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

[VikingsGuy]

But only people who likely have it or think they have it are currently being tested. That greatly inflates the figures.

That's already baked into their models. And, in MN they are doing truly random test to get sense of prevalence.

 

[rtraverdavis]

Not to get all mushy on everyone, but what an opportunity to show people that they're loved and cared for by doing stuff like this. Even if they don't take you up on it, they'll know somebody cares about them. Instant morale boost for those who need it most.

Now that school is shut down for the next six weeks, this is basically the essence of the only assignment I’ve posted for my students. The surest way to feel good about yourself is to be of service to others.

 

[JLS]

And, in MN they are doing truly random test to get sense of prevalence.

That would be the only way we could get a handle on truly how many asymptomatic carriers exist. The whole testing debacle absolutely baffles me.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This crap sucks, all the idiots out hording and going frickin nuts are truly going to loose it by the end of the week when the number of infected goes through the roof. The media will be having a field day. No one will say the only reason for the huge spike in confirmed cases is because we are are testing a million more folks. No that wouldn't fit the dang narrative.

You clearly do not at all understand epidemiology. That's like saying car accidents wouldn't happen if people would stop getting in car accidents.

 

[JLS]

Now that school is shut down for the next six weeks, this is basically the essence of the only assignment I’ve posted for my students. The surest way to feel good about yourself is to be of service to others.

It would be interesting to have them write a letter now, explaining their feelings on the state of the union. Then, have them do the same at the end of the school year.

 

[LWC55]

That's already baked into their models. And, in MN they are doing truly random test to get sense of prevalence.

I'm not sure that is correct. Almost everything I see on the death rates is the actual number of deaths divided by the actual number of confirmed cases. That doesn't estimate for the probable number of people that have corona but haven't been tested which would make the death rate much lower. I am glad they are starting to do some random testing. Hopefully we can get a more accurate data set in the very near future.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not sure that is correct. Almost everything I see on the death rates is the actual number of deaths divided by the actual number of confirmed cases. That doesn't estimate for the probable number of people that have corona but haven't been tested which would make the death rate much lower. I am glad they are starting to do some random testing. Hopefully we can get a more accurate data set in the very near future.

And that is the lethality rate. A separate rate is the infection rate. Then you put those two together. Early modeling shows 20-50% will be infected first wave and then another 10-30% in a second bump in the fall. It is this number they are trying to drive down/spread out with the social distancing. So it is for example a 1% lethality times 35% infectivity times total population = expected fatalities

 

[LWC55]

And that is the lethality rate. A separate rate is the infection rate. Then you put those two together. Early modeling shows 20-50% will be infected first wave and then another 10-30% in a second bump in the fall. It is this number they are trying to drive down/spread out with the social distancing. So it is for example a 1% lethality times 35% infectivity times total population = expected fatalities

Sounds like we agree that the lethality rate is skewed high at this point. If we (to this point) have only been testing symptomatic folks or folks that have been exposed to someone that has already been tested positive....one could infer that the infection rate is also likely skewed high. Not trying to argue for arguments sake. But I do think we need to be open to the fact that the numbers being put out are what is available. But early results are going to be skewed high for positive results. Hopefully there is a lot of testing being done and hopefully some random testing to build accurate stats.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Sounds like we agree that the lethality rate is skewed high at this point. If we (to this point) have only been testing symptomatic folks or folks that have been exposed to someone that has already been tested positive....one could infer that the infection rate is also likely skewed high. Not trying to argue for arguments sake. But I do think we need to be open to the fact that the numbers being put out are what is available. But early results are going to be skewed high for positive results. Hopefully there is a lot of testing being done and hopefully some random testing to build accurate stats.

No, the lethality rate is not skewed high (it may be high or low as data is still coming in). Infection rate is currently a combination of randomized testing (as in MN and other locations) and reasonable extrapolations from daily new cases and generalized epidemiology experiences with influenza and other corona viruses - this too could be high or low. The CDC, Mayo, John Hopkins, etc estimates may be high or may be low, only time will tell, but the only numbers I believe are undoubtably skewed high are the WA lethality as it's first impact was in an elderly care facility - and because of this most studies I have seen don't include that in general lethality calcs, but do included it in lethality calcs for the elderly.

 

[LWC55]

No, the lethality rate is not skewed high (it may be high or low as data is still coming in). Infection rate is currently a combination of randomized testing (as in MN and other locations) and reasonable extrapolations from daily new cases and generalized epidemiology experiences with influenza and other corona viruses - this too could be high or low. The CDC, Mayo, John Hopkins, etc estimates may be high or may be low, only time will tell, but the only numbers I believe are undoubtably skewed high are the WA lethality as it's first impact was in an elderly care facility - and because of this most studies I have seen don't include that in general lethality calcs, but do included it in lethality calcs for the elderly.

https://ncov2019.live/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

The mortality rate has to be skewed high. Take China for instance. 80,860 confirmed cases and 3213 confirmed deaths. Mortality rate being reported is 3-4%. That does not take into account that there is almost surely many multiple times the 80,860 confirmed cases (people not tested)which would knock down the mortality rate considerably.

 

[JLS]

MSN

www.msn.com

President Trump on Monday said the coronavirus outbreak in the United States could last until July or August.

“People are talking about July, August, something like that … could be longer than that,” Trump said one day after he said the virus was under control.

The president also said he is not planning a nationwide curfew, despite earlier reports that the administration may implement it.

“We haven’t really determined to do that at all and hopefully we won’t have to,” Trump said. “It’s a step we can take but hopefully we won’t.”

He told reporters “we were all surprised” by the advent of the infection that has spread from China across the globe. The president had a sober tone and seemed to have dropped a lot of the bravado he has employed when discussing the gravity of the pandemic. He said he had told one of his sons, who asked how bad the situation really is, that “It’s bad, it’s bad. But we are hopefully going to be a best case, not a worst case.”

 

[Trial153]

This is nothing new however in reading some comments here and other places sadly I think it needs to be reiterated.



https://apple.news/AquWIu1caQZeQyGfto63RqQ

 

[VikingsGuy]

https://ncov2019.live/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

The mortality rate has to be skewed high. Take China for instance. 80,860 confirmed cases and 3213 confirmed deaths. Mortality rate being reported is 3-4%. That does not take into account that there is almost surely many multiple times the 80,860 confirmed cases (people not tested)which would knock down the mortality rate considerably.

3,213/80,860=3.97% This is what I would call "lethality" but I am not an epidemiologist so there may be a better label. This number by definition is artificially LOW as there are certainly people within the 80,860 confirmed cases that have not yet recovered who could die. The next question is what percentage of the total population is likely to become infected (a future confirmed case). This is the number we can only speculate upon given new daily cases, known case trajectories, models, general epidemiology known with these types of viruses. This is the number I have seen as low as 20% and as high as 60% let's call it the "infectivity rate" for now. No one know what this number is, and in fact, it is pushing this number as low as possible (or at least spreading it out more slowly) that all the social distancing stuff is about.

If you take half of the lowest projected "infectivity rate" - 10% - and the lowest fatality rate I have seen 1% then you get about 325,000 deaths in the US. If we believe the 3.97% number you shared above (which seems high to me in first world countries like US) times the 60% number you get 7,500,000 US deaths - higher than any number I have seen, likely not real and bordering on worst case - a true catastrophe through any lens.

I would guess 25% infectivity times 1% lethality against 325 million population is a reasonable estimate today - that suggests 815,000 dead.

By way of example, the Spanish flu infected about 30% of the world population over 2 years. It caused 650,000 US deaths against a US population of 103 million. If covid-19 is as bad as the Spanish flu, then with our larger population one could extrapolate to 2,050,000 US deaths. I don't think there is any certain data to say that Covid-19 is more or less lethal than Spanish flu, but this gives you an idea of how these things actually work.

 

[JLS]

Massachusetts Firm to Produce Millions of High-Speed COVID-19 Test Kits

Thermo Fisher Scientific said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency authorization for its test, which can provide results within four hours of a sample arriving at a lab.

www.newsweek.com

 

[JLS]

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Marshian]

What I find fascinating about this chart is what are the factors for the drastic differences in death rates. Why is Italy through the roof? Is it because they are a very touchy, kissy European culture? Is it their health care infrastructure? Was it their response time?

Why is Germany's death rate so low and none listed as serious?

Was South Koreas aggressive approach coupled with their willingness for compliance allow them to keep their death rate relatively low?

View attachment 131220

One big thing the US has going for it to decrease fatalities is our number of ICU beds per capita-number one in the world and nearly triple that of Italy. Germany is number two. Modern medicine rarely cures viral illnesses, it buys your body time to heal itself. This is where the ICU and hospital capacity is critical in saving lives.

Infographic: The Countries With The Most Critical Care Beds Per Capita

This chart shows the total number of critical care beds per 100,000 inhabitants in selected countries.

www.statista.com

 

[Deleted member 16014]

One big thing the US has going for it to decrease fatalities is our number of ICU beds per capita-number one in the world and nearly triple that of Italy. Germany is number two. Modern medicine rarely cures viral illnesses, it buys your body time to heal itself. This is where the ICU and hospital capacity is critical in saving lives.

Infographic: The Countries With The Most Critical Care Beds Per Capita

This chart shows the total number of critical care beds per 100,000 inhabitants in selected countries.

www.statista.com

Not disagreeing at all, but an interesting thought exercise is to consider where those critical care opportunities are located in relation to areas that will end up needing them the most. I have no idea, just the first thing that came to mind.

 

[----]

What I find fascinating about this chart is what are the factors for the drastic differences in death rates. Why is Italy through the roof? Is it because they are a very touchy, kissy European culture? Is it their health care infrastructure? Was it their response time?

Why is Germany's death rate so low and none listed as serious?

Was South Koreas aggressive approach coupled with their willingness for compliance allow them to keep their death rate relatively low?

View attachment 131220

There was a lot of talk early about mutations and strains. I certainly don't know the answer, but I wonder how much this could play into this chart.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

3,213/80,860=3.97% This is what I would call "lethality" but I am not an epidemiologist so there may be a better label. This number by definition is artificially LOW as there are certainly people within the 80,860 confirmed cases that have not yet recovered who could die. The next question is what percentage of the total population is likely to become infected (a future confirmed case). This is the number we can only speculate upon given new daily cases, known case trajectories, models, general epidemiology known with these types of viruses. This is the number I have seen as low as 20% and as high as 60% let's call it the "infectivity rate" for now. No one know what this number is, and in fact, it is pushing this number as low as possible (or at least spreading it out more slowly) that all the social distancing stuff is about.

If you take half of the lowest projected "infectivity rate" - 10% - and the lowest fatality rate I have seen 1% then you get about 325,000 deaths in the US. If we believe the 3.97% number you shared above (which seems high to me in first world countries like US) times the 60% number you get 7,500,000 US deaths - higher than any number I have seen, likely not real and bordering on worst case - a true catastrophe through any lens.

I would guess 25% infectivity times 1% lethality against 325 million population is a reasonable estimate today - that suggests 815,000 dead.

By way of example, the Spanish flu infected about 30% of the world population over 2 years. It caused 650,000 US deaths against a US population of 103 million. If covid-19 is as bad as the Spanish flu, then with our larger population one could extrapolate to 2,050,000 US deaths. I don't think there is any certain data to say that Covid-19 is more or less lethal than Spanish flu, but this gives you an idea of how these things actually work.

So 2 million you say.... so what 40% are boomers? and of those how many have sheep points...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Crap this is the “real” thread... my apologies, still working out those vacation cobwebs.