Corona Virus 2019-nCoV

Don't worry, game playing is how Seattle deals with his fears...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Partially avoiding the virus would be enough.
There as been no serious effort to avoid the virus until recently - the infection rate reflects an oblivious population as much as it does a dangerous disease.

And the US. The US medical care system is much more easily overwhelmed than that of other industrialized countries, and that is where the deaths are likely to come from.

The death rate is just as likely to increase, in the US, after two weeks. If the hospitals get slammed - as appears increasingly likely - it will balloon.

Remember, also and additionally: the deaths from all causes will rise if the virus takes out the medical care delivery system - more people will die of heart attacks, strokes, complications of diabetes, effects of poor diet and rough living, etc. By the numbers, the last chance the US had to avoid some such bad outcome was February.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We'll see whether the more optimistic view or the more pessimistic view prevails over the next month or so. It's a fine line as to whether the hospitals will be able to handle things or not.

 

Not really.

The optimistic view got stepped on when nothing Federal was done in February. It's not a fine line any more - it's an emergency, and we don't have a government that does emergencies.

The hard hit regions have already overloaded their hospitals. Pessimistic view confirmed - statistically. But numbers and facts and stuff aren't really the issue, are they.

 

I'm not really sure that the issue is for you. I'm hoping that the the rate of infected people starts to come down in late April, as predicted, and the hospitals are able to handle things.

It's a given that the Federal Government (Trump) handled things poorly (what's new).

 

Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by optimism , pessimism, delusion?
A good way is to answer the following:
The best science we have states that if we are successful at mitigation the death toll for the entire USA, will be between 100,000 and 200,000.

Is the above an optimistic statement or a pessimistic statement?

 

I think it's an optimistic statement given the reality. It wouldn't have been an optimistic statement in January of course.

You are the one that seems to have been arguing both sides of the issue. We're all going to die, the sky is falling, there's nothing we can do at this point, etc. and that if we stay in we can totally eliminate all possibility of getting the virus.

 

03/04/2020
Mile stone snap shot:

1,007,793 Confirmed cases Global
52,611 Deaths
744,592 active cases
37,712 serious/critical cases (ICU)

Notes :
Cases have doubled from 500,000 in just 8 days. Mainly because of the situation in the USA
Hot spots to watch over the next 7 days ( large population centers):
USA
India
Russia
Turkey
Indonesia
Brazil
Africa ( generally)
Refugee camps.

 

Perhaps you need to consider that the statement is an objective statement and the emotions it inspires can be considered as optimistic or pessimistic?
Differentiating the emotional outcome from the intellectual and visa versa.

Compare these two statements:

• The best science we have states that if we are successful at mitigation the death toll for the entire USA, will be between 100,000 and 200,000.
• The best science we have states that if we are totally unsuccessful at mitigation the death toll for the entire USA, will be between 1,200,000 and 2,300,000.

Are they objective statements or subjective emotive ones?

 

Differentiating knee jerk emotional reactions to being objective as possible is not always easy...
If we practice successful personal quarantine measures this infection can be avoided. This is an objectively true statement.
The question is how much our life style needs to change to be successful and whether circumstances will allow for it.
It is not about optimism nor pessimism it is about realism.
It is quite realistic to expect that because of the nature of the USA State/Federal set up that successful mitigation will be unlikely. Some states will do better than others.
So there fore the most likely death toll will be between 200,000 and 2,300,000
The actual result is dependent on how well individual people manage to self quarantine ( physical distancing from droplets using distance, masks, hand hygiene etc ) and how quickly the understand the reality they are facing.

Underestimating this bio-security problem is the key issue facing the world. It has been the case well before the Wuhan outbreak.

Optimism that ignores the science kills people...

Easter Religious activities in the USA will prove my point, no doubt about it...

BTW there are significant parallels to maximum IT security protocols.
The only way to ensure a quarantine exists against computer viruses is to use an enforced Air gap. So the digital information needed to infect a computer can not find any way of entering the system. (aka social/physical distancing)
Maximum high security IT systems must use an air gap firewall other wise they are vulnerable to hacking.

 

We both know that realism suggests numbers much closer to 200,000 than to 2,300,000.

 

But now you are talking about subjective estimations., and optimistically I hope that you may end up being correct.
But this is optimism not realism.
Personally I believe the 2.3 million as being overly optimistic and if I had the time and the data I could prove it so.
This virus has many unknowns about it. However one thing that has come to my attention is that apparently ( with out a lot of testing) the contagious carrier droplet size has been reducing since Wuhan outbreak, by about 50%. This is not good news so I won't labour the point, except to say that there are many unknowns happening at this time yet to be revealed to the public.

This article I found just now is a good explainer IMO of the benefits if every one wearing masks in public. To minimize expectorant and keep the aerosol spread to a minimum.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...19-transmission-messages-should-hinge-science

 

If it's been revealed to you it's been revealed to the public. Anyone with a news feed saw the study where the 6 feet avoidance distance might actually need to be 21 feet or something like that.

Since when did "subjective estimate" turn into something that isn't dealing with reality?

Reality in one sense is of the moment so if 2,300,000 people die no one will be denying it. It's not more "real" to estimate 2,300,000 than to estimate 200,000.

People have been predicting that the world was going to end "next year" since the beginning of time. Where they just being "realistic"?

The most realistic prediction for most any subject matter is generally the more conservative one.

 

Can you find a link to that report... so we can compare apples for apples.. ( there is so much published by so many people some credible some not)
If the person is wearing a good expectorant mask you can be quite safe at 2 meters .. but that is on the assumption that the droplet carrier size is not reducing as this pandemic continues.

Wearing an expectorant mask in pubic should be mandatory.

 

The increased distance was probably reflecting the reduced size that you were referring to was my point.

 

There only needs to be an all out Nuclear war and it is indeed over red rover in less than 60 minutes...

 

sure... ( I also saw something in my news feed) but my point is that the carrier droplet size MAY be reducing and continuing to do so... which means it MAY become airborne and even 21 feet isn't going to help us..
So a death toll of 2.3 million may no longer be a valid estimate because it is based on obsolete and static premises.
We just simply do not know. This is one reason why immediate strong mitigation is needed to prevent the virus having time to evolve.

 

Just because something could happen doesn't mean that it is realistic to assume that it is more likely than not to occur.

 

That's not a likely scenario and even your conclusion here is not accurate.