COVID-19 (Con’t 2)

[Dru Edwards]

What a fantastic analogy ... regarding the first people to keep under control during difficult times.

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

[flagstaffcharli]

Originally Posted by ManyMartinMan

We actually can. All that has to happen is for the implementation of - the Defense Production Act of 1950. Then order every manufacturer that has the capability to produce ventilators, masks, gowns, gloves, face shields........... to immediately cease all other production and deliver no product to anyone, anywhere until the order is lifted. That hasn't happened. We've done that during all wars without the Act and it is easier since 1950. During Viet Nam - Singer, Colt, Simmonds Prec Products, PARSONS PRECISION PRODUCTS, and others produced magazines for M-16 rifles.

Additionally, any manufacturer (think items for military - handcuffs, helmets...) who has a U.S. government contract to provide specific items must provide that order, complete, prior to delivering anything to the general market/economy. For example, when the government orders 350,000 sets of handcuffs from Peerless Handcuff Co., Peerless can not ship to anyone until that order for 350,000 is fulfilled. We have the capability and technology that has not been pressed into service. That is just one of many unacceptable situations Americans are having to endure right now.

I don’t disagree with any of that, though so much manufacturing has been outsourced that it’s hard to tell what our actual capability is. It’s hard to know.

Regardless. It hasn’t happened. I agree. It is unacceptable. It’s a failure. It isn’t happening yet. Healthcare hasn’t been supplied with ammo needed to fight this battle.

[HodgdonExtreme]

Originally Posted by ManyMartinMan

We actually can. All that has to happen is for the implementation of - the Defense Production Act of 1950. Then order every manufacturer that has the capability to produce ventilators, masks, gowns, gloves, face shields........... to immediately cease all other production and deliver no product to anyone, anywhere until the order is lifted. That hasn't happened.

Just curious if all those employees should be at work, making supplies - or staying home avoiding getting sick?

Also, who makes the supplies once they do get sick?

[flagstaffcharli]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

Just curious if all those employees should be at work, making supplies - or staying home avoiding getting sick?

Also, who makes the supplies once they do get sick?

It’s essential. One could ask the same question about physicians and other hospital staff.

[Acousticado]

Folks, there are too many condescending, challenging statements being made which the mods are removing. No need for it. Please stop.

[HodgdonExtreme]

Originally Posted by flagstaffcharli

It’s essential. One could ask the same question about physicians and other hospital staff.

Totally agree!

We are asking for a lot of essential people to put themselves in harms way and risk exposure/sickness - which will further proliferate the virus.

[flagstaffcharli]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

Totally agree!

We are asking for a lot of essential people to put themselves in harms way and risk exposure/sickness - which will further proliferate the virus.

I need to be careful answering in respect to the rules.

My wife is a physician. She can’t stay home while people are sick and dying. She also is trained professionally in how to minimize the risk to herself and those around her. It’s not a guarantee. But it’s what she has.

She - as well as every other healthcare provider - absolutely must be supplied with proper PPE to protect both themselves and the folks they are caring for.

Essential people can be given training and guidelines that will substantially increase their safety and everyone else’s safety. That’s the point of all of this. There are some things that really are essential.

I hope that’s helpful and respectful of the rules here. Stay safe and healthy.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by gitarro

There have been quite a few who commented that the death rate in reality is likely to be lower as there is a lot of under reporting due to lack of testing. However no matter whatever the mortality rate really is, the absolute number of serious cases necessitating icu treatment to arrest decline into death and the actual numbers of those killed are the problems.

Yes, and a low death rate would mean fewer of those deaths to come. Hopefully, testing will become more available, allowing society to forecast and plan. Can’t happen soon enough.

[frankmcr]

A recent study published in The Lancet, a very highly respected medical journal, finds a case mortality rate of 0.66.

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavi...wwy-story.html

[MChild62]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

A recent study published in The Lancet, a very highly respected medical journal, finds a case mortality rate of 0.66.

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavi...wwy-story.html

The link is blocked here in Europe, but I think this is the study, which was for China in the very early stages. It's based on 24 deaths in China and 165 recoveries outside of China. Bit of a lag, evidently, from the study to publication.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...243-7/fulltext

"Using data on 24 deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9–19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9–28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for censoring) of 3·67% (95% CrI 3·56–3·80). However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment, we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27–0·38] in those aged <60 years vs 6·4% [5·7–7·2] in those aged ≥60 years), up to 13·4% (11·2–15·9) in those aged 80 years or older. Estimates of case fatality ratio from international cases stratified by age were consistent with those from China (parametric estimate 1·4% [0·4–3·5] in those aged <60 years [n=360] and 4·5% [1·8–11·1] in those aged ≥60 years [n=151]). Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33), with an increasing profile with age. Similarly, estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0–7·6) in those aged 80 years or older.
Interpretation
These early estimates give an indication of the fatality ratio across the spectrum of COVID-19 disease and show a strong age gradient in risk of death."

[robj144]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

A recent study published in The Lancet, a very highly respected medical journal, finds a case mortality rate of 0.66.

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavi...wwy-story.html

And, in the link provided, it's still 66 times the average flu.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by MChild62

The link is blocked here in Europe, but I think this is the study, which was for China in the very early stages. It's based on 24 deaths in China and 165 recoveries outside of China.
Bit of a lag, evidently, from the study to publication.

Yes, The Lancet has a pretty stringent peer review policy. They don't publish rumors or guesses.

[MChild62]

"A call to honesty in pandemic modeling." This is an excellent and balanced critique of how various models are being presented by governments and the media.

https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-t...g-5c156686a64b

Conclusion:
"Regardless of which strategies various governments will eventually turn to in the fight against COVID-19, their success will hinge in large part on the cooperation of the public — maintaining effective suppression on a timescale of years, for example, would require extraordinary levels compliance from citizens. The public should not be misled by presenting false stories of hope to motivate behavior in the short-term. Public health depends on public trust. If we claim now that our models show that 2 months of mitigations will cut deaths by 90%, why will anyone believe us 2 months from now when the story has to change?"

[MChild62]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Yes, The Lancet has a pretty stringent peer review policy. They don't publish rumors or guesses.

True. I always associate them with the famous incident of the debunked Andrew Wakefield article, but to their credit as scientists, they did retract it. That's the thing about science; it admits when it was wrong.

[Kerbie]

Originally Posted by MChild62

True. I always associate them with the famous incident of the debunked Andrew Wakefield article, but to their credit as scientists, they did retract it.

Boy, I remember that!