Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

It's okay, he was drunk.

 

You imply that we know enough to not worry. I don't get what people don't get about this. It has the potential to kill a lot of people and it spreads more easily than other viruses. It may turn out to kill millions, so what do you not understand? If you're saying we'd be better off just letting it spread, I don't know what scientific basis there is for making that judgement. It seems the prudent thing would be to treat it a lot more seriously than we have. This isn't all about Trump's re-election. Letting millions die is not something society (if you're not a Republican) should do. Scientists are saying that this thing definitely kills much more efficiently than flu. We should listen to them and not political hacks and ill-informed politicians. Just my liberal perspective here...

 

All I learned from that is that National Geographic doesn’t know how to properly calculate odds. To have a 1/3000 odds of dying in your lifetime the average human life expectancy according to their calculations would be 233 years.

I don’t know if the NWS has better statistics (they say 1/1,220,000 per year and 1/15,300 lifetime) but at least they can properly calculate it.

The linked 1/100,000 odds of contracting coronavirus seems like a made up figure too. I don’t have the energy to figure out where he pulled that figure but with all the unknowns about the virus I don’t see how even the most credible virologist could have determined a figure like that at this time.

 

Many of the recent posts on this thread miss the point.
When the cruise ship was in an enclosed area on the cruise ship, even with precautions including everyone being quarantined it spread fairly easily. Over 500 people aboard the ship got it, and that was with them removing infected people as they tested positive.
But “the is it or is it not hysteria” debate is what is really missing the point. You have a virus that has a proven ability to kill at thirty times the rate of the flu, you have to treat it like a possible catastrophic event. If it turns out not to be, then awesome, but on its face, if 1/3 of the US population got infected, you could expect over 2 million deaths. Of course you have to fully mobilize. To under prepare or want publicly is just dumb.

 

If Italy's reported numbers are any indication it's hitting people over 60 pretty good with a lot higher chance of death than the flu but ages under that aren't showing many deaths at all.

 

It was the only place I could find the 3000 number ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Nailed it!

Here's the thing too, we think about these things in terms of the overall population size, but there are particularly vulnerable populations that are much smaller; young children, elderly, and those with various illnesses already. Thus the danger to their well-being and risk of death is amplified considerably. Those who scoff at this seem awfully foolish imo.

 

Food allergies have the potential to kill a lot of people. Walking across the street has the potential to kill a lot of people. Guns have the potential to kill a lot of people. Shall I continue? Fact is this doesn't spread any different than any other flu, human to human and with less dramatic results as the normal flu. Look at the numbers, look at the percentage of deaths by age group and your conclusion will be the same as mine. You say it has the potential to kill millions...why not say billions while you are writing your movie script? Scientists are not saying it kills more efficiently...it kills the same way the normal flu does and that is with people with weakened immune systems and mostly with elderly. Do note that if you are under age 50 that you aren't dying and the odds get even better the younger you are!
FYI...my view is definitely not political. My view is a simple look at the numbers and the drama isn't matching those numbers to this point.

 

The talk of UFO’s within our own military lately makes me wonder if we’re being wiped out. After a couple more beers I’m going to get my bug out gear together.

 

Please rethink your "facts". The so called "vulnerable" populations are not young children as dramatic as that comes across. It is focused on the elderly and most definitely the elderly with underlying conditions that exacerbate any virus. The numbers bear my facts out.

 

Thank you! Every trending that is shown around the world shows that if you are old and have medical issues that you need to be treated as soon as possible. But it doesn't show anything of the same to younger people. I find this to be somewhat bizarre in regards to the worldwide fear being promoted.

 

Young children under two years old are a more vulnerable population as are elderly and/or those with various underlying medical conditions. There isn't any reason to rethink it as these populations are at risk re: severity for many if not all infectious diseases because their vulnerability is inherent; ntm the latter two are specifically mentioned at risk in terms of severity of illness with coronavirus However, thus far with young children have not been any more prone to come down with coronavirus, but there is still much we don't know, including how big this pandemic will get and how long it will last and how many people will die as a result. Yet it remains, that vulnerable populations are still vulnerable populations.

 

But we do know how many will die as the trending clearly shows that it will be a few more thousand worldwide and this is based on the demographics involved. There has been nothing to suggest under 2 year old children are at a greater risk and I suggest they are at less of a risk due to less exposure. No children have died. No children are reported to be isolated. Trending and demographics will give all the answers one needs to map the future of this flu bug and they are the same approach used with all virus/flu bugs which is why vaccines are given to the elderly as a strongly suggested recommendation every year.

 

An article from two weeks ago said that there hasn’t been a single death of anyone under age 10.

children are nowhere near at the same risk as the elderly if that holds up.

 

That is good to hear. I am against anyone dying for really any reason at all, but if children are being spared the brunt, that is some good news for sure.

 

We do not know that. This would be a current projection but based upon still quite incomplete information. Risk of exposure is not the same as risk of severity. When it comes to infectious disease, very young children, the elderly, and those with various other illnesses, are vulnerable populations (though these aren't the only determinants). With Covid 19, it is true that very young children have had less exposure and less death thus far, but it doesn't change that they are more vulnerable than healthy older children and adults. In other words, extra consideration is paid to these populations because they are generally at a considerably higher risk of becoming more severely ill and even dying as a result of infectious diseases.

 

One thing we're seeing is that this virus severely exacerbates the underlying condition known as narcissistic personality disorder. And that's without infection.

 

Ah yes. Our national su

No please don't continue. It is simple, so very simple. Listen to the experts, not your new found expertise in epidemiology. If you think scientists are saying that it "kills the same way the normal flu does" then that is one of the sources of our disagreement here. I'm done unless you want to post a link to that. They are saying it apparently kills more efficiently but they don't know because of the political obfuscation here. So let's continue to let people eat food, to cross streets, and .... what are you advocating for? You don't think we should listen to you (unless you have a Phd in epidemiology) or an administration that lies often, or me (an aerospace engineer) do you? I'm simply saying listen to the experts. But you are saying... what? Respectfully, your analysis isn't worth much. I only advocate referencing the experts. I'm much more interested in your research on calling their credentials into question. Now there is where we could make this productive. I'm armed and ready with the evidence showing we shouldn't listen to the science adverse Trump administration. You got some dirt on the subject matter experts?

 

What does you being an aerospace engineer have to do with anything other than you think you hold something special in life. You do not impress anyone other than yourself. Let me school you on something that could very well impact the rest of your life if you can comprehend it. Experts do not exist as the sole source of knowledge nor do they find time to put their ego aside and look at common sense. I do believe you can relate to that thought. In this case I offer common sense, which is, that all reports given firsthand by those that were found positive, is that the effects are not dramatic in any form or fashion and recovery is fast. I also offer statistics that show that the elderly with underlying conditions are the most affected by the disease. For you to state that it kills more "efficiently" implies there is some type of unique killing power...there isn't. It kills the exact same way regular flu does. Respiratory infections usually made easier due to previous health issues that weakened the immune system.
Now I am just smart enough to put 2 and 2 together without using your immense aerospace engineer calculations but I guarantee that over my lifetime that experts like you have been wrong enough timesthat I, a not as high in the expert level as you, can identify trending and associative factors in anything. Including this flu.