|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On April 22 2020 01:21 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 18:57 Amui wrote:
I think Slydie is either a eugenics advocate, or else is ridiculously selfish, neither of which are good positions to hold.
0.1% of New York's population has passed away so far, and it's likely that 2-3 times that number will perish before this is over. Severe cases of Covid(low double digit% chance) have been linked to long-term(permanent) health issues as well(heart, lung, kidney etc), and neither of those are limited to 80+ year olds. By the time this is over, everybody in NY will know somebody who has passed away from it. 1/500 to 1/300 people will die, and 1/100(possibly more) will suffer health problems for the rest of their shortened lives. It's a crazy amount of impact for something that might not have even hit the double digit percentage infected mark.
That's an example of how bad it could be without sufficient restrictions, and it can definitely get worse than that.
Advocating for loosening restrictions on the basis of "suicides and DV are up" without hard data to back up the fact that it is safe to do so is asinine. Yes the numbers might be up, but if putting those restrictions saves hundreds of lives for every life lost as a result(no doubt in my mind about this point), then I would always favor the restrictions. you have no data to back up that "1/500 to 1/300 of the population" will die either
Well, the very low range estimate of the WHO has been 2% mortality. Most country's CFR is over 3%. So assuming that there are 10x as many infected as actually tested (which is under all realistic assumptions an upper bound for spread), that gives you a lower bound of 0.2% or 1/500 dying if the disease spreads to everybody. It is clearly not based on nothing.
E: he reached his estimate somewhat differently and was very specifically talking about NYC. In NYC, 0.1% of the population has already died to Covid-19: as of today there are 10,344 registered for NYC, and it has a total population of 8.4m people, so that is about 0.13% of the population. The crisis is far from over, and estimating that about double that number will die in total is a conservative estimate given epidemiological modelling (deaths/day generally follows a bell-shaped curve, and NYC is somewhere near the top of that curve under current lockdown conditions).
E2: and he responded that below as well.
|
On April 22 2020 01:21 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 18:57 Amui wrote:
I think Slydie is either a eugenics advocate, or else is ridiculously selfish, neither of which are good positions to hold.
0.1% of New York's population has passed away so far, and it's likely that 2-3 times that number will perish before this is over. Severe cases of Covid(low double digit% chance) have been linked to long-term(permanent) health issues as well(heart, lung, kidney etc), and neither of those are limited to 80+ year olds. By the time this is over, everybody in NY will know somebody who has passed away from it. 1/500 to 1/300 people will die, and 1/100(possibly more) will suffer health problems for the rest of their shortened lives. It's a crazy amount of impact for something that might not have even hit the double digit percentage infected mark.
That's an example of how bad it could be without sufficient restrictions, and it can definitely get worse than that.
Advocating for loosening restrictions on the basis of "suicides and DV are up" without hard data to back up the fact that it is safe to do so is asinine. Yes the numbers might be up, but if putting those restrictions saves hundreds of lives for every life lost as a result(no doubt in my mind about this point), then I would always favor the restrictions. you have no data to back up that "1/500 to 1/300 of the population" will die either
1/1000 has died already, and from spain/italy, the virus has a very,very long tail for deaths.
|
United States44321 Posts
The plan was always that mass infection was unavoidable but that distancing would give us time to put mitigation efforts in place like better healthcare and more hygienic practices. But eventually we were going to have to bite the bullet and let everyone get exposed to it, it was just an attempt to delay that until we were ready. Short of implementing universal healthcare I don’t know how much more ready the US is going to get.
|
On April 22 2020 01:38 KwarK wrote:
The plan was always that mass infection was unavoidable but that distancing would give us time to put mitigation efforts in place like better healthcare and more hygienic practices. But eventually we were going to have to bite the bullet and let everyone get exposed to it, it was just an attempt to delay that until we were ready. Short of implementing universal healthcare I don’t know how much more ready the US is going to get.
Not just that, but if you can space your cases out over time, rather than having them all hit at the same time, then people don't die because there isn't a ventilator available for them (and heart attack patients don't die in the street because all the ICU beds are taken by rona patients).
|
On April 22 2020 01:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 00:40 Slydie wrote:On April 21 2020 17:30 SC-Shield wrote:On April 21 2020 08:13 Slydie wrote:
Suicides, domestic abuse are effects of quarantines which are difficult to justify, but I still think the big story is actually the mass psychological stress and illness which comes with it. Being quarentined myself, reading the article I went yup-yup-yup-yup for the different possible sympthoms listed. Some of them for myself, others from people I talk to.
Also, being in a situation like that can make you a much worse parent, partner or other family member, so some abuse will be a consequence of the quarantine itself.
Yes, reading about 500-2500 people dying every day in your country is very scary too, and will be part of the slow recovery process after this. However, that most of those are 80+, and many would not have had many years left anyway is often undercommunicated. The main focus should always be if the hostpitals are about to be overwhelmed or not. 1. Your comment doesn't have any sources to support your point that suicides and abuse are up. 2. Your comment doesn't have any proof that these people "would not have had many years left anyway". There are people aged 17 and slightly older that died and didn't have any underlying health problems. Did they also not have many years left? And on top of that, it's an incredibly dumb post too. Think of your grandmother and grandfather, would you also say "it's a few years, so it doesn't matter if they die now or later"?! Wouldn't you want to spend more years with your loved ones? This is probably the worst post I've read in the last pages here. Every person you sentence to death to coronavirus is a loved one to someone. Everybody who dies for any reason is loved by someone, do you think Corona victims are somehow loved more than others? The last time I checked, the AVERAGE Corona victim in Italy was 80 years old, and in Norway it was 84. For that to happen, you need very few young victims and a significant amount of very old ones. Why do you pretend like this virus is an equal threat to everybody when it clearly is not? There are a few examples of young people dying from this virus, but that should not freak anybody out. Some young people die from just about any disease out there, and we don't freak out about that. Anybody who dies from anything is loved, but I don't understand why Corona victims matter so much more than anyone else. I bet nobody has looked up how many has died from cancer, heart attacks and other lower respiratory infections the last couple of months. The only numbers I have seen about deaths this year vs average deaths are from the Netherlands, definitely not one of the hardest hit countries. The estimate I saw was 80% more than average, and it also said the last time this many people died in a single week was 1945 (an infamous winter during which many people starved to death at the end of WW2). It'll take one heck of a lot of suicides and domestic violence cases to rival that. And this is the Netherlands, where the hospitals have been able to cope well with peak load. Compare that to Italy, Spain or NYC and you can see the problem.
While I won't comment on the social distancing, there has been an augmentation of domestic violences (at least signaling) in France by 30% during the quarantine. source www.lemonde.fr (in french)
|
|
|
On April 22 2020 01:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 01:38 KwarK wrote:
The plan was always that mass infection was unavoidable but that distancing would give us time to put mitigation efforts in place like better healthcare and more hygienic practices. But eventually we were going to have to bite the bullet and let everyone get exposed to it, it was just an attempt to delay that until we were ready. Short of implementing universal healthcare I don’t know how much more ready the US is going to get. That or a vaccine.
I wouldn't take a vaccine that got rushed through the system. So thats slightly less than a year away.
|
just for the info, we have never developed a vaccine for a strain of coronavirus, this would be the first. so there's that
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51665497
"Four coronaviruses already circulate in human beings. They cause common cold symptoms and we don't have vaccines for any of them."
|
|
|
Lalalaland34507 Posts
Part of that is because we stopped trying to develop one. The common cold is relatively harmless so why bother?
Fingers crossed one is possible for covid.
|
yeah i totally agree that's probably why we don't have one. would be really nice if they already had a roadmap for it though :/
|
|
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Measures have been mostly extended until 21st of May or so, primary schools are set to open, some sports activities by minors are allowed, most of the rest is the same though.
I am slowly going insane tbh.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
^ Go for a walk?
On April 22 2020 03:21 CursOr wrote:
yeah i totally agree that's probably why we don't have one. would be really nice if they already had a roadmap for it though :/
I don't have the source now, but I read somewhere that a group took an adenovirus, modified it so that it's harmless then imported in some covid genes so that it develops the protein coat. The idea is that they can use this as a vaccine after some more modification. Should be interesting to see what they come up with.
|
On April 22 2020 02:52 Firebolt145 wrote:
Part of that is because we stopped trying to develop one. The common cold is relatively harmless so why bother?
