totm april 2020 Coronavirus

[tater]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I can't answer that without breaking the forum rules on politics.

That's sorta what I was getting at.

Without being specific, they have certainly done them, and the results are not acceptable to share. 15% of their housecats tested positive, though, so...

[AHHans]

5 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

https://erinbromage.wixsite.com/covid19/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

An interesting writeup by an infectious disease immunology professor covering some information about the physical mechanisms of how the virus spreads.

Interesting indeed! In particular as I saw lots of people hanging out in the sun during a trip through the city on Thursday afternoon. And one should keep in mind that low risk is not the same as no risk. (AKA I'm really curious how Germany will fare now that our politicians are in a race to lower restrictions.)

[Technical Ben]

6 hours ago, tater said:

That's sorta what I was getting at.

Without being specific, they have certainly done them, and the results are not acceptable to share. 15% of their housecats tested positive, though, so...

Nooo! The first reports were that dogs could not get it, then that cats were unlikely. Then when the reports on tigers getting it, I was hopeful it was an outliner. Now my cat is out to kill me... in a few more ways than normal.

[tater]

2 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

Nooo! The first reports were that dogs could not get it, then that cats were unlikely. Then when the reports on tigers getting it, I was hopeful it was an outliner. Now my cat is out to kill me... in a few more ways than normal.

1. They think the cats got it from people, not the other way around. (and little cat to cat transmission)

2. Unless you are among our most elderly or medically fragile KSP players, you're probably more likely to be killed by your cat the usual way cats kill things than die of COVID-19

[Technical Ben]

1 minute ago, tater said:

1. They think the cats got it from people, not the other way around. (and little cat to cat transmission)

2. Unless you are among our most elderly or medically fragile KSP players, you're probably more likely to be killed by your cat the usual way cats kill things than die of COVID-19

Yes. The cat is more likely to trip me up. And possibly the "bad cold" I had earlier in the year was my dose and recovery from this.

Glad little to no cat -> human transmission.

[tater]

The interesting thing is that way back when that paper came out (months ago), Wuhan had some small number (10s of thousands) of cases. 15% of housecats having acquired it from humans implies that the number of humans with it was likely much higher than the fraction of a percent that tested positive. Do the math for Wuhan (assume if 15% of house cats had it, then 10-15% of humans had it), and the fatality rate drops to 0.25% to 0.35% (deaths divided by 15% of pop infected to 10% infected).

Interestingly this is pretty much exactly what the German serological data shows.

That's where the IFR is for this I bet. YMMV.

So we have 2.5X worse than flu to 3.5X worse than flu. I don't buy the idea that it is way more infectious than flu for reasons I have said before—small doubling times for high R₀ are implausible given when we know there were cases. Millions of people get flu every year even with large numbers vaccinated, and a lower R₀ than is assigned to COVID-19. We are also now firmly in a "flu season" length for the COVID pandemic, if not longer in the US (been here since at least Jan1). What this leads to though is a much lower attack rate required for herd immunity, since herd immunity goes as 1-1/R₀. Make it like flu in this regard, and the outbreak size is ~16-32% of the population.

That's 132,000 to 370,000 dead in the US as a range with zero mitigation assuming the usual, simple model for outbreaks. There are a few papers in this thread suggesting (rightly, IMO) that outbreaks are more complex than the simple mass model. They tend to predict smaller outbreaks due to variability for COVID-19. Both, using different methods said ~15%. That makes the lower estimate look more likely.

Since ~50% of deaths are in nursing homes, the death rate could be halved by protecting those people alone.

Edited May 9, 2020 by tater

[tater]

(from that thread I linked up a bit suggesting lower %s infected for herd immunity)

[tater]

Still getting clobbered:

https://www.ndoh.navajo-nsn.gov/COVID-19

If they were a State they would trail NY in per capita COVID. Minus that, NM would have almost no cases outside a few nursing homes. My wife said that the COVID patients on the board at her hospital have mostly Navajo names.

They have a lot of comorbidities that create worse outcomes.

[DDE]

5 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

Yes. The cat is more likely to trip me up.

Mine has a habit of biting the inside of my wrists.

Should I be worried, or is it too late?

[mikegarrison]

1 minute ago, DDE said:

Should I be worried, or is it too late?

For you, or the cat?

[kerbiloid]

47 minutes ago, DDE said:

Mine has a habit of biting the inside of my wrists.

Should I be worried, or is it too late?

You're now vaccinated catinated or felinated. _{"vacc-" is "cow"}

Btw cats have a habit of licking that place before biting. Probably, they sterilize it like a nurse before injection.

