OT: Coronavirus do you care?

jimtech67 said:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Click to expand...

Nice link...

To add to what Firejo said, the goal now should be to keep the curve under the healthcare system capacity line in the attached graph. The Italians are currently failing to do this, and their system is crashing. Not enough ICU beds, respirators, and other essential equipment. Significant numbers of hospital workers are getting sick, and those that remain are at the breaking point. We need to flatten our curve or we're in for big trouble.

I think that the situation without protective measures will be much worse than that graph shows.
The graph illustrates that the area under the curves are the same. I dont believe that is right. It could lead people to argue that we could just as well drop all measures and get it over with in one short intense time period.
It says "Adapted from CDC / The Economist". Do you have a link ?

edit: When I think about it, I find that the graph is also wrong about the time aspect.
If draconian measures are implemented (like the chinese have done), the epidemic can be contained and will die away relatively soon. Like we are seing in China presently.
If half-hearted measures are implemented, the number of infected will be limited, but the time period will be extended. This is the scenario in some contries (none mentioned, none forgotten).
If no measures are implemented, the epidemic will only decline when the entire world population has been infected and have attained immunity the natural way. Maybe this will be shorter than the second scenario, but at what cost ?

JesperMP said:

It says "Adapted from CDC / The Economist". Do you have a link ?

Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/marynmck/status/1236042483823411201

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm

There is a "figure 1" [edit: In the cdc link that GiT posted] which must be what the other graph is "adapted" from.
In figure 1, the areas under the curve are not the same.
It specifically says for the curve that illustrates the "with meaures" scenario, that the goal is to "reduce the overall number of cases and health effects".
So the "adapted" graph is totally misleading.

jimtech67 said:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6

Click to expand...

This is the same link that rdrast posted... the 6th 4 days ago

rdrast said:

Johns Hopkins Covid-19 tracking.

Click to expand...

At that time there were less than 100k confirmed, 4 days later there are another 16k and 60 cases in the US now 761 and 27 deaths

I saw this movie and did not like the way it ended, I do think if we all take every caution necessary we can minimise this until there is a vaccine, I am a little more paranoid than others because I have had pneumonia 4 times in my life and its not fun and dont want to die like that.

Here's the CDC's version. Better?

Yes

JesperMP said:

...
If no measures are implemented, the epidemic will only decline when the entire world population has been infected and have attained immunity the natural way. Maybe this will be shorter than the second scenario, but at what cost ?

Click to expand...

This is not true, only in rare cases the person who was infected with the virus and recovered does not get immunity against the disease. So we can at the moment approximate, that if u got it and survived, u got the immunity.

For virus to stop finding new hosts, not everybody, even near everybody must have immunity. For Influenza the HIT (herd immunity threshold) is under 45%, for SARS its 50-80% according to wiki.

Somewhere I read that Covid infects ~2 more per infected and according to wiki (R0 is the number of new infected per one infected):

HIT for a disease with an R0 of 2 is theoretically only 50%

Click to expand...

This does not mean that there should be no measures taken. Just want everybody to keep head cool and stay within real world with number of affected in different scenarios.

deanfran said:

To add to what Firejo said, the goal now should be to keep the curve under the healthcare system capacity line in the attached graph. The Italians are currently failing to do this, and their system is crashing. Not enough ICU beds, respirators, and other essential equipment. Significant numbers of hospital workers are getting sick, and those that remain are at the breaking point. We need to flatten our curve or we're in for big trouble.

Click to expand...

The main risk with regards to the healthcare system in the EMS system I.E. first responders and the ER's. As this thing ramps up (and it will) more and more people are going to call 911 when they don't need that level of response. Remember, most people will have a mild case and not need medical intervention.

Fortunately, at least in my area, the 911 system is well versed at evaluating the basic need and while they won't refuse anyone, they will "suggest" that they contact their primary health care provider when appropriate. Having said that, the number of EMS responses is going to go up and that will put a strain on the system causing delays for those who really do need it. To some degree that is inevitable.

The bigger concern, because they can't be as proactive as the EMS system can be, is the Emergency Rooms. Again, same logic. If they are busy dealing with people who are more scared than they are sick, the real emergencies will be fighting for time and space causing delays in care. The actual hospital itself won't see to much of an increase of advanced care needs although there will be an increase related to the density of the population.

This is where education comes in. Getting people to be proactive in slowing the spread buys time for the EMS and ER systems to deal with everyone who needs attention as well as those who don't.

Ironically the two biggest things we can all do is to cover both ends of the scale. What I mean by that is on one side, don't panic. This isn't a population killer. On the other side, be concerned and cautious. Anyone who doesn't believe that this is a serious threat stands to contribute to the problem. Common sense needs to prevail, which is the part that scares me the most.

TurpoUrpo said:

This is not true, only in rare cases the person who was infected with the virus and recovered does not get immunity against the disease. So we can at the moment approximate, that if u got it and survived, u got the immunity.

Click to expand...

edit: I did write that when the entire world has attained immunity. I meant the same that you wrote.

TurpoUrpo said:

For virus to stop finding new hosts, not everybody, even near everybody must have immunity. For Influenza the HIT (herd immunity threshold) is under 45%, for SARS its 50-80% according to wiki.

Click to expand...

You dont find 80% pretty severe, if we consider the entire world poulation ?
And Covid-19 is more infective than SARS. See below.

TurpoUrpo said:

Somewhere I read that Covid infects ~2 more per infected and according to wiki (R0 is the number of new infected per one infected):

Click to expand...

The reproduction rate of Covid-19 is around 3.0
This is my source:
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html
edit: Sorry, bad link. Should work now.

JesperMP said:

edit: I did write that when the entire world has attained immunity. I meant the same that you wrote.

You dont find 80% pretty severe, if we consider the entire world poulation ?
And Covid-19 is more infective than SARS. See below.

The reproduction rate of Covid-19 is around 3.0
This is my source:
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html
edit: Sorry, bad link. Should work now.

Click to expand...

your source says 2-3

But yes 80% is pretty bad. Also as I said, slowing measures should be done.

Im not sure if covid19 is more infective than SARS per se, the bigger problem is very long incubation time and ability to spread few days before symptoms. Its very hard to control when one cant know he is transferring it already.

Faster the disease makes one sick, faster he is going to be limiting himself.

Antarctica here l come, zero cases.

TurpoUrpo said:

your source says 2-3

But yes 80% is pretty bad. Also as I said, slowing measures should be done.

Im not sure if covid19 is more infective than SARS per se, the bigger problem is very long incubation time and ability to spread few days before symptoms. Its very hard to control when one cant know he is transferring it already.

Faster the disease makes one sick, faster he is going to be limiting himself.

Click to expand...

Not to be a nitpicker here but COVID-19 is a disease caused by SARS specifically SARS CoV-2 which is a Coronavirus.
SARS = Sever Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It is very much related to the first SARS outbreak in 2002 and to MERS in 2012. Fortunately its mortality rate is much lower than both of those but on the other hand it is spreading much faster and wider than either of those (MERS has a mortality rate of 35% but only a few thousand people caught it).