COVID-19 (Con’t 2)

[robj144]

Starting to get really bad in the US. 1,300+ dead and 30,000+ new cases today.

That's not good.

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by robj144

Starting to get really bad in the US. 1,300+ dead and 30,000+ new cases today.

That's not good.

Agreed, not looking great.

Got any bright ideas to counteract the doom and gloom?

[CoffeeFan]

Originally Posted by robj144

You have a source or is there hearsay?

That doesn't make sense if you think about it. Why would they give someone who died in traffic accident a hard to find Covid 19 test? Or, did he have it before the accident and if he did, why was he driving if he knew?

My understanding is that the person had tested positive but, given his low risk factors, was sent home to be quarantined.

I couldn't begin to tell you why he was driving anywhere...

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by robj144

Starting to get really bad in the US. 1,300+ dead and 30,000+ new cases today.

That's not good.

True. But the number is pretty consistent with the recent modeling, which projects a steady rise, to peak at 2,644 deaths on April 16, followed by a steady decline. “Only” 200 deaths per day by June.

I don’t know how accurate this will prove. Just providing the source.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

[robj144]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

True. But the number is pretty consistent with the recent modeling, which projects a steady rise, to peak at 2,644 deaths on April 16, followed by a steady decline. “Only” 200 deaths per day by June.

I don’t know how accurate this will prove. Just providing the source.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Well, there are variations from day to day, but the upper envelop for today was 1,100 dead. So, for today at least, it's outside the model.

Also, the upper envelope for total dead today is 6000... we're already at almost 7,000.

[jklotz]

It concerns me when people say the mortality rate is much lower than the reports. They very well may be right, but we still need to be vigilant and take this seriously, and I think it detracts from that message. Keep in mind upwards of 20% of the people who get this will need hospitalization. And I think we can all agree that won't be much fun. Also, there is new evidence that some who recover will be left with permanent lung damage.

[AX17609]

Originally Posted by robj144

Well, there are variations from day to day, but the upper envelop for today was 1,100 dead. So, for today at least, it's outside the model.

Also, the upper envelope for total dead today is 6000... we're already at almost 7,000.

That's a very important observation!

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by robj144

Well, there are variations from day to day, but the upper envelop for today was 1,100 dead. So, for today at least, it's outside the model.

Also, the upper envelope for total dead today is 6000... we're already at almost 7,000.

Actually, the upper edge of uncertainty for today (April 3) was 1,333.




Yesterday the model predicted slightly more deaths than actually happened.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by jklotz

It concerns me when people say the mortality rate is much lower than the reports. They very well may be right, but we still need to be vigilant and take this seriously, and I think it detracts from that message. Keep in mind upwards of 20% of the people who get this will need hospitalization. And I think we can all agree that won't be much fun. Also, there is new evidence that some who recover will be left with permanent lung damage.

Yes, agree with your overall point...this thing is serious. I’m full-on scared. For everyone.

But we don’t yet know how many infected people are simply asymptomatic. Also, the modeling is largely based on what’s been taking place in New York City. Not every place is likely to experience the same death rate. Also, and I posted this in one of the other versions of this thread (article in WSJ), there may be a great deal of variability in how well an infected person recovers, based on the dose of the virus they received to begin with. People in close quarters with infected people for long periods of time, or people in close quarters in general, like in New York City may br more likely to get a higher dose.

We are still learning about this thing. The smarter we get, the better we can plan, and the better our chances will be. That’s my view, anyway.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Actually, the upper edge of uncertainty for today (April 3) was 1,333.




Yesterday the model predicted slightly more deaths than actually happened.

My bad... I clicked the wrong day.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by AX17609

That's a very important observation!

My bad... I clicked the wrong day.

[ManyMartinMan]

Originally Posted by eatswodo

Agreed, not looking great.

Got any bright ideas to counteract the doom and gloom?

Yes. Stay home. Don't be a statistic. As far as the gloom......................



Worrying won't help. Prepare, don't panic and control what you can.

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

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.

My point though is that regardless of what the real mortality rate of this disease is at present, what is more significant vis a vis the critical level is the total number of patients who have to e admitted into the icu and those who end up dying. It is far too many as it is and increasing and the system is already straining to keep up.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by gitarro

My point though is that regardless of what the real mortality rate of this disease is at present, what is more significant vis a vis the critical level is the total number of patients who have to e admitted into the icu and those who end up dying. It is far too many as it is and increasing and the system is already straining to keep up.

Yes. It is a serious disease.

[MChild62]

Originally Posted by eatswodo

Agreed, not looking great.

Got any bright ideas to counteract the doom and gloom?

So, going into our second month here at home in Italy, talk is beginning about how the lockdown may start getting lifted gradually after Easter. The gloom and doom has helped create trust of the severity of the situation, and we now need to accept that we're not going to just bounce back overnight to life as before. Conte, the Prime Minister, has spoken recently about having to adapt to a period of "convivenza" (living together) with the virus.

Maybe to counteract the feelings, it's time to start thinking about how we all adapt to life on the other side? Fore example, I really miss playing with friends at least once a week. With this period of convivenza, which could last a year or even years, I don't know when or how we'll ever get together again (and, fingers crossed, that we'll all still be here). But I think we need to begin thinking about how that could happen.