COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[Joey D]

Yeah, I guess these are better. Weird of me to put auto pics at a forum called gtplanet. Sham on me.

There are hundreds of places on GTP to share car photos, the COVID-19 thread probably isn't one of them. Unless of course cars can get full-blown 'Rona.

People getting reinfected means a vaccine is less likely to be developed.

I'm not so sure. With Influenza A & B, it's something you can contract more or less yearly, yet we still have vaccines for those viruses even if they're our best guess. If COVID-19 acts in a similar way we might need to develop a yearly vaccine instead of one overarching one as we have with measles. If that's the case, my hunch is your COVID shot will just be part of your annual flu shot and you'll have a X% chance of being protected until that year's strain runs its course.

 

[Danoff]

The one big thing that seems to be escaping people is that flattening the curve still means that the same number of people die. It's not for the benefit of people, but for the benefit of infrastructure - flattening the curve almost certainly won't save any lives, it'll just make a lot of the deaths less uncomfortable.

I mostly agree, except that I think that flattening the curve will save lives... it just won't change the number of people who get infected.

I think that was ultimately Famine's point. People are under the illusion that curve flattening will protect them from getting the virus. But really it's just about delaying their eventual contraction of the virus. Some people think that the delay could make it to the vaccine stage, but I seriously doubt it.

To TM's point though, curve flattening is all about saving lives by preventing triage. The back of the envelope is to assume that if you have people who need hospitalization and not enough resources, you'll lose all of those people who didn't get resources. That's not quite right though, because you'll lose a ton of those people anyway, and some of them will make it without resources.

A lot of people are under not-so-correct impressions about what we're doing right now, and why we're doing it. It's kindof astounding. I'm glad there is a knowledgeable community here to talk about it (including both of you).

Edit:

There is one more way that curve flattening saves lives, and this one is a bit under-reported. It gives the medical community time to get a handle on how to treat infected people. They're learning a lot every day about which therapies work and which ones fail. They've already pivoted on how they use ventilators for example. That adaptation, and developments in testing, and identification of underlying vulnerability, also has the potential to save lives. So from that perspective, a delay is helpful.

When I think about selfish reasons for my own social distancing practices, I'm often thinking of that as a driver.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So I know the last time I quoted Peter Hitchens on here led to some....questioning, but I'm wondering if these statistics add up:

...if you look at the Office for National Statistics weekly death charts, for week 13 of each year (the week which this year ended on March 27), you find some interesting things.

The total of deaths for that week in 2020 is higher than the five-year average for that time of year, which is 10,130. In fact, it is up to 11,141.

This is 1,011 more deaths than normal per week, 144 more deaths than normal per day, regrettable but not gigantic. Do these figures justify the scale of our reaction?

If you add up the total deaths for the first quarter of the year from respiratory diseases, the figure so far for 2020 (22,877) is less than those for 2013 (25,495), 2015 (28,969), 2017 (25,800), 2018 (29,898) and 2019 (23,336). Again, is this event as exceptional as we are being told? If not, why the shutdown?

 

[Danoff]

So I know the last time I quote Peter Hitchens on here led to some....questioning, but I'm wondering if these statistics add up:

There's some strange obfuscation going on there.

Looking just at the numbers, I'm not sure why we're averaging all of 2020. Coronavirus has not been hammering the US for all of 2020. In fact, it's just the last month or so that things have really gotten going. That's going to average the numbers down substantially. It's weird to do a "by quarter" comparison since that's going to look skewed.

The main thing though is that we don't have control figures. We don't know what this would have looked like without "the scale of our reaction". So it's not clear from these figures whether our reaction was justified or not.

It also implies a false dichotomy between "our reaction" and "no reaction". There's no reason to compare it against no reaction when we don't have figures for that, when instead we could compare it to some hypothetical reaction we don't have figures for either.

I generally like the direction of the thinking, but I can't suss much useful from it.

 

[Scaff]

So I know the last time I quote Peter Hitchens on here led to some....questioning, but I'm wondering if these statistics add up:

Now rework his numbers with the death rates from last week, which are on average 2 to 3 times greater than they were in his 'selective range', factor in that those numbers are undercounted (as only deaths from people who were tested positive and died in a hospital are counted), and consider those deaths are during a lockdown.

 

[Danoff]

and consider those deaths are during a lockdown.

This is a really solid point.

Edit:

Prior to the stay-at-home orders, researchers estimate that there were approximately 1,000 collision incidents and 400 injury and fatal accidents per day on highways across California, per data from the university’s real-time California Highway Incident Processing System (CHIPS).
With stay-at-home orders now in place, researchers at UCD now see approximately 500 collisions and 200 injuries or fatal incidents.

200 per day reduction in traffic collision fatalities in CA alone.

 

[Outspacer]

So I know the last time I quoted Peter Hitchens on here led to some....questioning, but I'm wondering if these statistics add up:

I'd say those figures are utterly irrelevant, to be blunt. By the 27th March the UK had about 750 deaths in hospitals recorded as COVID, little over two weeks later there have been more than 10,000 - more than the average for whole 1st quarter.

Also by the 27th March anyone with half a brain could see what was coming if we did nothing - in two or so weeks time (from now) the figures could well have gone up to about 100,000 dead and 1,000,000 needing hospital admission. (It really makes no practical difference if someone can argue those figures down to a half or a third of that, it's still far too many to cope with in a quick surge).

... and consider those deaths are during a lockdown.

Many of the deaths will be of people who contracted it before lockdown, even though it's hard to say how many.

 

[HenrySwanson]

There's some strange obfuscation going on there.

Looking just at the numbers, I'm not sure why we're averaging all of 2020. Coronavirus has not been hammering the US for all of 2020. In fact, it's just the last month or so that things have really gotten going. That's going to average the numbers down substantially. It's weird to do a "by quarter" comparison since that's going to look skewed.

I don't think it's an average of all of 2020 - rather it's an average of that week in 2020 compared to the same week averaged out over the previous 5 years.

The main thing though is that we don't have control figures. We don't know what this would have looked like without "the scale of our reaction". So it's not clear from these figures whether our reaction was justified or not.

The figures are for Week 13, i.e. the week ending March 27.
Our lockdown started March 23 (Monday of that week).

Therefore any measures as a result of the lockdown would have been negligible.

I do however see your point as to needing a control, but I imagine the only way to do that would be to look at the numbers coming from countries like Sweden or Belarus.

Now rework his numbers with the death rates from last week, which are on average 2 to 3 times greater than they were in his 'selective range', factor in that those numbers are undercounted (as only deaths from people who were tested positive and died in a hospital are counted), and consider those deaths are during a lockdown.

The numbers from the latest available data are:

6082 more deaths than the 5 year average, giving 869 more deaths per day

* I'm not sure that the statistics of deaths from COVID-19 would have been "under counted" as all deaths are counted under COVID-19 statistics regardless of whether they died from that disease or not therefore they at least balance out those who legitimately died outside of a hospital from COVID-19.

Regardless, I think the new data proves that deaths from COVID-19 is a significant event in the timeline of all-cause mortality.

Also by the 27th March anyone with half a brain could see what was coming if we did nothing - in two or so weeks time (from now) the figures could well have gone up to about 100,000 dead and 1,000,000 needing hospital admission. (It really makes no practical difference if someone can argue those figures down to a half or a third of that, it's still far too many to cope with in a quick surge).

I think this is the debatable point.

Where is the rationale for the mortality rate to increase by such a proportion?

 

[Outspacer]

I think this is the debatable point.

Where is the rationale for the mortality rate to increase by such a proportion?

Simply by it finding plenty more people to infect. Around the 27th March the deaths per day was increasing by about 25% per day, so left unchecked that would've continued, only slowed by people having had it and being immune.

The only debatable point is how many people have already had it asymptomatically, but I don't think the likely range of that stat gets high enough to significantly affect the trajectory we would've seen over the next couple of weeks.

Immunity itself seems now a much more debatable point, given the worrying findings of T-cell damage and reinfection.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Simply by it finding plenty more people to infect. Around the 27th March the deaths per day was increasing by about 25% per day, so left unchecked that would've continued, only slowed by people having had it and being immune.

The only debatable point is how many people have already had it asymptomatically, but I don't think the likely range of that stat gets high enough to significantly affect the trajectory we would've seen over the next couple of weeks.

Immunity itself seems now a much more debatable point, given the worrying findings of T-cell damage and reinfection.

If that were the case why the discrepancy between the Imperial and Oxford teams modelling?

 

[Scaff]

The numbers from the latest available data are:

6082 more deaths than the 5 year average, giving 869 more deaths per day

So close to a thousand extra deaths while under a lockdown, that's a significant increase on its own. While we don't know what the exact number would be without a lockdown we do know that it would be significantly higher on a daily basis.

Not to mention that when you compare the NHS stats to the ONS ones, they are trending upwards, showing even the 869 extra is going to increase.

* I'm not sure that the statistics of deaths from COVID-19 would have been "under counted" as all deaths are counted under COVID-19 statistics regardless of whether they died from that disease or not therefore they at least balance out those who legitimately died outside of a hospital from COVID-19.

The official stats (that you are citing) are all deaths that involve Covid-19, please don't try the Anti-Vax trick of saying that if someone dies of complications arising from a Covid-19 infection (say Heart Failure) then its not really a C-19 death. As such, I can't agree at all that they balance out those who die outside of hospitals from Covid-19, with current numbers outside hospitals looking to be at least 2,000.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...on-latest-today-a9463386.html#post-1187875701

Regardless, I think the new data proves that deaths from COVID-19 is a significant event in the timeline of all-cause mortality.

And a growing one, all of which makes Hitchins cry that its an overreaction all the more absurd.

 

[Outspacer]

If that were the case why the discrepancy between the Imperial and Oxford teams modelling?

My assumption is that the truth lies somewhere in between the two!

What I'm talking about isn't comparable to their (early) modeling, it's just based on the data seen. Hospitalisations and deaths continuing to increase at 25% per day would have rapidly overwhelmed the NHS and mortuaries. The only real unknown is how many have already had it and have immunity - probably a million or two have had it, but that's nowhere near enough to slow it down significantly.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The official stats (that you are citing) are all deaths that involve Covid-19, please don't try the Anti-Vax trick of saying that if someone dies of complications arising from a Covid-19 infection (say Heart Failure) then its not really a C-19 death.

It's a notifiable disease, therefore if, for example someone dies from a stroke while being Sars-CoV-2 positive it would be classed as a COVID-19 death regardless of if it was a direct (or indirect) result of infection.

It's not really a "trick", just simple statistics.

As such, I can't agree at all that they balance out those who die outside of hospitals from Covid-19, with current numbers outside hospitals looking to be at least 2,000.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...on-latest-today-a9463386.html#post-1187875701

The problem with that is the 2000 out of hospital "corona deaths" are the same as the official statistics - i.e. we don't know if they are the result of Covid-19

And a growing one, all of which makes Hitchins cry that its an overreaction all the more absurd.

Ehh, I think he has a point, at least.

We have no idea how many are going to die indirectly from the measures that have been brought in (estimates vary by the tens of thousands) and can't be sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

 

[sirjim73]

I don't think it's an average of all of 2020 - rather it's an average of that week in 2020 compared to the same week averaged out over the previous 5 years.


The figures are for Week 13, i.e. the week ending March 27.
Our lockdown started March 23 (Monday of that week).

Therefore any measures as a result of the lockdown would have been negligible.

I do however see your point as to needing a control, but I imagine the only way to do that would be to look at the numbers coming from countries like Sweden or Belarus.

The numbers from the latest available data are:

6082 more deaths than the 5 year average, giving 869 more deaths per day

* I'm not sure that the statistics of deaths from COVID-19 would have been "under counted" as all deaths are counted under COVID-19 statistics regardless of whether they died from that disease or not therefore they at least balance out those who legitimately died outside of a hospital from COVID-19.

Regardless, I think the new data proves that deaths from COVID-19 is a significant event in the timeline of all-cause mortality.

I think this is the debatable point.

Where is the rationale for the mortality rate to increase by such a proportion?

I can't find a link easily (would be grateful if someone could add it below) but there was that image shown early on in the UK which compared a rate of infection of R1.25 or R1.5 to R2.5. Before lockdown measures, each person was infecting 2.5 others on average, that means after 4 weeks one person has infected more than 50 people. At a rate of infection of 1.5 on average, that figure after 4 weeks is around 12.

So after 4 weeks, 4x infections and extrapolating 4x hospital admissions and deaths. Total UK deaths so far are >12,000 (and that's basically just hospital deaths).
At 700+ per day deaths currently, that number will be around 17,000 after 4 weeks.

Without the lockdown, by next week that would have been 4x 17,000 = 68,000

And with four times as many people swamping the NHS, the health system would inevitable be overloaded, meaning less care for all critical cases, not just Covid, heart attacks/strokes/anything that needs urgent critical care.

And if your elderly relative falls over and has to go into hospital with maybe a broken arm or hip, and is infected with Covid in a swamped hospital, for example, they die too.

Of course, many or most of those people will still die later on, as pointed out already in this thread.. And there will be some of those extra 51,000 that will die of other causes related to the lockdown (including increased suicides and others). But they won't all die within 4 weeks, but over a period of months.

We haven't yet kept any of those 51,000 alive past 2020, but we've bought them some time. The next 51,000 will get some time.

And, what we hope might happen, those extra months might mean better treatment for that next 51,000 and increased capacity in the health system.

And at some point, if a vaccine or cure can be found, the last of those groups of 51,000 might not have to die at all from Covid. But that's very much an unknown, and far from guaranteed, so let's just deal with the other points above.

 

[Scaff]

It's a notifiable disease, therefore if, for example someone dies from a stroke while being Sars-CoV-2 positive it would be classed as a COVID-19 death regardless of if it was a direct (or indirect) result of infection.

