mistakey Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 hopefully the drugs work and can be mass produced - that will likely end this much sooner with much less deaths if the test results are repeatable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, acowboys62 said: I feel like I would judge "worst" based on deaths and death rates. In that regard I believe we are near the bottom of these countries. Obviously a lot has yet to play out but this feels a bit misleading. But it’s worth nothing that 67% of closed cases in the US have ended in death at this point. 782 people are dead, 378 have recovered. Comparatively, every other country on the planet has seen more recoveries than deaths. And with 54,867 known cases, our closed case rate is just 2%. We currently have almost twice as many people in critical condition as we do total closed cases. So it’s really far too early in our country’s tracking of deaths to know where we are compared to other countries. Edited March 25, 2020 by pwny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, mistakey said: hopefully the drugs work and can be mass produced - that will likely end this much sooner with much less deaths if the test results are repeatable Without knowing a ton about the specific company, I'd feel pretty decent about the odds of the vaccine @Shanedorf posted working. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, pwny said: But it’s worth nothing that 73% of closed cases in the US have ended in death at this point. Over 500 people are dead, 187 have recovered. Comparatively, every other country on the planet has seen more recoveries than deaths. So it’s really far too early in our country’s tracking of deaths to know where we are compared to other countries. I’m guessing our general lack of testing plays a large part in those numbers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: I’m guessing our general lack of testing plays a large part in those numbers. Still, we’ve only closed 2% of tested cases. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistakey Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Without knowing a ton about the specific company, I'd feel pretty decent about the odds of the vaccine @Shanedorf posted working. sure but if we can reliably treat a lot of patients in a half or a third of the time, that should clear up a lot of the hospital capacity so we can get back to normal quicker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 37 minutes ago, TVScout said: Sample size? Sall. 26 I believe. 7 got the cocktail How many they are testing now, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 Just now, mistakey said: sure but if we can reliably treat a lot of patients in a half or a third of the time, that should clear up a lot of the hospital capacity so we can get back to normal quicker Oh for sure, I'm just saying if you want some good news it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 21 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: That chart doesn’t take into account population though, correct? Correct. So eventually the US should have more cases than most places just due to the sheer number of people we have. But the fact that our population density is so much lower than everyone else *should have* meant that the spread was slower all other things equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acowboys62 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, pwny said: Still, we’ve only closed 2% of tested cases. Thank you for the above. But we also do not know who is reporting "closed" cases right? Let's say I get COVID, I get sent back home (mild symptoms) I know there are standards in when you are "better", ie, two back to back tests after 7 days of no fever (or something like that)...but who actually tracks that? Like would I be required to call someone and tell them? I get how you can track this data in a hospital but not understanding for all the people who get sent home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, pwny said: Correct. So eventually the US should have more cases than most places just due to the sheer number of people we have. But the fact that our population density is so much lower than everyone else *should have* meant that the spread was slower all other things equal. The spread in the US is somewhat concentrated into larger urban areas, is it not? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acowboys62 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, pwny said: Correct. So eventually the US should have more cases than most places just due to the sheer number of people we have. But the fact that our population density is so much lower than everyone else *should have* meant that the spread was slower all other things equal. So what is happening is somewhat normal, should see high density areas explode and low density areas be relatively ok. The key will be to contain those high density areas (NYC)...man I hate living sandwiched between so major cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acowboys62 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, squire12 said: The spread in the US is somewhat concentrated into larger urban areas, is it not? Pretty sure NYC is roughly half of the cases...the areas are NYC will likely continue to increase (NJ second), glad to see CT so low given that distance. Washington is a bit of an outlier but I guess that was sort of the starting point and it hit the care centers pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, squire12 said: The spread in the US is somewhat concentrated into larger urban areas, is it not? Yes. But not a single urban city in the US is even top 50 in population density among similarly sized populaces. Even our most densely populated areas are seeing higher outbreak rates than more densely populated areas. And cases across the whole of the populace should be lower. New York, LA and Chicago are going to have high rates. But the cornfield states *should be* pushing the rate lower than other countries. And that's not happening. Edited March 25, 2020 by pwny 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 8 minutes ago, acowboys62 said: Thank you for the above. But we also do not know who is reporting "closed" cases right? Let's say I get COVID, I get sent back home (mild symptoms) I know there are standards in when you are "better", ie, two back to back tests after 7 days of no fever (or something like that)...but who actually tracks that? Like would I be required to call someone and tell them? I get how you can track this data in a hospital but not understanding for all the people who get sent home. You don't have to tell anyone. We just know that if you're not reported dead two weeks (or whatever the standard timeframe is that we're using) after you got tested and haven't shown back up at the hospital, you're not a case we need to keep open anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts