Coronavirus

[JAVO]

Are the current extreme measures entirely rational? Maybe the experts and decision-makers are being driven by fear too?

In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions without reliable data

The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.

At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.

Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable. How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm?

...

The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.

This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

...

One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.

In the most pessimistic scenario, which I do not espouse, if the new coronavirus infects 60% of the global population and 1% of the infected people die, that will translate into more than 40 million deaths globally, matching the 1918 influenza pandemic.

 

[Jonny]

Are the current extreme measures entirely rational? Maybe the experts and decision-makers are being driven by fear too?

In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions without reliable data

We will have to open the world back up sooner rather than later. The hope is that the information learned over this time will be helpful in making better informed decisions going forward. This will also be incredibly helpful in preparing the world for the inevitable outbreak of a far-more-deadly strain of virus.

I think the decisions made thus far have been the right ones, even if updated data shows that they weren't actually necessary in hindsight. I have thus far never needed my auto insurance, but it wasn't the wrong decision to have paid for it over the last decade.

 

[Maou]

Are the current extreme measures entirely rational? Maybe the experts and decision-makers are being driven by fear too?

If they waited for the answers, it would have been too late. So educated guesses are required sometimes.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

This is not unlike my current normal greeting method

 

[Jonny]

An unfortunate update, but at least in the short term that simplistic projection I posted earlier seems to be more favorable than actual data over the last several days (even with only partial results from today...it will be worse after all the cases and deaths are counted). A secondary trendline was added to show the shape of the post-projection data, to see how our trajectory is changing, either favorable or unfavorably, relative to the baseline.

Again, this is a criminally simple model, and should only be used to provide some perspective about the past rate of growth relative to the current rate of growth, and what we might expect in the coming days. Even if we did nothing and went about our business as normal, this new trendline couldn't possibly come true because it would predict a billion US citizens infected by the end of April, which, as we all know, is impossible. The truth is, once the percentage infected in a population is sufficiently large, the rates of infection must necessarily decrease as there are fewer uninfected people to actually become infected. A more realistic model would need to consider the underlying rate of propagation as a function of the percentage currently infected, which this trendline does not do.

 

[EcK]

3700 people from various genetic backgrounds stuck on a boat, 80% of whom were tested for the virus, is a pretty ideal environment to study this type of things.

here's an article about it :
Study: 17.9% Of People With COVID-19 Coronavirus Had No Symptoms

so that means - if these carriers can still spread the virus - that we can explain how the virus kept getting through the nets BUT the bad news is that it's not a majority of asymptomatic carriers - so the death rate of the virus is only a bit lower than the numbers we currently have - ranging from 2 to 10% depending on the demographics and whether or not the healthcare infrastructure has crashed under the weight of infected (at which point mortality increases drastically like in Italy where 8.5% of the infected people already died)

 

[Red Memories]

To those who disbelieve it and think its overhyped and all the closures are too extreme now:
1. Please assess your level of selfishness. Is this an overreaction because YOU want to go out and eat and suddenly someone said you can't, or is this an overreaction because you really feel that way? I.E. My older brother thinks shutting down restaurants would be dumb because he is a workaholic who doesn't want to not work at mcdonalds. BTW he currently has the flu and no one has sent him home yet so FYI Mcdonalds doesn't give a fuck be cautioned. Or the spring breakers who are saying it isn't that serious as all their pubs and clubs are closed and they wanna party. Don't expect the world to come to your selfish desires and ignore protecting vulnerable people.

2. Please assess your level of selfishness again, when you call it just a boomer remover or etc. because Italy has teenagers dying. It effects vulnerable people. It effects vulnerable young and old people. Also please assess who you effect when you decide to hoard every roll of fucking toilet paper. Your hoarding leads to shortages, and these shortages lead to people who weren't panic buying to now panic buy because they fear all your panic buying will prevent them from having necessities. Please shop with a brain in tact. If you can't, wait until you can.

3. Please assess a huge question here: if you do not really feel it would effect you or its overhyped, what if in fact it IS as serious as it is made out to be and you pass it on to say, 15ish vulnerable people and they all die when if you had followed the fucking procedures they could have had a chance? Is your current desire to go drinking, eating out, etc. worth taking a life? Even if you don't think you will die, for the love of god think of people BESIDES YOURSELF. And do not moralize it, there is no moral behind not following the protocol right now for your own WANTS. If you need groceries please go. You don't have to go clubbing and all.

this ends my public lashing about how selfish people are and how I wonder if maybe in fact we all deserved coronavirus because I once liked to think that it was just the internet making everyone sound that selfish only to look outside and realize for fucks sake people my age are the cancer of society. On behalf of this 22 year old whose spending spring break chilling with big k cola I am sorry on behalf of the selfishness of every person my age you may currently want to deck in the face.

 

[EcK]

To those who disbelieve it and think its overhyped and all the closures are too extreme now:
1. Please assess your level of selfishness. Is this an overreaction because YOU want to go out and eat and suddenly someone said you can't, or is this an overreaction because you really feel that way? I.E. My older brother thinks shutting down restaurants would be dumb because he is a workaholic who doesn't want to not work at mcdonalds. BTW he currently has the flu and no one has sent him home yet so FYI Mcdonalds doesn't give a fuck be cautioned. Or the spring breakers who are saying it isn't that serious as all their pubs and clubs are closed and they wanna party. Don't expect the world to come to your selfish desires and ignore protecting vulnerable people.

2. Please assess your level of selfishness again, when you call it just a boomer remover or etc. because Italy has teenagers dying. It effects vulnerable people. It effects vulnerable young and old people. Also please assess who you effect when you decide to hoard every roll of fucking toilet paper. Your hoarding leads to shortages, and these shortages lead to people who weren't panic buying to now panic buy because they fear all your panic buying will prevent them from having necessities. Please shop with a brain in tact. If you can't, wait until you can.

3. Please assess a huge question here: if you do not really feel it would effect you or its overhyped, what if in fact it IS as serious as it is made out to be and you pass it on to say, 15ish vulnerable people and they all die when if you had followed the fucking procedures they could have had a chance? Is your current desire to go drinking, eating out, etc. worth taking a life? Even if you don't think you will die, for the love of god think of people BESIDES YOURSELF. And do not moralize it, there is no moral behind not following the protocol right now for your own WANTS. If you need groceries please go. You don't have to go clubbing and all.

this ends my public lashing about how selfish people are and how I wonder if maybe in fact we all deserved coronavirus because I once liked to think that it was just the internet making everyone sound that selfish only to look outside and realize for fucks sake people my age are the cancer of society. On behalf of this 22 year old whose spending spring break chilling with big k cola I am sorry on behalf of the selfishness of every person my age you may currently want to deck in the face.

Yeah I have to constantly explain to people that the washing of the groceries and lab-like decontamination procedures I've implemented are not for me, I don't want to be responsible for some old person or whoever else dying because I didn't want to disinfect my groceries that were touched / breathed on / coughed on by multiple people before i brought it home. Being careful and methodical + spending a few minutes a day desinfecting stuff and washing hands is not some huge pain in the ass. And not going out sucks for extroverts - I KNOW - but it's not the end of the world. Going out is a WANT, being able to breath is a MUST.

Due to the shortage of sanitizers I've also implemented a 'gloves on' area outside my home or car. As I obviously can't carry a 10l bottle around and wash my hand with soap everywhere the gloves are a good solution - I 'll wear them outside, not touch my face or other people with it, and then take them off and dispose of them in a bag before opening the car for example).
My SO doesn't want to wear the gloves because she thinks it 'looks stupid' - meanwhile she works outside and is a much bigger risk factor for infection than me.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Gonna find all the people who made fun of me in school, and tell them I have 24 rolls of toilet paper. WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?!?!? HAHAHAHAHA

 

[SearchingforPeace]

To those who disbelieve it and think its overhyped and all the closures are too extreme now:
1. Please assess your level of selfishness. Is this an overreaction because YOU want to go out and eat and suddenly someone said you can't, or is this an overreaction because you really feel that way? I.E. My older brother thinks shutting down restaurants would be dumb because he is a workaholic who doesn't want to not work at mcdonalds. BTW he currently has the flu and no one has sent him home yet so FYI Mcdonalds doesn't give a fuck be cautioned. Or the spring breakers who are saying it isn't that serious as all their pubs and clubs are closed and they wanna party. Don't expect the world to come to your selfish desires and ignore protecting vulnerable people.

