PhineasC

Most states are still only testing those with very obvious symptoms. There is a strong self-selection bias at work with hospitalization rates because only the sickest patients go to the ER and then some percentage of them are admitted (much lower than 20% still). The number you used is just wrong all around. How many die per day from ARDS and pneumonia?

The numbers in the main govt model for peak dates have been changing rather dramatically over the past week or so, so it isn’t clear to me they had a handle on this when they first issued the lockdown orders.

Again, the CFR number is completely bogus without knowing total infected. I really wish people would stop posting it and the media would stop reporting it.

The hospitalization rate will not be anywhere near 20% for all symptomatic people. That’s not an accurate statement at all based on the data we have now. Not even close, actually. Neither is a 2% IFR for the total population. None of the numbers in your post were close to right based on our latest data.

By mid-May it will be in full swing. Every governor is talking about this now. Didn't you say earlier you thought 1 June was reasonable? That's like two weeks later than I am predicting...

All of the governors are now talking about reopening fairly soon. Just a week or so ago they were saying they needed hundreds of thousands of ventilators and ICU beds and "model projections" showed potentially millions of deaths. But we are supposed to believe a week or two of social distancing suddenly "flattened the curve" enough that we can start reopening? That beggars belief. It seems obvious the governors were using bad early model data that took Italy numbers for CFR and infection rates and simply extrapolated to the US population. The peak will come much, much lower than those estimates (yes, I realize many died today and it's very tragic and sad). Now, to save face, the governors will appear to slowly and deliberately manage the reopening to avoid it appearing as if the crisis was all overblown, which is of course also dangerous. It's very unlikely we will have the kind of truly needed testing in place before things start opening back up, but Americans will be told it is in place and we will go about our lives none the wiser. Expect the death counts to disappear from the mainstream news soon.

You are talking to someone who is emotionally invested in this disease being a global killer of biblical proportions. I don't think facts and figures matter much. I have been seeing this with some folks I know. Whenever you mention IFR or "tip of the iceberg" they just look wistfully off into the distance and say, "so many beautiful lives lost..." and that's pretty much the end of the discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this disease.

Another study out of Boston just released that shows how widely this disease spreads under the radar. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1 It was a homeless population, the kind of people who don't have good social distancing practices and don't show up to the ER with the sniffles to get tested: classic hidden spreaders. The very low rate of symptoms at time of testing is pretty crazy, even crazier than 36% of them being infected. Obviously you can't extrapolate to the whole country, but this is another log on the fire that this disease has already infected far, far more people than the official numbers and it presents mild or no symptoms for a lot of people. Keep driving that IFR down...

There was a chart somewhere I saw that showed ICU timelines for very ill patients. They spent between 8-10 days in the ICU, as I recall. And that was on top of 8-10 days before they showed up very ill.

Yeah, I'm sure the CFR on those 25,000 people will jump to 100% and they were all infected the day of the test. Good post.

I am the Senate, my little green friend...

Death is a lagging indicator. Those dying now were infected at least 14-20 days ago or more, on average (there are outliers). We need to stick to the plan through the death counts.

That's one way to do it, but that will be deeply unfair to some students. Probably unavoidable.

Hyperinflation has definitely occurred in the real world and it destroyed entire nations... it's not a theoretical idea and hitting the pause button on over half of the global economy overnight is unprecedented. Uncharted waters. In order to offset the imbalance, we would need to cut spending later which never, ever happens in this country any more. We are almost entirely dependent on consumption right now...

Seems like a bold statement. Supply shortages in some cases are here already (could be mostly due to hoarding right now), and others are right around the corner.

I was telling someone yesterday that daycares will be the hardest question with this. Schools will just punt to next year, although that raises some questions about grades...

I think the lockdown needs to ease by 1 June at the latest or there will be major issues. Again, this global lockdown is absolutely unprecedented in human history, and frankly COVID-19 is way less deadly even with zero immunity than the bubonic plague, Spanish Flu, ebola, etc. I sure hope this ends up being the right call...

Would be a great time to attempt a coup and/or request "emergency powers."

LOL OK a lot makes sense now... Yeah this is similar to the retirees on my Facebook saying we must stay locked down all summer while they tend their gardens and drink wine...

That’s good you have a year+ of wages in the bank and food/supplies stockpiled. What about the 99% of Americans who do not?

It’s essential for mental health. Wait until they crunch the suicide stats after a summer of lockdown.

Sounds like you think we need to prep for supply shortages, unemployment 30%+, rapidly increased mental health burden, etc.

It is a good and reasonable plan. It's something that is within reach to do.

There is some evidence from Iceland, Germany, and China that this virus is much more infectious than the flu. It can possibly spread from simply breathing. That's the whole point of "flatten the curve."

No public servant is using those raw numbers at this point (at least I hope not). It appears most are using the IMHE numbers which show a much better picture.