The Worldwide C0VlD-19 Coronavirus Pandemic Discussion Thread...

[razor]

Looks like trials for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are starting in Seattle and New York this week. Also, I'm interested to see if the survivor plasma transfusions may be able to free up some space on the ventilators by preventing some of the more severe cases.

The article mentions working on the antibody test, but I'm not sure if that testing is starting this week. Getting people back to work (and knowing who may be able to donate plasma) would be amazing.

New York To Begin Trials With Plasma For Seriously Ill And Antibody Test To Send Survivors Back To Work

Blood plasma with coronavirus antibodies will be tested for use on seriously ill patients, and test for Coronavirus survivors, now immune to the virus, could allow them to resume work.

www.forbes.com

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

I don’t understand the logic of your argument.

Wuhan was locked down when then knew of 422 known infections. Certainly more were infected than they knew about. But they have been in quarantine for 2+ months. Why not extrapolate to all of China’s 1+ billion people and make a statistic that sounds even better.

The virus had free reign for a very brief period. Basically your argument boils down to this.

0.03% = rate of death under 100% quarantine with starting Known contagion of 422 people.

So your assertion more accurately supports the effectiveness of early quarantine not unmitigated spread. You have to consider both the statistic and the conditions under which that statistic is derived. Without considering both the usefulness of the datapoint is nothing.

And we are closing in on the number. .03% is the realistic percentage of deaths against the total population in Wuhan.

apply that worst case scenario number against the United States and you come up with 90,000. You guys are arguing between 1.5m and 3m or more(?) and there is exactly 0 basis for anything beyond a Wuhan relative ratio.

We are never going to have more than 100,000 deaths from this in the United States. And it’s not likely to even be that high based on current trend.

The majority of those deaths will come from immunocompromised people who if not for the coronavirus might have died from influenza, Pneumonia, or any other affliction that could come along to their susceptible health conditions.

 

[GuestUser4aMPs1]

And we are closing in on the number. .03% is the realistic percentage of deaths against the total population in Wuhan.

Well, there's reasons not to trust the data coming out of China...

But I can see where you're going with this.

 

[ChrisV]

While I'm at it, I might as well do a data dump. If guys if you haven't gone through the Our World in Data reports I highly recommend it. I love that site. I want to name my first child "Our World in Data V."

Lots of great general information:







Note: that's rates which can imply that they got better at treating the disease over time. Provided there controller for # of people tested.







those come from here and here

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

Well, there's reasons not to trust the data coming out of China...

But I can see where you're going with this.

Agreed so even if we triple it we are at 300,000 deaths. Still a crazy high number but these guys are talking about millions of people. It’s never going to be millions of people in any scenario.

16,000 people dead worldwide as of tonight with declining numbers in China and Italy. But we think we’re going to get to the millions?

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Hospitals are completely overwhelmed

Do you have evidence of this?

Outside of NYC, I haven't seen any evidence of this. If you look at the hospitalization numbers (when reported) they are very low, and certainly not high enough to cause issues.

For instance, CT, which is somewhat a hotbed over the rest of the US.

The Data

Our most up-to-date data on C0VlD-19 in the US.

covidtracking.com

51 reported hospitalizations.



That isn't enough to overrun the entire system which I'm guessing is represented by 4 or 5 area hospitals.

Similar with CO.

 

[Jon L]

And we are closing in on the number. .03% is the realistic percentage of deaths against the total population in Wuhan.

apply that worst case scenario number against the United States and you come up with 90,000. You guys are arguing between 1.5m and 3m or more(?) and there is exactly 0 basis for anything beyond a Wuhan relative ratio.

We are never going to have more than 100,000 deaths from this in the United States. And it’s not likely to even be that high based on current trend.

The majority of those deaths will come from immunocompromised people who if not for the coronavirus might have died from influenza, Pneumonia, or any other affliction that could come along to their susceptible health conditions.

the reason its so few people in Wuhan is that they locked everyone indoors. They're not doing that here, even in places that are "locked down" Therefore, we will have a much higher percentage of the population that gets infected, therefore a much higher # deaths / total population

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

the reason its so few people in Wuhan is that they locked everyone indoors. They're not doing that here, even in places that are "locked down" Therefore, we will have a much higher percentage of the population that gets infected, therefore a much higher # deaths / total population

I see your point but it is Conjecture because the early trend does not indicate a higher infection rate than they had for a comparable duration in Wuhan.

 

[ChrisV]

Do you have evidence of this? Or just repeating an oft repeated narrative?

I'm talking about Italy, not the US. Not sure what's going to happen in the US. And yes, that's from a number of reliable sources

'Not a wave, a tsunami.' Italy hospitals at virus limit

Every day is a scramble to find more intensive care beds than the critically ill who need them. There still aren't enough protective masks to go around.

www.pbs.org

Coronavirus cases are pushing Italy’s hospitals to the brink

Doctors see the government lockdown on travel as the only hope to avoid utter catastrophe

fortune.com

Italy's hospitals overwhelmed by coronavirus as death toll soars

Italy overtook China to have the world's highest coronavirus death toll, with more than 3,400 victims and over 41,000 infected. Hospitals in the hardest-hit parts of Northern Italy are approaching a breaking point as ICUs and Emergency Rooms are flooded with cases, straining resources and staff...

www.cbsnews.com

16,000 people dead worldwide as of tonight with declining numbers in China and Italy. But we think we’re going to get to the millions?

So those projections are basically 'if we do nothing' numbers. Italy and China have taken massive action so there numbers don't fall into that category. That's why there's such a discrepancy.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

I'm talking about Italy, not the US.

Ah OK, I was referencing the US and its current status.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GIlman]

Agreed so even if we triple it we are at 300,000 deaths. Still a crazy high number but these guys are talking about millions of people. It’s never going to be millions of people in any scenario.

16,000 people dead worldwide as of tonight with declining numbers in China and Italy. But we think we’re going to get to the millions?

So declining numbers in 2 places under extreme quarantines? There are so many unknowns, what Happens as the quarantines are relaxed? We don’t know the future and there is so much more to play out in this saga in every country. It is extremely premature to make any bold statements how any country will fare over the coming years IMO.

I see no basis to say 90,000 dead is high or low. It’s all a function of # infected. It’s that simple.

what is your proposal then to decrease # infected. You cite examples of disease containment that involves extreme drastic human isolation. how do you propose to achieve a positive outcome without implementing similar conditions?

 

[Jon L]

I see your point but it is Conjecture because the early trend does not indicate a higher infection rate than they had for a comparable duration in Wuhan.

I'm always fascinated when conclusions seem self evident to people, but each person's conclusion is the exact opposite of the other's.

When I look at an early sample of infections and see a rate of infection of 1 person infects 2.5 others what seems like the self-evident conclusion from that is that, unless you isolate people, some very large percent of the population is going to get sick (70%+). Take that, add it to the death / confirmed case rate in just about any location in the world (1-2%), multiply it by 70% of 330,000,000, and you get some scary numbers that very quickly overwhelm our hospitals - if we do nothing.

So - what part of that don't you agree with?

 

[AceVentures]

If the death rate is at ~1-3%, is that because patients, 20% of which had to be hospitalized, received proper care?

If hospitals are overrun, and the 20% of the infected that require attention don't receive it. What then? Will mortality rates remain at 3%?

I think over the next few weeks Italy can give us a better sense of the death rate vs healthcare system strength.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[biophase]

And we are closing in on the number. .03% is the realistic percentage of deaths against the total population in Wuhan.

apply that worst case scenario number against the United States and you come up with 90,000. You guys are arguing between 1.5m and 3m or more(?) and there is exactly 0 basis for anything beyond a Wuhan relative ratio.

We are never going to have more than 100,000 deaths from this in the United States. And it’s not likely to even be that high based on current trend.

The majority of those deaths will come from immunocompromised people who if not for the coronavirus might have died from influenza, Pneumonia, or any other affliction that could come along to their susceptible health conditions.

It's impossible to extrapolate any numbers in China to what may happen in the USA. This is because the response is totally different.

In fact, the numbers from China would be the absolute minimum that we could hope for. They took drastic measures and STILL had many deaths. So how could you think that taking LESS drastic measures in the USA would amount to the same number of deaths in percentage. I just don't get this logic.

I really hope your 100,000 number is right, but China did not have people still going to the beach during lockdown.

But the reality is that there is no way to even guess what may happen here.

 

[Vigilante]

So declining numbers in 2 places under extreme quarantines? There are so many unknowns, what Happens as the quarantines are relaxed? We don’t know the future and there is so much more to play out in this saga in every country. It is extremely premature to make any bold statements how any country will fare over the coming years IMO.

I see no basis to say 90,000 dead is high or low. It’s all a function of # infected. It’s that simple.

what is your proposal then to decrease # infected. You cite examples of disease containment that involves extreme drastic human isolation. how do you propose to achieve a positive outcome without implementing similar conditions?

I think we will have to look at the trend lines over the next couple weeks in the United States before that question could be fully answered. Is the current strategy of managing hotspots combined with social distancing enough to flatten the curve? It appears so, but the numbers are measured every day and if an aberration to the trend looks more problematic than more radical solutions can be deployed. Breaking the back of the United States economy for what looks like a less impactful virus than originally feared seems add a minimum premature.

You can’t start with “The sky is falling“ when it doesn’t appear as of yet that the sky is falling. Prepping is sensible. Panicking is not. Apply the same discipline to strategy. Identifying opportunities for increased capacity for medical services is prudent. Measured, proactive, systematic, intentional, specific, strategic.

.03 Percent of the Wuhan population died. Talking about 3 million people in United States… One percent of the United States population… Three times the death toll in the most highly affected region of the world… Is sheer unfounded panic.

 

[Vigilante]

It's impossible to extrapolate any numbers in China to what may happen in the USA. This is because the response is totally different.

In fact, the numbers from China would be the absolute minimum that we could hope for. They took drastic measures and STILL had many deaths. So how could you think that taking LESS drastic measures in the USA would amount to the same number of deaths in percentage. I just don't get this logic.

I really hope your 100,000 number is right.

But the reality is that there is no way to even guess what may happen here.

I hear you but I think they took the extreme measures well after the Virus had infiltrated pretty much their entire population. That’s not the case here, and with much anticipation and preparation the United States had a jumpstart on this. You have to look at time period statistical analysis. The undisputed fact is that this is progressing much more slowly and much less propagation in the United States than it did in Wuhan, simply attributable to the fact that Wuhan didn’t know what was happening until it permeated their society.

On a comparable time phase basis the virus is spreading much less rapidly in the United States than it did in Wuhan. There’s nothing yet that indicates that curve is going to dramatically invert.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GIlman]

I'm always fascinated when conclusions seem self evident to people, but each person's conclusion is the exact opposite of the other's.

When I look at an early sample of infections and see a rate of infection of 1 person infects 2.5 others what seems like the self-evident conclusion from that is that, unless you isolate people, some very large percent of the population is going to get sick (70%+). Take that, add it to the death / confirmed case rate in just about any location in the world (1-2%), multiply it by 70% of 330,000,000, and you get some scary numbers that very quickly overwhelm our hospitals - if we do nothing.

So - what part of that don't you agree with?

It seems to me that there are two patterns of thought I am seeing. People seem to fall into one camp or the other.

One is a point analysis, look at this point in space and time, here was the outcome so we can believe that this representation in time should hold at other points in time and place. Total dead in the world is so many thousands, that’s not so bad after all

the other is statistical projection, look at the case fatality rate, infectivity rate, and populations size. If we take all these things and run them out to the end this is the outcome we expect, and it looks scary.

my guess is that people that believe in the point analysis model also tend to trust Anecdotal stories and representations more than those that view things through statistical projection.

I know in my relationship, Jackie is always pointing to a person that has had some experience to validate her position. And I am always saying I could care less that you can point to one or ten examples, it means nothing specific to me, I derive no meaning from it other than that that thing happens to some # of people greater than zero.

 

[Vigilante]

I’m gonna let my half baked statistical analysis rest lest I get kicked out of the thread for being repetitive.

my debate points probably have a healthy amount of confirmation bias baked in.

 

[Jon L]

I hear you but I think they took the extreme measures well after the Virus had infiltrated pretty much their entire population. That’s not the case here, and with much anticipation and preparation the United States had a jumpstart on this. You have to look at time period statistical analysis. The undisputed fact is that this is progressing much more slowly and much less propagation in the United States than it did in Wuhan, simply attributable to the fact that Wuhan didn’t know what was happening until it permeated their society.

On a comparable time phase basis the virus is spreading much less rapidly in the United States than it did in Wuhan. There’s nothing yet that indicates that curve is going to dramatically invert.

I'm not understanding: There are 60M people there, and only 80k were infected. That's not anything close to infiltrating their entire population.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

I'm not understanding: There are 60M people there, and only 80k were infected. That's not anything close to infiltrating their entire population.

Rather I should’ve said exposed the entire population. It was spread about as wide as it was going to be spread to affect about as many people as it could’ve possibly affected before they took extreme isolation measures. They probably had close to 100% exposure.

 

[AceVentures]

I hear you but I think they took the extreme measures well after the Virus had infiltrated pretty much their entire population. That’s not the case here, and with much anticipation and preparation the United States had a jumpstart on this. You have to look at time period statistical analysis. The undisputed fact is that this is progressing much more slowly and much less propagation in the United States than it did in Wuhan, simply attributable to the fact that Wuhan didn’t know what was happening until it permeated their society.

On a comparable time phase basis the virus is spreading much less rapidly in the United States than it did in Wuhan. There’s nothing yet that indicates that curve is going to dramatically invert.

This is USA confirmed cases:


This is Wuhan confirmed cases:


In China, cases started climbing rapidly. They took drastic measures. 2 months later things improved.

In USA, cases started climbing rapidly. We did not take as drastic measures as they did in Wuhan. 2 months later, we will see how the trendline with extrapolate, but I wouldn't model it after Wuhan, that's for sure.

