Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

  1. #1
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    312

    Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    I'm hoping the discussion will move here.
    Last edited by MickYoung; April 7th, 2020 at 10:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    312

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    OK, I think it's important to just calmly discuss this. Among other things, I do want to compare this with a normal, and an extreme, flu year in the US.

    AS of today, data I've found is that we have has 12,200(+) deaths in the US so far. Comparing that with the regular annual Flu deaths, it isn't extreme. But Copvid19 is different from the flu, and our reactions are different from a normal flu season.

    Ordinary Flu seasons kill about 35,000 people a year, between November and April. That's a lot of people. Roughly 9000 a month during the season. So far, in less than a month,
    Covid has,
    killed 12,000. The operative phrase here is "so far."

    9000 of those deaths have been in the last week. In late March, the number of deaths were increasing by 1/3 every day. Every day. In about 2 1/2 days, the deaths would double. This was pretty steady from mid-March (which had seen 40 deaths) to the end of March (over 3000 deaths). If the numbers had kept increasing that that same rate, the death total would have reached 7 figures sometime in mid-April.

    Even with the social distancing measures in place, deaths are still going up exponentially. Now they are increasing by about 1/6 per day, as opposed to march's 1/3 per day. But it's still exponential - doubling every 4 or 5 days, instead of every 2 or 3 days.

    With social distancing, it should start to level out. Maybe in a week, it will be only going up 10% a day. When the social distance measures are decreased, there likely will be a surge.

    So, we expect it to be much worse than the flu in terms of mortality.

    But still people ask why do we have to shut down the whole country? Won't that have ill effects? Won't there be a mortality associated with the economic consequences? Why not just plow through?

    As far as I can see the answer is this: if allowed to progress unimpeded, the virus will tax our health care infrastructure beyond its limits. (And, indeed, even with social distancing, it still might.)

    People in the modern world are appalled at the idea of denying the best care to sick people, using the logic "even with care they are likely to die anyhow, and giving that care to them will deny it to those far more likely to survive."

    In northern Italy, it has happened. They are adamant that they did not deny access to ventilators strictly on the basis of age. They did that did on the basis of overall health.

    There three outcomes of the "triage" process. Only one gets the medical care- those most likely to survive if they get care. Doctors are trained for that situation, but they hope to never, ever face it. It would be horrid to make those decisions.

    It would be inevitable, if the exponential curse weren't slowed, that ventilators would be denied to people who had a chance of surviving with them. No matter how those decisions are made, they would be horrid and culture changing.

    Most of the people who go on ventilators for covid19, do not get off of them alive. But a large minority of them do recover

    My guess it that if a similar pandemic (or a resurgence of this one) happens next year, we'll have adequate health infrastructure to deal with it - and people will just accept the extra deaths and not isolate. But that won't happen this year. This isn't the flu.

    I realize this is a appalling discussion, but these are appalling times.

  3. #3
    aka Elaine-iaK & Aqua Dog ElaineK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MickYoung View Post
    I'm hoping it will move here.

    Don't count on this thread surviving, either. Rob Copeland deleted four days of posts from the other thread, and then he shut the thread down. I had warned in my last post that it would happen, and I knew it would be my fellow Georgia Masters board member, Rob, locking it.
    I know you too well. Rob! But, to know you is to love you.


    P.S. Mick, as a statistician by profession, you totally nailed your last post! Thank you for putting your expertise to work and providing us valuable information.

    Note to Rob: You can delete my post if you want to, but please don't delete Mick's post! Everybody should read it and take it to heart!
    Last edited by ElaineK; April 7th, 2020 at 06:23 PM.
    http://ElaineiaKsTravels.wordpress.com

    ~ Believing in your dreams can be far more rewarding than living by your limitations ~Karla Peterson

  4. #4
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    352

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    It is on pace to be 2000 deaths over the past 24 hours (it is about 1850 22 hours in) (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/), officially. 730 in New York, alone. What we don't know is how many have died without being captured as COVID-19. The R0 is about twice that of flu, and the official fatality rate from the WHO is 3.4%. I am not going to get into the "what ifs," I'm an engineer, not a doctor (but my wife is one). But that engineer in me also inherently trusts what data is available, from reliable sources, or at the very least subject matter experts. Media personalities, in the mainstream, right wing, and left wing segments of it, are not experts.

    The flu may kill more people over teh course of the year, but it does not kill 2000 people per day. Not even close. Furthermore, it is generally pretty evenly spread across the country. 300 people across the whole country per day, versus over 700 in one city in one day. Fatality rate well over an order of magnitude higher. And while it certainly does affect the elderly and sick more than healthy people, it is far more indiscriminate than the flu.

    So, our healthcare system already IS overtaxed. It is just not visible to people everywhere, because it is in pockets.

    I don't know about next year. Having come from the automotive background, at a time when things were being outsourced to BRIC countries as fasat as possible, I am hopeful that our supply chains will benefit from this. It won't be in a year. But I am hopeful that we'll start bringing back some manufacturing here. I've read taht 75% of pharmaceuticals are manufactured in China. No good. But until we consider health care something of national security, we won't be prepared. George Bush actually tried to create a pandemic preparation plan. But it was not followed by his successor, and after him, we gutted what was in place. So failures across the board.

    I think coming out of this, the economy will boom. I think it will be like WWII. Pent up demand. For all kinds of things. And I thin there will be some effort to bring manufacturing here, which will increase wages among the class of people who spend more of it.

    Likelihood? This is probably on par with the 1918 pandemic. So every 100 years? Well, that means every year there is a 1% chance of one......although as connected as our world has become, I have to think it is probably an order of magnitude higher.

    And this is WITH protective measures in place. Without them, I can only imagine. It really, really, really does not help that we have a segment of the population who dismisses all of this.

  5. #5
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    312

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    There's two reasons I think this is not like the 1919 "Spanish" influenza.

    The first reason is that pandemic killed 2% or more of the world's population. This doesn't seem to be anywhere near that deadly.

    The second reason is demographic. The 1919 pandemic hit particularly hard is 2 overlapping groups. 1) Young adults, I've heard 18 to 25. Others say 20 to 30. But young. Strong. A healthy demographic. The second group that was hit hard was pregnant women.

    So, this can't compare with the ugliness of that demographic. Covid is mercifully inclined to the twilight years. Now, I'm *IN* those twilight years so please don't jump on me for being hard-of-heart.

    There is a possibility that covid will fade out, that we're near the peak. It could go away with the weather. It could be that already the a large portion of the US has non-symptomatic covid infections, and just isn't going to get sick. It's possible that after it's all over, it won't be worse, or maybe not much worse, than the 12,000 to 61,000 annual US flu deaths (CDC estimate). It could conceivably be lower than that 61K. (shrug) How much do we want to play with that chance?

    PS I put "Spanish" in quotes for a couple of reasons. First - no virus sings any national anthem. 2nd, some of the people that investigate these things think that the 1919 influenza started in a certain Kentucky county. Others believe it started in Kansas. The smart money seems to say we can never really tell.
    Last edited by MickYoung; April 7th, 2020 at 10:04 PM.

  6. #6
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    426

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Although I doubt this will be taken seriously, I am gonna try. A week ago, I listened to a public health professional calmly talk about the two options to address this pandemic and the respective consequences. Granted, only one option can be tried, but the concept bears discussion - something that has not happened in this forum because anyone with a dissenting opinion was bullied.

    Option #1: This is what we are currently doing. We know that "X" number of people will die (97-98% older than 60 with an at-risk condition), a huge amount of people will be unemployed and suffer for a significant period of time, and the government will, forever, forget about worrying about deficit spending. The goal of this option is to flatten the stress on the health care system, so the maximum number of people can be treated and survive. This option ensures that a very large number of people (one estimate was 50 million+) will suffer for 10 yrs during which time those same at-risk victims, statistically, will die anyway. And, don't forget the rise in domestic abuse, suicide, etc. from this protracted restriction. I compare this to everyone swimming a 10K race. It is ugly...many will suffer for an extended period of time...some will die.

    Option #2: Get it over with quickly. Let the system be over-whelmed (as harsh as that sounds). The same number of people will die as in Option #1 - just immediately instead of over 10 yrs. The rest of us will get a little sick, still work, do better over the next 10 years, and the government won't spent $2 trillion+ that could have been spent on more important, IMO, challenges (i.e. homelessness, infra-structure, etc.). I compare this to an ugly 50 sprint where a bunch die before the turn and the rest survive to move on with life.

    Some Public Health professionals believe that the same number of people will die in the next 10 years under either scenario - just sooner or later. They are not taking sides, the person just wants the discussion to take place. I agree with him that the discussion needs to take place except that a few, you know who you are, dismiss any alternative thought as irrelevant. Shame on you!

    If you are a Star Trek fan, you will remember when Spock saves the Enterprise by sealing his demise. Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" which is option #2. Kirk responds with "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" which is option #1.

    My goal - just to propose the discussion and, hopefully, get a few "bullies" to see another, equally valid, point of view. And, if you think the monocular "bullies" is too harsh, consider how you have responded to those with different opinions.

    Just one link that you should read for the cost of "social distancing" - https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our...ial-distancing.

  7. #7
    Very Active Member Allen Stark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mulino,OR
    Posts
    4,654

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Windrath View Post
    Although I doubt this will be taken seriously, I am gonna try. A week ago, I listened to a public health professional calmly talk about the two options to address this pandemic and the respective consequences. Granted, only one option can be tried, but the concept bears discussion - something that has not happened in this forum because anyone with a dissenting opinion was bullied.

    Option #1: This is what we are currently doing. We know that "X" number of people will die (97-98% older than 60 with an at-risk condition), a huge amount of people will be unemployed and suffer for a significant period of time, and the government will, forever, forget about worrying about deficit spending. The goal of this option is to flatten the stress on the health care system, so the maximum number of people can be treated and survive. This option ensures that a very large number of people (one estimate was 50 million+) will suffer for 10 yrs during which time those same at-risk victims, statistically, will die anyway. And, don't forget the rise in domestic abuse, suicide, etc. from this protracted restriction. I compare this to everyone swimming a 10K race. It is ugly...many will suffer for an extended period of time...some will die.

    Option #2: Get it over with quickly. Let the system be over-whelmed (as harsh as that sounds). The same number of people will die as in Option #1 - just immediately instead of over 10 yrs. The rest of us will get a little sick, still work, do better over the next 10 years, and the government won't spent $2 trillion+ that could have been spent on more important, IMO, challenges (i.e. homelessness, infra-structure, etc.). I compare this to an ugly 50 sprint where a bunch die before the turn and the rest survive to move on with life.

    Some Public Health professionals believe that the same number of people will die in the next 10 years under either scenario - just sooner or later. They are not taking sides, the person just wants the discussion to take place. I agree with him that the discussion needs to take place except that a few, you know who you are, dismiss any alternative thought as irrelevant. Shame on you!

    If you are a Star Trek fan, you will remember when Spock saves the Enterprise by sealing his demise. Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" which is option #2. Kirk responds with "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" which is option #1.

    My goal - just to propose the discussion and, hopefully, get a few "bullies" to see another, equally valid, point of view. And, if you think the monocular "bullies" is too harsh, consider how you have responded to those with different opinions.

    Just one link that you should read for the cost of "social distancing" - https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our...ial-distancing.
    Interesting point. Here is my counter. 70% of the deaths in Louisiana are African Americans. Covid19 disproportionally affects the underprivileged. The California, Oregon and Washington experience has show that social distancing is effective at saving lives. It looks to me that if the whole country had adopted the "shut down" plan when California did the peak would be about now and it would be lower and we could plan to get back to business in another 4-6 wk. Better late than never, if this virus simmers for months due to peoples inaction the toll on the economy will be worse. Britain tried option 2 for awhile and the result doesn't look good.
    "To strive,to seek,to find,and not to yield" Tennyson
    Allen

  8. #8
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    312

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    One advantage of Windrath's option 1 is that if something REALLY nasty comes along, we will have gained have a better understanding of how to handle it. And there isn't any reason that there couldn't be worse stuff than this.

  9. #9
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    312

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Windrath View Post

    Just one link that you should read for the cost of "social distancing" - https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our...ial-distancing.
    That is a great link.

    I've wondered - I'm far too old and un-hip to be in touch even peripherally, but I've wondered how the opiate-addicted are faring through this. As Jim Carroll once said about addiction "It's like a full time job with the hours extended to the shadows."

    I

  10. #10
    Very Active Member Chris Stevenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    4,176
    Blog Entries
    1217

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Windrath View Post
    Option #2: Get it over with quickly. Let the system be over-whelmed (as harsh as that sounds). The same number of people will die as in Option #1 - just immediately instead of over 10 yrs. Some Public Health professionals believe that the same number of people will die in the next 10 years under either scenario - just sooner or later.
    This harvesting hypothesis is routinely used to dismiss public health risks. In environmental epidemiology it seems to be overblown, and I suspect that is the case here too though I admit this is not my area. But from what I can tell, I dont believe it is the majority opinion among public health professionals. It is hard to square it with the idea that option #2 result in hospitals being overwhelmed which would presumably lead to worse outcomes, unless one believes that the hospitals have no effect or a negative effect on the odds of recovery.

    There always seems to be an assumption that option #2 has a much smaller economic effect compared to option #1. That is not obvious to me at all. A death toll of 6 or even 7 figures in a short period of time will have little effect on the economy as long as the survivors just gut it out and keep buying stuff?

    And of course there is the ethical aspect of option #2. Even if we grant the premise that the same number of people die either way, 10 extra years is not nothing. (And of course it assumes that absolutely no medical advancements in treatment will happen in those years.)

  11. #11
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    352

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson View Post
    It is hard to square it with the idea that option #2 result in hospitals being overwhelmed which would presumably lead to worse outcomes, unless one believes that the hospitals have no effect or a negative effect on the odds of recovery.
    Not only that, but what about non-COVID patients whose lives would be saved if the healthcare system could care for them? We lose 30,000 per year to car accidents....how many are saved who wouldn't be? We lose 60,000 to drug overdoses....how many are saved? And on and on. Furthermore, #2 doesn't mention all of the abuse and other deleterious secondary affects from #1 may very well be shifted earlier in the curve, as well. But it would shift towards a group on which our society is highly dependent......our healthcare workers.

    I also think that the exact OPPOSITE scenario from #1 may happen, in that we will take measures to ensure our supply chain moves back to North America, and the economy does very well.

  12. #12
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    426

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Hi Allen,

    I was wondering about this when the news began reporting it. Based on this link - https://www.fox8live.com/2020/04/07/...can-americans/ - it may be more about a higher % of under-lying health conditions. The cause of that - too many to go into. The sociology of this will make for interesting PHD research papers.

    Some interesting population demographics from the following web-page - https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/countries - could lead one to conclude that more "developed" countries like the US, England, France, Germany, and Spain are at higher risk than China because their populates are older with higher obesity percentages:

    Italy - 36% (over 55 yrs) and 20% obese
    Spain - 30% (over 55) and 24% obese
    USA - 28% (over 55) and 36%
    UK - 30% and 27%
    France - 31% and 21%
    Germany - 37% and 22%
    China - 22% and 6%

    Interesting what some of the stats suggest.

  13. #13
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    352

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Saw this today. Interesting, and pretty frightening. It is an animated thing, you need to click on it and watch.
    https://public.flourish.studio/visua...0to6Egune0Tx3o

  14. #14
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    312

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    67King, that is a great graphic. It really shows why the public health folks were concerned with covid19, even when it was far back in the que.

  15. #15
    aka Elaine-iaK & Aqua Dog ElaineK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67King View Post
    Saw this today. Interesting, and pretty frightening. It is an animated thing, you need to click on it and watch.
    https://public.flourish.studio/visua...0to6Egune0Tx3o
    That's a powerful visual; thanks for sharing.
    http://ElaineiaKsTravels.wordpress.com

    ~ Believing in your dreams can be far more rewarding than living by your limitations ~Karla Peterson

  16. #16
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cedar Park, TX
    Posts
    791

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    on April 23rd my father, showing no symptoms, was tested for cv19 as the 2nd batch of his anthem memory care facility.
    his results (positive) came back from the cdc on the 28th and he was given a zpack of meds.
    i was able to facetime with him on thursday the 30th with him unable to speak to me.
    the same happened on friday may1. his blood oxygen was 96% at this point in time.
    on saturday may 2 he took a major downturn
    my son and i were able to facetime with him at about 3pm on sunday may 3 and only his eyes would move.
    he died at 11pm on may 3 - 10 days after being tested showing no symptoms

    my father ran the colorado timing system for all of the meets at the wichita y neptunes and wichita swim club when i swam for those teams. usually working on those darn touchpads that would not work or start to float away.

    steve

  17. #17
    aka Elaine-iaK & Aqua Dog ElaineK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Steve, I am so sorry about your father! My heart goes out to you.
    http://ElaineiaKsTravels.wordpress.com

    ~ Believing in your dreams can be far more rewarding than living by your limitations ~Karla Peterson

  18. #18
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wildwood Crest, New Jersey
    Posts
    159

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    Steve, I am so sorry for your loss....

  19. #19
    Very Active Member scyfreestyler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,441

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    What a nightmare. So sorry for your loss, Steve.

  20. #20
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    352

    Re: Coronavirus/Covid19 discussions.

    I know words can't help, but so sorry to read this. Every positive vibe I can muster is heading to your family.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Nationals and Coronavirus.
    By Allen Stark in forum General Swimming-Related Discussions
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: April 7th, 2020, 04:25 PM
  2. Do we need a NON SWIMMING DISCUSSIONS ?
    By orca1946 in forum Illinois
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 9th, 2010, 02:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •