Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 10:01:08 GMT -5
Probably true for almost every virus that affects us.
It would be nice to know when exactly this one started causing problems. Undoubtedly it was before Wuhan.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 29, 2020 10:58:58 GMT -5
Probably true for almost every virus that affects us.
It would be nice to know when exactly this one started causing problems. Undoubtedly it was before Wuhan. In some cases yes, in other cases no. SARS made a pretty rapid jump to humans as a severe illness from civets without a long period of hidden infection. In the case of HIV, it probably made the jump to humans from wild primates in Africa sometime in the late 19th to early 20th century, but did not spread globally until after WW2, when urbanization and increase transportation made contact between erstwhile separate human populations easier, making transmission easier.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 30, 2020 8:54:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Mar 30, 2020 20:28:10 GMT -5
Thanks you all the kind words in regards to the family situation. Funny how a little kindness is in fact a balm. Just wanted to say that today is National doctor’s day. I am in more awe of this awesome calling of my many friends, colleagues and now young doctors that I actually watched grow up being baptized by fire. Please if you can say a prayer, surround them with strength. Thanks isn’t enough.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Mar 30, 2020 20:51:50 GMT -5
Interesting read...not surprising they did it because of face saving measures. I'm curious if the former mayor of Wuhan will be brought up on charges. If what was written is true, Mayor Zhou...or at least his underlings...screwed up the mechanism that could have helped prevent the spread of the virus. Or maybe he is one of Xi's people and is protected, which would explain why he did it in the first place because he thought he is untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Mar 31, 2020 5:57:24 GMT -5
By this time next year, we will all be saying, "Remember COVID-19?" Either that, or we will all be saying, "Remember the time before COVID-19?" Nah they will be saying remember when all the toilet paper was gone.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Mar 31, 2020 6:09:06 GMT -5
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/31/824155179/cdc-director-on-models-for-the-months-to-come-this-virus-is-going-to-be-with-usFrom cdc directer which he’s states on three different things that his belief is 98-99 percent of people who catch this will end up fine. It’s easy to scare people when media mentions deaths every day. Sure it is never easy to lose someone but it’s all part of life. You would think director of cdc would have more credibility then any of these other voices. He thinks 1-2 percent and not all are elderly.The elderly population makes up somewhere around 10 percent of worlds pop. So as much as death to anyone sucks under any circumstance it is natural occurrence. So again do we risk our younger generations future with extended economic shutdown with those numbers. My answer is still no and people can call me whatever they like. We are at 3k deaths right now in USA from cornovirus 19. There has been a reported 20k-40k that have died from flu. Flu season typically starts slowing down in April and may so let’s just see what happens. Flu season can typically linger into April and may.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2020 8:56:12 GMT -5
I know this is a waste of time, but you are missing the primary reason we are (to some extent) doing what we are doing: If you spread out the rate of infection, fewer people die AND the health care system (which includes PEOPLE who will die or, at the very least, be worked almost to death and have lasting trauma to deal with) will not be overwhelmed.
I will also point out that 1% of 250,000,000 (a conservative number) is 2,500,000 people. 2% is 5,000,000. Do you honestly think that will not have an impact on the economy? Do you honestly think those lives are worth putting at risk?
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Mar 31, 2020 13:15:04 GMT -5
I know this is a waste of time, but you are missing the primary reason we are (to some extent) doing what we are doing: If you spread out the rate of infection, fewer people die AND the health care system (which includes PEOPLE who will die or, at the very least, be worked almost to death and have lasting trauma to deal with) will not be overwhelmed. I will also point out that 1% of 250,000,000 (a conservative number) is 2,500,000 people. 2% is 5,000,000. Do you honestly think that will not have an impact on the economy? Do you honestly think those lives are worth putting at risk? Yes, the effect on the healthcare system is super important. I'm not an overall fan of Andrew Cuomo but his COVID-19 press briefings have been excellent, providing more information than anything else on TV, for sure, and often more concisely insightful than print/online news resources (e.g., NYT). The common focus on number of cases and number of deaths is unfortunate. Of course COVID-19 deaths are tragic and preventing them is important, but it is a mistake to think of distancing as sacrificing the economic well-being of the many for the lives of a few. The more important COVID-19 numbers are the number of hospitalizations and number of those hospitalized who need a ICU bed. The COVID Tracking Project shows about 15% of people who test positive in the U.S. require hospitalization. WHO says about 20%. It is difficult to know the exact numbers, but if only 20M people get COVID-19 and only 5% of them need hospitalization then we need 1M hospital beds. And the U.S. only has a total of 1M hospital beds, most of which are in use. Without distancing we very likely wouldn't have been able to handle the surge of COVID-19 cases. With distancing it still isn't clear we will be able to, but it won't be as bad as without. If the hospital system becomes overwhelmed then it isn't only the number of people who die but how they die that will be so problematic. Doctors could be forced to decide to let some patients die who could otherwise survive if the hospital had more resources (beds, ventilators, staff). The way to think of distancing is therefore as a way to slow the spread of the virus so that people who need medical care can get it, saving lives but also generally improving productivity (healthy people are more productive if they don't have to worry about dying loved ones). Of course distancing cannot be done indefinitely. But the question isn't about deaths as much as about healthcare system capacity.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 31, 2020 16:14:18 GMT -5
