|
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. |
|
|
The virus can and has damaged the lungs of the infected, though this seems limited to the severe cases. There will absolutely be many people who need lifetime respiratory assistance because of this.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 16 2020 20:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. 11 isnt double 7. also, coronavirus is definitely a problem but i think the biggest issue is whether the responses of many governments to this situation is appropriate and proportionate. obviously speaking in hindsight, we can say italy and a bunch of other western countries fucked up and should have taken many prevention measures earlier. however i dont think its reasonable that everyone thinks its an acceptable response to straight up shut down local and global economies in order to combat this. instead of thinking of this as a disease, if we approached this pandemic as we did other natural disasters, you would not see the same kind of response. many countries are repeat victims of specific kinds of natural disasters and you dont see entire countries or even the globe tank their economies in order to deal with damage, or even to set up preventative measures. at the moment this is looking like the "trolley problem" in reverse. time will tell what the impacts are of this economic disaster but the governments may well be pressing the switch to actually end up killing 5, rather than the 1.
Double as in - previously there were 7 deaths per 100,000 per week due to respiratory disease. Now there's the background 7 + 11 more from COVID, since COVID is a respiratory disease as well = more than double previously (7 vs. 18).
And yes, time will tell how things are going. Australia's not looking crash hot currently although we are doing a pretty decent number of tests.
|
On March 16 2020 21:03 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 20:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. 11 isnt double 7. also, coronavirus is definitely a problem but i think the biggest issue is whether the responses of many governments to this situation is appropriate and proportionate. obviously speaking in hindsight, we can say italy and a bunch of other western countries fucked up and should have taken many prevention measures earlier. however i dont think its reasonable that everyone thinks its an acceptable response to straight up shut down local and global economies in order to combat this. instead of thinking of this as a disease, if we approached this pandemic as we did other natural disasters, you would not see the same kind of response. many countries are repeat victims of specific kinds of natural disasters and you dont see entire countries or even the globe tank their economies in order to deal with damage, or even to set up preventative measures. at the moment this is looking like the "trolley problem" in reverse. time will tell what the impacts are of this economic disaster but the governments may well be pressing the switch to actually end up killing 5, rather than the 1. Double as in - previously there were 7 deaths per 100,000 per week due to respiratory disease. Now there's the background 7 + 11 more from COVID, since COVID is a respiratory disease as well = more than double previously (7 vs. 18). And yes, time will tell how things are going. Australia's not looking crash hot currently although we are doing a pretty decent number of tests.
relatively speaking yes, australia is looking better than other countries in management of the virus. objectively speaking though, plenty of damage has already been done. i can only feel for the other countries that have actually gone into nationwide lockdown.
|
Norway28909 Posts
On March 16 2020 17:23 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Again, infection rates are exponential and the incubation time means there could be several weeks before you see the true extent of how serious it is. Italy's current deathrate reflects the people who got infected somewhere between 1-3 weeks ago. Even if the lockdown was fully effective, which I doubt, it's going to continue to worsen for a several more weeks before improving.
You still don't explain why the amount of serious cases has been so staple for the last few weeks, despite the constant fear of overburdening the hospitals. How do you explain this kind of reaction when the status in Norway is 38 in hospital and 3 dead out of more than 1000 infected in Norway? Show nested quote +2. That's also not for the graph to explain. Go check your local health authority for what they recommend. In lieu of that, just wash your hands, don't touch your face and avoid big groups of people for a while. That is fine, but many countries go WAY further than that! Show nested quote +I have to ask, what's in it for you to downplay the severity of it when hundreds of people are dying every day, and tens of thousands more are getting infected. Because elderly die from respiratory illnesses ALL THE TIME, it is just not reported or made a big fuss about. In Europe, it is the 2nd most common cause of death amonge people 65+. We should all know it could be a big deal when great grandma sneezes.
So now we have 1300 cases (prolly a lot more) and 38 needing critical care, those are surviving because they are getting that critical care, and currently, we're able to provide it.
But let's just do some quick math.
1300 cases is 0.026% out of the Norwegian population, and 38 is roughly 3% of 1300. FHI has been stating that 40-70% of the population might get infected throughout the year. 40% is slightly above 2 million, if you assume that the same % need hospitalization, you get 60000 people needing intensive care in hospitals. If you assume a 6 month duration of infection, a flattened curve, and 1 week periods of hospitalization (I don't know whether this is accurate, but this is just armchair math), then that 60000 group gets divided into groups of 2500 people. Norway currently has room for 1400 (source, so even with a flattened curve over a 6 month period, we'd be looking at about 26000 out of those 60000 not getting the intensive care they need, and very many of those 26k dying.
