• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see the same thing that's happened before, only ramped up because of panic. Tents, hospitals at 300% capacity, etc. What is different? So far, the numbers aren't different.

Israel 2015

https://www.timesofisrael.com/influx-of-patients-crowds-hospitals-across-country/

Boston 2013:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1823425

Across the US, 2017:

https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/?amp=true

None of those happened with lockdowns in place over the cities/countries in question. The flu numbers and examples you have mentioned were with business as usual. The corona-virus numbers we see are with countries and cities taking desperate measures to keep the numbers low. Do you see the difference?
 
Ah the joys and delights of not understanding what "exponential" means! :p

While I don't live in New York (the state, or city), I sure am glad Andrew Cuomo is Governor there, not you. :)

Out of curiosity, were you the NY Governor, when would you erect hospital tents in Central Park? Order ice trucks as morgues?

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 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.
 
You'd be relieved if all experts and professionals were wrong and some random person on a forum was right?

How would you not be relieved that millions of people weren't going to die? You'd have to be a sociopath not to be. Besides, some experts are saying this. Including the German pulmonologist I posted upthread that nobody has addressed.
 
None of those happened with lockdowns in place over the cities/countries in question. The flu numbers and examples you have mentioned were with business as usual. The corona-virus numbers we see are with countries and cities taking desperate measures to keep the numbers low. Do you see the difference?

No, in most places the lockdowns began far too late to draw conclusions on the numbers of cases we're seeing now. Also, because that is a non-falsifiable argument, it has to be discarded.
 
Time passing is exactly my point. "For each 100 people of normal demographic, what are the outcomes of exposure casual exposure to Covid? " Not self selected for already showing signs like SK, not old folks cloistered on a liner, not drunken Danes plying beer pong by 'coughing' a ball soaked in other peoples saliva. 100 is small, but it is available. Or maybe combine it with the choir and that gov meeting? all in the same time frame and locale? 200? 250? ONE county board of health ?
(my hilite)

YMMV, but to me a "normal demographic" includes people of all ages; fit healthy people as well as those currently ill (whether COPD, a cold, or terminal brain cancer); women as well as men; those earning seven figure salaries as well as the homeless; etc.

And that's just the US.

None of the groups you briefly described comes anywhere near close to a normal demographic.
 
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 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.

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.
 
I would also be rather surprised.

And you'll probably also just say it was because of all the extreme measures we took. Which is a non-falsifiable argument. Out of curiosity, what outcome, to you, would prove me right? In other words, what has to happen for you to "be rather surprised"?
 
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.

That's what I'm beginning to feel like.
 
I think this is a point that many people don't get. The flu isn't going anywhere nor have any other disease gone on vacation.

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, if you read it it's based on a broad range of populations. So a study based on a broad range is superior to one less broad. That's my logic.
Quoting the CNN article:

"To find out, researchers looked at how widespread infections were among people repatriated to their home countries on flights from Wuhan, China."

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?
 
Indeed.

For crows, only until ~mid-April.


I don't have numbers for the estimated yearly (actually seasonal) number of deaths attributed to the flu, for the US, to hand*. So I can't give you an answer.

From memory, it's ~40k.


Indeed.

And if we'd prepared - in a manner consistent with plans etc clearly defined after SARS (and in many ways long before) - we in the US would never be there. As will likely be true in Singapore. Taiwan. Hong Kong. Macau. Possibly South Korea.

*Do you have what you consider to be a reliable source of these numbers?

Depending on the source, annual US flu deaths are anywhere between high 30k to high 60k. So far we haven't even seen thst death toll GLOBALLY from this coronavirus. 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.
 
Last edited:
Missouri crossed 1,000 cases this weekend and we added almost 300 in the last 24 hours.

Governor still "meh" about it, not doing squat.
 
No, in most places the lockdowns began far too late to draw conclusions on the numbers of cases we're seeing now. Also, because that is a non-falsifiable argument, it has to be discarded.

Well, there are a few countries that aren't doing anything to stop it so that will give us some solid numbers in a few weeks. Also some that are trying but doesn't look like they are capable. India should tell us a lot in the near future.
 
Well, it won't keep doubling forever, obviously. Out of curiosity what total death toll would we have to see for you to think "Well, I guess it turned out to not be much more than a normal flu epidemic"? In other words, at what point does it become undeniable that more people died than would have from a flu? I don't mean rate of spread or rate of increase, or projections, I mean a specific final minimum number. We obviously aren't there yet.

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.:(
 
Last edited:
You mean similar, not actually the same thing, right? We know that it is a very different virus in both cases.

Kind of, except maybe not...if you watch the 10 minute vid of the German pulmonologist, 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".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom