Jump to content
bornontheblue

Corona Virus - How bad is it going to be?

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

+++++, I picked a helluva time to quit drinking.

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

Honestly, not to sound like a total rat bastard, but a sizable culling of the aged population would probably be a net positive going forward. 

Is that your recommendation to address the Social Security / Medicare budget issues?

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, modestobulldog said:

Is that your recommendation to address the Social Security / Medicare budget issues?

Dark Humor:  Keep trump from being reelected

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth on hospitalization rates:

Quote

"When you look at the people who are getting coronavirus, 80 percent of them are not needing to be hospitalized," Adams continued. "They're having a mild illness like the cold or like a minor flu."

"Of the 20 percent who go on to need hospitalization or more medical care, we know that the folks who are most at risk tend to be people who are elderly and people who have medical problems: heart disease, lung disease, cancer, and chemotherapy," he told Ingle.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/risk-of-coronavirus-remains-low-most-people-will-not-need-hospitalization

80 percent won't need hospitalization. 20 percent will need it.

That's absurdly high.

  • Super-Mega Idiot 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CV147 said:

For what it's worth on hospitalization rates:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/risk-of-coronavirus-remains-low-most-people-will-not-need-hospitalization

80 percent won't need hospitalization. 20 percent will need it.

That's absurdly high.

That is the number people are ignoring when they say don't worry about this disease.  My son iN Taiwan says they are saying 10% - 20% will need to be in Hospital as well

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

Honestly, not to sound like a total rat bastard, but a sizable culling of the aged population would probably be a net positive going forward. 

There wouldn't be any Democrat candidates left

  • Like 1

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.amp
 

Quote

A quarantined boat is an ideal—if unfortunate—natural laboratory to study a virus. Many variables normally impossible to control are controlled. We know that all but one patient boarded the boat without the virus. We know that the other passengers were healthy enough to travel. We know their whereabouts and exposures. While the numbers coming out of China are scary, we don’t know how many of those patients were already ill for other reasons. How many were already hospitalized for another life-threatening illness and then caught the virus? How many were completely healthy, caught the virus, and developed a critical illness? In the real world, we just don’t know.
 

Here’s the problem with looking at mortality numbers in a general setting: In China, 9 million people die per year, which comes out to 25,000 people every single day, or around 1.5 million people over the past two months alone. A significant fraction of these deaths results from diseases like emphysema/COPD, lower respiratory infections, and cancers of the lung and airway whose symptoms are clinically indistinguishable from the nonspecific symptoms seen in severe COVID-19 cases. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the death rate from COVID-19 in China spiked precisely among the same age groups in which these chronic diseases first become common. During the peak of the outbreak in China in January and early February, around 25 patients per day were dying with SARS-CoV-2. Most were older patients in whom the chronic diseases listed above are prevalent. Most deaths occurred in Hubei province, an area in which lung cancer and emphysema/COPD are significantly higher than national averages in China, a country where half of all men smoke. How were doctors supposed to sort out which of those 25 out of 25,000 daily deaths were solely due to coronavirus, and which were more complicated? What we need to know is how many excess deaths this virus causes.
 

This is where the Diamond Princess data provides important insight. Of the 3,711 people on board, at least 705 have tested positive for the virus (which, considering the confines, conditions, and how contagious this virus appears to be, is surprisingly low). Of those, more than half are asymptomatic, while very few asymptomatic people were detected in China. This alone suggests a halving of the virus’s true fatality rate.
 

On the Diamond Princess, six deaths have occurred among the passengers, constituting a case fatality rate of 0.85 percent. Unlike the data from China and elsewhere, where sorting out why a patient died is extremely difficult, we can assume that these are excess fatalities—they wouldn’t have occurred but for SARS-CoV-2. The most important insight is that all six fatalities occurred in patients who are more than 70 years old. Not a single Diamond Princess patient under age 70 has died. If the numbers from reports out of China had held, the expected number of deaths in those under 70 should have been around four.
 

The data from the Diamond Princess suggest an eightfold lower mortality amongst patients older than 70 and threefold lower mortality in patients over 80 compared to what was reported in China initially. But even those numbers, 1.1 percent and 4.9 percent respectively, are concerning. But there’s another thing that’s worth remembering: These patients were likely exposed repeatedly to concentrated viral loads (which can cause worse illness). Some treatments were delayed. So even the lower CFR found on the Diamond Princess could have been even lower, with proper protocols. It’s also worth noting that while cruise passengers can be assumed to be healthy enough to travel, they actually tend to reflect the general population, and many patients with chronic illnesses go on cruises. So, the numbers from this ship may be reasonable estimates.

 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Interesting. Italy will be the one to watch.  Japan also took the sick patients off the boat for hospital care,  Just gotta hope the hospitals here can handle the load if the infection rate climbs.  In China, the hospitals were so overwhelmed and many did not receive any care at all.  China also has a male population where 50% of men still smoke.  SO many variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Billings said:

Interesting. Italy will be the one to watch.  Japan also took the sick patients off the boat for hospital care,  Just gotta hope the hospitals here can handle the load if the infection rate climbs.  In China, the hospitals were so overwhelmed and many did not receive any care at all.  China also has a male population where 50% of men still smoke.  SO many variables.

I agree Italy and Japan will be better countries to watch than China. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Billings said:

Interesting. Italy will be the one to watch.  Japan also took the sick patients off the boat for hospital care,  Just gotta hope the hospitals here can handle the load if the infection rate climbs.  In China, the hospitals were so overwhelmed and many did not receive any care at all.  China also has a male population where 50% of men still smoke.  SO many variables.

 

31 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I agree Italy and Japan will be better countries to watch than China. 

Italy (24%) has roughly the same percentage of smokers within their population as China (24.7%). Japan is at 22.15%. The US is at 17.25%.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Billings said:

nope.  dont confuse it with trumps current budget that also included a deep cut but never approved.  that is fake news dem were spreading but this pandemic response team quit under working conditions and were never replaced in 2018.  leaving critical positions open is a cut

It’s not a cut, and it disingenuous to say so. Leaving an administerial position open when there is no known crisis to administer a response to is not a cut. Saying so presupposes two things that are at odds. The first is that the policies and procedures of the cdc were inadequate to begin with so the admins should have been removed. The second is that there was an obvious, or even a bold choice, to fill the position that could foresee this pandemic and how to change those policies when nobody anywhere has a solid grasp on this thing (unless you want to count North Korea who just shoots the infected, I don’t).

Nothing was cut, nothing. If the previous policies aren’t up to snuff, they will be changed and those now in those positions are responsible for how well they work. There’s not a single person anyone can point to with the divination to curb this thing, let alone react as it was happening. Saying it’s a cut is political crap. Which is fine, just admit it.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s not a cut, and it disingenuous to say so. Leaving an administerial position open when there is no known crisis to administer a response to is not a cut. Saying so presupposes two things that are at odds. The first is that the policies and procedures of the cdc were inadequate to begin with so the admins should have been removed. The second is that there was an obvious, or even a bold choice, to fill the position that could foresee this pandemic and how to change those policies when nobody anywhere has a solid grasp on this thing (unless you want to count North Korea who just shoots the infected, I don’t).

Nothing was cut, nothing. If the previous policies aren’t up to snuff, they will be changed and those now in those positions are responsible for how well they work. There’s not a single person anyone can point to with the divination to curb this thing, let alone react as it was happening. Saying it’s a cut is political crap. Which is fine, just admit it.

Point is critical positions that plan for this kind of crisis were left open on purpose.  You can't predict them happening but you plan and train for them but not with empty positions.  We dropped the ball by not always being ready.   Virtually every other country is testing more then we are and had the testing kits ready to go because they planned for it.  Can't always blame it on those who came before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s not a cut, and it disingenuous to say so. Leaving an administerial position open when there is no known crisis to administer a response to is not a cut. Saying so presupposes two things that are at odds. The first is that the policies and procedures of the cdc were inadequate to begin with so the admins should have been removed. The second is that there was an obvious, or even a bold choice, to fill the position that could foresee this pandemic and how to change those policies when nobody anywhere has a solid grasp on this thing (unless you want to count North Korea who just shoots the infected, I don’t).

Nothing was cut, nothing. If the previous policies aren’t up to snuff, they will be changed and those now in those positions are responsible for how well they work. There’s not a single person anyone can point to with the divination to curb this thing, let alone react as it was happening. Saying it’s a cut is political crap. Which is fine, just admit it.

By definition, this is true. But it also doesn’t matter, since a cut is effectively the same as a permanent vacancy. This is also a tactic of this administration: leaving positions vacant without formally cutting any of them. Whether it matters for this particular disease is impossible to know definitively. I do know that the response team was put in place by the Obama administration after the Ebola scare so we would be better prepared for this very thing. Did they foresee this particular virus? No. Did they see that something like this was inevitable? Yes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...