2. Please assess your level of selfishness again, when you call it just a boomer remover or etc. because Italy has teenagers dying. It effects vulnerable people. It effects vulnerable young and old people. Also please assess who you effect when you decide to hoard every roll of fucking toilet paper. Your hoarding leads to shortages, and these shortages lead to people who weren't panic buying to now panic buy because they fear all your panic buying will prevent them from having necessities. Please shop with a brain in tact. If you can't, wait until you can.

3. Please assess a huge question here: if you do not really feel it would effect you or its overhyped, what if in fact it IS as serious as it is made out to be and you pass it on to say, 15ish vulnerable people and they all die when if you had followed the fucking procedures they could have had a chance? Is your current desire to go drinking, eating out, etc. worth taking a life? Even if you don't think you will die, for the love of god think of people BESIDES YOURSELF. And do not moralize it, there is no moral behind not following the protocol right now for your own WANTS. If you need groceries please go. You don't have to go clubbing and all.

this ends my public lashing about how selfish people are and how I wonder if maybe in fact we all deserved coronavirus because I once liked to think that it was just the internet making everyone sound that selfish only to look outside and realize for fucks sake people my age are the cancer of society. On behalf of this 22 year old whose spending spring break chilling with big k cola I am sorry on behalf of the selfishness of every person my age you may currently want to deck in the face.

Are you aware there have been pandemics in the past?

Are you aware that 3 million die in America every year?

Are you aware that almost all the deaths from CV-19 are people that would likely die in the next 5 years?

What do you believe the consequences will be from a long shutdown of the entire economy? What is the likelihood that will we see huge increases in deaths related to an economic shutdown?

A long shutdown might save a few people (that mostly would die anyway in the next 5 years) but wouldn't a long shutdown increase the likelihood of either an authoritarian government or total societal chaos?

If the government falls due to an extended shutdown of the economy and the resulting chaos kills 95% of the country, would that be acceptable risk?

Wouldn't we be better off mobilizing hospital resources, isolating the infected, isolating the vulnerable, and letting everything else continue as normal?

Ultimately, those in favor of a lengthy shutdown are being selfish and foolish and would rather the entire world become Afghanistan on a bad day.

 

[EcK]

Are you aware there have been pandemics in the past?

Are you aware that 3 million die in America every year?

Are you aware that almost all the deaths from CV-19 are people that would likely die in the next 5 years?

What do you believe the consequences will be from a long shutdown of the entire economy? What is the likelihood that will we see huge increases in deaths related to an economic shutdown?

A long shutdown might save a few people (that mostly would die anyway in the next 5 years) but wouldn't a long shutdown increase the likelihood of either an authoritarian government or total societal chaos?

If the government falls due to an extended shutdown of the economy and the resulting chaos kills 95% of the country, would that be acceptable risk?

Wouldn't we be better off mobilizing hospital resources, isolating the infected, isolating the vulnerable, and letting everything else continue as normal?

Ultimately, those in favor of a lengthy shutdown are being selfish and foolish and would rather the entire world become Afghanistan on a bad day.

Yes sure if the government(s) basically told every person above 60 to stay home and stay in total physical isolation and got them groceries etc delivered at their doorstep then we could all go on our merry way. But that's not the case.
And it doesn't matter if someone was 'going to die in 5 years' - they are human beings. These people have children and friends who would rather they don't die a day earlier than needed, and certainly not while choking to death.

Also not every old person has the luxury of being able to live on their own and be totally self sufficient. What if they are in an old people's home or live with family [as they should] ? any 'breach' and the virus goes through them like a wild fire.
And what if the virus mutates and then suddenly it's people your age who are at risk of death ? Because the more the number of infected grow the more likely it is that such a mutation could occur. This is not the flu - we don't have thousands of years of inbuilt immunity to it - a mutation could easily raise the death rate by a factor of 2, 3 or more.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Yes sure if the government(s) basically told every person above 60 to stay home and stay in total physical isolation and got them groceries etc delivered at their doorstep then we could all go on our merry way. But that's not the case.
And it doesn't matter if someone was 'going to die in 5 years' - they are human beings. These people have children and friends who would rather they don't die a day earlier than needed, and certainly not while choking to death.

It would be far better for everyone to take reasonable precautions and ramp up medical care than to kill everyone else. Taiwan did that and has had one death.

 

[EcK]

It would be far better for everyone to take reasonable precautions and ramp up medical care than to kill everyone else. Taiwan did that and has had one death.

I think you're simplifying it a bit much. Also east asian cultures are group-oriented and often very authoritarian, such measures just don't really work well in more individualistic western cultures. And we're talking about people who wear masks to avoid giving people a cold - it's just not comparable.
The only solution that would have worked effectively would have been to close the borders to human traffic. It wasn't done , or when done it was done too late - there's not that much point in effectively closing your borders when the enemy army is already in the country. And even if done pretty much right away - the chinese gov spent so much time trying to bury this thing that it was already spreading internationally by the time the rest of the world knew this could become a pandemic.

ps: I however agree that it's important to take a long view and not panic. My point is that trying to reduce the speed of growth of the pandemic IS part of taking the long view. We have to try and prevent this thing becoming a recurring 'new flu' as at that point there'll just be too many strains and no way to trace the epidemics anymore or effectively vaccinate against it.

 

[Jonny]

It would be far better for everyone to take reasonable precautions and ramp up medical care than to kill everyone else. Taiwan did that and has had one death.

If that's your strategy then why don't we model ourselves after Russia... According to the data they've had 0 deaths.

 

[Red Memories]

Are you aware there have been pandemics in the past?

Are you aware that 3 million die in America every year?

Are you aware that almost all the deaths from CV-19 are people that would likely die in the next 5 years?

What do you believe the consequences will be from a long shutdown of the entire economy? What is the likelihood that will we see huge increases in deaths related to an economic shutdown?

A long shutdown might save a few people (that mostly would die anyway in the next 5 years) but wouldn't a long shutdown increase the likelihood of either an authoritarian government or total societal chaos?

If the government falls due to an extended shutdown of the economy and the resulting chaos kills 95% of the country, would that be acceptable risk?

Wouldn't we be better off mobilizing hospital resources, isolating the infected, isolating the vulnerable, and letting everything else continue as normal?

Ultimately, those in favor of a lengthy shutdown are being selfish and foolish and would rather the entire world become Afghanistan on a bad day.

1. Yes, I am aware pandemics happen. Swine flu was brought to us by a nurse and my eldest brother who was already very ill ended up not being able to fight it off. I will admit that probably gives me a bit more hyperresponse to this considering I was only 12 when this was happening.

2. That has nothing to do with people dying from a specific thing, don't even with that. Yes lots of people die every year but why should we suddenly ignore deaths we could actually prevent? That's extremely stupid.

3. Actually no, they're not. That's a very wrong statistical misinformed statement. There are healthy people dying of it, people who would live longer even with vulnerable conditions dying of it (i.e. diabetics and people with respiratory conditions like COPD or Asthma). Do not spread that level of misinformation.

4. I believe obviously there will be economic consequences. We're having them WITHOUT a shut down. We're not gonna avoid economic issues that will stem from this. I don't see why money right now should matter more than lives. Your desire to go eat at mcdonalds isn't more important than someone dying.

5. Marshall law and crap has happened in the past. We are still here. Both parties in one way or another at this rate are pushing for more takeover from government. We're not gonna win with this one. and frankly we wouldn't have to consider it, IF PEOPLE WOULD FOLLOW THE FUCKING PROTOCOL AND STOP BEING SELFISH LIKE THESE FUCKIN SPRING BREAKERS AND WORLD TRAVELLERS AND SHIT. SIT. AT. HOME. UNLESS. YOU. NEED. TO. GO. OUT. I am not asking you to do too much to protect society.

6. The issue with this virus is current tests cannot see it without symptoms, and you can carry it without having a symptom. So while this idea would normally work, in this case, it does not because you can carry it without realizing you are carrying it and cough, give it to someone else, and they'll never know how they got it.

7. I guess we're gonna disagree here, because I find someone whose complaining about things being shut down to try and save others to be extremely selfish and uncaring about those who are at risk, when it could be someone you love. or someone they love. Consideration for others goes a long dang way and I'm sick and tired of people's lack of care or even lack of awareness they're part of the problem.

That's all I can say to this.

 

[Jaguar]

Toilet paper in the grocery store, at last!

 

[FemMecha]

There is also the issue of the virus mutating. It isn't one thing now and stands to further mutate. We can't build all assumptions on the initial expression of the virus.

"The researchers found the "L" type, which they deemed the more aggressive type, in 70% of the virus samples. They also found that the prevalence of this strain decreased after early January. The more commonly found type today is the older, "S" type, because "human intervention" such as quarantines may have reduced the ability of the "L" type to spread, researchers wrote in the paper."

How fast can the coronavirus mutate? | Live Science

 

[Tellenbach]

For comparison:

45 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year (and roughly 40 die from the attack);
606,000 Americans died from cancer in 2019;
56,000 Americans die from the flu each year;
37,000 Americans die in auto accidents each year;
3,536 Americans die from drowning each year;
51 Americans die from lightning strikes each year.

I'm thinking the coronavirus deaths will be somewhere between drowning deaths and gun homicides by urban youths. If we really wanted to save lives, we'd lower the speed limit to 45 mph everywhere and mandate 10-inch rubber front and rear bumpers on all cars and have the National Guard police urban centers like Chicago.

Currently, death by coronavirus stands at 0.047 deaths per 100,000 people.

In Chicago, the murder rate is 16 murdered per 100,000 people, which means living in Chicago is 350 times riskier than contracting the coronavirus.

 

[Swivelinglight]

I think it has to do with overwhelmed health care system. Also you're saying per year. The stats are what 100k total from corona for the past few months. Hopefully with preventive measures keep that number low in the US. Ofc if we do keep that number low then you will say the measures were unnecessary

Edit: I mention overwhelmed healthcare system twofold. One is harder to treat existing patients (cancer etc) and two might not be able to treat new patients of covid. Both scenarios are not good

 

[Red Memories]

For comparison:

45 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year (and roughly 40 die from the attack);
606,000 Americans died from cancer in 2019;
56,000 Americans die from the flu each year;
37,000 Americans die in auto accidents each year;
3,536 Americans die from drowning each year;
51 Americans die from lightning strikes each year.

I'm thinking the coronavirus deaths will be somewhere between drowning deaths and gun homicides by urban youths. If we really wanted to save lives, we'd lower the speed limit to 45 mph everywhere and mandate 10-inch rubber front and rear bumpers on all cars and have the National Guard police urban centers like Chicago.

Currently, death by coronavirus stands at 0.047 deaths per 100,000 people.

In Chicago, the murder rate is 16 murdered per 100,000 people, which means living in Chicago is 350 times riskier than contracting the coronavirus.

One of the dilemmas is how long people have the illness. It takes these people quite a while to recover after symptoms set.

plus according to United States Coronavirus: 9,385 Cases and 154 Deaths - Worldometer

of actual resolved cases, as in truly recovered 100% vs. death, death is 59% of only 262 cases that have been resolved.

this may go down but let's not take a big number to ignore other statistics at play here.

for overall cases, of reported,
94,635

Cases which had an outcome:
(recovered and discharged)
85,673 (91%)

(deaths)
8,962 (9%)

this is getting close to SARS percentages.

I'm just annoyed so many are suggesting we shouldn't care since it appears this many people have it and aren't dead.

well the cases haven't resolved yet either.