Coronavirus

[clutch]

So me, the balance of evidence by far suggests that the antibody tests are questionable (the math saying you can't accurately measure accurately if the false positive rate is at all close to the actual infection rate). But even if it weren't, I think it's quite difficult to extrapolate the results to the rest of the country.

 

I hope these antibody tests are conducted across the country (countries) so we can get a much clearer picture and these speculative debates are no longer needed.

[Casey]

So me, the balance of evidence by far suggests that the antibody tests are questionable (the math saying you can't accurately measure accurately if the false positive rate is at all close to the actual infection rate). But even if it weren't, I think it's quite difficult to extrapolate the results to the rest of the country.

 

I hope these antibody tests are conducted across the country (countries) so we can get a much clearer picture and these speculative debates are no longer needed.

 

Indiana trying to do a big random sample!

 

[rb]

if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid.  so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious.  and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game.

 

Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)?

 

The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)?

 

328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M

 

Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca?

 

Something doesn't seem right though, so help me understand. The same White House model projected that 100,000 and 240,000 would die with the mitigation measures in place. Are they speculating that there will be a vaccine available before the US reaches the attack rate?

 

Another possible explanation -- If you flatten the curve, you might be able to avoid some deaths due to the healthcare system overflow, but I expect that the area under the curve would still be similar (compared to when you have a spike). So are they saying that they would save an order of magnitude of lives by keeping the health care system below the threshold?

 

Part of my problem with these projections is that there is no transparency or explanation whatsoever...

The reason for the discrepancy is that in the white house models and what we see is that in those models they assumed a 50% compliance with the shelter in place/whatever you may call them orders. What was observed is that the compliance rate is around 90%. So big miss on the assumption there.

 

You basically have the numbers coming below the model because the quarantine is working way better because the people are behaving much, much better than assumed. They are taking it more seriously than the government assumed and that is making the quarantine much more effective.

[RichardGibbons]

Either way, COVID-19 seems much less deadly than expected, perhaps an order of magnitude, which is a good thing. Would you agree?

 

No, this is horrible!

 

The estimated IFR has been 0.65-1% since at least early March. 0.67%* is devastatingly high. If we want herd immunity (say 70% infected), that would be over 1.5M deaths in the U.S.

 

Yeah, this. My best guess today based on what I've been reading is that it's below 0.5%. Like maybe 0.3%.

 

The argument you need make, Cherzera, is that it's 0.5% at most, and we don't really care about the people who die because most of them were going to die in the near future anyway, while the people who die from the economic impact/shutting down society are more likely to be young. That's a pretty defensible position, I think.

[clutch]

if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid.  so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious.  and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game.

 

Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)?

 

The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)?

 

328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M

 

Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca?

 

Something doesn't seem right though, so help me understand. The same White House model projected that 100,000 and 240,000 would die with the mitigation measures in place. Are they speculating that there will be a vaccine available before the US reaches the attack rate?

 

Another possible explanation -- If you flatten the curve, you might be able to avoid some deaths due to the healthcare system overflow, but I expect that the area under the curve would still be similar (compared to when you have a spike). So are they saying that they would save an order of magnitude of lives by keeping the health care system below the threshold?

 

Part of my problem with these projections is that there is no transparency or explanation whatsoever...

The reason for the discrepancy is that in the white house models and what we see is that in those models they assumed a 50% compliance with the shelter in place/whatever you may call them orders. What was observed is that the compliance rate is around 90%. So big miss on the assumption there.

 

You basically have the numbers coming below the model because the quarantine is working way better because the people are behaving much, much better than assumed. They are taking it more seriously than the government assumed and that is making the quarantine much more effective.

 

No, that doesn't address my question. I'm not questioning the discrepancy between the projection and actual data here (although that is also important). I'm curious how the experts came to project a much lower number of deaths with the mitigation in place.

 

KCLarkin suggested that the projection of 1.5M-2.2M deaths was based on:

328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M

assuming that people die until the US reaches the herd immunity, without any mitigation measures.

