People are quoting mortality rates over 10% from Europe. Lets not move the goal posts here as I not see the phrase "true mortality rate" popping up, today is the first time I have even seen that used. (I admit I haven't read every post on this thread). People have been tossing around "mortality rate" almost since day one. Yes there are many, many, many, cases out there that haven't been reported, however the VAST majority are asymptomatic people which will over time lower the mortality rate.
But here is the thing: when some of us dug into the study you wanted to be true and pointed out all of the flaws in sampling and extrapolation, you weren't happy about it. That wasn't an "honest metric."
If it's isolated, I guess I could see the logic, but there are huge risks. #1 - you can't stop people from traveling from infected areas to enjoy your non-quarantined town. #2 - sick people don't show symptoms sometimes for 2 weeks or more, so 1 sick person could infect a whole bunch of people in a town that isn't practicing social distancing, especially at restaurants or movie theaters. #3 - once people even know to start tracing, in a town NOT practicing social distancing, the number of people you have to track down is so large that it will overwhelm local small county health officials. I understand that it seems frustrating to stay closed with no one sick in your hospital, but the idea is to AVOID the hospital being full and you can't really guarantee that without social distancing.
Off topic. My post was disagreeing with a poster who said people have said the mortality rate was 1% and that was what "they have been saying all along". You are correct however some Trump supporters have said that. Not that they are correct.
Using the term “inflated” suggests to me that the numbers of covid deaths being generated are higher than the true number, but I think you’d have a hard time seeing the cdc agreeing that they attempting to do that. Imagine an overly simplified example of five deaths: 100% confirmed to be covid related 75% likely 50% likely 25% likely 0% likely What number of covid deaths should we report? It seems some think it would be a conspiracy to use any number over 1, but from these data, 1 would almost certainly be an underestimate. In order to generate the most accurate estimate, one would have to include some of the “unconfirmed” covid deaths.
You can still social distance without being quarantined to your home, I think that what people are trying to say. You can't stop people from getting it period unless everybody is forced to stay in their homes for 30 days which can't happen. You can limit the spread to the point where hospitals aren't overwhelmed which was the original point of all of this, by social distancing in public, restaurants, stores etc. You can limit if further by washing hands after touching anything in public, etc.
No, that does not suggest a bias in the initial estimates. In fact, the initial estimates were closer to the true rate, then were adjusted to a more wrong position, and then moved back with later estimates. That is beyond the fact that you can't show a bias with one observation.
No you can't. People aren't disciplined enough. We touch our faces too much. We forget to wash our hands. The virus can live on most surfaces for 2-3 days. Food service people don't change their gloves enough between servicing people. Their isn't enough protective gear for everyone. Etc. You have to put as many restrictions as possible if you truly want to limit the spread. There are just too many locations where you can easily spread this virus without even being aware of it. All it takes is one person messing up. And we all know people mess up. However, if you reduce the number of people out and about you reduce the impact of one person messing up. Think about a hypothetical spread from a kwik stop. Maybe 200 people would have gone and touched the counter and other stuff and 10% of those get infected in a normal day without SD, but with SD only 25 people go in and only 10% of those get it. Much different outcomes. 20 vs 2. That's the idea behind social distancing. Reducing the percent chance that one person can pass it to another. Once you open places up, I can pretty much promise you that a bunch of people who really want to go out will travel to your remote towns to enjoy them. And then the infection will spread faster.
Interestingly, this post disputes the notion that this is exceptionally widespread and underreported. If it was, we wouldn't be seeing such dramatic local variance. So if, for example, the Stanford study was right or close to right about the extent of that effect, we should be seeing fairly uniform disease occurrence based on the time that it was allowed to spread around the country. And yet, you are saying that isn't true. That suggests that the spread rate is relatively lower and the death rate is relatively higher than the Stanford study suggests. Interestingly, from a strategic standpoint, that is actually a good thing. If the spread rate is that high and the death rate that low, there is next to nothing that we can do to limit the spread once we re-open. It will spread out of control until we hit herd immunity. So we are talking somewhere in the realm of 190 million cases, and with a death rate of 0.12% or so, a total death total of about 230K. If, instead, the spread rate is in some way controllable and the death rate is a little higher, smart policy could hold that down somewhat.
