Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[JeanTate]

That's a good point, at least on the surface.

You aren't going to be persuaded except by incontrovertible evidence. It would be very nice if it turned out you were right.

It would be very nice indeed.

And it may well turn out that Singapore, for example, has far fewer covid-19 deaths (in 2020) than flu deaths (for whatever the current flu season is there).

And if, here in the US, by the start of winter (2020), there are far more covid-19 deaths than deaths due to flu in the 2019/2020 flu season, who will say that almost all of those deaths were preventable (had certain actions been taken, starting in January 2020)?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I started a spreadsheet ten days ago. I took the current numbers for the U.S. and just started multiplying them by 1.2 every day compounding, that was pretty close to the growth we had been seeing for the previous week. It turned out to be too optimistic. The total number of deaths as of today is more than twice as high than what my little spreadsheet predicted based on a 20% growth rate starting March 20.

So just out of curiosity, I started over, putting in today's fatality totals (3773 fatalities in America, so far) and assuming a 20% daily increase. That's a fair bit slower than the growth we've seen for the past three weeks.

Last year about 34,000 Americans died from the flu. If the current rate of growth keeps up with what we've had over the past two weeks, then we'll hit the 34,000 mark at about April 12.

The 2009 H1N1 pandemic is also often mentioned in comparison. That killed about 12,000 people. Again, if the current trajectory holds, we'll hit that around April 6.

To me, at least, hitting 34,000 would tell us that the current pandemic is much worse than the flu, because we've taken an "all hands on deck" approach, albeit later than many would have preferred. If we hit the same level of fatalities as influenza despite all that effort, that tells us something.

I guess we'll see. I would be pretty happy for you to be right. We might not have long to wait.


Just for the sake of conversation, here's a projection starting with today's fatality numbers and assuming a 20% daily increase run out over three weeks:

3773 31-Mar
4527 1-Apr
5433 2-Apr
6519 3-Apr
7823 4-Apr
9388 5-Apr
11,266 6-Apr
13,519 7-Apr
16,223 8-Apr
19,467 9-Apr
23,361 10-Apr
28,033 11-Apr
33,640 12-Apr
40,368 13-Apr
48,442 14-Apr
58,130 15-Apr
69,756 16-Apr
83,708 17-Apr
100,449 18-Apr
120,539 19-Apr
144,647 20-Apr
173,577 21-Apr

Hopefully those numbers are far too pessimistic. So far, assuming a 20% growth rate for fatalities has been too optimistic.

Thank you for being open enough to engage on a level of actual good faith discussion instead of just resorting to taunts and political slurs or accusations of conspiracy theory. I am still shocked that what I've been saying was actually accused of belonging in the conspiracy forum rather than simply being an alternate way ot looking at things so far and as not having been either proven or disproven yet. I find your numbers compelling, and indeeed time will tell.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

I'm not an idiot, I know what exponential growth is, so you can stop the condescension. You're beginning to drift slightly into argument from emotion.

I shall try harder.

I don't claim knowledge of when to set up tents, I am simply saying so far the numbers are no greater than what we've seen in a normal flu year.

Actually, your claim is a bit more nuanced than that.

For starters, you seem to be referring to the US only (well, mostly, but not entirely; for example, the CNN/Lancet stuff may or may not be all that relevant to the US).

You're also not being clear what "numbers" you are claiming; the actual numbers, for flu deaths, and for estimated covid-19 ones (your posts can be read as being quite inconsistent).

Finally, for now, you have concentrated solely on deaths (no mention of any differences in long term health impacts, for example).

 

[dann]

Except flu numbers are down as coronavirus numbers are up. Making me think they're the same thing. So far, the numbers do not prove otherwise.

No, flu numbers are down because they have already been affected by social distancing, self-quaranteening, lockdowns etc. The incubation period of influenza (about two days) is much shorter than that of the current coronavirus (2 to 14 days, maybe even as long as 27 days), so it will take some time before the measures against it can be seen in the numbers. In Denmark, it's beginning to show. The curve appears to be flattening.

Maybe you should stop trying to dismiss the knowledge that already exists about coronavirus.

 

[alfaniner]

It took weeks to get to 1000 deaths in the U.S. A couple days ago it was 2000. Today it should hit 4000.

Unfortunately that's the only definite number.

 

[dann]

I am simply saying so far the numbers are no greater than what we've seen in a normal flu year.

A normal flu year begins much earlier. I think that you are aware of this already, aren't you?

 

[JeanTate]

I don't think you're supposed to be asking the kinds of questions you're asking. They're sort of like a form of forum wrong-think. You're supposed to just say it wouldn't be like this if Trump wasn't such a lying idiot.

What questions?

Seriously.

What I've read, and responded to, is mostly a series of bald statements (without even citing a source), many of which are contradictory, and many of which are meaningless comparisons (e.g. number of "normal flu" deaths with an unsupported projection).

 

[JeanTate]

Except flu numbers are down as coronavirus numbers are up. Making me think they're the same thing. So far, the numbers do not prove otherwise.

(my hilite)

I already asked you for your sources on this; may I ask again?

 

[a_unique_person]

Except flu numbers are down as coronavirus numbers are up. Making me think they're the same thing. So far, the numbers do not prove otherwise.

Completely and utterly wrong. They have analysed the genetic code. They even have pictures of them.

 

[JeanTate]

Depending on the source, annual US flu deaths are anywhere between high 30k to high 60k.

May I ask you to provide at least one (source, that is)?

So far we haven't even seen thst death toll GLOBALLY from this coronavirus.

The widely cited JH site gives ~41.6k. In a couple of days we can see what the daily WHO situation report's number for 31 March is.

And again, yes, I understand exponential growth. Perhaps you will be proven right. Perhaps I will. The difference is, if I'm proven right, everyone will say I really wasn't, and it was just all of the heroic measures that were taken that saved us all. Kind of unfair, how you get to be right either way.

Well, we can look at numbers from China. From Singapore. Even South Korea.

Do those numbers "prove you [Doghouse Reilly] right"?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Completely and utterly wrong. They have analysed the DNA. They even have pictures of them.

I wasn't nuanced enough. Coronaviruses are included in flu statistics, 7-15% of "flus" are actually coronaviruses. It is entirely possible for a coronavirus to cause a "flu" epidemic.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

May I ask you to provide at least one (source, that is)?


The widely cited JH site gives ~41.6k. In a couple of days we can see what the daily WHO situation report's number for 31 March is.


Well, we can look at numbers from China. From Singapore. Even South Korea.

Do those numbers "prove you [Doghouse Reilly] right"?

It is my assertion that it is far, far too early to use those numbere as reliable sources to posit a pandemic. We see other numbers, as in the study I posted with 0.66%, and I see no reason to believe those lower figures won't be far more accurate.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

What questions?

Seriously.

His first post in the conversation was basically a big question. Or a series of smaller questions, depending on how you look at it. Sure, there are no actual question marks, but he makes a bunch of statements and then asks someone smarter than him to explain.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

May I ask you to provide at least one (source, that is)?

Yes. The CDC gives a preliminary estimate of 35,000 for last year. And 45,000 for the year prior. Why?

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html

 

[Mader Levap]

he says that 7-15% of flu cases ARE coronaviruses and are included in the statistics. And that now ALL flu where this coronavirus is detected are being counted as "coronavirus".

Claim that COVID-19 does not exist (and yes, you are implying that) is crown (ha!) of denialist BS surrounding COVID-19.

Depending on the source, annual US flu deaths are anywhere between high 30k to high 60k.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Annual flu deaths happening during "business as usual" times are without drastic measures.

If you got novel virus that, lets say, has similar amount of deaths (currently 40k and rising) despite such drastic countermeasures, it automatically is already worse than common flu. Already. Right now. We do not need to wait for 200k worldwide deaths (or whatever arbitrary mark you thought up) to know that. Claim that it is "no worse than common flu" is pure denialist BS.

You also completely ignored fact that no common flu infects 160 mln people (that number is predicted amount of pepole that will go through COVID-19 according to projection that you tout). That alone would make COVID-19 very unusual for a flu. Again, claim "it is same as common flu" is nonsense.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

It took weeks to get to 1000 deaths in the U.S. A couple days ago it was 2000. Today it should hit 4000.

Unfortunately that's the only definite number.

Apparently at 3400 today.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Claim that COVID-19 does not exist (and yes, you are implying that) is crown (ha!) of denialist BS surrounding COVID-19.



You are comparing apples to oranges. Annual flu deaths happening during "business as usual" times are without drastic measures.

If you got novel virus that, lets say, has similar amount of deaths (currently 40k and rising) despite such drastic countermeasures, it automatically is already worse than common flu. Already. Right now. We do not need to wait for 200k worldwide deaths (or whatever arbitrary mark you thought up) to know that. Claim that it is "no worse than common flu" is pure denialist BS.

You also completely ignored fact that no common flu infects 160 mln people (that number is predicted amount of pepole that will go through COVID-19 according to projection that you tout). That alone would make COVID-19 very unusual for a flu. Again, claim "it is same as common flu" is nonsense.

Huh? Nobody claimed it doesn't exist, what are you talking about? There's definitely a new coronavirus that wasn't previously known.

And this isn't happening during "business as usual" times because we shut everything down! You can't shut everything down and use that as proof that this isn't "business as usual". I hope you see the logical fallacy there, that's a crazy argument.

You also can't use it's continued spread during lockdown as evidence of anything because of the long incubation period.

Time will tell if it infects 160 million people or not. I wouldn't be surprised if it does or doesn't. There have been plenty of other flu viruses and coronaviruses that have done so.

You're just dismissing my arguments as "denialist bs" instead of stopping to consider that maybe we actually don't know this is happening the way everyone thinks it is after all. Maybe I'm wrong. But also, I see no evidence that you're right.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Apparently at 3400 today.

3,807 right now*.

A short time ago I mentioned it was spooky watching the death toll tick up from 197 to 204 (I think) as Trump spoke what he thought were comforting words.


*Similarly spooky is that there’s a very real chance that number will be bigger by the time I hit “Submit Reply”.

 

[Athyrio]

I started a spreadsheet ten days ago. I took the current numbers for the U.S. and just started multiplying them by 1.2 every day compounding, that was pretty close to the growth we had been seeing for the previous week. It turned out to be too optimistic. The total number of deaths as of today is more than twice as high than what my little spreadsheet predicted based on a 20% growth rate starting March 20.

So just out of curiosity, I started over, putting in today's fatality totals (3773 fatalities in America, so far) and assuming a 20% daily increase. That's a fair bit slower than the growth we've seen for the past three weeks.

Last year about 34,000 Americans died from the flu. If the current rate of growth keeps up with what we've had over the past two weeks, then we'll hit the 34,000 mark at about April 12.

The 2009 H1N1 pandemic is also often mentioned in comparison. That killed about 12,000 people in America. Again, if the current trajectory holds, we'll hit that around April 6.

To me, at least, hitting 34,000 would tell us that the current pandemic is much worse than the flu, because we've taken an "all hands on deck" approach, albeit later than many would have preferred. If we hit the same level of fatalities as influenza despite all that effort, that tells us something.

I guess we'll see. I would be pretty happy for you to be right. We might not have long to wait.


Just for the sake of conversation, here's a projection starting with today's fatality numbers and assuming a 20% daily increase run out over three weeks:

3773 31-Mar
4527 1-Apr
5433 2-Apr
6519 3-Apr
7823 4-Apr
9388 5-Apr
11,266 6-Apr
13,519 7-Apr
16,223 8-Apr
19,467 9-Apr
23,361 10-Apr
28,033 11-Apr
33,640 12-Apr
40,368 13-Apr
48,442 14-Apr
58,130 15-Apr
69,756 16-Apr
83,708 17-Apr
100,449 18-Apr
120,539 19-Apr
144,647 20-Apr
173,577 21-Apr

Hopefully those numbers are far too pessimistic. So far, assuming a 20% daily growth rate for fatalities has been too optimistic.

Thanks for your post. The USA fatality tally is the one I am watching and now I can return to your post daily for comparison. If it bears out, and I believe the stats in your spreadsheet will be close, barring some sudden miracle cure, I don’t see any way this Covid19 can be construed as no worse than a “normal” USA flu season, tents, social distancing, closed businesses, and stay home orders not withstanding.

You listed no stat for April 22 but we can do that one in our heads.

Has the USA lost anything close to this count in this current flu season so far?

 

[Steve]

Except flu numbers are down as coronavirus numbers are up. Making me think they're the same thing. So far, the numbers do not prove otherwise.

Huh? Nobody claimed it doesn't exist, what are you talking about? There's definitely a new coronavirus that wasn't previously known. And this isn't happening during "business as usual" times because we shut everything down! You can't shut everything down and use that as proof that this isn't "business as usual". I hope you see the logical fallacy there, that's a crazy argument.

You also can't use it's continued spread during lockdown as evidence of anything because of the long incubation period.

Time will tell if it infects 160 million people or not. I wouldn't be surprised if it does or doesn't. There have been plenty of other flu viruses and coronaviruses that have done so.

You're just dismissing my arguments as "denialist bs" instead of stopping to consider that maybe we actually don't know this is happening the way everyone thinks it is after all. Maybe I'm wrong. But also, I see no evidence that you're right.

Seems contradictory. You say they are the same thing, then you say they are two different things. You should not be surprised that some people are confused.