Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[BobbyPhil1781]

27 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

Yep, it's absolutely nuts how this has happened.  At least in Maryland, instead of using the empty field hospitals or hotels, they used ALF's to house people who had coronavirus, wouldn't separate positive from negative cases by floors/sections and they had a clear lack of PPE.  It was criminal what's happened in some of these places.  

This was a huge problem with NY, right? Wasn't the governor throwing sick people in with them? I know we were even more naive back then but if this is true, I feel there should be some sort of consequences.

[skywindO2]

@mission27 what happened to your numbers? I only check Minnesota and it's my understanding that an MOL value from a previous day does not change.

In that post, the 6/13 MOL is 10.3 but in the post above the 6/13 MOL value is 4.8. Please correct any errors. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by skywindO2

[WizeGuy]

8 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said:

This was a huge problem with NY, right? Wasn't the governor throwing sick people in with them? I know we were even more naive back then but if this is true, I feel there should be some sort of consequences.

Yes, but he wasn't the only one. Apparently he was following the federal guidelines. Still, many other governors seemed to have the foresight to say "this isn't a good idea". I haven't read much into it. Both sides are pointing the finger, per the usual, so it's hard to distinguish between fact and fabrication unless you research it heavily. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by WizeGuy

[BobbyPhil1781]

Some very interesting data about sharing households w/ an infected person:

"Household secondary attack rate of COVID-19 and associated determinants in Guangzhou, China: a retrospective cohort study"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30471-0/fulltext

"The overall data-based secondary attack rates were 13·2% (95% CI 10·9–15·7) among household contacts and 2·4% (1·6–3·3) among non-household contacts, when household was defined on the basis of close relatives.

When household was defined by residential address, the data-based secondary attack rate among household contacts increased to 17·2% (95% CI 14·1–20·6) and was 2·6% (1·9–3·6) among non-household contacts."

Another study pertaining to the age of the person and likelihood they exhibit symptoms:

"Probability of symptoms and critical disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08471

"We quantified the probability of developing symptoms (respiratory or fever>=37.5 °C) and critical disease (requiring intensive care or resulting in death) of SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects. 4,326 contacts of SARS-CoV-2 index cases detected in Lombardy, Italy were analyzed, and positive subjects were ascertained via nasal swabs and serological assays. 69.1% of all infected individuals aged less than 60 years did not develop symptoms (95% confidence interval: 66.7-71.4%). The risk of symptoms increased with age. 6.9% of infected subjects older than 60 years had critical disease, with males at significantly higher risk."

TL;DR (These numbers are someone elses work, not mine)

0-19 y/o

Had Symptoms (respiratory or fever): 18.5%

Critical (ICU/death): 0%

20-39 y/o

Had Symptoms: 26%

Critical: 0.47%

40-59 y/o

Had Symptoms: 38%

Critical: 0.88%

60-79 y/o

Had Symptoms: 41%

Critical: 4.5%

80+ y/o

Had Symptoms: 67%

Critical: 18.6%

No significant differences between females and males were found in the risk of developing symptoms given the infection.

However, females resulted 53.5% less likely to experience critical disease (95%CI 23.9-72.0).

[JonMcC2018]

So 1 in every 305 people (0.33%) of people under the age of 40 developed critical symptoms. Even extending this to all people under 60 the % is 0.599%.

This is what we shut down the whole of society for!?!

Untold economic damage, mass unemployment, large increase in domestic abuse, child abuse, mental health issues and an increasingly intolerant and angry population?

Absolute madness.

 

[BobbyPhil1781]

3 minutes ago, JonMcC2018 said:

So 1 in every 305 people (0.33%) of people under the age of 40 developed critical symptoms. Even extending this to all people under 60 the % is 0.599%.

This is what we shut down the whole of society for!?!

Untold economic damage, mass unemployment, large increase in domestic abuse, child abuse, mental health issues and an increasingly intolerant and angry population?

Absolute madness.

 

Not going to offer my opinion on what should've been done but if the numbers are correct and the study is legit, this seems to be the case. What you must also acknowledge is that when everything was shut down the country, we had almost no information on this thing and even now, we're still learning A LOT. We should also note that while people may not exhibit symptoms, they can pass it to the elderly rather easily and cause serious problems which is absolutely true based on what we've seen. That is very, very important.

[mission27]

2 hours ago, theJ said:

Curiosity is getting the better of me.  What is driving this number?  World of Meters is not reporting a single new case in China for over two months.  Which obviously none of us believe.  But where are you getting your information?

You just cant see the cases because the graph is skewed.  They're reported ~50 cases a day for the last few days, almost all in Beijing (scary), vs. almost no cases for two months. 

[mission27]

1 hour ago, skywindO2 said:

@mission27 what happened to your numbers? I only check Minnesota and it's my understanding that an MOL value from a previous day does not change.

In that post, the 6/13 MOL is 10.3 but in the post above the 6/13 MOL value is 4.8. Please correct any errors. 

Previous days can change if states or countries restate data from previous days.  With the state by state numbers we are re-pulling the entire historical period every day.

