Coronavirus II

[ditcherman]

Not sure if sarcasm, or...?

The reality of virulence and fatality is likely somewhere between those two extremes. We are determining public policy based on assuming where we are on the spectrum between the two. The prudence and acceptability of that public policy depends on where we actually are on that spectrum.

Haha no, not sarcasm. It is truly solid logic that I hadn’t considered before, the way the ratios would work if it had been present and active for longer.

In regards to your previous post (it won’t let me multi quote?) we can’t argue the fatality rate yet, probably never will be able to accurately due to overreporting to save face, but I don’t agree that “we don’t know that it is more contagious” than the flu. I would argue very strongly that it is much more contagious and we do know it. That’s the main reason I’m where I’m at on this side of the argument, and have been since the end of January, combined with my “gut feeling” that it is more fatal.

 

[JettaKnight]

They should have had a crystal ball? This was in February.

Yeah, good point.

 

[foszoe]

I don't have an issue with it IF the underlying condition was not fatal by itself. Would like to see those footnoted though.

I'm 100% for clarity and standardization in reporting. With data, garbage in = garbage out. Everyone reporting data differently helps no one.

But if these guidelines are being implemented (and, especially, encouraged to be implemented) as COVID-19 present = COVID-19 cause of death, then that's a major problem.

 

[jkaetz]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/funeral-birthday-party-hugs-covid-19/

Chiraqi made the news on a CDC study from FEB on how a funeral and bday party got everyone in the family sick and caused at least 3 c-virus deaths so far. All because an out of town family member who was sick, coughing, came to the events!

No one halts their life and goes into quarantined because of a cough. A good number of people will continue their daily lives even with a fever. This is just how it has always been. This article only exists because of hindsight.

 

[T.Lex]

Our good doc posted recently that in over 40 studies since 1976 they have found 36,000- 57,000 die, per million, for each 1% of unemployment increase. That is a huge number that makes the current C-19 projection look puny.

First, I missed that post, I think. Can you provide the cite? I believe that to be an inflated statistic.

Second, here in the US, the mortality rate is about 3.5% (published numbers). So, that's 35k deaths per million infected. Roughly equivalent numbers.

Except you can't hire dead people. (Unless you're recruiting voters in Chicago.) Once removed from the workforce by that, you don't come back to it.

 

[nonobaddog]

Not unless you want to be blinder than Stevie Wonder in a cave.

No, you got that wrong. 200 proof ethanol is fine for drinking and does not cause blindness. You just have to realize how strong it is and deal with it accordingly. You might be thinking of methanol.

200 proof ethanol is the same ethanol as in any drink. It is pure so it just doesn't have all the impurities like cresols, esters, aldehydes and phenolic compounds that people think makes their liquor good but they would never think of drinking those toxic things by themselves.

 

[Route 45]

WTB: Plasma rifle, prefer 40 watt range.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavi...w-jersey-police-social-distancing-enforcement

 

[HoughMade]

...Second, here in the US, the mortality rate is about 3.5% (published numbers). So, that's 35k deaths per million infected. Roughly equivalent numbers...

3.5% of those tested or presumed by official sources to be infected, which, of course, is the only denominator they can use.

As those with mild symptoms were told to stay home unless they got worse and a sizable portion apparently have no symptoms and so are not counted in the "infected", we can only guess at what the actual mortality rate is, but it will certainly be much lower when we have an idea of who has actually been infected.

 

[jedi]

Reality to accomplish what? 100% prevention was never the goal and is not possible in any event.

Why do people get hung up on the preventative measures not being perfect? That's a "no **** Sherlock" observation.

No one halts their life and goes into quarantined because of a cough. A good number of people will continue their daily lives even with a fever. This is just how it has always been. This article only exists because of hindsight.

Even BEFORE C-virus was on my radar back in Nov 2019 my SOP was avoid any and all sick people everywhere.

If you are sick and in a meeting with me it is well know either I'm walking out or that sick person is. No i dont wash my hands then as much as now but no sick people around me was my SOP before this. Its rude to be sick and bear others and i have no issues telling sick person to GTFO!

 

[T.Lex]

3.5% of those tested or presumed by official sourced to be infected, which, of course, is the only denominator they can use.

As those with mild symptoms were told to stay home unless they got worse and a sizable portion apparently have no symptoms and so are not counted in the "infected", we can only guess at what the actual mortality rate is, but it will certainly be much lower when we have an idea of who has actually been infected.

I'm not sure that last part - about it being lower - will end up to be true. Regardless, the only numbers we actually have are the numbers we actually have.

INGO seems focused on the reporting of false-positive COVID deaths. It is equally plausible (and equally unprovable) that there are false-negatives in the mix. Especially early on in this pandemic.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm not sure that last part - about it being lower - will end up to be true. Regardless, the only numbers we actually have are the numbers we actually have....

I agree, but think of this this way- the number of deaths (using whatever method) is knowable, or at least knowable with a great degree of accuracy. Almost all die in hospitals and there, one thing they know is record keeping. Therefore, if they say, for instance, 15,000 people have died, that is a pretty accurate number.

However, where does the denominator, those infected, come from? Is it possible that LESS people are infected than reported? I don't see how. Is the the "actually infected" number higher than the "known or suspected" number? Highly likely to a point approaching certainty, barring an unrealistically high number of of false positives.

Therefore, at any point in time, the actual mortality rate is no higher than reported and likely will be much lower. I am not talking ultimately, overall, but at any point in time.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Flat on "new" cases. Doc - are you using "new" as in "new infections" or "newly discovered." There are assumptions to both that deserve to be explicit. One of the problems is what kind of "new" case is it - one that is admitted to the hospital for severe respiratory problems or one that is the result of contact tracing.

While "new" cases are flattening (whichever definition you want to use) the deaths are increasing. Sure there will be a lag of - what 5 to 10 days? - between diagnosis and resolution of a patient, but if the "new" cases only reflect what we're finding by community spread, then it kinda doesn't matter. The number of "new" cases doesn't actually reflect the spread.

the only cases we know about are the diagnosed ones. I posted an article that some places may only be diagnosing 6% of their cases in the community because the vast majority have minimal to zero. but we certainly are aware of the deaths.

hospital admissions in NYC are decreasing. they are flat to decreasing in indiana. isn't the way to tell if something is not worsening is you are seeing it slow down?

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

if my basement was leaking and I was doing things to mitigate it I'd say it's getting better when I saw less water coming through the wall, right? I'd say progress was being made and the worst is over.

 

[drillsgt]

It makes a huge difference. Virus start spreading in November/December leading to 60K deaths (what might be representative of what really happened) is worlds different from Virus start spreading in February/March leading to 200K to 1MM+ deaths (what was largely a scare tactic).

I've worked at two big ten universities so far and across the US at any given time there are around 350,000 Chinese students with many that travel home for the December break, plus those that travel back and forth in the manufacturing sector and I don't doubt at all it's been here.

 

[T.Lex]

if my basement was leaking and I was doing things to mitigate it I'd say it's getting better when I saw less water coming through the wall, right? I'd say progress was being made and the worst is over.

If your basement is leaking and you start by taking buckets of water out as fast as it comes in, that's progress. If you get a pump and push water out faster than it is coming in. That's better.

If you don't know where the leaks are, you're still only treating the symptom.

You and I are in absolute agreement that there's evidence of things getting better.

But, when we were testing fewer people, the mortality rate was about half what it is now. We are finding more and more positives, and as a percentage, more of those positives are dying. That is not flattening.

We are also profylactically testing more people, like first responders, who are asymptomatic.

 

[nonobaddog]

Our good doc posted recently that in over 40 studies since 1976 they have found 36,000- 57,000 die, per million, for each 1% of unemployment increase. That is a huge number that makes the current C-19 projection look puny. No you will not see it in overrun ICU's but these deaths are just as real as any coronavirus death.

Those numbers seem pretty impossible to me. CDC says the annual death rate in the USA is about 8,000 to 8,900 deaths per million annually over the last 20 years or so. How could 1% unemployment cause a change that is 4 to 7 times the total death rate?

Annual Death Rate
8,638 deaths per million in 2017 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

 

[nonobaddog]

Do any of our Docs have any thoughts on this?

Fauci's Folly? Disease Expert: Lifting Lockdowns Would “Exterminate” Coronavirus

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...v2Eq6C_RPBragv1pSQF-hEioHlTEkYogtAFmLmq_c8fH4

 

[HoughMade]

Do any of our Docs have any thoughts on this?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...v2Eq6C_RPBragv1pSQF-hEioHlTEkYogtAFmLmq_c8fH4

Based strictly on theory and the assumption that once infected, one has "immunity" at least for a while, it makes sense. That is, once most people have had it, it will not be able to move through society quickly.

However, there are some issues. First, there will be those outside of the groups who are most at risk who will have an idiosyncratic reaction to the disease and will die. In other words, there are a certain number of "young, otherwise healthy" persons who will die or get seriously ill. We have seen that already. Under that strategy, those would be "acceptable losses"...are they? Second, just how possible is it to shelter the (known) most vulnerable while this is going on? I have my doubts. Third, I think 4 weeks is optimistic.

That being said, I hope that the powers that be are looking at all options.

 

[Trigger Time]

They should have had a crystal ball? This was in February.

Common sense says that if you are sick you shouldn't spread it to other people. That was way before China-virus was on the scene. I skipped family christmas and a couple other family events because of being sick. I didnt want to make anyone else sick.

 

[Trigger Time]

Do any of our Docs have any thoughts on this?



https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...v2Eq6C_RPBragv1pSQF-hEioHlTEkYogtAFmLmq_c8fH4

I think at this point this is what must be done.
We have to open our economy.
Keep nursing homes on lockdown, if you are very high risk stay isolated if possible.
But just like old age and heart disease and kidney failure and diabetes, etc. Something is eventually going to get you. Sometimes young people die but old people always die. It's just the way of the world. We grow old and we die. But we must live!
We must open the country back up.
The numbers are nothing like what we had been scared into believing. Even from around the world the death rates are not high enough to shut the world down.
Open it all back up.
At first I was on board with all of this but now I am not. I think we have had the wool pulled over our eyes by someone and I think it's the same ones who engineered and released this virus on the world. .. ChiiiNa.
Death is never fun. But it is part of life. The loses are acceptable compared to the alternative of a full on depression which will cause way more death than China virus ever could.
I think if they dont start opening stuff back up sooner than later we need to start organizing some matches on some capitols

 

[nonobaddog]

Common sense says that if you are sick you shouldn't spread it to other people. That was way before China-virus was on the scene. I skipped family christmas and a couple other family events because of being sick. I didnt want to make anyone else sick.

Right! That has been pretty normal for decades both where I worked and personally.