those who are acutely ill.  Hospital beds are limited.  And if nurses and doctors get the disease because of lack of protective gears, they will be even more limited.  All which adds up to higher casualty rates than need be.  And not just retirees.  They just have the highest rate of death.  Every age group has people dying it in.

What happens to the economy when workers die, or have permanent lung scarring from the disease, because they couldn't get proper treatment because of triage?  What happens to their lives, because Patrick decided he was willing to risk his life and infect them?

Patrick is an idiot.  He doesn't understand the implications of what he is advocating, and he is putting everyone at risk because of it. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #441 on: March 25, 2020, 12:27:46 PM »
The page has a few graphs illustrating the daily progression of the virus in the USA.

Both number of cases and deaths are, indeed, increasing exponentially (see the logarithmic graph of the number of deaths if there is any doubt.)

Unless something completely under the radar happened between 1 and 2 weeks ago, the situation in the USA is about to get very bad, very quickly.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #442 on: March 25, 2020, 04:27:10 PM »
Crunch from another thread:
Quote
China has established a pattern of lying and coverups around this virus. The others have not. Consequently, I trust these guys and their results far more than the Chinese government.

Someone is tracking cell phone usage in China, and she pointed out that 15 million cellphones have had no traffic for several weeks. I didn't read the entire article - it was copied on facebook.  I don't know how robust the cell service is, I don't know if there are cultural forces in play that would affect cell usage.
But I do know that the virus tracker I am looking at has not show a single new case in China for 10 days now.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #443 on: March 25, 2020, 04:48:15 PM »
Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die. Patrick said he would be willing to take that risk. He said to be smart about it (do I need to unpack that for you, can you guys be that deep in the TDS fever?) and let the 70+ team make the call about their own health (their body, their choice, right?).

Except it isn't only him that he is risking.

More importantly, he's not talking as just a celebrity or some guy spritzing how he feels in that moment. He's the 2nd highest ranking public official in the state.  Everything he says on public media will be interpreted with that recognition.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #444 on: March 26, 2020, 02:47:42 PM »
Crunch from another thread:
Quote
China has established a pattern of lying and coverups around this virus. The others have not. Consequently, I trust these guys and their results far more than the Chinese government.

Someone is tracking cell phone usage in China, and she pointed out that 15 million cellphones have had no traffic for several weeks. I didn't read the entire article - it was copied on facebook.  I don't know how robust the cell service is, I don't know if there are cultural forces in play that would affect cell usage.
But I do know that the virus tracker I am looking at has not show a single new case in China for 10 days now.

Just saw my first instance of this referenced on Facebook, it links to a youtube video, so not sure how much I'd trust it. The video claims 21 million, and someone else replied to the posting saying the count it now at 81 million.

I agree with a couple theories suggested as to "contributing factors" in play.
1) A Lot of foreign nationals likely had phones that were specifically used in China, they've since left the country and no longer have need for the phone, so it's "gone silent"
2) An additional large subset of the phones are likely to be "burner phones" of some flavor,
2.a) possibly being paid for through help from previously mentioned foreigners who have since left. Without the intermediary to pay for the phone, it's gone dead.
2.b) Alternately, the travel restrictions China had put in place prevented them from traveling to make the needed payments on their "burner," for much the same result, the phone is now dead.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #445 on: March 26, 2020, 03:23:13 PM »
It appears as though the author of one of the predominant models being used to inform a lot of COVID strategy and policy (Imperial College London) is walking back their doom stats.

He's now "“reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."

That same model was also suggesting 18 months of required social distancing and overall disruption. He's now saying that's impractical and they should have proper testing to mitigate/control within "2-3 weeks".

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/#ixzz6HpAEml86


Additionally, the University of Oxford released provisional findings of a different model that they say shows that up to half the UK population could already have been infected, which could greatly lower previous morbidity and mortality predictions.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/#ixzz6HpB8NCZw

I'm sure many will argue this is not the time to stop panicking. I'm simply advising my friends and family to be open to evolving models and the experts who forward them. Reminds me of something, but just can't put my finger on it....

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #446 on: March 26, 2020, 03:47:56 PM »
I just wonder at what numbers will one side say "You know, we were wrong?"  The US is now at 1,000 deaths from what I have heard. Is it at 10,000?  30,000? If it stops at 2,000 can we say, yep it was over hyped?   Over what time frame is the total supposed to be accruing?  I mean originally the argument was that flu killed tens of thousands a year, so what was a few hundred? But that ignored that the flu amount was for a whole year and this Covid19 was just getting started?

If the number of deaths stays low (less than 10,000) can we say the social distancing worked?  Or will it be claimed that it was never that bad.  I think back to the Y2K issue. Companies spent billions fixing the problem and it mainly was not an issue.  Is that because it was not a real issue or that companies spent billions to make sure it was not an issue (the cure worked).

msquared

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #447 on: March 26, 2020, 04:00:07 PM »
...
Additionally, the University of Oxford released provisional findings of a different model that they say shows that up to half the UK population could already have been infected, which could greatly lower previous morbidity and mortality predictions.
...

One researcher from Oxford released a pre-print of a paper. LetterRip already pointed out many of the flaws of that paper. Rule 1 of mathematical modeling, does my model fit the current data - answer here is no. The model should then be reexamined and assumptions made reevaluated. When I first saw reference to this I looked to see if the bbc was picking it up and that hadn't yet. Responsible news sources wouldn't report on this scientific paper pre-print. I very much expect that paper doesn't pass peer review.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #448 on: March 26, 2020, 04:26:54 PM »
Ah, AOC...

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1242894936753700879?s=20

Quote
Just a reminder that there is absolutely no good reason why Senate Republicans are tying a historic corporate giveaway to getting relief money in the hands of families.

They could just authorize sending checks to families today, right now, & deal with the rest. But they refuse.

They're quibbling over $500 Billion of the $2 Trillion package, that would be the portion that goes to "corporate welfare."

And last I checked, the TARP bill, which Obama spent most of, was a lot bigger than 500 Billion.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #449 on: March 26, 2020, 04:40:08 PM »
He's now "“reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."

He isn't walking it back - he is saying that the UK has taken the appropriate actions (finally) that it might limit the damage - the UK is on complete lock down - one of the most extreme in the western world for at least two weeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/boris-johnson-orders-uk-lockdown-to-be-enforced-by-police

Quote
That same model was also suggesting 18 months of required social distancing and overall disruption. He's now saying that's impractical and they should have proper testing to mitigate/control within "2-3 weeks".

The model never required 18 months of strong social distancing - it was a quite simple model that couldn't make any sort of such implications.

Quote
Additionally, the University of Oxford released provisional findings of a different model that they say shows that up to half the UK population could already have been infected, which could greatly lower previous morbidity and mortality predictions.

No it doesn't "show" any such thing.  The paper describes different combinations of Ro (infective rate) and p (hospitalization rate) with different lead times can give similar growth curves within the error bars of what is being tested.  Assuming a larger than measured Ro (2.75 - most reliable estimates are 2) and a drastically smaller than measured p (.001 - current actual measurments are .15) would give 40% of the population has been infected since the outbreak.  However, that Ro and p are completely in conflict with measurements, geographic distribution, and phylogenetics - which point towards a .3% or so infection rate.