It's not really a "trick", just simple statistics.

You know full well its not that simple, and that numerous other conditions can become fatal once Covid-19 becomes a factor. That doesn't remove Covid-19 as a cause of death.

The problem with that is the 2000 out of hospital "corona deaths" are the same as the official statistics - i.e. we don't know if they are the result of Covid-19

So the answer is to not count all of them?

Ehh, I think he has a point, at least.

I don't, nor do I belive he's an honest broker in this at all.

We have no idea how many are going to die indirectly from the measures that have been brought in (estimates vary by the tens of thousands) and can't be sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

No, but feel free to supply sources.

 

[01GTP]

Some people here are forgetting the alternative approaches to this pandemic. You seem to be comparing this pandemic with our situation before the pandemic. You can not.

I still find it odd how many people are oblivious to the fact that if there is a major economic collapse, people will die. Large amounts of them at that. This will happen if we continue to have everything locked down for months. It’s not just a matter of people killing themselves or domestic abuse even though there will certainly be large amounts of that, it is also a fact that many people will become homeless. Many people will starve to death. Many people will get killed because of looting and home invasions. This is why we can’t forget about the economy when having a country locked down. Yes, social distancing is saving lives, but we can’t let it continue to the point where the damage caused by it is worse than the virus itself. There will certainly be a point where the economy needs to open back up whether the virus is gone or not.

I'm not signalling you out but you have said it well in your post about the other issues that have to be considered in either scenario. Which scenario is worse?

Let me start with a lot of people here want to know, "is it worth it?" , is our current SD method worth the lockdown and the hit to the economy. Of course it's very expensive. What you seem to forget is, what would the alternative be, what would an alternate method of handling this pandemic cost. The pandemic is here, it must be dealt with. In any scenario the same parameters are in play.

I'm referring to actual data to-date.

I'm using data as well up to date when I'm typing . I'm just using simple math as opposed to a chart.

This is absurd. You can't assign a value to a human life like that. It's financial nonsense. I get that people try in wrongful death cases, but you can't apply that here.

If your going to question is it worth it you have to put a monetary value on it . You can't play baseball without a baseball.
It seems to me the value of life to you is $0. Anything else would be........nonsensical.
Maybe you could supply a dollar amount with some thing to back it up..??

I didn't. I asked a question.

Only if ours is. Apparently. But perhaps they're a little better off because they're not facing an economic depression?

Still sounds more like a statement. Because it has a question mark at the end doesn't make it question. I seems you are questioning that if we (Sweden/USA) have the same statistical number that they are better off because they are not (as you state) facing an economic depression.

You seem to miss the point that unemployment, wrecked investment, and financial ruin cost lives too.

You seem to miss the point that we are faced with those issues either way. The paradox is........which is better?

I wouldn't support making it illegal to keep kids home right now.

Agreed, but in Sweden to keep the economy (I'm guessing) going (I realize they have relaxed restrictions as well) that kids going to school has to be handled with authorities. I realize they are not arresting people.
Are you contemplating to support making it illegal at a later time? I wouldn't think you are..??

This is basically an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy. I could certainly counter with authorities that support what I'm saying, it would be pointless. We'd get into a discussion about which authorities have greater authority, and end up comparing resumes. It's not constructive, and it serves no point. I'm discussing this in part to learn and in part to question. It's not instructive to just shut the discussion off and believe what someone else wants me to.

We're in a discussion forum. This is where we discuss whether we think the experts are right. And we know there is a lot of guesswork going on with C19.

Yup.

Though I don't understand the resume part you mention I would like to hear some authorities supporting what your saying. It's not pointless as this is a discussion on whether SD is worth it.

Now comparing whether or not our local officials are handling this pandemic correctly might not be constructive. I believe my local officials are doing a great job. If your unhappy with the way your local officials are handing this pandemic then you should (and maybe you are) make sure your word is heard. whether that's immediately through social media or calling them, or when it's time to vote.

I think we are both a bit despondent with the federal government right now.


You are forgetting the alternative approaches to this pandemic. You seem to be comparing this with our situation before this pandemic. You can not.

To what? To thinking that schools need to be closed? No not yet.

What? Do you understand that people can't work when they have to take care of their kids all day? I burn a part of the week in vacation each day. That lack of vacation results in reduced spending in other areas, which results in layoffs. Me spending my vacation not working = layoffs.

it gets worse too. Because some people lose their jobs due to lack of childcare. Many parents end up facing the unenviable position of leaving their children in sub-standard care, or forgoing their jobs and filing for unemployment.

And a lot of people... a LOT of people... get elderly parents to step in and watch the kids. Which increases the risk to the elderly, because kids need a lot of... exposure. They need to go outside, they supplies shipped to your house, they drag you into public in a thousand ways.

You are forgetting the alternative approaches to this pandemic. You seem to be comparing this with our situation before this pandemic. You can not. The pandemic is here, it must be dealt with. In any scenario the same parameters are in play.

It’s not just a matter of people killing themselves or domestic abuse even though there will certainly be large amounts of that, it is also a fact that many people will become homeless. Many people will starve to death. Many people will get killed because of looting and home invasions.

These same parameters will be in play, no matter what method we use. It's probably why no one experts/officials is really talking about, it's going to happen either way.

Which is exposure to spread the virus that suddenly you seem to be cool with...

Obviously you don't know the precedure for getting the food that is being used. People need to eat, it's that simple.
https://www.wtae.com/article/long-l...od-distribution-in-allegheny-county/31980755#
https://www.click2houston.com/food/...-reminder-of-economic-crisis-during-pandemic/

Yeah this is in no way the situation here. To get meals for kids you have to order them in advance and there are only certain times to pick your food up, curbing human contact. There is enough for 6 meals (3 days) in each supply per kid. Our officials have a better handle on it here. Those officials else where need to do the same, they need to figure it out. It's their job either as an elected official or by profession.

Mine is open right now. Never closed. I've kept my preschool kids home from their open preschool because I'm learning about the virus and minimizing my exposure to the greatest extent is my goal for today. But there is going to come a time, very soon, where I'll have to consider sending them back. I'm taking into account the rate at which kids their age contract the virus in order to inform that decision. Will they bring it home? Will they get sick? How likely is that? These are pressing issues for me in the next few weeks.

I applaud you for keeping them home, even though your previous statements to keep schools open is not understandable at all now.

You made it about you in order to encourage me to spread a social distancing message and somehow (as if it were possible) practice more social distancing myself. In order to keep your wife safe. And I'm saying that you can never trust others to protect you or your family. Their biology is not yours, their decisions are not yours. Take personal responsibility for your safety and the safety of your family.

It's about all of us, not me, not you, all of us. Whether it be health or economic reasons doesn't matter.

So... your jobless numbers are nonsense.

Maybe you should get a pencil and paper and follow along with that info in there.



I invite any and all to go through those numbers, please.
Do any other gtplanet members want to chime in? Please do.

Also, how much of your demographics overlap? You admit that they do, and then add them together anyway. Which is phenomenally sloppy. Here's your only real argument:

The demographics overlapping only help with the isolation method. That's why I did that, to bias the results toward isolation methods.
You should go through the info.

The rest of that your post appears to be nonsensical.


How on earth are you assuming that everyone isolated is out of a job?

I didn't. You should go through the info. You posts imply you didn't.

52 million are out a job, That number started at 143.6 million unhealthy isolated people.
Go through the info.

I will add though,that number is actually 46.3 million. The 52 figure came form my first run of the numbers,sorry for any confusion.
If you actually went through the info you would have noticed that as the 52 (err) was repeated twice in my info. But it doesn't matter.

I'm supposed to be isolated (along with everyone in the state of Colorado and everyone in just about every other state) except for "essential" activities. But none of those essential activities include me going to work. If you eliminate that part (and I have, because it costs like a few bucks a week to do it) that doesn't help me work.

This is not about you or me, it's (to me) about saving lives. And stop using info in ways it's not presented. If those numbers are the same so be it, it has nothing to do with this conversation. No one has said anything about closing down complete states. If your isolated, yes you have to stay away from people, Are you in any demographic that puts you at higher risk?
This is the method you want, isolation remember?
Go through the info next time.

So using your math, we could take the entire employed population of Colorado (or any state under stay-at-home), and say that all of them who are not considered "essential workers" today are out of a job. That'd be more than just the unhealthy population, smokers, and for some reason you include black people.

Your mistaken, read the info.

Skip ahead to 6m30s for African American info on corona.
Should they be added, they are at a higher risk
Remember you are trying to isolate certain demographics that are at higher risk. Maybe you could put an amount on how many people you want in isolation, you know, just make it up.

The rest of that your post appears to be nonsensical. This figure presumably includes African Americans, and accounts for health issues caused by smoking.

They are at a higher risk. Are we isolating the unhealthy or not? This is your hypothetical method not mine. I'm just try to open my mind to it, remember?

So you have 29.2 million adults who are aged 18-59 that you're worried about losing their jobs.

Worried? I don't follow. My feelings here don't matter. I'm just running numbers. Please explain?
I stated the following in the info.

Out of the 105 million at higher risk

29.2 million adults in this group are ages 18-59 and are at higher risk if infected due to an underlying medical condition such as heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or diabetes

Nothing about they're employment.

Right now we have stay-at-home orders for a huge portion of the country, but you're suddenly worried about jobs when we're talking about 29.2 million people. So how many of them would lose their jobs right now in isolation? Well, less than the number of people losing their jobs right now regardless. How many of those 29.2 million actually work? And let's consider for a moment what the alternative is, to send those people into public, to their jobs, and expose them right? I thought you wanted to save lives...

You can't send the isolated into public. That defeats the purpose. Just like now others have to supply for these people, just like now.

Also, I didn't say anything about forcing them to isolate.

Me either, did I? Are you forgetting this is your idea, to find a way to get through this pandemic without using the current SD methods? Do you remember.

I certainly condemn your isolation method.

#StaysafeStayhome

 

[sirjim73]

You know full well its not that simple, and that numerous other conditions can become fatal once Covid-19 becomes a factor. That doesn't remove Covid-19 as a cause of death.




So the answer is to not count all of them?


I don't, nor do I belive he's an honest broker in this at all.




No, but feel free to supply sources.

Currently only 15,000 people approx are being tested a day in the UK. So, I would add the point that even if Covid is notifiable, many or most of those dying while infected outside of hospital are not being tested and therefore not being notified or included in the stats.

Remember that care home in ?Luton? with 15 deaths up to last week, but only 5 had been tested for Covid according to the news reports. Those other 10 deaths are presumably not included in official Covid numbers because without testing how can anyone know that they had it? Unless they put "presumed death due to Covid" on the death certificate.

 

[Scaff]

Currently only 15,000 people approx are being tested a day in the UK. So, I would add the point that even if Covid is notifiable, many or most of those dying while infected outside of hospital are not being tested and therefore not being notified or included in the stats.

Remember that care home in ?Luton? with 15 deaths up to last week, but only 5 had been tested for Covid according to the news reports. Those other 10 deaths are presumably not included in official Covid numbers because without testing how can anyone know that they had it? Unless they put "presumed death due to Covid" on the death certificate.

It's currently worse than that, none of them are counted because they didn't die in hospital.

 

[McLaren]

Yeh, it doesn't bode especially well.

Part of the trade off is that lifting lockdown restrictions requires much stronger personal measures to prevent transmission. It can be done, but the question is how well it is done.

So there's a rumor we're going to be doing contact tracing in Texas. I've seen the term used in this thread before, but given your expertise (@Joey D 's), what has to be in place for this to work? Does our low testing rates make this more difficult than it should be, or are we even at a point to be considering this?

It's a notifiable disease, therefore if, for example someone dies from a stroke while being Sars-CoV-2 positive it would be classed as a COVID-19 death regardless of if it was a direct (or indirect) result of infection.

It's not really a "trick", just simple statistics.

If someone has cancer/heart disease/etc., contracts Covid-19, and then dies from the cancer/heart disease/etc. because Covid-19 weakened the body allowing underlying issues to kill the patient, the death should remain a result of Covid-19.

You can't have thousands of deaths from multiple underlying issues that all "coincidentally" happened as soon as Covid-19 was contracted and not label Covid-19 was the cause of death.

 

[Joey D]

If your going to question is it worth it you have to put a monetary value on it . You can't play baseball without a baseball.
It seems to me the value of life to you is $0. Anything else would be........nonsensical.
Maybe you could supply a dollar amount with some thing to back it up..??

You can't assign a value to human life because there's no method to do so. And how do you determine if all lives are the same value or not? Is a murderer worth the same as a doctor? There's no way to tell. And things only have value if someone is willing to pay for them. Since we can't legally buy people I'm not sure how you assign a value to someone.

Also, can you please knock it off with the car pictures? This isn't the place for that.

 

[PzR Slim]

So I know the last time I quoted Peter Hitchens on here led to some....questioning, but I'm wondering if these statistics add up:

And when you get to week 14 it looks very different. Somewhere in the region of 6,500 more deaths than the average. That's an increase of over 60%, Not including Covid-19 deaths in the community. Hitchins is full of shoot.

 

[Touring Mars]

So there's a rumor we're going to be doing contact tracing in Texas. I've seen the term used in this thread before, but given your expertise (@Joey D 's), what has to be in place for this to work? Does our low testing rates make this more difficult than it should be, or are we even at a point to be considering this?.

I don't honestly know how it is actually being done or what is being proposed in the US, but hopefully Joey can shed some light on it.

My sister's best friend has been told that her elderly mother has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The poor soul already has dementia and was in hospital already after breaking a hip, but it is very sad to know that her family cannot be with her... this is the grim reality facing people across the country right now.

