triplehorn

No, no one said "all of them." China has very rapidly upscaled their capacity to provide medical care, from mass "fever centers" for screening and testing, to acute care with measures that go beyond mechanical ventilation to include "extracorporeal membrane oxygenation" (think dialysis but for exchanging O2/CO2). A lot of affected countries don't have that capacity. China has got their poop in a group a lot more so than others, and ultimately the final numbers may be telling.

That WHO update involved a clear intent to work with China to best learn from their experience. Also, from the Vox article, the WHO official reveals a detailed knowledge of the medical capacity China has to keep its people alive. In short, China is not hiding anything monumentally shocking here. An example of China's medical capacity not shared by many other countries: "Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying."

That WHO live update I linked last page just ended. Worth watching later on youtube. They strongly emphasized that travel restriction alone fails. They didn't day don't do travel restriction, and implicitly said basic common sense travel should still happen, but that other measures are needed. Again, the real emphasis they made was on aggressive testing and contact tracing. China has been able to identify pre-symptomatic cases using PCR on those under observation with contact tracing and walling them off from further transmission. They said that while a percentage of infected patients appear to be asymptomatic, the majority of those do actually go on to show signs of illness. They also said there are sero-studies now underway testing populations for covid antibodies to better estimate how many people worldwide have been infected without detection. We are several weeks out from initial data on that - the meaning obviously having important consequence. Overall they described the global response as unprecedented in that this ordeal is 8 weeks old and early on they had identified it, sequenced it, had PCR testing available, and now sero-studies underway to further delineate it.

Get a grip. The quote you're responding to doesn't push 'this is a disaster'. There is an important role for aggressive testing and contact tracing for this bug more so than influenza. It's spans both containment and mitigation. We're screwing the pooch in not having a coherent and robust plan in place to do this. To the extent we don't, the outcome will be worse. How much worse, I have no idea. But you don't just fumble away and forfeit things you can control. We're fumbling. No CR, but there are reasons.

"The time [the virus] takes to go from [one person to the next] can be as short as 1.5 days. For Covid-19, it’s longer — four to five days." Aggressive testing followed by tracing contacts is what separates this from influenza. That 4-5 days to go from on person to the other is the key. With influenza, 1.5 days to transmission is too short a window. It can be turned around, but we're screwing the pooch on a national scale right now.

Prob Michelle

Holy shit. You read that article just above about the Chinese management - the speed and organization - and you read that lady's thread and all you can think is how far behind we are. The worst outcome is clearly avoidable.

Another notable excerpt from the article I linked above: And this one VVVV

China’s cases of Covid-19 are finally declining. A WHO expert explains why.“It’s all about speed”: the most important lessons from China’s Covid-19 response. ^^^ interesting interview that offers some new understanding with some clear windows of opportunity. China’s response has been very impressive in many ways, but some characteristics of covid-19 help. “...You look at the big, long lists of all the cases and identify those where you have clusterings in space and time and try to investigate what kind of clustering happened: Was it in a hospital, an old-age home, theaters, restaurants? We found it was predominantly in families. It’s not a big surprise; China had shut down a lot of the other ways people could gather. And family clusters are the closest, longest exposures [to the virus], and getting the virus is a function of whether someone’s got it, how long they’re exposed, and how much virus they are shedding. More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they. In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.” cont.

It's striking to me how hard it is to envision who'd be a good VP fit with Sanders, especially given what we don't know about the function of his left ventricle. wrt tweet above, that's the first reference I've seen for Val Demings, who I found to be highly impressive during the impeachment hearings. She's one of those people who I immediately perceived to have the complete package of intelligence, competence, and integrity. I'd like to hear more of her outside impeachment discourse, but she's clearly got a great future ahead. And albeit male, I'm also a Booker fan.

Pence, huh.

Yes, I think that's right. We have a varied landscape for population and behavior and densities across our country. These factors are included in models to calculate R naught (R0) which is "how many people will one infected person infect". We have population micro-environments that will likely respond to well thought out considerations. Here's a CDC article on R naught: Complexity of the Basic Reproduction Number (R0)

In a comparison between influenza vs. corona, we're talking about orders of magnitude in lethality. For every 1 million cases, given a 0.1% CFR (flu) vs.1% CFR, you get 9,000 more deaths. For us to get from current estimates beyond 2% CFR down to 0.1-0.5 CFR, statistically we have a long way to go.

Was wondering about NoCal, where things had gone quiet for a few days

The CFR will be less. How much less is the question. Statistically, we're stuck in between attempting a variation of containment vs conceding mitigation. As of today, it's too soon to know. I can be persuaded otherwise.

I'm erring that the bigger sample size is more accurately representative overall. What you gain in identified similarity for comparison, you lose in statistical power by opting for a smaller data set. Most everyone here gets it by now - it would be good news to conclude that we've asleep at the wheel for 2 months on testing while a multitude of the US and world population has already been exposed without millions of dead.

Even subtracting out Wuhan numbers to date, the global CFR today is still 2.7% which is a very very dangerous rate IF millions get infected. Supposedly the person to person transmissibility of this is greater than flu. It's now at the community acquired phase across multiple time zones in the US. I think it's still too early to tell. Good source for real time data: Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE

and one of those dx'd with corona in King Co. WA was a US Postal worker. someone half joked over the weekend about an Amazon warehouser having it. No idea if the USPS person was a mail handler.

looks like it. this is 17hrs old, probably not fully accurate: The four new cases are in: A female in her 80s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition A female in her 90s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition A male in his 70s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The man has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition A male in his 70s was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. He had underlying health conditions and died on 2/29/20.

yeesh

I'm not convinced that Warren throwing her support to Sanders is a done deal. A counterpoint I'd offer is that Warren truly is about getting things done, and it's been an attack angle of hers to differentiate from Sanders. So the most proximal ideology may not be the full balance of her calculus.

Another notch in the column for paper ballots, imo