COVID-19

[MGoBrew11]

So not trying to be a dick or anything but looking for actual thoughts on this, so far we have had 72 deaths due to Covid-19 in 25 days, from data I found on the CDC website on average 79 people die per day from the flu (CDC website says 16K to 42K deaths per year) which is 1975 in the same 25 days.

Do you think people just didn't know how many people actually died from the flu? and if they actually did would the panic currently going on be much less than it is now?

The old “it’s just like the flu” argument. First off, most sources I’ve seen suggest a death rate no lower than .5% for this thing, which is still 5x more dangerous than the flu. Some experts say it could still be as high as 5%(!).

All you have to do is look at China and Italy to see this is much more serious than the flu. Come on, man. We’re about 2 weeks behind Italy’s timeline. If we take action now we can save a lot of lives. People need to stop minimizing this.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Do you think the reaction is because of the death rate?

Well if you believe what my governor just said if you are under 50 you have a death rate of .4% based on known cases, the more that are tested the more that will be identified as having it, which means the death rate will drop to a lower amount.

I am thinking that people just aren't aware of how many people have died from other illnesses so when they hear a number they freak out and of course the media doesn't help.

If you look at the symptoms on this site https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ like my wife and I did and like my coworkers and I did the other week in the past month my wife and I met nearly all of the main symptoms, several coworkers did the same, now most are healthy and didn't think anything of it, if we had the same symptoms now we would have asked to get tested, of course like they did say 96-98% of those tested are negative, so who knows.

 

[insanebikerboy]

So not trying to be a dick or anything but looking for actual thoughts on this, so far we have had 72 deaths due to Covid-19 in 25 days, from data I found on the CDC website on average 79 people die per day from the flu (CDC website says 16K to 42K deaths per year) which is 1975 in the same 25 days.

I’m a math guy so numbers have always been appealing, and I had similar questions/doubts.

From the information I’ve read; humans currently have no known immunity, there is no vaccine, a transmission rate of 2-3 per infected person (compared to less than 1 for normal flu), and an estimated death rate of 1%, the odds of significant death rate exist. Th majority of those deaths would most likely be the older population.

The bigger problem, if there was a mass influx of people with symptoms, who need assisted ventilation, to a hospital, triage would be a very real thing and would potentially result in many deaths.

We annually see ~40,000 die from the flu. That’s 40,000 with a population that already has a type of herd immunity and that already has access to vaccines or medicines to help lessen flu once contracted. With no predisposed immunity and currently no vaccine, it’s basically up to the individual to fight it off.

From a psychological perspective we are conditioned to hearing about ~40k a year (in the US) dying from the normal flu and think ‘wtf is the big deal since we’ve only had a few thousand globally?’. It’s a big deal because older or otherwise medically impaired people are fighting an uphill battle and those numbers would drastically exceed 40k real fast.

I was like you initially so I took a long hard look and it makes sense to me now.

 

[taxi1]

So not trying to be a dick or anything but looking for actual thoughts on this, so far we have had 72 deaths due to Covid-19 in 25 days, from data I found on the CDC website on average 79 people die per day from the flu (CDC website says 16K to 42K deaths per year) which is 1975 in the same 25 days.

Reasonable question. We are definitely in this "waiting for the storm" phase.

The doubling rate for the virus is about twice per week, so we'll expect about 320 dead next Monday.

For each person who dies, assuming the mortality rate is 2%, that means there are about 10 people (20%) who have to go to a hospital. The lucky 80% can chill. Of the hospital goers, about 5% total will need critical care, so about 2.5 people needing scarce ventilators for each death.

Doing the math, in 4 weeks we should be at 80 x 2^(2 x 4) =20,000 deaths. In five weeks we will be at 80,000 deaths, because we double twice each week. Assuming the social distancing is not working.

In 4 weeks we should have about 2.5 x 80 x 2^(2 x 4)= 50,000 needing critical care, 200,000 hospitalized. In 5 weeks it is 100,000 needing critical and 400,000 hospitalized.

When we run out of the ventilators and hospital beds, that death rate goes up fast.

If the mortality rate is just 1%, double all of the numbers for actual patients.

 

[nittany03]

So not trying to be a dick or anything but looking for actual thoughts on this, so far we have had 72 deaths due to Covid-19 in 25 days, from data I found on the CDC website on average 79 people die per day from the flu (CDC website says 16K to 42K deaths per year) which is 1975 in the same 25 days.

