EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 35
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria835 Posts
| ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:30 SC-Shield wrote: I'm wondering, even if we beat this virus within a month, can it come back next winter like common cold does? Do we know the answer or is it too early to tell? Beating it in 1 month is optimistic, but if it goes away till next year, smart people are gonna come up with a vaccine by then | ||
|
Schelim
Austria11528 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:15 Slydie wrote: I think a reasonable worst-case estimate would be that 100.000 people die from Corvid. But the truth is, that is the LOWER boundry of a normal flu season. I feel that perspective is completely forgotten. Somehow, deaths by causes we are familiar with count for less, which I can not understand. Another forgotten one: Respirtatory diseases is the 2nd most common cause of death for people at 65+ in Europe, accounting for nearly 400 cases per 100.000 citizens in the age group: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65 I am happy to be educated about how many hospitals are actually overloaded, but the death toll should be the least of our concerns! actually, conservative estimates speak of 300,000-1 million deaths in the US alone. and I think a major issue you're deciding to overlook is that all these other diseases and causes of death STILL EXIST. people are still dying off the flu at the same rate as always, if not more. and that's not to even speak of the potential collapse of public healthcare systems. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:30 SC-Shield wrote: I'm wondering, even if we beat this virus within a month, can it come back next winter like common cold does? Do we know the answer or is it too early to tell? There’s a reasonable chance it will. It won’t be anywhere near as deadly as it is this year, but given its highly infectious nature I think it’s likely that some evolutions of this particular type of coronavirus will survive for many years to come. It’s not rare for a pandemic to survive more than a century after its first, deadly outbreak. | ||
|
Slydie
1929 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:32 Geo.Rion wrote: Beating it in 1 month is optimistic, but if it goes away till next year, smart people are gonna come up with a vaccine by then It is not optimistic, it is impossible. It can take 2 weeks from catching the virus to having sympthoms, and some patients have been sick for 6 weeks before recovering. Another thing I learned by this article is that unlike seasonal flu, containing covid is actually possible: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-compared-to-flu-mortality-rates-2020-3?IR=T At some point, maybe with a covid mutation, I think we will face the perfect storm of a 10%+ mortality rate, flu-like spread and slow-to-emerge sympthoms. At least this will teach us how to deal with it! | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1057 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1929 Posts
actually, conservative estimates speak of 300,000-1 million deaths in the US alone. Maybe over 20 years, but I think there is no way this will happen this season. Norway has done a very solid job with testing, and has 3 deaths for currently around 1000 cases. I believe it is safe to say the 3+% mortality rates are exaggerated, and that large groups of infected people were not taken into account for those early estimates. Also, containing the virus is possible, and most infected recover rather quickly. | ||
|
InFiNitY[pG]
Germany3474 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:59 Slydie wrote: Maybe over 20 years, but I think there is no way this will happen this season. Norway has done a very solid job with testing, and has 3 deaths for currently around 1000 cases. I believe it is safe to say the 3+% mortality rates are exaggerated, and that large groups of infected people were not taken into account for those early estimates. Also, containing the virus is possible, and most infected recover rather quickly. 3% is probably too much, most reports I read expect the mortality rate to end up being around 0.8 to 1%. Which means your 100.000 worst case estimate is laughably low. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3992 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:15 Slydie wrote: I think a reasonable worst-case estimate would be that 100.000 people die from Corvid. But the truth is, that is the LOWER boundry of a normal flu season. I feel that perspective is completely forgotten. Somehow, deaths by causes we are familiar with count for less, which I can not understand. Another forgotten one: Respirtatory diseases is the 2nd most common cause of death for people at 65+ in Europe, accounting for nearly 400 cases per 100.000 citizens in the age group: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65 I am happy to be educated about how many hospitals are actually overloaded, but the death toll should be the least of our concerns! True, the number of deaths globally isn't awful...yet. It's yet to spread to countries with worse health systems than western countries. For example, it's just starting in Brazil now. On the other hand, hearing about lots of people dying just because the system is overloaded, not because we couldn't do anything, is distressing. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28733 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:15 Slydie wrote: I think a reasonable worst-case estimate would be that 100.000 people die from Corvid. But the truth is, that is the LOWER boundry of a normal flu season. I feel that perspective is completely forgotten. Somehow, deaths by causes we are familiar with count for less, which I can not understand. Another forgotten one: Respirtatory diseases is the 2nd most common cause of death for people at 65+ in Europe, accounting for nearly 400 cases per 100.000 citizens in the age group: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65 I am happy to be educated about how many hospitals are actually overloaded, but the death toll should be the least of our concerns! If this ends up with 100k deaths worldwide that would mean the measures taken were a massive, massive success. the 'reasonable worst case scenarios' would be ~40% of world infected within a year (40%-70% are numbers floating around from professionals) and looking at SK mortality rate at sub 1% rather than 3.4% from WHO (This is reasonable as SK has been testing the most). That would still leave us with 30 million dead. Like even if you say 10% infection rate (this would be far far better than expected) and 0.2% mortality rate (this is basically the lowest possible projection I've seen, overall definitely unrealistically low, might be attainable for a select few countries) you're looking at 800 million infected and 1.6 million dead. Would love to see how you reach 100k as a 'worst-case estimate'. (mostly just math, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/countries-where-coronavirus-has-spread/) | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22046 Posts
On March 15 2020 06:59 Slydie wrote: Norway's healthcare system is managing, so are places like S Korea (from what I understand) which helps keep mortality rates low. If this breaks heavily in the US, and I consider that likely with remarks like the Ohio governor already assuming 100k+ are infected in his state, hospitals are not going to be able to keep up and mortality rates are going to spike, just like they did in Italy.Maybe over 20 years, but I think there is no way this will happen this season. Norway has done a very solid job with testing, and has 3 deaths for currently around 1000 cases. I believe it is safe to say the 3+% mortality rates are exaggerated, and that large groups of infected people were not taken into account for those early estimates. Also, containing the virus is possible, and most infected recover rather quickly. | ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On March 15 2020 07:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: If this ends up with 100k deaths worldwide that would mean the measures taken were a massive, massive success. the 'reasonable worst case scenarios' would be ~40% of world infected within a year (40%-70% are numbers floating around from professionals) and looking at SK mortality rate at sub 1% rather than 3.4% from WHO (This is reasonable as SK has been testing the most). That would still leave us with 30 million dead. Like even if you say 10% infection rate (this would be far far better than expected) and 0.2% mortality rate (this is basically the lowest possible projection I've seen, overall definitely unrealistically low, might be attainable for a select few countries) you're looking at 800 million infected and 1.6 million dead. Would love to see how you reach 100k as a 'worst-case estimate'. (mostly just math, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/countries-where-coronavirus-has-spread/) 100K is really not that much. AIDS killed around 800K people in 2018, in a constant decline 2010 had around 1.2 millions deaths and 2004 had around 1.7 millions deaths. In total AIDS killed about 40 million people in the last 40 years and the world kept spinning, although it's of course the kind of propagation we want to dodge. With that said AIDS kill mostly in Africa nowadays so who cares I guess. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28733 Posts
| ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria835 Posts
On March 15 2020 07:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: yeah I mean 100k would be 'nothing' in the scenario we're looking at. If 100k deaths was a 'reasonable worst case scenario' then the reactions would be completely overblown. But the actual 'reasonable worst case scenarios' give us 8 digit number of deaths, not 100k. You speak as if you know how this coronavirus situation would end. No one knows, so why are you so certain that we can't get away with 100k or less? See, China is improving and countries in Europe are taking measures. It takes time for this to give result just like StarCraft balance patches do. I really believe this lockdown regime will help even though I think it's one of the most boring things that has happened in the last few years. For instance, I think most European countries won't have it as bad as Italy does. If you see average lifespan, Italy has one of the highest, and this is exactly what coronavirus is good against (old people). Spain is actually next on the list, so I'm not surprised it's also bad there. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18183 Posts
On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: You speak as if you know how this coronavirus situation would end. No one knows, so why are you so certain that we can't get away with 100k or less? See, China is improving and countries in Europe are taking measures. It takes time for this to give result just like StarCraft balance patches do. I really believe this lockdown regime will help even though I think it's one of the most boring things that has happened in the last few years. For instance, I think most European countries won't have it as bad as Italy does. If you see average lifespan, Italy has one of the highest, and this is exactly what coronavirus is good against (old people). 1. I believe the argument was about "why do anything, this is just a slightly worse version of the annual flu", in which case your argument that the complete shutdown measures in China, and the lockdown in Europe can work is beside the point: the people Drone was arguing with are saying that we should not bother with any of that, in which case 8-digit numbers of dead are a potential outcome. 2. Wha does average lifespan have to do with it? Presumably you mean average age, which might be usefulas a proxy for # of vulnerable people, but I'm sure there's numbers on the age distribution out there that could support your point better. | ||
|
Schelim
Austria11528 Posts
On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: You speak as if you know how this coronavirus situation would end. No one knows, so why are you so certain that we can't get away with 100k or less? See, China is improving and countries in Europe are taking measures. It takes time for this to give result just like StarCraft balance patches do. I really believe this lockdown regime will help even though I think it's one of the most boring things that has happened in the last few years. For instance, I think most European countries won't have it as bad as Italy does. If you see average lifespan, Italy has one of the highest, and this is exactly what coronavirus is good against (old people). Spain is actually next on the list, so I'm not surprised it's also bad there. that might be the most out of place comparison i've ever seen | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria835 Posts
On March 15 2020 08:27 Acrofales wrote: 1. I believe the argument was about "why do anything, this is just a slightly worse version of the annual flu", in which case your argument that the complete shutdown measures in China, and the lockdown in Europe can work is beside the point: the people Drone was arguing with are saying that we should not bother with any of that, in which case 8-digit numbers of dead are a potential outcome. 2. Wha does average lifespan have to do with it? Presumably you mean average age, which might be usefulas a proxy for # of vulnerable people, but I'm sure there's numbers on the age distribution out there that could support your point better. Yes, I think your 2nd point gets my idea. Average lifespan 1. Macau (fuck knows why it's not the worst here, maybe smaller population?) - ~84.7 ... 5. Italy - ~83.4 years 6. Spain - ~83.4 years If we assume by that the average age is higher in those 2 countries, then we know that old people, usually 65+ years old, are most vulnerable to coronavirus. Hence, I think that Italy and Spain will remain the worst hit European countries. Blame the Mediterranean diet, haha! Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9147 Posts
On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: You speak as if you know how this coronavirus situation would end. No one knows, so why are you so certain that we can't get away with 100k or less? See, China is improving and countries in Europe are taking measures. It takes time for this to give result just like StarCraft balance patches do. I really believe this lockdown regime will help even though I think it's one of the most boring things that has happened in the last few years. For instance, I think most European countries won't have it as bad as Italy does. If you see average lifespan, Italy has one of the highest, and this is exactly what coronavirus is good against (old people). Spain is actually next on the list, so I'm not surprised it's also bad there. I suggest you re-read that post and the context. Talking about worst case scenarios in no way implies certainty, it's by definition the opposite. He was also responding to someone critical of measures such as lockdowns. All it takes for an 8 digit number of deaths is 1 billion infected at 1% mortality, I'd call that a reasonable worst case scenario given the context. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28733 Posts
On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: You speak as if you know how this coronavirus situation would end. No one knows, so why are you so certain that we can't get away with 100k or less? See, China is improving and countries in Europe are taking measures. It takes time for this to give result just like StarCraft balance patches do. I really believe this lockdown regime will help even though I think it's one of the most boring things that has happened in the last few years. For instance, I think most European countries won't have it as bad as Italy does. If you see average lifespan, Italy has one of the highest, and this is exactly what coronavirus is good against (old people). Spain is actually next on the list, so I'm not surprised it's also bad there. I don't claim to know anything about what is going to happen. I am responding to the notion that '100k deaths' is a reasonable worst case scenario. It might be a plausible best case scenario (I'm a bit skeptical of that too, but would be overjoyed if it happened!) - but if so were to happen, it would be because of the extreme measures taken by governments (that the guy I was responding to was negative towards). | ||
| ||
