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

[Boston77]

Pacific North West typically has the highest gas prices in the nation. They have come down but not at the national level.
Filled the Miata up yesterday at $2.49/gal premium. Regular was $2.29

 

[RacingGrandpa]

but at least the UK isn't such disgrace as Sweden which is like second China in their Covid deaths counting. Sweden is basicaly letting most vulnerable people die without treating them in ICU's or testing them, so they never show up in statistics.

https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/22/sweden-s-coronavirus-strategy-right-or-wrong

"We have good treatment statistics in our intensive care units (ICUs). However, that is probably because we only admit those to ICU who have a good chance of surviving,” he said.

“The mean age of those who have died is 20 years higher than the mean age of those treated in ICUs,” he said.

summary from Angry Foreigner

Yes, this is true. It's a gerontophile genocide.
Or maybe not.
It's actually close to normal procedure here. We don't put demented people at the age of 90 in life support when there is no Corona either.

 

[strela]

For real? Thousands of healthcare professionals are laid off in the middle of a virus crisis? That is also something unique to the States, I guess.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...-coronavirus-spreads/ar-BB13vC7h?ocid=xboxntp

 

[FPV MIC]

For real? Thousands of healthcare professionals are laid off in the middle of a virus crisis? That is also something unique to the States, I guess.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...-coronavirus-spreads/ar-BB13vC7h?ocid=xboxntp

The same thing almost happened here in Australia in late March.

A leading healthcare operator has warned dozens of private hospitals across the country will be forced to close over the next week, standing down thousands of health workers, unless governments help replace the revenue lost when elective surgery was banned.

Healthe Care, Australia’s third biggest private hospital operator, told its workforce on Thursday that “a considerable portion” of them would be stood down on half pay for at least four weeks because governments had cancelled all non-urgent elective surgery as it sought to limit the spread of coronavirus.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...after-coronavirus-causes-elective-surgery-ban

It was only because the AU government stepped in and struck a deal with the private hospitals that they could stay open.

The Federal Government has struck a deal with the country's 657 private hospitals, giving the Commonwealth access to another 34,000 hospital beds to help tackle the coronavirus crisis.

The private hospitals will also be required to free up much-needed personal protective equipment and essential equipment like ventilators.

In exchange, the Commonwealth will guarantee the survival of private hospitals during the period while elective surgery, which is their main form of income, is cancelled.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-31/coronavirus-agreement-to-keep-private-hospitals-open/12106496

Now some elective surgery is allowed so a bit of the strain is off.

 

[strela]

The same thing almost happened here in Australia in late March.

Omg. I wasn't aware of that. Now I'm even more confused. Are they going to take them back and expose them to infection in case of an emergency? Or they gonna just shut the doors of those private hospitals for covid patients?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I just totaled up my bills and payments from the month of April. Total gas expenses $0.

That hasn't happened for a month in the entire time I've been tracking that expense... since 2006.

I used my credit card twice in the month of April. I haven't used my debit card since February. Since the beginning of March I've biked about ~350 miles and driven...about 20.

 

[FPV MIC]

Omg. I wasn't aware of that. Now I'm even more confused. Are they going to take them back and expose them to infection in case of an emergency? Or they gonna just shut the doors of those private hospitals for covid patients?

Our public hospitals ICU's are at nowhere near capacity so there'll be no need to use the private hospitals at this stage. In my state we don't have any Covid-19 patients in the ICU and only 28 patients are in ICU for the whole of Australia. It was more a case of being prepared for the worst case scenario which thankfully hasn't occurred... But we're still not out off the woods yet, not until there's a vaccine or the whole world becomes covid-19 free (which is highly unlikely).

https://www.covid-19.sa.gov.au/home/dashboard

Edited to add: I think both California and AU were in this situation with the private hospitals because we haven't been overrun (at this stage) with Covid-19 cases like many other places.

 

[CSLACR]

Over here in the U.S. still holding our breath for that 'eXplOsion of Corona" that was headed our way.


I'm just super intrigued at how many people believe this virus is more contagious than the flu, but they also believe 99% of us haven't had it yet.

I'm not going to argue about it, but while we wait for months and months for an explosion that will never happen, it's either "so contagious" and the asymptomatic rate is through the roof, or it's not very contagious, but is deadly.

Covid maps of the U.S. look exactly like population maps. By-state maps follow the same path.
Want to find a "bad coronavirus outbreak"?
Just find a place with more people.

We can't publish news articles about the numbers in the 95% of the U.S. that makes up small towns, because we have 6 deaths in entire counties with 100,000 people.

That is MY county, not even 2 hours from "new York City the bad place"


The amount of people that believe it is justifiable to screw over thousands of people to "try" to save one single life is baffling.

I would NEVER ask that many people to bend over backwards to save me, to put people in a full blown crisis, just to try to save my own ass.

Call it what you want, you've already won Trump another election.
Great job guys.

(He is better than dementia man)

 

[Ether]

The amount of people that believe it is justifiable to screw over thousands of people to "try" to save one single life is baffling.

Echoing that sentiment, I'm about to do something I never thought I'd ever do... I'm going to call my governor's office Monday, and, in professional and straightforward manner, simply inform them that I believe they are greatly unaware of how badly they're damaging small local economies like the one I live in - To the point where they will not recover.

I truly think they have no idea how bad it is outside of the big cities (which we know they cater to). I know my message won't get heard beyond the person I speak to at their office (most likely), but I hope enough people are calling or writing in such that some action is taken in the near future. In short, the ends do not justify the means.

 

[strela]

I'm just super intrigued at how many people believe this virus is more contagious than the flu, but they also believe 99% of us haven't had it yet.

We just aren't as smart as you are, I guess.

 

[Dotini]

Echoing that sentiment, I'm about to do something I never thought I'd ever do... I'm going to call my governor's office Monday, and, in professional and straightforward manner, simply inform them that I believe they are greatly unaware of how badly they're damaging small local economies like the one I live in - To the point where they will not recover.

I truly think they have no idea how bad it is outside of the big cities (which we know they cater to). I know my message won't get heard beyond the person I speak to at their office (most likely), but I hope enough people are calling or writing in such that some action is taken in the near future. In short, the ends do not justify the means.

Simple disobedience might be your best option. The governors know what they are doing is not strictly legal, and law enforcement are reluctant to enforce illegal decrees or dictates from politicians. Once governors sense widespread derision and scoffing at their power grabs, they will quickly back down.

 

[Ether]

Simple disobedience might be your best option. The governors know what they are doing is not strictly legal, and law enforcement are reluctant to enforce illegal decrees or dictates from politicians. Once governors sense widespread derision and scoffing at their power grabs, they will quickly back down.

I think you're right about local law enforcement though. A friend of mine in the force told me has no intentions to enforce people who protest in public, hanging out in parks, or that sort of thing. However, he did say everyone in their department is quite bored, and the most common call they get now is for domestic abuse, unfortunately.

What would you define "simple disobedience" as though?

 

[Joey D]

For real? Thousands of healthcare professionals are laid off in the middle of a virus crisis? That is also something unique to the States, I guess.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...-coronavirus-spreads/ar-BB13vC7h?ocid=xboxntp

Outside of a few places on the east coast, most cities aren't experiencing their health systems being overrun. Due to this, the ICU's and infectious disease units are adequately staffed. Also, most procedures have all but stopped and there are far fewer patients in the hospital overall. We can't have nurses just sitting around on empty units because that doesn't make any sense for the operation of the hospital.

However, many health systems reassigned medical staff to different areas, but not everyone could be reassigned. Where I worked we moved several people to the urgent cares to help with COVID-19 testing and whatnot, but even that process has gotten so smooth we don't need the manpower anymore.

Despite what that article says, I don't know why a health system wouldn't bounce back to where it was pre-COVID. People are still going to need care and opt to have elective surgeries. I bet by the end of summer we're back to over 95% capacity at my work.

 

[McLaren]

Over here in the U.S. still holding our breath for that 'eXplOsion of Corona" that was headed our way.

I'm seeing it right now with my own eyes. Last week, we were reporting under 80 new cases every day. This last week has seen double the amount with multiple record highs.

Maybe perhaps the reason we also haven't seen an explosion nationwide is because of the measures put in place to curb it?

I'm just super intrigued at how many people believe this virus is more contagious than the flu, but they also believe 99% of us haven't had it yet.

They've tested only 2% of the US population at around 6.5 million.

The science already shows us it's more contagious anyway with the way it incubates.

 

[Blitz24]

I'm seeing it right now with my own eyes. Last week, we were reporting under 80 new cases every day. This last week has seen double the amount with multiple record highs.

Maybe perhaps the reason we also haven't seen an explosion nationwide is because of the measures put in place to curb it?


They've tested only 2% of the US population at around 6.5 million.

The science already shows us it's more contagious anyway with the way it incubates.

Some people you can't argue or even reason with sadly.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I just totaled up my bills and payments from the month of April. Total gas expenses $0.

That hasn't happened for a month in the entire time I've been tracking that expense... since 2006.

I saw a funny on my facebook feed. "Isn't it great getting three weeks to a gallon?"

Must be nice. I'm still making my normal rounds to work, still driving my car on the weekends. Gas usage has probably gone up.

And it's $1.70 for regular here.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Texas opened up a lot on friday. ( I am still hunkering down. This hasn't affected my job.)

I want to see what happens in two weeks.


I'm scared.

 

[Touring Mars]

Texas opened up a lot on friday. ( I am still hunkering down. This hasn't affected my job.)

I want to see what happens in two weeks.


I'm scared.

Most people will be doing the exact same. And most of those who do venture out a bit more will no doubt be much more careful than before.

Ironically, this could have a strange effect of making it look like the easing of lockdown restrictions has little effect of transmission rates, and play right into the hands of those who think the whole thing is a massive over-reaction.

My guess is that the transmission rate (and hence also the percentage of daily new cases) will start to creep up, but we will not see a return to the initial rates of 15-20% - not at first anyway. But as more people return to 'normal' routines, the numbers will start to deteriorate again.

It is going to be a difficult time for a lot of people - it is totally understandable to be scared, but provided you and your family stick as rigidly as you can to social distancing for at least the next month or so (or at least while this giant social experiment of lifting restrictions plays out anyway), you should continue to be fine - but there is very good reason to be cautious.

Unless there is an uncontrolled outbreak with a massive spike in cases, you are still very unlikely to become ill, esp. if you observe the recommended advice.

-

A little example of how the statistics can be weird...

The UK reported its highest number of new cases yesterday (6,201) - a growth of 3.7% from the previous day.

That beat the existing record of 6,199 new cases recorded on the 5th April - which was a growth of 14% from 4th April.

So, the growth rate is now only around a quarter of what it was a month ago, but we are still recording record numbers of new cases (because there is 4 times more confirmed cases now...)

One (major) reason for this apparent increase in new cases, however, is that the UK is ramping up testing.

 

[Dotini]

...record numbers of new cases (because there is 4 times more confirmed cases now...)

One (major) reason for this apparent increase in new cases, however, is that the UK is ramping up testing.

I'm sure this is the case in several countries. In some parts of the US, testing is very limited, yet the authorities surmise that the true number of infections, through very minor to subclinical, is somewhere between 4x to 10x the confirmed positive count.

 

[strela]

We can't have nurses just sitting around on empty units because that doesn't make any sense for the operation of the hospital.

However, many health systems reassigned medical staff to different areas, but not everyone could be reassigned.

