Coronavirus pandemic

[kalvado]

Positive cases per total population = How well we're containing the virus.

Deaths per positive cases = How well we're managing cases.

At least, that's the way I look at it.  Deaths per total population is just a function of the other two things.

Deaths per positive cases is largely a function of how much testing is being done.  The UK has a case fatality rate of 15.5% (44,650 deaths among 288,133 cases) because they have done much less testing than America which has a case fatality rate of only 4.4% (135,978 deaths among 3,235,926 cases).  The actual fatality rate of the virus is almost certainly below 1.0% when you consider all the people who actually got the virus and not just the confirmed cases through testing.   

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

4x? suspiciously optimistic.
Current estimates are mostly around 10x between infected and actually diagnosed.

[kphoger]

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

Why not?.  Some people don't exhibit symptoms.  Some others may mistake it for a cold and not bother getting tested.  Some others may worry about having to pay for a test.  Some others may not see the point of being tested, considering there's no cure.

[catch22]

In response to recent upticks in cases, Michigan has modified its face mask rules making it mandatory to require masks in all public spaces (and in outdoor spaces where social distancing guidelines can't be met) and requiring businesses to refuse entry to those not following the rules, with some exceptions.

https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90640-533941--,00.html

[Max Rockatansky]

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

Why not?.  Some people don't exhibit symptoms.  Some others may mistake it for a cold and not bother getting tested.  Some others may worry about having to pay for a test.  Some others may not see the point of being tested, considering there's no cure.

Don't most states already estimate they have double to quadruple suspected cases to known cases?  That's definitely what California projects. 

[Brandon]

Positive cases per total population = How well we're containing the virus.

Deaths per positive cases = How well we're managing cases.

At least, that's the way I look at it.  Deaths per total population is just a function of the other two things.

Deaths per positive cases is largely a function of how much testing is being done.  The UK has a case fatality rate of 15.5% (44,650 deaths among 288,133 cases) because they have done much less testing than America which has a case fatality rate of only 4.4% (135,978 deaths among 3,235,926 cases).  The actual fatality rate of the virus is almost certainly below 1.0% when you consider all the people who actually got the virus and not just the confirmed cases through testing.   

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

At a minimum.  The best estimates from the CDC are closer to 10 times as many as have tested positive.

For predictions, I'd look at this model first.  It's by Youyang Gu, and Gu has been rather accurate thus far with this model.
https://covid19-projections.com/
https://covid19-projections.com/about/

[webny99]

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

Why not?.  Some people don't exhibit symptoms.  Some others may mistake it for a cold and not bother getting tested.  Some others may worry about having to pay for a test.  Some others may not see the point of being tested, considering there's no cure.

Also, people may think it's a big, time-consuming hassle to get tested. Or, they might avoid getting tested because they don't want to test positive for social, work-related or other reasons.

[tradephoric]

Positive cases per total population = How well we're containing the virus.

Deaths per positive cases = How well we're managing cases.

At least, that's the way I look at it.  Deaths per total population is just a function of the other two things.

Deaths per positive cases is largely a function of how much testing is being done.  The UK has a case fatality rate of 15.5% (44,650 deaths among 288,133 cases) because they have done much less testing than America which has a case fatality rate of only 4.4% (135,978 deaths among 3,235,926 cases).  The actual fatality rate of the virus is almost certainly below 1.0% when you consider all the people who actually got the virus and not just the confirmed cases through testing.   

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

What do you believe?  Based on the responses to your post you seem to be in the minority if you believe the majority of cases have been accounted for with testing.  I wouldn't be surprised if 15-20X more people have had the virus than the official cases suggest (which would mean a fatality rate between 0.2% and 0.3%).  What do you believe the actual fatality rate is?

[kalvado]

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

Why not?.  Some people don't exhibit symptoms.  Some others may mistake it for a cold and not bother getting tested.  Some others may worry about having to pay for a test.  Some others may not see the point of being tested, considering there's no cure.

Also, people may think it's a big, time-consuming hassle to get tested. Or, they might avoid getting tested because they don't want to test positive for social, work-related or other reasons.

My understanding that the testing procedure is less than humane. Swab goes deep inside nasal cavity. I had something similar done on me before - with a hefty dose of lidocaine being applied first (but with a bigger camera probe, to be fair). Wasn't fun at all. So I would hold on until i really-really need that...

[SEWIGuy]

Positive cases per total population = How well we're containing the virus.

Deaths per positive cases = How well we're managing cases.

At least, that's the way I look at it.  Deaths per total population is just a function of the other two things.

Deaths per positive cases is largely a function of how much testing is being done.  The UK has a case fatality rate of 15.5% (44,650 deaths among 288,133 cases) because they have done much less testing than America which has a case fatality rate of only 4.4% (135,978 deaths among 3,235,926 cases).  The actual fatality rate of the virus is almost certainly below 1.0% when you consider all the people who actually got the virus and not just the confirmed cases through testing.   

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

At a minimum.  The best estimates from the CDC are closer to 10 times as many as have tested positive.

For predictions, I'd look at this model first.  It's by Youyang Gu, and Gu has been rather accurate thus far with this model.
https://covid19-projections.com/
https://covid19-projections.com/about/

Huh.  Thanks for that.  That's very interesting.  That model suggests something like seven times if I am reading that right.  Yet it is still less than 10% of the US population.

[SEWIGuy]

Positive cases per total population = How well we're containing the virus.

Deaths per positive cases = How well we're managing cases.

At least, that's the way I look at it.  Deaths per total population is just a function of the other two things.

Deaths per positive cases is largely a function of how much testing is being done.  The UK has a case fatality rate of 15.5% (44,650 deaths among 288,133 cases) because they have done much less testing than America which has a case fatality rate of only 4.4% (135,978 deaths among 3,235,926 cases).  The actual fatality rate of the virus is almost certainly below 1.0% when you consider all the people who actually got the virus and not just the confirmed cases through testing.   

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

What do you believe?  Based on the responses to your post you seem to be in the minority if you believe the majority of cases have been accounted for with testing.  I wouldn't be surprised if 15-20X more people have had the virus than the official cases suggest (which would mean a fatality rate between 0.2% and 0.3%).  What do you believe the actual fatality rate is?

I have no idea.  I guess I was just surprised at the thought.

[Max Rockatansky]

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

Why not?.  Some people don't exhibit symptoms.  Some others may mistake it for a cold and not bother getting tested.  Some others may worry about having to pay for a test.  Some others may not see the point of being tested, considering there's no cure.

Also, people may think it's a big, time-consuming hassle to get tested. Or, they might avoid getting tested because they don't want to test positive for social, work-related or other reasons.

Speaking for myself I think that I would have to be severely ill to go get a test.  Considering the ramifications that a positive test or PUI holds it's probably better just to self isolate and see if symptoms improve if you have anything mild.  I know in my case I rather not be involved in some sort of contact tracing program or having to provide test paperwork upon being questioned if I've ever tested positive.  Besides, the lines to get tested usually are extremely long and filled with people who have mild symptoms...seems kind of pointless to add to that. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Positive cases per total population = How well we're containing the virus.

Deaths per positive cases = How well we're managing cases.

At least, that's the way I look at it.  Deaths per total population is just a function of the other two things.

Deaths per positive cases is largely a function of how much testing is being done.  The UK has a case fatality rate of 15.5% (44,650 deaths among 288,133 cases) because they have done much less testing than America which has a case fatality rate of only 4.4% (135,978 deaths among 3,235,926 cases).  The actual fatality rate of the virus is almost certainly below 1.0% when you consider all the people who actually got the virus and not just the confirmed cases through testing.   

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

At a minimum.  The best estimates from the CDC are closer to 10 times as many as have tested positive.

For predictions, I'd look at this model first.  It's by Youyang Gu, and Gu has been rather accurate thus far with this model.
https://covid19-projections.com/
https://covid19-projections.com/about/

Huh.  Thanks for that.  That's very interesting.  That model suggests something like seven times if I am reading that right.  Yet it is still less than 10% of the US population.

I think it says more about mortality statistics more than anything.  The projected mortality rate of COVID-19 has been dropping more and more as the months wear on.  At the start of the first epidemic in China numbers like 4% were being tossed around.  As the pandemic got going the estimated mortality rate fell to 0.3-0.4% from what CDC data I looked at last (upthread somewhere).  Granted that doesn't factor in things like people who survive but are greatly affected physically in some way.  Nonetheless it is pretty clear at this point that COVID-19 is far deadlier than a common Flu it definitely isn't approaching the 1918 Spanish Flu level that often was being cited months ago. 

[kphoger]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

[kphoger]

it definitely isn't approaching the 1918 Spanish Flu level that often was being cited months ago. 

Playing the Devil's advocate, I'll say that medical care a century ago wasn't what it is now.

[Roadgeekteen]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

Um I'd stay away from Florida with a 10 foot pole at the moment.

[GaryV]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

Um I'd stay away from Florida with a 10 foot pole at the moment.

I think a 6-foot pole is recommended.

[SEWIGuy]

Positive cases per total population = How well we're containing the virus.

Deaths per positive cases = How well we're managing cases.

At least, that's the way I look at it.  Deaths per total population is just a function of the other two things.

Deaths per positive cases is largely a function of how much testing is being done.  The UK has a case fatality rate of 15.5% (44,650 deaths among 288,133 cases) because they have done much less testing than America which has a case fatality rate of only 4.4% (135,978 deaths among 3,235,926 cases).  The actual fatality rate of the virus is almost certainly below 1.0% when you consider all the people who actually got the virus and not just the confirmed cases through testing.   

That would mean four times as many people have the virus than have tested positive.  You really believe that?

At a minimum.  The best estimates from the CDC are closer to 10 times as many as have tested positive.

For predictions, I'd look at this model first.  It's by Youyang Gu, and Gu has been rather accurate thus far with this model.
https://covid19-projections.com/
https://covid19-projections.com/about/

Huh.  Thanks for that.  That's very interesting.  That model suggests something like seven times if I am reading that right.  Yet it is still less than 10% of the US population.

I think it says more about mortality statistics more than anything.  The projected mortality rate of COVID-19 has been dropping more and more as the months wear on.  At the start of the first epidemic in China numbers like 4% were being tossed around.  As the pandemic got going the estimated mortality rate fell to 0.3-0.4% from what CDC data I looked at last (upthread somewhere).  Granted that doesn't factor in things like people who survive but are greatly affected physically in some way.  Nonetheless it is pretty clear at this point that COVID-19 is far deadlier than a common Flu it definitely isn't approaching the 1918 Spanish Flu level that often was being cited months ago. 

Yeah I mean when you see hospitalizations and deaths like we are seeing in certain places, it is obvious that this is very dangerous.  Especially when you consider that we haven't even started going back in places like schools, colleges, etc.

[J N Winkler]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

I can't imagine going to Florida, especially at this time of year.  I personally haven't left Kansas at all since this crisis began--it is just not worth it to be away from home base with a pandemic going on, especially with many tourist attractions either closed or under severe restriction.

We have to RSVP by August 1 for a family wedding that is being held on August 22 in rural Iowa about thirty minutes' drive out of downtown Omaha.  Since the criterion for inclusion on Kansas' quarantine list is new cases over the past two weeks three (or more) times greater than Kansas over the same period, I do not think chances are high that quarantine will be required for either Nebraska or Iowa, though they have higher case counts per 100,000 population than we do.  But, frankly, I would feel much better about going to this wedding after the pandemic is over.

[Max Rockatansky]

it definitely isn't approaching the 1918 Spanish Flu level that often was being cited months ago. 

Playing the Devil's advocate, I'll say that medical care a century ago wasn't what it is now.

True, but it didn't help that World War I vastly aided the spread and distribution of the Spanish a Flu.  That was back in the era was casualties was far more acceptable in every facet of society than now.  The Spanish Flu was running rampant all over the end stage of World War I and commanders weren't going to shut down combat operations because people got sick.  Even in places like the United States it wasn't too far removed from a time when things like TB killed people on the regular, early Death was far more part of everyday life. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

Um I'd stay away from Florida with a 10 foot pole at the moment.

I think a 6-foot pole is recommended.

Some have been pushing for a 12-15 foot "pole"  so to speak.  Last week there was a lot of news stories about COVID being airborne and something about how a lot of professionals were staying the WHO was ignoring the evidence.  That 12-15 recommendation was cited in those stories frequently.

[kphoger]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

I can't imagine going to Florida, especially at this time of year.  I personally haven't left Kansas at all since this crisis began--it is just not worth it to be away from home base with a pandemic going on, especially with many tourist attractions either closed or under severe restriction.

We have to RSVP by August 1 for a family wedding that is being held on August 22 in rural Iowa about thirty minutes' drive out of downtown Omaha.  Since the criterion for inclusion on Kansas' quarantine list is new cases over the past two weeks three (or more) times greater than Kansas over the same period, I do not think chances are high that quarantine will be required for either Nebraska or Iowa, though they have higher case counts per 100,000 population than we do.  But, frankly, I would feel much better about going to this wedding after the pandemic is over.

I wondered why people would go to Florida in the middle of the summer, but I'm not much of a beach person myself.

As for traveling out of state, I know plenty of people who are still traveling.  My sister and her husband have driven down from Iowa, my parents recently drove up to Iowa from here to visit family, our good friends went on a family vacation to Wyoming with camper trailer in tow a few weeks ago.

Heck, our eldest son just got invited to go on a church youth group trip to Table Rock lake in three weeks.  My wife and I decided to decline that invitation, primarily because the people hosting the group are some of the most vocally anti-everything-coronavirus-related people we know, so we don't really expect there to be any sort of caution whatsoever–not to mention the six-hour-each-way van drive with children of various families.  (I'm kind of wondering if anyone will even accept.)  Besides which, I don't have any confidence that Missouri will even be letting Kansas into their state without self-quarantining by the time the trip comes around.

But none of the people I personally know who have traveled recently have done so with full expectation of home-quarantining.

[tradephoric]

Yeah I mean when you see hospitalizations and deaths like we are seeing in certain places, it is obvious that this is very dangerous.  Especially when you consider that we haven't even started going back in places like schools, colleges, etc.

But the deaths in Florida doesn't seem to compare to what happened in NY in April.  According to worldometer it took NY only 24 days for daily deaths to rise from 33 to 999.  Compare that to Florida where 24 days ago the state was averaging 33 daily deaths.  Today they are averaging 56 daily deaths.  That's not a huge increase compared to what we saw in NY. 

[SEWIGuy]

Yeah I mean when you see hospitalizations and deaths like we are seeing in certain places, it is obvious that this is very dangerous.  Especially when you consider that we haven't even started going back in places like schools, colleges, etc.

But the deaths in Florida doesn't seem to compare to what happened in NY in April.  According to worldometer it took NY only 24 days for daily deaths to rise from 33 to 999.  Compare that to Florida where 24 days ago the state was averaging 33 daily deaths.  Today they are averaging 56 daily deaths.  That's not a huge increase compared to what we saw in NY. 

My opinion: the people infected are younger and we are better at managing the disease now. 

[kalvado]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

Um I'd stay away from Florida with a 10 foot pole at the moment.

I think a 6-foot pole is recommended.

Some have been pushing for a 12-15 foot "pole"  so to speak.  Last week there was a lot of news stories about COVID being airborne and something about how a lot of professionals were staying the WHO was ignoring the evidence.  That 12-15 recommendation was cited in those stories frequently.

1 mile is probably even safer.  what would 12-15' mean in terms of common situations? Is it feasible and manageable?

[SEWIGuy]

Has anyone here continued with travel plans, knowing that you'd be required to home-quarantine based on the itinerary?

My wife knows two people who are either currently in Florida or will be going to Florida soon, and they're just planning to home-quarantine for two weeks when they get back to Kansas.

I can't imagine going to Florida, especially at this time of year.  I personally haven't left Kansas at all since this crisis began--it is just not worth it to be away from home base with a pandemic going on, especially with many tourist attractions either closed or under severe restriction.

We have to RSVP by August 1 for a family wedding that is being held on August 22 in rural Iowa about thirty minutes' drive out of downtown Omaha.  Since the criterion for inclusion on Kansas' quarantine list is new cases over the past two weeks three (or more) times greater than Kansas over the same period, I do not think chances are high that quarantine will be required for either Nebraska or Iowa, though they have higher case counts per 100,000 population than we do.  But, frankly, I would feel much better about going to this wedding after the pandemic is over.

I wondered why people would go to Florida in the middle of the summer, but I'm not much of a beach person myself.

As for traveling out of state, I know plenty of people who are still traveling.  My sister and her husband have driven down from Iowa, my parents recently drove up to Iowa from here to visit family, our good friends went on a family vacation to Wyoming with camper trailer in tow a few weeks ago.

Heck, our eldest son just got invited to go on a church youth group trip to Table Rock lake in three weeks.  My wife and I decided to decline that invitation, primarily because the people hosting the group are some of the most vocally anti-everything-coronavirus-related people we know, so we don't really expect there to be any sort of caution whatsoever–not to mention the six-hour-each-way van drive with children of various families.  (I'm kind of wondering if anyone will even accept.)  Besides which, I don't have any confidence that Missouri will even be letting Kansas into their state without self-quarantining by the time the trip comes around.

But none of the people I personally know who have traveled recently have done so with full expectation of home-quarantining.

My wife and I are getting out of here for a weekend in a couple of weeks.  Just a road trip to somewhere we haven't been before.  My wife has spent every night but one at our house for the past year.  I have a couple business trips in there, but none since January.

We need a break.