Health New Coronavirus in China

[bigsnake49]

It's too late to stop it in my opinion. What is important now is to "FLATTEN THE CURVE", so that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed. It wouldn't only be the patients who need ICU, whether they have COVID-19 or not, who would suffer. It's also anyone who needs any kind of medical care, and of course, the medical staff, who only have to make one tiny mistake with disinfection to come down with it.

Another way of looking at the necessity of flattening the curve: the responses of St. Louis versus Philadelphia to the Spanish Flu of 1918. One cancelled

Sorry, I neglected to post this graphic in my post above.

Is it correct? Who knows. All I know is that Wuhan hospitals were overwhelmed, and Lombardy's hospitals were overwhelmed, and they had to "triage" the medical care, which is an antiseptic term for letting some patients just die.

I totally agree with flattening the curve so that the infection rate is slowed down and it does not overwhelm the healthcare system.

 

[Maciamo]

The mortality rate is calculated with regards to the known cases not the unknown cases. There are only 1696 known cases in the US.

Please read post #257 to understand what is the most probable mortality rate (worldwide) for Covid-19.

 

[Jovialis]

Trump to give another major address at 3 PM EST.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Based on the number of deaths in the US so far (41), using the same 0.8% mortality rate as explained above, there are at least 4500 people infected in the US. But the death rate is still low because people don't drop dead just after contracting the disease. There is a 2 weeks incubation period + another 1 or 2 weeks before patients die or recover. If the number of cases is multiplied by 10 every 8 days on average (also explained above), that would mean that with a 3.5 weeks (lets say 24 days, as its 3 x 8) delay on deaths, the real number of people infected would be closer to 4,500,000 in the US now. Among those, people infected in the last 2 weeks will still be incubating and presenting now symptoms whatsoever. Since the increase is exponential, the last 2 weeks' worth would represent 4,455,000 people (99%). Among the 1% left (45,000 people) about 90% will be either asymptomatic or present only mild symptoms that they won't report to their doctor. That leaves 4500 people with clear symptoms - probably those that got tested positive. In fact, even this calculation seems widely optimistic since only a fraction of people presenting clear symptoms actually got tested due to the shortage of tests. Anyway, the virus is spreading so fast that even if it is 4.5 million right now, it will be 5.5 million tomorrow and 45 million in 8 days. If you see an error in my reasoning, let me know, but that's what the current data seems to say.

Using the same reasoning, most people in Western Europe are already infected but will only (maybe) start showing symptoms in 2 weeks' time. That's why it doesn't make any sense to start closing schools, sports centres and the like now. It's far too late. Cases will keep increasing at the same speed as before just as they did in Italy in the days after shutting down the country (despite the lockdown, the number of cases keep increasing by 20-25% per day like before and like in other countries). All the governments are doing is trying to save face by pretending to be trying to do something. There was never anything they could do against such a virulent virus.

it is presumed 60 % of the population will get infected with Corona
half of those infected won't even notice it

they claim measurements starting tonight in Belgium will be visible in the statistics only after 2 weeks
Belgium would be lagging 10 days behind Italy now

nobody knows, we only see the tip of the iceberg, and to estimate what's underneath we use models with lots of uncertainties and unknown parameters

 

[bigsnake49]

Trump to give another major address at 3 PM EST.

He's about to declare a National Emergency (Stafford Act).

 

[Maciamo]

It's too late to stop it in my opinion. What is important now is to "FLATTEN THE CURVE", so that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed. It wouldn't only be the patients who need ICU, whether they have COVID-19 or not, who would suffer. It's also anyone who needs any kind of medical care, and of course, the medical staff, who only have to make one tiny mistake with disinfection to come down with it.

Another way of looking at the necessity of flattening the curve: the responses of St. Louis versus Philadelphia to the Spanish Flu of 1918. One cancelled parades and public gatherings and one didn't. Now, the final death toll might have turned out to be the same at the end; that I don't know. However, the "social distancing" in one city meant health care providers weren't overwhelmed all at once.

I agree that it would make sense to try to flatten the curve. But the above graph seems suspiciously designed to make it look like preventative measures will work to fit exactly within the capabilities of the healthcare system. That's too good to be true. As I said and repeat again, the number of cases soar by 10x every 8 days (much faster than the flu), and because of the 2 weeks incubation period, that surge would continue unaltered for 2 weeks after a complete country lockdown. However a complete lockdown is unachievable as it means people would be prohibited to go out, even to buy food or to meet friends or relatives AND it has to be 100% enforced (but people enforcing it would need to be outside to check for people breaching the ban in all the country). 2 weeks is enough to increase the number of cases 100 fold. The Philadelphia peak in your graph jumps from 50 to 250 (5 fold) in one month! That's the real difference with Coronavirus. And as a complete lockdown cannot be achieved, cases will keep increasing nonetheless. The problem at present is that the half-measures taken by most governments are completely useless and even counterproductive (like the panic leading to supermarket rush where all people contaminate one another).

 

[bigsnake49]

Please read post #257 to understand what is the most probable mortality rate (worldwide) for Covid-19.

Again the mortality rate is computed as the ratio of deaths from the disease over the number of known cases. Since we don't know of how many other people are infected and are not counted we have to compute it based on the known cases. Now if there was a proven ratio of known vs unknown cases then we could compute an estimate of unknown cases from the known cases and the mortality rate would be computed as #of deaths/(known cases+estimate of unknown cases). If we did that then the mortality rate would probably go down since the denominator would be bigger. For example let's say there are 1000 known cases and 50 deaths. The mortality rate would then be 50/1000 or 5%. Now if we know that for each known case there is one unknown case then the mortality rate would be computed as 50(1000+10000)=2.5%.

Some countries are not counting all the deaths due to the coronavirus because the deaths are not directly as a result of the coronavirus, i.e. the proximate cause is a heart attack but the cause of the heart attack is lack of oxygen in the blood due to the lungs not working as well as before.

 

[Maciamo]

I am totally with Angela. Stop underestimating the effect of this coronavirus. It will totally overwhelm our hospital system in the US. Not to mention funeral homes. In Iran they are digging funeral trenches to bury all the dead. Already California has declared a state of emergency which will allow them to take over hotels to serve as makeshift hospitals. People are talking as if 1% mortality rate is a win. In a country of 330,000 million it translates to 3.3 million people. That's a lot of grandfathers and grandmothers and fathers and mothers of people. It is no longer a statistic when it touches your family. Beside the economic impact there is a statistic out of Hong Kong that hospitalized survivors sustained 20-30% reduced lung capacity. There will a lot of people that will have compromised health for the rest of their lives and might not be able to withstand the next regular seasonal flu.

I know that 1% of death is a lot of people. But take into consideration that:

1) This pandemic is a once in a lifetime situation. The last similar pandemic was the 1918 Flu. It happens. At least it's not the plague with 30-40% fatality!

2) In a normal year 2.8 million people die in the USA. That's a 0.8% mortality rate - the same as the world average, but lower than in many European countries. It's around 0.9 to 1.1% in Western Europe. Baltic and East Slavic countries reach 1.3 to 1.4% of annual mortality (see stats by country).

3) Experts say that 60 to 70% of the population will be infected by Coronavirus - not 100% (that remains to be seen). If that is the case, then we should do 65% of 0.8% mortality, which is 0.52%. In other words, we are looking at an increase of a usual mortality rate of 0.8% in the USA to 1.3% (still less than Bulgaria, Lithuania or Latvia on a typical year). But since elderly people already account for most deaths in developed countries, and that Coronavirus kills far more people with existing health conditions like cancer and heart disease (the two leading causes of death), the real mortality rate in the USA in 2020 is not going to be 1.3%, but perhaps closer to 1%. In other words, the virus is going to kill a good chunk of the 2.8 million Americans who were already going to that this year anyway without the Coronavirus. So there isn't going to be 1% more death, but something like 0.2% more death than usual. Considering that it's the worst pandemic in 102 years, it could have been much worse.

 

[Yetos]

comparing P.R.China Italy Iran Helvetia

china confirmed 80945 pop 1428 648 000 = 0.057 per 1000
Italy ............. 15113 ....... 60 318 000 = 0.251
Iran ..................11364 ......... 83 184 000 = 0.137
Swiss ............... 1125 ......... 8 570 000 =0.131

 

[Northener]

they also closed down my tennis club, not only the bar, but the tennis courts
the story is that tennis balls can get infected by taking them in your hands, and it stays there for an hour till it gets killed
well, they say they'll play cards instead now
I wonder what's the difference between a tennis ball and a deck of cards

they can't stop Corona, only delay it
and they should refrain from inefficient measurements

Here total calmness.... I went to the gym no stress, just employees cleaning things more than usual. Went to two supermarkets, no queues, business as usual.....just lack of milk, pasta and toilet paper....why are they for god sake collecting toilet paper. Just wonder.

 

[johen]

Here total calmness.... I went to the gym no stress, just employees cleaning things more than usual. Went to two supermarkets, no queues, business as usual.....just lack of milk, pasta and toilet paper....why are they for god sake collecting toilet paper. Just wonder.

As far as I know, it was made in China, where factories stop now.

 

[Maciamo]

Using the same extrapolation as I calculated here for the USA, most of the population of Italy has already been infected.

As of now, 1266 deaths in Italy. That's 158,000 cases at a 0.8% fatality. Given that deaths occur 3 to 4 weeks after contamination, the number of theoretical cases already exceeds 150 million people, or over twice the country's population. The lockdown is completely useless now.

In Spain, 122 deaths means 15,000 cases 3.5 weeks ago, or 15 million now. In 3 days the virus will have contaminated all the population.

In France, 61 deaths = 7600 cases 3.5 weeks ago, or 7.6 million now. In 6 days the virus will have reached everybody.

 

[Northener]

As far as I know, it was made in China, where factories stop now.

Thanks Johen....I saw the next explanation in a newspaper:

Why are we all collecting? And why do we mainly collect toilet paper? The Groningen psychologist Hans van de Sande explains that people like to stock up. “When we notice that toilet paper is flying out of the shops, we are afraid to fish behind the net. So there is a hype and everyone buys toilet paper. "


Van de Sande compares people to squirrels. “Like squirrels, we tend to stock up. We like to have enough stuff. We do this with money in the form of a bank account, for example, and we now do this with important daily needs such as toilet paper. It is our instinct. If we notice through photos and videos in the media that a lot of a certain product is sold, we want that too. In our jargon that is called the panic of obtaining. "


According to the mass psychologist, people go to great lengths to have enough food and drink at home, especially for their loved ones. "Especially when small children are involved, they go through the fire to stock up on bottles of water and baby food." (oops very recognizable) He says that panic shopping has nothing to do with corona anymore. “Do you see a direct link between this virus and toilet rolls? It is purely to do with our instinct. The fear that we will no longer be able to get these things ourselves. "


We are no longer used to not having an answer to everything


Hans van de Sande, mass psychologist
According to Van de Sande, hoarding does not stop until there is nothing more to be had. "We will continue to exhibit wonderful behavior for a while." He thinks the corona measures taken are "an exaggeration". "When the epidemic is over, we will conclude that it was not too bad afterwards. The difference is that we do not yet know everything about the virus, which means that we have less control over it. In our society that is almost impossible to imagine, we are no longer used to not having an answer to everything. That is why corona is such a big item. Especially for the media. "

 

[Angela]

A JAMA interview with the President of The European Association of Intensive Care Physicians, who just happens to be a doctor practising in Lombardia. I'd recommend watching it all, but if not, start at 28 min. in...This is why it's important to flatten the curve.

[video=youtube;TKS1pahoPRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=TKS1pahoPRU&feature=emb_lo go[/video]

A chart the doctor provided of their statistics, current as of this morning. Hard to grasp that this all started on February 21st for them.


I'm sorry, Maciamo, but people aren't fungible. The people over 65 who might die from COVID 19 at current infection rates are not going to be the exact same people who "might" die in 2019 from other diseases. There's going to be some overlap, so I won't say that the percentages should be added, but neither can you see the percentages as "replacing" one another.

A 94 year old family member, and I have a number of them, might hang on for a couple of more years if she didn't get Covid 19. She walks to Mass every morning, to her hairdresser every week, doesn't need glasses either to read the paper or thread her needle, does her own shopping and cleaning, and cooks lunch every day for her son and granddaughter who work near her apartment. We don't want to lose her earlier than necessary. (My great aunt...94 years young in this photo.)

Your statistics are also based on HUGE assumptions. No, everyone in Italy is not infected. We know that by the much smaller cases reported elsewhere, as well as the experience of the doctors. The same was true in China. There was virtually no COVID 19 in Beijing and Shanghai, because they closed down not only all of Wuhan, but all of Hubei province. That's 60 million people. Not even all the people in Lombardia are infected, although the number is much higher there.

In addition, this has nothing to do with "flattening the curve" so our health care resources aren't overwhelmed. That's just sound public health policy. As other statistical extrapolations have shown, depending on the amount of "social distancing imposed", the number of deaths could be 5000 or 5 million in the U.S. Measures have been taken, so 5 million won't happen, but things have to happen fast.

One good bit of news:
The U.S. is trying to set up central testing areas where people can be tested and processed without going into the ERs. In order to test people in their cars they'd have to change the laws.

 

[Jovialis]

One shining ray of light, in the midst of this grim situation is that the stock market rebounded today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/live-stock-market.html

 

[Maciamo]

A JAMA interview with the President of The European Association of Intensive Care Physicians, who just happens to be a doctor practising in Lombardia. I'd recommend watching it all, but if not, start at 28 min. in...This is why it's important to flatten the curve.

[video=youtube;TKS1pahoPRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=TKS1pahoPRU&feature=emb_lo go[/video]

They confirm what I said about the number of cases going to peak 2 weeks after the national lockdown that started 2 days ago.

This data only includes 803 people, 100x less than the Chinese dataset. But it at least confirms what I said about the fatality rate for people under 50 being similar or inferior to the seasonal flu, and that elderly people are the main concern.

I'm sorry, Maciamo, but people aren't fungible. The people over 65 who might die from COVID 19 at current infection rates are not going to be the exact same people who "might" die in 2019 from other diseases. There's going to be some overlap, so I won't say that the percentages should be added, but neither can you see the percentages as "replacing" one another.

A 94 year old family member, and I have a number of them, might hang on for a couple of more years if she didn't get Covid 19. She walks to Mass every morning, to her hairdresser every week, doesn't need glasses either to read the paper or thread her needle, does her own shopping and cleaning, and cooks lunch every day for her son and granddaughter who work near her apartment. We don't want to lose her earlier than necessary.

I completely understand. I also don't want to lose my grandmother who is almost 90 and still healthy. I was not suggesting at all that people are fungible or that it isn't a tragedy to lose loved ones. But in the context of the worst pandemic in living memory (except for centenarians), shortening by a few months or years the life of the oldest members of the population is a lesser tragedy than losing children or young people in their prime to other diseases.

On a hopeful note, coronavirus doesn't seem to affect all elderly people equally, and is far more likely to shorten the lives of people already severely weakened by other diseases, while sparing those who are still healthy in old age. So there is still hope that your 94 year old family member will survive this pandemic. After all the chart shows that 81% of Italians over 90 years old who were infected have survived the virus.

Your statistics are also based on HUGE assumptions.

My extrapolations from the data are based on 2 assumptions:

1) That the case fatality rate is about 0.8% like in South Korea and like the new official estimates mentioned in the BBC article I linked. I think this is a safe assumption.

2) That the diffusion of the virus increase 10x every 8 days in average. That's the actual average I calculated based on real data for each country. However it is true that the number of reported cases depend a lot on the availability of tests, medical staff and the criteria for being allowed to test for Covid-19. Furthermore, my data showed that the diffusion rate was actually slower in Italy and Iran than elsewhere, with a 10x growth achieved after 11 days instead of 8. I checked again with today's data, and it took 12 days to pass from 1700 to 17,000 cases in Italy. If I recalculate based on a 10 fold increase in 12 days instead of 8, the we only get 15 million cases now instead of 150 million. So you are right, not everyone could be infected yet.

The same was true in China. There was virtually no COVID 19 in Beijing and Shanghai, because they closed down not only all of Wuhan, but all of Hubei province. That's 60 million people.

I wouldn't trust the data from China - a country of 1.3 billion people where the virus magically stops right after the lockdown, completely bypassing the 2 weeks incubation period. In any case there were already hundreds of cases in Beijing and Shanghai, and thousands in other provinces before the lockdown in Hubei.

Not even all the people in Lombardia are infected, although the number is much higher there.

I would be interested to see the percentage of people tested who turn out negative in the last few days in Italy. I couldn't find the data though. That kind of data should give us a better idea of the percentage of the population infected, especially if governments decide to do random checks in the population.

 

[Duarte]

Eventually, everyone will be guarantined to their houses with no sports to watch...and in 9 months from now a boom of babies will be born...and we we call them the coronials.

 

[Maciamo]

Eventually, everyone will be guarantined to their houses with no sports to watch...and in 9 months from now a boom of babies will be born...and we we call them the coronials.

Good one!

 

[Maciamo]

On shining ray of light, in the midst of this grim situation is the stock market rebounded today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/live-stock-market.html

Considering the speed of the fall, it had to stop some time. However I am not convinced that it is over yet. Small rebounds are common before a further plunge. Then you can buy.

 

[Yetos]

Eventually, everyone will be guarantined to their houses with no sports to watch...and in 9 months from now a boom of babies will be born...and we we call them the coronials.

:hahaha::hahaha::77: