When is it time to panic

wae (Forum Supporter) said:

 

EDIT:  But regardless of that -- hell, even if it is 21% -- what do we do if there's no cure for this?

Most would say hide and die. 

wae (Forum Supporter) said:

EDIT:  But regardless of that -- hell, even if it is 21% -- what do we do if there's no cure for this?

We have to be careful and respectful of others who might be harmed by it.

Test as much as possible for those that have been infected.  (I am sorry, but the concept of contact tracing seem wildly impractical / unworkable in this country.)

Once 40% of the population has been infected, heard immunity kicks in, things can lighten up.

This is what Sweden is currently doing and seem to be getting reasonably close to the needed number (they still will have issues with boarders / travel of course)

I think what is missing in most of the official discussions about this (on all "sides") in the case of no vaccine, is what is REASONABLE.  Contact tracing would be wildly impractical. Waiting for a vaccine is economic (and actual health) roulette. Going back to normal or not taking precautions is just asking for it.

Yes, people will die in any of these scenarios.... people die, that is what they do.... all the time....

STM317 said:

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I think the numbers PD is referencing show "Closed cases" where people have either died, or are considered officially "recovered". It's probably pretty similar to looking at the numbers for "hospitalizations", where the potential outcome is either 1) recovery or 2) death. I'm not sure it's useful info really since so many people that have tested positive but shown minor or no symptoms aren't considered part of the "recovered" group. And there's no effort at all in that calculation to figure out how many have had it but not been tested.

Of course not. That makes it look less scary and that doesn't drive ratings or poll numbers in their favor. 

I will say this: The whole problem here hasn't even touched on the other issues it's created. The mental health E36 M3storm that is going to come from this is the next wave. I hope they have spent 1/10th of all this fear mongering to consider and deal with it. 

Don't worry, there is a pill for that.... you can probably see them advertised on your news stations soon....

Cha ching! $$$$$

bobzilla said:

wae (Forum Supporter) said:

 

EDIT:  But regardless of that -- hell, even if it is 21% -- what do we do if there's no cure for this?

Most would say hide and die. 

If it was 21% mortality rate, we would be done with the lockdowns and we would never find a cure because it would deal with itself. Viruses that have that high mortality rates run out of people to infect pretty quickly. 

bobzilla said:

STM317 said:

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I think the numbers PD is referencing show "Closed cases" where people have either died, or are considered officially "recovered". It's probably pretty similar to looking at the numbers for "hospitalizations", where the potential outcome is either 1) recovery or 2) death. I'm not sure it's useful info really since so many people that have tested positive but shown minor or no symptoms aren't considered part of the "recovered" group. And there's no effort at all in that calculation to figure out how many have had it but not been tested.

Of course not. That makes it look less scary and that doesn't drive ratings or poll numbers in their favor. 

How do you even attempt to calculate something like that. Not even an SWAG would be close.

They of course cannot actually accurately calculate that, but is is wildly irresponsible to not at least NOTE that the number, both what they are reporting now, and what they should, are based on inexact calculations (currently, known cases vs actual cases are certainly off by a very large factor).  

It would be like reporting the new Miata (MX5) goes from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds in a recent test!  Wow, right!  Of course... what they are not saying is that the car was tested on a sloped surface... how slopped you ask?  Well, we have a good guess (and it could even be 80 degrees).  But why bother telling you that... 3.5 seconds!!!!!

z31maniac said:

bobzilla said:

STM317 said:

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I think the numbers PD is referencing show "Closed cases" where people have either died, or are considered officially "recovered". It's probably pretty similar to looking at the numbers for "hospitalizations", where the potential outcome is either 1) recovery or 2) death. I'm not sure it's useful info really since so many people that have tested positive but shown minor or no symptoms aren't considered part of the "recovered" group. And there's no effort at all in that calculation to figure out how many have had it but not been tested.

Of course not. That makes it look less scary and that doesn't drive ratings or poll numbers in their favor. 

How do you even attempt to calculate something like that. Not even an SWAG would be close.

In a perfect world, you'd sample absolutely everybody but that's not really feasible at the moment so you do the next best thing. You sample a reasonably sized and distributed random group and extrapolate that data for the population. So you pick people at random from various locations that closely resemble the entire population and see how many are actually infected, or show signs of prior infection (antibodies).

I posted this IU study a couple of pages ago, but it's worth another link for those that missed it. Indiana has now done one of the first truly random tests in the nation. They tested for active infection as well as antibodies. They tested around 4600 people. Indiana has a population of around 1.732million, so the IU study sample size of 4600 people would be enough to 99% confidence level and 2% margin for error for the state. The tests were done at the end of April and very early May while the state was still under it's most stringent lockdown rules. They found about 3% of the sample to either have a current infection or antibodies from prior infection. Using that info, they assume that 3% of the state population has had the virus (as of late April/early May). That's 186k Hoosiers (that's what they call Indiana natives, don't ask why) while the state's official data only showed 17k confirmed cases at the time. So basically 1 out of every 11 cases was "confirmed" and official while 10/11 went unrecorded in official numbers.

That really changes the math when calculating mortality if it goes from "XXX deaths per 17k known cases" to "XXX deaths per 186K total cases"

The prior number gives us the "case fatality rate", while the new number gives us the "Infection fatality rate".

Using the Indiana numbers, we can see that the infection fatality rate was 0.58%, or about 5-6 times more lethal than an average influenza which has an "IFR" around 0.1%.

In reply to STM317 :

IIRC the Stanford study was very similar in their results as was the Maine. But all of those were poo-poo'd as not being accurate enough yadda yadda yadda. The real problem is they don't fit the narrative that they want to continue to push. 

Current global numbers show 4.7M infectected and 300k deaths. If these studies are to be believed, we are looking at closer to 51M infected. Yes, 300k deaths is sad for those that it affects. But for a global pandemic it's pretty mild. 

EDIT: as for "hoosier" there is no one origin. The one we were taught in the 80's had it coming from a census taker asking "who's there" with an accent making it sound like "hoosier". Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. We adopted it 150+ years ago and live by it. Everyone else is just jealous.

In reply to STM317 :

The problem with extrapolating the number statewide is that the various counties and cities may not be seeing the same infection level. That can skew number dramatically in either direction if local effects aren't accounted for in the analysis (I.e. the funeral in the small GA town that created a hotspot).

It's no different that the way states are seeing different infection rates from the virus based on their population density, industries, and other factors that may affect infection rates. 

In reply to bobzilla :

I think most of the nit-picking with prior tests involved a somewhat self selecting sample group, and they were only testing for active infections OR antibodies, and not both at the same time. Those are legitimate complaints I think. The tests were interesting, but not ideal data to base decisions on. I think the Indiana study has the best methodology that I've seen thus far, and the coming rounds will reveal interesting data about how the virus spreads as restrictions are eased.

In reply to STM317 :

I know that our hospital/Dr office is compiling a list of people to test for antibodies once testing becomes available. I volunteered since I am about 90% certain I've already been through this (and it sucked). But accurate testing is important because inaccurate results are worthless. 

No Time said:

In reply to STM317 :

The problem with extrapolating the number statewide is that the various counties and cities may not be seeing the same infection level. That can skew number dramatically in either direction if local effects aren't accounted for in the analysis (I.e. the funeral in the small GA town that created a hotspot).

It's no different that the way states are seeing different infection rates from the virus based on their population density, industries, and other factors that may affect infection rates. 

A random sampling gathers data from all of those areas though right? They didn't test people at a single location and then base predictions off of that. They gathered info from across the state, across demographics, etc. Extrapolating is never as good as actually having the exact counts, but a truly random sample of appropriate size can get a really close prediction.

Anyone see the news blurb about the Navy guys on the aircraft carrier?  8 sailors who had previously been Covid positive and recovered are sick again.  That doesn't bode well for the "get it and gain immunity" theory.

And my daughter had this dark prediction yesterday:  "since 2020 has been such a terrible year all around, we should be looking out for the queen and Betty White."

Their deaths will surely mark the coming of the 4 Horsemen....

KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:

Anyone see the news blurb about the Navy guys on the aircraft carrier?  8 sailors who had previously been Covid positive and recovered are sick again.  That doesn't bode well for the "get it and gain immunity" theory.

Not really. The PCR tests are 67% accurate on their best day. You could theoretically, 3 weeks after infection, test the same person 7 days in a row and only 1 of those 7 tests would be positive. 

The only thing that you should really take away from it is that there is the possibility that you're contagious longer than expected, but probably much less contagious than you would have been at the height of the infection (wear a mask)

No Time said:

In reply to STM317 :

The problem with extrapolating the number statewide is that the various counties and cities may not be seeing the same infection level. That can skew number dramatically in either direction if local effects aren't accounted for in the analysis (I.e. the funeral in the small GA town that created a hotspot).

It's no different that the way states are seeing different infection rates from the virus based on their population density, industries, and other factors that may affect infection rates. 

The way the news reports Dougherty Co GA really frustrates me.

I am from there. The population is 87,992.  Total deaths as of today are 128.  Total confirmed cases is 1629.

That's 0.1%.

Hot spot?  Really? 
 

I guess if the media says so...

KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:

And my daughter had this dark prediction yesterday:  "since 2020 has been such a terrible year all around, we should be looking out for the queen and Betty White."

Their deaths will surely mark the coming of the 4 Horsemen....

Keith Richards - there's the true bellwether.

In reply to glueguy (Forum Supporter) :

Naw, the Rolling Stones were all replaced by Disney animitronics in the 80s. Seriously watch a video of them in concert, then the inside of a Disney ride, then tell me they aren't robots.

glueguy (Forum Supporter) said:

KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:

And my daughter had this dark prediction yesterday:  "since 2020 has been such a terrible year all around, we should be looking out for the queen and Betty White."

Their deaths will surely mark the coming of the 4 Horsemen....

Keith Richards - there's the true bellwether.

Dang, that was the "celebrities die in 3's" one I came up with as well.  Trying not to tempt the universe though, it has a twisted sense of humor sometimes.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

bobzilla said:

wae (Forum Supporter) said:

 

EDIT:  But regardless of that -- hell, even if it is 21% -- what do we do if there's no cure for this?

Most would say hide and die. 

If it was 21% mortality rate, we would be done with the lockdowns and we would never find a cure because it would deal with itself. Viruses that have that high mortality rates run out of people to infect pretty quickly. 

No, because that calculation relies on recovered cases, which would mean a low(er) transmission rate.

As you posted earlier, High Mortality Rate * Low Transmission rate = Low Mortality Rate * High Transmission rate

ProDarwin said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

bobzilla said:

wae (Forum Supporter) said:

 

EDIT:  But regardless of that -- hell, even if it is 21% -- what do we do if there's no cure for this?

Most would say hide and die. 

If it was 21% mortality rate, we would be done with the lockdowns and we would never find a cure because it would deal with itself. Viruses that have that high mortality rates run out of people to infect pretty quickly. 

No, because that calculation relies on recovered cases, which would mean a low(er) transmission rate.

 

Huh? I don't think I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying, but I don't think I completely understand what you're saying. 

FWIW, my statement in this quote was really incorrect, because we probably wouldn't see a lockdown with 21% mortality at all. Intense contact tracing and true quarantine, but not any of the shelter in place that we have now.

Just watched a doc on the 1918 Spanish Flu.  One of the interesting points was that its spread was greatly helped by the fact that the US had just started the big push to recruit and ship over solders for WWI (guess what went with them?).  Because of that, there was essentially no controls in place for much of the time.  They even had a very large gathering for war bonds (parade) that resulted in a huge bloom.  Army camps and troop ships aren't exactly ideal for social distancing.

Interestingly enough, that one likely originated in Kansas!  You might say, well, it could again.  I would suspect not. The US has come a long way in 100 years.... parts of China.... not so much. To be fair, I suspect the primary issue with China is not only the "breeding ground" but it's very strong travel connection to the rest of the world for parts of its population (who may not be very far from the breeding ground).

Interesting article.  We are all being tracked. Glowing light box in the pocket. 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/18/lockdown-protests-spread-coronavirus-cellphone-data

as for the whole sit home and die argument.  That's going done the wrong path. I think we should go out but need lots of testing to identify cases, isolate and then treat.  But we don't have the testing available.   No one seems to want to really take this approach because of cost or freedom or whatever. 
 

hurts my head as a guy who likes data.