Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Coronavirus
#1
The virus has two oft quoted numbers.  For each person who gets it, about two people are infected.  The problem is that this is a number clearly greater than one.  It means that everyone will eventually have to live in an infected environment.  

The other number is two percent of those infected die.

I have seen the Trump gang comparing one number or the other with prior outbreaks and declaring that we have seen compareable numbers before and will do well.  I think we have to multiply the two numbers together to fight this complacency.  Sure, there have been lots of diseases that are contagious, but not fatal, or fatal but don’t spread easily.  But if a bug is both, you have a problem.

Many parts of the world see a problem.  There is a sense that it will take a year or two to develop an effective, safe and mass producible vaccine.  It is generally seen as wise to slow the spread as much as possible during the one or two years until then.  There could be a big economic glitch involved in doing it.  One can see the Trump desire to minimize the virus, to minimize the thought of a glitch coming.  I do not see how he can hope to do it.  Instead he will only make things very visibly worse before the election.

I have been comparing it in my mind to the Great War’s flu.  Does anyone know the two numbers for that one, or other diseases where both numbers multiply to something similar?  I have read some old letters that came out in my genealogy research.  The family avoided fatalities with the 1918 flu, but the disruption was real.  How does the current problem compare to other pandemics such as the Black Death?

The contagious and fatality numbers are not commonly available.  Does anyone know where to look?

I am happily retired, well off, old enough to be in the heavily lethal age, and am thinking of a precautionary self quarantine.  I could minimize going out, and order groceries and other things online and delivered or sent by mail.  Amazon and Peapod, anyone?  I have already done quite a bit of this for other reasons.  Now seems the time for one last fling before shutdown.  

I am thinking of a new computer.  Should I have it shipped here rather that have the local Apple Store do a few mods?  My annual physical is about due at the local health care center.  Should I cancel?

Will such self quarantine become the new normal for a time?  Will this accelerate the death of brick and mortar businesses, and impact the restaurant and travel industries? Others?  Will it present a problem for Trump, enough to perhaps be considered the trigger event?  Will we see a change in the perceived need for big government, in being prepared for disasters, in the value of scientific thinking, in thinking of everybody rather than tribally?  How big a glitch should we be expecting?

Thoughts?  I thought it worth a thread.
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
#2
This might seem an odd source (it's normally military analysis related) but he's been keeping a running count, with analysis, starting with his 27 FEB post:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/
Reply
#3
Bob, I'm in similar straits, but can't think it's all that necessary to avoid everyone all the time. I just returned from a cruise (yes, I know) and may have been in contact with someone who was infected. The operable word here is 'may'. Truth be told, I doubt I'm at very high risk, because, other than sitting on the airplane going and coming, the entire experience never involved a lot of up-close-and-personal contact. This is not all that easy to acquire (close contact and direct infection), so just being in an area that an infected person had occupied in the recent past wasn't an issue. Hand washing and sanitizing, on the other hand, was a ritual, and we followed it to the letter.

We live in an exurban environment, so ordering groceries is out. On the other hand, the population density here makes transmission unlikely. It's a trade-off I guess. We both plan to be rational, but we also have no intention of going hermit. It's a personal choice, I guess. I think my odds are excellent.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#4
Question 
(03-10-2020, 02:24 PM)David Horn Wrote: Bob, I'm in similar straits, but can't think it's all that necessary to avoid everyone all the time.  I just returned from a cruise (yes, I know) and may have been in contact with someone who was infected.  The operable word here is 'may'.  Truth be told, I doubt I'm at very high risk, because, other than sitting on the airplane going and coming, the entire experience never involved a lot of up-close-and-personal contact.  This is not all that easy to acquire (close contact and direct infection), so just being in an area that an infected person had occupied in the recent past wasn't an issue.  Hand washing and sanitizing, on the other hand, was a ritual, and we followed it to the letter.

We live in an exurban environment, so ordering groceries is out.  On the other hand, the population density here makes transmission unlikely.  It's a trade-off I guess.  We both plan to be rational, but we also have no intention of going hermit.  It's a personal choice, I guess.  I think my odds are excellent.

But you can still order food from a company such as Door dash. They are nearly everywhere now.
Reply
#5
The 2% mortality rate figure is not accurate.

It is derived by dividing the number of deaths by the number of confirmed cases. But there are far more people who have the virus than the number of confirmed cases. There are lots of people with mild symptoms or even no symptoms who never show up at a hospital and nobody finds out they had the virus.

The problem is that right now, nobody knows exactly how many people actually have or have had the virus, and we don't know enough about it to estimate yet. The true mortality rate is going to be less than 2%, but we don't know how much less.

For a point of comparison, Germany has done extensive testing to try to actually catch all the infections, and currently has over 1900 confirmed cases and only 3 deaths.
Reply
#6
The World Health Organization is making it an official pandemic.  Article
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
#7
(03-11-2020, 05:14 PM)Mickey123 Wrote: The 2% mortality rate figure is not accurate.

It is derived by dividing the number of deaths by the number of confirmed cases.  But there are far more people who have the virus than the number of confirmed cases.  There are lots of people with mild symptoms or even no symptoms who never show up at a hospital and nobody finds out they had the virus.

The problem is that right now, nobody knows exactly how many people actually have or have had the virus, and we don't know enough about it to estimate yet.  The true mortality rate is going to be less than 2%, but we don't know how much less.

The WHO now says the fatality rate is 3.4% worldwide.  Meanwhile, South Korea, using the same calculation for their own country, gets a mortality rate of 0.6%.  The mortality rates are much more a function of how much testing is being done than of actual, real mortality rate.

By comparison, using the same metric of deaths divided by confirmed cases, this season's flu would be calculated to have a mortality rate of 10-25% in the US.  Yet, we believe the real mortality rate of the flu is around 0.1%, because we have a reasonably reliable extrapolation on which to estimate the true number of cases and the true mortality rate.

We just don't know enough to know the true mortality rate for Covid-19.  South Korea has done some random testing, and a simple extrapolation suggests that the mortality rate can't be lower than 0.002%, but that's a pretty low minimum, well below flu.

We do know that almost all the mortality falls in the higher age groups, 70+ or especially 80+.
Reply
#8
(03-10-2020, 06:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am happily retired, well off, old enough to be in the heavily lethal age, and am thinking of a precautionary self quarantine.  I could minimize going out, and order groceries and other things online and delivered or sent by mail.  Amazon and Peapod, anyone?  I have already done quite a bit of this for other reasons.

I actually think this is the most sensible strategy societally.  For the time being, there are few enough cases that known cases, and perhaps their contacts, can self quarantine.  As the prevalence inevitably climbs, though, it will probably make more sense for the aged to self isolate. A lockdown that shuts down the economy would likely cause cause much more privation and death.
Reply
#9
(03-11-2020, 05:50 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: For the time being, there are few enough cases that known cases, and perhaps their contacts, can self quarantine.  As the prevalence inevitably climbs, though, it will probably make more sense for the aged to self isolate.  A lockdown that shuts down the economy would likely cause cause much more privation and death.

The entertainment industry and sports my have to take a year or two off.  Both can involve large crowds and are entirely luxury.  The NBA just announced a league wide suspension, and you have to wonder about Broadway and company.  Disney parks are not doing well.  Tom Hanks got the virus.  Should new movie production be targeted?  Should people not remodel?  Should you not buy a new appliance if it is possible to continue using the old?

At what point does minimizing contact to prevent infection cause enough disruption to cause enough real damage to be not worth it.  Can whole industries survive being suspended for the duration?

I have a feeling that in these early days the answers have not yet been thought out.

Pull out the old September 11 strategy of solving the crisis by going shopping?
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
#10
(03-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(03-11-2020, 05:50 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: For the time being, there are few enough cases that known cases, and perhaps their contacts, can self quarantine.  As the prevalence inevitably climbs, though, it will probably make more sense for the aged to self isolate.  A lockdown that shuts down the economy would likely cause cause much more privation and death.

The entertainment industry and sports my have to take a year or two off.  Both can involve large crowds and are entirely luxury.  The NBA just announced a league wide suspension, and you have to wonder about Broadway and company.  Disney parks are not doing well.  Tom Hanks got the virus.  Should new movie production be targeted?  Should people not remodel?  Should you not buy a new appliance if it is possible to continue using the old?

At what point does minimizing contact to prevent infection cause enough disruption to cause enough real damage to be not worth it.  Can whole industries survive being suspended for the duration?

I have a feeling that in these early days the answers have not yet been thought out.

Pull out the old September 11 strategy of solving the crisis by going shopping?

The problem is, with the stock market tanking who can afford shopping for anything but necessities? I need to save money now. This is how these Great Devaluations happen.
Steve Barrera

[A]lthough one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. - Hagakure

Saecular Pages
Reply
#11
(03-10-2020, 02:34 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 02:24 PM)David Horn Wrote: Bob, I'm in similar straits, but can't think it's all that necessary to avoid everyone all the time.  I just returned from a cruise (yes, I know) and may have been in contact with someone who was infected.  The operable word here is 'may'.  Truth be told, I doubt I'm at very high risk, because, other than sitting on the airplane going and coming, the entire experience never involved a lot of up-close-and-personal contact.  This is not all that easy to acquire (close contact and direct infection), so just being in an area that an infected person had occupied in the recent past wasn't an issue.  Hand washing and sanitizing, on the other hand, was a ritual, and we followed it to the letter.

We live in an exurban environment, so ordering groceries is out.  On the other hand, the population density here makes transmission unlikely.  It's a trade-off I guess.  We both plan to be rational, but we also have no intention of going hermit.  It's a personal choice, I guess.  I think my odds are excellent.

But you can still order food from a company such as Door dash. They are nearly everywhere now.

Maybe food delivery is common in your area, but here there are no delivery services, and that includes pizza.  We have a Kroger that offers an order-online-for-pickup service, if that becomes an issue.  Other than that, we're on our own.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#12
an observation ... it seems that this crisis is exposing systemic failures in government & may make people call for a renewed investment in public services ... just saying ...
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Reply
#13
(03-12-2020, 01:22 PM)tg63 Wrote: an observation ... it seems that this crisis is exposing systemic failures in government & may make people call for a renewed investment in public services ... just saying ...

I agree, and I'll push it a bit further.  Not long ago, the systemic failures were features not bugs.  Of course, only a limited few could benefit, but that was a feature too.  The entire public and private economies were structured to bend to the will of the 0.01%.  Now, that crowd is baffled by how we got here, and wants to be at the front of the line for help when needed -- again!  We screwed up and allowed it last time.  Let's do better this time.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#14
Among other things, Rachel Maddow just had an AIDs atavist present putting his spin on the virus.  One thing he brought up was this was not the first time an US administration at the top has heavily resisted action against an epidemic.  In the 1980s the Reagan crew treated AIDs as a behavioral solvable disease that only effected the homosexual community which was rejected using tribal thinking.  

This administration has its own non scientific reasons for not responding, but there is some degree of similarity.

The point he has made is that these days the deep state, the pharmaceutical companies, the universities, the medical communities, all know what to do.  They need less to be told what to do.  They have seen AIDS, Ebola, SARS, etc…. In recent administrations there has even been a group of specialists standing by waiting on the next outbreak.

But they do need funding to be made available, and are accustomed to somebody saying go.  We badly botched the testing element, but there was a matter of fact assumption that somebody must be working on a vaccine?

They must be.  Right?
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
#15
(03-12-2020, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-12-2020, 01:22 PM)tg63 Wrote: an observation ... it seems that this crisis is exposing systemic failures in government & may make people call for a renewed investment in public services ... just saying ...

I agree, and I'll push it a bit further.  Not long ago, the systemic failures were features not bugs.  Of course, only a limited few could benefit, but that was a feature too.  The entire public and private economies were structured to bend to the will of the 0.01%.  Now, that crowd is baffled by how we got here, and wants to be at the front of the line for help when needed -- again!  We screwed up and allowed it last time.  Let's do better this time.
What last time are you referring too? Certainly not the major flu pandemic of 102 years ago? Or are you?
Reply
#16
I'd assume he is talking about the financial crisis, the associated bailouts, and the people and organizations who actually benefited from the bailouts - which were not generally the organizations actually getting the bailouts, which is why most of the bailouts had to be forced on the relevant companies.
Reply
#17
(03-12-2020, 09:54 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Among other things, Rachel Maddow just had an AIDs atavist present putting his spin on the virus.  One thing he brought up was this was not the first time an US administration at the top has heavily resisted action against an epidemic.  In the 1980s the Reagan crew treated AIDs as a behavioral solvable disease that only effected the homosexual community which was rejected using tribal thinking.  

This administration has its own non scientific reasons for not responding, but there is some degree of similarity.

In the 1980's homosexuality was still largely seen as itself a sickness. Since then most of us have grown up about homosexuality.

AIDS in the USA  is now largely spread through IV needle use, especially with heroin. Americans are going to take much longer to see heroin use as mainstream behavior. 

... COVID 19 is not associated with behavior usually considered pathological -- not with something like reckless sexuality or IV drug use. And, yes, we have a President who has a weak hold on scientific reasoning and evidence, which is a very bad sign. 


Quote:The point he has made is that these days the deep state, the pharmaceutical companies, the universities, the medical communities, all know what to do.  They need less to be told what to do.  They have seen AIDS, Ebola, SARS, etc…. In recent administrations there has even been a group of specialists standing by waiting on the next outbreak.


But COVID 19 is similar to other viruses (the common cold) in the means of transmission, but much deadlier. Our current President often contradicts the experts or frustrates them when they admit that they do not have the means for dealing with the disease. 

Quote:But they do need funding to be made available, and are accustomed to somebody saying go.  We badly botched the testing element, but there was a matter of fact assumption that somebody must be working on a vaccine?

They must be.  Right?

Vaccines do not ordinarily anticipate the disease.

Viral diseases are difficult to treat, which HIV/AIDS demonstrates extremely well. At best the immune system catches up to the virus and starts exterminating the virus.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#18
(03-13-2020, 02:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: AIDS in the USA  is now largely spread through IV needle use, especially with heroin. Americans are going to take much longer to see heroin use as mainstream behavior. 

This is off topic, but, actually AIDS is still primarily spread by gay men in the U.S.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overv...lance.html

Of the new HIV diagnoses in 2018, 69% were men who have sex with men, 24% were heterosexuals, 7% were people who inject drugs.
Reply
#19
(03-12-2020, 10:36 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:
(03-12-2020, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-12-2020, 01:22 PM)tg63 Wrote: an observation ... it seems that this crisis is exposing systemic failures in government & may make people call for a renewed investment in public services ... just saying ...

I agree, and I'll push it a bit further.  Not long ago, the systemic failures were features not bugs.  Of course, only a limited few could benefit, but that was a feature too.  The entire public and private economies were structured to bend to the will of the 0.01%.  Now, that crowd is baffled by how we got here, and wants to be at the front of the line for help when needed -- again!  We screwed up and allowed it last time.  Let's do better this time.

What last time are you referring too? Certainly not the major flu pandemic of 102 years ago? Or are you?

Sorry; confusing.  No, I meant the 2008 financial crisis, where the monied interests moved to the front of the line, then turned off the money tap after they were full.  Apparently, Trump is already advocating policies that will have similar outcomes.  I'm not sure he has the authority to do everything on his own, so let's be vigilant.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#20
Major League Baseball... no more spring training, and a delayed start to the 2020 season.

[Image: ES7mpEWWkAAmxSX?format=jpg&name=small]
.

It looks as if "my" Detroit Tigers aren't going to set any record for losses for an MLB team (unless you count the sick joke 1899 Cleveland Spiders "major") this year.  Of course the joke about the current Tigers is... what have the Detroit Tigers made of people in Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Battle Creek?

...Cubs fans!

The Tigers, trying to avoid misrepresenting themselves, were considering naming themselves as a dog breed -- until it was discovered that dogs have too much in common with tigers (power, ability, speed, cunning, voracity, and strength -- dogs are even stronger and more powerful than tigers for their size)... and "Golden Retrievers" suggests that the team actually catches baseballs. Whoops!

OK, so much for the jokes about one of the worst baseball teams ever... Major League Baseball  takes CORVID-19 more seriously than I take a team that I used to cheer often before it became a sick joke. At least nobody is going to get sick and die from watching Detroit Tigers baseball.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Hypothetical coronavirus in the 2T sbarrera 25 992 03-18-2020, 09:24 AM
Last Post: Warren Dew

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)