Coronavirus General Discussion (no politics, no flamewars!)

DreDaze wrote in post #19047794
i actually did really get the stimulus deposit now...not spending it at B&H...although i may treat myself to a pizza tonight

I've noticed I got a stimulus deposit as well, which has cleared. Even though in the news there seemed to be competing info about why mine would be delayed (IE I filed last year's taxes with Turbo Tax....but guess since I have paid/gotten refunds electronically, that takes precedence). My taxes for this year are more complicated and am waiting for some more forms. So I'm going to hold on to my deposit and will be sending some amount of it right back to the government

DreDaze wrote in post #19047794
i actually did really get the stimulus deposit now...not spending it at B&H...although i may treat myself to a pizza tonight

I believe it; it's been reported by many so far.
I've yet to receive it, and the IRS website tells me 'information incomplete,' so I went ahead with
entering deposit information.

davesrose wrote in post #19047812
I've noticed I got a stimulus deposit as well, which has cleared. Even though in the news there seemed to be competing info about why mine would be delayed (IE I filed last year's taxes with Turbo Tax....but guess since I have paid/gotten refunds electronically, that takes precedence). My taxes for this year are more complicated and am waiting for some more forms. So I'm going to hold on to my deposit and will be sending some amount of it right back to the government

I would ask why, Dave? And for that matter, HOW would you return it?

You're probably in a better financial position than I am, but how would you simply refund
such a stimulus payment back to the IRS?

I plan to simply bank it. Combined with Federal toppers to unemployment payouts,
we'll be in pretty good standing after two weks, when we expect to begin crawling out
from under our shutdown. If we can't return to work at that time, we'll have normal State
benefits in addition to Federal additions to keep the financial wheel rolling, while continuing
to roll overages into the savings accounts. I mean, I'd rather not draw from savings
if I don't have to, and my federal-level government is providing the surety I need
right now without repercussions, so all excess will go into savings.
They're even providing me a means to pay the $250 or so I owe for taxes,
so why wouldn't I grasp that opportunity amid the automatic extension already given?

davesrose wrote in post #19047801
It seems you're looking at apples and oranges. On average, case-death rate for COVID-19 in the US is under 3%. If we were to take the guess of 240,000 Americans dying from COVID-19, that's .07% deaths of a population of 330 million. The CDC estimates that 675,000 Americans died of the Spanish Flu (50 million worldwide). Estimates for world fatalities of the Spanish Flu are hard because of records/methods/techno​logy...but I've seen estimates of the world death rate ranges from 5-20% for the Spanish Flu.

Huh? I used a low number based upon CA 3.2% and factoring in 5000 added cases not currently listed as 'COVID-19' and assume all of them die at home, the CA figures get upstated to 4.2%, then if we consider 50% never get tested because they are asymptomatic, it is twice the number in the denominator, making for half the percentage...2.1%, I believe that is 'under 3%' you are basing your critique of my calculations about.

The Johns Hopkins numbers currently show 2.157 Million 'confirmed cases' and 144047 deaths. Double the case count to account for the asymptomatic infections, and you have 3.3% worldwide death rate due to COVID-19. Assume 20% underreporting of cases due to lack of tests among those that died, and you have 2.7% worldwide death rate.
Neither of those numbers seem that far out of kilter with with my CA estimates.

Why are you continually so critical of the numbers I use? They are ONE estimate out of thousands of estimates, and due to all the unknowns we could all be wrong. The point is not being right on the guess, but to put some reasonable bounds on the problem at hand, and base our actions on those guesses. At one point, Gov. Newsom's guestimates assumed up to 50% of CA could be infected. My first set of numbers assumed 5% infection within US would be the level to BEAT the Spanish Flu based upon the then-current 3.5% death rate. It was not a forecast, merely sizing how bad the problem had to be for us to worry about exceeding a 100-year old record...NOT A FORECAST! I have NEVER 'forecasted' yet you continue to be critical about what I post.

We all on POTN are able to have individual opinions, and to express them. State that you have an opinion that differs from mine, without making my sound like I must be an daft for expressing such conclusions drawn, but keep in mind that so far I have jumped to NO CONCLUSION because I know how little we know about COVID-19.

You might be confusing me with another poster Wilt. I haven’t been continually criticizing your numbers. I quoted that one post and am now responding to this because you’re trying to base estimates on cases to deaths instead of population. Especially also when you’re drawing some estimate of the Spanish Flu from I don’t know what source. We have an estimate of 675,000 deaths in the US for Spanish Flu with a country population of around 100 million. The rough estimate of deaths to COVID-19 with our current practices is 240,000 deaths (with population of 330 million). It seems to me there’s not evidence of the death rate outpacing Spanish Flu deaths.

SkedAddled wrote in post #19047853
I would ask why, Dave? And for that matter, HOW would you return it?

You're probably in a better financial position than I am, but how would you simply refund
such a stimulus payment back to the IRS

My taxes last year were really complicated. Estate inheritance (the forms I’m still waiting on), 3 different employers, etc. So who knows, may owe more than the check...so ironic I’ll basically be giving the money back to the treasury

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19047690
The important thing, over time, is the survival of Homo sapien as a species.

Of course it hurts to lose loved ones and whatever, but 10,000 years from now that isn't going to matter. . It is the bigger picture that we need to concern ourselves, with, lest we end up being biased by our own feelings and attachments.

Two points, Tom.

#1: The binomial is Homo sapiens, with a final s.

#2: Our species may have died out in 10,000 years anyway. Many things could happen. We just don't know. Please recognize that valuing a future population as more important than people now alive is a priority of yours, not shared by all and possibly shared by very few, judging from the comments here. That future population would consist of singular individuals, just like the current population except that they don't now exist. Does the welfare of one of these imagined people take precedence over the welfare of one of us?

You warn against "being biased by our own feelings and attachments." From what can you derive your concern for the future of the human species except a feeling, an attachment to the idea that it shall continue?

davesrose wrote in post #19047873
You might be confusing me with another poster Wilt. I haven’t been continually criticizing your numbers. I quoted that one post and am now responding to this because you’re trying to base estimates on cases to deaths instead of population. Especially also when you’re drawing some estimate of the Spanish Flu from I don’t know what source. We have an estimate of 675,000 deaths in the US for Spanish Flu with a country population of around 100 million. The rough estimate of deaths to COVID-19 with our current practices is 240,000 deaths (with population of 330 million). It seems to me there’s not evidence of the death rate outpacing Spanish Flu deaths.

I don't think that we will be able to do a comparison of that until COVID-19 has run its course. However, I do have a few points to make here.

Your question is somehow only focused on the US and US deaths - the fact of the matter here, COVID-19 and the Spanish Flu before it is affecting and has affected the entire world, so any analysis of the gravity of the disease that solely focuses on the US misses a huge part of the point. The entire world is affected.

Even if we were to look at the question solely from the point of the view of the US (let's say for what I will call 'statistical simplicity'), then I think it would be impossible to satisfactorily compare the full impact of Spanish Fly of 1918 and COVID-19 on purely quantitative terms with regards to the impact of the infections/epidemics that you are dealing with. That would include the relative impact of each of their contemporary economies, but also how well contemporary health systems were theoretically (i.e. supposedly) able to deal with the crisis (in itself in between hard to impossible to do) and how they have actually responded. How well we are doing with the effects of lockdown (and therefore how successful it is to reduce the number of deaths) would have to be linked to the connectedness that it provided to us by technology, the Internet (of course, it is impossible to put a death figure - or absence thereof - on this). What this means is that, all other things being equal, it is very possible that facing COVID-19 with something anything close to the economical and technological knowledge and know-how with which we faced the Spanish Flu would mean that we would be facing far more deaths than we are now.

And yes, I'd like to believe that we have come to value human life a whole lot more now, and so we are thankfully not ready to accept a human carnage over this, much less 50+ million deaths.

I'm just not sure why people are still trying to make themselves believe that this pandemic is somehow 'not such a big deal' despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And, even if this is somehow 'less bad' than the Spanish Flu, then so what exactly? Do you seriously think that this is an argument against lockdown? They had lockdown in the Spanish Flu as well. This is probably why there were "only" 50 million deaths.

Apricane wrote in post #19037495
The implication of China having potentially under-reported deaths is that the explicit and implicit narrative coming out of China influenced the level of preparedness of Western countries for what was to come, and, if it were proven to be true, would certainly be part of what incurred us significant (and mounting) human and economic costs.

Apricane wrote in post #19037502
Yeah, probably in very large part because there is a very strong perception that information coming of China isn't reliable. This just created uncertainty among Western governments, citizens weren't ready, etc., and everything took much more time than it should have.

I don't know how ugly it could get if the stories purporting a Chinese cover-up get confirmed, and the general lack of trust (which predates the pandemic, as you would know) in China, not to speak of the trauma that this is causing, will make it difficult to disprove as well (or to convince people that it's disproved).

On that topic, I'm watching a very interesting video interview with David Mulroney, who was Canada's ambassador to China from 2006 to 2012 (so who would be quite knowledgeable about the country), also seem to be quite concerned about the information coming out of China (and I still mean it just like that ) regarding the COVID-19 epidemic. The gist that I took away from this is that he seems to think that China didn't throw straight dice with us on the numbers and/or facts surrounding the virus: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=NjNKYFpUdnw

Did I ever say COVID-19 is not such a big deal? No, I was responding to what many are doing: comparing this pandemic to another grave one in recorded history(and there are several cases to be made about how past study helps with virology and epidemiology). I said that a rough estimate could be 240,000 deaths from our current practices. It is said those numbers would be much higher if we weren’t self isolating and now wearing masks.

davesrose wrote in post #19047892
Did I ever say COVID-19 is not such a big deal? No, I was responding to what many are doing: comparing this pandemic to another grave one in recorded history(and there are several cases to be made about how past study helps with virology and epidemiology). I said that a rough estimate could be 240,000 deaths from our current practices. It is said those numbers would be much higher if we weren’t self isolating and now wearing masks.

And why are you comparing this to a past pandemic? And why limit yourself to just number of deaths? If you want to compare the current pandemic to past events, here's some insight...it's a Wired article featuring an epidemiologist who apparently worked on the smallpox epidemic. He says this is the worst we've seen so far: https://www.wired.com …-smallpox-epidemiologist/

davesrose wrote in post #19047873
You might be confusing me with another poster Wilt. I haven’t been continually criticizing your numbers. I quoted that one post and am now responding to this because you’re trying to base estimates on cases to deaths instead of population. Especially also when you’re drawing some estimate of the Spanish Flu from I don’t know what source. We have an estimate of 675,000 deaths in the US for Spanish Flu with a country population of around 100 million. The rough estimate of deaths to COVID-19 with our current practices is 240,000 deaths (with population of 330 million). It seems to me there’s not evidence of the death rate outpacing Spanish Flu deaths.

About characterization of the Spanish Flu. If you dig you get an estimated (but also somewhat disputed) 675000 deaths. We have government figures for 1918 census of 103.2 Million...about 0.6% of US population died from Spanish Flu. The US Army itself had an esimated 26% or 1 Million men sickened, of which 30000 died (0.75% of 4 Million in the Army in 1918) before even getting to France. Estimate of 40% getting sick is on the books.

Hard to base the COVID-19 on a similar population percentage. For example,

• NYC numbers have changed between Apr 4 and today from 0.03% to 0.14% of NYC deaths as percentage of population.
  
• Meanwhile, in Santa Clara Co the deaths as percentage of population is 0.03%.
  
• Meanwhile Arizona deaths as percentage of population is 0.002%.
  
• US overall is 30990 deaths in 330 Million, or 0.0094%
  
• Italy has 0.033% deaths as percentage of 60.5 Million population
  

Apricane wrote in post #19047897
And why are you comparing this to a past pandemic? And why limit yourself to just number of deaths? If you want to compare the current pandemic to past events, here's some insight...it's a Wired article featuring an epidemiologist who apparently worked on the smallpox epidemic. He says this is the worst we've seen so far: https://www.wired.com …-smallpox-epidemiologist/

He says “It's the most dangerous pandemic in our lifetime.” Also not sure what you mean by worst epidemic. Ebola is a more deadly disease (50% death rate of cases). Past plagues killed more people before modern medicine. I’ve never disagreed that this is a very virulent pandemic, that is delivering death and a lot of economic hardship. Since it is effecting the whole world, that’s why I’m not surprised that more people are looking for YouTube videos, or that CDC has a fairly detailed site on Spanish Flu. People look to similar events in the past: and certainly the Spanish Flu was a devastating pandemic.

Wilt wrote in post #19047629
'Controlled run' ?!

• Population of Denmark is shown to be 5.8 Million last year.
  
• We are seeing fatalities in California of 3.2% of identified hospitalized cases to over 9% in NYC. France is over 11% right now. We know the figures from many states are biased by the fact that many folks get symptoms, but they don't qualify for the rationed testings, so they never get counted in the statistics for COVID-19, without having proof of the disease.
  

True at a glance the deaths rate here is also a bit high but the darknumber her is estimated to be in the 30-80x ballpark based on tests done in blood donors.
The deaths here are basicly All people with other deceases such that the majority is labeled dead with Corona because the real cause could be their original deceases.
The median age is 80 with 9 under 60 so with proper care it ispossible to isolate the relevant patients and elderly from risks

Wilt wrote in post #19047629

We know from several known tests of populations, that about 50% of Positive cases are asymptomatic. So if we apply that 50% figure to general statistics we have, CA is 1.6% fatality, while 4.5% in NYC and 5.5% in France are somewhat more realisitid figures for death among those who had acquired the virus.

...I also know the death counts have been understated...deaths in home where victim never get tested. NYC is only now getting around to changing how it counts cases and deaths, to include those perishing at home.

While there are ocational deaths at home here they are few and far between and it's unlikely the numbers will rise even now and here they are so few such will be statistically insignificant

Wilt wrote in post #19047629
If we apply the 1.6% fatality rate of CA to the population of Denmark, that computes to just under 93000 deaths...if COVID-19 is allowed to wash over the population! One can easily see why the 'wait for vaccine' logic would prevail.

We dont need 100% to optain herd immunity here 60% is estimated to do the job.
Isolating elderly and vulnerable who Counts for the majority og mortalities is not imposible coming from where se are now in fact Sweden with twice the mortality/captita as dk is working for heard immunity and doing well. Succes cant be measured in deaths alone
And we are not just sawing lives. This lockdown will cost lives as well and people will suffer from the consequences for years to come.
So if the vaccine is a year away I must agree with one leader I really dont like about the cure being worse than the decease.

Apricane wrote in post #19047890
On that topic, I'm watching a very interesting video interview with David Mulroney, who was Canada's ambassador to China from 2006 to 2012 (so who would be quite knowledgeable about the country), also seem to be quite concerned about the information coming out of China (and I still mean it just like that ) regarding the COVID-19 epidemic. The gist that I took away from this is that he seems to think that China didn't throw straight dice with us on the numbers and/or facts surrounding the virus: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=NjNKYFpUdnw

I still argue that the west should have known and did it's own response. I was seeing chatter on WeChat about the virus in late December and early January. The United States should have, and in fact, did see similar information [1]. The Chinese government does have some 'splaining to do, but the United States was remiss in not acting on the information they had.

[1] https://www.nytimes.co​m …latedLinks&pgty​pe=Article

Another interesting thing is the Chinese are positing that the virus may have come from one of their own labs as an accidental release. It isn't an engineered virus, not (AFAIK), a bioweapon gone bad, but perhaps some very poor lab procedure resulting in an accidental release [2].
[2] https://chanworld.org …of2019-NCoV-XiaoB-Res.pdf

Edit- Gary Larson may have predicted this: https://i.pinimg.com …667c0f68db50326​b699eb.jpg

Agree. Very basic. Ask your people to have some Scientific analysis done. Then comes the important bit. Listen to the Scientists. Not something the west has been doing for some time.