Coronavirus General Discussion

[Tortoise]

A hospital in NYC recently tested all pregnant women delivering babies and found the following:

Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: 15%
Percent of infected patients who are asymptomatic: 88%

So this virus is apparently far more prevalent in the general population than we think. (1 out of 7 people in NYC.) Which seems to imply that the true rate of hospitalization and death as a percent of those infected is much lower than we think.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316

[ochotona]

A hospital in NYC recently tested all pregnant women delivering babies and found the following:

Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: 15%
Percent of infected patients who are asymptomatic: 88%

So this virus is apparently far more prevalent in the general population than we think. (1 out of 7 people in NYC.) Which seems to imply that the true rate of hospitalization and death as a percent of those infected is much lower than we think.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316

I think this is a case where ratios are the wrong way to think about how good or bad the situation is.

I think the absolute value of how full the hospitals are and how many are suffering or dying matters.

We hear 30,000 are dead in the USA. That's not diminished or comforted by the knowledge that the true mortality rate is 1% or 0.5% or 0.2%. 30k dead is 30k dead.

[Tortoise]

We hear 30,000 are dead in the USA. That's not diminished or comforted by the knowledge that the true mortality rate is 1% or 0.5% or 0.2%. 30k dead is 30k dead.

Are we putting those 30,000 Covid-19 deaths in the proper perspective?

Annual Deaths and Mortality in the U.S. (CDC)

• Number of deaths: 2,813,503
• Death rate: 863.8 deaths per 100,000 population
• Life expectancy: 78.6 years
• Infant Mortality rate: 5.79 deaths per 1,000 live births

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 647,457
• Cancer: 599,108
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
• Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
• Diabetes: 83,564
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 55,672
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 50,633
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173

[Xan]

We hear 30,000 are dead in the USA. That's not diminished or comforted by the knowledge that the true mortality rate is 1% or 0.5% or 0.2%. 30k dead is 30k dead.

It is hugely diminished or comforted. If 15% already have it, that means we're 1/7th through this already, at the absolute worst.

[ochotona]

Are we putting those 30,000 Covid-19 deaths in the proper perspective?

I think so, provisionally, because we don't know the upper bound yet. If we gain any visibility on an average annual death rate for the US, and it's comparable to many other causes of death, then we can dial back the worry.

[ochotona]

We hear 30,000 are dead in the USA. That's not diminished or comforted by the knowledge that the true mortality rate is 1% or 0.5% or 0.2%. 30k dead is 30k dead.

It is hugely diminished or comforted. If 15% already have it, that means we're 1/7th through this already, at the absolute worst.

I guess that's so.

[vnatale]

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 647,457
• Cancer: 599,108
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
• Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
• Diabetes: 83,564
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 55,672
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 50,633
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173

What jumps out at me in that list is that aside from Influenza and Pneumonia almost all the risks of dying from the others are somewhat under my control.

I behave a certain way I increase the likelihood of dying from one of these. Conversely, I avoid those behaviors and I decrease the likelihoods of each of them.

If we had no government dictating as much to us, primarily what we cannot do, instead, leaving everyone free to act as he or she chooses how could I protect myself if others now have so much capability of harming me?

Vinny

[Tortoise]

If we had no government dictating as much to us, primarily what we cannot do, instead, leaving everyone free to act as he or she chooses how could I protect myself if others now have so much capability of harming me?

Maybe stay home, kind of like what you're already doing? That's certainly under your control.

[vnatale]

If we had no government dictating as much to us, primarily what we cannot do, instead, leaving everyone free to act as he or she chooses how could I protect myself if others now have so much capability of harming me?

Maybe stay home, kind of like what you're already doing? That's certainly under your control.

What if all the support systems were not in place to support staying home?

I'm in an not nowmal position. A single person. An Extreme Super Introvert. On a scale of 0-10 of how difficult this has all been for me (tomorrow will be five weeks in which only one of those days have I been in the presence of people), it is a 2 at best.

But what about all the rest of the "more normal" people in society? Could they maintain self-protection absent all the government has ordered and how organizations have responded? The "invisible hand" or "the market" would have not provided these safeties to the rest of society.

Vinny

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (39.3 KiB) Viewed 56516 times

[WiseOne]

I'm on the board of a non-profit, and I'm ready to quit because we're deciding whether to have our meetings and conferences in May, and I think it's way too soon. If someone gets sick and dies, I don't want to be sued. I signed up to manage the technical program, not to be sued for everything I have. I can manage the technical program as lowly volunteer who is not a board member.

I also won't attend my own events! Do you blame me?

Has your board heard of Zoom?

