BBC: China pneumonia outbreak: COVID-19 Global Pandemic

[Aristarchus]

If an individual in a "% demographic" finds themselves in the "% fatal" column of coronavirus that individual is still 100% dead. Stay alert and aware but do not add to any panic. Hold on as it could get messy. I think it will slow during the summer and next fall we will see the true impact. At that point we can argue numbers when there will be lots more data to parse.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, bcl05 said:

The infectious disease experts at my institution have told us that they are going to use 2% for modeling/planning services since it represents the current best data.  They have also said that they will continuously re-evaluate as new data emerges.  

 

Given the aggressiveness of testing in China, 2% may not be too bad of an estimate.  It is far to early to know with certainty, of course, but it is also the best number we have.  

 

I continue to hear from experts in the field that 2% is their best current understanding of the available data.  I also continue to see internet experts say (paraphrasing) "I know and you know it won't really be 2%."  I'm going with the experts until they tell me otherwise.  

 

And that 2% represents "2% of the people who have been confirmed with the disease".  

 

Which are a small portion of the most serious cases.  The mild cases (which represents the vast majority) don't even get tested.  

[bcl05]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

The mild cases (which represents the vast majority) don't even get tested.  

 

That is an assumption that we all hope is true, and certainly may be.  But we don't know yet.  The data from china does include a fair number of minimally symptomatic people. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by bcl05

[SoCalSkins]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

2% absolutely are not.  

 

Well, unless some doom-mongering idiot convinces mass numbers of people that the zombie apocalypse is coming, and they should start shooting now.   

I hope you’re right.

[twa]

1 hour ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

Is there anything that takes place at US hospitals that are any different than the rest of the world once this grows at scale that would have better outcomes? 
 

Everyone assumes we have the best system but if they are doing the same things as elsewhere why are we better? 

 

There is vs China, as well as our sanitation facilities.

 

Why are Honk Kong numbers so different?

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, bcl05 said:

The infectious disease experts at my institution have told us that they are going to use 2% for modeling/planning services since it represents the current best data.  They have also said that they will continuously re-evaluate as new data emerges.  

 

Given the aggressiveness of testing in China, 2% may not be too bad of an estimate.  It is far to early to know with certainty, of course, but it is also the best number we have.  

 

I continue to hear from experts in the field that 2% is their best current understanding of the available data.  I also continue to see internet experts say (paraphrasing) "I know and you know it won't really be 2%."  I'm going with the experts until they tell me otherwise.  

Something that also needs to be considered is that 2/3d of the critical cases/deaths in China are men and 1/3 Women.  50% of men smoke in China while only 3% of women do. So I'd make the assumption that smokers are significantly more vulnerable to this virus and since we have fewer smokers our death rate will likely be lower.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Just now, nonniey said:

Something that also needs to be considered is that 2/3d of the critical cases/deaths in China are men and 1/3 Women.  50% of men smoke in China while only 3% of women do. So I'd make the assumption that smokers are significantly more vulnerable to this virus and since we have fewer smokers our death rate will likely be lower.

 

Solid point.  Let’s not forget about airborne particulate pollution, either.

 

Sorry West Virginia!

[SoCalSkins]

Just now, twa said:

 

There is vs China, as well as our sanitation facilities.

 

Why are Honk Kong numbers so different?

China has far more cases. If 15 to 20% need hospitalization as Fauci said during the news conference, that will overwhelm the system. So if we hit numbers at scale like China our numbers should be similar as everywhere else.
 

If you are in a high risk group and will be exposed it’s probably better to be exposed early while you can get extraordinary care. Once the respirators run out it might get ugly. 

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Is Iran the only one letting out their government officials or dying to or are the only country having that specific problem.

 

They are a lot of public figures in our own government that fall in the more dangerous ranges of this virus. 

 

We can point the numbers to reassure ourselves all we want, at some point it could end being who that takes over the headlines.

We need to send the. Trump task force immediately to learn all they can.

2 hours ago, Larry said:

We're doomed. 
 

