|
Post by dman on Apr 12, 2020 12:03:04 GMT -5
As of April 6 there have been as many as 55 million cases of flu in U.S. this year with 400,000 hospitalization and 63,000 deaths, 162 being pediatric. Compare that with the numbers of COVID and influenza numbers blows them away. I get that this is a new virus and hospitalization are longer than flu cases to those that reach that point but do question of there is some ulterior political motives at play and media stoking our fears. We didn't do this for HIV in the 80's, which truly was a death notice for those that had it back then.....just throwing it out there. By the end of this the flu may be the big killer this year, not COVID. HIV disproportionately affected gays and minorities, so that could have something to do with it.... Yes, I totally agree, my point was I’m not sure this was known initially and we didn’t shut the country down because of it. People were afraid to have contact of any kind with an HIV positive patient for fear of transmission and we didn’t go to these lengths. But my greater point was the influenza numbers...could the seasonal flu actually be more deadly than COVID this year??
|
|
|
Post by dman on Apr 12, 2020 12:06:14 GMT -5
HIV disproportionately affected gays and minorities, so that could have something to do with it.... Or the fact that transmission was not through casual contact, and we knew what steps to take to mitigate transmission risk during not so casual contact. Initially, I will disagree. However, after further time study your statement is correct. I’m speaking of initial response.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 12, 2020 12:13:03 GMT -5
After a very slow start to testing - the US testing now or over the past couple weeks has been very good. Compared to South Korea - who is considered among the best in the World - the US is gaining. South Korea has tested 1.00% of their population compared to 0.81% for the US. However, the US will pass South Korea over the next couple weeks. South Korea maxed out around and average 260 tests per 1M per day over any 7 day period. The US has averaged 455 tests per 1M per day over the past 10 days. The lack of testing capacity in the US is mostly old news. A poor comparison. South Koreans are no longer testing at full capacity. They had 32 new cases yesterday and 3 deaths bringing their risk death toll to 214. There were 783 deaths in New York alone yesterday. In total Korea has had 10,512 confirmed cases. Their fast start to tracking and testing the infected is part of why that number is comparatively low. The U.S. has now reached more than 530,000 cases. Our slow start to tracking and testing the infected is part of why that number is comparatively high (more than a quarter of the total worldwide cases). I believe the phrase is "A day late and a dollar short". I am not taking about how the US has responded vs. South Korea or anyone else - I am responding to the implication that the US lacks the testing capabilities of other countries and that this will delay being able to 'open' things up. The US is testing more per day per person than South Korea at anytime. Italy just ramped up their testing this week going from 550 people per 1M per day last week to over 700 per day this week. They are testing a LOT. Yet the state of New York is averaging 1,150 tests per 1M per day the past week - up from an average of 950 the week before. The US testing capabilities right now and most likely going forward is no longer a problem compared to the rest of the world - in fact the US is probably better positioned in terms of testing than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 12, 2020 12:14:32 GMT -5
But did we know that right away when it first appeared?? If I remember correctly there was an initial fear it could be airborne. Didn’t shut down country for it and mortality rate was almost terminal with diagnosis. You ignoring the influenza stats?? The rate that HIV initially spread was measured in people per month, not people per hour. It took 5 years to get the number of HIV cases in the US to reach the number of COVID cases we've already reached in 4 months.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 12, 2020 12:14:55 GMT -5
HIV disproportionately affected gays and minorities, so that could have something to do with it.... Yes, I totally agree, my point was I’m not sure this was known initially and we didn’t shut the country down because of it. People were afraid to have contact of any kind with an HIV positive patient for fear of transmission and we didn’t go to these lengths. But my greater point was the influenza numbers...could the seasonal flu actually be more deadly than COVID this year?? Flu kills around 60,000 Americans every year. COVID hopefully will only kill that many in a matter of months, and only after a massive social and economic effort to limit its impact.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 12, 2020 12:19:53 GMT -5
As of April 6 there have been as many as 55 million cases of flu in U.S. this year with 400,000 hospitalization and 63,000 deaths, 162 being pediatric. Compare that with the numbers of COVID and influenza numbers blows them away. I get that this is a new virus and hospitalization are longer than flu cases to those that reach that point but do question of there is some ulterior political motives at play and media stoking our fears. We didn't do this for HIV in the 80's, which truly was a death notice for those that had it back then.....just throwing it out there. By the end of this the flu may be the big killer this year, not COVID. One difference between flu an COVID is the Reproduction rate. If COVID is/was at a rate of 4 or more as many of the experts say - then this becomes a pandemic. Not to mention the increased death rate (and hospitalization rate). I believe the Flu has an R ~ 2. In theory, COVID would spread considerably faster and be much deadlier if those assumptions are correct (R = 4, and Increased death rate ~ 3X).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 12:21:44 GMT -5
A poor comparison. South Koreans are no longer testing at full capacity. They had 32 new cases yesterday and 3 deaths bringing their risk death toll to 214. There were 783 deaths in New York alone yesterday. In total Korea has had 10,512 confirmed cases. Their fast start to tracking and testing the infected is part of why that number is comparatively low. The U.S. has now reached more than 530,000 cases. Our slow start to tracking and testing the infected is part of why that number is comparatively high (more than a quarter of the total worldwide cases). I believe the phrase is "A day late and a dollar short". I am not taking about how the US has responded vs. South Korea or anyone else - I am responding to the implication that the US lacks the testing capabilities of other countries and that this will delay being able to 'open' things up. The US is testing more per day per person than South Korea at anytime. Italy just ramped up their testing this week going from 550 people per 1M per day last week to over 700 per day this week. They are testing a LOT. Yet the state of New York is averaging 1,150 tests per 1M per day the past week - up from an average of 950 the week before. The US testing capabilities right now and most likely going forward is no longer a problem compared to the rest of the world - in fact the US is probably better positioned in terms of testing than anyone else. It's spurious talking point; you're ignoring the fact that, as the Koreans have shown, if we'd tested more extensively in the beginning we wouldn't NEED to be leading the world in testing rates now. Timing is everything. 'A stitch in time saves nine'. The fact that we fumbled the early testing process is a contributory factor to the scale of this issue. Nothing we do now will change that.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Apr 12, 2020 12:23:17 GMT -5
Yes, I totally agree, my point was I’m not sure this was known initially and we didn’t shut the country down because of it. People were afraid to have contact of any kind with an HIV positive patient for fear of transmission and we didn’t go to these lengths. But my greater point was the influenza numbers...could the seasonal flu actually be more deadly than COVID this year?? Flu kills around 60,000 Americans every year. COVID hopefully will only kill that many in a matter of months, and only after a massive social and economic effort to limit its impact. We are currently at 60,000 as of now with flu.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Apr 12, 2020 12:26:27 GMT -5
But did we know that right away when it first appeared?? If I remember correctly there was an initial fear it could be airborne. Didn’t shut down country for it and mortality rate was almost terminal with diagnosis. You ignoring the influenza stats?? The rate that HIV initially spread was measured in people per month, not people per hour. It took 5 years to get the number of HIV cases in the US to reach the number of COVID cases we've already reached in 4 months. It’s great to armchair quarterback after the fact. I’m comparing the country’s “initial response” to a much deadlier virus is all.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 12, 2020 12:27:56 GMT -5
Or the fact that transmission was not through casual contact, and we knew what steps to take to mitigate transmission risk during not so casual contact. Initially, I will disagree. However, after further time study your statement is correct. I’m speaking of initial response. The initial response was virtually non-existent primarily because there were so few cases (I'm sure the demographic didn't help), but by May of 1983 (about 2 years after the first cases), there were 'only' 1,450 reported cases (estimated asymptomatic infections much higher). At that point it was already know that it was transmitted through bodily fluids. By December of that year it was know that there was no casual transition through air, food, etc. There really isn't any comparison with COVID19. Spread was very controllable well before the number of cases became dangerous to the rest of the population. More importantly, there was never any risk of excess deaths due to overwhelming available medical resources.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 12, 2020 12:31:53 GMT -5