Very Darwinian (so likely true). Here is the political analog: If anybody in power is dumb enough to suggest this, shouldn't those who gave him that power be smart enough to remove said power? We can only hope this carnival barker loses his microphone soon.
No, I think it's a conspiracy to say that they're intentionally inflating the number because they're counting people who aren't "confirmed." I would say the other interpretation (that makes more sense to me) is that they didn't test them. Because they didn't test them, they can't say it's confirmed.
Like I said in my post, people are going to get it. So are you suggesting waiting until there is a vaccine to open places up? With the awareness that most have about this virus people are taking the precautions when going out. I never had hand sanitizer in my car like i do now, and use before i do anything after leaving a store. This alone I feel will limit the spread enough in most places to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. You can touch your face as long as you have washed or sanitized them. You are not getting it from somebody talking to you 3 feet away and unless they spit when talking. There has to be a point when we can open slowly and it not wating until this is gone, not gonna happen. There can be a balance, doesn't have to be all or nothing. People can prevent getting this, it isn't some magical virus you get when you walk outside, it has to get into your nose or mouth and you can totally prevent that from happening. The fact is it's a guessing game at this point, nobody knows for sure whats gonna happen when places start opening up slowly. Will cases increase? Yes. Will they increase to the point that we they turn into NY? Doubt it, nobody know either way. Looking forward to seeing what happens in Colorado and Georgia.
People CAN prevent it. Many WILL NOT. Do you really still have faith in the American people on the average to be SMART about this? Hell we have to have companies tell us NOT TO EAT DISINFECTANT!
Before this whole thing? No. After this has started happening? For the majority yes. Enough of them to where the spread won't be near what it would of been two months ago. Like I have mentioned, it isn't about wiping this thing out, not gonna happen. Its about limiting spread to the point we don't overwhelm hospitals which is why we started all this in the first place.
I wonder if people realize that if we only counted Flu related deaths from people actually tested positive for H1N1, and confirmed infected without all of the "best estimates used by the CDC" then the H1N1 mortality rate of 2009 was (12,500/720,000) * 100 = 1.7% So, in reality, if we want to use apples to apples comparison numbers only, and no best estimates, the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 was every bit as deadly as this corona virus outbreak in terms of deaths/confirmed cases. Now, we know that this is total BS, because we already have 4x the number of deaths due to corona virus, but it makes the point that you have to be very, very careful what numbers you are quoting and the significance of your comparisons. https://www.aphl.org/AboutAPHL/publ...rom-a-Virus-PHLs-Respond-to-H1N1-Pandemic.pdf
You have more faith in the general public than I do I think. But OK, what do you propose we allow to reopen? And where?
I would like to see us (FL) re open in a few weeks (5/15) as long as we don't see a tremendous spike in positive test rates before then. We had a big spike in positives yesterday but we also tested 4,053 more people than the previous high for (April at least) and only had 57 more cases compared to that prior high in testing. So while we did have more cases, the % positive was a bit lower so still a good trend. Also need to look at the hospitalization rate which is steadily going down. At that point start by counties and start based on the guidelines, restaurants having less tables, spacing at retail store checkouts, limiting numbers of shoppers, etc. Bars obviously can't open yet and no large gatherings more than lets say 20 people together. I wouldn't want to see playgrounds opened up until the next phase. I think we could gather great information to judge what happens with new case rates. Just my opinion but I think that would be acceptable to most. They can decide how much they want to participate. I think this would be a good way to slowly start to get back to normal and then go from there.
I am one of those who are at high risk when it comes to a disease that attacks the lungs. With that said, I understand you can't keep the country locked down for a long period of time. We have to find a balancing point where the cure is not worse than the disease.
I don't know if this puts me at more risk, but a few times a year I get allergy induced shortness of breath that I need an inhaler for. Being short of breath is no fun and when I get it I feel run down for an entire day, even if the episode only lasts for an hour or so, only happens at night. I don't want this thing at all, but it doesn't keep me from going out when necessary, just makes me be even more careful about sanitizing.
