|
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 18:20 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:52 opterown wrote: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.
Let's just say they reacted very poorly at the start, and before that they created very favorable conditions for an outbreak such as this, but after they woke up they put a lid on it fairly well, which is impressive cuz there were already several hundreds / thousands of cases when they started combatting it for real. It's much much harder to contain the epidemic, once it has already spread for a while, like in comparison Singapore and a few other Asian countries stopped it in its track and have like 0-5 deathcounts, even though they contacted the virus in january or early february.
Italy, Spain, the US and a few others seem to be late with the reaction as well, hopefully they can make up for it by better infrastructure etc.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 15 2020 18:20 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:52 opterown wrote: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.
The public health policy that is relevant in this situation is their draconian ability to shut down the cities so that spread has been curtailed. The other things you have mentioned are not really relevant to what we're talking about in regards to COVID control and is simply ad hominem. Sure, China is not a perfect country, but they responded swiftly and decisively, which is something a lot of western countries have not/cannot do.
In terms of source, I'm not sure which area you're asking for a source on. The numbers of deaths is simple mathematics - based on a CFR of about 1% and infection rates varying from about 20% to 70% over time (if left unchecked without strong public health responses or treatments), even with the most conservative estimates you're looking at over a million attributable deaths.
Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year.
I don't even know how the previous poster worked out his estimate of 100,000 people dead. That's ... what, 0.05% CFR with 3.5% infected population? That's ludicrously optimistic. The CFR for young, healthy adults alone is 0.2% or so.
Of course, things will change as more data comes out on treatments and the like. Strong public health control programs will also curtail the spread - looking at Singapore, HK, South Korea, etc. Unfortunately the situation looks dire in the US and most of Europe - I would not be surprised if things go similarly to Italy's situation.
I am not a fear-monger - I am realistic about the impact of COVID. For what it's worth, I'm a PGY-6 doctor working in Australia in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, so I know a fair bit of what I'm talking about.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 15 2020 18:14 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:54 Big J wrote: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)
Hard to get a read on why Germany has so few dead cases. I read the info somewhere that we werent testing recently deceased on the virus for quite a while which might have explained those surprisingly low casualties.
I think the big counting wave of serious cases/deaths is yet to come here. Healthcare infrastructure in terms of quality is alright, production of respiratory equipment recieved focus this week. But I have worries about the quantity of staff available in combination with the rather lax reaction speed from officials shutting down clubs, restaurants and so on. I hope were not on a curve as bad as Italy with a week delay, but looking at the count of registered cases and the timing the german states decided to take action it seems like we are on a similar course.
In Kassel (Hesse) - the city I live - there was still plenty of traffic from what Ive seen out of my flat and while I´ve heard that disinfectants and canned goods are grabbed a lot of people still dont seem to take it too seriously, unfortunately.
|
Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year.
Do you have any reason to believe that deaths due to new viral infections stay stable over extended periods of time?
China has indeed done drastic measures, but there are currently only around 10k infected there, and 3k+ serious cases (they stay sick the longest.) Almost 7 out of 8 known infected have already recovered.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/
This is out of a population of 1,3 billion.
It remains to be seen how Spain and Italy will cope with this, but I see no reason to panic.
I never claimed my 100k as a maximum was anything but a personal estimate, but looking at China, I might very well be right. Death tolls of previous viruses have a history of being overestimated as well.
|
On March 15 2020 10:44 ShloobeR 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. 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
You can check some numbers here: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/
It definitely doesn't look like it's slowing down much and I think that the worst of it is yet ahead of us. The link above has pretty detailed day-by-day reports of the situation.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 15 2020 19:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. Do you have any reason to believe that deaths due to new viral infections stay stable over extended periods of time?
Well, looking at some other recent viruses of note - SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc have all retained similar CFR over time. The thing that got rid of them was good transmission control i.e. less cases. That's where all this social distancing thing comes into play. If the virus goes unchecked without effective public health measures like shutdowns or travel restrictions, the trajectory will be terrible.
You also can't really rely in herd immunity - there are a lot of viruses that humans have never developed herd immunity to without vaccines e.g. chickenpox or measles. We don't even really know that being infected once with COVID will protect you against future infections.
Now of course, if we develop an effective treatment or vaccine for this, things may change. HIV would have almost 100% CFR without the medications we have today.
I would be overjoyed if the 100,000 estimate turns out to be correct. However, I'm not so optimistic.
|
From what I'm reading it is going to get WAY worse in the US.
|
On March 15 2020 18:43 ZiZzy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hard to get a read on why Germany has so few dead cases. I read the info somewhere that we werent testing recently deceased on the virus for quite a while which might have explained those surprisingly low casualties.
I think the big counting wave of serious cases/deaths is yet to come here. Healthcare infrastructure in terms of quality is alright, production of respiratory equipment recieved focus this week. But I have worries about the quantity of staff available in combination with the rather lax reaction speed from officials shutting down clubs, restaurants and so on. I hope were not on a curve as bad as Italy with a week delay, but looking at the count of registered cases and the timing the german states decided to take action it seems like we are on a similar course. In Kassel (Hesse) - the city I live - there was still plenty of traffic from what Ive seen out of my flat and while I´ve heard that disinfectants and canned goods are grabbed a lot of people still dont seem to take it too seriously, unfortunately.
Hi. I live 25km south west of Kassel. 
Our Healthcare system can handle basically all cases so far. If the number of patients goes over a certain tipping point, death rate will rise disproportionately.
Concerning the effects on my personal life: I was invited to a job interview tomorrow. Friday i got contacted again to immediately inform them if i have any, even mild symptoms. I'm fine so far, but we agreed to talk again tomorrow morning on the phone to see how the situation has changed. The crux is, the job is working for the local government, doing administration and sales for a large state owned hostel... I don't see that happening and it's really depressing as this was my dream job.
I share a house with and take care of my parents they are 80 and 76. My father has multiple heart conditions, is a bit senile and really careless. I am worried about them, i should be fine, i do smoke though.
On a positive note, I'm glad that i live in the country on a deactivated farm basically, still supplying ourselves with stuff like potatos, apples, jam, pickles, etc. We can easily isolate and have food for a year. I stocked up on supplies 3 weeks ago.
|
What is CFR?Corona Fatality Rate?
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
|
On March 15 2020 19:29 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 19:08 Slydie wrote:Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. Do you have any reason to believe that deaths due to new viral infections stay stable over extended periods of time? Well, looking at some other recent viruses of note - SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc have all retained similar CFR over time. The thing that got rid of them was good transmission control i.e. less cases. That's where all this social distancing thing comes into play. If the virus goes unchecked without effective public health measures like shutdowns or travel restrictions, the trajectory will be terrible. You also can't really rely in herd immunity - there are a lot of viruses that humans have never developed herd immunity to without vaccines e.g. chickenpox or measles. We don't even really know that being infected once with COVID will protect you against future infections. Now of course, if we develop an effective treatment or vaccine for this, things may change. HIV would have almost 100% CFR without the medications we have today. I would be overjoyed if the 100,000 estimate turns out to be correct. However, I'm not so optimistic.
What I meant is that the deathrate tends to fall rapidly after the first outbreak, like it indeed has in China.
It will also repeat that covid only contributes to a very common cause of death for a vulnerable part of the population. I think it is safe to say many Covid victims would have deceased later from other infections.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 15 2020 19:47 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 19:29 opterown wrote:On March 15 2020 19:08 Slydie wrote:Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. Do you have any reason to believe that deaths due to new viral infections stay stable over extended periods of time? Well, looking at some other recent viruses of note - SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc have all retained similar CFR over time. The thing that got rid of them was good transmission control i.e. less cases. That's where all this social distancing thing comes into play. If the virus goes unchecked without effective public health measures like shutdowns or travel restrictions, the trajectory will be terrible. You also can't really rely in herd immunity - there are a lot of viruses that humans have never developed herd immunity to without vaccines e.g. chickenpox or measles. We don't even really know that being infected once with COVID will protect you against future infections. Now of course, if we develop an effective treatment or vaccine for this, things may change. HIV would have almost 100% CFR without the medications we have today. I would be overjoyed if the 100,000 estimate turns out to be correct. However, I'm not so optimistic. What I meant is that the deathrate tends to fall rapidly after the first outbreak, like it indeed has in China. It will also repeat that covid only contributes to a very common cause of death for a vulnerable part of the population. I think it is safe to say many Covid victims would have deceased later from other infections.
China has had a much stronger response to their situation than the West, we cannot really extrapolate the situation in Europe/USA to what they have been seeing. It is more reasonable to extrapolate from Italy's situation. Unfortunately, we cannot easily shut down our societies as well as China or Singapore can.
COVID contributes to a common cause of death in the elderly, yes. Respiratory tract infections cause about a million deaths in the elderly each year worldwide (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30310-4/fulltext). If you add my value of ~4 million to that, that's not a small contribution by any means. Even doubling it would be a severe burden to the health system.
People like you and me probably will be fine, but I'm sure a lot of people have parents or grandparents in high risk groups. Plus, as I said earlier, if you got into a car accident or something, you'll be less likely to receive optimum care if all the other health resources are diverted to COVID care.
Remember, we're only seeing the beginning of the epidemic in the west. Italy shows no signs of slowing down, and there are many countries not far behind.
Please don't treat COVID lightly.
|
On March 15 2020 19:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. Do you have any reason to believe that deaths due to new viral infections stay stable over extended periods of time? China has indeed done drastic measures, but there are currently only around 10k infected there, and 3k+ serious cases (they stay sick the longest.) Almost 7 out of 8 known infected have already recovered. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/This is out of a population of 1,3 billion. It remains to be seen how Spain and Italy will cope with this, but I see no reason to panic. I never claimed my 100k as a maximum was anything but a personal estimate, but looking at China, I might very well be right. Death tolls of previous viruses have a history of being overestimated as well.
China also have extensive training with previous outbreaks of SARS.
