Jump to content

Coronavirus


Xd the great

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tater said:

The guy on Sam Harris said (and I agree, I suppose because it's what I've said for a while) that the SK numbers are more about testing than anything else, and he thinks the upper limit for CFR is 0.6. Higher numbers are a function of preferentially testing sicker people.

That's 0.6 percent, I sincerely hope. Otherwise, we're in a load of doodoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

That's 0.6 percent, I sincerely hope. Otherwise, we're in a load of doodoo.

Yeah, sorry, upper limit 0.6%. Lower limit maybe 0.15%.

He dumps on the whole R0 concept as a useful specific number. He says it's not like the engine in your car, it's entirely situational within ranges, and basically there are things that transmit with a lot of difficulty, then there are things like coronavirus and flu in the middle, and very easy to transmit stuff like Measles on the high end, and that it's best to think of them in rough groups like that. He's fine with trying to flatten the curve locally, but thinks that draconian efforts all over are likely not a good cost/benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went to a supermarket in the US for the first time since...before this. I haven't ever seen the shelves this empty. They still have plenty of stuff, just very low on certain things - most notably meat and bread.

Well, time to stay at home for a while I guess. Even though I'm the sort of person who probably wouldn't even notice if I got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, cubinator said:

Even though I'm the sort of person who probably wouldn't even notice if I got it. 

You're the exact person who should stay home.

I saw a great analogy somewhere. When you're driving down the road and see an ambulance coming fast behind you with its lights on, you pull over. You are not worried about yourself at this point. You don't think the ambulance is coming to get you and take you to the hospital, and you're not worried that they'll careen into your car. You're just doing your small part for the greater good by staying out of the way, so you don't accidentally cause more problems for others.

Social distancing is like pulling over for the ambulance. You likely won't get any personal benefit from it, but for those in need it helps a LOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

You're the exact person who should stay home.

I saw a great analogy somewhere. When you're driving down the road and see an ambulance coming fast behind you with its lights on, you pull over. You are not worried about yourself at this point. You don't think the ambulance is coming to get you and take you to the hospital, and you're not worried that they'll careen into your car. You're just doing your small part for the greater good by staying out of the way, so you don't accidentally cause more problems for others.

Social distancing is like pulling over for the ambulance. You likely won't get any personal benefit from it, but for those in need it helps a LOT.

I know it. I'm doing my part, and it's not like I'm missing out on anything more than any other person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend is a pulmonary intensivist, but he's been out (kids on break at a different school than mine) since the COVID cases came in. It'll be interesting to hear from him after he works a few shifts. He's paying attention, and keeping up on what current guidelines are. Man, if this gets busy here... he's the guy walking into the burning building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cubinator said:

I just went to a supermarket in the US for the first time since...before this. I haven't ever seen the shelves this empty. They still have plenty of stuff, just very low on certain things - most notably meat and bread.

I shop at an organic food co-op. Everything seemed normal, except I saw a guy buying some toilet paper. I never buy stuff like toilet paper or paper towels there because it's always "sustainable" and super-expensive compared to mass-market stuff. But the food is really good (even if it is a little bit more pricey than at the regular supermarkets).

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Related to both virus and spacenautics.)

It seems to me, that the current rush of the remote presence technologies, caused by the quarantine isolation, is a control headshot for all moon flight or base building plans.

Just look again at that picture and video from the link above , and try to bring a reason to fly there in flesh, rather than bring the place around the rover to your room and share it with other crew avatars.

First time the electronics has killed the romance of space expedition, now the virus makes the rest.
So, now KSP is the last hope of humanity. Probably irl the crewed landers will never happen.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK govt pulled a screaming U-turn last night. Apparently their models were wrong.

One of my colleagues has just gone home until further notice. His girlfriend with MS can't afford to catch Coronavirus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RCgothic said:

One of my colleagues has just gone home until further notice. His girlfriend with MS can't afford to catch Coronavirus.

I understand that.  My wife has MS as well, and with the drugs she has to take to suppress her immune system, I'm trying not to worry.

I hope your colleague and his girlfriend stay safe and well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I shop at an organic food co-op. Everything seemed normal, except I saw a guy buying some toilet paper. I never buy stuff like toilet paper or paper towels there because it's always "sustainable" and super-expensive compared to mass-market stuff. But the food is really good (even if it is a little bit more pricey than at the regular supermarkets).

Yeah, even Whole Foods was pretty normal when I went there. Price filters out some of the hoarding (since no one can afford to hoard the stuff there).

Meanwhile my wife has cancelled elective surgeries, and has a limited clinic schedule. She's drinking coffee, and reading papers our friend the molecular biologist sent her on SARS-CoV-2 nuts and bolts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The supermarket today was scary. So many empty shelves in every aisle. Fresh meat, pasta, rice, tins, butter, soup, ready meals all dangerously low. And not a square of toilet paper, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TP thing is stupid, there's no shortage, it's just idiots. Of course if some buy too much, and people are concerned that they can't buy normally, then they buy too much, and so forth.

FWIW, restaurants are gonna have a tough time, take out is a possibility (a fancy place we frequent is offering "family meals" for take out now to try and compensate, which we likely do to support them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a cough myself since March 12, went to the doctor yesterday (March 15). Said it's probably nothing but if conditions don't get any better in 3 days I should go and have a proper check.

Only possible contact point was if there were anyone that were infected when I went on the train on March 8. But hopefully it's nothing...

(FYI I'm in Indonesia, we've had 172 confirmed cases (March 16) since March 2. But I know one case that had at least 10 days before detection so it's probably been longer and higher than that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like the entire world is engaging in a cytokine storm. Ie: the response is worse than the disease. Destroy the world economy, and harm hundreds of millions or billions to save a few years of life from a subset of elderly people in poor health.

Makes little sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruise ship data (a petri dish designed to increase transmission if there ever was one) shows that ~50% of cases are asymptomatic.

https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/diamond_cruise_cfr_estimates.html

The numbers posted up the thread for mortality by age are based on this paper (the 8.3% CFR 80+, etc), but the patient pop here are the sort of people who go on cruises. I'd never go on a cruise, and I sort of imagine cruise people to not be terribly healthy. Anyway, interesting paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tater said:

Seems like the entire world is engaging in a cytokine storm. Ie: the response is worse than the disease. Destroy the world economy, and harm hundreds of millions or billions to save a few years of life from a subset of elderly people in poor health.

Makes little sense to me.

“Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

“Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.”

My dad, and my in-laws (who I like) are all in this range of at risk people (to be clear, I don't want them dead ;) ). Regardless, the vast majority of elderly people would live even if 100% of them became ill with it, and that won't happen (epidemic peters out after ~60% due to herd immunity, and that;s with zero intervention—I'm suggesting rational intervention, not NO intervention).

So no intervention would result in losing ~5% of the people 80+ That is actually fewer 80+ people than would die without the virus existing, so the question becomes what % of those deaths are "excess." Some clearly would be, but there is very likely a LOT of overlap in the people who will die from COVID-19 and those who were going to die in 2020 anyway among the elderly.

Then there is the impact of the response. "Lockdown" is not without cost. Money is the usual metric here, but think about people who live paycheck to paycheck. Think about businesses like restaurants, etc that will be destroyed. People who will change the quality of life, the quality of food they get to eat, where they live, which results in what schools their kids attend, and the life trajectory of those kids. This ultimately impacts the life expectancy of those people, and could easily exceed the fraction of a percent of "excess deaths." If the overall mortality of this is 0.6% (upper bound, likely lower), I bet the excess deaths is far closer to 0.1%. A tiny change in life outcomes could reduce life expectancy of people only impacted by the economy by this amount.

It's worth considering.

 

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...