Say we limit the spread to 20% of the population with a totally flat curve over those 6 months - suddenly we're able to provide care to all of them, and we end up with an incredibly low mortality rate.
Say 40% get sick during the same month - and suddenly we're looking at 55000 not getting the care they need - and overall mortality rates going above 2%.
The different outcomes vary greatly depending on how fast and wide the disease spreads, and how fast it spreads depends on people adhering to social distancing suggestions.
|
On March 16 2020 21:03 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 20:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. 11 isnt double 7. also, coronavirus is definitely a problem but i think the biggest issue is whether the responses of many governments to this situation is appropriate and proportionate. obviously speaking in hindsight, we can say italy and a bunch of other western countries fucked up and should have taken many prevention measures earlier. however i dont think its reasonable that everyone thinks its an acceptable response to straight up shut down local and global economies in order to combat this. instead of thinking of this as a disease, if we approached this pandemic as we did other natural disasters, you would not see the same kind of response. many countries are repeat victims of specific kinds of natural disasters and you dont see entire countries or even the globe tank their economies in order to deal with damage, or even to set up preventative measures. at the moment this is looking like the "trolley problem" in reverse. time will tell what the impacts are of this economic disaster but the governments may well be pressing the switch to actually end up killing 5, rather than the 1. Double as in - previously there were 7 deaths per 100,000 per week due to respiratory disease. Now there's the background 7 + 11 more from COVID, since COVID is a respiratory disease as well = more than double previously (7 vs. 18). And yes, time will tell how things are going. Australia's not looking crash hot currently although we are doing a pretty decent number of tests.
One stat I've seen that did concern me is that we have less ICU beds per capita than eg. Italy, and less than half that of Germany, Korea etc.
Obviously, this is just one factor; the US is on top of that stat and it's pretty clear things aren't fine there. It does worry me, though. I had thought we'd be higher up the table. Our curve will need to be flatter as a result, and I don't see a lot suggesting this will be the case.
Source is a panic piece in the AFR and some of the data seems to be old, so I would love it to be wrong, but still.
|
On March 16 2020 21:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 21:03 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 20:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. 11 isnt double 7. also, coronavirus is definitely a problem but i think the biggest issue is whether the responses of many governments to this situation is appropriate and proportionate. obviously speaking in hindsight, we can say italy and a bunch of other western countries fucked up and should have taken many prevention measures earlier. however i dont think its reasonable that everyone thinks its an acceptable response to straight up shut down local and global economies in order to combat this. instead of thinking of this as a disease, if we approached this pandemic as we did other natural disasters, you would not see the same kind of response. many countries are repeat victims of specific kinds of natural disasters and you dont see entire countries or even the globe tank their economies in order to deal with damage, or even to set up preventative measures. at the moment this is looking like the "trolley problem" in reverse. time will tell what the impacts are of this economic disaster but the governments may well be pressing the switch to actually end up killing 5, rather than the 1. Double as in - previously there were 7 deaths per 100,000 per week due to respiratory disease. Now there's the background 7 + 11 more from COVID, since COVID is a respiratory disease as well = more than double previously (7 vs. 18). And yes, time will tell how things are going. Australia's not looking crash hot currently although we are doing a pretty decent number of tests. relatively speaking yes, australia is looking better than other countries in management of the virus. objectively speaking though, plenty of damage has already been done. i can only feel for the other countries that have actually gone into nationwide lockdown.
I have the sinking feeling since the CDC put out the recommendation for no gatherings of more than 50 that we're rapidly approaching the point where the US will have to decide between using police and national guard troops to implement martial law under Trump (to enforce such recommendations) or simply throw up our hands and just accept a massive loss of life in exchange for keeping the economy limping along.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 16 2020 21:17 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 21:03 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 20:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. 11 isnt double 7. also, coronavirus is definitely a problem but i think the biggest issue is whether the responses of many governments to this situation is appropriate and proportionate. obviously speaking in hindsight, we can say italy and a bunch of other western countries fucked up and should have taken many prevention measures earlier. however i dont think its reasonable that everyone thinks its an acceptable response to straight up shut down local and global economies in order to combat this. instead of thinking of this as a disease, if we approached this pandemic as we did other natural disasters, you would not see the same kind of response. many countries are repeat victims of specific kinds of natural disasters and you dont see entire countries or even the globe tank their economies in order to deal with damage, or even to set up preventative measures. at the moment this is looking like the "trolley problem" in reverse. time will tell what the impacts are of this economic disaster but the governments may well be pressing the switch to actually end up killing 5, rather than the 1. Double as in - previously there were 7 deaths per 100,000 per week due to respiratory disease. Now there's the background 7 + 11 more from COVID, since COVID is a respiratory disease as well = more than double previously (7 vs. 18). And yes, time will tell how things are going. Australia's not looking crash hot currently although we are doing a pretty decent number of tests. One stat I've seen that did concern me is that we have less ICU beds per capita than eg. Italy, and less than half that of Germany, Korea etc. Obviously, this is just one factor; the US is on top of that stat and it's pretty clear things aren't fine. It does worry me, though. I had thought we'd be higher up the table. Our curve will need to be flatter as a result, and I don't see a lot suggesting this will be the case. Source is a panic piece in the AFR and some of the data seems to be old, so I would love it to be wrong, but still.
I"m not a subscriber, but quick maths/google seems to give me a figure of about 8 bed per 100,000 (far less than US with 35, and Italy with 12, etc). This is certainly a concern; our ICU staffing and equipment is suspect as well. My main hope is that we delay things enough such that we can make use of preliminary data on treatments. It's not going to look good come winter. I don't think we'll be building any 1000-bed hospitals in 10 days anytime soon.
|
I'm not either, but I've found incognito mode works if you google the title and click through from the hit.
They're giving 8.9 for Aus and 11.9 for Italy so that seems about right. Winter is coming, for sure.
EDIT: below is a good question that I don't know the answer to
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 16 2020 21:17 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 21:03 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 20:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. 11 isnt double 7. also, coronavirus is definitely a problem but i think the biggest issue is whether the responses of many governments to this situation is appropriate and proportionate. obviously speaking in hindsight, we can say italy and a bunch of other western countries fucked up and should have taken many prevention measures earlier. however i dont think its reasonable that everyone thinks its an acceptable response to straight up shut down local and global economies in order to combat this. instead of thinking of this as a disease, if we approached this pandemic as we did other natural disasters, you would not see the same kind of response. many countries are repeat victims of specific kinds of natural disasters and you dont see entire countries or even the globe tank their economies in order to deal with damage, or even to set up preventative measures. at the moment this is looking like the "trolley problem" in reverse. time will tell what the impacts are of this economic disaster but the governments may well be pressing the switch to actually end up killing 5, rather than the 1. Double as in - previously there were 7 deaths per 100,000 per week due to respiratory disease. Now there's the background 7 + 11 more from COVID, since COVID is a respiratory disease as well = more than double previously (7 vs. 18). And yes, time will tell how things are going. Australia's not looking crash hot currently although we are doing a pretty decent number of tests. One stat I've seen that did concern me is that we have less ICU beds per capita than eg. Italy, and less than half that of Germany, Korea etc. Obviously, this is just one factor; the US is on top of that stat and it's pretty clear things aren't fine there. It does worry me, though. I had thought we'd be higher up the table. Our curve will need to be flatter as a result, and I don't see a lot suggesting this will be the case. Source is a panic piece in the AFR and some of the data seems to be old, so I would love it to be wrong, but still.
Isn't there a difference between a fully ICU bed and a bed with a ventilator? The last information I have(and from various sources) is that we have 3 600 lung ventilators available in the CZE, 60 % of them are currently taken. I don't think all of them are ICU beds.
|
Since there is so much talk about whether or not shutdowns are needed here is a good illustration of its effects.
For reference, Lodi and Bergamo are 2 town in Northern Italy about 45km apart.
|
On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect.
No, you are doing it wrong, 11 is not the double of 7, and certainly not "multiplied several times over." 384 per 100k is also the average over the year in all of EU, and does not account for outbreaks of viral and other infections in specific countries. Previous flus have killed waaaay more people than Covid in short amounts of time. The history of Covid in China should show us that the epidemy will go downward soon.
Norway is also interesting because their healthcare system is currently pretty strained. Could you guess why? Certainly not by 38 people in hospitals, but rather 1000s of healthcare workers in quarantine...
Politicians are obviously very afraid of worst case scenarios, but easing unnecessary precautions will be very difficult once they are in place. When Covid was mostly in China, we were well informed that there is no reason to panic, and that the virus is indeed not very dangerous for the vast majority of us.
When it is all said and done, I would not be surprised if the total cost of this pandemic would be enough to build a nice hospital for each dead person.
|
Everything in my section of the USA is starting to get shut down (DC, Maryland, Virginia) so now I get to figure out how to teach 5 year olds to read via the internet, fun times.
Probably hasn't been shut down fast enough. Apparently the bars were packed this weekend, and from what I've heard that's exactly what people were doing in Italy right before everything went down the toilet.
|
On March 16 2020 21:58 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. No, you are doing it wrong, 11 is not the double of 7, and certainly not "multiplied several times over." 384 per 100k is also the average over the year in all of EU, and does not account for outbreaks of viral and other infections in specific countries. Previous flus have killed waaaay more people than Covid in short amounts of time. The history of Covid in China should show us that the epidemy will go downward soon. Norway is also interesting because their healthcare system is currently pretty strained. Could you guess why? Certainly not by 38 people in hospitals, but rather 1000s of healthcare workers in quarantine... Politicians are obviously very afraid of worst case scenarios, but easing unnecessary precautions will be very difficult once they are in place. When Covid was mostly in China, we were well informed that there is no reason to panic, and that the virus is indeed not very dangerous for the vast majority of us. When it is all said and done, I would not be surprised if the total cost of this pandemic would be enough to build a nice hospital for each dead person. How can you bring up the spread slowing down in China as an argument against taking drastic measures when they managed to slow the spread by taking drastic measures Oo
|
On March 16 2020 14:44 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 08:53 Firebolt145 wrote:![[image loading]](https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/sites/consumer/files/2020-03/Coronavirus_flattening_curve_1.jpg) This picture is probably the best way of showing why we prefer people to only enter shops five at a time. I see this "graph" almost everywhere. As the concept seems sensible, there are a number of very big problems with it, and it should never be used to justify that we have to fight this virus with any means possible: -It contains no number nor time indications, but is rather a purely theoretical illustration. When was the last time a graph like that was used to justify important desicions? -It says nothing about which precautions are needed to achieve the desired effect. There is a big difference between washing your hands and arresting the entire population in their homes and shutting down all industry. -It indicates that what we try to avoid is a massive peak where would have needed double the capacity of what we need. It also indicates that we will have the same number of infected no matter which precautions are taken. Is this even close to the truth? As argued earlier, the death toll of the virus should not be a concern, at least not at this point. Acording to this curve from wordometer the number of serious cases globally has been qute stable around 6k since March 7th, as the recovery rate in China is very accurately matching the growth in cases abroad. The number itself also seems very maneageble, even though some areas are hit much harder than others. Most places, the hospitals are nowhere close to being overrun, I read today that only 38 is in hospital in all of Norway, for example. All I have seen is an extremely rapid change of mentality that anything makes sense and is important as long as has "covid" in the motivation, and it scares me! When is the discussion going to start if we are buring the house to get rid of the rut?
Here's an actual example rather than a theoretical one :
|
On March 16 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 21:58 Slydie wrote:On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. No, you are doing it wrong, 11 is not the double of 7, and certainly not "multiplied several times over." 384 per 100k is also the average over the year in all of EU, and does not account for outbreaks of viral and other infections in specific countries. Previous flus have killed waaaay more people than Covid in short amounts of time. The history of Covid in China should show us that the epidemy will go downward soon. Norway is also interesting because their healthcare system is currently pretty strained. Could you guess why? Certainly not by 38 people in hospitals, but rather 1000s of healthcare workers in quarantine... Politicians are obviously very afraid of worst case scenarios, but easing unnecessary precautions will be very difficult once they are in place. When Covid was mostly in China, we were well informed that there is no reason to panic, and that the virus is indeed not very dangerous for the vast majority of us. When it is all said and done, I would not be surprised if the total cost of this pandemic would be enough to build a nice hospital for each dead person. How can you bring up the spread slowing down in China as an argument against taking drastic measures when they managed to slow the spread by taking drastic measures Oo
Drastic measures in an understatement. That said, they had the luxury of locking down a province and have the other provide for it and keep running. You can't lock down an entire country and run out of food, medical supplies and bankrupt the entire world. People taking social distance and washing hands is by far the most cost effective measure.
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 16 2020 22:27 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2020 21:58 Slydie wrote:On March 16 2020 19:44 opterown wrote:On March 16 2020 18:55 Slydie wrote:Critical cases may appear stable since a large proportion die, and that there are only so many ICU beds available for these critical patients.
With the number of new infected detected, that does not explain it. As mentioned, Norway has 39 Corona patients in hospitals and 3 dead out of a bit more than 1000 cases (after vigorous testing.) That does not qualify as a crisis in my book. The situation is similar other places. The elderly die from respiratory illnesses a lot, but COVID increases that many times over. Really, it just sounds like you don't give a shit about the elderly people most affected. It barely increases at all so far, please check the numbers before making arguments like that. Respiratory diseases killed 384 per 100.000 elderly in Europe in 2016, which is the most recent year I found data from. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65&oldid=445493#Frequency_of_the_main_causes_of_death_in_the_EU_for_the_elderly_and_for_younger_peopleYes, it is THAT common. Of course I care about the elderly and vulnerable, but those numbers of deaths need to be seen in the context they belong. So respiratory infections killed 384 per 100,000 elderly in 2016. How much is that in 2 weeks? About 14 per 100,000. With some quick google searching, Italy appears to have ~13.5 million people over 65 years. With ~1800 deaths (mostly in the elderly) over the past two weeks (and climbing quickly), that works out to be about 14 deaths per 100,000 as well. If you narrow the time scale to the past week only, it's 1500 dead = 11 per 100,000 per week versus background rate of 7 per 100,000 per week. So COVID has just come out of nowhere and by itself DOUBLED the background rate of deaths attributable to respiratory infections (which include all sorts of individual cause). It's only getting worse currently - there are no signs of recovery in Italy right now, and the rest of Europe is not far behind. This is also not accounting for the unknown post-infection morbidity that people may incur e.g. permanent lung damage. It's also not accounting for all the critical non-dead cases that are using up valuable resources in the ICU, etc. Imagine if suddenly all deaths due to cancer suddenly doubled, or all deaths secondary to heart attacks doubled. Imagine if car accident fatalities suddenly doubled out of nowhere. There would certainly be a lot of uproar about that too. You can throw whatever stats you want around but at the end of the day I don't think you have the right perspective on the situation, and you're doubling down when people have shown you to be incorrect. No, you are doing it wrong, 11 is not the double of 7, and certainly not "multiplied several times over." 384 per 100k is also the average over the year in all of EU, and does not account for outbreaks of viral and other infections in specific countries. Previous flus have killed waaaay more people than Covid in short amounts of time. The history of Covid in China should show us that the epidemy will go downward soon. Norway is also interesting because their healthcare system is currently pretty strained. Could you guess why? Certainly not by 38 people in hospitals, but rather 1000s of healthcare workers in quarantine... Politicians are obviously very afraid of worst case scenarios, but easing unnecessary precautions will be very difficult once they are in place. When Covid was mostly in China, we were well informed that there is no reason to panic, and that the virus is indeed not very dangerous for the vast majority of us. When it is all said and done, I would not be surprised if the total cost of this pandemic would be enough to build a nice hospital for each dead person. How can you bring up the spread slowing down in China as an argument against taking drastic measures when they managed to slow the spread by taking drastic measures Oo Drastic measures in an understatement. That said, they had the luxury of locking down a province and have the other provide for it and keep running. You can't lock down an entire country and run out of food, medical supplies and bankrupt the entire world. People taking social distance and washing hands is by far the most cost effective measure.
People going - fuck you, we don't care - is the issue. We had 20k people returning from the ski trips in Italy. 1 700 of them reported themselves and were locked into home quarantine. Let. That. Sink.
|
On March 16 2020 22:04 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 14:44 Slydie wrote:On March 16 2020 08:53 Firebolt145 wrote:This picture is probably the best way of showing why we prefer people to only enter shops five at a time. I see this "graph" almost everywhere. As the concept seems sensible, there are a number of very big problems with it, and it should never be used to justify that we have to fight this virus with any means possible: -It contains no number nor time indications, but is rather a purely theoretical illustration. When was the last time a graph like that was used to justify important desicions? -It says nothing about which precautions are needed to achieve the desired effect. There is a big difference between washing your hands and arresting the entire population in their homes and shutting down all industry. -It indicates that what we try to avoid is a massive peak where would have needed double the capacity of what we need. It also indicates that we will have the same number of infected no matter which precautions are taken. Is this even close to the truth? As argued earlier, the death toll of the virus should not be a concern, at least not at this point. Acording to this curve from wordometer the number of serious cases globally has been qute stable around 6k since March 7th, as the recovery rate in China is very accurately matching the growth in cases abroad. The number itself also seems very maneageble, even though some areas are hit much harder than others. Most places, the hospitals are nowhere close to being overrun, I read today that only 38 is in hospital in all of Norway, for example. All I have seen is an extremely rapid change of mentality that anything makes sense and is important as long as has "covid" in the motivation, and it scares me! When is the discussion going to start if we are buring the house to get rid of the rut? Here's an actual example rather than a theoretical one : https://twitter.com/GovMikeDeWine/status/1239275262346395651
Thanks, but that was 100 years ago, how relevant that might be now, and it does not include putting the entire country in quarentine, shutting down most commercial and social life and travel bans.
However, how the different countries have responded to Covid t different times and its impacts should be an important field of study for decades to come.
|
On March 16 2020 23:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 16 2020 14:44 Slydie wrote:On March 16 2020 08:53 Firebolt145 wrote:This picture is probably the best way of showing why we prefer people to only enter shops five at a time. I see this "graph" almost everywhere. As the concept seems sensible, there are a number of very big problems with it, and it should never be used to justify that we have to fight this virus with any means possible: -It contains no number nor time indications, but is rather a purely theoretical illustration. When was the last time a graph like that was used to justify important desicions? -It says nothing about which precautions are needed to achieve the desired effect. There is a big difference between washing your hands and arresting the entire population in their homes and shutting down all industry. -It indicates that what we try to avoid is a massive peak where would have needed double the capacity of what we need. It also indicates that we will have the same number of infected no matter which precautions are taken. Is this even close to the truth? As argued earlier, the death toll of the virus should not be a concern, at least not at this point. Acording to this curve from wordometer the number of serious cases globally has been qute stable around 6k since March 7th, as the recovery rate in China is very accurately matching the growth in cases abroad. The number itself also seems very maneageble, even though some areas are hit much harder than others. Most places, the hospitals are nowhere close to being overrun, I read today that only 38 is in hospital in all of Norway, for example. All I have seen is an extremely rapid change of mentality that anything makes sense and is important as long as has "covid" in the motivation, and it scares me! When is the discussion going to start if we are buring the house to get rid of the rut? Here's an actual example rather than a theoretical one : https://twitter.com/GovMikeDeWine/status/1239275262346395651 Thanks, but that was 100 years ago, how relevant that might be now, and it does not include putting the entire country in quarentine, shutting down most commercial and social life and travel bans. However, how the different countries have responded to Covid t different times and its impacts should be an important field of study for decades to come. Present day example between quarantining early vs late.
https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1239239417715396609
|
On March 16 2020 23:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 16 2020 14:44 Slydie wrote:On March 16 2020 08:53 Firebolt145 wrote:This picture is probably the best way of showing why we prefer people to only enter shops five at a time. I see this "graph" almost everywhere. As the concept seems sensible, there are a number of very big problems with it, and it should never be used to justify that we have to fight this virus with any means possible: -It contains no number nor time indications, but is rather a purely theoretical illustration. When was the last time a graph like that was used to justify important desicions? -It says nothing about which precautions are needed to achieve the desired effect. There is a big difference between washing your hands and arresting the entire population in their homes and shutting down all industry. -It indicates that what we try to avoid is a massive peak where would have needed double the capacity of what we need. It also indicates that we will have the same number of infected no matter which precautions are taken. Is this even close to the truth? As argued earlier, the death toll of the virus should not be a concern, at least not at this point. Acording to this curve from wordometer the number of serious cases globally has been qute stable around 6k since March 7th, as the recovery rate in China is very accurately matching the growth in cases abroad. The number itself also seems very maneageble, even though some areas are hit much harder than others. Most places, the hospitals are nowhere close to being overrun, I read today that only 38 is in hospital in all of Norway, for example. All I have seen is an extremely rapid change of mentality that anything makes sense and is important as long as has "covid" in the motivation, and it scares me! When is the discussion going to start if we are buring the house to get rid of the rut? Here's an actual example rather than a theoretical one : https://twitter.com/GovMikeDeWine/status/1239275262346395651 Thanks, but that was 100 years ago, how relevant that might be now, and it does not include putting the entire country in quarentine, shutting down most commercial and social life and travel bans. However, how the different countries have responded to Covid t different times and its impacts should be an important field of study for decades to come.
You continuously ignore people poinitng out that you claim "drastic measures" are an overreaction, but only use "worst case" estimates from China, which took FAR more drastic measures than European nations have so far done.
As for whether the 1918 flu data is useful for spreading out the curve? If you don't believe that, just scroll up a few posts and see Lodi vs Bergamo during the current Covid crisis. Exact same shapes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