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/31/824155179/cdc-director-on-models-for-the-months-to-come-this-virus-is-going-to-be-with-usFrom cdc directer which he’s states on three different things that his belief is 98-99 percent of people who catch this will end up fine. It’s easy to scare people when media mentions deaths every day. Sure it is never easy to lose someone but it’s all part of life. You would think director of cdc would have more credibility then any of these other voices. He thinks 1-2 percent and not all are elderly.The elderly population makes up somewhere around 10 percent of worlds pop. So as much as death to anyone sucks under any circumstance it is natural occurrence. So again do we risk our younger generations future with extended economic shutdown with those numbers. My answer is still no and people can call me whatever they like. We are at 3k deaths right now in USA from cornovirus 19. There has been a reported 20k-40k that have died from flu. Flu season typically starts slowing down in April and may so let’s just see what happens. Flu season can typically linger into April and may. 1-2% of the US population is about 3-6 million people. That's *not* a small number.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Mar 31, 2020 17:55:23 GMT -5
New government modeling says the lowest possible is 100k-240k dead assuming social distancing nationwide. Better than some earlier projections but still a sobering number.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Mar 31, 2020 18:41:37 GMT -5
I know this is a waste of time, but you are missing the primary reason we are (to some extent) doing what we are doing: If you spread out the rate of infection, fewer people die AND the health care system (which includes PEOPLE who will die or, at the very least, be worked almost to death and have lasting trauma to deal with) will not be overwhelmed. I will also point out that 1% of 250,000,000 (a conservative number) is 2,500,000 people. 2% is 5,000,000. Do you honestly think that will not have an impact on the economy? Do you honestly think those lives are worth putting at risk? Yes, the effect on the healthcare system is super important. I'm not an overall fan of Andrew Cuomo but his COVID-19 press briefings have been excellent, providing more information than anything else on TV, for sure, and often more concisely insightful than print/online news resources (e.g., NYT). The common focus on number of cases and number of deaths is unfortunate. Of course COVID-19 deaths are tragic and preventing them is important, but it is a mistake to think of distancing as sacrificing the economic well-being of the many for the lives of a few. The more important COVID-19 numbers are the number of hospitalizations and number of those hospitalized who need a ICU bed. The COVID Tracking Project shows about 15% of people who test positive in the U.S. require hospitalization. WHO says about 20%. It is difficult to know the exact numbers, but if only 20M people get COVID-19 and only 5% of them need hospitalization then we need 1M hospital beds. And the U.S. only has a total of 1M hospital beds, most of which are in use. Without distancing we very likely wouldn't have been able to handle the surge of COVID-19 cases. With distancing it still isn't clear we will be able to, but it won't be as bad as without. If the hospital system becomes overwhelmed then it isn't only the number of people who die but how they die that will be so problematic. Doctors could be forced to decide to let some patients die who could otherwise survive if the hospital had more resources (beds, ventilators, staff). The way to think of distancing is therefore as a way to slow the spread of the virus so that people who need medical care can get it, saving lives but also generally improving productivity (healthy people are more productive if they don't have to worry about dying loved ones). Of course distancing cannot be done indefinitely. But the question isn't about deaths as much as about healthcare system capacity. Agree, Cuomo's briefings are good, but he and De Blasio fiddled while Rome burned regarding the shutdown and social distancing. The fact NYC is a major international transit hub and the subway system is a huge vectoring conduit gives one pause as to why the trigger wasn't pulled quicker. I guess that's water under the bridge now and the bed must be slept in. Unfortunately for thousands it will be a deathbed.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 31, 2020 19:09:45 GMT -5
The simple assumption is that everyone will eventually get the disease. This is the classic "S" shaped curve. The "flatten the curve" stuff is about making it not so steep in the middle, so that the number of new cases all at once don't overwhelm our ability to respond to them. A more complicated version of what happens is that the number of new case depends on the number of infectious people and the number of uninfected "susceptible" people and the rate at which they interact. This is where the so-called "herd immunity" comes in. If there are a small number of infectious people and a small number of susceptible people, then they may not end up interacting. As the number of uninfected people gets smaller and the number of non-infectious recovered (and presumed to be immune) people gets larger, infected people simply may not have the opportunity to contact susceptible people. This leads to a situation where there may in fact end up being a significant fraction of the population that never catches the disease. Quarantine measures are crucial for both models. The first model (everybody gets it) relies on quarantine to slow down the spread and "flatten the curve". The more complicated model suggests that if a quarantine is put in place hard enough and long enough, the disease can burn itself out in the pool of infected people, leaving the possibility for the recovered and immune people to be the buffer between the few remaining infectious people and the susceptible people. BUT... if the quarantine is not effective enough or if it is ended too soon, then this more complicated model shows there is still a pool of susceptible people. Just one infectious person who manages to get the infection into the pool of susceptible people is enough to reignite another wave that will once again sweep through what is left of the uninfected susceptible people.
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Mar 31, 2020 19:36:48 GMT -5
We are hoping that an infected person who recovers is now immune and will not get the virus again....ever.
That hope is not proven as fact from what I understand. This virus is a tricky bugger
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Mar 31, 2020 19:38:18 GMT -5
It looks more like a brontosaurus curve.
|
|