COVID-19 Talk

[Eskimo Joe]

Just now, EastCoast NPZ said:

Flus

Flus that kill 18000 people every year....SARS, MERS, etc.  There are many contagious diseases that kill many people every year.  This is worse than these, but is hardly our sole risk.  Yet, we continue to live our lives, because we deem the rewards worth the risk.  The calculus may change with this one, but to argue there is no calculus with a disease that has a mortality rate of less than 1% for those of healthy working age is a bit ridiculous. 

It is dubious to compare Flu-A/B to a strain of coronavirus.  With Flu-A/B we have a systematic, global bio-surveillance process to identify hot spots, several vaccine derivatives that can be tweaked to adapt to the downstream flue season and event some in situ prophylactic (tami flu).  Almost none of this exists with MERS, SARS or COVID.  We have a bungled approach to testing a small portion of what we think is an infected person.  There is no treatment protocol or prophylactic.   

[mappy]

1 minute ago, EastCoast NPZ said:

 

Flus that kill 18000 people every year....SARS, MERS, etc.  There are many contagious diseases that kill many people every year.  This is worse than these, but is hardly our sole risk.  Yet, we continue to live our lives, because we deem the rewards worth the risk.  The calculus may change with this one, but to argue there is no calculus with a disease that has a mortality rate of less than 1% for those of healthy working age is a bit ridiculous. 

well to be fair, we vaccinate for the flu and its become part of seasonal colds that we prepare and take precautions over. SARS and MERS aren't widely spread unless a big outbreak occurs and if so, then people take extra precautions to limit spread.

the same will be done with covid. eventually there will be a vaccination that people will get and plan for every year as i imagine it will continue to pop up moving forward in time. 

regarding your last point: do you think that perhaps the mortality rate is so low because we've taken the steps to socially distance therefore limiting spread? we may never know the full scope of who got sick and died from covid since we know that there are stories of people not even making it to a hospital and are dying at home. those deaths arent included in daily counts unless they've been tested postmortem to know. 

[ErinInTheSky]

Just now, Eskimo Joe said:

It is dubious to compare Flu-A/B to a strain of coronavirus.  With Flu-A/B we have a systematic, global bio-surveillance process to identify hot spots, several vaccine derivatives that can be tweaked to adapt to the downstream flue season and event some in situ prophylactic (tami flu).  Almost none of this exists with MERS, SARS or COVID.  We have a bungled approach to testing a small portion of what we think is an infected person.  There is no treatment protocol or prophylactic.   

The comparison to the flu has become pretty laughable. It's killed as much as the Flu in the US in the span of a single month while locked down. It should become pretty clear we're dealing with something way, way worse than a flu.

[ErinInTheSky]

Also, right now the mortality rate is going up in the US. It is currently at 3.6% CFR. Of course it's likely lower than that, but some of the studies like that one study based on iceland are now out of date as their CFR is raising. The mortality rate numbers for this disease are off because it takes a really, really long time to die from this disease and people are often on ventilators for 2 weeks+ after going critical.

 

But lets just imagine a world where this is like the flu. Only 8% of the US population is susceptible to the flu each year. We have no immunities to this, so around 80% are (technically 100% but the virus burns itself out when you get to 70-80% immunity). So even if this did have a mortality rate like the flu, unrestrained it would be like 10 flu seasons happening at once.

[Eskimo Joe]

Just now, supernovasky said:

The comparison to the flu has become pretty laughable. It's killed as much as the Flu in the US in the span of a single month while locked down. It should become pretty clear we're dealing with something way, way worse than a flu.

I think some folks attempt to compare COVID to flu because that's the only thing they can wrap their brain around.  Flu acts a bit like COVID in that it is spread kind of the same way (surfaces, aerosolized environment) but the flu is really only a danger to folks with significantly compromised immune systems.  We also know a lot more about the flu than COVID.  Healthy people with no underlying conditions are dying from COVID and if you have something even as "simple" as asthma and get COVID you go downhill fast.  

Of course, there's a certain slice of the country that just cannot or will not accept any infectious disease as being serious unless it's gotten to the point of what you see in a movie. Those folks are bizarre.

[Inverted_Trough]

ask not what GDP can do for you.  Ask what you can do for GDP!

[showmethesnow]

2 minutes ago, mappy said:

well to be fair, we vaccinate for the flu and its become part of seasonal colds that we prepare and take precautions over. SARS and MERS aren't widely spread unless a big outbreak occurs and if so, then people take extra precautions to limit spread.

the same will be done with covid. eventually there will be a vaccination that people will get and plan for every year as i imagine it will continue to pop up moving forward in time. 

regarding your last point: do you think that perhaps the mortality rate is so low because we've taken the steps to socially distance therefore limiting spread? we may never know the full scope of who got sick and died from covid since we know that there are stories of people not even making it to a hospital and are dying at home. those deaths arent included in daily counts unless they've been tested postmortem to know. 

