Manic of a panic is geopolitical

[kriesel]

One thing the simulations are missing is no dots turn dark, stop moving, and get removed after being counted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...pop_b&itid=sf_

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Nick

On the Dutch schools: the government is convening a meeting of all the dissenting experts tomorrow to try and reach a concensus.

I'm having a hard time understanding why there is not an obvious consensus of "the experts" to effect that "we must shut down the schools because the young, as a consequence of the fact that they tend to get a milder form of the infection, are much more likely to want to continue their normal busy social interactions and then infect the very-at-risk older people they come into contact with." The death rate above age 70 is frighteningly high.

Edit: just saw post to effect "Tonight the Netherlands shut down nearly completely, except for supermarkets, food stores, pharmacies, etc. No restaurants, schools, gyms, universities, bars, movies, museums, etc. for the foreseeable future. An eerie silence has descended on Amsterdam." Better late than never.

[a1call]

Originally Posted by a1call

*Assuming an incubation period of 14 days:

**Theoretically speaking if all the people avoid close contact for just 15 days then the carriers could be recognized and the epidemic could be eradicated

**Theoretically speaking if all the people would live in close contact in groups numbering a maximum of 2 people avoiding close contact for just 30 days would be sufficient to eradicate the epidemic

** ...
..
**Theoretically speaking if all the people would live in close contact in groups numbering a maximum of n people avoiding close contact for just n.(14+1) days would be sufficient to eradicate the epidemic

Just my 2 cents

I think we have seen evidence that what works is isolation in small scale such as has been done in China, South-Korea and now Austria with banning gatherings of more than 5 people.
At this stage where exponential growth in infections are in most countries of the world, large scale isolation such as closing of the boarders is completely ineffective and a waste of effort and resources. We are all citizens of Earth and should isolate in as small groups as possible to have this disease eradicated as soon as possible, IMHO.

[retina]

Well, I just love all the amateur pandemic experts here.

Shutting down the planet has many other consequences, some of which are worse than the disease. People needing medicines, from places that stop producing them, will die. Children not in school need their health worker parents to leave work to look after them, depriving more needy patients of care. etc. etc. etc. Have you all done the sums and figures to see which action has the best net outcome?

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

Well, I just love all the amateur pandemic experts here.

Shutting down the planet has many other consequences, some of which are worse than the disease. People needing medicines, from places that stop producing them, will die. Children not in school need their health worker parents to leave work to look after them, depriving more needy patients of care. etc. etc. etc. Have you all done the sums and figures to see which action has the best net outcome?

Good evening. My name is Paul Ryan. I used to be Speaker of the House. Dr Sardonicus has kindly let me post using his login.

Everyone's bound to get infected anyway, so we should just get on with life as usual. Not only would this be much less disruptive than shutting down all social gatherings, schools, restaurants, international travel, etc., but it will truly end the epidemic as quickly as possible. Besides, with a "frighteningly high" mortality rate among the elderly, it would work wonders to solve the financial problems of Medicare and Social Security.

Thank you.

[kriesel]

Tonight's numbers: total 167444, deaths 6440, recovered 76038
high bound cfr 6440/(76038+6440) = 0.078 =7.8% of resolved cases
low bound cfr 6440/167444 = .0385 = 3.85% of all cases
Low bound is understated because death rate of active cases is unlikely to be zero;
high bound is thought to be overstated because some deaths occur quickly while recovery takes longer.
Active cases 167444-6440-76038 = 84966.
Over the weekend China's case total has been exceeded by the rest of the globe.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6

[a1call]

<sarcasm>
Precisely, specially since they only have one, perhaps two years to live anyways. Why postpone the inevitable?
Let's alt just sit back and let the herd nature take its course, just as if we are watching a movie.
<\sarcasm>

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by retina

Shutting down the planet has many other consequences, some of which are worse than the disease. People needing medicines, from places that stop producing them, will die. Children not in school need their health worker parents to leave work to look after them, depriving more needy patients of care. etc. etc. etc. Have you all done the sums and figures to see which action has the best net outcome?

My state's health department will have many people missing this week because the school system has just closed. Everyone is frantic; they're looking for a way to get them back because they already have a manpower shortage. There are hard choices here.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Good evening. My name is Paul Ryan. I used to be Speaker of the House. Dr Sardonicus has kindly let me post using his login.

Everyone's bound to get infected anyway, so we should just get on with life as usual. Not only would this be much less disruptive than shutting down all social gatherings, schools, restaurants, international travel, etc., but it will truly end the epidemic as quickly as possible. Besides, with a "frighteningly high" mortality rate among the elderly, it would work wonders to solve the financial problems of Medicare and Social Security.

Thank you.

Well put. If all get infected, and "at risk" persons like me and folks who are older have the common decency to die quickly and quietly, it will be much better for the insurance industry, at least. Hospital and Pharma BUSINESSES may have different takes on this.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by kriesel

Tonight's numbers: total 167444, deaths 6440, recovered 76038
high bound cfr 6440/(76038+6440) = 0.078 =7.8% of resolved cases
low bound cfr 6440/167444 = .0385 = 3.85% of all cases
Low bound is understated because death rate of active cases is unlikely to be zero;
high bound is thought to be overstated because some deaths occur quickly while recovery takes longer.
Active cases 167444-6440-76038 = 84966.
...

Aren't the bounds you compute overstated because of the mild cases that are not diagnosed but do transmit the virus ? Obviously those cases are not counted, but there seem to be a consensus that their number is significant.

Jacob

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by S485122

Aren't the bounds you compute overstated because of the mild cases that are not diagnosed but do transmit the virus ? Obviously those cases are not counted, but there seem to be a consensus that their number is significant.

Jacob

Perhaps so. But we can't use data we don't have. People that are not symptomatic are not being tested or diagnosed. Tests are not 100% reliable.
I suppose a lowest bound would use the nation's human population in the denominator. But that stat seems both very optimistic and not useful for making extrapolations while the pandemic is going on.

If we wanted to determine how many had been exposed, and cost/effort/testkit-supply was no issue, how slight an encounter between the virus and a person's immune system would be detectable; how many viable virii at peak level in a person? Would antibodies from prior contact with SARS be distinguishable from COVID-19 exposure response? Does an immune response killing a single weakened virus particle, or breaking down and disposing of a single dead virus particle, picked up from a metal surface, "count" as infection or exposure to the virus?

One way to look at it is we're attempting to gauge case fatality rate. There's a definition for that. It's the fatality rate among diagnosed cases. Cases so mild they're not diagnosed are not part of the computation, by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fatality_rates Note that this list has SARS at 11% CFR.
That distinction of diagnosed cases versus all cases and possible immunity/carrier status of the asymptomatic leads back to the need for social distancing for everyone, not only the symptomatic or recovering or particularly vulnerable due to age or other preexisting conditions. There are cases diagnosed for which no infection source could be identified, and there does seem to be transmission from some that are not symptomatic, or not symptomatic for a few more days after transmission. The propagation rate R₀ must be lowered.