[rob_shadows]

So according to those numbers age directly effects your chances of bring symptomatic vs asymptomatic... Interesting, I didn't know that... Obviously we all knew about age being a major factor in risk of severe complications from the virus but I didn't know there was a correlation between age and being asymptomatic.

[JonMcC2018]

36 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said:

Not going to offer my opinion on what should've been done but if the numbers are correct and the study is legit, this seems to be the case. What you must also acknowledge is that when everything was shut down the country, we had almost no information on this thing and even now, we're still learning A LOT. We should also note that while people may not exhibit symptoms, they can pass it to the elderly rather easily and cause serious problems which is absolutely true based on what we've seen. That is very, very important.

The information has been out there for weeks. Here are the extrapolated results of antibody testing that was done in Spain over a month ago.

Coronavirus is very bad for people in certain age demographics underlying health conditions. However for the vast majority of people Coronavirus is nothing to worry about. Every step and precaution should have been taken to protect those people likely to be worse affected by the virus, however for everyone else life should have gone on as normal.

There's been something very strange about the whole Coronavirus experience. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but the constant fear-mongering, click-baiting, finger pointing from the media has been a real eye opener. The Coronavirus has been a god send in terms of clicks for the various media outlets. The likes of Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Google have also benefitted enormously. Fear, division etc equal views and clicks. Coronavirus sells.

Even the headlines which accompanied that Spanish study above were almost wholly negative, eg. 'Study shows that only 7% of population have contracted corona - 93% are still to get it!'.

Edited June 18, 2020 by JonMcC2018

[JonMcC2018]

In fact that main takeaway we should take from the Coronavirus is how unhealthy the Western world is. Did you know only 12% of the US population is actually classified as metabolically healthy - https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-does-it-mean-to-be-metabolically-healthy

Give up the processed food. Get outside. Get more sunshine. Drink less alcohol. These are the messages that the media and government should be pushing for how we can protect ourselves against Coronavirus and future viruses that will undoubtedly come.

What have we had instead? Messages encouraging comfort eating. Dunkin Donuts making donations to hospitals. Pepsi thanking all the healthcare workers. You couldn't make it up!

Edited June 18, 2020 by JonMcC2018

[theJ]

13 minutes ago, JonMcC2018 said:

Give up the processed food. Get outside. Get more sunshine. Drink less alcohol. These are the messages that the media and government should be pushing for how we can protect ourselves against Coronavirus and future viruses that will undoubtedly come.

What have we had instead? Messages encouraging comfort eating. Dunkin Donuts making donations to hospitals. Pepsi thanking all the healthcare workers. You couldn't make it up!

This is a whole different discussion.  Because by and large, the people that really need to do what you're saying can't afford it.  Processed food is cheap, and easy.  But mainly cheap.  Try telling a family of 5 that makes less than 50k/year that they shouldn't cook pasta or go to McD's.

For those that can afford it, it's usually a problem of ease.  People are busy in this country and don't give themselves time to cook.  So a 15 min meal of mac and cheese when it's 6:30 and the kids are hungry and you just got home from soccer practice or w/e is about their only option.

Anyway...

[BobbyPhil1781]

The media pushing fear into people isn't exactly a new tactic unfortunately. They have absolutely done so w/ this as well.

[winitall]

18 minutes ago, JonMcC2018 said:

The information has been out there for weeks. Here are the extrapolated results of antibody testing that was done in Spain over a month ago.

Coronavirus is very bad for people in certain age demographics underlying health conditions. However for the vast majority of people Coronavirus is nothing to worry about. Every step and precaution should have been taken to protect those people likely to be worse affected by the virus, however for everyone else life should have gone on as normal.

There's been something very strange about the whole Coronavirus experience. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but the constant fear-mongering, click-baiting, finger pointing from the media has been a real eye opener. The Coronavirus has been a god send in terms of clicks for the various media outlets. The likes of Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Google have also benefitted enormously. Fear, division etc equal views and clicks. Coronavirus sells.

Even the headlines which accompanied that Spanish study above were almost wholly negative, eg. 'Study shows that only 7% of population have contracted corona - 93% are still to get it!'.

Without addressing the rest of your post, I think you are underestimating the age of the US population. Based on a quick look at Wikipedia, it appears that there are roughly 90 million Americans that are ages 55+. That is a ton of people. You can’t protect 90 million people without instituting rules that affect everyone. It’s just not possible. You can’t just sequester that many people and let everyone else live their lives normally.  

[theJ]

22 minutes ago, JonMcC2018 said:

Coronavirus is very bad for people in certain age demographics underlying health conditions. However for the vast majority of people Coronavirus is nothing to worry about. Every step and precaution should have been taken to protect those people likely to be worse affected by the virus, however for everyone else life should have gone on as normal.

 

If we could have somehow found a way to segregate the portion of the population that was at-risk, then yeah.  But at the time, no one knew the stats you posted, and even if they did probably would have deemed it too hard to quarantine those folks while allowing others to go out.