2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
marting said:
Getting to the essential statistical info:

1. The town has 3000 residents.
2. There were "at least" 90 infected at the study's initiation on 3/6 when they started testing all residents.
3. This testing identified 66 new cases.
4. Of the 66, 6 were asymptomatic.
5. New cases have ceased, currently.

This is encouraging. It also shows that testing should be limited to symptomatic people and families of positives until test availability is sufficient to expand to all the asymptomatic. Said another way, testing, while limited availability exists, should focus on the population most likely to yield a positive.
Click to expand...


The article said the test cost 15 euros. It said "per swab". Is that the actual cost of the test?

If I had a choice between 1,000 cash per American, or 60 Covid-19 tests per American, I know which one I would want, and that would do a heck of a lot more to help the economy. I was under the impression that the cost of a test was much, much, higher, like maybe somewhere between 10 and 100 times higher, for the test.
 
The Atheist said:
A recession of gigantic proportions.

I'll repeat myself by saying that a pragmatic view would have said to let the disease go.

Italy's officials claim 99% of deaths had at least one chronic disease.

Considering those people take up an enormous amount of health budgets worldwide, letting the disease run would not just avoid a deep recession, but also save trillions in unused medical care and unmade pensions payments.


No.

The test is for Covid-19 only, and while false positives are possible, other diseases won't show one.

There is some possibility having recent colds caused by coronavirus gives limited immunity.
Click to expand...

Of course so few of us are willing to personally "take the hit" and die to spare the world economy... Or to offer up our own moms and dads, wives and husbands... Or friends... I admit that I'm not willing; just selfish I guess.

Plus I am certain the coronavirus would/will have a huge economic effect even if left to burn through the population "quickly." Many people key to the economy (a category that includes people with pre-existing conditions) will be sick or dead. As more people get sick more will quarantine themselves without being ordered to do so. Even the healthy and young. Particularly in fact those in their "prime" years who typically have young children who they will protect. Even young sick people will begin to clog up the hospitals and medical resources. I doubt the ultimate economic effect would be all that different.
 
Last edited:
Sherkeu said:
Perhaps because Germany is smart!? (this time)
Click to expand...

Like South Korea, they benefit from ingrained efficiency and a general population that buys into the plan.

And it works.

Giordano said:
Of course so few of us are willing to personally "take the hit" and die to spare the world economy... Or to offer up our own moms and dads, wives and husbands... Or friends... I admit that I'm not willing; just selfish I guess.
Click to expand...

It's also guaranteed political suicide.

I doubt it will teach the lesson behind it though - that human life is more important than money and we'll all go back to consumerism like this never existed.

Giordano said:
Plus I am certain the coronavirus would/will have a huge economic effect even if left to burn through the population "quickly." Many people keep to the economy will be sick or dead. As more people get sick more will quarantine themselves without being ordered to do so. Sick people will clog up the hospitals and medical resources. I doubt the ultimate economic effect would be all that different.
Click to expand...

Nope, not even in the same order of magnitude.

The costs of people being allowed to die and overwhelm hospitals for a few months would cost 1/10th of the savings to be made from removing the chronically ill. You wouldn't even need to consider the $10-20 trillion the current effects are costing.

The cost benefit to letting people die is genuinely astronomical. You'd be looking at a short-term cost of a couple of hundred billion worldwide by allowing the virus to go wild. I'd say what we're doing will cost 100 times more.

And it's yet to be proven the epidemic can be stopped, so we may end up losing twice.
 
Italy is about to surpass China in number of deaths. It's too late to lockdown when your hospital system is about to be overwhelmed. Which other countries will make the same mistake?
 
Giordano said:
If this is humor, that for the dead it was the "end of civilization" from their point of view, okay...

But there has recently been a component in this thread that coronavirus will be the end of civilization and society for the living. My point, and what I literally wrote, was that the 1918 pandemic of influenza was not and COVID-19 will not be either.
Click to expand...

But what if you believe that having access to toilet paper is a necessary criteria for a civilization?
 
rjh01 said:
.... Or if healthy people start having virus parties (think measles parties pre vaccine) then the date will be earlier.
Click to expand...
That has been done with chicken pox.

Never with measles unless it's some new anti-vaxxer thing.

Measles was known to be a very frightening disease. Houses with measles sometimes got quarantine signs put on them.
 
Ulf Nereng said:
Thanks! Those are precisely the kind of statistics I've been looking for! We have to keep in mind that there is a lag in deaths because it takes about 2-3 weeks from incubation to death, so any spike in UK should begin to show up... maybe one or two weeks from now?
Click to expand...

This could explain the low death rate in Germany, especially as fast at the virus is spreading. Also if all countries had done aggressive testing from the start, there may very well be a huge number of unrecognized cases that if we saw we'd also see lower death rates.
 
Puppycow said:
I have a question: when they do a test for coronavirus, can that test only detect a current infection or can it tell the difference between a person who had it in the past and got better and a person who has never had it?
Click to expand...

The current tests being used look for active cases.

Don't think anyone's moved to testing for past infection yet.
 
dann said:
That would depend on the test: Does it test for the virus or for antibodies against the virus?
UK focusing on two coronavirus tests, one for antibodies (National Post, March 18, 2020)
If it tests for antibodies, a person who has had the virus will be different from one who never had it.
Click to expand...

Testing for antibodies cannot distinguish between active and recovered cases.

You can test for recent infection vs one in the distant past but that takes comparing acute and convalescing titers.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I'm almost scared to share this one as we still have terrorists huddled together en masse fighting against the telescopes. They'll take this as a sign that theyre safe to keep going. (Of course this could work itself out and we could have affordable food for the poor again, but I don't want the community spread)
Click to expand...

Yeah, while the heat & humidity might slow it, there's definitely a threshhold beyond which it will take off regardless, being a novel virus.

Supermarkets here are getting hit here now to the nth degree. I was going to do an early shop for my usual groceries but there was a queue waiting for it to open, so I'll go later. And yes, it appears to be the wealthy buying everything in sight.

Seems so sensible to me - advice is to avoid crowds, so create a crowd at the supermarket.

Morons.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That has been done with chicken pox.

Never with measles unless it's some new anti-vaxxer thing.

Measles was known to be a very frightening disease. Houses with measles sometimes got quarantine signs put on them.
Click to expand...

I remember measles parties in the 60s.
Measles wasn’t frightening to me (of course I was a kid). I don’t recall people being afraid of it. I do remember people being afraid of polio.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That has been done with chicken pox.

Never with measles unless it's some new anti-vaxxer thing.

Measles was known to be a very frightening disease. Houses with measles sometimes got quarantine signs put on them.
Click to expand...


We lived in the married grad student ghetto at Syracuse University while my dad was getting his degree in Geography. (1955-1960) The place was, quite literally, overrun with little kids, six and seven year olds were the senior citizens of the pack. (And rare. We moved out while I was still five.)

Pox parties of every variety were common. Almost mandatory. I suspect they were another excuse for bored housewives to get together.

I got my encounters with chicken pox, mumps, and measles over with via such get-togethers. FSM only knows what else. If it was contagious they probably had parties for it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom