|
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. |
So a lot of serological studies are coming out - someone did the math and the mortality rate (IFR?) assumed from the average of those studies is 0.2%
Meanwhile, some studies suggest that measures that may not have a huge economic impact - wearing masks, homeoffice for more workers, banning masses and general awareness (washing hands, fewer handshakes and hugs) probably bring R close to 1. If R is at like 1.2, then herd immunity is achieved at 17% of the population being infected. Given the data from serological studies, places with visible outbreaks are likely past that.
On top of that, I've also read somewhere that given a heterogenous population you don't need such a high % of infected to reach herd immunity as predicted in models with a homogenous population - since those most likely to be infected and infect others will get infected first, they'll also be a stronger shield once immune.
Am I wrong to think that after this first peak in Europe and the US, we're going to realize the virus is less deadly than we first feared and that future outbreaks in the same geographies are likely to be way smaller?
Also, am I wrong to think that it's nonsensical for countries with a median age below 30 y.o. and life expectancy below 75 to lockdown? They are probably also countries with fewer medical resources but isn't the virus going to do way less damage to them than it did in Italy for example? I mean, the average age in Ghana is 20.7, life expectancy is 63, why would they lockdown if it's probably not going have much of an impact on mortality in that population?
|
I am not certain about that latter conclusion. If life expectancy is 63, that can mean a lot of stuff. It can simply mean that a lot of children or young people die to accidents/war/whatever. Or it can mean that old people are in a worse condition due to worse medical resources, harder physical work, or whatever else.
For your conclusion to be valid, it would need to be the case that people age basically the same, and then suddenly die at 63. My guess would be that a 63 year old in a country with significantly lower life expectancy is not in the same condition as an average 63year old in Germany, for example.
|
I understand that life expectancy at 63 doesn't mean there aren't a lot of 63+ in the population. Life expectancy is often brought down by infant mortality.
Still, it means that the fatality rate for the population will be way lower than it is in Europe where there are a ton more 80 year olds as part of the population.
|
No numbers for today yet, but as of Saturday, my province has been on a fairly steep downwards trend. Everyone who has any cold/flu symptoms is encouraged to go get tested since we have excess capacity now, and it's looking promising. Hopefully we can trace/isolate everyone now and cut off any outbreaks early.
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/rpr5x0slwgw41.png)
On a personal level, I got an email today.
It pretty much says the office will reopen, but business critical operations only in June, barring extreme losses of productivity at home. I'll go in some time after it opens to collect the rest of the stuff that I left behind. Really all I want is probably 7lbs of protein powder, out of the 10lbs that was sitting at my desk.
|
On May 05 2020 00:32 warding wrote:
So a lot of serological studies are coming out - someone did the math and the mortality rate (IFR?) assumed from the average of those studies is 0.2%
Going to ask for a big fat [citation needed] on that one. I have a hard time believing it's below 1% without significant proof to the contrary given the test/death rates we've already seen. Seems a few months late to take a justfluism approach, honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 05 2020 01:55 JimmiC wrote:
Stockholm only has a million people, and they have 1470 of the 2800 deaths in all of swedes. So it looks like you are off by a factor of 10.
If Stockholm has half the deaths of the country, then on April 11th it's reasonable to assume it had 630 deaths. 630 / 100 000=0.63%. Definitely higher than 1.5% but not a factor of ten.
|
On May 05 2020 00:32 warding wrote:
So a lot of serological studies are coming out - someone did the math and the mortality rate (IFR?) assumed from the average of those studies is 0.2%
Meanwhile, some studies suggest that measures that may not have a huge economic impact - wearing masks, homeoffice for more workers, banning masses and general awareness (washing hands, fewer handshakes and hugs) probably bring R close to 1. If R is at like 1.2, then herd immunity is achieved at 17% of the population being infected. Given the data from serological studies, places with visible outbreaks are likely past that.
I’m leaning in the same direction. Keep most of the impact ones you mention, lessen the more onerous ones. Hospitals around me are sending nurses and engineers home for lack of patients. There is abundant testing for those who need it.
Longer max lockdowns affecting entire states is just going to breed more massive civil disobedience.
|
On May 04 2020 16:09 Acrofales wrote:Proning isn't new though. I remember reading an article about how nurses did it and how it works in a hospital in Holland at the start of March. It is pretty labor intensive and requires special training, but definitely appears to help. As long as hospitals aren't overwhelmed and have the staff to do this, it's a fantastic option.
My apologies. My understanding from the article was that they didn't know it would help covid as much as it does.
|
|
|
On May 05 2020 01:55 JimmiC wrote:
Stockholm only has a million people, and they have 1470 of the 2800 deaths in all of swedes. So it looks like you are off by a factor of 10.
Looking as well at several other areas with high concentration of infection, such as New York, a crude confirmed death / total population metric gives a number already in excess of 0.1% death. Death rates are all but guaranteed to be upward revised several years from now once we have the ability to better count this stuff, and as more people die of course.
Inclined to view the 0.1% claims as absurd on their face, and likely based on cherry-picked data. Few reliable sources seem to support the optimistic conclusion.
|
On May 05 2020 04:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2020 01:55 JimmiC wrote:
Stockholm only has a million people, and they have 1470 of the 2800 deaths in all of swedes. So it looks like you are off by a factor of 10. Looking as well at several other areas with high concentration of infection, such as New York, a crude confirmed death / total population metric gives a number already in excess of 0.1% death. Death rates are all but guaranteed to be upward revised several years from now once we have the ability to better count this stuff, and as more people die of course. Inclined to view the 0.1% claims as absurd on their face, and likely based on cherry-picked data. Few reliable sources seem to support the optimistic conclusion.
A bit of data science seems to do a pretty decent job at just looking at new deaths that don't fit our existing data. I really think we could get very close by just looking at differences in data between now and a year ago.
Here's the NYC doing that kind of: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
|
|
|
On May 05 2020 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2020 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On May 05 2020 01:55 JimmiC wrote:
Stockholm only has a million people, and they have 1470 of the 2800 deaths in all of swedes. So it looks like you are off by a factor of 10. Looking as well at several other areas with high concentration of infection, such as New York, a crude confirmed death / total population metric gives a number already in excess of 0.1% death. Death rates are all but guaranteed to be upward revised several years from now once we have the ability to better count this stuff, and as more people die of course. Inclined to view the 0.1% claims as absurd on their face, and likely based on cherry-picked data. Few reliable sources seem to support the optimistic conclusion. A bit of data science seems to do a pretty decent job at just looking at new deaths that don't fit our existing data. I really think we could get very close by just looking at differences in data between now and a year ago. Here's the NYC doing that kind of: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
Excess death statistics will definitely help us get there. I suspect even those will only be sufficiently accurate within several months, though, as death rates simply aren't that well known as quickly as one might like.
|
On May 05 2020 02:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2020 00:32 warding wrote:
So a lot of serological studies are coming out - someone did the math and the mortality rate (IFR?) assumed from the average of those studies is 0.2%
Meanwhile, some studies suggest that measures that may not have a huge economic impact - wearing masks, homeoffice for more workers, banning masses and general awareness (washing hands, fewer handshakes and hugs) probably bring R close to 1. If R is at like 1.2, then herd immunity is achieved at 17% of the population being infected. Given the data from serological studies, places with visible outbreaks are likely past that. I’m leaning in the same direction. Keep most of the impact ones you mention, lessen the more onerous ones. Hospitals around me are sending nurses and engineers home for lack of patients. There is abundant testing for those who need it. Longer max lockdowns affecting entire states is just going to breed more massive civil disobedience.
Hospitals are sending home nurses and other healthcare workers that don't have the necessary skill set to treat needed patients (i.e. don't have critical care, emergency, primary care training).
"there is enough testing for those than need it" is an objectively false statement, at least in the U.S.
Also Warding's claims are based on faulty math and questionable sources. They will most likely be tossed in the bin with all of the other "this isn't really that bad!" claims that have been debunked over the last couple months.
|
Canada is diverging sharply when comparing how successful containment has been between provinces.
Ontario/Quebec are still in the midst of it - Ontario seems to have peaked, but too early to say how strong the downward trend is.
This dashboard is amazing
https://public.tableau.com/profile/oma.era#!/vizhome/CovidTable/Dashboard22
On the other hand, I'm looking forward to BC opening up because of how well we've covered it - We have had 53 cases in the last 3 days (19 in last 24h).
According to our health minister, if we kept the current social distancing, and no one left/entered BC with corona, or if they did and followed quarantining, we could be corona free by July.
source
We're currently at 30% social interactions in BC vs the peak time last year. December, before this started is 80% of social interactions which is a fuzzy way of saying how much we socialize with other people - collected with help from Google/Apple apparently.
We have room to go up from here to 30-60% more interactions to around 40-50%, without causing uncontrolled spreading of the disease. For me, I'm going to put my 30% towards friends, and safe social activities. I doubt I can go back to my summer sport (Ultimate frisbee) since it's pretty impossible to social distance and put on an effective defense with a mask on in a cardio intensive sport. Bouldering might be back on the table, since it's an activity that I can do with a mask on.
|
What does “corona free” mean? Like antibodies or just complete absence of the virus in BC?
|
On May 05 2020 09:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2020 02:07 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2020 00:32 warding wrote:
So a lot of serological studies are coming out - someone did the math and the mortality rate (IFR?) assumed from the average of those studies is 0.2%
Meanwhile, some studies suggest that measures that may not have a huge economic impact - wearing masks, homeoffice for more workers, banning masses and general awareness (washing hands, fewer handshakes and hugs) probably bring R close to 1. If R is at like 1.2, then herd immunity is achieved at 17% of the population being infected. Given the data from serological studies, places with visible outbreaks are likely past that. I’m leaning in the same direction. Keep most of the impact ones you mention, lessen the more onerous ones. Hospitals around me are sending nurses and engineers home for lack of patients. There is abundant testing for those who need it. Longer max lockdowns affecting entire states is just going to breed more massive civil disobedience. Hospitals are sending home nurses and other healthcare workers that don't have the necessary skill set to treat needed patients (i.e. don't have critical care, emergency, primary care training). "there is enough testing for those than need it" is an objectively false statement, at least in the U.S. Also Warding's claims are based on faulty math and questionable sources. They will most likely be tossed in the bin with all of the other "this isn't really that bad!" claims that have been debunked over the last couple months.
In case I wasn’t clear, I’m talking about the county I know — the one I live in that also was recently in the news for 40,000 beach goers. They are sending nurses home for lack of patients. They aren’t bringing on registry nurses. Budgets are tight and needed maintenance is being postponed. Our biggest hospital has never had more than 25 concurrent coronavirus patients. It has 475 beds. (One source.) So respectfully, no, this is not a function of relevant skills. It’s lack of patients, or paying customers. And sorry if you meant hospitals in the NYC area, or some more affected metro. The laid off nurses I’m in contact with, and the hospital department administrator I was talking with last week are not having a skills-based problem. It’s quite simply a budgetary math problem.
You can read more from the source about how generalizable my local context is, because its population is ~3.3 million. This post is about local impact from coronavirus after all, and I don’t want people to only get their impressions from major news stories that get the most clicks.
One last thing since enough time has passed: Florida didn’t get a huge spring break bump from keeping its beaches open. Nor an inflection in new cases, confirmed cases, etc. It’s fair to say the data contradicts beaches being a big spreading hotspot. And for my county, the sheriffs and firefighters were reporting widespread obedience of social distancing rules from their air and ground surveillance (my previous post on topic has source).
Disclaimers: It's premature to universally recommend opening recirculating air buildings with lots of people, like malls and restaurants, or to relax mask-wearing and social distancing recommendations. Staged relaxations are in order, not immediate removal of all lockdown orders, to guard against a possible second peak or overrun hospitals from >50 parties.
![[image loading]](https://assets.realclear.com/images/50/508979_5_.png)
One visual for where each state stands relative to peak (thus far). Ratio of current cases to state's maximum historical daily cases. Many states are stable and past their peak. Few, if any, states possibly in an exponential growth phase. Source
NYT visualization (see Case Growth rate)
|
On May 05 2020 10:22 Emnjay808 wrote:
What does “corona free” mean? Like antibodies or just complete absence of the virus in BC? I assume absence of virus.
If lockdown reduces the R0 to less then 1 the virus will slowly burn itself out as less and less people get infected. It takes a long time if you have lots of infected but if your dealing with small numbers its something you could strive for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
