Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[casebro]

All causes 2.8M deaths per year, last couple years. 2020, I say 2.9M. Most victims ov covid would not have made it through the year any how. Almost no deaths in the "healthy enough to punch a time clock " now.

NOW can I go to Home Depot ?

 

[marting]

Okay, very interesting. Is this model not considered reputable here? Nobody in this thread seems to think those figures are even remotely reasonable. Regardless, those totals are still higher than what I'm saying, because there have already been thousands of flu deaths this year that would put us over 85k.

It's been mentioned before. My view is that the ranges, 50k to 140k deaths over the model's span is quite reasonable in light of current mitigations.

Where we differ is that I believe the deaths would exceed 1M were it not for mitigation where you believe that mitigation makes little difference if I understand you correctly. I would agree that it would make little difference if in fact over 50% of the population has already been infected. This will eventually be determined by serologic tests. I believe there is strong evidence that isn't close to the case.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Don't confuse the model with the scenario.

I probably am, are you saying that this is one particular scenario the model predicts, but that it doesn't say how likely it is or something?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

All causes 2.8M deaths per year, last couple years. 2020, I say 2.9M. Most victims ov covid would not have made it through the year any how. Almost no deaths in the "healthy enough to punch a time clock " now.

NOW can I go to Home Depot ?

I've been tracking overall mortality rates for the various impacted countries and they've hardly budged, if at all, even in Italy. Pretty weak sauce for "the biggest challenge we've faced since WW2."

 

[angrysoba]

I already had coronavirus. Confirmed by a test purchased through my son's pediatrician here in Los Angeles.

Can I ask what the test was? I didn't realize that there were any tests on the market that were sufficiently reliable yet.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

It's been mentioned before. My view is that the ranges, 50k to 140k deaths over the model's span is quite reasonable in light of current mitigations.

Where we differ is that I believe the deaths would exceed 1M were it not for mitigation where you believe that mitigation makes little difference if I understand you correctly. I would agree that it would make little difference if in fact over 50% of the population has already been infected. This will eventually be determined by serologic tests. I believe there is strong evidence that isn't close to the case.

You believe they would exceed 1 million in the US were it not for the mitigation strategies? What makes you think mitigation would prevent so many deaths? My understanding is that those strategies are mainly intended to flatten the curve of cases so as to not overwhelm healthcare services, and that we could still basically expect to see the same number of cases, spread out over a longer period.

 

[angrysoba]

All causes 2.8M deaths per year, last couple years. 2020, I say 2.9M. Most victims ov covid would not have made it through the year any how. Almost no deaths in the "healthy enough to punch a time clock " now.

NOW can I go to Home Depot ?

I don't know if we know that.

There certainly have been deaths from the "healthy enough to punch a time clock" range.

You probably heard about plenty of doctors and other medical professionals who have died. I read recently about a police officer in the UK who looked to be in his forties.

Then there was the comedian here in Japan who, yeah, he smoked 60 cigs a day for most of his life, and he was 70, but he wasn't infirm, from what I know.

Beyond that, you also have those who become critically ill, have to spend time on a ventilator and then "recover" who will no doubt have to live with the effects afterwards, and who may well have been perfectly fit and healthy but are no longer able to punch a time clock.

 

[angrysoba]

You believe they would exceed 1 million in the US were it not for the mitigation strategies? What makes you think mitigation would prevent so many deaths? My understanding is that those strategies are mainly intended to flatten the curve of cases so as to not overwhelm healthcare services, and that we could still basically expect to see the same number of cases, spread out over a longer period.

But the more the health system is overwhelmed the more deaths you will have because ICUs will be full.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

But the more the health system is overwhelmed the more deaths you will have because ICUs will be full.

I understand that, but not to the extent of 900,000 extra deaths.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Can I ask what the test was? I didn't realize that there were any tests on the market that were sufficiently reliable yet.

Yes. It was Curative Covid-19 Detection.

https://www.curativeinc.com

 

[marting]

You believe they would exceed 1 million in the US were it not for the mitigation strategies? What makes you think mitigation would prevent so many deaths? My understanding is that those strategies are mainly intended to flatten the curve of cases so as to not overwhelm healthcare services, and that we could still basically expect to see the same number of cases, spread out over a longer period.

That's a major misconception. Mitigation efforts are designed to get R below 1 and when that happens you get an exponential decrease in new infections just like you get an exponential increase when R > 1.

If you drop R0 to only say, 1.2, you flatten the curve but still get an exponential increase in infections until you reach herd immunity which happens when R drops below 1 at which point new infections decline and further decline as R continues to drop.

R0 is the replication factor and, like R, is subject to things such as mitigation efforts but it assumes all of the population is susceptible. R takes into account that portion immune due to vaccination or immunity from previously being infected and recovered.

 

[The Atheist]

I understand that, but not to the extent of 900,000 extra deaths.

This whole business has become circular.

You've stated your position (about 40 times) and if everyone waits a few months, we'll know who was right, so maybe we all can stop the subject until then.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

That's a major misconception. Mitigation efforts are designed to get R below 1 and when that happens you get an exponential decrease in new infections just like you get an exponential increase when R > 1.

If you drop R0 to only say, 1.2, you flatten the curve but still get an exponential increase in infections until you reach herd immunity which happens when R drops below 1 at which point new infections decline and further decline as R continues to drop.

R0 is the replication factor and, like R, is subject to things such as mitigation efforts but it assumes all of the population is susceptible. R takes into account that portion immune due to vaccination or immunity from previously being infected and recovered.

Interesting. If that's the case, it's not being communicated effectively by the powers that be. But as long as the virus still exists, couldn't it just start over again until all the people who were going to get it, got it?

 

[lomiller]

I probably am, are you saying that this is one particular scenario the model predicts, but that it doesn't say how likely it is or something?

The scenario is the conditions and assumptions you apply to the model. You get different results based on the scenario but the model remains the same. Eg assuming strick adherence to social distancing will give you a very different result than business as usual even though the model is the same

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

This whole business has become circular.

You've stated your position (about 40 times) and if everyone waits a few months, we'll know who was right, so maybe we all can stop the subject until then.

Theoretically we could, I'm a little burned out on it.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

The scenario is the conditions and assumptions you apply to the model. You get different results based on the scenario but the model remains the same. Eg assuming strick adherence to social distancing will give you a very different result than business as usual even though the model is the same

What is it about that particular scenario that is considered so unlikely?

 

[lomiller]

You believe they would exceed 1 million in the US were it not for the mitigation strategies? What makes you think mitigation would prevent so many deaths?

If you can hold off the spread of the virus until there is a vaccine a lot of deaths could be prevented.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

If you can hold off the spread of the virus until there is a vaccine a lot of deaths could be prevented.

I was wondering about this, actually. It's my understanding that there's never been a successful vaccine for a coronavirus. Nor for certain other viruses that would be highly desirable to have a vaccine for, like HIV. Yet I've been hearing people speak of a vaccine for this virus as though it's a near certainty (not saying you are). Is there a reason I haven't heard of to believe it's especially likely in this case?

Imagine if we'd been told in the early 1980s that we just needed to wait for an HIV vaccine to deal with the AIDS problem. 40 years later...here we are, still no vaccine.

 

[marting]

Interesting. If that's the case, it's not being communicated effectively by the powers that be. But as long as the virus still exists, couldn't it just start over again until all the people who were going to get it, got it?

Exactly. Hence the Hammer and the Dance:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

This is what China is doing now and what the White House has alluded to. The initial clampdown is to get COVID down to low levels where it can be regionally controlled by testing and putting in stronger social distancing where and when needed.

Seems to me this is widely understood. It's not like everything can go back to business as usual at the end of May or June. But this approach could well keep total deaths below the 100k to 200k the White House is projecting.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Exactly. Hence the Hammer and the Dance:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

This is what China is doing now and what the White House has alluded to. The initial clampdown is to get COVID down to low levels where it can be regionally controlled by testing and putting in stronger social distancing where and when needed.

Seems to me this is widely understood. It's not like everything can go back to business as usual at the end of May or June. But this approach could well keep total deaths below the 100k to 200k the White House is projecting.

Then why is everyone here saying there is no way we can prevent 100k+ deaths by end of May?