Actually I believe the CDC has told doctors and health professionals to label questionable deaths as coronavirus related if they have doubts as to whether death could have occurred due to the virus itself or an underlining terminal health issue. Now  how that would play out concerning deaths outside of the hospital I have no idea. But I could see where that could possibly increase coronavirus deaths vs. decrease them. But again, really don't have the knowledge to argue one way or the other.

[mappy]

2 minutes ago, Eskimo Joe said:

I think some folks attempt to compare COVID to flu because that's the only thing they can wrap their brain around.  Flu acts a bit like COVID in that it is spread kind of the same way (surfaces, aerosolized environment) but the flu is really only a danger to folks with significantly compromised immune systems.  We also know a lot more about the flu than COVID.  Healthy people with no underlying conditions are dying from COVID and if you have something even as "simple" as asthma and get COVID you go downhill fast.  

Of course, there's a certain slice of the country that just cannot or will not accept any infectious disease as being serious unless it's gotten to the point of what you see in a movie. Those folks are bizarre.

i guess there was a lot of "see, I told you it wasn't as bad as you all made it out to be" yesterday because the death projections dropped. people are dumb

[SnowGolfBro]

We have to go back not to save the economy, but to save humanity.  The economy is thrown around as some abstract term.  The economy is people.  It is our interactions, our livelihoods.  People will not stand for this for months on end.  Here is a question for everyone.  If the governor of your state came out today and said we will be locked down for 12 months, would you abide?  Or would u push back?  How about 6 months? 3 months? 1 month (not even there yet in most places)?  

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

Maryland with big numbers again today, 33 new deaths and 783 new cases. 

[mappy]

Just now, showmethesnow said:

Actually I believe the CDC has told doctors and health professionals to label questionable deaths as coronavirus related if they have doubts as to whether death could have occurred due to the virus itself or an underlining terminal health issue. Now  how that would play out concerning deaths outside of the hospital I have no idea. But I could see where that could possibly increase coronavirus deaths vs. decrease them. But again, really don't have the knowledge to argue one way or the other.

right, but thats for people who have died in a hospital. those dying at home won't be counted as part of covid related deaths until they test for it postmortem. presumptive cases are not part of the daily counts. 

[Eskimo Joe]

Just now, mappy said:

i guess there was a lot of "see, I told you it wasn't as bad as you all made it out to be" yesterday because the death projections dropped. people are dumb

One big failing of the American media has been to not bring real experts on and challenge the stupidity (Dr. Oz, Dr. Drew) and educate the public.  The one report that showed something like 1 - 2 million dead was an extreme outlier and should have been laughed off the stage.  Instead, CBS and the NY Times and Fox News ran stories on it.  

[Eskimo Joe]

1 minute ago, DCTeacherman said:

Maryland with big numbers again today, 33 new deaths and 783 new cases. 

Even with the proactive levels, we have something like a 17% - 20% positive test rate in the Free State.  We're able to hold things like this without breaking the system but man we are walking a knife blade here.

[mappy]

Just now, Eskimo Joe said:

One big failing of the American media has been to not bring real experts on and challenge the stupidity (Dr. Oz, Dr. Drew) and educate the public.  The one report that showed something like 1 - 2 million dead was an extreme outlier and should have been laughed off the stage.  Instead, CBS and the NY Times and Fox News ran stories on it.  

well we know that most media outlets run with the most dire headlines as it gets clicks and viewers. hopefully most people are getting their information across multiple platforms and not just the nightly news. 

[mappy]

3 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

Maryland with big numbers again today, 33 new deaths and 783 new cases. 

visual for those looking for it. 

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

1 minute ago, Eskimo Joe said:

Even with the proactive levels, we have something like a 17% - 20% positive test rate in the Free State.  We're able to hold things like this without breaking the system but man we are walking a knife blade here.

It’s awful....the PG outbreak is particularly concerning, their numbers have been accelerating. 

[SnowGolfBro]

1 minute ago, Inverted_Trough said:

ask not what GDP can do for you.  Ask what you can do for GDP!

Again GDP is used as an abstract term.  It is a measure of our productivity, which is directly related to our ability to work, socialize and enjoy life.  Personally, i do not know anyone who has died from Covid 19.  That may change sadly.  However, i know many people personally that have had there lives ruined, or are teetering on the edge due to the destruction of our “GDP”.

[Eskimo Joe]

1 minute ago, DCTeacherman said:

It’s awful....the PG outbreak is particularly concerning, their numbers have been accelerating. 

You can see how insidious this infection has become in society from the image @mappy posted.  Even Allegany and Kent Counties, which have the slowest population growth and lowest density, have cases all from community spread.  

[mappy]

Just now, DCTeacherman said:

It’s awful....the PG outbreak is particularly concerning, their numbers have been accelerating. 

not surprised. PG County and MoCo are the most populated MD counties, followed by Baltimore County (third most cases). Hogan has also raised concerns about racial issues regarding who is getting care, and/or who has health coverage to get the medical attention they need. MD DOH released some of that data yesterday. Large percentage of african americans with covid and dying of it.

I wish I had a better idea of where people live who are positive. My assumption is most cases are heavily centered in the most populated areas (duh). We've said many times that living where we do is probably helping us out a lot. 

[EastCoast NPZ]

17 minutes ago, mappy said:

well to be fair, we vaccinate for the flu and its become part of seasonal colds that we prepare and take precautions over. SARS and MERS aren't widely spread unless a big outbreak occurs and if so, then people take extra precautions to limit spread.

the same will be done with covid. eventually there will be a vaccination that people will get and plan for every year as i imagine it will continue to pop up moving forward in time. 

regarding your last point: do you think that perhaps the mortality rate is so low because we've taken the steps to socially distance therefore limiting spread? we may never know the full scope of who got sick and died from covid since we know that there are stories of people not even making it to a hospital and are dying at home. those deaths arent included in daily counts unless they've been tested postmortem to know. 

Definitely possible.  Though I dont know how that would necessarily affect mortality rate, certainly reduces infection rate. 

But it's also likely the true mortality rate is lower as many get infected but had mild, or no, symptoms; thus, never get tested.

And we still have many other environmental and specific job related risks that we face every day.

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

25 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

I never said to open the economy while there was still a wide spread of the virus. I have said and continue to say we need to take a balanced and measured approach considering both sides of the equation. And this will be determined by where the damage done by the cure is more then the damage done by the disease itself. Now people will have different ideas of where this balance is reached which is to be expected as they will put more weight on one side of the equation or the other.. But for those who are arguing we need everything shutdown until we see infection rates virtually at zero this is very unrealistic .As is the idea that we should open everything up now or even that we should have not shut down at all. Neither idea works/would have worked.

eta: I would also like to add we can not just open the country up at day one at full throttle. We need to need see incremental changes over time towards this goal. And these changes will involve many factors such as location, peak rate, etc...

If you open up too early we risk being back in lockdown again, which ultimately would be worse than extending an original lockdown to make sure we’re good to go. 

[mappy]

Just now, EastCoast NPZ said:

Definitely possible.  Though I dont know how that would necessarily affect mortality rate, certainly reduces infection rate. 

But it's also likely the true mortality rate is lower as many get infected but had mild, or no, symptoms; thus, never get tested.

And we still have many other environmental and specific job related risks that we face every day.

Yes but by limiting infection rate, you limit the number of deaths from it. So its all connected and dependent on what we as a society does. social distancing is working, projections are dropping because of it. we have to just suck it up for a while more, make changes in everyday life (wearing masks for example) and eventually, it will die out and only pop up during seasonal outbreaks, like the flu. 

I think the sooner people understand and accept that our new normal will be different and everyone will have to do their part to be more aware of spreading germs, we will all come out of this okay. rushing to go back to how things used to be, will only make it worse.

you can't use job risks as a comparison. those are risks people make by choice, every day. get in a car. go to work. go on a job site. 

we don't have control over how the disease spreads. we just do our part to limit its spread... but you dont get a say on who gets sick. people do have a say on whether they act like idiots on a job site that could risk lives. 

does that make sense?

[EastCoast NPZ]

22 minutes ago, Eskimo Joe said:

It is dubious to compare Flu-A/B to a strain of coronavirus.  With Flu-A/B we have a systematic, global bio-surveillance process to identify hot spots, several vaccine derivatives that can be tweaked to adapt to the downstream flue season and event some in situ prophylactic (tami flu).  Almost none of this exists with MERS, SARS or COVID.  We have a bungled approach to testing a small portion of what we think is an infected person.  There is no treatment protocol or prophylactic.   

The fact is that these are risks.  As is travel to work, to vacation, to see loved ones.  Cops, policemen, construction workers, etc face physical risks in their jobs every single day.  Surgeries.  Alcoholic beverages and junk foods.  The list goes on and on.  Each poses risk to us....every day.  Yet, we willingly continue to face these risks.  

[Wonderdog]

3 minutes ago, mappy said:

Yes but by limiting infection rate, you limit the number of deaths from it. So its all connected and dependent on what we as a society does. social distancing is working, projections are dropping because of it. we have to just suck it up for a while more, make changes in everyday life (wearing masks for example) and eventually, it will die out and only pop up during seasonal outbreaks, like the flu. 

I think the sooner people understand and accept that our new normal will be different and everyone will have to do their part to be more aware of spreading germs, we will all come out of this okay. rushing to go back to how things used to be, will only make it worse.

you can't use job risks as a comparison. those are risks people make by choice, every day. get in a car. go to work. go on a job site. 

we don't have control over how the disease spreads. we just do our part to limit its spread... but you dont get a say on who gets sick. people do have a say on whether they act like idiots on a job site that could risk lives. 

does that make sense?

Yes but what kind of numbers should we look for? 

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

Just now, EastCoast NPZ said:

The fact is that these are risks.  As is travel to work, to vacation, to see loved ones.  Cops, policemen, construction workers, etc face physical risks in their jobs every single day.  Surgeries.  Alcoholic beverages and junk foods.  The list goes on and on.  Each poses risk to us....every day.  Yet, we willingly continue to face these risks.  

Yes this is true.  But we minimize risks where we can.  And this particular risk is exponentially greater than the risks you list and we have a way to minimize it.  799 people, probably over 1,000 if you count the deaths at home, died yesterday in ny state.  This is not something we can allow to happen everywhere. 

[Eskimo Joe]

11 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

If you open up too early we risk being back in lockdown again, which ultimately would be worse than extending an original lockdown to make sure we’re good to go. 

Without a doubt the re-opening is going to slow.  As certain sectors of the economy and routes of transport are activated again there are going to be certain higher risk route.  Mass transit and flying for one.  Even after that, I doubt you'll see baseball stadiums and bars packed.  

[Inverted_Trough]

8 minutes ago, SnowGolfBro said:

Again GDP is used as an abstract term.  It is a measure of our productivity, which is directly related to our ability to work, socialize and enjoy life.  Personally, i do not know anyone who has died from Covid 19.  That may change sadly.  However, i know many people personally that have had there lives ruined, or are teetering on the edge due to the destruction of our “GDP”.

But the rapid spread of the virus impacts our ability to work, socialize and enjoy life.  The economy was tanking before the so-called shutdown.  Let's say you don't shut anything down.  You'll get tens of millions of people infected, which will knock out your labor force. (supply shock).  Overwhelmed hospitals and bodies lying in the hospital corridors will make most people fearful of going out (demand shock)  So the economy tanks.  It's not as sharp of a tanking compared to an abrupt shutdown, but I wouldn't argue it's a longer, sustained destruction of our economy.

Economy will never go back to normal until you contain the virus and have therapeutics (and eventually a vaccine) which give people the confidence that, even if they'll get it, they'll recover.

The shutdowns weren't inevitable.  Shutdowns are part of a mitigation phase.  Ideally you never get to mitigation, but since we massively failed at containment, we basically went straight to mitigation.

[EastCoast NPZ]

6 minutes ago, mappy said:

Yes but by limiting infection rate, you limit the number of deaths from it. So its all connected and dependent on what we as a society does. social distancing is working, projections are dropping because of it. we have to just suck it up for a while more, make changes in everyday life (wearing masks for example) and eventually, it will die out and only pop up during seasonal outbreaks, like the flu. 

I think the sooner people understand and accept that our new normal will be different and everyone will have to do their part to be more aware of spreading germs, we will all come out of this okay. rushing to go back to how things used to be, will only make it worse.

you can't use job risks as a comparison. those are risks people make by choice, every day. get in a car. go to work. go on a job site. 

we don't have control over how the disease spreads. we just do our part to limit its spread... but you dont get a say on who gets sick. people do have a say on whether they act like idiots on a job site that could risk lives. 

does that make sense?

But the mortality rate is a % of the infected population.  Changing the population changes the # of deaths, but doesn't necessarily change the mortality rate.

We have a lot more control over the spread of this disease, and whether we get infected, than we do over the safety of a city bus, train, aircraft, or even an uber....among other things. 

[Eskimo Joe]

We live in the bizarro timeline:

[EastCoast NPZ]

5 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

Yes this is true.  But we minimize risks where we can.  And this particular risk is exponentially greater than the risks you list and we have a way to minimize it.  799 people, probably over 1,000 if you count the deaths at home, died yesterday in ny state.  This is not something we can allow to happen everywhere. 

Agree...for the most part.  But there will come a point when the balance will tip and we will have to move on.