Do you think people just didn't know how many people actually died from the flu? and if they actually did would the panic currently going on be much less than it is now?

The flu is endemic. There is herd immunity to many strains, vaccines for others, and the flu virus has evolved into a niche in our ecosystem that’s relatively stable.

The concern isn’t that COVID19 is going to stay where it’s at. It that virtually no one is immune yet, which means it is going to spread through the entire human population like wildfire. And it’s about 10 times as lethal as the flu. South Korea, last I heard, was showing an 0.7 percent mortality rate.

There are about 331 million people in the US. If 40 percent of them get COVID19, that means 331M times 40 percent, times 0.7 percent will die. That’s 926,800 people, between 22 and 57 times more than died of flu.

The question is whether we can either drive the 40 percent number down through social distancing, or somehow keep the at-risk people from overwhelming the healthcare system. If, say, 15 percent of patients need serious care, and 40 percent of the population is infected eventually, that’s 331M times 40 percent, times 15 percent is 19 million people needing care. That’s the entire population of NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, and half of Philly . . . combined.

This is why we need to distance. If a group that size gets sick quickly, we’re fucked. If it takes months, the system may be able to handle it.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

The old “it’s just like the flu” argument. First off, most sources I’ve seen suggest a death rate no lower than .5% for this thing, which is still 5x more dangerous than the flu. Some experts say it could still be as high as 5%(!).

All you have to do is look at China and Italy to see this is much more serious than the flu. Come on, man. We’re about 2 weeks behind Italy’s timeline. If we take action now we can save a lot of lives. People need to stop minimizing this.

look at my above post that the WA governor just said.

I would put money that as testing ramps up the death rate will fall drastically.

I was incorrect on my flu death rate data I had the date range wrong they date the CDC starts with is Oct 1 2019 and to Mar 7 2020 they estimate 22K to 55K have died from the flu during that time, that means average 245 per day.

 

[Pags]

Well if you believe what my governor just said if you are under 50 you have a death rate of .4% based on known cases, the more that are tested the more that will be identified as having it, which means the death rate will drop to a lower amount.

I am thinking that people just aren't aware of how many people have died from other illnesses so when they hear a number they freak out and of course the media doesn't help.

If you look at the symptoms on this site https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ like my wife and I did and like my coworkers and I did the other week in the past month my wife and I met nearly all of the main symptoms, several coworkers did the same, now most are healthy and didn't think anything of it, if we had the same symptoms now we would have asked to get tested, of course like they did say 96-98% of those tested are negative, so who knows.

You're thinking linearly and not logarithmically. Hopefully, this thing stays linear and we don't look like Italy (and soon to be Spain and France). Others above this post have articulated the math. In many cases, this isn't about YOU but about others around YOU who fall in to one of the at risk populations. The one way it is about YOU is if your local hospital gets slammed by a lot of cases then they won't be able to help you with a lower risk issue thus increasing risk in areas of medicine that should be low risk.

 

[taxi1]

I would put money that as testing ramps up the death rate will fall drastically.

Definitely. We'll be able to take those people and isolate them.

In the absence of testing, or if the number carrying the virus has blown past the point where it can have an impact, we have to isolate everybody to order to have the same effect.

Not getting testing going was a monstrous failure by our government. Unforgivable. Lives will be lost, so heads should roll.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Reasonable question. We are definitely in this "waiting for the storm" phase.

The doubling rate for the virus is about twice per week, so we'll expect about 320 dead next Monday.

For each person who dies, assuming the mortality rate is 2%, that means there are about 10 people (20%) who have to go to a hospital. The lucky 80% can chill. Of the hospital goers, about 5% total will need critical care, so about 2.5 people needing scarce ventilators for each death.

Doing the math, in 4 weeks we should be at 80 x 2^(2 x 4) =20,000 deaths. In five weeks we will be at 80,000 deaths, because we double twice each week. Assuming the social distancing is not working.

In 4 weeks we should have about 2.5 x 80 x 2^(2 x 4)= 50,000 needing critical care, 200,000 hospitalized. In 5 weeks it is 100,000 needing critical and 400,000 hospitalized.

When we run out of the ventilators and hospital beds, that death rate goes up fast.

If the mortality rate is just 1%, double all of the numbers for actual patients.

Since those who could be deceased by next Monday should already be in care of a hospital it will be interesting to see how close to the 320 we get.

My info from friends who have spouses who are working in hospitals is that not only are they filled with those that are having issues with COVID-19 that need care but with those who thought they did and decided to go seek medical attention and were in bad enough shape to stay at the hospital if it weren't for COVID-19 they may have otherwise not gone to seek medical care (they probably should have anyway though)

 

[MGoBrew11]

look at my above post that the WA governor just said.

I would put money that as testing ramps up the death rate will fall drastically.

I was incorrect on my flu death rate data I had the date range wrong they date the CDC starts with is Oct 1 2019 and to Mar 7 2020 they estimate 22K to 55K have died from the flu during that time, that means average 245 per day.

it doesn’t matter if the death rate falls drastically in the long game. The death rate is high because everyone is getting it at the same time and it sucks up all the hospitals’ resources. The death rate WILL be higher for that reason if no action is taken.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

The flu is endemic. There is herd immunity to many strains, vaccines for others, and the flu virus has evolved into a niche in our ecosystem that’s relatively stable.

The concern isn’t that COVID19 is going to stay where it’s at. It that virtually no one is immune yet, which means it is going to spread through the entire human population like wildfire. And it’s about 10 times as lethal as the flu. South Korea, last I heard, was showing an 0.7 percent mortality rate.

There are about 331 million people in the US. If 40 percent of them get COVID19, that means 331M times 40 percent, times 0.7 percent will die. That’s 926,800 people, between 22 and 57 times more than died of flu.

The question is whether we can either drive the 40 percent number down through social distancing, or somehow keep the at-risk people from overwhelming the healthcare system. If, say, 15 percent of patients need serious care, and 40 percent of the population is infected eventually, that’s 331M times 40 percent, times 15 percent is 19 million people needing care. That’s the entire population of NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, and half of Philly . . . combined.

This is why we need to distance. If a group that size gets sick quickly, we’re fucked. If it takes months, the system may be able to handle it.

It will be interesting to see how the numbers change, maybe I am just more of the person that likes to look at the optimistic side? I do think that the numbers are changing rapidly and the more data we get the more accurate projections we will have.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

You're thinking linearly and not logarithmically. Hopefully, this thing stays linear and we don't look like Italy (and soon to be Spain and France). Others above this post have articulated the math. In many cases, this isn't about YOU but about others around YOU who fall in to one of the at risk populations. The one way it is about YOU is if your local hospital gets slammed by a lot of cases then they won't be able to help you with a lower risk issue thus increasing risk in areas of medicine that should be low risk.

I agree and what gets me and what pisses my wife off is that if people who were sick consistently did the right thing and didn't still go to work and go do other things to expose other people that would have minimized the illness to some extent, when I am sick I don't go to work to be mindful of my coworkers, I don't go see my parents to make sure I don't get them sick.

I hope this COVID-19 issue causes people to think about others when they are ill for the years to come.

 

[nittany03]

It will be interesting to see how the numbers change, maybe I am just more of the person that likes to look at the optimistic side? I do think that the numbers are changing rapidly and the more data we get the more accurate projections we will have.

We can’t afford to be optimistic from a policy perspective. The quicker we slow transmission, the quicker it ends, and the better off we all are.

Especially those of us with elderly parents or grandparents, or immunocompromised colleagues, friends, or loved ones.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

We can’t afford to be optimistic from a policy perspective. The quicker we slow transmission, the quicker it ends, and the better off we all are.

Especially those of us with elderly parents or grandparents, or immunocompromised colleagues, friends, or loved ones.

Not from policy, just personal, I hope this turns out to be where the bark is going to be much worse than the bite.

I appreciate your input on this and hope your parents are safe like I hope mine will be.

 

[HokiePilot]

I agree and what gets me and what pisses my wife off is that if people who were sick consistently did the right thing and didn't still go to work and go do other things to expose other people that would have minimized the illness to some extent, when I am sick I don't go to work to be mindful of my coworkers, I don't go see my parents to make sure I don't get them sick.

I hope this COVID-19 issue causes people to think about others when they are ill for the years to come.

People with COVID-19 are contagious before they get symptoms. That is one of the reasons that it is spreading.