 

[GIlman]

I hear you but I think they took the extreme measures well after the Virus had infiltrated pretty much their entire population. That’s not the case here, and with much anticipation and preparation the United States had a jumpstart on this. You have to look at time period statistical analysis. The undisputed fact is that this is progressing much more slowly and much less propagation in the United States than it did in Wuhan, simply attributable to the fact that Wuhan didn’t know what was happening until it permeated their society.

On a comparable time phase basis the virus is spreading much less rapidly in the United States than it did in Wuhan. There’s nothing yet that indicates that curve is going to dramatically invert.

you very well could be correct, but it is simply a“guess” you are making, there is no actual data to support this. Without serological data of immunity I can’t take this into consideration.

areas in the US that have been doing testing and have lots of testing, I.e. NYC, the positive testing rate was something like 5%, meaning there are large numbers of positive tests but 95% tested were not positive. So this would provide counter evidence to there being a huge number infected In China that are not accounted for.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Jon L]

Rather I should’ve said exposed the entire population. It was spread about as wide as it was going to be spread to affect about as many people as it could’ve possibly affected before they took extreme isolation measures. They probably had close to 100% exposure.

It was spreading exponentially, and they caught it at the very early stages of that spread. If they'd waited another couple months before they shut everything down, then there would have been tens of millions of people that were infected, and many hundreds of thousands dead.

Right?

 

[biophase]

The undisputed fact is that this is progressing much more slowly and much less propagation in the United States than it did in Wuhan, simply attributable to the fact that Wuhan didn’t know what was happening until it permeated their society.

You can't quantify something that you don't test. You can easily manipulate these numbers if you don't do the testing.

Is there any data on there on the number of virus positives divided by number of tests? I'd like to compare that number with Wuhan and Italy and see where the USA stands.

Remember, when looking at data, you also have to look a few levels deeper. You can never take the actual data as your only information. It may be bias or incorrectly gathered.

 

[razor]

you very well could be correct, but it is simply a“guess” you are making, there is no actual data to support this. Without serological data of immunity I can’t take this into consideration.

areas in the US that have been doing testing and have lots of testing, I.e. NYC, the positive testing rate was something like 5%, meaning there are large numbers of positive tests but 95% tested were not positive. So this would provide counter evidence to there being a huge number infected In China that are not accounted for.

Perhaps it gives that evidence, but the tests in the USA are biased towards people who are sick with similar symptoms (since we have a shortage of tests). It could be that many healthy people in NYC would test positive (or would test negative but have the antibodies in the serum test). Without widespread currently infected and previously infected testing capacity, I don't think we can confirm your assertion.

South Korean's numbers may be more accurate, but again, I wonder how many people were healthy and were never tested?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Jon L]

You can't quantify something that you don't test. You can easily manipulate these numbers if you don't do the testing.

Is there any data on there on the number of virus positives divided by number of tests? I'd like to compare that number with Wuhan and Italy and see where the USA stands.

Remember, when looking at data, you also have to look a few levels deeper. You can never take the actual data as your only information. It may be bias or incorrectly gathered.

i know that for here in the Seattle area, the testing is haphazard. In the last 3 days, tests have been diverted to local hospitals where they're needed for critical cases. Prior to that, they were more random, assigned by people's doctors. Before that, the CDC rule was that only people who met very strict criteria got tested.

What we need is truly randomized testing, and we won't have anything close to that for some time.

 

[GIlman]

I’m gonna let my half baked statistical analysis rest lest I get kicked out of the thread for being repetitive.

my debate points probably have a healthy amount of confirmation bias baked in.

I appreciate the discussion and debate. Well meaning dialogues are always valuable as far as I’m concerned. The only way we can understand were people are coming from is to have the discussion to begin with.

 

[GIlman]

Perhaps it gives that evidence, but the tests in the USA are biased towards people who are sick with similar symptoms (since we have a shortage of tests). It could be that many healthy people in NYC would test positive (or would test negative but have the antibodies in the serum test). Without widespread currently infected and previously infected testing capacity, I don't think we can confirm your assertion.

South Korean's numbers may be more accurate, but again, I wonder how many people were healthy and were never tested?

I’m actually not making an assertion one way or the other. I’m saying in the absence of data that making any assumption is risky. I was just pointing to other data that would not line up with @Vigilante statement. But even my statement is not a valid basis to make any projection.

the data we absolutely need is serology screening with covid testing of a large sample of the populations in these heavily infected area. Short of this we are plugging in assumptions into any formula or prediction model.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[sparechange]

I just read something insane.

Vancouver can now enforce physical distancing with fines up to $50K

Vancouver city council voted in favour Monday of a motion suggesting the city should be able to impose fines.

bc.ctvnews.ca

The government can jump in and make you a slave to Debt.



Can you imagine? Someone swoops in and gives you a $50,000 fine?



How many struggling business owners can afford to pay a $50k fine?

What happens to their life?

We are nothing but sheep to the Government

 

[msufan]

Honest question: Is Wuhan still under quarantine?