 

[sirjim73]

It's currently worse than that, none of them are counted because they didn't die in hospital.

Agreed, although at some point in the future, the numbers outside of hospital will be added. It was suggested in today's briefing that those figures are not available in reliable numbers yet for the UK. Unlike the numbers for France which do include them.

However, even when they ARE added to the UK figures, they STILL won't include the other 10 from that care home, and all the others that haven't been tested.

So there's a rumor we're going to be doing contact tracing in Texas. I've seen the term used in this thread before, but given your expertise (@Joey D 's), what has to be in place for this to work? Does our low testing rates make this more difficult than it should be, or are we even at a point to be considering this?


If someone has cancer/heart disease/etc., contracts Covid-19, and then dies from the cancer/heart disease/etc. because Covid-19 weakened the body allowing underlying issues to kill the patient, the death should remain a result of Covid-19.

You can't have thousands of deaths from multiple underlying issues that all "coincidentally" happened as soon as Covid-19 was contracted and not label Covid-19 was the cause of death.

Agree entirely with the second part of your post. Perhaps a small number would have died of those causes without Covid in any case, but there's no way that they ALL would, so you can't just exclude them all.

Part 1 - the effectiveness of contract tracing depends on lots of things. We gave up in the UK when it became impossible to identify enough of the contacts. There comes a point when, no matter how much resource you throw at it, you can't achieve tracing close enough to 100% to stop the cases increasing.

Now, if you have some degree of reduced movement (and social distancing), each person comes into contact with fewer people. Which means the level of resources to trace each case is lower.

If you only went to 3 places in the last 7 days, maybe including your workplace and the local store, the number of potential contacts is much lower than if you went to 10 places, one of which was a bar or restaurant on Saturday night which had dozens of random people inside.

Also, a month ago, much fewer tests were available daily. Even if you could identify the contacts, there was no capacity to check if you had passed the infection on to them.

I'm only a layman, but would suggest that contact tracing currently only has a good chance as a part of a number of different measures all working together.

However, none of those measure were in place a month ago, so that increases the chance of success just on that basis.

But contact tracing is a resource intensive process, so some form of cost/benefit resource analysis must be involved?

 

[01GTP]

The one big thing that seems to be escaping people is that flattening the curve still means that the same number of people die. It's not for the benefit of people, but for the benefit of infrastructure - flattening the curve almost certainly won't save any lives, it'll just make a lot of the deaths less uncomfortable.

View attachment 910320​

Jordan did have any comments about it. You know of him, yes. Though he did tag one post with a like.

 

[Joey D]

So there's a rumor we're going to be doing contact tracing in Texas. I've seen the term used in this thread before, but given your expertise (@Joey D 's), what has to be in place for this to work? Does our low testing rates make this more difficult than it should be, or are we even at a point to be considering this?

It will probably be done using your mobile phone and an app like Google Maps or Apple Maps. Both more or less track where you are and have a degree of accuracy that allows them to know what building you're in. There have been several times when I've left a store and my phone pushes a notification to me asking for a review or to share my experience. I typically think nothing of it because Google already knows more about me than I know about me. I'm not sure how the government will utilize that data though and that part does concern me.

I think the rationale behind contact tracing is that state health departments will be able to notify you if you were in a place at the same time as a confirmed COVID-19 case. The paranoid side of me though thinks they'll just monitor everyone to see what they're up too. It's a fine line and one that can go either way pretty quickly.

 

[Danoff]

Some people here are forgetting the alternative approaches to this pandemic. You seem to be comparing this pandemic with our situation before the pandemic. You can not.

What? Who? Where? And why are you re-responding to a post you already responded to here?

If your going to question is it worth it you have to put a monetary value on it . You can't play baseball without a baseball.
It seems to me the value of life to you is $0. Anything else would be........nonsensical.
Maybe you could supply a dollar amount with some thing to back it up..??

No. Because you can't put a dollar value on human life. I thought I made that clear...

Still sounds more like a statement. Because it has a question mark at the end doesn't make it question. I seems you are questioning that if we (Sweden/USA) have the same statistical number that they are better off because they are not (as you state) facing an economic depression.

The question mark was whether they're facing depression.

You seem to miss the point that we are faced with those issues either way. The paradox is........which is better?

Still missing the point. The point is that you cannot make this simply about lives. And before you say it, I'm not making it simply about money.

Agreed, but in Sweden to keep the economy (I'm guessing) going (I realize they have relaxed restrictions as well) that kids going to school has to be handled with authorities. I realize they are not arresting people.
Are you contemplating to support making it illegal at a later time? I wouldn't think you are..??

I'd just say that Sweden should not be making it illegal to keep the kids home from school to avoid contagion. That's all I said before, that's still what I'm saying.