We're  all gonna DIE!

Woo Hoo.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

27 minutes ago, twa said:

 

There is vs China, as well as our sanitation facilities.

 

Why are Honk Kong numbers so different?

 

I think you are underestimating China’s infrastructure.  All of there cities are modern and have all the modern amenities our cities do, with the added benefit that it’s all relatively new.

[PeterMP]

14 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

So what is South Korea doing differently and why can't we do that here?  10,000 tests a day, using drive through testing.  We have to send it off to Atlanta?

 

They're just using drive throughs to collect samples. 

 

It is still taking 3 days to get results in S. Korea.  In general S. Korea is a much smaller country with a much higher population density and much more technologically centered in that population density.

 

South Korea spends about 4.3% of its GDP on R&D compared to only 2.7% in the US.  On a yearly basis.  That makes a difference.

 

(I think @bcl05 is over complicating the issues in getting the testing into a more diversified places in the country.  There are certainly a lot of labs that are used to doing RT-PCR based diagnostic testing that should be able to handle this sort of thing.  This comes across to me as the government being unprepared, which isn't surprising based on who is running the government and what has happened to the CDC.  When you don't have people whose job it is to plan for a pandemic, your plans for a pandemic are going to be poor.

 

But we'd always have a disadvantages with respect to a country like S. Korea unless there is a more drastic re-organization of our country/government.)

[SoCalSkins]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I think you are underestimating China’s infrastructure.  All of there cities are modern and have all the modern amenities our cities do, with the added benefit that it’s all relatively new.

 

And their healthcare workers are forced to work grueling shifts plus draconian isolation of the population. China might be best case scenario once it explodes.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

After talking to them, I don’t think being optimistic and pretending it won’t be bad is realistic. 

no one is saying we should just be optimistic for the sake of optimism or pretend anything

 

but at this point there’s more to lose by being alarmist and panicking than working with what the data and ideas (from the people that matter) actually are

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, SoCalSkins said:

 They are never alarmist but think that something around 2% is in probably in the ballpark and this thing has potential to be like the Spanish flu.

 

I'd be shocked if it was like the Spanish Flu.  The only reason the Spanish Flu was like the Spanish Flu was that it happened during WW1 and there was already a general break down of government services and the ability of (healthy) people to self-isolate themselves.

[SoCalSkins]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

no one is saying we should just be optimistic for the sake of optimism or pretend anything

 

but at this point there’s more to lose by being alarmist and panicking than working with what the data and ideas (from the people that matter) actually are

 

I'm freaking out on a Redskins message board and in my head. I'm keeping it calm everywhere else.

[twa]

11 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I think you are underestimating China’s infrastructure.  All of there cities are modern and have all the modern amenities our cities do, with the added benefit that it’s all relatively new.

 

I think you overstate the matter

 

https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/birth-of-a-virus/

 

 

[tshile]

57 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

 

Not really.  The supportive care patients with coronavirus need (ventilators, oxygen, suction, ICU expertise, etc) is broadly available across the developed world.  Some of the medications that have shown some early promise in this have been around for ages and are easily available everywhere.  Novel treatments still in development may reach our patients first, depending on specifics.  

 

Also, anyone assuming we have the best system hasn't been paying attention. 

well and the bigger issue is capacity. 
 

I’d rather walk into one of the local hospitals here than anywhere else in the world. I know I’ll get great care. I trust in these places and not blindly; I have much of my information in good authority. 
 

but when 500 people show up at once, that’s a different problem no hospital can deal with. 
 

which is why the panic is worse than the virus at this point. Shortages on supplies because alarmists bought them all up; runs on hospitals where the standard care is to go home and quarantine yourself and evaluate yourself; people scaring people from going to work

 

maybe if people gave half this **** about the flu, or drinking and driving, or any number of other things we could save many more than what the coronavirus will take. 
 

but the media gets to scare everyone and never gets held accountable. Plus the internet. Oh well. 

[Larry]

29 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

But we'd always have a disadvantages with respect to a country like S. Korea unless there is a more drastic re-organization of our country/government.

 

 

24 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

I'm freaking out on a Redskins message board and in my head. I'm keeping it calm everywhere else.

 

How'd we get so lucky?   

[mcsluggo]

15 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

assuming this is true (a heroic assumption with ANYTHING that Trump posts/says)... what is it telling us?     

 

??is it telling us that:

0) the other (zika and ebola) polls were from when Obama was in the Whitehouse

1) there is a base 60-ish percent of the people that usually "trust the government" professionals to usually do the right thing 

2) some of those trust the government less with Trump in control (presumably) 

3) but a LARGER number (17-ish percent more) of people have generally not trusted the government in the past now trust the government (possibly because Trump is in control?)

 

This is an honest question (not an assertion in any way):   

 

do more democrats generally trust the government (and even trust the professionals to keep doing the right thing no matter who is in charge) than republicans?   and is there a group of republicans (or at least Trump supporters) that would generally answer "no trust" to any poll involving the government when Obama was in charge and would now generally answer "go team!" to any poll asking about trust in the government now?

 

or... were the polls on ebola and zika later in the "disease cycle" ?  after the "lets stand together in a crisis" sheen had worn off?

 

or... have people honestly made an assessment of the response to date, and decided that the government has been doing a better job than in the past?

 

 

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

assuming this is true (a heroic assumption with ANYTHING that Trump posts/says)... what is it telling us?     

 

??is it telling us that:

0) the other (zika and ebola) polls were from when Obama was in the Whitehouse

1) there is a base 60-ish percent of the people that usually "trust the government" professionals to usually do the right thing 

2) some of those trust the government less with Trump in control (presumably) 

3) but a LARGER number (17-ish percent more) of people have generally not trusted the government in the past now trust the government (possibly because Trump is in control?)

 

4)  This disease is considerably less threatening?  

[SoCalSkins]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

think I’ll stick to listening to the cdc directly. 

The cdc just canceled their briefing for today. That’s horrible leadership and a direct result of Trump/Pence.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/a0302-COVID-19-update.html 

 

[visionary]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

We're doomed. 
 

We're  all gonna DIE!

Some will.  Possibly some among us on this site.  No need to be belittling on such a serious issue that many people are frightened about.

[mcsluggo]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

 

I don't watch foxnews and generally consider it to be a channel that stupid people watch.

 

But let's look at your article, and your claims, and see what happens here:

 

 

 

So, no, Fauci did not say that it is 2%. He said that's the data we got now, and that it might be a little lower if all cases were counted. 

 

So no the question of, where does 2% come from with any sort of certainty, you were wrong. It doesn't come from Fauci.

 

In fact Fauci is saying the exact same thing  most infection disease people, including the CDC, have been saying for weeks.

 

 

So, at this point, pending you provide actual information to the contrary, you're nothing more than alarmist regurgitating information you find on the internet that you don't understand.

 

Which, by the way, was pretty easy to tell in your first post but I thought i'd give you the opportunity to show otherwise.

 

 

 

wtf is this aggression?   posting what the WASHINGTON POST says, and what the premier infectious disease expert in the USA says is the best current (early) estimation is  "nothing more than alarmist regurgitating information you find on the internet that you don't understand."

 

 

i'm not sure why the discussion is getting so heated?  of COURSE the estimates now are imperfect...it is the nature of estimation from an early imprecise highly volatile sample set

Edited March 2, 2020 by mcsluggo

[SoCalSkins]

14 officially confirmed cases in WA. 5 deaths. 36% death rate. That’s because of the Trump CDC testing restrictions. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by SoCalSkins

[PeterMP]

58 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

4)  This disease is considerably less threatening?  

 

Not at all sure about that.  Nobody that ever got Ebola in the US died from it.  Ebola can be a very nasty disease, but it is also a very limited disease.

 

Much better chance of seeing a higher death total from this than Ebola.  Much better chance it becomes a regular recurring disease.