Yes, but 650k in basically 6 weeks.
There were approximately 29M cases of the flu in 2016-2017, which averages out to about 558k/week. Now Iām not comparing the two, this seems to be much deadlier; however, we were talking about how contagious it is. If itās super contagious it should at least be as contagious as the flu, right? Unless there are a ton of asymptomatic carriers, which is kind of a good thing, right?
True. But with limited testing who knows what that true number is in the last few months? And thatās with all the things being done to keep it in check. Anyways, my contention was more about it being highly contagious. I donāt think anything could lead us to believe it isnāt.
If the entire population was tested we would know. But our testing has been minute from the get go and is now improving. You canāt confirm something if you canāt test it. We have a high number in a short period of time with limited testing and massive social distancing.
Yes. R0 (canāt do subscript here) is, in layman speak, a basic measurement of viral contagiousness. Along with doubling time, mutation rate, and some other measures it makes up the foundation of basic info about a virus, kind of like we talk about āhardness ratingsā, tensile strength, yield loads, and failure loads with building materials and metals.
Many current estimates put its R0 at about equal to the flu, +/- some fraction. Some, including a paper published last week in āEmerging Infectious Diseasesā put its R0 at significantly higher. This most recent paper estimated it as more than double the flu (link to paper below).
Basically, the reason we donāt have those high numbers is our current mitigation strategies.
Yes, this is a good thing in one way and a bad thing in another. Good, because the perceived case fatality rate goes down from where it is (about 4.5% in the US, ~40x the flu).
Bad, because it means we are doomed to hospitalization outbreaks that we canāt fight, because we donāt know where they are because we donāt have enough testing or tracking.
Note: article passed peer review, but not in final form. Typically this means formatting and phrasing may change but numbers are essentially final.
1 Like
Yes, and therein lies the paradox imo. People that suffer from this are screwed, no doubt. But if there are so many asymptomatic carriers, from a purely non-humanitarian perspective, how ābadā can this be compared to much deadlier stuff in the past? And is it really that unusual that a new disease is so difficult to treat for those that suffer from it, simply because of the fact that it is new?
We are given a minute to minute update of the numerator (tested positive, acute symptoms, death) But the fact is that no one knows what the denominator is right now (total # of infected). And again, from a pure numbers game, that denominator number is the key.
(I linked a study trying to get a better handle on the denominator, led by Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford using MLB cooperation, but no one cared. Full disclosure: Bhattacharyaās bias is he thinks the denominator is higher than generally believed, and that the rate of affected/deaths is lower than generally believed.)
2 Likes
These are not good numbers. Itās granted that they will most likely eventually lower as we find out more about asymptomatic cases, but these really arenāt good. Recall our much earlier thread conversation about mortality ābeing around 1-2%ā
Now stack potential neurological issues on top of known lung and cardiac issues.
The fear has never been purely about how deadly the virus is itself. Even an illness that had a minuscule chance of death, but a massive risk of global hospitalization would be worth preventing in a similar manner. Coronavirus itself may not kill tons. But if everything else canāt be dealt with? Thatās the true reason for a lot of this.
Itās why getting āthroughā some of this initial wave with social distancing has been so critical. And with better and faster testing we will be able to figure out the best ways to contain its spread. Weāve learned a lot in the last month.
Also, consider that estimated flu deaths for that year were 38k. We are close to that number in less than 2 months in the US.
I didnāt get a chance to read this study, but I would agree with the general trend being a lower rate of deaths for new viruses as more is learned about them and the true spread. I donāt think that makes it insignificant though. FYI I still havenāt read the study in question, just a general comment
Disagree. 2 weeks? Definitely. 30 days? Maybe. Indefinitely? (By indefinite, I mean that you need to give people a date to look forward to, you canāt do this āyet to be determinedā stuff, thatās not how folks are wired) No way. Look around (figuratively), people are going nuts, all kinds of economic shenanigans are rampant. Again, disagree.
Heās collecting data. He said heāll being doing in weeks what it would normally take years to do. Another reason I am against all the pessimism out there.
Well I wouldnāt say indefinitely by any means. We would handle it similar to this based on the data. Last I checked an entire population in the hospital canāt be that productive anyways.
I donāt think having something concrete in the beginning made any sense and even now maybe. It makes sense to change plans based on how things are going. If certain states are in good spots get back at it. If Kansas turns into New York City hold off a bit. Itās not like people are going to be purposefully going out and about if the fear of being infected is sky high. Many aspects of the economy arenāt racing back to normal.
Economic shenanigans are to be expected. Thatās what happens when you shut things down. But it doesnāt make it incorrect. If we had shut down immediately maybe we could be opened up faster. We shouldnāt make the same mistake twice. I want things closer to normal just as much as anybody else. But I donāt want to do it at the possible expense of more economic pain. Itās unknown right now that we wouldnāt be better off if we hadnāt been so fearful to delay and deny the need for changing behavior.
This is why I avoid having ādiscussionsā with you. In case you hadnāt noticed. My mistake.
I said a minuscule chance of death would be worth changing behavior on with a massive global hospitalization risk. Fine the vast majority of the population being in a hospital canāt be productive? Is that better for you? I didnāt expect you to be so offended and I didnāt expect it to be taken literally. We couldnāt put a whole population in the hospital or even close to it.
I thought the point was obvious. Maybe people are going more nuts than I thought?
That sounds like media talk to me.
Iām not being pessimistic, merely realistic. This is the data we have so far. My opinions will change based on what I see coming out of the numbers and lit.
1 Like
Weāre still about 10k shy of that number last I saw, but I agree with your point. By August I expect deaths to be above 40k, but short of the current estimate of 60-70.
Weāll see. I certainly hope youāre right, but itās likely we hit 40k by June IMHO.
1 Like
I live in Upstate NY. Governor Cuomo just signed an executive order mandating everyone in NYS wear a mask while out in public. I refuse to comply. This is ridiculous. How will you enforce this bullshit? Moreover, where could you get a mask right now? EVERYONE is sold out. Lastly, they have an 80% effective rate of stopping transmission.
I have not, and will not, social distance during this entire time. If a friend calls me over to hang out or lift, I will go. If Iām walking down the sidewalk and I see a group of people coming, Iām not moving to the sidewalk across the street. Now, donāt take this as a disregard for others. If I call up my family, relatives, or friends, and they do not want people coming over during this time, Iāll respect that.
These measures are simply draconian and ineffective at best. Besides, Governor Cuomo just said yesterday āWe donāt have a kingā (in reference to Trumpās statement about a President having total authority). With that in mind, donāt pretend to tell me that I must now wear a mask. You are not a king either, sir.
1 Like
Iām pretty sure the first post I noticed from him (over a year ago) included ā#metooā. He seems to have a limited number of ājokesā to pull from.
You sound like a real gem.
I think for myself as opposed to letting an overreaching nanny-state do my thinking.