|
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 March 15 2020 06:15 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 04:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 15 2020 00:50 Slydie wrote:On March 15 2020 00:28 JimmiC wrote:
I wonder if there is going to be a baby boom in 9-11 months, with so many people stuck at home and no sports to watch. There should be! It seriously pisses me off that the 5k death toll is blown completely out of propotions. I looked it up, and lower respiratory infections cause between 2 and 3 million deaths per year, and between 8% and 9% of all deaths in the western world. This pandemy will not even make a dent in the statistics. When it is time to go, these infections are often guilty of giving us the final push, and Corona is very far from the worst offender. The whole thing seems to be about the amount of intensive care patients, and the fear that the hospitals will be overloaded, but these crazy countermeasures need to be toned down ASAP in areas where the situation is under control. Whole countries are shut down, for gods sake, and it is very unclear what is really achieved by it. If you dig deaper, I am pretty sure those will cause more damage to both lives and health than the virus itself. The social, economic and cultural cost should be obvious for anyone. At least Sweden has not closed schools and sports activities. I applaud it! The Italian medical system is near collapse. People are dying from both respiratory and non-respiratory conditions in multiple systems due to overcrowding of hospitals. This is not "just the flu". Your statistical extrapolations are extremely premature. Caring about money and "culture" over the many lives lost unnecessarily due to health system overcrowding is selfish and what led to problems in places like Italy in the first place. 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_65I am happy to be educated about how many hospitals are actually overloaded, but the death toll should be the least of our concerns!
Your death estimate is quite low compared to most expert estimates.
Not only that, but these numbers are going to fluctuate wildly because testing is currently insufficient in the U.S. (among other places), which means that both infection numbers and death toll numbers are undercounted.
Furthermore, the thing that people don't understand is that COVID-19 burdens the healthcare system in a way that the flu does not, and this is a very large contributor to the mortality rate (the disease alone is treatable in many cases, but the patients die because we don't have the resources to treat them). Most hospitals only have approximately 2-3% of beds (including ICU beds) open at any time. If even 1% of a community becomes sick at the same time and needs hospitalization, the hospital system is completely incapable of taking care of them.
|
On March 15 2020 06:48 r00ty wrote:
Why do people think this is a seasonal thing? It spreads globally across all climate zones.
People grasp every straw of hope, they can get. It's true for the flu...
So if there's the slightest chance this virus can't spread as much in the summer, we'll jump at it hoping for the less gravely eventuality.
|
|
|
On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why is this statement not directed at the guy that seemed to pull the 100k number completely out of his ass? Drone at least provided some maths for his scenarios.
|
On March 15 2020 08:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: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. Why is this statement not directed at the guy that seemed to pull the 100k number completely out of his ass? Drone at least provided some maths for his scenarios.
The question is: why was even 100k mentioned as a "worst case scenario" in the first place?
Assuming a conservative mortality rate of 1% that gives us roughly 70m dead (if everyone catches it at some point). If only 40% people will get it, as some predictions are showing, this still leaves us with 28m dead.
For US alone, if everyone will get infected that would mean about 3m deaths, for 40% it's still over a million.
Now, if you up the mortality rate to 3% you see how ridiculous the death toll could get worldwide...
Currently even in mainland China you have like 0.006% of the population infected (if the numbers can be trusted) and over 3k deaths (if mortality is 1% and 1% of China would catch the virus that alone would result in 130k deaths).
It is worrying that supposedly life is returning to normal in China and they're saying they beat the virus but the numbers don't support it at all (it's accelerating if anything).
Global economy will be in shambles soon.
|
Canada8990 Posts
Warning this is all hypothetical nonsense and not at all based on sources
With how many politicians, politicians family, ministers/cabinet members that are contracting the virus, I have to wonder if a way bigger number of people actually have/have had the virus.
Of course these people meet a lot of people, but the fact that the most well observed, clinically followed and easily tested people seems to get the virus on a way bigger % than most people make me wonder a lot more case than reported are occurring, maybe there's a lot of minor cases that aren't reported. (And perhaps never will)
Or not and it's just my own distortion way to see it/politician life style is just super prone to getting virus.
Edit: Hey I'm not the only idiot wondering about that!
https://time.com/5800950/politicians-covid-19/
Pretty much hypothetical nonsense, but from the Time! 
|
On March 15 2020 09:49 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 08:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: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. Why is this statement not directed at the guy that seemed to pull the 100k number completely out of his ass? Drone at least provided some maths for his scenarios. The question is: why was even 100k mentioned as a "worst case scenario" in the first place? Assuming a conservative mortality rate of 1% that gives us roughly 70m dead (if everyone catches it at some point). If only 40% people will get it, as some predictions are showing, this still leaves us with 28m dead. For US alone, if everyone will get infected that would mean about 3m deaths, for 40% it's still over a million. Now, if you up the mortality rate to 3% you see how ridiculous the death toll could get worldwide... Currently even in mainland China you have like 0.006% of the population infected (if the numbers can be trusted) and over 3k deaths (if mortality is 1% and 1% of China would catch the virus that alone would result in 130k deaths). It is worrying that supposedly life is returning to normal in China and they're saying they beat the virus but the numbers don't support it at all (it's accelerating if anything). Global economy will be in shambles soon.
Are you saying that numbers are accelerating in China? I can't see any numbers supporting that. By all indications a lot of the Asian economies have indeed stemmed the influx of new cases (some doubt the official numbers coming out of China but S.Korea's numbers have also peaked and I strongly doubt they're faking numbers)
Europe and the US are going through the surge stage of the virus numbers now, so it would seem much more out of control from their perspective.
China's restart may be a little pre-emptive but they know what to look for now and they will surely still be quarantining inbound passengers for a while
|
This is the same guy that said Trump weighs 238?
|
On March 15 2020 11:21 Mohdoo wrote:This is the same guy that said Trump weighs 238?
Same office, different guy. That guy (Ronny Jackson) went down for being a bit too... free... with prescriptions (he was known as the "Candyman"), when he got put up for the VA head nomination. Amusingly, most of his bad behavior came under the Obama admin (he came into office in 2013) rather than the Trump one.
I don't believe anything this administration says about Trump's health though, and their coronavirus record has been bad too. I'm just treating it as still unknown - but it would be pretty obvious if he has it within the next week, to be honest. It's not exactly subtle.
|
On March 15 2020 11:21 Mohdoo wrote:This is the same guy that said Trump weighs 238?
So how much does Trump weigh? lol
|
On March 15 2020 08:39 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 08:27 Acrofales wrote:On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: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). 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
Because people in Macau wear masks,and Macau reacted very quickly.
|
On March 15 2020 09:49 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 08:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: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. Why is this statement not directed at the guy that seemed to pull the 100k number completely out of his ass? Drone at least provided some maths for his scenarios. The question is: why was even 100k mentioned as a "worst case scenario" in the first place? Assuming a conservative mortality rate of 1% that gives us roughly 70m dead (if everyone catches it at some point). If only 40% people will get it, as some predictions are showing, this still leaves us with 28m dead. For US alone, if everyone will get infected that would mean about 3m deaths, for 40% it's still over a million. Now, if you up the mortality rate to 3% you see how ridiculous the death toll could get worldwide... Currently even in mainland China you have like 0.006% of the population infected (if the numbers can be trusted) and over 3k deaths (if mortality is 1% and 1% of China would catch the virus that alone would result in 130k deaths). It is worrying that supposedly life is returning to normal in China and they're saying they beat the virus but the numbers don't support it at all (it's accelerating if anything). Global economy will be in shambles soon.
Remember we are only approaching 6k now, not 60k or 600k. As mentioned, the situation is already under control in China, where there are most infected and most people have died.
Worst case scenarios are often extremely unlikely.
|
china and south korea reacted really well to the outbreak, overall I think the asian culture of obedience/discipline and believe in their government helped immensly in containing the virus.
It is still spreading uncontrollably across the rest of the world and most countries are not nearly as well prepared as those two.
|
On March 15 2020 16:22 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 09:49 Manit0u wrote:On March 15 2020 08:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: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. Why is this statement not directed at the guy that seemed to pull the 100k number completely out of his ass? Drone at least provided some maths for his scenarios. The question is: why was even 100k mentioned as a "worst case scenario" in the first place? Assuming a conservative mortality rate of 1% that gives us roughly 70m dead (if everyone catches it at some point). If only 40% people will get it, as some predictions are showing, this still leaves us with 28m dead. For US alone, if everyone will get infected that would mean about 3m deaths, for 40% it's still over a million. Now, if you up the mortality rate to 3% you see how ridiculous the death toll could get worldwide... Currently even in mainland China you have like 0.006% of the population infected (if the numbers can be trusted) and over 3k deaths (if mortality is 1% and 1% of China would catch the virus that alone would result in 130k deaths). It is worrying that supposedly life is returning to normal in China and they're saying they beat the virus but the numbers don't support it at all (it's accelerating if anything). Global economy will be in shambles soon. Remember we are only approaching 6k now, not 60k or 600k. As mentioned, the situation is already under control in China, where there are most infected and most people have died. Worst case scenarios are often extremely unlikely.
They were discussing what the worst case scenario will be in absence of drastic measures like those taken by China and Korea.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 15 2020 16:22 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 09:49 Manit0u wrote:On March 15 2020 08:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: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. Why is this statement not directed at the guy that seemed to pull the 100k number completely out of his ass? Drone at least provided some maths for his scenarios. The question is: why was even 100k mentioned as a "worst case scenario" in the first place? Assuming a conservative mortality rate of 1% that gives us roughly 70m dead (if everyone catches it at some point). If only 40% people will get it, as some predictions are showing, this still leaves us with 28m dead. For US alone, if everyone will get infected that would mean about 3m deaths, for 40% it's still over a million. Now, if you up the mortality rate to 3% you see how ridiculous the death toll could get worldwide... Currently even in mainland China you have like 0.006% of the population infected (if the numbers can be trusted) and over 3k deaths (if mortality is 1% and 1% of China would catch the virus that alone would result in 130k deaths). It is worrying that supposedly life is returning to normal in China and they're saying they beat the virus but the numbers don't support it at all (it's accelerating if anything). Global economy will be in shambles soon. Remember we are only approaching 6k now, not 60k or 600k. As mentioned, the situation is already under control in China, where there are most infected and most people have died. Worst case scenarios are often extremely unlikely.
Your "worst case scenario" of 100k deaths worldwide is likely severely underestimating the scenario. the situation is under control in China and a few other places due to their very strong public health policies. Europe and the USA, however, is poised on a brink of catastrophe, since they cannot invoke as draconian measures and do not have the ability to build hospitals in 10 days. Also, background medical problems like heart attacks or car accidents won't stop during this time. These patients won't receive the care that they need since the beds are occupied by critically ill COVID patients
This isn't also accounting for possible sequelae of the disease, which we don't know about yet. "Survivors" of COVID could suffer possible long-term health detriments, such as damaged lungs, which is another long-term burden on the health system.
|
On March 15 2020 17:11 InFiNitY[pG] wrote:
china and south korea reacted really well to the outbreak, overall I think the asian culture of obedience/discipline and believe in their government helped immensly in containing the virus.
It is still spreading uncontrollably across the rest of the world and most countries are not nearly as well prepared as those two.
Germany seems to be reacting really badly. I have to say that I am quite pleased with the Austrian governments reaction. The country is basically coming to a halt at the start of the next week, which seems to me appropiate, given the Asian and Italian experiences.
|
On March 15 2020 17:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:11 InFiNitY[pG] wrote:
china and south korea reacted really well to the outbreak, overall I think the asian culture of obedience/discipline and believe in their government helped immensly in containing the virus.
It is still spreading uncontrollably across the rest of the world and most countries are not nearly as well prepared as those two. Germany seems to be reacting really badly. I have to say that I am quite pleased with the Austrian governments reaction. The country is basically coming to a halt at the start of the next week, which seems to me appropiate, given the Asian and Italian experiences.
I honestly feel like that's the smartest thing to do.
Yes the economical hit stings, but it's far, far better than the alternative.
You only know if a lockdown is premature if a couple weeks later the hospitals aren't packed.
If you wait until the hospitals fill up to declare an emergency, it's already far, far too late. For something that could double every few days, that could be several times the number of infected that hospitals can handle, at which point people just die.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/
If you look at the graph, Italy went from fine to totally fucked up inside a month. The full lockdown came in just a few days ago, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
You either lock it down a couple weeks before(when you have hundreds of known cases), or else shit hits the fan and it's a nightmare.
|
On March 15 2020 17:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:11 InFiNitY[pG] wrote:
china and south korea reacted really well to the outbreak, overall I think the asian culture of obedience/discipline and believe in their government helped immensly in containing the virus.
It is still spreading uncontrollably across the rest of the world and most countries are not nearly as well prepared as those two. Germany seems to be reacting really badly. I have to say that I am quite pleased with the Austrian governments reaction. The country is basically coming to a halt at the start of the next week, which seems to me appropiate, given the Asian and Italian experiences.
Well maybe they arent doing that well with containing it, but the deathcount is insanely low relative to the number of cases.
Is there something I'm missing? Germans report deaths differently than other countries? Not declaring COVID 19 deaths if the patient had other major problems?
Or is the German healthcare infrastructure just that good? (i think it could be)
|
So reportedly the German company CureVac is furthest in development of a vaccine. Also reportedly Trump tries to buy that company at the moment with intent to patent the vaccine just for "himself". So he can be the savior, decide who gets it and to make profit. The german government tries to prevent that by all means.
If this is true, I cosider the Trump administration an enemy of the German people at this point.
German state media article: + Show Spoiler +
|
On March 15 2020 17:52 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 16:22 Slydie wrote:On March 15 2020 09:49 Manit0u wrote:On March 15 2020 08:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 15 2020 08:17 SC-Shield wrote: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. Why is this statement not directed at the guy that seemed to pull the 100k number completely out of his ass? Drone at least provided some maths for his scenarios. The question is: why was even 100k mentioned as a "worst case scenario" in the first place? Assuming a conservative mortality rate of 1% that gives us roughly 70m dead (if everyone catches it at some point). If only 40% people will get it, as some predictions are showing, this still leaves us with 28m dead. For US alone, if everyone will get infected that would mean about 3m deaths, for 40% it's still over a million. Now, if you up the mortality rate to 3% you see how ridiculous the death toll could get worldwide... Currently even in mainland China you have like 0.006% of the population infected (if the numbers can be trusted) and over 3k deaths (if mortality is 1% and 1% of China would catch the virus that alone would result in 130k deaths). It is worrying that supposedly life is returning to normal in China and they're saying they beat the virus but the numbers don't support it at all (it's accelerating if anything). Global economy will be in shambles soon. Remember we are only approaching 6k now, not 60k or 600k. As mentioned, the situation is already under control in China, where there are most infected and most people have died. Worst case scenarios are often extremely unlikely. Your "worst case scenario" of 100k deaths worldwide is likely severely underestimating the scenario. the situation is under control in China and a few other places due to their very strong public health policies. Europe and the USA, however, is poised on a brink of catastrophe, since they cannot invoke as draconian measures and do not have the ability to build hospitals in 10 days. Also, background medical problems like heart attacks or car accidents won't stop during this time. These patients won't receive the care that they need since the beds are occupied by critically ill COVID patients This isn't also accounting for possible sequelae of the disease, which we don't know about yet. "Survivors" of COVID could suffer possible long-term health detriments, such as damaged lungs, which is another long-term burden on the health system.
Source?
I have yet to see a single decent source coming from fear-mongers.
And "China's very strong public health policies", are you serious? It sounds like a bad joke. They're facing sanitary scandal after sanitary scandal, all the time, they're known for spitting on the ground, letting kids shit wherever they want, they don't have drinkable piped water, they've had to do a "toilet revolution" (their terms) in 2015, I'm not taking for model some people who just thought about spreading decent clean toilets in their country five years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