Fingers crossed one is possible for covid.
But if you can develop a vaccine and kill common cold once and for good, why don't you do it? Could the real reason be because common cold is highly mutating (that's what they say)? So if you develop a vaccine, it'll be outdated quite quickly.
|
On April 22 2020 02:52 Firebolt145 wrote:
Part of that is because we stopped trying to develop one. The common cold is relatively harmless so why bother?
Fingers crossed one is possible for covid.
Wait wat, there are yearly flu vaccinations here. Someone has to develop and produce those. They are different each year as the virus mutates super fast.
They are not caused by a coronavirus though.
e: small but significant correction, I interpreted cold as flu, my mistake.
|
On April 22 2020 05:10 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 02:52 Firebolt145 wrote:
Part of that is because we stopped trying to develop one. The common cold is relatively harmless so why bother?
Fingers crossed one is possible for covid. But if you can developer a vaccine and kill common cold once and for good, why don't you do it? Could the real reason be because common cold is highly mutating (that's what they say)? So if you develop a vaccine, it'll be outdated quite quickly.
Well, colds are not just caused by coronavirus. Most are caused by rhinovirus. And then there's a whole bunch of other families of virus that also cause common colds, many of which are not even identified. So the common cold is really not one disease, just a collective way of saying you have a mild infection of the upper respiratory tract.
|
On April 22 2020 01:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 00:40 Slydie wrote:On April 21 2020 17:30 SC-Shield wrote:On April 21 2020 08:13 Slydie wrote:
Suicides, domestic abuse are effects of quarantines which are difficult to justify, but I still think the big story is actually the mass psychological stress and illness which comes with it. Being quarentined myself, reading the article I went yup-yup-yup-yup for the different possible sympthoms listed. Some of them for myself, others from people I talk to.
Also, being in a situation like that can make you a much worse parent, partner or other family member, so some abuse will be a consequence of the quarantine itself.
Yes, reading about 500-2500 people dying every day in your country is very scary too, and will be part of the slow recovery process after this. However, that most of those are 80+, and many would not have had many years left anyway is often undercommunicated. The main focus should always be if the hostpitals are about to be overwhelmed or not. 1. Your comment doesn't have any sources to support your point that suicides and abuse are up. 2. Your comment doesn't have any proof that these people "would not have had many years left anyway". There are people aged 17 and slightly older that died and didn't have any underlying health problems. Did they also not have many years left? And on top of that, it's an incredibly dumb post too. Think of your grandmother and grandfather, would you also say "it's a few years, so it doesn't matter if they die now or later"?! Wouldn't you want to spend more years with your loved ones? This is probably the worst post I've read in the last pages here. Every person you sentence to death to coronavirus is a loved one to someone. Everybody who dies for any reason is loved by someone, do you think Corona victims are somehow loved more than others? The last time I checked, the AVERAGE Corona victim in Italy was 80 years old, and in Norway it was 84. For that to happen, you need very few young victims and a significant amount of very old ones. Why do you pretend like this virus is an equal threat to everybody when it clearly is not? There are a few examples of young people dying from this virus, but that should not freak anybody out. Some young people die from just about any disease out there, and we don't freak out about that. Anybody who dies from anything is loved, but I don't understand why Corona victims matter so much more than anyone else. I bet nobody has looked up how many has died from cancer, heart attacks and other lower respiratory infections the last couple of months. The only numbers I have seen about deaths this year vs average deaths are from the Netherlands, definitely not one of the hardest hit countries. The estimate I saw was 80% more than average, and it also said the last time this many people died in a single week was 1945 (an infamous winter during which many people starved to death at the end of WW2). It'll take one heck of a lot of suicides and domestic violence cases to rival that. And this is the Netherlands, where the hospitals have been able to cope well with peak load. Compare that to Italy, Spain or NYC and you can see the problem.
That is really interesting, do you have a source? I have been following the numbers in Sweden pretty closely and for a very long time there was surprisingly no particular difference between the average number of deaths this year compared to other years. Now that is not the case anymore, however. Going back a couple of weeks the numbers have risen to about 300 deaths per day here compared to an average of about 250 per day over the last five years (I could give a source, but it'd be in Swedish). So we are now at a level of about 20% more people dying in the country than what could have been expected were it not for the virus.
That kind of comparison could probably provide an interesting perspective on the actual situation in different countries since they all seem to count corona deaths differently.
|
On April 21 2020 19:33 warding wrote:
I agree that suicide and DV at this point aren't very convincing arguments for loosening restrictions. I think the two most convincing ones are:
- We've all seen the models that say what would happen without restrictions. What those models don't account for is voluntary individual measures. Surely as countries open up people will wear masks, use alcohol gel profusely, reorganize workplaces, avoid mass events, avoid unnecessary travel and so on. It's entirely possible that R would drop below 1 with these measures alone.
- At least in europe, judging by euromomo, the 2019-20 and 2018-19 flu/winter seasons were generally mild regarging mortality compared with the two previous ones, meaning that the elderly population might come into 2020 at an older age and beyond normal life expectancy. This might drive up mortality attributed to COVID-19.
- The big one is knowing what the actual number of infected people are. So far we've seen only a few studies of serological tests that through the case undercount to somewhere between 3x and 80x. Obviously an 80x undercount is not the case in NYC, but a couple of weeks ago I remember seeing studies estimating Spain to already have 10% to 15% of the population infected - that's 5 to 7 million. NY has more cases and fewer tests than Spain. Is it reasonable to assume that NY could already have reached 30-40% infected?
We've all seen 60%-70% as the magical number for herd immunity but that's assuming uncontrolled R0, not a population that has already gone through a first wave and will undergo significant behavioral change. Once you have 30-40% of the population immune, and those are also the most active within the population, and everyone is aware of how to protect against the virus, wouldn't that be enough to suppress the virus, or at least ensure that the second wave is way milder?
Finally, giving NY as an example for what might happen without restrictions, assuming that more than 0.2% or 0.3% of the population of any geography will die without sufficient restrictions faces the counter example of Sweden. They have not undergone great restrictions, the response has been mostly driven by individual behavior change and so far, only 0.01% of Sweden's population has passed away. Yes, it's more than the Scandinavian neighbours but still, is it a number that would force everyone to close down and suspend the constituion?
1:No. There where no restrictions for at least one month after the first case in almost every country and people didnt do anything of that sorts.
2:No. The 2018/19 and 2019/20 flu seasons where average or even slightly above the long term average. 2017/2018 was the outlier.
3:30%-40% seems very unreasonable to me for new york but it surely is way higher then the official numbers. If it was 30%-40% then you would have seen the rate of new infections drop significantly even without any restrictions. You do mention this yourself in your next paragraph.
Herd immunity doesnt mean that the infection will stop btw. If 50% is infected and r0 is 0.5 then how many people of the population will eventually get infected if r0 wont drop further? (the answer is the whole population).
In all fairness r0 will drop further in such a situation but there is still a very large number that eventually will get infected.
R0 in a city environment like new york and without any restrictions is likely 5 or higher which would translate to 80% needed for herd immunity in the best case (if it is 5)
Sweden is different,i rember a picture posted a few years ago by a swede of people at a bus stop."swedes waiting for a bus" They all where standing 2 meters apart. Its a different culture,people are more private in general.
According to estimates sweden is at 10% infected in stockholm,outside stockholm it probably is a lot lower. that 0.01% then becomes 0.1% if everyone gets infected,heavily skewed towards the elder population.
If its wise to close down i dont know,there is many different aspects. luckily i dont have to make that call. i dont think it is possible to maintain the current measures for much longer though,definitely not for 1 year.
Edit:
My above example with herd immunity is not really realistic off course,you wont have 50% of the population beeing infectious at the same time,but its to illustrate an aspect that is often overlooked. Herd immunity is also not a strategy,its a by product.
The thing with herd immunity is that it doesnt really help with the first outbreak where you will have a large number of people beeing infectious.
Herd immunity is effective against a 2nd outbreak where you start with a low number of infections. Then the disease can effectivly be controlled.
This aspect i feel is often overlooked and doesnt get much attention.
@ below,well that would be quiet positive. I did base my 10% on the sample they had from blood donors and which was plublished today or yesterday.
|
Actually, according to the latest conference by the Folkhälsomyndigheten they have done random tests that show that 2.5% of the population in Stockholm have the disease. According to their math, that means that about a third of the population in Stockholm has had the disease already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
