Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]

Btw is this based on expected logic or how things should be or how it is actually in practice?

 

Your logic applies to all other diseases as well, and your "extrapolations" are scaremongering. A small increase in the prevalence of tuberculosis, pneumonia or pertussis would have a much greater impact on the NHS than covid-19. And yet the world didn't stop in order to prevent antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis from infecting the entire planet (which didn't and won't happen, just as covid-19 won't infect the entire UK).

Seasonal influenza alone requires hundreds of thousands of simultaneous hospitalizations every season (usually during winter), with millions of severe cases every season.

 

Seriously. Take a look at what's happening in Italy. That's what happens when you run out of capacity to treat people. And that's why every single nation is doing it's best to lenghten the pandemia to keep the spikes down so they wouldn't run out of capacity to treat people. And we're running low on protective gear all around the world.
Why? Because no healthcare system in the world is capable of handling sudden new pandemic. The new pandemic doesn't remove the need to treat everything we have already, it comes on top of it, and no-one can afford a system that could handle it.

 

New York will be Italy next week.

 

What confuses the hell out of me is the wildly divergent mortality rates. Right now, when I look at the John Hopkins Data mortality is more than 20x higher in Italy than in Germany. Sure, some differences can be explained away like Italy starting earlier, more elderly people living together with young people in Italy, better hospitals in Germany, more testing in Italy. But that can't be all, can it? Or compare France and Germany. They are probably more similar. But mortality is more than factor 10 apart in favor of Germany.

I have the feeling there have to be some other factors we are not seeing yet. Has anyone read some credible theories?

 

Yet the majority (like more than 90%) of the death are in developing countries, which lack necessary medical resources.
For comparison, in 2017, there were only 9,088 cases of TB in the US. of which 515 deaths were attributed to TB. It hardly causes any serious strain on medical resources in the US. Further, the majority of the cases are from people born outside of the US.

 

Italys situation is direct result of running out of healthcare capacity in the north, they didn't start to limit it in time and got hit so hard on relatively small area that they simply can't treat everyone that needs treatment. And that's why everyone is doing their best to limit the spread to make it last longer, but with lower patient counts at once, so they wouldn't run into same problem.

 

That does explain Italy, but does it explain Spain (15x) or France (10x) or UK (10x) or Belgium (6x) or Netherlands (10x)? Mortality rates compared to Germany in brackets.

 

I haven't followed them so closely, so not sure what kind of situation those countries have on the healthcare side of it. It could also be a draw of luck, with some countries just getting more hit on the elderly side, people with some other conditions to start with etc.

 

All three.

Not at all. I don't do scaremongering; I do data and logic. The numbers are there for everyone to see including yourself. 20% growth per day is about a minimum. Look at BRiT's daily Ohio numbers - 564 (up from 442) is 27% growth.

Unless you can explain why the numbers would suddenly stop increasing exponentially, they should be expected to do so. At present, the only thing stopping them increasing exponentially are measures to stop the spread such as social distancing. If you removed those, why would the growth level out before millions were infected?

Why not? Do you have a sound theory explaining that, or does it just sound so preposterous it can't be true? Note that it won't infect the entirety of the UK because of natural disease progression, and it'll reach some 60-80% before those who have had it present a buffer against further spread. Predictions are looking at 80% simply because the spread is so peculiar versus normal diseases. Of course, if the medical world is wrong and their models inaccurate, present the correct maths to show how it's not that bad.

In the US, up to 370,000 were thought to have been hopsitalised by flu last year. that's over a period of months. There's presently 52,000 cases of confirmed SARS-CoV2 infections in the US which as a nation is seeing about 30% daily growth. After 30 days without doing anything to stop the spread, 52,000 x 1.3^30 will be 136,000,000 infections. If you dispute that, explain the maths. At 5% 'critical' case rate (best outcome, as 15% are severe or worse), that's 6.8 million people. If you disagree, explain your maths. so 7 million people requiring hospitalisation in one month, versus 400,000 for flu over a period of several months.

If you disagree, explain why the exponential growth will stop, or point out a floor in the models. If you can't argue around the data (and none of the world's scientists have been able to) then you'll need to appreciate Covid19 is something different requiring a different response (or a different outcome, like many dead).

 

Statistically that doesn't hold. The only answer that makes sense is Germany's treatment is better. That might not be resources so much as technique, such as the above mentioned not intubating too early.

 

It could be that with a combination of low birth rates, young people staying longer with or visiting more often their parents or grandparents, more use of AirBnB, foreign arrivals (tourism or work or students) etc...all these should be accounted for....
We dont have the data and I doubt we are going to ever see them

 

This situation so far seems like drilling hole in a water. This virus speads fast since it has the characteristics of a flu. It will be impossible to eradicate and it passes through mutations. Some report also said we cant develop immunity? If thats the case vaccines if released are temporary. Which means that even if one person has it out there it will always be spreading. Unless there is very successful medication discovered that treats it, it's like we are giing to by under lockdown indefinitely.

 

It's expected to become a yearly regular like influenza, where researchers will constantly race against the disease to guess which strain will be dominant this time around and with which mutations to vaccinate people in time.
After we have one working vaccine it gets easier to develop from it for the future mutations (to my understanding anyway)
Currently we don't know even if you get proper immunity for this specific strain, if it stays around and starts mutating there won't be immunity.

 

That should affect spread, not mortality. Unless the distribution of German cases is heavily skewed in favour of the young and healthy and far less old people are getting infected, which isn't at all realistic.

 

Nope, but I have my own if you're bored enough to read it. I'm pretty sure the mortality/infection rate is so high in the US right now is because of the utter lack of tests. Only people showing symptoms and with a recommendation from physician can even apply to get tested, so you're gonna have a much higher positive rate than if you just did random sampling to see the infectious rate.

I think we desperately need more testing done, and not just sick people. Pick some various communities and do random sampling, it's the only way to get some accurate data.

Seriously, look at the testing rates in the various countries based on percentage of population compared to the death rates and you'll see a correlation. Not sure if that's the causation, but it lines up well and sort of fits logically to me.

That's my .02 from the sanctity of Fortress Hayho which is currently on hard lockdown. Only essential reasons for leaving the house day 10.

 

I'm pretty sure every single country is doing the same or even less testing, except for South Korea.

 

A kid who licked toilets as part of the #CoronaVirusChallenge says he's now in the hospital with coronavirus.​

Connecticut party of 50 guests became coronavirus 'super-spreading event,' report says
A 40th birthday bash that a Connecticut woman held earlier this month is now being eyed by health experts as a suspected coronavirus “super-spreading event” after more than half of its 50 guests later tested positive for the sickness, a report says.

The March 5 gathering at a home in the small town of Westport – which the New York Times is dubbing “Party Zero” – occurred when Connecticut had no confirmed cases of COVID-19. As of Tuesday, the state is now dealing with 415 cases, 270 of which are in Fairfield County, where Westport is located, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins University.

The Westport celebration “may be an example of the kind of thing we call a super-spreading event,” William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, told the New York Times.
​

https://www.foxnews.com/us/connecti...ed-party-zero-for-coronavirus-spread-in-state

Though grocery stores might be able to do more to protect staffers, they are never going to be 100 percent safe from the coronavirus. People can transmit the virus while they’re largely asymptomatic. There simply isn’t six feet of space between everyone in the average crowded market, and the infections popping up in grocery stores prove it. But grocery shopping is so comforting and instinctual, people don’t always realize just how much they’re exposing the grocery workers they rely on. Before he went into quarantine, the Atlanta Whole Foods worker I interviewed overheard a customer walk into the store and say into his phone, “I’m pretty sure I have it; I’m going to the doctor now. I just have to stop at Whole Foods first.”
​

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/can-you-get-coronavirus-grocery-store/608659/

 

WHAT?! What's wrong with these people?? He should be fined.

 

It's possible Germany is just doing a much better job at identifying cases.

We really need more data.