Regarding the previous flu vs cov-19 comparisons, I know that at least in Norway we count all indirect deaths from flu in its death rate/toll, while diseases such as cov-19 only direct deaths are counted. So for anyone living in Norway, comparing comparing death rate/toll of flu vs cov19 makes no sense.
|
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.
You can't both argue that the strict measures are an overreaction and use China and SK as your benchmark for a worst case...
|
On March 15 2020 19:57 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 19:08 Slydie wrote:Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. Do you have any reason to believe that deaths due to new viral infections stay stable over extended periods of time? China has indeed done drastic measures, but there are currently only around 10k infected there, and 3k+ serious cases (they stay sick the longest.) Almost 7 out of 8 known infected have already recovered. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/This is out of a population of 1,3 billion. It remains to be seen how Spain and Italy will cope with this, but I see no reason to panic. I never claimed my 100k as a maximum was anything but a personal estimate, but looking at China, I might very well be right. Death tolls of previous viruses have a history of being overestimated as well. China also have extensive training with previous outbreaks of SARS. Regarding the previous flu vs cov-19 comparisons, I know that at least in Norway we count all indirect deaths from flu in its death rate/toll, while diseases such as cov-19 only direct deaths are counted. So for anyone living in Norway, comparing comparing death rate/toll of flu vs cov19 makes no sense.
I didn't really do that, but I looked up, ofc. Thanks for reminding me: Pig flu killed 30 in Norway during the first wave, Covid has killed 3 so far;-)
My whole argument is that this debate should not be about deaths, but rather serious cases and hospital capacity. In that regard it looks like Covid destroys any flu or other infection, but I will have to read up on it. I was also unaware that Western hospitals can have so much trouble dealing with a few thousand extra patients.
|
On March 15 2020 18:14 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:54 Big J wrote: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)
Italy is complaining that Germany is not testing properly. Also Germany is quite behind Italy (like Austria). Whether measures work or not in countries will be observed in the coming 2 weeks I believe.
|
On March 15 2020 17:52 opterown wrote:
Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year.
You can't do your world estimate based on Italy and Spain. People there live up to ~84 years on average, while people in Sierra Leone live up to 52 years on average. See, you could have more old people in one country and much less in another. Coronavirus is effective against 65+ year old people if we exclude other factors such as underlying health conditions, so you can't compare Italy and Spain to countries which don't have nearly the same lifespan.
Also, I don't think it's wise to estimate anything as different countries have different measures. Some have lockdowns, others still don't. It's just impossible to come up with anything reliable.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 15 2020 20:41 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:52 opterown wrote:
Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. You can't do your world estimate based on Italy and Spain. People there live up to ~84 years on average, while people in Sierra Leone live up to 52 years on average. See, you could have more old people in one country and much less in another. Coronavirus is effective against 65+ year old people if we exclude other factors such as underlying health conditions, so you can't compare Italy and Spain to countries which don't have nearly the same lifespan.
Yes that's true, but you also wouldn't expect the healthcare in Sierra Leone to be as good as in Italy or Spain (clearly not, since the lifespan is 52 years). Their numbers will be less overall, but I would expect their 40 year olds to do worse than they would in Europe.
Every estimate is imperfect, but the death estimate is more likely seven digits than six digits. Would be delighted to be proved wrong once this boils over.
|
On March 15 2020 20:41 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 17:52 opterown wrote:
Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. You can't base your world estimate based on Italy and Spain. People there live up to ~84 years on average, while people in Sierra Leone live up to 52 years on average. See, you could have more old people in one country and much less in another. Coronavirus is effective against 65+ year old people if we exclude other factors such as underlying health conditions, so you can't compare Italy and Spain to countries which don't have nearly the same lifespan.
People already pointed out that you're confusing life expectancy with population age structure. You can have a country with very high child mortality rate where people who do survive live to an old age.
|
On March 15 2020 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2020 20:41 SC-Shield wrote:On March 15 2020 17:52 opterown wrote:
Let's look at Italy - 1.4k deaths over about 2 weeks - and continuing to increase! If we are optimistic and assume that this stays stable - that's over 35,000 deaths in a year, for a population of 60 million. Extrapolate this to over 7 billion people and you have over 4 million people dead in one year. You can't base your world estimate based on Italy and Spain. People there live up to ~84 years on average, while people in Sierra Leone live up to 52 years on average. See, you could have more old people in one country and much less in another. Coronavirus is effective against 65+ year old people if we exclude other factors such as underlying health conditions, so you can't compare Italy and Spain to countries which don't have nearly the same lifespan. People already pointed out that you're confusing life expectancy with population age structure. You can have a country with very high child mortality rate where people who do survive live to an old age.
Well, no. If you have high mortality rate, you can't have long lifespan by definition. Let's take extreme numbers to make this easy to understand.
If 50% of population dies at age 10 (high child mortality rate), then other 50% die at age 80. Then, average lifespan is 45 years if my math is right. I see some sophisticated formulas on internet, so maybe this is wrong but you get the idea.
I think what you meant was you could have long lifespan, but births/year outnumber retirements/year for you to counter my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