Despite what that article says, I don't know why a health system wouldn't bounce back to where it was pre-COVID. People are still going to need care and opt to have elective surgeries. I bet by the end of summer we're back to over 95% capacity at my work.

I can understand why a private hospital can take such measures to prevent a bankruptcy for example, or just reduce costs. It doesn't really change much. It is just that from what I understand it look like they wont even consider the possibility of using those facilities for covid patients in the first place. Now that the states start to reopening it look like a weird move. Imo.

I'm sure this is the case in several countries. In some parts of the US, testing is very limited, yet the authorities surmise that the true number of infections, through very minor to subclinical, is somewhere between 4x to 10x the confirmed positive count.

I think you're right. The actual total number of infections could be 4x or even 10x greater. But that number is still low. Between 99-97% of the US population.

 

[Famine]

Over here in the U.S. still holding our breath for that 'eXplOsion of Corona" that was headed our way.


I'm just super intrigued at how many people believe this virus is more contagious than the flu, but they also believe 99% of us haven't had it yet.

I'm not going to argue about it, but while we wait for months and months for an explosion that will never happen, it's either "so contagious" and the asymptomatic rate is through the roof, or it's not very contagious, but is deadly.

Covid maps of the U.S. look exactly like population maps. By-state maps follow the same path.
Want to find a "bad coronavirus outbreak"?
Just find a place with more people.

We can't publish news articles about the numbers in the 95% of the U.S. that makes up small towns, because we have 6 deaths in entire counties with 100,000 people.

You've got a few misconceptions stuffed in there.

First up, you are indeed correct that population maps and COVID-19 deaths look pretty similar. COVID-19 is a contact-transmitted virus, which means it spreads by people with the virus touching other people who didn't have it, and by people with the virus touching surfaces that other people who didn't have it then touch. It should be no surprise whatsoever that higher population density (less space between people) makes for higher rates of transmission, infection, and death.

It should therefore also be no surprise whatsoever that social distancing, quarantine, and furlough measures, which decrease population density by increasing the space between (unrelated) people reduces the rate of transmission, infection, and death.


Now let's address the numbers. COVID-19 is indeed more contagious than influenza. It has a basic reproductive number (or "R0") of around 3-4 as far as we know, with some literature suggesting nearer 6 (it may be higher for reasons you'll see later in "the fun bit"), which means that each infected person infects around three or four other people. The most contagious strains of influenza don't break 2.

That number has to be taken in context of how quickly people can infect others. You don't touch virus and immediately become infected and infectious - the virus needs time to infect you and increase your viral load (number of virus particles in your body) before it starts coming out again. In COVID-19 that time appears to be three days, but with Influenza it can be as little as 24 hours. That means that in one week since a person with COVID-19 shows up in a population there can be 259 cases (one infectious person comes in and infects six others on day one; three days later they each infect six others; three days later they each infect six others; 216+36+6+1 = 259), but with Influenza it could be 255 cases (one infects two; the next day they each infect two; the next day they each infect two; and so on; 128+64+32+16+8+4+2+1 = 255). If we add another three days, Influenza is at 1,023, and COVID is at 1,555. Another three and it's 8,191 for flu, and 9,331 for COVID.

We'll come back to this later, but that puts them as broadly comparable in terms of how quickly they spread in a population - the doubling rate tempers the R0 so that over time flu will actually overtake COVID, if both are unchecked, even though COVID is more infectious.

Where they are not comparable is the death rate. Influenza has a case-fatality ratio (number of cases compared to number of deaths) of 0.1% - there is a 1 in 1000 chance of you dying from catching flu. COVID-19 is at least 10 times higher than that, meaning that after a week with influenza there are likely to be no deaths but after a week with COVID-19 there are likely to be two or more.


Onto your county numbers. 6 deaths in 100,000 people is 0.006%. Globally, 7% of identified COVID-19 cases have resulted in death (though it can be considerably more or less as there are many variables that can affect how likely you are to die; in the UK and Italy it's 14-15%, in Germany and New York it's 5-6%), which means that you have roughly 85 identified COVID-19 cases in that 100,000-person population. Around 20% of those require hospital treatment, so that's 17 people that have to go to hospital with it.

Here's the fun bit. Somewhere in the region of 96% of COVID-19 cases are unidentified (random testing reveals huge numbers of cases that would not have been identified clinically; COVID-19 is showing up with some very odd symptoms, like anosmia and chilblains...). That means 2,142 cases within that 100,000-person population - 2%. Broadly, this means that one in every 50 people you meet on a daily basis have COVID-19... and you might already be one of them.

Let's switch back to those variables that kill you. If you're male, you're twice as likely to die than someone who isn't. If you're a smoker, you're twice as likely to die than someone who isn't. If you're overweight, you're twice as likely to die than someone who isn't. If you're over 60 you're ten times more likely to die than someone who isn't. That means that if your dad is still alive and a smoker (or recently quit smoker), overweight, and in his 60s, going and spending some time with him right now gives him something in the region of a 1% higher chance of dying than it did in January - and him going outside and interacting with 50 people gives him a 20% higher chance of dying than it did in January. And that's because of six deaths in 100,000.

Now let's revisit the doubling rates.

Someone has the sniffles and stays home. Let's say they had flu and were one of the fourth generation of cases - one of the 16 people infected on day four, at 31 in total. By staying home and not infecting others, they remove two further cases from day five, four more from day six, and eight more from day seven. That means 255 cases by week's end becomes 241 cases. Now let's say they were one of the four people infected on day two. They remove 62 cases - 255 becomes 193.

Now let's say they had asymptomatic COVID-19 and the government ordered them to stay home, and they're one of the 36 people infected on day three. They prevent six cases. If they're one of the six people infected on day one they prevent 43 cases... and, since we're talking about identified cases, probably three deaths - one of which has a fair chance of being a nurse or doctor that dealt with their case in ICU.


Ultimately the reason you're only seeing six deaths in 100,000 people isn't because there's no "eXplOsion of Corona", but because there is and because the response of increased vigilance when it comes to touching stuff and avoiding other people is preventing it from being worse. Basically you're at the point on the curve where the countermeasures are working to curb the spread and people are asking why we even bothered doing it because it didn't spread as much as everyone said it would.

 

[Danoff]

Most people will be doing the exact same.

I'll relax a little, mostly because we seem to not be headed for overflow at our hospitals (in CO, not sure about TX). The rest of the reason is because I'm trying to find something I can sustain. I imagine that's what everyone, and all of the governments of the world are looking for. Something a little more comfortable than the last month that can be held on to until a vaccine is available. My version of a little relaxed is more intense than some peoples' version of strict though. It still involves sanitizing cold groceries, quarantining mail, packages, and pantry items, and eye, nose, and mouth protection when inside public buildings.

 

[UKMikey]

I live near Heathrow airport and according to GMB union members who work in catering and hospitality there, no Covid-19 checks are in place over two months after I flew back from Singapore via there and noticed the same thing. 15,000 passengers a day are still using the airport.

https://www.hospitalityandcateringnews.com/2020/05/heathrow-flouts-covid-19-screening/

 

[Danoff]

Bush Jr. tries to lead from outside the whitehouse

"In the final analysis, we are not partisan combatants. We are human beings, equally vulnerable and equally wonderful in the sight of god," Bush said. "We rise or fall together, and we are determined to rise."

Trump's response is to absolutely refuse that leadership and to dig in on counter-productive partisan attacks.

In an early morning tweet on Sunday, Trump called out Bush for his failure to support him as he faced an impeachment trial earlier this year over his alleged dealings with Ukraine. He cited apparent comments from Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth, who asked why Bush didn't push for "putting partisanship aside" amid the trial.

