Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[The Atheist]

Fauci and cdc are saying 200,000 could die with 160 million infected. That works out to a fatality rate of 0.1%, same as normal flu.

I'm happy to put that prediction into the range available, the average of which is about 0.7% right now, or 1.4 million dead in an uncontrolled epidemic in USA.

The CDC isn't always right.

Well that's scary as hell https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/aircraft-carrier-coronavirus-outbreak/index.html

Aircraft Carrier with coronavirus spreading through it

Military bases have been to told to stop releasing case statistics, and it looks like the only part of the military presently at full strength is submarines that have been offshore for over two months.

Russia's already testing response capability: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-a...200326-royal-navy-shadows-seven-russian-ships

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

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.

Here's what you posted earlier: "I don't think you're supposed to be asking the kinds of questions you're asking."

Whatever you think the sort of questions one is "supposed" to ask (or not), those implied in Doghouse Reilly's #848 were answered (or otherwise addressed) in many posts.

For example, #850, #851, #861, #865, #872 (one of mine), and #880. And that's just a selection from the same page!

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

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

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

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.

Fair enough, I wasn't clear. What I meant by "the same thing" is an annual phenomenon of respiratory illness attributed to viruses of one kind or another, this year being heavily attributed to the newly discovered Covid 19 virus, but not appreciably different in terms of case rates, spread, and fatalities but with the illusion of being so because of extreme levels of testing and reporting and media hysteria and the attendant societal hysteria.

 

[Myriad]

Okay, here are some figures from my home state of Massachusetts, for my fellow Americans. Confirmed cases for the state are being reported reliably each day (that is to say, the daily updates have appeared reliably at the scheduled time, which does not guarantee the reliability of the figures themselves), and they're broken down county by county.

I've reproduced the recent figures and my simple calculations based on them. The numbers in each row are date, total number of confirmed cases, factor increase in confirmed cases from the previous day (you can ignore the "1." and read the remaining two digits as a percentage if you prefer), and the number of new confirmed cases for the day (that day's total minus the previous day's total).

The news is not so good, and I'll explain why I think so below.

In order of largest to smallest number of cases:

Massachusetts (entire state)

3/24 1159 <— nonessential business closures go into effect statewide at noon
3/25 1838 1.59 679
3/26 2417 1.32 579
3/27 3240 1.34 823
3/28 4257 1.31 1017
3/29 4955 1.16 698
3/30 5752 1.16 797
3/31 6620 1.15 868

Suffolk County: this county contains the city of Boston and about half of the Boston metropolitan area.

3/24 234 <— nonessential business closures go into effect statewide at noon
3/25 342 1.46 108
3/26 448 1.31 106
3/27 631 1.41 183
3/28 843 1.34 212
3/29 940 1.12 97
3/30 1152 1.23 212
3/31 1373 1.19 221

Plymouth County: I live here. The county includes the southernmost portion of the Boston metro area, the town of Plymouth, and various coastal and small towns.

3/24 64 <— nonessential business closures go into effect statewide at noon
3/25 101 1.58 37
3/26 138 1.37 37
3/27 187 1.36 49
3/28 272 1.45 85
3/29 325 1.19 53
3/30 380 1.17 55
3/31 459 1.21 79

Bristol County. My wife works retail here. This county includes the small cities of Fall River and New Bedford.

3/24 31 <— nonessential business closures go into effect statewide at noon
3/25 67 2.16 36
3/26 90 1.34 23
3/27 129 1.43 39
3/28 179 1.39 50
3/29 208 1.16 29
3/30 263 1.26 55
3/31 306 1.16 43

Hampshire County. This is a rural county in the western portion of the state.

3/24 8 <— nonessential business closures go into effect statewide at noon
3/25 11 1.38 3
3/26 17 1.55 6
3/27 20 1.18 3
3/28 30 1.50 10
3/29 37 1.23 7
3/30 46 1.24 9
3/31 69 1.50 23

Based on general information that's becoming available, I consider the time period of these charts to represent an informative test period for the preventive measures put into effect so far, including the closing of schools, restaurant dining rooms, and non-essential business; and advisories on public distancing and hand washing. The available statistics about typical case histories support two premises: that most of the newly confirmed cases in the 5-6 days following all the current measures going into effect on 3/24 were contracted before those measures went into effect; but that most of the newly confirmed cases today 3/31 and following days (and probably also yesterday 3/30) were contracted afterward.

The consistency in the confirmed case rate-of-increase between the urban, suburban/town, and rural counties, and the state as a whole, is remarkable, except for Hampshire Co. which has fewer cases overall and therefore rougher data, and even that shows a similar pattern with one day difference in timing (and an anomalous final day). They each had an initial high value on the 25th (26th for Hampshire.) This might have been due to testing having just become generally available so a backlog of already ill patients were still being tested.

From the 26th through the 28th the rate of new case increase settles in the 1.3-1.4 range, representing cases most likely contracted before the 24th.

On the 29th there was an abrupt drop in the rate of new cases, to the 1.16-1.23 range, and a corresponding drop in the number of new confirmed cases per day. I read this as the delayed effect of the new measures. But the rate of new cases did not decrease any farther after the 29th, and because the recent lower rate is still an exponential function, the absolute number of new cases per day has increased since the single-day drop, and if the same trends continue will reach a new all-time high on each of these tables tomorrow (except in Suffolk and Hampshire counties where it reached it today).

What this shows so far (pending more days to confirm whether the new confirmed case rate has really settled into a post-enactment-of-measures "routine") is that new cases are now doubling about every 4 days, instead of every 2.5 days before the measures. This is a big improvement, and it appears to have bought four days outright in addition to the slowed rate of further increase. But it's not going to prevent a peak from continuing to build, which is why additional medical resources are still being thrown together as fast as we can manage. The peak isn't past until the absolute number of new confirmed cases per day starts consistently decreasing.

The other message I'm seeing here is that if you feel secure because you're in a less densely populated place, you shouldn't. It's not spreading at a faster rate in the big crowded cities than in the small towns or quiet countryside. Not one bit. It just started sooner there. The growth rate is the same everywhere, seemingly affected only by what preventive measures are in effect. (I can't account for the last day's figure in Hampshire Co., but it's not good news whatever the cause of the sudden increase.)

It appears that sometime (weeks? a month?) after the cases in "hot spot" cities have indeed peaked, there will be an extended peak (maybe a crisis, maybe not, depending on preparations completed) in the towns and rural areas. To avoid some of that, regions that still have few cases in a large area should start contact tracing and pre-emptive testing of asymptomatic people who might have been exposed by known cases.

How I could be wrong: If there's a significant fraction of COVID-19 cases that take longer than seven days for symptoms to appear and a positive test result to occur, then we could still be seeing a significant number of newly confirmed cases that were actually contracted before the measures went into effect, and we'll see further gradual decreases in the new confirmed case growth rate as those residual cases dwindle. The abruptness and across-the-board consistency of the 3/29 drop and the leveling off since then makes that seem less likely. But there's not much data to go on yet.

Epidemiologists who are currently forecasting a peak statewide around mid April must be basing that prediction on some further factor besides the present effects of the measures already in place, to decrease the new case rate below 1.0. (Note that the new confirmed case growth rate is not the same as the R0 everyone's been writing about, but it does pretty clearly indicate whether actual known cases have peaked or not!) That factor could be saturation of the portion of the population most likely to contract the virus (which is who, medical workers? retail workers? nursing home residents and staff? So I hope it's not that). It's clearly not steady improvements in the compliance with distancing measures. By direct observation, I'm certain that's going in the other direction. It could be immunity building up from a large number of asymptomatic cases or untested less-severe cases. I hope it's that, but I don't see a lot of evidence for it (and it won't be known until there's an antibody test in large-scale use).

Stay tuned. Not that you have any choice.

 

[EHocking]

Actually, gun clubs are on the essential lists. But the clubs here are being sticklers for the social distancing rules.

10 paces?
At dawn?

 

[JeanTate]

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.

FWIW, I think DR is clear in his (her?) own head.

However, you have noted an example of confusion, of a failure to communicate clearly.

I have found quite a few of DR's posts (or parts thereof) also confusing, and my attempts to get clarity have often been unsuccessful.