Obviously you don't know the precedure for getting the food that is being used. People need to eat, it's that simple.
https://www.wtae.com/article/long-l...od-distribution-in-allegheny-county/31980755#
https://www.click2houston.com/food/...-reminder-of-economic-crisis-during-pandemic/

Yeah this is in no way the situation here. To get meals for kids you have to order them in advance and there are only certain times to pick your food up, curbing human contact. There is enough for 6 meals (3 days) in each supply per kid. Our officials have a better handle on it here. Those officials else where need to do the same, they need to figure it out. It's their job either as an elected official or by profession.

What the what? I have no idea what this is about.

I applaud you for keeping them home, even though your previous statements to keep schools open is not understandable at all now.

That's because you're not reading them carefully, and you're trying to fill in the blanks with assumptions. For a subset of my children, school has remained open. For the remainder, school has been closed.

52 million are out a job, That number started at 143.6 million unhealthy isolated people.
Go through the info.

I explained to you why it is nonsense. I did go through it.

Remember you are trying to isolate certain demographics that are at higher risk. Maybe you could put an amount on how many people you want in isolation, you know, just make it up.

How much risk constitutes need for isolation? I'm in a higher risk group because I'm male.

Out of the 105 million at higher risk Nothing about they're employment.

What the what?

You can't send the isolated into public. That defeats the purpose. Just like now others have to supply for these people, just like now.

How did you not follow that?

I certainly condemn your isolation method.

You don't seem to know what I'm talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Developer models COVID-19 sneezing simulation on Gran Turismo Cradle software



Found that interesting, never knew Cradle conducted aerodynamic analyses for GT6. You learn something new every day.

 

[fortbo]

I'm not signalling you out but you have said it well in your post about the other issues that have to be considered in either scenario. Which scenario is worse?

Let me start with a lot of people here want to know, "is it worth it?" , is our current SD method worth the lockdown and the hit to the economy. Of course it's very expensive. What you seem to forget is, what would the alternative be, what would an alternate method of handling this pandemic cost. The pandemic is here, it must be dealt with. In any scenario the same parameters are in play.

You're really missing the point of what I was saying though. I agree that some degree of lockdown is necessary over a reasonable period of time. We have already had a major hit to our economy with the current amount of time the majority of the lockdowns have been in place, and that is acceptable because it has done a lot to flatten the curve and reduce the blow to our medical infrastructure. It would be incredibly unrealistic to think that the United States can sustain people's health during an extended lockdown over let's say 5 months. It's not a matter of "is it worth it" it is a matter of weighing the amount of lives lost due to either decision.

These same parameters will be in play, no matter what method we use. It's probably why no one experts/officials is really talking about, it's going to happen either way.

That is certainly not the case no matter what method we use. You are acting every decision will have the same results. All I am saying is that if we continue to have a non functioning economy for an extended period of time sheltering from this virus, there will be nothing to go back to once it is over. In order to stop a virus, you need to either have heard immunity or a vaccine. At this point, we are flattening the curve in order to reduce the strain on our healthcare system and it is certainly working. People are getting infected at a much slower rate compared to what it would be if there was no lockdown in place. Eventually, once there is a reduction in cases, things will have to be opened up and this will eventually cause heard immunity to happen once enough people have been exposed to this virus. The other option is sheltering in place for a year until there is a vaccine, but I would hope you can see the major issues with this idea.

 

[TexRex]

Developer models COVID-19 sneezing simulation on Gran Turismo Cradle software



Found that interesting, never knew Cradle conducted aerodynamic analyses for GT6. You learn something new every day.

Gesundheit.

 

[FPV MIC]

So there's a rumor we're going to be doing contact tracing in Texas. I've seen the term used in this thread before, but given your expertise (@Joey D 's), what has to be in place for this to work? Does our low testing rates make this more difficult than it should be, or are we even at a point to be considering this?

We've being doing contact tracing here in Australia since the very first known cases and it's one of the main reasons we've been able to keep the numbers down so low.

We already had contact tracing teams in place for other communicable diseases (STD's and the like) but as soon as this new threat hit those teams were greatly expanded in every state. Most of it is done by interviewing the infected person, finding their contacts, and phoning or texting every one on that list. Then it expands to their contacts and so on.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/con...on-covid-19-in-australia-20200410-p54itv.html

We have one case here that's gone from a handful of people, most likely from the The Ruby Princess cruise ship debacle, to now 5000 people in lock down in Tasmania.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mbs-to-australias-strictest-coronavirus-rules

Edited to add: The worrying trend I've been noticing here is the increase in the light blue 'contact not identified' section. https://www.health.gov.au/news/heal...s-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers