Corona Virus 2019-nCoV

Sarkus said:
Just because something could happen doesn't mean that it is realistic to assume that it is more likely than not to occur.
Click to expand...
If you had a life time exposed to the worst of human nature then it would be realistic to assume that it isn't a matter of IF but only a matter of WHEN.

It is indeed the nature of paranoia to dwell on "possibility" ( imagination) with little regard to "probability" (science)
 
Seattle said:
We both know that realism suggests numbers much closer to 200,000 than to 2,300,000.
Click to expand...
Yes. From what I understand, the 2m estimate for the USA came from a relatively early version of the Imperial College model in which the virus is allowed to let rip with no social distancing or other control measures. In reality, even if government did nothing, people would themselves do some things that would have at least a small impact on the reproduction number. That number, however, served its purpose in concentrating minds (or, in some cases, what passes for a mind) and getting the imperative for control measures into the heads of policy makers.

The lower end of the 100,000-240,000 range comes from a model in which (1) lockdown is imposed across the whole of the US (which is not yet the case, even now, I understand) and (2) the health system is not overloaded (which it almost is already, in places). Any lockdown gaps or overload will increase the number.

None of the models is necessarily particularly good, because we simply do not have good data, either on the true virulence of the virus or on the the degree of spread in the population, but they are all we have to navigate this minefield.
 
exchemist said:
Yes. From what I understand, the 2m estimate for the USA came from a relatively early version of the Imperial College model in which the virus is allowed to let rip with no social distancing or other control measures. In reality, even if government did nothing, people would themselves do some things that would have at least a small impact on the reproduction number. That number, however, served its purpose in concentrating minds (or, in some cases, what passes for a mind) and getting the imperative for control measures into the heads of policy makers.

The lower end of the 100,000-240,000 range comes from a model in which (1) lockdown is imposed across the whole of the US (which is not yet the case, even now, I understand) and (2) the health system is not overloaded (which it almost is already, in places). Any lockdown gaps or overload will increase the number.

None of the models is necessarily particularly good, because we simply do not have good data, either on the true virulence of the virus or on the the degree of spread in the population, but they are all we have to navigate this minefield.
Click to expand...
Coming out in tonight's news SBS a senior health minister stated that the actual infection numbers are between 4 to 10 times what has been reported. The 1,000,000 = 4,000,000 to 10,000,000
Asymptomatic transmission cases are finally being discovered because they are doing the sample testing required. (testing people who were deemed to be safe from transmission with in the general community)
I'll see if I can find the report later... unless you have also heard of it...?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Coming out in tonight's news SBS a senior health minister stated that the actual infection numbers are between 4 to 10 times what has been reported. The 1,000,000 = 4,000,000 to 10,000,000
Asymptomatic transmission cases are finally being discovered because they are doing the sample testing required. (testing people who were deemed to be safe from transmission with in the general community)
I'll see if I can find the report later... unless you have also heard of it...?
Click to expand...
No. Unlike you, I'm not spending my time chasing meaningless numbers and then trying to force meaning upon them.

It is not news that the number of confirmed cases can easily be only 10% of the number of infections. But you need to know what the "confirmed" numbers represent, in order make even a guesstimate. And this varies greatly from country to country, depending on what the testing policy is and how completely it is executed.
 
exchemist said:
No. Unlike you, I'm not spending my time chasing meaningless numbers and then trying to force meaning upon them.

It is not news that the number of confirmed cases can easily be only 10% of the number of infections. But you need to know what the "confirmed" numbers represent, in order make even a guesstimate. And this varies greatly from country to country, depending on what the testing policy is and how completely it is executed.
Click to expand...
well unlike you I see the huge range mentioned 4 to 10*1,000,000 to suggest that the variations in testing that you have so rightly suggested existing have been considered.
But do not let me spoil your evening...
 
Seattle said:
I'm hoping that the the rate of infected people starts to come down in late April, as predicted, and the hospitals are able to handle things.
Click to expand...
If the rate of new infections does not even start to come down until late April, many hospitals have no chance of handling things.
A few have no chance now.
Seattle said:
It's a given that the Federal Government (Trump) handled things poorly (what's new).
Click to expand...
What's new is that the standard post-WWII capability W's admin had half-ruined, which Obama's admin had somewhat (but significantly) restored to the Federal government - acting essentially alone, with an opposed Congress and an economy near collapse - has been almost completely dismantled by the Republican Congress and Republican Executive branch in less than three years. Even the peerless W needed more time than that - granted he had a tougher job (Clinton didn't have to dig out of W's hole).

The up and down cycle of administrative minimum adequacy (Democratic) and worthless incompetence (Republican) had been trending down since 1980, but the hole Trump pushed it into (merely by getting elected, actually) was underestimated by everyone except the outsiders on the left and a couple of genuine intellectuals (Michael Lewis, for example, well prepared for seeing through the green smoke of Oz by his financial independence, experience with Wall Street, and encounters with the conventional wisdom of professional athletics).
- - -
Quantum Quack said:
Wearing an expectorant mask in pubic should be mandatory.
Click to expand...
There aren't enough of them. They are being reserved - by the responsible - for medical personnel and the like.
 
iceaura said:
If the rate of new infections does not even start to come down until late April, many hospitals have no chance of handling things.
A few have no chance now.

What's new is that the standard post-WWII capability W's admin had half-ruined, which Obama's admin had somewhat (but significantly) restored to the Federal government - acting essentially alone, with an opposed Congress and an economy near collapse - has been almost completely dismantled by the Republican Congress and Republican Executive branch in less than three years. Even the peerless W needed more time than that - granted he had a tougher job (Clinton didn't have to dig out of W's hole).

The up and down cycle of administrative minimum adequacy (Democratic) and worthless incompetence (Republican) had been trending down since 1980, but the hole Trump pushed it into (merely by getting elected, actually) was underestimated by everyone except the outsiders on the left and a couple of genuine intellectuals (Michael Lewis, for example, well prepared for seeing through the green smoke of Oz by his financial independence, experience with Wall Street, and encounters with the conventional wisdom of professional athletics).
- - -

There aren't enough of them. They are being reserved - by the responsible - for medical personnel and the like.
Click to expand...
The masks donot have to be hospital grade. Use a scarf, a old t shirt etc... to prevent expectorant from being sprayed by the wearer. Easy to make cloth masks are happening all over the world.
NPR ran two articles yesterday i think. CDC is doing the science and the WHO are investigating the benefits.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Yes. From what I understand, the 2m estimate for the USA came from a relatively early version of the Imperial College model in which the virus is allowed to let rip with no social distancing or other control measures.
Click to expand...
A continuation of the measures then in place, without new restrictions, and a continuation of the current failure to produce reliable testing, safety equipment, or economic relief for anyone except the very wealthy.

Continuation of the best the US could do so far is not that fanciful - and notice that a couple of the worst (but significantly probable) possibilities were not included: for example, the virus mutating for the worse in some significant way (becoming more lethal and infective but no faster at producing symptoms, the virus evolving to have greater longevity in common environments such as carpeting or clothing, the virus becoming food or water borne, etc) was not included.
 
Quantum Quack said:
The masks donot have to be hospital grade. Use a scarf, a old t shirt etc... to prevent expectorant from being sprayed by the wearer.
Click to expand...
That works with the larger droplets, to a degree. The small droplet spread - not so much.

My housemate has invented a good one, using heavy cotton underwear, for work (better fabric for the purpose than most T-shirts). Not an easy sell, maybe - although it isn't recognizable as underwear unless one has prior information.
 
iceaura said:
That works with the larger droplets, to a degree. The small droplet spread - not so much.

My housemate has invented a good one, using heavy cotton underwear, for work (better fabric for the purpose than most T-shirts). Not an easy sell, maybe - although it isn't recognizable as underwear unless one has prior information.
Click to expand...
mask.jpg
web generic screen shot
adapting underwear for the task...
even this level of filtering the amount of sprayed expectorant is reduced.
Using a paper hand towel, folded, held in place by the garment soaks it up really well ( disposable single use) and further reduces the finer spray...

Found this ... out of interest:
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
But now you are talking about subjective estimations., and optimistically I hope that you may end up being correct.
But this is optimism not realism.
Personally I believe the 2.3 million as being overly optimistic and if I had the time and the data I could prove it so.
Click to expand...

No, you couldn't. This is just silly. There are simply far too many variables, too many unknowns, for anyone to hazard a realistic estimate of fatalities. From what I've read, even the "insiders" don't really know who or how they come up with that 100,000 to 240,000 projection (the Imperial College study was done weeks ago--they knew even less then)--they just needed some numbers to throw on a slide!
 
iceaura said:
If the rate of new infections does not even start to come down until late April, many hospitals have no chance of handling things.
A few have no chance now.

What's new is that the standard post-WWII capability W's admin had half-ruined, which Obama's admin had somewhat (but significantly) restored to the Federal government - acting essentially alone, with an opposed Congress and an economy near collapse - has been almost completely dismantled by the Republican Congress and Republican Executive branch in less than three years. Even the peerless W needed more time than that - granted he had a tougher job (Clinton didn't have to dig out of W's hole).

The up and down cycle of administrative minimum adequacy (Democratic) and worthless incompetence (Republican) had been trending down since 1980, but the hole Trump pushed it into (merely by getting elected, actually) was underestimated by everyone except the outsiders on the left and a couple of genuine intellectuals (Michael Lewis, for example, well prepared for seeing through the green smoke of Oz by his financial independence, experience with Wall Street, and encounters with the conventional wisdom of professional athletics).
- - -

There aren't enough of them. They are being reserved - by the responsible - for medical personnel and the like.
Click to expand...
Well, the good news is that it's hopeless and the other Presidents were bad as well. That's a refrain that certainly can' t be repeated often enough, or can it?
 
Quantum Quack said:
well unlike you I see the huge range mentioned 4 to 10*1,000,000 to suggest that the variations in testing that you have so rightly suggested existing have been considered.
But do not let me spoil your evening...
Click to expand...
Well if we are lucky you are right. Orders of magnitude more people actually have it and are unsymptomatic. That would mean that the mortality rate is vastly lower than presently thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top