bluefrogguy

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Updated numbers from GA, in case anyone was wondering:

https://www.ajc.com/news/coronavirus-georgia-covid-dashboard/IjORDGLckdP3RI9hJU5CWO/

Biggest positive trend we've seen is the week over week positive cases on Monday and Tuesday.

4/20 - 1,240 new cases

4/21 - 767 new cases

and this week

4/27 - 737 new cases

4/28 - 643 new cases

and so far today 413 new cases, last Wednesday was 936.

This in spite of ramped up testing, we're up from 84,238 tests administered to 140,223.

 

Evening update shows new cases Wednesday at 797, so third day in a row of week over week decline, down from the 936 last Wednesday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can reportedly take up to 18k tests a day indefinitely. Good news. Hopefully this becomes commonplace nationwide sooner then later. Then we would have 1 less hurdle to clear for a MLB season assuming testing becomes as plentiful as it appears in LA County now. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tucker26 said:

They can reportedly take up to 18k tests a day indefinitely. Good news. Hopefully this becomes commonplace nationwide sooner then later. Then we would have 1 less hurdle to clear for a MLB season assuming testing becomes as plentiful as it appears in LA County now. 

amazing news and big step towards an mlb season under assumption tests arent faulty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JE7HorseGod said:

And they did it without any lockdown.  They immediately tested everyone around an infection and sent out phone messages. Rapid testing was key for containment along with masks/social distancing and employees cleaning everything. Amazing and around 51 million people there

Impossible to do that here...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr. Whom said:

And they did it without any lockdown.  They immediately tested everyone around an infection and sent out phone messages. Rapid testing was key for containment along with masks/social distancing and employees cleaning everything. Amazing and around 51 million people there

Impossible to do that here...

 

I'm just encouraged they did it.

It's good to see good news anywhere in the world on this thing in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I'm just encouraged they did it.

It's good to see good news anywhere in the world on this thing in my book.

Agreed 100%... hopefully remdesivir works even better than in the clinical trials, and the FDA approves its use, and opens up the door to develop other enzyme blocking drugs. That vast majority of the countries are like us or in worse shape because they could not contain like S. Korea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Whom said:

And they did it without any lockdown.  They immediately tested everyone around an infection and sent out phone messages. Rapid testing was key for containment along with masks/social distancing and employees cleaning everything. Amazing and around 51 million people there

Impossible to do that here...

 

They were prepared. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone posting consistently in this thread -

 

Can we take a poll on what we think the fatality rate will be by end of 2020?
 

What I’m reading recently is it is likely to be below 1% with some antibody testing suggesting it’s as low as .1 to .3% death rate. Obviously a problem but nowhere near the 2-4% being touted at the very early stages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

What I’m reading recently is it is likely to be below 1% with some antibody testing suggesting it’s as low as .1 to .3% death rate. Obviously a problem but nowhere near the 2-4% being touted at the very early stages

 

You're conflating infection fatality rate (IFR) and case fatality rate (IFR) in a way that's misleading.  The initial 4% figure for China was known at the time to be high because it was merely dividing deaths by cases, with no way to measure prevalence.

Furthermore, fatality rate varies widely based on the particulars of the region, how good the healthcare system is, how overloaded hospitals are, etc. and not just how dangerous the disease is.  Regions with more older people, more densely-populated areas, and areas with insufficient hospital capacity will all exhibit higher fatality rates.

We also have very incomplete information on deaths, and a lot of excess mortality unaccounted for in current confirmed cases.  The CDC has started to try to account for this, but going through data from early on when things were spiking and recordkeeping wasn't so great is going to take a while.

Once this is all behind us and we have a firm grasp on the numbers, which will require far more serological testing than has been completed so far, I think we'll converge on something in the 0.5% - 1.0% range, which would be about 20 times worse than a bad flu season.  But this stuff is hard, so it's not surprising there's been some uncertainty as we get more reliable data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr. Whom said:

And they did it without any lockdown.  They immediately tested everyone around an infection and sent out phone messages. Rapid testing was key for containment along with masks/social distancing and employees cleaning everything. Amazing and around 51 million people there

Impossible to do that here...

 

They also tracked everyone and would arrest those who left isolation as ordered. Definite could never happen here. 

 

20 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

Everyone posting consistently in this thread -

 

Can we take a poll on what we think the fatality rate will be by end of 2020?
 

What I’m reading recently is it is likely to be below 1% with some antibody testing suggesting it’s as low as .1 to .3% death rate. Obviously a problem but nowhere near the 2-4% being touted at the very early stages

I’d guess around .5-1.5% overall. The main problem with covid is its more easily transmitted over a longer time than the regular seasonal flu. Asymptomatic individuals also make it much, much harder to track. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just for a laugh during this serious time, watch with volume

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

maybe was in the wrong thread earlier… so here too:

 

News from Germany. (Merkel met with local goverment today, with presser).

11 days after Opening small businesses.

Overall good News. numbers looking good. new infections still going down (between 1000 and 1500 per day for the last days, they say they can handle it and track that amount down). r0 under 1. enough beds and stuff in hospitals.

playgrounds, churches, Zoos can reopen. under restrictions. more businesses too.

BIG next meeting will be may 6. regarding Schools, Kids day care, SPORTS, Restaurants/bars.

 

for sports. soccer.

Nothing specific today. may 6 looks like the date for a definite decision.  bundesliga is ready. may 9 looks a little too early. i would expect, with numbers staying in the current ballbark, that it will restart may 16 or 23. with empty stadiums, testing. but still a little unclear what happens when a player tests positive (player is out 14 days, team is out 14 days, both teams that played out 14 days). i guess they will figure it out on the fly. 

 

France stopped their league. paris champion. plan to start next season late august. italy, spain, england still up in the air. 

Edited by cornerback
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

 

You're conflating infection fatality rate (IFR) and case fatality rate (IFR) in a way that's misleading.  The initial 4% figure for China was known at the time to be high because it was merely dividing deaths by cases, with no way to measure prevalence.

Furthermore, fatality rate varies widely based on the particulars of the region, how good the healthcare system is, how overloaded hospitals are, etc. and not just how dangerous the disease is.  Regions with more older people, more densely-populated areas, and areas with insufficient hospital capacity will all exhibit higher fatality rates.

We also have very incomplete information on deaths, and a lot of excess mortality unaccounted for in current confirmed cases.  The CDC has started to try to account for this, but going through data from early on when things were spiking and recordkeeping wasn't so great is going to take a while.

Once this is all behind us and we have a firm grasp on the numbers, which will require far more serological testing than has been completed so far, I think we'll converge on something in the 0.5% - 1.0% range, which would be about 20 times worse than a bad flu season.  But this stuff is hard, so it's not surprising there's been some uncertainty as we get more reliable data.

 

Thanks for the clarification. It's pretty obvious that Infected Fatality Rate (IFR) was always going to be lower than Case Fatality Rate (CFR) because of the lack of testing and because of how mild the symptoms are.

 

The problem is the CFR was the number that was repeatedly touted in all the fear mongering that pushed us to this economic disaster without any sort of nuance about the IFR. It was using absolute worst case scenario to make decisions with real consequences as opposed to a realistic case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UberRebel said:

The problem is the CFR was the number that was repeatedly touted in all the fear mongering that pushed us to this economic disaster without any sort of nuance about the IFR. It was using absolute worst case scenario to make decisions with real consequences as opposed to a realistic case.

 

The fatality rate is lower in part because people took it seriously.  If you didn't read into the details of the studies and reporting on them that explained that there was uncertainty, or that the initial models were under the assumption that people didn't act to flatten the curve, then that's your error.  The nuance certainly hasn't been lost on the scientists and policymakers who are studying this stuff closely.  You also can't say "well, it ended up not being that deadly, so we shouldn't have acted so forcefully" when one of the reasons it's not as deadly as it might have been is because we acted so forcefully.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

If you didn't read into the details of the studies and reporting on them that explained that there was uncertainty, or that the initial models were under the assumption that people didn't act to flatten the curve, then that's your error.  The nuance certainly hasn't been lost on the scientists and policymakers who are studying this stuff closely. 

 

You're defending the studies and their flaws -- that's another conversation. I'm more blaming the media for the lack of nuance in that particular post. Most Americans were and have been unduly influenced by the media, which in turn forced many of the policymakers' hands into overreacting to avoid backlash. And yes, place your full faith in the scientists and policymakers, but they are not infallible.

 

It's unfortunate that new data is showing that COVID-19 isn't nearly as deadly as was being widely peddled, and we are still ridiculing and castigating policymakers for even thinking about relaxing lockdowns after a month of this.

 

26 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

The fatality rate is lower in part because people took it seriously. 

Quote

You also can't say "well, it ended up not being that deadly, so we shouldn't have acted so forcefully" when one of the reasons it's not as deadly as it might have been is because we acted so forcefully.

 

I'm not sure if you're trying to disambiguate by conflating infection rate with death rate. Yes, social distancing and lockdowns prevented more people from getting infected.

 

But in the absence of the healthcare system getting overwhelmed (which didn't happen and hasn't happened yet) the death rate as it is currently being seen as with the new data is the death rate we should be running with.

 

It would be disingenuous to use death rate in the situation where the curve wasn't flattened and the healthcare system was completely overrun.

 

Edited by UberRebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

 

 

You're defending the studies and their flaws -- that's another conversation. I'm more blaming the media for the lack of nuance in that particular post. Most Americans were and have been unduly influenced by the media, which in turn forced many of the policymakers' hands into overreacting to avoid backlash. And yes, place your full faith in the scientists and policymakers, but they are not infallible.

 

It's unfortunate that new data is showing that COVID-19 isn't nearly as deadly as was being widely peddled, and we are still ridiculing and castigating policymakers for even thinking about relaxing lockdowns after a month of this.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're trying to disambiguate by conflating infection rate with death rate. Yes, social distancing and lockdowns prevented more people from getting infected.

 

But in the absence of the healthcare system getting overwhelmed (which didn't happen and hasn't happened yet) the death rate as it is currently being seen as with the new data is the death rate we should be running with.

 

It would be disingenuous to use death rate in the situation where the curve wasn't flattened and the healthcare system was completely overrun.

 

 

Basically what I was saying was you can't claim the death rate was significantly impacted by social distancing. Maybe a little, but not a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

You're defending the studies and their flaws -- that's another conversation. I'm more blaming the media for the lack of nuance in that particular post. Most Americans were and have been unduly influenced by the media, which in turn forced many of the policymakers' hands into overreacting to avoid backlash. And yes, place your full faith in the scientists and policymakers, but they are not infallible.

 

I generally find the "blame the media" narrative to be pretty tired, but it's particularly specious here given that the #1rated cable news network and the #1 and #2 talk radio programs were minimizing the threat from the beginning and making predictions that were orders of magnitude worse than whatever errors other outlets may have made in the other direction.  I pointed a similar dynamic out in an earlier response to you re: the IHME projections.  You chose not to engage with my counterargument, and that's fine, but you're making a similar error here of highlighting comparably small errors that go against your premises and ignoring the much larger errors in the other direction.  There were people who were highly influential to policymakers saying 500 deaths tops, then 5,000, then 50,000...  And here you're nitpicking that there was some lack of nuance about the possibility of higher death rates if nothing was done, even after a lot of things were done.

 

14 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

It's unfortunate that new data is showing that COVID-19 isn't nearly as deadly as was being widely peddled, and we are still ridiculing and castigating policymakers for even thinking about relaxing lockdowns after a month of this.

 

As I pointed out, and as noted in the link I included, the newly-revised infection rate estimates fall in the range of 20 times worse than a bad flu season.  We still don't have a vaccine, and countries like Singapore, and Japan that have relaxed restrictions for long enough ago to get data on them have had a second wave.  Skepticism toward states that have reopened without meeting the preconditions set by the federal guidelines is very much warranted, and it's not like there will be massive economic benefits when most of the public still wants to exercise caution.  You can force businesses to open, and you can force employees to go to work or get fired, but you can't force customers to frequent your business.

 

26 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

But in the absence of the healthcare system getting overwhelmed (which didn't happen and hasn't happened yet) the death rate is the death rate.

 

This is complete nonsense.  Ask any healthcare worker in the hardest hit areas if they were overwhelmed in the early going.  We built out extra capacity, turning convention centers and parking lots into extra beds, but that capacity did not exist when the more pessimistic projections were made.  To say social distancing didn't help by allowing the medical capacity to scale up to meet demand is a complete rewriting of history.  I know every week feels like a month now, but there's no excuse for this level of fabrication.  We met the challenge, but that does not mean the challenge didn't exist, or that IFR rates could not have hit Wuhan / Italy levels if we'd taken things less seriously.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

This is complete nonsense.  Ask any healthcare worker in the hardest hit areas if they were overwhelmed in the early going.  We built out extra capacity, turning convention centers and parking lots into extra beds, but that capacity did not exist when the more pessimistic projections were made.  To say social distancing didn't help by allowing the medical capacity to scale up to meet demand is a complete rewriting of history.  I know every week feels like a month now, but there's no excuse for this level of fabrication.  We met the challenge, but that does not mean the challenge didn't exist, or that IFR rates could not have hit Wuhan / Italy levels if we'd taken things less seriously.


Social distancing saved some lives, yes. But if you’re trying to claim that social distancing caused the death rate to drastically reduce I don’t know what to tell you. Especially because it was never going to be the case that we would do nothing. We were always going to do some sort of mitigation.

 

Social distancing bought us some time to increase capacity and prevented some unnecessary death in the even of capacity being overrun.

 

The fact still stands that COVID-19 isn’t nearly as deadly as it was generally believed it would be originally. I will contend we overreacted as a result, and you can disagree.

Edited by UberRebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

At the conclusion of today, it will be 7 days since GA Governor Brian Kemp announced that he'd be relaxing social distancing guidelines for select businesses (salons, bowling alleys, tattoo parlors) on the 24th with restaurants opening the following Monday the 27th.

The 7 day period before the 24th, the 17th through the 23rd, GA had 5,509 new cases of Covid-19.

This 7 day period, the 24th through the 30th, GA is at 4,211 new cases.  There will be another update this evening for today's final tally.

In that time GA has administered 41,868 tests, which is far and away the most tests the state has administered over a 7 day period during the crisis.

Some caveats, obviously the 14 day window is going to be MUCH more telling than the 7 day window.  It's still not nearly enough tests.  A number of businesses have still decided to stay closed.

All that being said, unless there is a HUGE spike in today's data this evening, it looks like we're going to be down week over week despite relaxed social distancing standards.

Edited by JE7HorseGod
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

Social distancing saved some lives, yes. But if you’re trying to claim that social distancing caused the death rate to drastically reduce I don’t know what to tell you.


In comparison to your alternative scenario where more infections hit early, before the capacity was increased?  If you can't connect the dots between "increasing number of infections" to "increased number of hospitalizations before hospital capacity is ramped up" to "more people dying due to inadequate / lacking care", then, yeah, I think we're in "agree to disagree" territory here.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yahoo has May 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:


In comparison to your alternative scenario where more infections hit early, before the capacity was increased?  If you can't connect the dots between "increasing number of infections" to "increased number of hospitalizations before hospital capacity is ramped up" to "more people dying due to inadequate / lacking care", then, yeah, I think we're in "agree to disagree" territory here.


I just ceded that SD saved some lives. The number of lives and how big the death rate was affected is where we disagree.

 

Let’s take your earlier predicted of .5% - 1%. Im saying if we use that death rate, even if we didn’t fully lock down the death rate would not have been so much higher, and definitely nowhere near close to the numbers being peddled early on. Hence we overreacted.

 

Are you claiming that the death rate would have been closer to say, 4% if we didn’t lock down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UberRebel said:

Are you claiming that the death rate would have been closer to say, 4% if we didn’t lock down?

 

I already told you that 4% was the high-end CFR, not IFR, but you're still using it here as a straw man.  If you're not going to argue in good faith, I have no interest in continuing the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.