Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social distancing and general illness

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by J Tiers View Post
    NYC has about 1/40 of the population of the US. And 12,000 deaths that are known to be directly due to the virus. (the actual number is likely higher. At that rate, which is including the effect of "distancing" and reasonable medical care, there would be about 500,000 deaths in the US in addition to the usual number.
    Now you know full well that most of the other 39/40 of the population is much less densely concentrated than NYC. So you also know that extrapolation is hogwash. I'm not sure what your motivation is, but your tone is, and always has been one of gloom and doom on this issue. You sort of lose any appearance of objectivity.
    Lynn (Huntsville, AL)

    Comment


    • A coworkers uncle got Covid and the doctors had to put him in a medically induced coma. One of the experimental drugs saved him. It ain't the flu!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by J Tiers View Post
        The current death rate is what happens when you try pretty hard to keep it down, AND have the ability to take in patients at hospitals..... down to the rate where medical folks and undertakers can keep up.
        Some people keep ignoring this.


        Originally posted by CalM View Post
        What of the Sweden model? It appears to be effective. Not the best, but VERY GOOD results without closing down the economic engine.
        Hard to know unless you live in Sweden. Maybe when the economic numbers come in. It's possible that many people are staying at home. I'm sure it's less damaging than a total shutdown, but it may not be business as usual over there either. The fact that this is now a political issue (which country/state/town handled it best) is also a problem. There is incentive on all sides to control the numbers. Maybe by testing less, maybe by classifying deaths differently or not counting deaths outside hospitals. Some countries will report honestly and some won't. I'm not suggesting that Sweden or the US are fudging their numbers, only that the numbers between countries may not be comparable.

        Even if the Sweden approach works, who is to say that it would work just as well in the US? Some parts of the US got hit hard and it was probably too late for less drastic measures.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CalM View Post
          What of the Sweden model? It appears to be effective. Not the best, but VERY GOOD results without closing down the economic engine.
          Hmmmm ... even the champion of re-opening the economy doesn't agree:

          “Despite reports to the contrary, Sweden is paying heavily for its decision not to lockdown. As of today, 2462 people have died there, a much higher number than the neighboring countries of Norway (207), Finland (206) or Denmark (443),” the president wrote in a tweet on Thursday. “The United States made the correct decision!”

          Comment


          • Satellite images have shown that most Swedes have stayed home, only in Stockholm did they actually follow the Sweden model.

            Comment


            • Right, no government mandates, Public places still open, restaurants and bars, florists and clothing stores still open. Just people using good sense based on the information. Taking precautions.

              I read also, that Swedish practice is to have large elder care communities. Norway on the other hand, cares for the aged in small facilities.

              The demographics still dominate the numbers. Follow the data. This Wuhan flu preys on the weak. Not so much on the young. We might put our attention there.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lynnl View Post

                Now you know full well that most of the other 39/40 of the population is much less densely concentrated than NYC. So you also know that extrapolation is hogwash. I'm not sure what your motivation is, but your tone is, and always has been one of gloom and doom on this issue. You sort of lose any appearance of objectivity.
                Tough on you, I guess.

                Doom and gloom? No, I would suggest it is realism. Thinking rosy thoughts does no good, we have already seen that right here in the US..... less concentrated just means it takes longer..... But rural areas have generally very poor health systems and few hospitals. That likely means more deaths proportionately.

                BTW, "you know full well that" a large amount of that "39/40" of the US just lives in one of the other large cities. I do not think that Chicago, Philly, Boston, LA San Francisco, Seattle, etc etc are really that much different from NYC. Some have problems, some have jumped on taking precautions.

                "Approximately 84% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas, up from 64% in 1950. By 2050, 89% of the U.S. population and 68% of the world population is projected to live in urban areas. More than 300 urban areas in the U.S. have populations above 100,000; New York City, with 8.4 million inhabitants, is the largest." http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet


                Do I think everyone will eventually get the virus? YES I DO.

                Do I think everyone will get THE SAME virus? NO I DO NOT.

                A virus, or any other parasite, lives by infecting more people. Strains of it that are more likely to quickly debilitate and kill their hosts will do less well, since they will infect fewer others before the host dies. Strains that manage to co-exist with their hosts will do very well, because they can infect everyone.

                You have had corona virus many times. Just not THIS one. About 1/3 of colds are caused by one of the six or so other "human corona viruses". The cold virus does quite well, since it manages not to kill very many of the hosts. People don't WANT colds, but if they get one, it is generally not a big event.... "just a cold". So the virus survives.

                I fully expect that this new one will eventually be a much less deadly version, even if it may still be obnoxious to get. It is a normal process of natural selection.

                Meanwhile, the virus is clearly nasty, more than "potentially" fatal, and is very communicable. Letting it run free would have been a very bad idea, as Sweden is now showing, with 10x the deaths of neighboring Norway, in a population similar to NYC. People pointing at the numbers now, with precautions, are simply not using their heads. Overall, the death rate could be 2%. That is 6.6 million people out of 330 million, if the disease is not controlled. If 1%, then "only" 3.3 million.

                The idea of choosing who lives and who dies by just accepting the deaths of some population group (the "government picking winners and losers") is repugnant on many different levels. In some cases it may be necessary, but this is not one yet.

                And, there seems to be at least one drug for it that is in development. The new drug blocks an essential enzyme that helps the virus replicate, so it has a credible mechanism, and it seems to work to reduce severity and length of infection. Highly encouraging. The doctors stopped the controlled tests because it was unethical to withhold it from the "control" group. Unlike the malaria drug, which killed more than would normally die, this one seems to have a 20 to 30% better survival rate.

                BTW, the idea that "only" old people die of it is not correct. In the southern US, the proportion is higher. From an article I saw (the numbers should be checkable):

                "In Louisiana, people ages 40 to 59 account for 22 percent of all deaths. The same age range in Georgia accounts for 17 percent of all deaths. By comparison, the same age group accounts for only about 10 percent of all deaths in Colorado, and 6 percent of all deaths in Washington State."
                CNC machines only go through the motions

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RB211 View Post
                  A coworkers uncle got Covid and the doctors had to put him in a medically induced coma. One of the experimental drugs saved him. It ain't the flu!
                  Tell us, technically, how does SARS-Cov-2 differ from "the flu". Swine flu? Avian flu? Heck, I grew up with "the Asian flu".

                  This Corona virus looks (under magnification) like other virus that have appeared in the past (there are thousands of variations)
                  The CDC classifies this virus in the same catagory of other flu virus. (It's on the same web page with the four common flu virus, and SARS and MERS)
                  This Corona virus transmits through human populations the way other virus have. Direct transfer of the virus, not via blood etc.
                  This Corona virus presents symptoms just as the flu does (Check the CDC web pages for a comparison table, they all match)
                  This Corona virus kills much the same as recent flu virus, i.e. with Pneumonia like symptoms.
                  This Corona virus appears to be subsiding with the change of season in temperate climate regions much as other flu illness
                  This Corona virus resists treatment in the same way as other flu viruses. https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/...deaths-winter/
                  This Corona virus mutates in the same way as other flu virus, making inoculation against future illness difficult. (There is still no immunity for HIV)

                  I hear "this is not the flu" very often, but the data shows similar mortality, the spread and symptoms are similar, the nature of mortality are the same.
                  The target population is the large difference from observation of the data. "The flu" is less discriminating.

                  Anecdote is not evidence.

                  Additionally, this is an extract from the CDC " type of virus" pages

                  quote

                  Influenza Vaccine Viruses


                  One influenza A(H1N1), one influenza A(H3N2), and one or two influenza B viruses (depending on the vaccine) are included in each season’s influenza vaccines. Getting a flu vaccine can protect against flu viruses that are like the viruses used to make vaccine. Information about this season’s vaccine can be found at Preventing Seasonal Flu with Vaccination. Seasonal flu vaccines do not protect against influenza C or D viruses. In addition, flu vaccines will NOT protect against infection and illness caused by other viruses that also can cause influenza-like symptoms. There are many other viruses besides influenza that can result in influenza-like illness (ILI) that spread during flu season.

                  End quote.

                  So really, corona virus covers a large territory from the common cold, to the flue season of 1957. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E...uenza_pandemic)

                  I would call this Covid strain a virus that can result in flu-like illness.

                  Comment


                  • The worry about "re-infection" or the virus laying dormant and coming back were just that, worries.
                    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...positives.html

                    "South Korean officials have today revealed 292 coronavirus patients feared to have been 'reinfected' were given false positive results.

                    Over the past month the Asian country has seen people cleared of the virus testing positive again, despite new cases thinning out.

                    Fears were raised the recovered cases had been reinfected from somebody else, or the virus had laid dormant before reactivating again.

                    Either way, it raised suspicions that a person's immunity is short lived after fighting off the deadly virus, scientifically called SARS-CoV-2.

                    If humans had no immunity, easing draconian lockdowns would have been pointless because no-one would be protected from being struck down again.

                    A senior South Korean official has now said the flurry of 'reinfected' people was due to a testing fault - and not a short-lived immunity. "

                    I just need one more tool,just one!

                    Comment


                    • The latest report from the CDC is out.

                      Here is the MEAT of the paper. There might be some discussion in the near future ;-)

                      Nationally, visits to outpatient providers and emergency departments (EDs) for illnesses with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 continued to decline and are below baseline nationally and in many regions of the country. They remain elevated in the northeast and northwest.
                      O The decrease in the percentage of people presenting for care with ILI and CLI may be due to a decline in COVID-19 illness. Reported levels of activity may be decreasing because of widespread adoption of social distancing efforts and changes in healthcare seeking behavior.
                      O Little influenza virus activity has been reported in recent weeks.
                      O The overall cumulative COVID-19 associated hospitalization rate is 40.4 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people 65 years and older (131.6 per 100,000) and 50-64 years (63.7 per 100,000).
                      o Hospitalization rates for COVID-19 in adults (18-64 years) are higher than hospitalization rates for influenza at comparable time points* during the past 5 influenza seasons.
                      O For people 65 years and older, current COVID-19 hospitalization rates are similar to those observed during comparable time points* during recent high severity influenza seasons.
                      O For children (0-17 years), COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than influenza hospitalization rates during recent influenza seasons.
                      O Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 23.6% during week 16 to 14.6% during week 17which is still significantly above baseline. This is the second week of decline in this indicator, but the percentage remains high compared with any influenza season.




                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X