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

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,265 comments
  • 623,624 views
It seems as though just testing in parts of the US is an issue at the moment:



Makes you wonder about what the infection rate could be compared to what’s been confirmed...

Trump is more than happy to say that the official figures on the fatality rate are actually much lower than they appear because the majority of cases are so mild that they go undetected. But that also means that the number of confirmed cases must be much lower that the real number of infections... given that there is also something of a time lag on these numbers as well (e.g. the daily number of new cases reflects infections that happened days or even weeks ago) and you can see how the real number of infections could be a lot higher than the official figures suggest. An effective and systematic screening program would help to put an upper limit on this number, but this doesn't appear to be happening in the US (or indeed anywhere else for that matter).
 
Trump is more than happy to say that the official figures on the fatality rate are actually much lower than they appear because the majority of cases are so mild that they go undetected. But that also means that the number of confirmed cases must be much lower that the real number of infections... given that there is also something of a time lag on these numbers as well (e.g. the daily number of new cases reflects infections that happened days or even weeks ago) and you can see how the real number of infections could be a lot higher than the official figures suggest. An effective and systematic screening program would help to put an upper limit on this number, but this doesn't appear to be happening in the US (or indeed anywhere else for that matter).
As of a couple of days ago, USA and Scotland had performed approx the same amount of tests ~ 1900. Scotland however has a population of 5.4m. USA is 327m. USA seems to be making a significant miscalculation with its testing strategy.
 
The FTSE 100 index dropped 8.5% in just 15 minutes this morning - and has dropped below 6000 points for the first time since 2016.
 
In Italy, the number of cases have jumped to 7,375 as an exclusion zone in the north of the country comes into force. There are 1,112 cases now in Germany
 
So, it's hitting the over 80's the hardest... hmmm ... reduce the pension liability and the long term impact of the elderly on the NHS, at the same time as increasing available housing stock. A Covid-19 epidemic in the UK could be a genius move by Boris Johnson.
 
So, it's hitting the over 80's the hardest... hmmm ... reduce the pension liability and the long term impact of the elderly on the NHS, at the same time as increasing available housing stock. A Covid-19 epidemic in the UK could be a genius move by Boris Johnson.
But it only kills Tory voters...
 
Today is going to be a major reality check for world and USA markets. Probably US markets will hit limits and be shut down. Repeat tomorrow until...when?

Oil is sinking like a stone and gold rising.

Today will go down in history as a day of panic.
 
Last edited:
The whole cruise ship industry is going to be devastated over this. They were already in enough trouble as it was with ships having mechanical difficulties being stranded out at sea and just being floating petri dishes anyway.
 
There are only 900,000 some odd hospital beds in the whole USA, 330,000,000 people. At any given moment, about 2/3 are occupied. This could rapidly become a problem.
 
I'm not worried about the toilet roll situation...

Demolition-Man-3-Seashells.png
 
I think you should go back, reread some of Joey's posts, and take some deep, filtered, breaths. The sky is not falling Chicken Little.

I'm not talking about the sky falling. I'm talking about hospital beds and math, I hope realistically. At the current understood doubling rate of infection, and currently understood rate of hospitalizations, the US may be running short of hospital beds sometime in about two or three months, I figure.
 
There are only 900,000 some odd hospital beds in the whole USA, 330,000,000 people. At any given moment, about 2/3 are occupied. This could rapidly become a problem.

330,000,000 people aren't going to get COVID-19 all at once and of those who do get it, only an estimated 20% will have complications severe enough to potentially require hospitalization.

Also, you need to look at why all those beds are currently occupied. When I worked in a hospital, the unit that had the largest number of patients consistently was orthopedic. In fact, it was the only unit that constantly had to go into overflow. While some of those patients in that unit were there because they ended up with emergency surgery, typically patients were there due to elective surgery (join replacements mostly). Assuming a large number of people need hospitalization over COVID-19, I assume electric surgeries will stop.

A triage process will also happen that discharges patients who are able to take care of themselves at home sooner.

Finally, there are many hospitals that have mobile units that can expand their capacity. At the health system I work at, we have negative air pressure tents that can be set up in a day. We last used them during the H1N1 outbreak and they can house several patients at once. I know other hospitals in the area have similar things too. On top of that, there are many disused rooms in a hospital because they can't legally be "bedded". However, in an emergency situation, this does change. Plus hospitals can convert pretty much any single occupancy room into a double occupancy by simply rolling a bed in.

Due to this, the number of 924,000 represents licensed hospital beds in the US. The actual number of hospitals can hold is significantly larger, probably close to double that.

The biggest issue though isn't where to put patients, it's having enough staff to take care of them. We have a nurse shortage in the US and smaller health systems will run into problems having adequate staffing. We do have CNAs, MA, LPN, etc. so that does help, but still, we could see nurses working some really long hours if the virus ramps up hospitalizations. There's also funding to worry about, with all those nurses working in presumably overtime conditions, the amount for payroll will go way up too. I suspect the state or federal government will step in here though.

I'm not talking about the sky falling. I'm talking about hospital beds and math, I hope realistically. At the current understood doubling rate of infection, and currently understood rate of hospitalizations, the US may be running short of beds sometime in about two or three months, I figure.

Two or three months? I highly doubt that. A year of steady growth of the virus? Sure, that's a possibility.
 
@Rallywagon Enough with the insults please.

This is a very serious situation and although a bit of humour is fine (and indeed warranted), insults are not acceptable - esp. when a serious point is being made.

-

The Italian health system - one of the best in the western world - is practically at breaking point already... and that is with 'only' around 7000 cases.

The trouble is not only the number of people getting ill, but the seriousness of their condition and the rate at which people are getting sick.

@Dotini is absolutely right to say that "this could rapidly become a problem".

-

The stats are still very much in favour of people not getting too ill, but the speed and ease with which the virus is spreading is cause for concern. How much of a problem it becomes depends on how well containment works, how much slower the spread can be made to happen, and ultimately how many people end up with the virus...

... but, the total number is not so much of a problem as the rate at which people get sick... if a million people need critical care over the course of a year, then the USA can probably handle that. If, however, that number fall ill in a period of only a few months, then you have serious problem.
 
I'm talking about hospital beds and math, I hope realistically.
The infection rate even in Wuhan is 0.5%. The hospitalisation rate is somewhere in the 10-20% region.

That would make for 1.65m cases, and 247k requiring hospital treatment, in the USA. Over a period of about two months.

There are only 900,000 some odd hospital beds in the whole USA
Seems... fine.
 
I wouldn't say an insult. More of an observation. Dot has, for at least a month now, been harping the same line insistently despite contrary info coming from medical staff. See Joey's post just after mine, and pretty much after every post Dot has made. Hell, the total number of cases in China havent even totalled the "1/3rd" amount of Dots hospital bed statistic. He is totally crying the sky is falling.
 
Virus will spread in UK in a 'significant way'
The UK remains in the containment phase of the government's four-part plan to tackle the spread of the coronavirus, but it is now "accepted" the virus will spread in a "significant way", a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said.

Coronavirus: UK to remain in 'containment' phase of response
The UK is remaining in the "containment" stage of its response to the coronavirus following an emergency Cobra meeting.
Measures to delay the virus's spread with "social distancing" measures will not be introduced yet, ministers said.
Number 10 said it accepted that the virus "is going to spread in a significant way", however. There were
319 confirmed cases in the UK as of 09:00 GMT on Monday, a rise of 46 since the same time on Sunday. Downing Street said the prime minister "will be guided by the best scientific advice" but there was no need to cancel sporting events at this stage. There was, however, a discussion about the practicalities of staging sporting events "behind closed doors", should the situation change.


I feel like this is a fundamental failure of the government. The virus will spread, but they're unable or unwilling to seriously step up measures to prevent it. I fear that the only thing preventing the UK being in a similar situation to Italy is luck.
 
As of a couple of days ago, USA and Scotland had performed approx the same amount of tests ~ 1900. Scotland however has a population of 5.4m. USA is 327m. USA seems to be making a significant miscalculation with its testing strategy.

I'm not so sure.

If you don't test, you can't get a huge epidemic.

source.gif


See, if you control the number of tests really tightly, you can't see how wide-spread it really is. The mortality rate might look really bad, but other countries have already taken care of that by testing a bunch and showing a low mortality rate. So we can say "this is because we haven't tested enough" and stop the panic. In the meantime, COVID spreads like crazy through the population, but we stay blissfully unaware until we reach a point where the mortality rate is getting so high that we know something is amiss. By that time, it's summer, and we announce the the war is lost, and we move on.

Irresponsible you say? Why yes.

I think we should switch our tactics completely and start telling people over 60 to stay away from public. And just let everyone else know it's coming. Being out over the weekend I saw some very elderly and frail people (with some obvious health issues) milling about in public and was wondering whether they really understood that a new virus with a 15% mortality rate for their demographic was currently spreading unchecked and unmonitored in the same city.


