2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 2

[theprestige]

Maybe everyone else is getting COVID-19, and I'm getting Captain Trips.

 

[JeanTate]

I mostly agree with him but I wish he would not tweet it.
I assume we will easily reach 100 deaths and 1,000 is not unlikely unless it is not as contagious as reported so far.

I’ve read several estimates of the % of a population that is likely/susceptible to this coronavirus; take 40-70%, or 50% as a starter OOM estimate.

So, ~150 million people in the US will get it. Unless rates of contagion drop to ~zero before it spreads to most communities (OOM, remember).

1% death rate (OOM), so ~1.5 million deaths, perhaps spread over two years rather than one.

Flu: ~50 million got it, ~50k died; death rate ~0.1%.

Widespread vaccination clearly helps; no effective one for this coronavirus for a year or so.

Not yet known if this coronavirus has a “season” or not.

How is my thinking erroneous?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump tweeted

So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!

He so wishes it would just go away.

Apparently the next test is going to be his rallies which he does not want to cancel.

 

[Venom]

Professor John Oxford of Queen Mary University of London among other experts hopes COVID-19 becomes seasonal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Travel history plays a large part in diagnosing coronavirus at the present time. I went to the ER a week ago with symptoms that would have put me in an isolation ward in Wuhan.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30071-0/fulltext

Once coronavirus becomes prevalent here it will take up more resources simply because we can no longer presume patients who haven’t traveled are low risk.

You won't know it is there until more testing is done. You'd think the other states could learn a lesson or two from WA and other states with a large outbreak. We had cases that weren't tested because they didn't have travel history.

Are they counting travel from WA in the criteria?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was glad to see when I was getting ready for work this morning that CNN has taken it upon themselves to start calling it a pandemic.
In the long run they are probably right but why not wait until it is official.

I'm not sure what the WHO hopes to accomplish when it keeps announcing there's still time for control.

 

[The Atheist]

Holy F. The deaths flared yesterday. I mean the second wave (outside Chine) overtook the first wave (China) in daily cases and was closing on it in daily deaths, but this is unexpected.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

Not really - you need to look inside the numbers.

Italy has the oldest population in Europe, and the average age of deaths there has been 81 so far. Almost all of them already chronically ill.

I think it's more predictable than surprising, and keep in mind, the average number of deaths from any cause in Italy is 170.

I'm not all that sure you should concede that one yet

No, I'm happy to concede the tested numbers won't be anywhere near a million.

On the other hand, I'd bet my life there are well over a million people with it right now.

As has been mentioned a few times, we won't know what really happened until serological testing is completed, but the confidence is pretty high everywhere that over 90% of cases are never found because those people just aren't sick enough to think they have the dreaded Covid-19.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure what the WHO hopes to accomplish when it keeps announcing there's still time for control.

I actually think they're partly correct, going by the example of South Korea and other SE Asian nations.

Slowing the epidemic will preserve hospital systems is the plan, I think.

As I've said, we're taking the exact opposite approach - it's no big deal.

NZ's official opinion is that the disease is very hard to catch from casual contact and has ignored the people at a concert who were seated next to a bloke who tested positive the next day, also the people who were at medical centres attended by a person with it have had no advice to stay home or do anything unusual.

Our national motto is "She'll be right."

 

[blutoski]

I’ve read several estimates of the % of a population that is likely/susceptible to this coronavirus; take 40-70%, or 50% as a starter OOM estimate.

So, ~150 million people in the US will get it. Unless rates of contagion drop to ~zero before it spreads to most communities (OOM, remember).

1% death rate (OOM), so ~1.5 million deaths, perhaps spread over two years rather than one.

Flu: ~50 million got it, ~50k died; death rate ~0.1%.

Widespread vaccination clearly helps; no effective one for this coronavirus for a year or so.

Not yet known if this coronavirus has a “season” or not.

How is my thinking erroneous?

The only error I'm seeing is that the lethality rate you've assigned is too conservative. At this time it's looking like 1 in 20 for SARS2, vs about 1 in 2,500 for common flu. The second factor that's currently unclear is the degree of contagiousness. It's looking pretty bad, which is not surprising, this is the same cluster as the common cold.

And the third disanalogy to flu is related to that last point: like the common cold, we have no vaccine.

Those 37k American deaths to flu last year were in a population that has some vaccine protection specific to the illness in question, and a lethality less than a percent that of this strain. The threat from COV19/SARS2 is probably 1,000x greater.

Regarding seasonality: true, it's hard to speculate this early, but again, it's the same cluster as the common cold, which is hardier than flu and less affected by heat. Meaning, less seasonality. (flu dies back a bit in summer when it gets warmer and the virus doesn't last as long exposed on fomites)

 

[eeyore1954]

I’ve read several estimates of the % of a population that is likely/susceptible to this coronavirus; take 40-70%, or 50% as a starter OOM estimate.

So, ~150 million people in the US will get it. Unless rates of contagion drop to ~zero before it spreads to most communities (OOM, remember).

1% death rate (OOM), so ~1.5 million deaths, perhaps spread over two years rather than one.

Flu: ~50 million got it, ~50k died; death rate ~0.1%.

Widespread vaccination clearly helps; no effective one for this coronavirus for a year or so.

Not yet known if this coronavirus has a “season” or not.

How is my thinking erroneous?

If it is reasonable to assume that 50% of the population get it and that the fatality rate would be 1% than your numbers would be right.
Judging from the spread seen so far I suspect that both numbers are too high but I am an accountant not an epidemiologist.

 

[blutoski]

If it is reasonable to assume that 50% of the population get it and that the fatality rate would be 1% than your numbers would be right.
Judging from the spread seen so far I suspect that both numbers are too high but I am an accountant not an epidemiologist.

Spread is in a very early stage. We don't know, for example, if this virus can infect other animals (although going from its genetic neighbours like SARS, it's probably unlikely).

My thinking is that this is a good time for quarantining, rather than letting it get endemic through animal reservoirs and having no options.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks for responding, blutoski and eeyore1954.

Next level OOM-ing: what do you think are reasonable upper and lower estimates?

Contagion: 100% and 10%? Something else?
Death rate: 8% and 0.3%? Something else?

 

[blutoski]

Thanks for responding, blutoski and eeyore1954.

Next level OOM-ing: what do you think are reasonable upper and lower estimates?

Contagion: 100% and 10%? Something else?

It's in the same cluster as the cold, so probably 100% of those exposed. We just don't develop resistance and can be reinfected over and over, which makes it worse, it's not like the flu in this regard.

The unknown is about how many people will be exposed, which is a property of public behavior.

Death rate: 8% and 0.3%? Something else?

Estimates that I trust are coming in at around 6% of infected. As we get more data, there may be better breakdowns into risk groups. I don't think I can really bracket an upper and lower limit with the existing data.

 

[eeyore1954]

The only error I'm seeing is that the lethality rate you've assigned is too conservative. At this time it's looking like 1 in 20 for SARS2, vs about 1 in 2,500 for common flu. The second factor that's currently unclear is the degree of contagiousness. It's looking pretty bad, which is not surprising, this is the same cluster as the common cold.

And the third disanalogy to flu is related to that last point: like the common cold, we have no vaccine.

Those 37k American deaths to flu last year were in a population that has some vaccine protection specific to the illness in question, and a lethality less than a percent that of this strain. The threat from COV19/SARS2 is probably 1,000x greater.

Regarding seasonality: true, it's hard to speculate this early, but again, it's the same cluster as the common cold, which is hardier than flu and less affected by heat. Meaning, less seasonality. (flu dies back a bit in summer when it gets warmer and the virus doesn't last as long exposed on fomites)

So you think a 1% fatality rate is too conservative? We don't have that much hard data yet but we do know from the small sample on the cruise ship 700 had the virus and 6 died. I haven't seen any data on the age distribution on the ship but I would think it is skewed to older people and so far it appears older people are far more susceptible. We do know that there has been some spread in the US and the first deaths were not reported until all of the ones at the nursing home. My common sense (which isn't always correct) tells me many people have gotten milder cases of the virus which did not require doctors or hospitalization. Because of the one case in Westchester NY I think so far about 80 cases have been uncovered. Why would I think this hasn't been happening for a while already in other places across the US.

I do understand there could have been deaths that were incorrectly not linked to the virus also.

 

[Pixel42]

We don't know, for example, if this virus can infect other animals (although going from its genetic neighbours like SARS, it's probably unlikely).

Wasn't there a case about a week ago of someone who gave it to their dog?

 

[JeanTate]

It's in the same cluster as the cold, so probably 100% of those exposed. We just don't develop resistance and can be reinfected over and over, which makes it worse, it's not like the flu in this regard.

The unknown is about how many people will be exposed, which is a property of public behavior.

That’s an upper estimate.

Lower cannot be below those already infected, but that’s just too silly to consider. How about the infected rate of King county, WA, to date?

Estimates that I trust are coming in at around 6% of infected. As we get more data, there may be better breakdowns into risk groups. I don't think I can really bracket an upper and lower limit with the existing data.

Well, 6% as an upper is good enough, for this round of OOM.

Lower certainty isn’t zero (people have already died). And 0.1% seems rather optimistic, so why not pick that? In this method, at this stage, that’d be good enough.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Not really - you need to look inside the numbers.

Italy has the oldest population in Europe, and the average age of deaths there has been 81 so far. Almost all of them already chronically ill.

I think it's more predictable than surprising, and keep in mind, the average number of deaths from any cause in Italy is 170.

None of that explains why the number jumped so high on Sunday. It was kinda low on Saturday though, may be just some administrative hiccup.

 

[Capsid]

Wasn't there a case about a week ago of someone who gave it to their dog?

Yes it can infect other species. Given it’s zoonotic potential it’s not surprising.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JeanTate]

So you think a 1% fatality rate is too conservative? We don't have that much hard data yet but we do know from the small sample on the cruise ship 700 had the virus and 6 died. I haven't seen any data on the age distribution on the ship but I would think it is skewed to older people and so far it appears older people are far more susceptible. We do know that there has been some spread in the US and the first deaths were not reported until all of the ones at the nursing home. My common sense (which isn't always correct) tells me many people have gotten milder cases of the virus which did not require doctors or hospitalization. Because of the one case in Westchester NY I think so far about 80 cases have been uncovered. Why would I think this hasn't been happening for a while already in other places across the US.

I do understand there could have been deaths that were incorrectly not linked to the virus also.

I can’t think of a good accounting analogy, just now, though one certainly exists.

Among human coronaviruses, what is the known infection rate, 10% to 100%? How successful have historical efforts been, to stop contagious spread of coronavirus?

Likewise, death rates.

For this stage of OOM-ing, those ranges are good enough.

 

[rjh01]

I’ve read several estimates of the % of a population that is likely/susceptible to this coronavirus; take 40-70%, or 50% as a starter OOM estimate.

So, ~150 million people in the US will get it. Unless rates of contagion drop to ~zero before it spreads to most communities (OOM, remember).

1% death rate (OOM), so ~1.5 million deaths, perhaps spread over two years rather than one.

Flu: ~50 million got it, ~50k died; death rate ~0.1%.

Widespread vaccination clearly helps; no effective one for this coronavirus for a year or so.

Not yet known if this coronavirus has a “season” or not.

How is my thinking erroneous?

I had very similar logic in the previous thread. The only way your logic could be substantially incorrect is if they discover that most people either do not get it or get it so mildly they do not get tested.