COVID-19 Links, facts and discussion. Politics and hyperbole welcome.

[LWC55]

I don't know, from here, it looks like you might have some sand in your eyes.

I've considered that corona may be as bad as it is being reported. I've stayed home to work, my wife stayed home to work, my kids don't get to play with their friends. I've taken all the suggested precautions.

Now why won't you and many others look at the numbers and consider that corona may not be nearly as bad as is being reported?

 

[LWC55]

Mortality rate is a lagging indicator. This thing doesn’t get you overnight. I’m not sold on 0.70% in NY. Run your fatalities today based on cases a week ago. And until they PROVE it’s well less than 1% it’s a big deal. Italy.

Fair enough. I'm not mathematician or anything close. I'm just a simple man trying to look at the numbers and figure out the reaction to this whole mess. Something we should all keep an eye on and monitor closely.

 

[SAJ-99]

Fair enough. I'm not mathematician or anything close. I'm just a simple man trying to look at the numbers and figure out the reaction to this whole mess. Something we should all keep an eye on and monitor closely.

Ignore the numbers. There are all kinds of problems in trying to draw conclusions from the numbers. Different countries report stats differently (although deaths should be the same because the person is dead). In the US, test availability is different by region. Some states' testing results (positive/negative) may be 5 days others are same or next day. Even comparing deaths might be tough. Coinfection (testing positive for CV-19 and some other known virus) tests in other countries have been as high as 40%, but limited sample size. Death total comparisons to anything historical are practically useless at this point. Too many variables and numbers are moving too fast.

I am wary of any flu death numbers because we don't test much for the flu. The Rapid flu test is a coin flip and the longer, more accurate test is like $800 and the reality is there is little that can be done to change the treatment options, so they aren't run a lot. In my opinion, a lot numbers dealing with this stuff historically are guesstimates. Maybe if I knew how they came to the numbers I would be more comfortable with them.

 

[Oak]

It's interesting. On one hand, we have first-hand accounts of what has happened in hospitals around the world in countries that are a couple of weeks ahead of us, and first-hand accounts of what is beginning to happen in hospitals around this country. On the other hand, we have a bunch of incomplete and incomparable data from which we can try to extrapolate what we (admittedly not experts) think might happen. What to believe?

 

[ignorethefringes]

It's interesting. On one hand, we have first-hand accounts of what has happened in hospitals around the world in countries that are a couple of weeks ahead of us, and first-hand accounts of what is beginning to happen in hospitals around this country. On the other hand, we have a bunch of incomplete and incomparable data from which we can try to extrapolate what we (admittedly not experts) think might happen. What to believe?

I am not one given to hysteria, or even really a lot of fear or anxiety. But when a high percentage of experts around the world agree about something I think it's worth paying attention. That has been the biggest thing for me. The people who really know this stuff are generally on the same general page. And I trust that they all know better than I, even if I am good at math.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I've considered that corona may be as bad as it is being reported. I've stayed home to work, my wife stayed home to work, my kids don't get to play with their friends. I've taken all the suggested precautions.

Now why won't you and many others look at the numbers and consider that corona may not be nearly as bad as is being reported?

You aren't alone, a lot of Americans are at home and a lot of us are trying to make sense of it.

One thing I think we need to consider when comparing to other diseases is how our response has effected their outbreaks. You cited influenza, there was no global, federal, or local response to that disease. We did nothing it natural ran it's course. Now consider corona virus think about it's rate and everything that has been done to cub it's spread. As SAJ-99 alluded to there are some many variables involved with the response and our understanding of the disease is so limited that it's impossible to extrapolate what numbers would look like if we treated corona as we did influenza.

Yesterday I was thinking about all of this and for a second tried to put myself in a gov/mayor/ etc shoes: fact is that I did everything possible with lock downs, etc. not that many people will get sick and/or die but it will also appear that the virus isn't bad because very few are affected. On the other hand I we don't react strongly enough tons of people will get sick, everyone will realize its a big deal and people will criticize me for not reacting strongly enough.

Kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

Given all this I'm with @ajricketts in that I'm going to trust people who are career epidemiologists, and when my friends and relatives in the medical field say hey it's a big deal trust me, I'm going to trust them.

 

[LWC55]

Ignore the numbers. There are all kinds of problems in trying to draw conclusions from the numbers. Different countries report stats differently (although deaths should be the same because the person is dead). In the US, test availability is different by region. Some states' testing results (positive/negative) may be 5 days others are same or next day. Even comparing deaths might be tough. Coinfection (testing positive for CV-19 and some other known virus) tests in other countries have been as high as 40%, but limited sample size. Death total comparisons to anything historical are practically useless at this point. Too many variables and numbers are moving too fast.

I am wary of any flu death numbers because we don't test much for the flu. The Rapid flu test is a coin flip and the longer, more accurate test is like $800 and the reality is there is little that can be done to change the treatment options, so they aren't run a lot. In my opinion, a lot numbers dealing with this stuff historically are guesstimates. Maybe if I knew how they came to the numbers I would be more comfortable with them.

You want folks to ignore the numbers because every country isn't testing the exact same way. But we have gobs and gobs more data than we had a few weeks ago when all these measures were put into place....which show corona is not as bad as originally thought. Yet you are wary of any flu death numbers which is probably the most studied disease on the earth and has been tested and calculated for 100+ years. Sounds reasonable.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Fifty-eight pages and over a thousand posts with much "covid-19 links and facts", however a preponderance of conjecture, postulating, and armchair virologist opinions. It would be prudent to take a breath before banging the keyboard with your every guess, opinion, and theory. Some expressions are just not helpful.

 

[huronmtns]

6 foot social distance....as hunters we probably understand that being down-wind may have an effect on this boundary. Just a thought of consideration that I have not experienced in any discussions.

Mayo's daily update of experienced reality:

 

[Irrelevant]

I don't think the issue is that COVID-19 is going to kill more people in the US than the flu will/did. But the idea that at some point we would have people needing medical attention and not be able to provide that is exceptionally unacceptable. So when you (and you know who you are) say or claim that this isn't a big deal, you're wrong, it is. America is not a place were doctors and nurses pick and choose who gets treatment and who doesn't. So yeah, there is a very high economic price that will be paid to prevent that or at the very least limit those occurrences.

 

[SAJ-99]

You want folks to ignore the numbers because every country isn't testing the exact same way. But we have gobs and gobs more data than we had a few weeks ago when all these measures were put into place....which show corona is not as bad as originally thought. Yet you are wary of any flu death numbers which is probably the most studied disease on the earth and has been tested and calculated for 100+ years. Sounds reasonable.

It wasn't an attack on you, I just quoted you because it was the last on-topic post. I actually agree with you for the most part, but the getting anything conclusive out of these numbers (pro or con) is simply impossible (and people have been arguing it for 30 pages). Even in the US tests ebb and flow in number with different states having different access to resources. It is an experiment in constant flux. I hope after all is said and done it is lower. Then the discussion is what is the number that we find acceptable to stop the global economy? Flu of 0.2% not enough, but the estimate of 2% for CV-19 was. How about 0.7%?

Any discussion on the flu data is for another thread or you can PM me if you want to debate it. The global approach is prevention (vaccine) and an actual test only gets done in extreme circumstances. I think the numbers are an accurate guess, but you will notice that they give a range, not a specific number. The range is often large enough to drive a truck through.

 

[406dn]

6 foot social distance....as hunters we probably understand that being down-wind may have an effect on this boundary. Just a thought of consideration that I have not experienced in any discussions.

Mayo's daily update of experienced reality:

Just the other day, I rode horseback with a friend and ran some bird dogs. I don't know about him,,, but I payed attention to what the wind direction was and how we were positioned, relative to each other.

 

[LWC55]

I don't think the issue is that COVID-19 is going to kill more people in the US than the flu will/did. But the idea that at some point we would have people needing medical attention and not be able to provide that is exceptionally unacceptable. So when you (and you know who you are) say or claim that this isn't a big deal, you're wrong, it is. America is not a place were doctors and nurses pick and choose who gets treatment and who doesn't. So yeah, there is a very high economic price that will be paid to prevent that or at the very least limit those occurrences.

We all understand that the reason for all these measures is to flatten the curve. At what cost? If we save 10,000 (not to be cold but these are the facts) older folks with pre-existing conditions. But in turn 20,000 kids die next year due to the economic collapse (loss of health care, poor nutrition, suicide, abuse by an out of work parent, etc..)

Those numbers are purely hypothetical but not out of the realm of possibility. Would it have been worth it?

My point is there are costs to all of these decisions that have to be weighed. It can't be just save one more life at all costs. Those costs trickle down to everything else and the price is not strictly economic. Just something to think about.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I've created, seen, and analyzed a lot of practical data. You can mess with %'s to make them say nearly anything you want. Leave out the sample size, C.I., and model assumptions and it's very nearly a useless number. Sample size alone doesn't fix scope of inference, confounding variable, and model assumption problems.

I'm very much a data guy, but in this case I feel the "art" of applying medical science and first hand accounts need to carry more weight than normal.

The cost:benefit of the current closures is a completely separate matter that's theoretically informed by data, but it's more like a broken link at present. It seems to me like that link will continue to be broken until testing capacity is vastly increased.

 

[Irrelevant]

We all understand that the reason for all these measures is to flatten the curve. At what cost? If we save 10,000 (not to be cold but these are the facts) older folks with pre-existing conditions. But in turn 20,000 kids die next year due to the economic collapse (loss of health care, poor nutrition, suicide, abuse by an out of work parent, etc..)

Those numbers are purely hypothetical but not out of the realm of possibility. Would it have been worth it?

My point is there are costs to all of these decisions that have to be weighed. It can't be just save one more life at all costs. Those costs trickle down to everything else and the price is not strictly economic. Just something to think about.

But I don't think the point is about deaths. The point is that in America, in OUR country, people get access. Everyone gets a chance. Nobody gets told to stay home and die. And Doctors don't do triage in the ER. Those are fundamental ideas that we hold as Americans, part of a suite of ideas that form the basis that America is the greatest country on the planet.

 

[LWC55]

It wasn't an attack on you, I just quoted you because it was the last on-topic post. I actually agree with you for the most part, but the getting anything conclusive out of these numbers (pro or con) is simply impossible (and people have been arguing it for 30 pages). Even in the US tests ebb and flow in number with different states having different access to resources. It is an experiment in constant flux. I hope after all is said and done it is lower. Then the discussion is what is the number that we find acceptable to stop the global economy? Flu of 0.2% not enough, but the estimate of 2% for CV-19 was. How about 0.7%?

Any discussion on the flu data is for another thread or you can PM me if you want to debate it. The global approach is prevention (vaccine) and an actual test only gets done in extreme circumstances. I think the numbers are an accurate guess, but you will notice that they give a range, not a specific number. The range is often large enough to drive a truck through.

All good points. My point is there is at least 1,000x more data available than when these measures were taken several weeks ago. Isn't this data more accurate now that we have 1,000x more, than it was initially?

 

[elkduds]

The potential for rationing health care was termed "death squad" by opponents during congress's Obamacare debate. Now some from the same side are in favor of reducing controls so the economy can continue while more die from failure of containment. Meanwhile, rationing care is a forced reality due to lack of preparation, and will increase as the virus caseload grows exponentially.

Dan Patrick says he is willing to risk his own life to allow economy to resume

The resilient spirit of Science Deniers now poses existential risk to the future of humankind.

 

[SAJ-99]

All good points. My point is there is at least 1,000x more data available than when these measures were taken several weeks ago. Isn't this data more accurate now that we have 1,000x more, than it was initially?

Yes, on a relative basis. I think you and others have pointed out the ideal scenario to test practically every American to get an idea of infection rates. That is impossible at this time, so we estimate using statistical samples. We can't make conclusions we seek (death rate) off of data we have, but I think the range can be narrowed. Wasn't it like 1-5% at some point? I think we are trending toward 1% with a range of 0.5- 1.5%, but there remain a lot of open variables.

 

[SAJ-99]

Here is more data- yes CNN, but originally from the CDC.

"Of the 712 passengers and crew members of the ship who tested positive for coronavirus, 331 -- or 46.5% -- were asymptomatic at the time of testing, the CDC said. The agency said that the high rate of asymptomatic infections could partly explain the high rate of infection among cruise ship passengers and crew.

Traces of the virus were found "on a variety of surfaces in cabins of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins were vacated on the Diamond Princess but before disinfection procedures had been conducted," the CDC said."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/us/diamond-princess-cruise-ship-asymptomatic-tests/index.html

 

[Trial153]

And just like that India locked down 1.3 billon people at once with a 21 day timeline. Via AJ english
India locks down 1.3 billion people: Live coronavirus updates
https://aje.io/etlm5