Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Armybrat 40854]

But it is alleged the strain in Italy came directly from Wuhan, correct? 
Did that strain then morph into the different one that spread to NYC?

[Brisketexan 105164]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

Probably already posted, but:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html

 

 

And 65% show symptoms.  That would put the mortality rate at 0.26%?

 

Reading the article.....those numbers seem WAY optimistic.  Shit, we're up to 100,000 dead.  If that fatality rate is right, then that means around 40 million Americans have been infected.  That seems WAY high.

But let's say that's right.  Let's say that 200,000,000 Americans end up catching it over the full cycle of the disease (that's around 62.5% of us being infected).  That's a body count of 520,000.  That's....pretty stout.  I mean, on the bright side, we're already at 20% of that, so we'll get there sooner or later.

If, on the other hand, we can keep the infection rate to half of that until we get a widespread vaccine (100 million, 31% of the population), we'll have around 260,0000 total dead.  I actually don't think that this is an impossible goal, even with the economy reopened (with protective measures like no large concerts and gatherings, masks in public settings indoors, etc.).

I suspect the numbers posited are too optimistic in terms of IFR and total number of infected thus far.  BUT, I believe that we're also not looking at the worst case scenario.  But again....the data remains squirrely.  The math is just all over the place.

[Bozo_Casanova 26507]

1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

Genetically, no - see the Wuhan responses above.

My guess is it's mask use and, possibly, a different strain that hit Japan and SK.  

I will say though that I've read a few studies on mask usage and the evidence that they actually reduce the infection rates for influenza is not strong.  Still, it's hard to observe the Asian experience during COVID vs the rest of the world and not think masks have something to do with it.

There is absolute no solid scientific basis for the strain theory, it just seems possible.  I have a hard time seeing what has happened in Japan vs SK, which have had almost opposite policy responses to COVID yet virtually the same outcomes, and think that that policy/cultural practices are the driving force behind low cases counts and deaths in Asian countries.  Maybe they are just dealing with a different bug than Italy and NYC.  

 

Not in Japan.  They have done relatively little testing (we've conducted 15X as many tests as they have on a per capita basis). They have done some targeted tracing of what they describe as "clusters" of outbreak, but it a) it's nothing compared to SK, and b) it's easy for them because they have had almost no outbreak.   

The mask usage seems very significant.

I wouldn't call them short on testing, they are by all accounts meeting demand for testing and tracing contact appropriately.  I'm not assigning causality, but they appear to have managed their outbreak well and that could be the reason they appear to have successfully contained the virus for now: an immediate,  well executed, coherent, targeted public health response with high levels of social compliance. That's the recipe. 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[bschoolprof 6269]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The mask usage seems very significant.

I wouldn't call them short on testing, they are by all accounts meeting demand for testing and tracing contact appropriately.  I'm not assigning causality, but they appear to have managed their outbreak well and that could be the reason they appear to have successfully contained the virus for now: an immediate,  well executed, coherent, targeted public health response with high levels of social compliance. That's the recipe. 

 

 

Uhh, the bolded does not really apply to Japan.  They were were castigated in the international and regional press (and this thread) in March/April for a slow, indifferent, and bungled response that "prioritized the Olympics over safety."  They were the last major country to declare a national emergency.  

Examples (from April):

Quote

The Japanese public appears to be losing patience with the government over its dithering response to the coronavirus. Along with a new spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths, there are increasingly stark indications that Japan's health authorities are struggling to stay on top of the outbreak.  

https://www.dw.com/en/japan-losing-patience-with-government-over-covid-19-response/a-53133243

Quote

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is facing a public backlash after he said the government would distribute two reusable cloth face masks per household amid growing concern over medical shortages as the country faces a worsening coronavirus outbreak.

 

Many felt the move was lackluster and would not go into effect fast enough to have a chance at curbing the spread of the virus, with masks not due to be distributed until the end of the month. Others dubbed the policy "Abenomask policy" as satirical memes showing well-known cartoon characters sharing one mask between four family members popped up online.

 

The anger comes as Abe resisted calls Wednesday to declare a state of emergency, saying that use of such powers was not imminent.

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/asia/japan-coronavirus-shinzo-abe-masks-hnk-intl/index.html

I get that many are dissatisfied with our response here, but let's not use a favorable ex-post outcome in Japan to make the claim that their ex-ante response was the recipe for success.  Right now, the evidence that government/policy response across countries explains much of the variation in their outcomes is thin.  

 

[Dahobbs 17626]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Reading the article.....those numbers seem WAY optimistic.  Shit, we're up to 100,000 dead.  If that fatality rate is right, then that means around 40 million Americans have been infected.  That seems WAY high.

But let's say that's right.  Let's say that 200,000,000 Americans end up catching it over the full cycle of the disease (that's around 62.5% of us being infected).  That's a body count of 520,000.  That's....pretty stout.  I mean, on the bright side, we're already at 20% of that, so we'll get there sooner or later.

If, on the other hand, we can keep the infection rate to half of that until we get a widespread vaccine (100 million, 31% of the population), we'll have around 260,0000 total dead.  I actually don't think that this is an impossible goal, even with the economy reopened (with protective measures like no large concerts and gatherings, masks in public settings indoors, etc.).

I suspect the numbers posited are too optimistic in terms of IFR and total number of infected thus far.  BUT, I believe that we're also not looking at the worst case scenario.  But again....the data remains squirrely.  The math is just all over the place.

Yeah, NYC (according to their antibody tests) was at 20% exposure at the beginning of May. New York as a whole was around 12%. That is by far the hardest hit area of the country. If those exposure estimates are anywhere close to accurate, then there is no way the country as a whole is anywhere near 12% exposure. 

[Guest Lobo]

2 hours ago, Hate said:

You mean other than the Wuhanites?  

I believe it's pronounced Wuhanian. 

Found this interesting:

https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard

It's largely worthless because while it measures travel deviations and people clustering (which is critical to understanding the virus and contact tracing), it doesn't take into account that while you're at the place you went, people were masked/unmasked.  Their study is interesting because I think it's trying to appeal to all sides of the spectrum.  And all sides can take one thing away, how the hell did they have this baseline to begin with?  The whole scorecard basically says your state and county governments told us how you've been moving for years now.  

I still go back to the mask v. no mask thing is not anywhere near as tied to politics as this thread and CR likes to think it is, or even rural v. urban.  I believe it is infinitely more correlated to education/income levels.  At least as far as grocery stores/gas stations/liquor stores/takeout areas...or 4 places you'll find Lobo today (sorry, just not feeling the desire to go Best Buy or Ross yet). 

Again, mostly anecdotal but I think unacast supports it in some ways.  Drove out to far West Austin yesterday to meet a friend for takeout in a parking lot (tailgate style, even brought beers and nobody batted an eye), stopped in the grocery and gas station.  It is a GOP stronghold, through and through.  80% masked.  Not political, it's highly educated people with very high incomes.  Likewise when I go travel to South and old East Austin for shit, that's a Democratic stronghold that almost makes San Francisco jealous.  It's 20% masked.  That's not politics, that's low-education and low-income.  Simple as that.  Voting ain't got nothing to do with it.  

[Eskimohorn 5640]

Anecdote: my friend who is in medical device sales has been visiting hospitals lately and says they are coding everything they can as Covid-19. It protects them and they need the revenue. Even small hospital networks are losing millions.

Anecdote: my wife is a healthcare consultant who specializes in population health and finance. She’s worked in hospitals from NYC to Hawaii. According to her, thats not how it works.

[dcar00 14312]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Reading the article.....those numbers seem WAY optimistic.  Shit, we're up to 100,000 dead.  If that fatality rate is right, then that means around 40 million Americans have been infected.  That seems WAY high.

But let's say that's right.  Let's say that 200,000,000 Americans end up catching it over the full cycle of the disease (that's around 62.5% of us being infected).  That's a body count of 520,000.  That's....pretty stout.  I mean, on the bright side, we're already at 20% of that, so we'll get there sooner or later.

If, on the other hand, we can keep the infection rate to half of that until we get a widespread vaccine (100 million, 31% of the population), we'll have around 260,0000 total dead.  I actually don't think that this is an impossible goal, even with the economy reopened (with protective measures like no large concerts and gatherings, masks in public settings indoors, etc.).

I suspect the numbers posited are too optimistic in terms of IFR and total number of infected thus far.  BUT, I believe that we're also not looking at the worst case scenario.  But again....the data remains squirrely.  The math is just all over the place.

40 million is probably a good number right now and not unreasonable.  I mean the CDC put it out there so it must be reasonable.

[Brisketexan 105164]

Just now, dcar00 said:

40 million is probably a good number right now and not unreasonable.  I mean the CDC put it out there so it must be reasonable.

Yeah, the issue for me is...I've seen an article or two on this, but they're all over the map, plopping numbers down at random.  I'd like to see the source information.  Anyone have that?

[Dahobbs 17626]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, the issue for me is...I've seen an article or two on this, but they're all over the map, plopping numbers down at random.  I'd like to see the source information.  Anyone have that?

The only source is the modeling guidelines from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

The guidelines themselves don't explain how the estimates were derived estimates. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Dahobbs

[dcar00 14312]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, the issue for me is...I've seen an article or two on this, but they're all over the map, plopping numbers down at random.  I'd like to see the source information.  Anyone have that?

at .25 IFR that is about 1/10th of the spanish flu rate.  that doesn't see unreasonable given 100 years of medical technology.  I think there are some people that think this is way more deadly than it actually is.  the population it is hitting the hardest is pretty old which is actually different from Swine and Spanish.  not sure about Hong Kong which cause 100K deaths.

[dcar00 14312]

11 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

Anecdote: my wife is a healthcare consultant who specializes in population health and finance. She’s worked in hospitals from NYC to Hawaii. According to her, thats not how it works.

anecdote: neighbor is a nurse and unsolicited mentioned to us that marking covid is the default for any over 70 with respiratory death.

[dcar00 14312]

2 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

Probably already posted, but:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html

 

 

And 65% show symptoms.  That would put the mortality rate at 0.26%?

 

.26 unpossible I say!

[Brisketexan 105164]

Just now, dcar00 said:

at .25 IFR that is about 1/10th of the spanish flu rate.  that doesn't see unreasonable given 100 years of medical technology.  I think there are some people that think this is way more deadly than it actually is.  the population it is hitting the hardest is pretty old which is actually different from Swine and Spanish.  not sure about Hong Kong which cause 100K deaths.

Yeah....again.....numbers all over the place.  I don't trust the IFR numbers in any respect (optimistic or pessimistic).  And as we've noted, the total number of likely infections is the big variable here.  If COVID is 2X as infectious as the seasonal flu, then the IFR is just one data point.  "Total number of infected" is another very important data point.

.26 IFR of 100 million infected is 260k dead.  Of 200 million infected, it's 520k dead.

How virulent is this compared to other diseases, like the flu?  We're still figuring that out.  What is the IFR rate, and hospitalization rate?  We're still figuring that out.  We've still got a shitload of "we don't know" in the mix.

[Guest Lobo]

Well, why you figure it out...I'm going golfing today.  It's gorgeous outside all of a sudden.  

[Brisketexan 105164]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Well, why you figure it out...I'm going golfing today.  It's gorgeous outside all of a sudden.  

Watch for the mosquitos -- they've made their debut this year.  Don't wanna get the Zika.  Or the West Nile.  Or St. Louis Encephalitis.  Or malaria.  I mean, while we're worrying about diseases....just wanted to bring some sunshine to your day.

[Dahobbs 17626]

21 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

at .25 IFR that is about 1/10th of the spanish flu rate.  that doesn't see unreasonable given 100 years of medical technology.  I think there are some people that think this is way more deadly than it actually is.  the population it is hitting the hardest is pretty old which is actually different from Swine and Spanish.  not sure about Hong Kong which cause 100K deaths.

 

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....again.....numbers all over the place.  I don't trust the IFR numbers in any respect (optimistic or pessimistic).  And as we've noted, the total number of likely infections is the big variable here.  If COVID is 2X as infectious as the seasonal flu, then the IFR is just one data point.  "Total number of infected" is another very important data point.

.26 IFR of 100 million infected is 260k dead.  Of 200 million infected, it's 520k dead.

How virulent is this compared to other diseases, like the flu?  We're still figuring that out.  What is the IFR rate, and hospitalization rate?  We're still figuring that out.  We've still got a shitload of "we don't know" in the mix.

New York City has a population of 8.4 million. It has reported 16,482 confirmed deaths and 4,777 probable deaths, combined 21,259 deaths.  That is .25% of the population. But, let's just drop the probable and go with confirmed, and you're still at .19% of the population. Do we really believe that every single person in the city has been infected? Maybe NYC is unique because it was hit so hard at the same time. So, let's say that resulted in an increase of the fatality ratio relative to what we'd see elsewhere. Did it double it? That would mean at minimum 50% of the population has been infected. And the only way to square these numbers with New York's antibody studies is if it quadrupled the fatality ratio.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Dahobbs

[dcbc 14492]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Watch for the mosquitos -- they've made their debut this year.  Don't wanna get the Zika.  Or the West Nile.  Or St. Louis Encephalitis.  Or malaria.  I mean, while we're worrying about diseases....just wanted to bring some sunshine to your day.

He probably has been taking hydroxychloroquine.  So no need to worry with malaria.

[Pato del Muerto 52532]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

He probably has been taking hydroxychloroquine.  So no need to worry with malaria.

I heard that stuff is dangerous 

[Anastasis 23479]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The mask usage seems very significant.

I wouldn't call them short on testing, they are by all accounts meeting demand for testing and tracing contact appropriately.  I'm not assigning causality, but they appear to have managed their outbreak well and that could be the reason they appear to have successfully contained the virus for now: an immediate,  well executed, coherent, targeted public health response with high levels of social compliance. That's the recipe. 

Are we talking about Japan here?  Cause that doesn't sound at all like Japan's response.

I think that we are dealing with social norms around distancing, touching, etc. and mask wearing as the largest drivers. 

ETA: nvmd, i see bschool already brought the quotes. 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Anastasis

[Brisketexan 105164]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I heard that stuff is dangerous 

[Brisketexan 105164]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Are we talking about Japan here?  Cause that doesn't sound at all like Japan's response.

 

I think that we are dealing with social norms around distancing, touching, etc. and mask wearing as the largest drivers. 

 

 

So, wait....we need to all blur out our genitalia?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

18 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Well, why you figure it out...I'm going golfing today.  It's gorgeous outside all of a sudden.  

 

How I picture you at the end of the day:

[gmr548 16588]

 

 

 

Anecdote: my friend who is in medical device sales has been visiting hospitals lately and says they are coding everything they can as Covid-19. It protects them and they need the revenue. Even small hospital networks are losing millions.

 

 

Anecdote: my wife is a healthcare consultant who specializes in population health and finance. She’s worked in hospitals from NYC to Hawaii. According to her, thats not how it works.

 

 

 

anecdote: neighbor is a nurse and unsolicited mentioned to us that marking covid is the default for any over 70 with respiratory death.

 

Love a good surly anecdote fight. Normally wife would > buddy or neighbor, but what we really need to know is how many posts you have in the wives thread. That would impact things.

 

Also, pics of wife, as well as friend and neighbor (if female), would assist in tiebreaking.

 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

Yeah....again.....numbers all over the place.  I don't trust the IFR numbers in any respect (optimistic or pessimistic).  And as we've noted, the total number of likely infections is the big variable here.  If COVID is 2X as infectious as the seasonal flu, then the IFR is just one data point.  "Total number of infected" is another very important data point.
.26 IFR of 100 million infected is 260k dead.  Of 200 million infected, it's 520k dead.
How virulent is this compared to other diseases, like the flu?  We're still figuring that out.  What is the IFR rate, and hospitalization rate?  We're still figuring that out.  We've still got a shitload of "we don't know" in the mix.

so it’s clear that the death toll is at most 85+ years of age. There aren’t 100,000,000 85+ people in this country so 260k aren’t just dropping dead. Is there a time where the virus just runs out of people to kill? Who knows what the survival rate of the elderly is but it’s probably somewhere in there 90th percentile.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

New York City has a population of 8.4 million. It has reported 16,482 confirmed deaths and 4,777 probable deaths, combined 21,259 deaths.  That is .25% of the population. But, let's just drop the probable and go with confirmed, and you're still at .19% of the population. Do we really believe that every single person in the city has been infected? Maybe NYC is unique because it was hit so hard at the same time. So, let's say that resulted in an increase of the fatality ratio relative to what we'd see elsewhere. Did it double it? That would mean at minimum 50% of the population has been infected. And the only way to square these numbers with New York's antibody studies is if it quadrupled the fatality ratio.

Our 25% NYC infection number was from mid April right? That antibody test?


That estimate has to be a lot higher now

[Jiggy-Z 3433]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Reading the article.....those numbers seem WAY optimistic.  Shit, we're up to 100,000 dead.  If that fatality rate is right, then that means around 40 million Americans have been infected.  That seems WAY high.

But let's say that's right.  Let's say that 200,000,000 Americans end up catching it over the full cycle of the disease (that's around 62.5% of us being infected).  That's a body count of 520,000.  That's....pretty stout.  I mean, on the bright side, we're already at 20% of that, so we'll get there sooner or later.

If, on the other hand, we can keep the infection rate to half of that until we get a widespread vaccine (100 million, 31% of the population), we'll have around 260,0000 total dead.  I actually don't think that this is an impossible goal, even with the economy reopened (with protective measures like no large concerts and gatherings, masks in public settings indoors, etc.).

I suspect the numbers posited are too optimistic in terms of IFR and total number of infected thus far.  BUT, I believe that we're also not looking at the worst case scenario.  But again....the data remains squirrely.  The math is just all over the place.

I am skeptical about a vaccine coming along in time to cut into what this is going to do to us in the next 18 months.  I have actually seen more optimistic news on the treatment front, not from some miracle drug, but just from experience with what has worked and what hasn't.  In the end I think we will end with that 500,000 number +/- 100k.

[Buzzrock 14933]

Anecdote: my wife is a healthcare consultant who specializes in population health and finance. She’s worked in hospitals from NYC to Hawaii. According to her, thats not how it works.

Which part?

[UT_OB1 2224]

15 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Our 25% NYC infection number was from mid April right? That antibody test?


That estimate has to be a lot higher now

Sort of a response to Hobbs, but the death rate is age dependent. If the world was full of <40 year olds we wouldn’t even notice a difference. 50% of the deaths have been in nursing homes. If you look closer at their estimates, it is actually even lower for under 50, almost zero for youths, and very high for elderly. So the demographics of the population matter A LOT. That’s before adding in health of the population (bunch of fat smoking 35 year olds is different from a group of healthy 35 year olds) and environment (5 million of those people cramming in to a box every day or everyone piling in to their own cars).  As far as NY’s numbers, of the ~16k confirmed deaths, 12k are 65+, 8k of those being 75+

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by UT_OB1

[bamachine 1231]

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

[utee94 15835]

1 minute ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Very sorry to hear that, condolences bama.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Damn. Horrible.

[Brisketexan 105164]

15 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

so it’s clear that the death toll is at most 85+ years of age. There aren’t 100,000,000 85+ people in this country so 260k aren’t just dropping dead. Is there a time where the virus just runs out of people to kill? Who knows what the survival rate of the elderly is but it’s probably somewhere in there 90th percentile.

 

3 minutes ago, UT_OB1 said:

Sort of a response to Hobbs, but the death rate is age dependent. If the world was full of <40 year olds we wouldn’t even notice a difference. 50% of the deaths have been in nursing homes. If you look closer at their estimates, it is actually even lower for under 50, almost zero for youths, and very high for elderly. So the demographics of the population matter A LOT. That’s before adding in health of the population (bunch of fat smoking 35 year olds is different from a group of healthy 35 year olds) and environment (5 million of those people cramming in to a box every day or everyone piling in to their own cars)

 

Yes, the .26% IFR is for the population as a WHOLE.  So, yes, if that is the total IFR, and 100 milion end up  infected, yes, that would yield 260k dead.

Yes, the bulk of those would be over the age of 65.....and?  I mean, we actually have people over the age of 65 who live here in the US, and absent COVID getting them, most of them have plenty of time left in front of them.  So....even if the survival rate is 90%....what the fuck, man?  Are we telling everyone in the US over the age of 65 to spin the wheel with 10 spaces on it, and if it hits space 10, you die?  That seems....fucked.

And note that I am NOT saying that a systematic approach of protecting the elderly and vulnerable as our primary focus shouldn't be where we shift things -- I think that makes sense.  

[Brisketexan 105164]

Bama, damned sorry to hear it, I really am.

[South Austin 52523]

10 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

So sorry, bama, not only for the loss of your brother but also at the fact that you can't be at the funeral. 

[HoffaJimmy 316]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

 

Yes, the .26% IFR is for the population as a WHOLE.  So, yes, if that is the total IFR, and 100 milion end up  infected, yes, that would yield 260k dead.

Yes, the bulk of those would be over the age of 65.....and?  I mean, we actually have people over the age of 65 who live here in the US, and absent COVID getting them, most of them have plenty of time left in front of them.  So....even if the survival rate is 90%....what the fuck, man?  Are we telling everyone in the US over the age of 65 to spin the wheel with 10 spaces on it, and if it hits space 10, you die?  That seems....fucked.

And note that I am NOT saying that a systematic approach of protecting the elderly and vulnerable as our primary focus shouldn't be where we shift things -- I think that makes sense.  

 

I agree with all of this. However, is there a happy medium somewhere? What is the number of acceptable deaths or newly infected before someone can go to the pool, or the store, or anywhere in public without a mask, etc and not be blamed for killing my Grandma? 

Obviously that is a different answer for everyone but let's say a vaccine is 18 months out (if ever) is there a number of new deaths or new cases that you would be fine saying- Sorry, people have to live their life? 

[HoffaJimmy 316]

14 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Shit, sorry to hear. T's and P's to you and your family. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

24 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Damn, dude. Very sorry to hear that. Prayers for you and your family.

[Brisketexan 105164]

9 minutes ago, HoffaJimmy said:

 

I agree with all of this. However, is there a happy medium somewhere? What is the number of acceptable deaths or newly infected before someone can go to the pool, or the store, or anywhere in public without a mask, etc and not be blamed for killing my Grandma? 

Obviously that is a different answer for everyone but let's say a vaccine is 18 months out (if ever) is there a number of new deaths or new cases that you would be fine saying- Sorry, people have to live their life? 

That's absolutely a conversation we should have.

Things we want to avoid/limit:

1 -- overwhelming the hospital system in any particular location.

2 -- fatalities.

Things we know WILL happen:

1 -- there will be significant hospitalizations (materially more than with seasonal flu)

2 -- there will be significant deaths (materially more than with seasonal flu) 

Hell, we've already seen both of those come to fruition.

So, while I don't know if we "pick a number" and say we're okay with that, it sure seems like  we could implement three things that would accomplish our goals of limiting hospitalizations and deaths:

1 -- continue something of a "lockdown" approach for people over 65, and those with material at-risk conditions (diabetics, lung diseases, etc.).  This includes implementing STRICT safety measures for nursing homes, including providing state/federal assistance and staffing as needed.

2 -- continue to restrict/ban large public mass gatherings in close quarters (so, no fans at sporting events, no ACL fest).  Not because the participants will get super-sick and/or die, but because there is a huge risk that they can turn themselves into 1,000 additional vectors of the disease, and one or more of those vectors may break out and infect some olds.

3 -- wear masks when in indoor, public spaces with a material number of additional people, or when in outdoor spaces where close proximity can't be avoided (walking down busy NYC streets, for example).

 

I think that if we did those three things, we could have a society and economy that are reasonably high-functioning, while dramatically reducing the hospitalization and death rates.  Just those three, targeted things.

We won't do them, by the way.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Brisketexan

[dcbc 14492]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I heard that stuff is dangerous 

Only if you ingest it.

[InkaUtexas 26011]

33 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Sorry Sir. All our love from San Marcos. 

[dcbc 14492]

46 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Very sorry for your loss, sir.

Edited May 26, 2020 by dcbc

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

Yes, the .26% IFR is for the population as a WHOLE.  So, yes, if that is the total IFR, and 100 milion end up  infected, yes, that would yield 260k dead.
Yes, the bulk of those would be over the age of 65.....and?  I mean, we actually have people over the age of 65 who live here in the US, and absent COVID getting them, most of them have plenty of time left in front of them.  So....even if the survival rate is 90%....what the fuck, man?  Are we telling everyone in the US over the age of 65 to spin the wheel with 10 spaces on it, and if it hits space 10, you die?  That seems....fucked.
And note that I am NOT saying that a systematic approach of protecting the elderly and vulnerable as our primary focus shouldn't be where we shift things -- I think that makes sense.  

Jesus no I’m not saying spin the wheel. I’m saying it’s a .26 per case. 260k aren’t going to die because it’s clearly hitting a certain demographic a lot harder than the majority of the population.

Deaths are lowering in the US despite states opening up. Infections and cases will remain steady but like I asked, does this disease just simply run out of incompromised people to kill?


Also what’s the timeline if you’re right here? 260k in a year? 5,10 years? The rest of time? Until
There’s herd immunity or a vaccine?

[RDCanecutter 26455]

36 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Will be giving a thought to him today.

[UT_OB1 2224]

39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Yes, the .26% IFR is for the population as a WHOLE.  So, yes, if that is the total IFR, and 100 milion end up  infected, yes, that would yield 260k dead.

Yes, the bulk of those would be over the age of 65.....and?  I mean, we actually have people over the age of 65 who live here in the US, and absent COVID getting them, most of them have plenty of time left in front of them.  So....even if the survival rate is 90%....what the fuck, man?  Are we telling everyone in the US over the age of 65 to spin the wheel with 10 spaces on it, and if it hits space 10, you die?  That seems....fucked.

And note that I am NOT saying that a systematic approach of protecting the elderly and vulnerable as our primary focus shouldn't be where we shift things -- I think that makes sense.  

How did you jump from saying 0.26 seemed to optimistic on the numbers based on a subset of numbers to some made up argument that I’m saying we roll the dice with old people?  I’m simply stating that the numbers are in fact quite reasonable. And they also indicate possible paths forward that we should take. Protect the nursing homes. Shelter in place everyone over 65. Encourage those under to 65 to get out and about and actually develop immunity. 
 

edit - data was for 65 years and up, not 59

Edited May 26, 2020 by UT_OB1

[Pato del Muerto 52532]

8 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Jesus no I’m not saying spin the wheel. I’m saying it’s a .26 per case. 260k aren’t going to die because it’s clearly hitting a certain demographic a lot harder than the majority of the population.

Deaths are lowering in the US despite states opening up. Infections and cases will remain steady but like I asked, does this disease just simply run out of incompromised people to kill?


Also what’s the timeline if you’re right here? 260k in a year? 5,10 years? The rest of time? Until
There’s herd immunity or a vaccine?

It’s not .26 for each case though. It’s 10% for some demographics, and almost zero for others.  The blended rate will be .26. 
you are applying statistics incorrectly in this instance. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26507]

2 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

Uhh, the bolded does not really apply to Japan.  They were were castigated in the international and regional press (and this thread) in March/April for a slow, indifferent, and bungled response that "prioritized the Olympics over safety."  They were the last major country to declare a national emergency.  

Examples (from April):

https://www.dw.com/en/japan-losing-patience-with-government-over-covid-19-response/a-53133243

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/asia/japan-coronavirus-shinzo-abe-masks-hnk-intl/index.html

I get that many are dissatisfied with our response here, but let's not use a favorable ex-post outcome in Japan to make the claim that their ex-ante response was the recipe for success.  Right now, the evidence that government/policy response across countries explains much of the variation in their outcomes is thin.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Are we talking about Japan here?  Cause that doesn't sound at all like Japan's response.

I think that we are dealing with social norms around distancing, touching, etc. and mask wearing as the largest drivers. 

ETA: nvmd, i see bschool already brought the quotes. 

 

If you guys are asking me to compare people's feelings as reported in the press as the crisis unfolded about the sufficiency of the policy response vs the actual results of the response with the benefit of hindsight I would point you to the results to this point. They seem to have done pretty well. 
I agree that cultural facts are incredibly important, but the policy environment in a Democracy is also the projection of the culture at any given moment.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 105164]

9 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Jesus no I’m not saying spin the wheel. I’m saying it’s a .26 per case. 260k aren’t going to die because it’s clearly hitting a certain demographic a lot harder than the majority of the population.

Deaths are lowering in the US despite states opening up. Infections and cases will remain steady but like I asked, does this disease just simply run out of incompromised people to kill?


Also what’s the timeline if you’re right here? 260k in a year? 5,10 years? The rest of time? Until
There’s herd immunity or a vaccine?

You're being bad at math, and I don't know whether that's on purpose or not.  .26% is not the IFR for old people (per these numbers).  It's the IFR for ALL people.  So, yes, that's EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS.  If 100 million people (of all, mixed ages) get infected, then an IFR of .26 across the board produces 260k dead.  Mind you, we're already up to around 100k in just three months, so we're not exactly going out on a limb here.

Yes, the disease will run out of old and immunocompromised people to kill.  And at a .26% IFR for the population as a whole (which includes all those people), then it will kill......26% of all the people who get it.  At 100 million, that would be 260k dead.  Double it to 200 million, and it's 520k dead.

The timeline is however long it takes to spread through the population, which depends on the rate of transmission, which in part depends on how we act.  If we let it burn hot and fast, that may be the result by the end of the year.  If we maintain some measures to slow transmission (wear masks, avoid large public gatherings), it would probably take 2-3 years (but we're betting on a vaccine being available much sooner than that -- that's the play here).  Yes, all plays here are till there's a vaccine or herd immunity, with the big hope/bet being that we'll have a vaccine within a year or so.

Oh, and I don't think we should encourage those under 59 to go out and get it to "develop immunity."  Again, the hospitalization rates are much higher than for the seasonal flu, and even the death rate is higher than the flu would be in those populations.  Nevermind the fact that each infected young person is a potential vector of transmission to a weak/old person, so the fewer vectors the olds have to protect against, the better for them.  No need to amp up that number.

[Bigpoppapump 532]

57 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

My condolences. 

[Trey3216 15349]

59 minutes ago, bamachine said:

My brother died yesterday. He had a massive heart attack but it was preceded by him having a fever and a bad cough. We do not know yet if he had it but it seems quite possible, as he was a truck driver, working through all of this, all along the eastern part of the country. The worst part for me, other than losing my brother, is that I will not be able to go to his visitation or funeral. I will just be at his burial, keeping my distance from everyone else. I am one of those higher risk people. I have been cooped up in my house, other than sitting on my porch some, got the last two months, as precaution. 

Very sorry to hear Bama.  Prayers for you and your family.