The rate that HIV initially spread was measured in people per month, not people per hour. It took 5 years to get the number of HIV cases in the US to reach the number of COVID cases we've already reached in 4 months. It’s great to armchair quarterback after the fact. I’m comparing the country’s “initial response” to a much deadlier virus is all. While its true that HIV was deadlier (in the sense of deaths/infection), it impacted so many fewer people that the initial response wasn't nearly as urgent.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 12, 2020 12:32:39 GMT -5
Flu kills around 60,000 Americans every year. COVID hopefully will only kill that many in a matter of months, and only after a massive social and economic effort to limit its impact. We are currently at 60,000 as of now with flu. For the 19-20 flu season. Running from October of last year to right around now.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Apr 12, 2020 12:35:03 GMT -5
As of April 6 there have been as many as 55 million cases of flu in U.S. this year with 400,000 hospitalization and 63,000 deaths, 162 being pediatric. Compare that with the numbers of COVID and influenza numbers blows them away. I get that this is a new virus and hospitalization are longer than flu cases to those that reach that point but do question of there is some ulterior political motives at play and media stoking our fears. We didn't do this for HIV in the 80's, which truly was a death notice for those that had it back then.....just throwing it out there. By the end of this the flu may be the big killer this year, not COVID. One difference between flu an COVID is the Reproduction rate. If COVID is/was at a rate of 4 or more as many of the experts say - then this becomes a pandemic. Not to mention the increased death rate (and hospitalization rate). I believe the Flu has an R ~ 2. In theory, COVID would spread considerably faster and be much deadlier if those assumptions are correct (R = 4, and Increased death rate ~ 3X). One person I will NEVER argue numbers with is you! I feel the initial concern was the overrun of the hospital system. I’m curious as to what the numbers would have been in strictly being smart with social distancing and those that are elderly or comorbidities to be the ones to self quarantine. Agree the numbers would have been higher but would it have been enough to be worth destroying an economy?
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Apr 12, 2020 12:35:32 GMT -5
Not a political argument, but I have never believed that the best and brightest people are in office and therefore know better than we the people. Of course, following the Normal curve, some are. But most are no smarter than average. Thus, the people in charge, for the most part, are no more capable than you, or me. The idea has a name; Expert Fallacy. That is why it is important to have diversity of opinion. I remember reading that it was/is the Devils Advocate (I dont have an apostrophe key) job to be skeptical and look for errors in reasoning, or at least to question the reasoning of the majority. I hope that we still do that. I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't follow what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that experts can still be wrong? If so, then yes, although less often than non-experts, at least in the area where they have expertise. Or are you saying that career government officials are the same as random people off the street? I can say I have worked with some high level career government people, and they have all been pretty smart and good at their jobs. I'm not talking elected officials or political appointees, but career administrators, scientists, etc. Of course there is variation in how smart and how good.
Yes, experts have often been wrong. That is part of peer review.
Everyone is off the street at some point. Of course, there are experts in their respective fields.
And yes, there is a variation of how smart and how good. So, keep questioning =)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 12:39:17 GMT -5
One difference between flu an COVID is the Reproduction rate. If COVID is/was at a rate of 4 or more as many of the experts say - then this becomes a pandemic. Not to mention the increased death rate (and hospitalization rate). I believe the Flu has an R ~ 2. In theory, COVID would spread considerably faster and be much deadlier if those assumptions are correct (R = 4, and Increased death rate ~ 3X). One person I will NEVER argue numbers with is you! I feel the initial concern was the overrun of the hospital system. I’m curious as to what the numbers would have been in strictly being smart with social distancing and those that are elderly or comorbidities to be the ones to self quarantine. Agree the numbers would have been higher but would it have been enough to be worth destroying an economy? An interesting philosophical question. How much value do you place on the lives of your parents or spouse in relation to the macro-economy? I'd wager it's easier to look at this from a fiscal perspective before it affects your loved ones.
|
|