COVID-19 - Links, Discussion,

[sonuvazag]

Hey Reno. Regarding your last two posts in this thread.

I get that people want to be safe. But, at what cost?

The idea of flattening the curve was to prevent hospitals from being overrun. That has proven to never be in danger. We have gone from an estimated two million deaths to a figure that looks to max out at 60k. If you look at CDC statistics, overall deaths in this country on a week to week basis are almost identical for the past five years. And yet, because of bad models, panicked media and politicians we have caused unbelievable damage to our economy. Worse than that, we have given up our freedom and essentially done nothing to make ourselves safer. The virus will still run it’s course regardless, shelter in place or not.

Eventually we will have to start living again. If we are fearful of enjoying our lives, then what’s the point? If we are going to track everybody and make them out to be outcasts we will have given up a large part of our humanity. There is real danger in having suspicions of everyone you come in contact with.

People with high risk should use common sense and avoid dangerous situations. I get that. Those are the people that should take extra precautions and they are the folks we should have focused on. The rest of us need to go about our daily lives. Are there outliers? Of course. Are there risks? Absolutely. Life is full of risks. But, if we live our lives in fear, what kind of life is that? There will be more viruses. Are we willing to allow the government to tell us what we can wear, where we can worship, who we should associate with, where we can eat, what places we can visit, how we are allowed to get from here to there,etc.?

The Google thing is a really bad idea.

I believe if we give up doing the things we like to do because of an over abundance of caution, life won’t be worth living anyway.

I know there are people that feel differently. This is just my opinion.

God Bless. Mark.

Kind of weird to see this counterfactual that we proved we didn't need the interventions, something that could only be known had we not implemented them and had an acceptable outcome. Since we only have the reality where we did intervene, what we know for sure is that our interventions were either not needed or a successful deterrent from a rash of hellish outcomes that has happened in some regions around the world. (And I guess we just don't count New York).

I don't believe it's been conclusively proven either way and, without knowing the level of immunity we have collectively achieved, I'm not certain we are past the worst of it.

[willandi]

[sonuvazag]

If you look at CDC statistics, overall deaths in this country on a week to week basis are almost identical for the past five years.

There are so much data produced by the CDC, I would like to see your link for this claim if you can provide it. Regardless of its truth, it doesn't appear to be true for a region that is hit hard by COVID-19. Here is a chart of the mortality by month in New York City:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...york-city.html

They have never in the last 20 years had more deaths in a month, including 911. AND THEY HAVE BEEN SOCIAL DISTANCING FOR OVER A MONTH which means there is the very real potential this could have been even worse for them without interventions. We don't know.

What seems likely to me is that what has happened to New York was because its population density made the rate of reproduction so high, the virus got around before the city's interventions could prevent the chaos. But it seems like the same chaos can still potentially happen in other regions in the US on a different timeline.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Ironically, the likely reason the numbers may be "on par", which until I see the data I am not 100% buying, is because deaths from auto accidents, especially in urban areas, has been more than halved.

[Markburn1]

On the CDC’s Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality Surveillance portal you can see the number of deaths each week, for the past six years, due to flu and pneumonia. One of their graphs shows the percent of all deaths caused by flu and pneumonia.

The other interesting feature is that you can download the number of deaths, from all causes, by week from the same time period. That feature makes for some interesting reading.

The above is from a friend of mine. Go to Fluview on CDC website.

The number of deaths are consistent week to week over a five year span.

But, if that is all you are focusing on from my previous post, you really missed the point.

I will not carry an identifier. I will not be tracked. I will live life to the fullest and manage my own risk. Just as others that are more at risk should manage theirs.

[sonuvazag]

On the CDC’s Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality Surveillance portal you can see the number of deaths each week, for the past six years, due to flu and pneumonia. One of their graphs shows the percent of all deaths caused by flu and pneumonia.

The other interesting feature is that you can download the number of deaths, from all causes, by week from the same time period. That feature makes for some interesting reading.

The above is from a friend of mine. Go to Fluview on CDC website.

The number of deaths are consistent week to week over a five year span.

But, if that is all you are focusing on from my previous post, you really missed the point.

I will not carry an identifier. I will not be tracked. I will live life to the fullest and manage my own risk. Just as others that are more at risk should manage theirs.

I enjoy data, especially if it can potentially change my understanding of something so I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction.

As for your desire to live to the fullest and free of tracking, OK then.

For those who know this is your point of view, you'll be seen as someone who has a higher risk of being a disease vector. So your choice will have both upside and downside, which I already trust you understand. I don't know what else you really expect anyone to say.

[LongIslandZagFan]

On the CDC’s Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality Surveillance portal you can see the number of deaths each week, for the past six years, due to flu and pneumonia. One of their graphs shows the percent of all deaths caused by flu and pneumonia.

The other interesting feature is that you can download the number of deaths, from all causes, by week from the same time period. That feature makes for some interesting reading.

The above is from a friend of mine. Go to Fluview on CDC website.

The number of deaths are consistent week to week over a five year span.

But, if that is all you are focusing on from my previous post, you really missed the point.

I will not carry an identifier. I will not be tracked. I will live life to the fullest and manage my own risk. Just as others that are more at risk should manage theirs.

Appreciate your viewpoint... but assume you understand the threat you pose to others, which could be deadly to them, with your personal choices and also understand that by your actions it may put them at risk without their knowledge or consent, and act accordingly.

[Markburn1]

Let me address my risk to others.

What is the goal now? Let’s stipulate that lockdowns succeeded in flattening the curve. I have my doubts but let’s go with that. That process was never going to eliminate the virus and wasn’t intended to do so. Essentially we stretched out the progress of the virus. So now, everyone is a potential vector until we build herd immunity. If the goal is to eliminate the chance of being infected, how long will you be willing to shelter? The chances of an effective vaccine appearing are pretty slim. Epidemiologists have been working on these types of viruses for decades to find one. The flu still claims tens of thousands of lives in America every year with a vaccine.

Let’s say we both show up at the grocery store at the same time. You know me and avoid me. Which of the dozens of other people pose a risk? Are you going to check their government approved card? How long has it been since that person has been checked? Should everyone be forced to be checked every two weeks? What if they were exposed between checks? Point is, everyone is a potential vector.

I certainly won’t visit my mother in her assisted living home. Those people are at high risk. My elderly neighbors with underlying health issues stay at home and let my wife shop for them or let her wipe down the home deliveries before they take them inside. Those types of people are managing their risk differently than I and rightly so. Just as they should even with the flu.

When are we going to stop taking the “ experts” predictions at face value? The IHME report that caused the initial panic was off by orders of magnitude. It factored in shelter in place and predicted over 2.2 million deaths. Each time we get close to opening back up we are told the danger is still too great and we acquiesce for another two weeks. When will we be willing to live instead of being afraid to die?

I wish you all good health. I wish this type of disease didn’t happen. The reality is that it will always exist in one form or another. It has to be managed surgically instead of shutting down the whole society.

[former1dog]

Let me address my risk to others.

What is the goal now? Let’s stipulate that lockdowns succeeded in flattening the curve. I have my doubts but let’s go with that. That process was never going to eliminate the virus and wasn’t intended to do so. Essentially we stretched out the progress of the virus. So now, everyone is a potential vector until we build herd immunity. If the goal is to eliminate the chance of being infected, how long will you be willing to shelter? The chances of an effective vaccine appearing are pretty slim. Epidemiologists have been working on these types of viruses for decades to find one. The flu still claims tens of thousands of lives in America every year with a vaccine.

Let’s say we both show up at the grocery store at the same time. You know me and avoid me. Which of the dozens of other people pose a risk? Are you going to check their government approved card? How long has it been since that person has been checked? Should everyone be forced to be checked every two weeks? What if they were exposed between checks? Point is, everyone is a potential vector.

I certainly won’t visit my mother in her assisted living home. Those people are at high risk. My elderly neighbors with underlying health issues stay at home and let my wife shop for them or let her wipe down the home deliveries before they take them inside. Those types of people are managing their risk differently than I and rightly so. Just as they should even with the flu.

When are we going to stop taking the “ experts” predictions at face value? The IHME report that caused the initial panic was off by orders of magnitude. It factored in shelter in place and predicted over 2.2 million deaths. Each time we get close to opening back up we are told the danger is still too great and we acquiesce for another two weeks. When will we be willing to live instead of being afraid to die?

I wish you all good health. I wish this type of disease didn’t happen. The reality is that it will always exist in one form or another. It has to be managed surgically instead of shutting down the whole society.

Well stated. The social contract we all have lived under is rife with risk, but because there is a new virus, we forget that.

Studies in Santa Clara county, amongst a growing number of others, will I believe eventually show that this virus, with no vaccine, has a mortality rate similar to that of the flu, which does have a vaccine.

We have forever lived with the risk of communicable disease and a hundred other factors in our daily lives that can kill us.

Unfortunately for economy and the millions who will now deal with distress, depression, increased rates of suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence and all the other issue that will come as a result of the shutdown, I firmly believe that the cure is going to be much worse than the disease.

Let me admit, I don't know what the alternative would have been to flatten the curve, so to speak, but I do believe a more thoughtful, nuanced approach can be found for the next time the world is presented with a crisis like this.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Well stated. The social contract we all have lived under is rife with risk, but because there is a new virus, we forget that.

Studies in Santa Clara county, amongst a growing number of others, will I believe eventually show that this virus, with no vaccine, has a mortality rate similar to that of the flu, which does have a vaccine.

We have forever lived with the risk of communicable disease and a hundred other factors in our daily lives that can kill us.

Unfortunately for economy and the millions who will now deal with distress, depression, increased rates of suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence and all the other issue that will come as a result of the shutdown, I firmly believe that the cure is going to be much worse than the disease.

Let me admit, I don't know what the alternative would have been to flatten the curve, so to speak, but I do believe a more thoughtful, nuanced approach can be found for the next time the world is presented with a crisis like this.

Estimates for the flu run about 1/10th of 1% of a mortality... unless a vast majority of people are 100% symptomless... I don't see the numbers ever getting that low, especially considering the case to mortality rate right now is hovering around 7%. That being said... on average about 500-600K people die from the flu yearly. This virus has killed almost 1/3 of that number... in 2.5 months.

For the record, Sweden is an example of "surgically shutting down" and their death rate from this is 10x higher than similar countries around them.

Speaking as someone with friends on the front lines, with a wife who has had 5-6 students with parents or grandparents dying from this just in the last 2-3 weeks.. NY/LI was an exact example of NOT flattening the curve fast enough. Systems got 100% overwhelmed. Sadly, the next experiment if going to be Georgia... expect deaths to skyrocket and their health system to be overwhelmed. The showed up to the party late and are leaving early and it is likely not going to end well for them. I don't know the calculus it took to decide to open everything up when you literally had the most people from your state die the same day. I really don't get it.

Better question would be this... Do you think it will help the economy when we end up right back where we are now in 3-6 months... likely at a much worse level? The 1918 flu is a primer on what not to do.... but history is repeating itself it seems.

[sonuvazag]

Well stated. The social contract we all have lived under is rife with risk, but because there is a new virus, we forget that.

Studies in Santa Clara county, amongst a growing number of others, will I believe eventually show that this virus, with no vaccine, has a mortality rate similar to that of the flu, which does have a vaccine.

We have forever lived with the risk of communicable disease and a hundred other factors in our daily lives that can kill us.

Unfortunately for economy and the millions who will now deal with distress, depression, increased rates of suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence and all the other issue that will come as a result of the shutdown, I firmly believe that the cure is going to be much worse than the disease.

Let me admit, I don't know what the alternative would have been to flatten the curve, so to speak, but I do believe a more thoughtful, nuanced approach can be found for the next time the world is presented with a crisis like this.

So, I'm curious if there is a hypothetical infection fatality rate where you and Markburn would say, "No, the contagion is actually too deadly for my community to go about business as usual."

[former1dog]

https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/20/l-...nfection-rate/

A new study conducted by the University of Southern California along with the LA County Department of Public Health indicates the presence of antibodies for COVID-19 in between 2.8 and 5.6% of the population of LA County, suggesting that between 221,000 and 442,000 individuals had the infection — up to 55 times more people than have been confirmed via testing.

https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...by-coronavirus

The number of coronavirus infections in Santa Clara County could be between 50 and 80 times higher than the officially confirmed count, preliminary results from a community-based study by a team of Stanford University researchers indicates.

Based on these studies, the infection rate is 50 to 80 times higher. For arguments sake, lets just say its half of that, or 25 times more widespread than what is being reported.


So the equation would be: (Numbers are for US cases)

Mortality Rate = Total Deaths / Total Infected(25)

.2 % = 44752/811,478(25) Rate if infection studies are off by half
.1% = 44752/811,478(50) Rate at the low end of the infection studies
.07 % = 44752/811,478(80) Rate at the high end of the infection studies


Taking into account the lack of a vaccine and the lack of any herd immunity, I would say there is a chance that Covid 19 will ultimately have a lower mortality than the flu.

[LongIslandZagFan]

https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/20/l-...nfection-rate/



https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...by-coronavirus



Based on these studies, the infection rate is 50 to 80 times higher. For arguments sake, lets just say its half of that, or 25 times more widespread than what is being reported.


So the equation would be: (Numbers are for US cases)

Mortality Rate = Total Deaths / Total Infected(25)

.2 % = 44752/811,478(25) Rate if infection studies are off by half
.1% = 44752/811,478(50) Rate at the low end of the infection studies
.07 % = 44752/811,478(80) Rate at the high end of the infection studies


Taking into account the lack of a vaccine and the lack of any herd immunity, I would say there is a chance that Covid 19 will ultimately have a lower mortality than the flu.

Perhaps, but I think that is wishful thinking. I'll personally wait for two things:

a) A proven anti-body test that doesn't have a 10+% false positive rate
b) studies verifying that having it in the past equals immunity.

Neither thing is there yet.

Also, if what your saying is truly the case... show me one flu year where the seasonal flu overwhelmed the entire health system of major cities. Show me one flu season in the last 50 years that would leave anywhere from 20-50 people dead in a nursing home... all over the place.

[former1dog]

So, I'm curious if there is a hypothetical infection fatalaty rate where you and Markburn would say, "No, the contagion is actually too deadly for my community to go about business as usual."

We all walk around on a daily basis with all kinds of risks. Right now, I'm following the advice of my local health officials. I try to be a good citizen.

That doesn't mean the decision I made to follow that advice will ultimately play out to be wise. Nor does it mean the advice I followed was wise either.

I would speculate that if it turns out that the mortality rate is ultimately less than 3 % for Utah, I would say the measures that have been taken in my state were more harmful than good.

We, as a society, prior to this outbreak played russian roulette on a daily basis. Not many people were sheltered in place from all the inherent risks.

Let me turn the tables and as you the same?

[sonuvazag]

https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/20/l-...nfection-rate/



https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...by-coronavirus



Based on these studies, the infection rate is 50 to 80 times higher. For arguments sake, lets just say its half of that, or 25 times more widespread than what is being reported.


So the equation would be: (Numbers are for US cases)

Mortality Rate = Total Deaths / Total Infected(25)

.2 % = 44752/811,478(25) Rate if infection studies are off by half
.1% = 44752/811,478(50) Rate at the low end of the infection studies
.07 % = 44752/811,478(80) Rate at the high end of the infection studies


Taking into account the lack of a vaccine and the lack of any herd immunity, I would say there is a chance that Covid 19 will ultimately have a lower mortality than the flu.

I'm aware of these studies. I'm also aware that 1.4% of Nembro's total population died in a three-month period compared to the 0.3% that typically died in the same timeframe. For the time being, the Nembro statistics are a lived phenomenon that I'm not yet willing to dismiss in light of these serology tests have yet to stand up to scrutiny.

All that aside, I asked the question hypothetically. Is there a IFR where you'd say it's too deadly or is it pointless to think there's a possible reality where you'd agree it's wise to shelter in place?

[former1dog]

Perhaps, but I think that is wishful thinking. I'll personally wait for two things:

a) A proven anti-body test that doesn't have a 10+% false positive rate
b) studies verifying that having it in the past equals immunity.

Neither thing is there yet.

Also, if what your saying is truly the case... show me one flu year where the seasonal flu overwhelmed the entire health system of major cities. Show me one flu season in the last 50 years that would leave anywhere from 20-50 people dead in a nursing home... all over the place.

LIZ,

I'll ask you to kindly remember that I didn't/am not arguing that no measures were necessary. I'm arguing that it is LIKELY we're going to find out the measures we have taken are more damaging than the virus.

Nuance takes creative thought. It is likely that all the measures taken in New York were probably necessary. Those measures in Murray, UT? Not so much.

We are all speculating. My speculation has a little bit of science behind it, with the results being remarkably similar in two different studies so far. I think there may be more than 2 studies, but I don't feel like looking them up.

I hope you can acknowledge the impact the shut down is having on millions of people, not just economically, but to their health.

[LongIslandZagFan]

We all walk around on a daily basis with all kinds of risks. Right now, I'm following the advice of my local health officials. I try to be a good citizen.

That doesn't mean the decision I made to follow that advice will ultimately play out to be wise. Nor does it mean the advice I followed was wise either.

I would speculate that if it turns out that the mortality rate is ultimately less than 3 % for Utah, I would say the measures that have been taken in my state were more harmful than good.

We, as a society, prior to this outbreak played russian roulette on a daily basis. Not many people were sheltered in place from all the inherent risks.

Let me turn the tables and as you the same?

How many people do you know that have been infected? What is the rate per 100K people in where you live? How many people, directly or indirectly do you know that have died.

My answers:

4 people i personally know that have been or are infected
1872 per 100K people as of yesterday
8 people... not all were old.

What is the value of any human life? What is the value of 20,000 lives? 100K lives? What is the cutoff for the economy? What is the bar to make it "worth it"?

[sonuvazag]

We all walk around on a daily basis with all kinds of risks. Right now, I'm following the advice of my local health officials. I try to be a good citizen.

That doesn't mean the decision I made to follow that advice will ultimately play out to be wise. Nor does it mean the advice I followed was wise either.

I would speculate that if it turns out that the mortality rate is ultimately less than 3 % for Utah, I would say the measures that have been taken in my state were more harmful than good.

We, as a society, prior to this outbreak played russian roulette on a daily basis. Not many people were sheltered in place from all the inherent risks.

Let me turn the tables and as you the same?

3%? 30 times more deadly than the seasonal flu and more deadly than the spanish flu? Wow. I just can't imagine there would be any way for life to go on as normal in such a scenario.

My breaking point is much much lower, like 0.2 maybe 0.25%.

[LongIslandZagFan]

LIZ,

I'll ask you to kindly remember that I didn't/am not arguing that no measures were necessary. I'm arguing that it is LIKELY we're going to find out the measures we have taken are more damaging than the virus.

Nuance takes creative thought. It is likely that all the measures taken in New York were probably necessary. Those measures in Murray, UT? Not so much.

We are all speculating. My speculation has a little bit of science behind it, with the results being remarkably similar in two different studies so far. I think there may be more than 2 studies, but I don't feel like looking them up.

I hope you can acknowledge the impact the shut down is having on millions of people, not just economically, but to their health.

This is getting its roots into smaller and smaller cities and towns. Don't take what you currently have for granted. I get it... but not doing anything would have increased the death rate likely 10 fold.

[former1dog]

This is getting its roots into smaller and smaller cities and towns. Don't take what you currently have for granted. I get it... but not doing anything would have increased the death rate likely 10 fold.

Im not arguing that we should have done nothing. Im arguing that we collectively likely overdid it. Again, probably not for densely populated NY.

I think that it is likely the data is going to support my argument. Hopefully we learn and have a more nuanced approach next time.

[former1dog]

My breaking point is much much lower, like 0.2 maybe 0.25%.

On November 1 ,2019, what was your chance of walking out your door in the morning and never walking back in?

[sonuvazag]

Im not arguing that we should have done nothing. Im arguing that we collectively likely overdid it. Again, probably not for densely populated NY.

I think that it is likely the data is going to support my argument. Hopefully we learn and have a more nuanced approach next time.

A more nuanced approach may have been possible with an accelerated effort to get testing up to speed sooner as it was in South Korea. And would have saved thousands of lives.

[sonuvazag]

On November 1 ,2019, what was your chance of walking out your door in the morning and never walking back in?

Pretty much the same as it was on October 31, 2019. What's your point? And I've barely given a thought to the personal risk involved here so much as the impact I might have as a spreader of the virus.

I'm interested in the society-wide impact of a unique virus. The daily risk we individually encounter is irrelevant when a unique factor that can quickly spread through human interaction comes into play.

[former1dog]

A more nuanced approach may have been possible with an accelerated effort to get testing up to speed sooner as it was in South Korea. And would have saved thousands of lives.

I agree that testing then and now has been a problem. I think fair minded people can see that testing was inhibited by several factors, some within our control and others not.

In the future, I hope we can overcome the issue, but I don't have extreme confidence because of all the factors that go into developing a test for a brand new disease.

[sonuvazag]

I agree that testing then and now has been a problem. I think fair minded people can see that testing was inhibited by several factors, some within our control and others not.

In the future, I hope we can overcome the issue, but I don't have extreme confidence because of all the factors that go into developing a test for a brand new disease.

It's aspirational, but clearly possible.

In the event that the serology tests prove out, you're suggesting we should have been more nuanced despite not having that foreknowledge, especially when in fact we knew hospital systems had the potential to be overrun not just as a theory but because it was something that had already happened, including in small towns.