"He was nowhere to be found in speaking up against the greatest Hoax in American history," Trump said.

It's because Bush Jr. is a leader Mr. President. Someone who understands what it means to undermine the credibility of the US political process.

 

[DesertPenguin]

TLDR - Bush Jr. wasn't there for me when I needed blind support so he's dead to me now.

 

[Biggles]

You've got a few misconceptions stuffed in there.

First up, you are indeed correct that population maps and COVID-19 deaths look pretty similar. COVID-19 is a contact-transmitted virus, which means it spreads by people with the virus touching other people who didn't have it, and by people with the virus touching surfaces that other people who didn't have it then touch. It should be no surprise whatsoever that higher population density (less space between people) makes for higher rates of transmission, infection, and death.

It should therefore also be no surprise whatsoever that social distancing, quarantine, and furlough measures, which decrease population density by increasing the space between (unrelated) people reduces the rate of transmission, infection, and death.


Now let's address the numbers. COVID-19 is indeed more contagious than influenza. It has a basic reproductive number (or "R0") of around 3-4 as far as we know, with some literature suggesting nearer 6 (it may be higher for reasons you'll see later in "the fun bit"), which means that each infected person infects around three or four other people. The most contagious strains of influenza don't break 2.

That number has to be taken in context of how quickly people can infect others. You don't touch virus and immediately become infected and infectious - the virus needs time to infect you and increase your viral load (number of virus particles in your body) before it starts coming out again. In COVID-19 that time appears to be three days, but with Influenza it can be as little as 24 hours. That means that in one week since a person with COVID-19 shows up in a population there can be 259 cases (one infectious person comes in and infects six others on day one; three days later they each infect six others; three days later they each infect six others; 216+36+6+1 = 259), but with Influenza it could be 255 cases (one infects two; the next day they each infect two; the next day they each infect two; and so on; 128+64+32+16+8+4+2+1 = 255). If we add another three days, Influenza is at 1,023, and COVID is at 1,555. Another three and it's 8,191 for flu, and 9,331 for COVID.

We'll come back to this later, but that puts them as broadly comparable in terms of how quickly they spread in a population - the doubling rate tempers the R0 so that over time flu will actually overtake COVID, if both are unchecked, even though COVID is more infectious.

Where they are not comparable is the death rate. Influenza has a case-fatality ratio (number of cases compared to number of deaths) of 0.1% - there is a 1 in 1000 chance of you dying from catching flu. COVID-19 is at least 10 times higher than that, meaning that after a week with influenza there are likely to be no deaths but after a week with COVID-19 there are likely to be two or more.


Onto your county numbers. 6 deaths in 100,000 people is 0.006%. Globally, 7% of identified COVID-19 cases have resulted in death (though it can be considerably more or less as there are many variables that can affect how likely you are to die; in the UK and Italy it's 14-15%, in Germany and New York it's 5-6%), which means that you have roughly 85 identified COVID-19 cases in that 100,000-person population. Around 20% of those require hospital treatment, so that's 17 people that have to go to hospital with it.

Here's the fun bit. Somewhere in the region of 96% of COVID-19 cases are unidentified (random testing reveals huge numbers of cases that would not have been identified clinically; COVID-19 is showing up with some very odd symptoms, like anosmia and chilblains...). That means 2,142 cases within that 100,000-person population - 2%. Broadly, this means that one in every 50 people you meet on a daily basis have COVID-19... and you might already be one of them.

Let's switch back to those variables that kill you. If you're male, you're twice as likely to die than someone who isn't. If you're a smoker, you're twice as likely to die than someone who isn't. If you're overweight, you're twice as likely to die than someone who isn't. If you're over 60 you're ten times more likely to die than someone who isn't. That means that if your dad is still alive and a smoker (or recently quit smoker), overweight, and in his 60s, going and spending some time with him right now gives him something in the region of a 1% higher chance of dying than it did in January - and him going outside and interacting with 50 people gives him a 20% higher chance of dying than it did in January. And that's because of six deaths in 100,000.

