Coronavirus General Discussion (no politics, no flamewars!)

Wilt wrote in post #19047252
John, OTOH consider the outcome of testing 92% of the crew assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt...the number of Negative tests in that sample population is about 84%, and the number of Positive tests in that sample population is about 16%. So the 84% testing Negative is from a tested population largely confined to sea duty with each other! Of the 16% who tested Positive from the USS Roosevelt, 55% of that group were asymptomatic.

Every isolated sub-population is going to have a different rate of interaction and different level of conscious mitigation. Also, do we really know that some people aren't "bulletproof", in the sense that the virus is put down by the innate immune system before the virus can leave any evidence of its short history? If such a group of people exist, they play a role in herd immunity statistics, too, because they will show no evidence that they have had the disease, but are innately non-vectors, just like those with antibodies, and are already at the best possible end-state, for all intents and purposes. If that is the case, the real question is not what percentage of the population is infected or has antibodies, but what percentage don't have a good chance of being carriers, for any reason.

Some reading about some of the science beng employed for detection and treatment of COVID-19

An overview of the companies developing COVID-19 tests, and how they work:
https://cen.acs.org …g-develop-COVID-19/98/i14

An overview of convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, and hyperimmune therapies:
https://cen.acs.org …navirus-cure-blood/98/i14

Wilt wrote in post #19047256
Interesting to learn that Abbott is about to begin shipment of antibody testing, in addition to their somewhat recent start of 5 minute infection Positive tests.

The news I've seen says the new antibody test that Abbott has designed is their third SARS-CoV-2 test. It's supposed to be able to run 100-200 tests an hour on their equipment (key point being it's equipment that's already in use), and that they are planning to have 20 million tests in June.

Interesting article showing the timeline of events. It's so easy today to look back and see what one should have done at a certain point of time but when you are in the moment, all you can do is make the best guess you can with the data at hand. The timeline shows how much disagreement there was early on and how little consensus there was. Even now we are being told that things are leveling off but yesterday had more new cases and more fatalities than any other in the US. Might be leveling off in some places but just taking off in others.

soeren wrote in post #19047275
Vaccine????? Im talking a controlled run of Corona through the population. Though now they say we can wait for the vaccine whenever that will be. Optimists say september-october others say a year or maybe more.

'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.
  
• 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.
  

davesrose wrote in post #19047416
The news I've seen says the new antibody test that Abbott has designed is their third SARS-CoV-2 test. It's supposed to be able to run 100-200 tests an hour on their equipment (key point being it's equipment that's already in use), and that they are planning to have 20 million tests in June.

I don't know if it is good news or if it is bad news that this will be their THIRD effort?!

gjl711 wrote in post #19047470
Interesting article showing the timeline of events. It's so easy today to look back and see what one should have done at a certain point of time but when you are in the moment, all you can do is make the best guess you can with the data at hand. The timeline shows how much disagreement there was early on and how little consensus there was. Even now we are being told that things are leveling off but yesterday had more new cases and more fatalities than any other in the US. Might be leveling off in some places but just taking off in others.

Yeah the truth indeed is LA and NYC may both have gotten to the 'leveling off', while other cities like Boston are still on the upswing.

Wilt wrote in post #19047629
.
Population of Denmark is shown to be 5.8 Million last year.

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.
.

.
Hmmmmm. . When I do the math, and divide 5.8 million by 93,00, it seems to indicate that only one out of every 62 people would die of COVID-19 if we didn't do anything to impede its spread.

Can it be possible that so few would die from this? . I mean, the whole world seems to be making such a big deal over it, that I would certainly think that the danger would be far greater than just losing 1.6% of the Homo sapien population.

If we as a species stood a real risk of going extinct, then I could see such caution, but there have been many, many diseases in our species' history that have taken a far grater toll than just a loss of 1.6% of the total population ...... and we have survived just fine. . In fact, one can't help but think that we are biologically stronger because of the various plagues and diseases that have resulted in natural selection.

Methinks that COVID-19 must be far more dangerous than your figures indicate, or else we wouldn't be inconveniencing ourselves to the extent that we are, just to save 1 person out of every 62. . Are there factors that you did not take into account when you ran your numbers?


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19047640
.
Hmmmmm. . When I do the math, and divide 5.8 million by 93,00, it seems to indicate that only one out of every 62 people would die of COVID-19 if we didn't do anything to impede its spread.

Can it be possible that so few would die from this? . I mean, the whole world seems to be making such a big deal over it, that I would certainly think that the danger would be far greater than just losing 1.6% of the Homo sapien population.

Not sure about your math but extrapolation that to the planet, your talking 123,809,523 fatalities. That's all of Russia, or Mexico, or Japan, or Ethiopia. Seems rather large to me.

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.
  
• 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.

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.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your logic here at all, but why are you even extrapolating such a scenario based on only one jurisdiction? For the time being, we don't really know what the actual death rate is, but if we extrapolate the current world death rate (6.6%), which gives us a reasonable global average, and we would get a fatality number of approx. 495 million dead across the world (based on a total population of approx. 7.5 billion). Right now the global average takes into consideration efforts (again, 'averaged' across multiple jurisdictions) to reduce spread and infection speed - if we were to not control the spread, the number would probably attain if not surpass this due to health systems being overwhelmed... I'm just not sure why people are this musing about letting the virus loose when this as so far proven to be a bad decision.

I'll re-share this as well, since it really goes into the heart of it and, while I haven't read it again since either Quebec or Ontario released their projections, I believe it probably still holds firm as an analysis of the types of measures that can be taken (including none) and what their likely outcomes would be (which is an analysis of likely models made by Imperial College London back in mid-March): https://www.imperial.a​c.uk …-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

If you had $7,500 and you spent $124 would you consider that a big expenditure. 124 million sounds like a big number but compared to 7.5 billion it is not.

As has been pointed out, 124 million represents the entire (or close enough to entire) populations of several countries, as an idea of scale. As another example, even if we were to take the 124 million figure, that would resolve to, what, well over 1/3 of the population of the US?

I mean, are you seriously comparing the idea of spending $124 out of 7500 as being similar to killing and/or letting 124 million people die out of 7.5 billion? Based on the faulty idea that 124 million dying like that is somehow ok, would you even try to make to me believe that you would be ok with it if you yourself or your family/other loved ones would die along with them? No big deal, right? I think not.

Furlan wrote in post #19047682
If you had $7,500 and you spent $124 would you consider that a big expenditure. 124 million sounds like a big number but compared to 7.5 billion it is not.

.
Exactly.

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.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19047690
.
Exactly.

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.

.

Tom,
I usually respect you but a 1.6 percent fatality rate if the virus spread totally across the US population is 5.28 million deaths. Surely you can't be advocating for this because of some minor inconvenience you might be experiencing . You surely can't be that unfeeling.

If we keep going the way were going the virus wont kill you starvation will. Something has to give I don't want to see anybody die but it is what it is. All this crap
these politicians are coming up with is a day late and a dollar short.