Millions of people are using this for meetings. You can have them, it just has to be virtual. And you need a pro account, AND definitely mute the microphone of all participants by default. And use a password to stop the zoom-bombers.

[shekels]

Tucker with Stanford Prof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjCitwKJSQ

Antibody test are on the way.

[Tortoise]

What if all the support systems were not in place to support staying home?
[...]
But what about all the rest of the "more normal" people in society? Could they maintain self-protection absent all the government has ordered and how organizations have responded? The "invisible hand" or "the market" would have not provided these safeties to the rest of society.

I assume you're referring to the fact that many companies and organizations that usually rely on physical meetings and physical interactions in office buildings have temporarily shifted to working from home (Zoom meetings, etc.). I don't think that will go away completely, even when governments start lifting the lockdowns. The highest-risk people will probably be advised to remain at home until a vaccine is widely available, and that will require companies and organizations to allow those people to continue to work from home.

I assume you're also referring to high-risk people who unfortunately don't have the option of working from home and have been laid off. Presumably the states should continue to allow them to collect unemployment until they either catch coronavirus and get over it, or a vaccine becomes widely available. Continuing unemployment support doesn't require maintaining lockdowns.

[Cortopassi]

Why does it seem like some places are doubling down?

--Social distancing might be needed through 2022
--Concerts and sporting events not until 2021
--etc. I've seen some things out to 2025?!

And why do people continue talk of a vaccine? Isn't that nearly impossible? Isn't it more like a flu shot, which might be protective, and might not?

[Dieter]

We hear 30,000 are dead in the USA. That's not diminished or comforted by the knowledge that the true mortality rate is 1% or 0.5% or 0.2%. 30k dead is 30k dead.

Are we putting those 30,000 Covid-19 deaths in the proper perspective?

Annual Deaths and Mortality in the U.S. (CDC)

• Number of deaths: 2,813,503
• Death rate: 863.8 deaths per 100,000 population
• Life expectancy: 78.6 years
• Infant Mortality rate: 5.79 deaths per 1,000 live births

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 647,457
• Cancer: 599,108
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
• Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
• Diabetes: 83,564
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 55,672
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 50,633
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173

1) Comparing yearly numbers with "so far" numbers. Apples to spaceships.

Almost 2,500 people died of COVID yesterday. ~900,000 a year at that rate.

Would be the leading cause of death in the US.

2) Not just deaths, but the impact to the health care infrastructure.

3) is partly the unknown, and partly adding on to health care demand.

I have no idea what percentage require hospitalization and don't die, so are missing from the above numbers.

If imagine impact to breath system many times the number of people who die. Hell, just the social distancing and protective equipment needs reduce the efficiency of the health system.

More people will die of other things based on healthcare being stretched beyond what the system can handle.

4) Most of the leading causes of death are NOT contagious.

[dualstow]

Why does it seem like some places are doubling down?
..
I've seen some things out to 2025?!

I’m going to need a proper haircut by then.

Seems like “doubling down” is on everyone’s lips these past couple years. Especially CNN saying, “Trump is doubling down on ...” meaning simply that he didn’t change course. (But that’s for another thread, I know). The usage is getting warped.

[dualstow]

(Tortoise) Are we putting those 30,000 Covid-19 deaths in the proper perspective?

I agree with Dieter above, mostly. Apples to oranges.

And remember this (“the numbers don’t tell the whole story”)
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10427&p=193424&hili ... rs#p193424

[vnatale]

I’m going to need a proper haircut by then.

I get either three or four a year. Each time telling the barber to cut it as short as she can without shaving my head. That gives me a good three months before needing another one.

My beard, though, generally gets trimmed once a week so that it looks like it's been growing for a week, tops. That has not been touched in any way for 29 days. We'll see how long that goes for. And, if I decide to first show it public for a day or a week before it goes back to the once a week trimming and length.

Vinny

[vnatale]

[
Seriously. And dental care.

That may force me to go back to that topic here and reread again all the alternative methods for self dental care!

Vinny

[Tortoise]

1) Comparing yearly numbers with "so far" numbers. Apples to spaceships.

Agreed. I was just responding to Ochotona's statement that "30k dead is 30k dead." Not 30k dead so far. Just 30k dead. He was making the point that 30k deaths is a big number that justifies keeping most of the economy locked down. I agree that an unknown and potentially even larger number than 30k is even worse, but that wasn't Ochotona's point that I was responding to.

Almost 2,500 people died of COVID yesterday. ~900,000 a year at that rate.

I assume you're referring to the big spike in New York's Covid-19 deaths yesterday, right? As Dr. WiseOne explained in the Trump thread, that spike was an artifact of reclassifying a month's worth of "presumed" Covid-19 deaths as actual Covid-19 deaths on a single day. It wasn't a real one-day spike.