 

But how is the number reduced to 100,000-240,000 with the mitigation measures? Does this mean we do not reach the herd immunity in this case? Then, why would the death number stop at 100,000-240,000?

 

Are they banking on a potential cure or vaccine? If so, have they indicated this at any time?

[clutch]

Either way, COVID-19 seems much less deadly than expected, perhaps an order of magnitude, which is a good thing. Would you agree?

 

No, this is horrible!

 

The estimated IFR has been 0.65-1% since at least early March. 0.67%* is devastatingly high. If we want herd immunity (say 70% infected), that would be over 1.5M deaths in the U.S.

 

Yeah, this. My best guess today based on what I've been reading is that it's below 0.5%. Like maybe 0.3%.

 

The argument you need make, Cherzera, is that it's 0.5% at most, and we don't really care about the people who die because most of them were going to die in the near future anyway, while the people who die from the economic impact/shutting down society are more likely to be young. That's a pretty defensible position, I think.

 

And if you really care about equally saving lives, across the world:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine-un-warning-intl/index.html

[DooDiligence]

if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid.  so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious.  and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game.

 

we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us.

 

for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent.  politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts".  deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!!

 

LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong?

 

People who constantly talk about what we don't know usually do it when what we do know goes against what they'd like to believe.

 

If the data supported them, they'd talk about "let's look at the facts, gents".

 

But when it doesn't, they talk about what we don't know.

 

It's a fairly effective technique if you don't know about it.

 

Yeah, and it seems like this guy is seriously conflicted with his reference to Orwell.

 

HUGE LOL.

[arcube]

if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid.  so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious.  and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game.

 

we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us.

 

for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent.  politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts".  deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!!

 

LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong?

 

+1.  Hahahaha. Can't believe that they are letting 12 year old kids on this forum. Calling everyone a dip...

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-23/coronavirus-dies-fastest-under-light-warm-and-humid-conditions?srnd=premium-europe

[DooDiligence]

if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid.  so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious.  and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game.

 

we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us.

 

for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent.  politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts".  deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!!

 

LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong?

 

+1.  Hahahaha. Can't believe that they are letting 12 year old kids on this forum. Calling everyone a dip...

 

I know, right.

[Casey]

When do people think we will be reporting less than 100 confirmed cases a day in Texas, New York, Florida, California?

 

This Fall? This winter? Next spring/summer?

[arcube]

When do people think we will be reporting less than 100 confirmed cases a day in Texas, New York, Florida, California?

 

This Fall? This winter? Next spring/summer?

 

All big population states. My guess is next spring. I would love to be wrong on that one if it is sooner.

[patience_and_focus]

if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid.  so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious.  and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game.

 

Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)?

 

The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)?

 

328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M

 

Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca?

 

Something doesn't seem right though, so help me understand. The same White House model projected that 100,000 and 240,000 would die with the mitigation measures in place. Are they speculating that there will be a vaccine available before the US reaches the attack rate?

 

Another possible explanation -- If you flatten the curve, you might be able to avoid some deaths due to the healthcare system overflow, but I expect that the area under the curve would still be similar (compared to when you have a spike). So are they saying that they would save an order of magnitude of lives by keeping the health care system below the threshold?

 

Part of my problem with these projections is that there is no transparency or explanation whatsoever...

The reason for the discrepancy is that in the white house models and what we see is that in those models they assumed a 50% compliance with the shelter in place/whatever you may call them orders. What was observed is that the compliance rate is around 90%. So big miss on the assumption there.

 

You basically have the numbers coming below the model because the quarantine is working way better because the people are behaving much, much better than assumed. They are taking it more seriously than the government assumed and that is making the quarantine much more effective.

 

No, that doesn't address my question. I'm not questioning the discrepancy between the projection and actual data here (although that is also important). I'm curious how the experts came to project a much lower number of deaths with the mitigation in place.

 

KCLarkin suggested that the projection of 1.5M-2.2M deaths was based on:

328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M

assuming that people die until the US reaches the herd immunity, without any mitigation measures.

 

But how is the number reduced to 100,000-240,000 with the mitigation measures? Does this mean we do not reach the herd immunity in this case? Then, why would the death number stop at 100,000-240,000?

 

Are they banking on a potential cure or vaccine? If so, have they indicated this at any time?

 

There are other factors that are modeled in mitigation other than compliance such as reasonable ramp up of testing and tracing to bring the overall R0 down during and after the shelter in place is slowly removed. Clearly experts were wrong on how dysfunctional the policy response will be even after 2 months of this.

[Dalal.Holdings]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-23/coronavirus-dies-fastest-under-light-warm-and-humid-conditions?srnd=premium-europe

 

Trump appeared intrigued by the research after Bryan’s presentation.

 

“Suppose we hit the body with a tremendous ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” Trump said, following Bryan’s presentation. “I think that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it.”

 

Researchers could also bring “the light inside the body” Trump said, “either through the skin or in some other way.”

 

Reads like The Onion.

[cwericb]

At last... another potential cure!

 

After a Homeland Security official mentioned the ability of disinfectants like bleach to kill the coronavirus on surfaces, Trump remarked on the effectiveness.

 

“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?” Trump said during his daily press briefing at the White House. “Because you see it gets on the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that. So that you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.”

[Dalal.Holdings]

At last... another potential cure!

 

After a Homeland Security official mentioned the ability of disinfectants like bleach to kill the coronavirus on surfaces, Trump remarked on the effectiveness.

 

“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?” Trump said during his daily press briefing at the White House. “Because you see it gets on the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that. So that you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.”

 

Yes, I see it now: intravenous bleach infusion, bombardment with UV rays, gamma rays, etc etc and patients will be straight up cured! And his apologists were out defending hydroxychloroquine because this guy was behind it...

 

We now proudly celebrate ignorance in our culture--and you see the manifestation here on this forum and in the population at large. The consequences of said ignorance unfortunately does not merely fall on the ignorant, but spreads to the wider population via collateral damage. Oh well.

[cwericb]

Well if Trump supporters tend to follow his advice he might not have many supporters by November.

[clutch]

if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid.  so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious.  and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game.

 

Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)?

 

The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)?

 

328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M

 

Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca?

 

Something doesn't seem right though, so help me understand. The same White House model projected that 100,000 and 240,000 would die with the mitigation measures in place. Are they speculating that there will be a vaccine available before the US reaches the attack rate?

 

Another possible explanation -- If you flatten the curve, you might be able to avoid some deaths due to the healthcare system overflow, but I expect that the area under the curve would still be similar (compared to when you have a spike). So are they saying that they would save an order of magnitude of lives by keeping the health care system below the threshold?

 

Part of my problem with these projections is that there is no transparency or explanation whatsoever...

The reason for the discrepancy is that in the white house models and what we see is that in those models they assumed a 50% compliance with the shelter in place/whatever you may call them orders. What was observed is that the compliance rate is around 90%. So big miss on the assumption there.

 

You basically have the numbers coming below the model because the quarantine is working way better because the people are behaving much, much better than assumed. They are taking it more seriously than the government assumed and that is making the quarantine much more effective.

 

No, that doesn't address my question. I'm not questioning the discrepancy between the projection and actual data here (although that is also important). I'm curious how the experts came to project a much lower number of deaths with the mitigation in place.

 

KCLarkin suggested that the projection of 1.5M-2.2M deaths was based on:

328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M

assuming that people die until the US reaches the herd immunity, without any mitigation measures.

 

But how is the number reduced to 100,000-240,000 with the mitigation measures? Does this mean we do not reach the herd immunity in this case? Then, why would the death number stop at 100,000-240,000?

 

Are they banking on a potential cure or vaccine? If so, have they indicated this at any time?

 

There are other factors that are modeled in mitigation other than compliance such as reasonable ramp up of testing and tracing to bring the overall R0 down during and after the shelter in place is slowly removed. Clearly experts were wrong on how dysfunctional the policy response will be even after 2 months of this.

 

Those measures would slow down the infection rate, not the total number of deaths. Unless you get a vaccine or cure, the number of deaths would simply get stretched out over time. The area under the flattened curve can still the same as a sharp one.

 

So the projections must have taken account some scenario that the virus would be mostly irradicated. Or not? None of the journalists ever asked this question??

 

Maybe the projections are time bound? What is the time period then?

[arcube]

At last... another potential cure!

 

After a Homeland Security official mentioned the ability of disinfectants like bleach to kill the coronavirus on surfaces, Trump remarked on the effectiveness.

 

“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?” Trump said during his daily press briefing at the White House. “Because you see it gets on the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that. So that you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.”

 

Yes, I see it now: intravenous bleach infusion, bombardment with UV rays, gamma rays, etc etc and patients will be straight up cured! And his apologists were out defending hydroxychloroquine because this guy was behind it...

 

We now proudly celebrate ignorance in our culture--and you see the manifestation here on this forum and in the population at large. The consequences of said ignorance unfortunately does not merely fall on the ignorant, but spreads to the wider population via collateral damage. Oh well.

 

You can’t make this stuff up.

[cwericb]

Always good to know the country is in good hands and run by a very stable genius. I know this because he said so and he wouldn't lie to me.

[gary17]

how does he get to be. billionaire and i’m still working. 

[samwise]

Question about US healthcare, from an investment perspective. Being outside the US I don’t understand US healthcare, but could impact companies and consumers. So I thought I’d ask on this thread, which has a lot US posters.

 

Who pays for treatment of COVID? Is it the health insurance? What about those who are now unemployed? Is this a big hit for insurers or employers who self insure. If employers stay open, are they open to workplace safety claims?

Are the sick supposed to pay for treatment themselves, and if so do we expect much more indebted consumers coming out of this? I read and article saying testing is now free, but treatment would be 70k out of pocket even for those insured. This would make most people prefer to rough it out in those majority of cases when the symptoms are mild. Not sure of the accuracy of that. TIA for any answer.

[Dalal.Holdings]

how does he get to be. billionaire and i’m still working.

 

He's very talented at manipulating situations/people to his advantage. He's not just rocks for brains. He knows how to fool segments of the populace and I'd say does a pretty good job of it. Must have helped somewhat in the casino business.

[DooDiligence]

how does he get to be. billionaire and i’m still working.

 

He's very talented at manipulating situations/people to his advantage. He's not just rocks for brains. He knows how to fool segments of the populace and I'd say does a pretty good job of it. Must have helped somewhat in the casino business.

 

It didn’t help him to run a successful casino but it likely helped him survive the bankruptcy (bankruptcies).

[LongHaul]

FYI

 

Terminology

A mortality rate — often confused with a CFR — is a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in a population scaled to the size of that population per unit of time.[2] A CFR, in contrast, is the number of dead among the number of diagnosed cases.[3]

 

Technically, CFRs, which take values between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%, i.e., nothing and unity), are actually a measure of risk — that is, they are a proportion of incidence. They are not rates, incidence rates, or ratios (none of which are limited to the range 0-1). Hence, even though the terms “case fatality rate” and “CFR” appear often in the scientific literature, if one wishes to be very precise, they are incorrectly used, because they do not always, in every instance, take into account time from disease onset to death.[4][5]

 

Sometimes the term case fatality ratio is used interchangeably with case fatality rate, but they are not the same. Case fatality ratio is the comparison between two different case fatality rates, expressed as ratio. It also can be used to compare different diseases or to assess the impact of an intervention.[6]

 

The term infection fatality rate (IFR) also applies to infectious disease outbreaks, and represents the proportion of deaths among all the infected individuals. It is closely related to the CFR, but attempts to additionally account for all asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections.[7] The IFR differs from the CFR in that it aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group).[8] (Individuals who are infected, but always remain asymptomatic, are said to have "inapparent" — or silent, or subclinical — infections.) The IFR will always be lower than the CFR as long as all deaths are accurately attributed to either the infected or the non-infected class.