I feel like this is a fundamental failure of the government. The virus will spread, but they're unable or unwilling to seriously step up measures to prevent it. I fear that the only thing preventing the UK being in a similar situation to Italy is luck.​

They're too scared (everyone is) to switch to letting it spread and work on protecting the most vulnerable. But that's where we are. It's pretty much irresponsible to suggest that we can stop it at this point. If the goal is to reduce death, we need to be targeting the groups that are likely to die.
 
US trading halted as shares plunge around the world
Trading in US shares was briefly suspended after sharp falls led to an automatic halt in the selling and buying of stocks.
Once trading resumed, the three major US stock indexes were down over 6%.
The move follows dramatic falls globally with shares facing the worst day since the 2008 financial crisis.
A row between Russia and Saudi Arabia saw oil prices plunge by 20%, hitting markets already reeling from fears of the impact of the coronavirus.
The day has been dubbed "Black Monday" by analysts who described the market reaction as "utter carnage".
 
I'm not sure there was ever a point where we could have stopped it honestly. Not without taking North Korean levels of control over the borders as soon as it was announced in China. I mean, governments would have had to put their entire nation's on lock down as soon as and hope it hasn't already landed in their country before that. If the story of one guy in china infecting his building and the neighboring building down wind is to be believed, once a place gets it, there likely not much going to stop it.
 
I'm not sure there was ever a point where we could have stopped it honestly. Not without taking North Korean levels of control over the borders as soon as it was announced in China. I mean, governments would have had to put their entire nation's on lock down as soon as and hope it hasn't already landed in their country before that. If the story of one guy in china infecting his building and the neighboring building down wind is to be believed, once a place gets it, there likely not much going to stop it.

I concur. We're simply not prepared, as a species, to stop the spread of something like this.
 
I'm not sure there was ever a point where we could have stopped it honestly. Not without taking North Korean levels of control over the borders as soon as it was announced in China. I mean, governments would have had to put their entire nation's on lock down as soon as and hope it hasn't already landed in their country before that. If the story of one guy in china infecting his building and the neighboring building down wind is to be believed, once a place gets it, there likely not much going to stop it.
Stopped no but mitigated perhaps.

I think the best method is to be pro-active with the reaction. Italy acted pretty quickly and its fallen apart and they've not quarantined 25% of the population. If the UK government I think wanted to act in the best way to limit the spread, limiting public transport and general travel would be an easy way.
Preventing large groups to congregate would also limit the ability for the virus to spread.

At the moment there seems to be little consensus as to how the virus actually spreads, one mine we're told that animals can't be carriers and how we hear of dogs being infected with it. As while science rapidly tries to get to grips with it, I think the gov should be more proactive with their steps to mitigate the virus's ability to spread.
 


The US President downplaying the spread of a virus that has resulted in two major world economies locking down millions of people within the space of a month.
 


The US President downplaying the spread of a virus that has resulted in two major world economies locking down millions of people within the space of a month.


I agree with his downplay. There is no need for the market crash, and fistfights over toilet paper. The fear levels right now are absolutely absurd, and are going to have a big impact on lives. We're completely out of perspective right now.
 
The only thing Trump cares about is public image and "showing weakness". Admitting that this virus is a big deal and a serious issue is not showing weakness. Get over yourself, you stupid orange sack of 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Edit: Downplaying is one thing, but he's trying to make it seem like it's nothing at all to worry about. It's still something
 
I agree with his downplay. There is no need for the market crash, and fistfights over toilet paper. The fear levels right now are absolutely absurd, and are going to have a big impact on lives. We're completely out of perspective right now.
Again, I'm not sure the sheer number of deaths is the real concern with this outbreak, it's the speed of its spread.
 
I concur. We're simply not prepared, as a species, to stop the spread of something like this.
As has been discussed here before, the US and other western nations are not going to lock down cities in the same way as Wuhan has.

Wuhan does appear to have contained the virus (or, at the very least, stemmed the flow of information...) and kept the infection rate at a very low level (0.5%, or about 60,000 cases) - but seasonal flu (which has a comparable level of contagiousness) affects between 3 and 13% of the entire US population every year - if we can expect a similar range for SARS-CoV-2, that means between 6 and 30 times higher infection rates than in Wuhan.

As @Famine pointed out, a 0.5% infection spread would translate into 247k hospitalisations (with a capacity around 300k)... but a flu-like spread (as is being alluded to by Trump and many others) would mean 1.5-7.5 million hospitalisations... even over a whole year that would be a very serious problem.
 

Latest Posts

Back