Edited May 9, 2020 by kerbiloid

[tater]

 

The reporting I read seems to be "they reopened too soon." How about, "closing stuff indefinitely is impossible, and can never work" instead?

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The reporting I read seems to be "they reopened too soon." How about, "closing stuff indefinitely is impossible, and can never work" instead?

How about "closing stuff indefinitely is necessary when it involves a lot of people being close, so quit grumbling about it if you want to live"? Night clubs should not have been reopened until a vaccine had been developed and administered on a global scale. 

Yes, they reopened too soon. Particularly, they let people gather together and party far too soon. This is a pandemic. People will die if the whole population doesn't take it seriously. Yes, some will die anyway, but as far as the current data goes, excess death toll is through the roof, especially in countries that didn't take it seriously, so anyone saying "but they would have died later this year!" has no ground to stand on (neither moral nor scientific). Yes, by this point we do have enough data to say that. We can calculate the average lifetime lost for countries in which the pandemic started early, and these numbers aren't looking good.

So yeah, get used to the thought we'll be dealing with this for a while. Instead of crying over not being able to go back to our old ways of living, we should be looking for a new way to live. This is the only moral thing to do. Stop trying to go back, and start looking for a way forward instead. Instead of crying over your salad bar, sell the dining room and buy a delivery car, then sell your salads online. Yes, this may be hard for some, but nobody said living through a global disaster is supposed to be easy (if it is, it means you're one of the lucky ones).

Edited May 10, 2020 by Guest

[tater]

32 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

How about "closing stuff indefinitely is necessary when it involves a lot of people being close, so quit grumbling about it if you want to live"? Night clubs should not have been reopened until a vaccine had been developed and administered on a global scale. 

Nonsense.

The chance that any of the people out at the nightclub end up "not living" is effectively zero.

What is the IFR for 20 year olds?

Locking down until an imaginary vaccine is insanity. The IFR average is ~0.25%-0.4% (German seroprevalence study). Nursing homes are fully 50% of deaths, so the IFR outside of nursing homes is HALF that number—and still, that is an average, weighted heavily towards the aged.

 

Quote

Yes, they reopened too soon. Particularly, they let people gather together and party far too soon. This is a pandemic. People will die if the whole population doesn't take it seriously. Yes, some will die anyway, but as far as the current data goes, excess death toll is through the roof, especially in countries that didn't take it seriously, so anyone saying "but they would have died later this year!" has no ground to stand on (neither moral nor scientific). Yes, by this point we do have enough data to say that. We can calculate the average lifetime lost for countries in which the pandemic started early, and these numbers aren't looking good.

The people doing the dying are half people who literally need access daily medical care just to live at all (nursing homes).

Of the other half dying, the large majority are old enough to be out of the workforce. Young people are at some small risk greater than zero. If the chances for death for people in the workforce is X:100,000, then you must also suggest full shutdowns for all other causes of death that equal this risk I assume?

Spending 7 trillion $ to prevent the death of a fraction of a percent of people with a few years of life remaining is nuts. We should have spent that money curing cancer or heart disease, instead (though the latter is largely personal choices that results in risks for COVID as well, interestingly—choose to be obese (put down the twinkies), and you're at risk). Deaths prevented per dollar would be maximized, as those will kill far more people this year, and every year.

 

Quote

So yeah, get used to the thought we'll be dealing with this for a while. Instead of crying over not being able to go back to our old ways of living, we should be looking for a new way to live. This is the only moral thing to do. Stop trying to go back, and start looking for a way forward instead. Instead of crying over your salad bar, sell the dining room and buy a delivery car, then sell your salads online. Yes, this may be hard for some, but nobody said living through a global disaster is supposed to be easy (if it is, it means you're one of the lucky ones).

Nope, not going to live life a new way. This is not a disaster, the deaths are going to end up a few years worth of flu deaths—and the flu deaths will likely decrease for the next few years because the people who it would have killed will already be dead.

Edited May 10, 2020 by tater

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, tater said:

The reporting I read seems to be "they reopened too soon." How about, "closing stuff indefinitely is impossible, and can never work" instead?

Maybe "What's a few dead I gots ta get my rave-on."

[tater]

In Sweden 1.6% of their deaths have been under 50. I'd wager the number without substantial health problems is even lower.

That's a risk of 1.2:100,000 for people under 50.

3-4 times lower than the chance of death by homicide in the US. 10X lower than the chance of death in a car accident.

Pick a death risk per 100,000, and everything should stop until all causes are below that, right?

Car deaths are 100% preventable via banning cars, or forcing them to operate at 100% non-fatal speeds.

That's a 12:100,000 death rate (and a much, much larger rate of substantial, even life-altering morbidity) that can for certain be 100% prevented via "inconvenience."

Why don't we do this?

Edited May 10, 2020 by tater

[Lisias]

I'm registering things here on Brazil since March.

The Red line are the count of confirmed cases per day (we are not testing enough here - better stay out of the reasons due Forum Policies).

The Yellow and Green lines are the deaths on the whole Country and on the State where I live. The two lines are almost a flat line - doesn't matters how many people are confirmed to have the virus, the body count almost doesn't changes the slope.

Here in Brazil, the ICU mean time is 18 days - so, probably, you need to find a correlation between the body count with the read line from 2 weeks before.

 

Spoiler

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JBz8Zv-qAyk38a33e8gWxKPSybbzKvJsJ5xROU7epgw/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tater said:

That's a risk of 1.2:100,000 for people under 50.

Check their rates for people over 50, then. Sweden has done a terrible job protecting the elderly and the vulnerable, and with the revelation that very mild cases don't get immunity, getting herd immunity the hard way becomes impossible, which renders their whole strategy bogus (there will always be people there to catch and spread it). 

It's not about these stupid kids who went to nightclubs in Korea. It's about everyone else. Again, there's a reason I said, "whole population". If the disease was so easily avoided that only the stupid would get it, I'd have cause for celebration, actually.

Killing yourself with your (or someone else's) car is your own bloody fault. Killing someone else with your car will land you in prison. To continue the car analogy, would you agree to put in jail everyone who is proven to have infected someone who later died of COVID-19? For the record, I would, because in the end, they're just as dead as if you hit them with your car. In both cases, there's little risk as long as everyone behaves responsively. The moment someone stops acting responsively, things are starting to get dangerous. That person should suffer the consequences, whether natural or imposed.

The only difference is, I wouldn't trust lawyers with determining who was responsible for the transmission. Not that I'd really trust them with figuring out responsibility for car accidents, either, but biology is harder than traffic.

[Technical Ben]

On 5/9/2020 at 7:50 PM, DDE said:

Mine has a habit of biting the inside of my wrists.

Should I be worried, or is it too late?

Mine does that. It means it's happy. Or angry. Or annoyed.

So take it as a warning!

[mikegarrison]

On 5/10/2020 at 11:34 AM, Lisias said:

I'm registering things here on Brazil since March.

The Red line are the count of confirmed cases per day (we are not testing enough here - better stay out of the reasons due Forum Policies).

The Yellow and Green lines are the deaths on the whole Country and on the State where I live. The two lines are almost a flat line - doesn't matters how many people are confirmed to have the virus, the body count almost doesn't changes the slope.

Here in Brazil, the ICU mean time is 18 days - so, probably, you need to find a correlation between the body count with the read line from 2 weeks before.

 

  Hide contents

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JBz8Zv-qAyk38a33e8gWxKPSybbzKvJsJ5xROU7epgw/edit?usp=sharing

 

Is that plotted on a linear scale or a log scale? From the hashmarks I am guessing linear. Suggest you try it on a log scale.

Edited May 11, 2020 by mikegarrison

[Lisias]

41 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Is that plotted on a linear scale or a log scale? From the hashmarks I am guessing linear. Suggest you try it on a log scale.

That would prevent me to directly compare the slope of the curves.

Since the absolute numbers on my country are not reliable, IMHO the only way of getting some sense of the mess id comparing the curve's slopes, and not the amplitude of them.

-- POST EDIT --

 Thinking is a very healthy habit. I should do that more times. I don't need the total number of confirmed cases on that graph. Removing that line made things better. I will post a update by night.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Lisias

[DDE]

 

[Guest]

As we say in my country, "when the man is in a hurry, the devil is happy". You can't boost production 10 times that quickly and expect nobody will make a mistake. Trying typically results in things catching fire, figuratively or literally.

Sending 230V ventilators to US wasn't exactly the hottest idea they've had, either, though they likely don't make a 120V model at all.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Guest

[Nightside]

Best of official info graphic I’ve seen.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Nightside

[DDE]

Wheely will not be resuming taxi service as Moscow's lockdown is relaxed, because the Moscow government wants them to share non-anonymized geolocation data for every client.

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4342329

Yandex and Uber remain noticeably silent as they return to full-fledged operations.