Now let's revisit the doubling rates.

Someone has the sniffles and stays home. Let's say they had flu and were one of the fourth generation of cases - one of the 16 people infected on day four, at 31 in total. By staying home and not infecting others, they remove two further cases from day five, four more from day six, and eight more from day seven. That means 255 cases by week's end becomes 241 cases. Now let's say they were one of the four people infected on day two. They remove 62 cases - 255 becomes 193.

Now let's say they had asymptomatic COVID-19 and the government ordered them to stay home, and they're one of the 36 people infected on day three. They prevent six cases. If they're one of the six people infected on day one they prevent 43 cases... and, since we're talking about identified cases, probably three deaths - one of which has a fair chance of being a nurse or doctor that dealt with their case in ICU.


Ultimately the reason you're only seeing six deaths in 100,000 people isn't because there's no "eXplOsion of Corona", but because there is and because the response of increased vigilance when it comes to touching stuff and avoiding other people is preventing it from being worse. Basically you're at the point on the curve where the countermeasures are working to curb the spread and people are asking why we even bothered doing it because it didn't spread as much as everyone said it would.

Very clear explanation. However ... one of the critical parts of the scenario is the R0 factor. This is presented as a fixed number, but in reality, I'm assuming that the R0 would vary enormously depending on the population density & behaviour of the people in the area in question. The number of people someone would come into contact with in NYC & potentially infect, would be drastically different than it would be in a small town in Wyoming. In addition, altering behaviour to limit direct interaction with others would presumably have a big effect, so the taking moderate precautions in that town in Wyoming could limit the R0 factor still further.

Coming to a balanced approach to controlling the spread that varies in different areas would seem logical. Of course, this is where widespread testing would be helpful, as it would allow jurisdictions to increase or decrease the severity of their restrictions in response to the actual present threat rather than an abstract R0 number. It would also be helpful if "many people" didn't believe the whole was a "hoax" & could be counted on to act with a greater degree of "social awareness".

 

[Famine]

Very clear explanation. However ... one of the critical parts of the scenario is the R0 factor. This is presented as a fixed number, but in reality, I'm assuming that the R0 would vary enormously depending on the population density & behaviour of the people in the area in question.

Indeed - that's why it's usually stated as a range - and lowering the R0 is key. If you can drop it below 1, you're winning - Germany stated an R0 of 0.7 in the country, but a week after it relaxed some lockdown measures it rose to around 1.

 

[35mm]

Just a couple of days ago I've been discussing with some friends that, given that there are no worldwide standards for testing or determining the cause of death, the best way to analyse the impact of the virus would be to compare the total number of deaths for a certain period, and compare it to previous years.

Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this post on reddit showing just that, for Netherlands.

(Credit to the OP on reddit. More info on the data collected at the original post)



It would be interesting to have this kind of graphs for other countries (and keeping it updated throughout the whole year, of course, maybe along with a cumulative counting as well).

 

[Biggles]

Indeed - that's why it's usually stated as a range - and lowering the R0 is key. If you can drop it below 1, you're winning - Germany stated an R0 of 0.7 in the country, but a week after it relaxed some lockdown measures can call it that)res it rose to around 1.

So, with fairly relaxed measures the R0 in rural/small town areas could be very low, whereas in densely populated cities keeping the R0 to similar levels could be extremely difficult. I mean that seems to validate the argument (if you can call it that) of the lockdown protestors in some parts of the US. A much more nuanced approach would be beneficial to the health/economy balance if it could be effectively implemented.

 

[McLaren]

Edit* Damn, another record high today for us at 187. Wonder if this is signs of a peak or we're starting to see the real seriousness of this infection.

Crossed the 200s at 234 in a day. Dallas officials have reassured though, that the hospitalizations & ventilators in use remain steady.