DR: sorry if this comes across to you as condescending. I have been trying to understand your posts, but often get confused as to what it is you are actually claiming. Or saying. In my world, failure to communicate well is primarily due to a failure of the communicator, not the audience (at least, here in the SMM&T board).

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

FWIW, I think DR is clear in his (her?) own head.

However, you have noted an example of confusion, of a failure to communicate clearly.

I have found quite a few of DR's posts (or parts thereof) also confusing, and my attempts to get clarity have often been unsuccessful.

DR: sorry if this comes across to you as condescending. I have been trying to understand your posts, but often get confused as to what it is you are actually claiming. Or saying. In my world, failure to communicate well is primarily due to a failure of the communicator, not the audience (at least, here in the SMM&T board).

With regard to the particular post he's referencing, I responded with clarification. I have no doubt I'm not being clear in all of my communication, partly due to the fact that all day I've been typing these posts on my phone while taking breaks from working (I edit science papers, much to your horror, I'm sure...it's for grammar and clarity, not content) and partly due to the fact that I'm just some guy with questions and doubts about all of this, not an expert. I'm confused, though, that you say you haven't been able to get clarification from me, as I feel I've responded to your questions clearly. It may be ships passing in the night, as there are a few questions I've asked you which you didn't respond to.

No offense taken, I know you have only good intentions.

 

[casebro]

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.

But you are making the argument non-falsifiable. If you put all viral pneumonias into the Covid column, covid numbers go up. flu cases go down. Covid cures Flu! Quick, check the lung cancer deaths, asthma, bronchitis... Covid is a Miracle! (Isn't Italy known for miracles?) hmmm, look behind you, the circular argument is catching you from behind...

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

With regard to the particular post he's referencing, I responded with clarification. I have no doubt I'm not being clear in all of my communication, partly due to the fact that all day I've been typing these posts on my phone while taking breaks from working (I edit science papers, much to your horror, I'm sure)

Certainly not horrified.

But somewhat surprised.

Why?

Lack of citations/sources, even when prodded, in a Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology board (for starters).

and partly due to the fact that I'm just some guy with questions and doubts about all of this, not an expert.

That pretty much describes a great many of those who've posted to this thread (and its ancestors). We do, though, have some actual experts.

I'm confused, though, that you say you haven't been able to get clarification from me, as I feel I've responded to your questions clearly. It may be ships passing in the night, as there are a few questions I've asked you which you didn't respond to

Likewise.

I shall try to compile a list.

May I ask you to do the same?

 

[JeanTate]

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.

But you are making the argument non-falsifiable. If you put all viral pneumonias into the Covid column, covid numbers go up. flu cases go down. Covid cures Flu! Quick, check the lung cancer deaths, asthma, bronchitis... Covid is a Miracle! (Isn't Italy known for miracles?) hmmm, look behind you, the circular argument is catching you from behind...

(my hilite)

Maybe a parody (good? maybe not).

But not science (etc).

The knowledge that already exists - about this coronavirus, about communicable diseases, etc - is far more extensive.

What parody? "you are making the argument non-falsifiable."

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Thanks.


Certainly not horrified.

But somewhat surprised.

Why?

Lack of citations/sources, even when prodded, in a Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology board (for starters).


That pretty much describes a great many of those who've posted to this thread (and its ancestors). We do, though, have some actual experts.


Likewise.

I shall try to compile a list.

May I ask you to do the same?

Yes, please. I am under the impression that I've provided all sources asked for.

 

[JeanTate]

Fair enough, I wasn't clear. What I meant by "the same thing" is an annual phenomenon of respiratory illness attributed to viruses of one kind or another, this year being heavily attributed to the newly discovered Covid 19 virus, but not appreciably different in terms of case rates, spread, and fatalities but with the illusion of being so because of extreme levels of testing and reporting and media hysteria and the attendant societal hysteria.

May I ask you to take time and try again?

For example:

In your earlier posts (can't say "all", I simply do not know), you refer to the "normal flu", not to "viruses of one kind or another".

"not appreciably different in terms of case rates, spread, and fatalities": assuming "normal flu", so far you have not presented a consistent, coherent case for "fatalities"; no case for "spread"; and contradictory statements on "case rates". One particular confusion: you seem to refer to the US, but do not say so, and introduce material that is explicitly not about the US (without explaining why you think it is relevant).

"extreme levels of testing": so far, you have not presented anything on testing; not re covid-19, nor normal flu, nor any other virus which causes respiratory illness (if you have, I must have misssed it; if so, apologies, and please point me to the relevant posts).

Oh, and the virus is not "Covid 19", but SARS-COV-2; covid-19 is the term for the illness caused by that particular coronavirus (yeah, yeah, I'm a pedant).

 

[Marcus]

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.

US flu deaths:


2018-19: 34.2k
2017-18: 61
2016-17: 38
2016-16: 23
2014-15: 51


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

 

[JeanTate]

Yes, please. I am under the impression that I've provided all sources asked for.

(my hilite)

Will do.

Note: I have certainly asked for sources. I've also asked directly pertinent questions which are about things other than sources.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

(my hilite)

Will do.

Note: I have certainly asked for sources. I've also asked directly pertinent questions which are about things other than sources.

Yes, I would like to address both of those requests.

 

[a_unique_person]

Fair enough, I wasn't clear. What I meant by "the same thing" is an annual phenomenon of respiratory illness attributed to viruses of one kind or another, this year being heavily attributed to the newly discovered Covid 19 virus, but not appreciably different in terms of case rates, spread, and fatalities but with the illusion of being so because of extreme levels of testing and reporting and media hysteria and the attendant societal hysteria.

We have a vaccine for the flu. That helps prevent a flu epidemic every year. Covid-19 uses a new way to attack cells that we haven't been exposed to before. Think of native people when they were first exposed to European diseases.

 

[Marcus]

We have a vaccine for the flu. That helps prevent a flu epidemic every year. Covid-19 uses a new way to attack cells that we haven't been exposed to before. Think of native people when they were first exposed to European diseases.

Not exactly. Each year a vaccine is produced which represents the best guess as to which varieties will be the most prevalent in the coming season. Many years a new mutant crops up which renders the vaccine mostly moot.

 

[JeanTate]

For Doghouse Reilly:

<snip>

I shall try to compile a list.

<snip>

From #872:
DR: "Fauci and cdc are saying 200,000 could die with 160 million infected."
me: "A source would be nice."

me: "Is the covid-19 epidemic, in Italy, over? Or is it still on-going? How about in the US?
If it's still on-going, what is the basis for making comparisons with the "normal flu"?"

me: "If, this time next year, well over a million people in the US died of covid-19, then the media's "Grim death toll projected" will have been accurate, right?"

From #876:
DR: "Everything I'm looking at is indicating that flu numbers are down"
me: "Source?"
{repeated in #948}

DR: "In other words, same thing."
me: "Without actual numbers, "same thing" is rather meaningless, wouldn't you say?"

From #933:
me: "I'm no longer familiar with expats (that's what the group the researchers studied is, right?), but they are surely not a good cross-section of any country's population, are they?
So we should treat 0.66% as some sort of lower bound, for people in developed economies, right?"

From #950:
me: "Well, we can look at numbers from China. From Singapore. Even South Korea.
Do those numbers "prove you [Doghouse Reilly] right"?"

{Your #952 does not address my question, which is about this, from your #934: "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."}

 

[Sherkeu]

Fair enough, I wasn't clear. What I meant by "the same thing" is an annual phenomenon of respiratory illness attributed to viruses of one kind or another, this year being heavily attributed to the newly discovered Covid 19 virus, but not appreciably different in terms of case rates, spread, and fatalities but with the illusion of being so because of extreme levels of testing and reporting and media hysteria and the attendant societal hysteria.

Russia has seen a lot of flu in its day, but they've never had to build a large permanent hospital in a few weeks to control it . Are they wasting their money on this? With oil so low, this isn't a good time for extra expenses.

The construction of the new infection hospital in Moscow's new territory bordering the Kaluga Region started on March 12. On March 24, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said the 80,000-square-meter (860,000-square-feet) facility was 40 percent complete and might be opened soon.

Drone pics from a few days ago are here. Nearly China level speed.