Even if it were a real one-day spike, extrapolating a single-day spike to estimate a yearly increase is like extrapolating a stock's single-day spike to estimate its yearly growth. Is that your usual approach?

2) Not just deaths, but the impact to the health care infrastructure.

What about the impact to the infrastructure of most other industries in the economy when we lock everything down? The economy has real impacts on real lives and livelihoods. People can suffer and die from economic problems.

More people will die of other things based on healthcare being stretched beyond what the system can handle.

The lockdowns were initially sold to the public to "flatten the curve," not to minimize the total number of Covid-19 deaths. We've achieved that goal; the curve has flattened, and it looks like our health care system won't be overwhelmed after all. But now they seem to have shifted the goalposts. Our new goal is apparently to minimize the number of Covid-19 deaths by keeping everyone locked up until a miracle cure or vaccine comes along.

How about the people who will die because their early-stage cancer isn't getting detected right now because hospitals have cancelled all elective procedures due to Covid-19 concerns? Are we accounting for them?

4) Most of the leading causes of death are NOT contagious.

Not sure I follow your point here. I agree that most of the leading causes of death are not contagious, but so what?

[vnatale]

4) Most of the leading causes of death are NOT contagious.

Not sure I follow your point here. I agree that most of the leading causes of death are not contagious, but so what?
[/quote]

The same point I was making in response to your presentation of the list.

Looking at it from the individual's point of view.....just about all the causes of death are greatly due to the actions of the individual with the government playing a minor role in whether or not you succumb to any of those causes.

In the case of a contagious disease it's not just us alone. It takes a government to help protect all of us ON TOP of any individual precautions any of us may take.

Vinny

[Xan]

And why do people continue talk of a vaccine? Isn't that nearly impossible? Isn't it more like a flu shot, which might be protective, and might not?

IIRC, most of the reason a flu shot sometimes works and sometimes doesn't is that they have to guess what strains of flu will be popular in the coming season. This thing (I sincerely hope) is a single thing. So it should work.

[vnatale]

And why do people continue talk of a vaccine? Isn't that nearly impossible? Isn't it more like a flu shot, which might be protective, and might not?

IIRC, most of the reason a flu shot sometimes works and sometimes doesn't is that they have to guess what strains of flu will be popular in the coming season. This thing (I sincerely hope) is a single thing. So it should work.

I read an entire book on The Flu. The success rate on their guesses each ranges from 25% to 75%.

Anyone here believe that getting a flu shot can be detrimental to you? A guy who I play basketball with (he's five years older than me - he'll be 74 in June) has never got one and told me his wife had bad effects from hers. Of course that is pure anecdotal evidence.

Vinny

[Cortopassi]

And why do people continue talk of a vaccine? Isn't that nearly impossible? Isn't it more like a flu shot, which might be protective, and might not?

IIRC, most of the reason a flu shot sometimes works and sometimes doesn't is that they have to guess what strains of flu will be popular in the coming season. This thing (I sincerely hope) is a single thing. So it should work.

I read an entire book on The Flu. The success rate on their guesses each ranges from 25% to 75%.

Anyone here believe that getting a flu shot can be detrimental to you? A guy who I play basketball with (he's five years older than me - he'll be 74 in June) has never got one and told me his wife had bad effects from hers. Of course that is pure anecdotal evidence.

Vinny

I get a "mini flu" for 2-3 days every time I got a flu shot. And shingles shots. I haven't gotten a flu shot for 4 years because of that.

[Libertarian666]

And why do people continue talk of a vaccine? Isn't that nearly impossible? Isn't it more like a flu shot, which might be protective, and might not?

IIRC, most of the reason a flu shot sometimes works and sometimes doesn't is that they have to guess what strains of flu will be popular in the coming season. This thing (I sincerely hope) is a single thing. So it should work.

I read an entire book on The Flu. The success rate on their guesses each ranges from 25% to 75%.

Anyone here believe that getting a flu shot can be detrimental to you? A guy who I play basketball with (he's five years older than me - he'll be 74 in June) has never got one and told me his wife had bad effects from hers. Of course that is pure anecdotal evidence.

Vinny

I get a "mini flu" for 2-3 days every time I got a flu shot. And shingles shots. I haven't gotten a flu shot for 4 years because of that.

I had the shingles shot.
Then I got shingles.
No flu shots for me, thanks. Also no more shingles shots, and no pneumococcal vaccine.
I'll probably go for the covid shot if there's no reliable treatment before it comes out, though.