Coronavirus pandemic

[TheGrassGuy]

Flattening the curve isn't just about spreading out the infections over time--it's about reducing the total number of infections.  Just accepting that everybody will eventually get infected and 1% of the population will die is not acceptable.  There are going to have to be some long term restrictions that remain until we get a vaccine:

That's strange... when I first heard of flattening the curve, the opposite was true.

[SEWIGuy]

All this time I've been wondering if FL 19 and FL 40 are closed in the Ocala National Forest, but somehow I doubt it.

They can't close roads going through national forests.  Half of northern Wisconsin would be inaccessible.

[J N Winkler]

I think a lot of the reasons why this isn't as deadly as they projected is because the medical community is getting better at treating the disease.

It is partly that, and partly also mitigation of spread having (largely) prevented overruns of intensive-care resource.

The IHME model is projecting 69,456 deaths by May 13th (2 weeks from now).  Today we stand at 59,266 deaths.  Over the course of 14 days the model is projecting an average of 727 deaths per day when we haven't seen under 1000 deaths since March 30th?  And it's not as if the daily cases have been dropping (they have just flattened) so I don't understand this optimism for a big drop in daily deaths.  By May 13th I'd expect to see around 80k deaths not 70k (and 10k deaths over the course of 2 weeks is a big difference)!

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

The current version of the IHME model predicts 72,860 deaths by August 4.  It is updated periodically (they say "daily," but I think what they really mean is that an update is likely to come out on any given day; many days pass with no update), and since it became available in late March, I have seen the August 4 total fatality estimate fluctuate from as low as 60,000 to as high as 80,000.  Old instances of the model are archived online as CSV files, so it is only the current model that has the pretty plots and graphs.

As for estimated total fatality count by May 13, the numbers I see diverge from source to source and now that the numbers are in the tens of thousands, the differences are in the thousands.  For example, Wikipedia's count page shows us with 52,486 deaths through yesterday, while the JHU dashboard currently shows us with 58,471 deaths.

I have been keeping track of when US daily fatalities have been over 1,000.  We passed that threshold on April 1 (has seemingly been revised to March 31) and are not forecast to retreat back over it until May 4.

[tradephoric]

The current version of the IHME model predicts 72,860 deaths by August 4.  It is updated periodically (they say "daily," but I think what they really mean is that an update is likely to come out on any given day; many days pass with no update), and since it became available in late March, I have seen the August 4 total fatality estimate fluctuate from as low as 60,000 to as high as 80,000.  Old instances of the model are archived online as CSV files, so it is only the current model that has the pretty plots and graphs.

As for estimated total fatality count by May 13, the numbers I see diverge from source to source and now that the numbers are in the tens of thousands, the differences are in the thousands.  For example, Wikipedia's count page shows us with 52,486 deaths through yesterday, while the JHU dashboard currently shows us with 58,471 deaths.

I have been keeping track of when US daily fatalities have been over 1,000.  We passed that threshold on April 1 (has seemingly been revised to March 31) and are not forecast to retreat back over it until May 4.

Thanks for the  info regarding the IHME model.  I came across a study that looks at the accuracy of the model and the results were pretty striking (on its inaccuracies):

Our results suggest that the IHME model substantially underestimates the uncertainty associated with COVID19death count predictions.  We would expect to see approximately 5% of the observed number of deaths to falloutside the 95% prediction intervals.  In reality, we found that the observed percentage of death counts that lieoutside the 95% PI to be in the range 49% - 73%, which is more than an order of magnitude above the expectedpercentage.  Moreover, we would expect to see 2.5% of the observed death counts fall above and below the PI.In practice, the observed percentages were asymmetric, with the direction of the bias fluctuating across days.

https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/centre-for-translational-data-sience/statistical_accuracy_covid19_predictions_ihme_model.pdf

[LM117]

Looks like the coronavirus could have originally escaped from a virology lab in Wuhan...

https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments-that-may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503

[kalvado]

Looks like the coronavirus could have originally escaped from a virology lab in Wuhan...

https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments-that-may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503

In separate news
Due to delay of medical supplies shipments US re-opening pushed back by another two weeks...  [ /sarcasm]

[J N Winkler]

Slate has an article by a temporarily returned Swedish expat that tears brutally into the COVID-19 response in Sweden.

[LM117]

Looks like the coronavirus could have originally escaped from a virology lab in Wuhan...

https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments-that-may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503

To add to this...

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

[SEWIGuy]

Looks like the coronavirus could have originally escaped from a virology lab in Wuhan...

https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments-that-may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503

That article does a lot only to come to the conclusion buried down deep:  "To be sure, there's no evidence that SARS-Cov-2 came from the Wuhan lab, nor that the virus is the product of engineering. Most scientists believe, based on the evidence available, that a natural origin is the most likely explanation."

So there's that.

But the story about the lab and its purpose is problematic. 

[Scott5114]

The notion is to acknowledge that some people don't want to get sick but don't have the choice to stay inside.

They do have a choice.

Yeah, the choice between "go into work, catch coronavirus, and die" and "don't go into work, lose your job, lose your house, live under a bridge and die."

Some choice!

[Rothman]

The notion is to acknowledge that some people don't want to get sick but don't have the choice to stay inside.

They do have a choice.

Yeah, the choice between "go into work, catch coronavirus, and die" and "don't go into work, lose your job, lose your house, live under a bridge and die."

Some choice!

It wouldn't be a choice if Trump and Congress would provide proper economic relief to individuals rather then giving millions to businesses that don't need it.

[kphoger]

Businesses making decisions that benefit society–especially in this specific context–are likely to attract more customers.  If Store A implements social distancing measures and Store B does not, then any potential customers who are concerned about the virus will be more likely to shop at Store A.  You say the measures would not be in that stores financial interest, but I say it gets them more customers in the door.

You say theories that aren't borne out in reality. Efficacy of social distancing measures are not going to be the primary concern that shoppers have when they choose a place to do business with. Price, convenience, product selection, and brand loyalty are, just as they always are.

Check out this poll that someone did on the OKCTalk forums:


You can argue these people have the freedom to endanger themselves by choosing to patronize a store that refuses to implement social distancing. But that means more possible infections, more potential asymptomatic spreaders, and more people to potentially take up a hospital bed that you might need later on.

The wrong question was asked.

You might get different results to "Given the choice between Store A with ______ (fill in the distancing protocol) and Store B without ______, would you be more likely to shop at Store A than at Store B?"

Plenty of people would shop at a store without those measures, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer not to or choose which store to go to based on that.

[kphoger]

The economy was not designed for large parts of it to be clobbered by a pandemic being forcibly shut down by government.  We're in for an extended period of economic pain even in the best case scenarios at this point.

FTFY.  The economy would have endured the pandemic.

I take it you still believe in that V-shaped recovery?  Sorry, that's not going to happen.  Just because stay at home orders lift doesn't mean that people will magically return to normal behavior.  And that won't make businesses that already went under solvent again, it won't make up for spending from furloughed or laid off workers, etc.  And honestly, it's even worse than the article below implies, which doesn't mention that some businesses have already failed or that a large portion of the restaurant industry was based on the idea that people eat out on their lunch breaks (which is also one of the reasons for grocery shortages) - which isn't happening now that people are working from home, and likely will at higher levels than before even after a vaccine or treatment that allows for full normalcy is developed and deployed.  Lots of trends that would have happened over the next decade (increased telework, businesses that were on the decline, etc.) are now happening in the span of a few weeks.  With hour interconnected our economy is, that's going to be traumatic, no matter how this goes.

https://thebulwark.com/we-cannot-reopen-america/

The movement to "reopen"  America is a fallacy based on a fantasy.

The fallacy is the notion that lifting stay-at-home orders will result in people going back to their normal routines. This is false. The state-issued stay-at-home orders did not determine most people's desires to stay home–they merely ratified behaviors that the vast majority of people and institutions were already adopting in response to COVID-19.

The fantasy is that we can go back to what the world looked like 12 weeks ago. This is not possible now and will not be possible until we possess a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.

Understand that I am not saying that stay-at-home orders should be indefinite. What I am saying is that whenever the stay-at-home orders are rolled back–whether it is tomorrow or a month from now–it will not result in anything like a "reopening"  of the country.  And the sooner people grasp how completely and fundamentally the world has changed, the faster we'll be able to adapt to this new reality.

We are not looking at a blip that everyone will soon forget and we'll all go back and pretend it never happened.  This is bigger than 9/11 - a LOT bigger.

Aren't you sort of proving my point that it's the shutdown that killed the economy?

[US71]

Aren't you sort of proving my point that it's the shutdown that killed the economy?

My sources say it was a contributing factor.

[kphoger]

The economy would have endured the pandemic.

LOL.  No it wouldn't have.  Are you really this naive?  Without the government shutdowns, the pandemic would have been worse.  More people would be sick and die, which will would have caused people to stop going out anyway.

I believe that more businesses closed because they were forced to close by the government than would have closed if not forced to.  I believe that fewer people are spending their money at businesses because they're prevented by the government than would be if not prevented.  Are you really that naive, that you believe no businesses would have found a way to make it work?

[Scott5114]

The dead spend no money.

[wxfree]

Aren't you sort of proving my point that it's the shutdown that killed the economy?

My sources say it was a contributing factor.

The economy was going to die anyway.  Actually, this is more like an induced coma, because it's still alive.  If we'd done nothing and let the virus ravage the nation, the number of sick and dead would be much higher, people would still be staying home because of fear, and instead of being well supplied and getting fat (even if unhappy), we'd be scared and starving, too, after the supply chain shut down because of people either refusing or being unable to go to work.  I would argue that we saved the economy, because even though it's unhealthy, it is still running.  No amount of human sacrifice was going to save the economy, so we had to save the people to do that.

I'm not advocating that our situation continue forever, but I'm saying that it wasn't the wrong decision to make.  What it did was to us buy us time to come up with a better approach.  A combination of masks, distance and separation, testing, reduction of interactions, and hopefully soon a treatment will give us a way forward.  People will still die, and people will still be unhappy, and people will still wish for better times, but there are no good options.  Any action to relieve one kind of suffering will increase another kind, so we have to find a balance that hurts least.

[jeffandnicole]

Businesses making decisions that benefit society–especially in this specific context–are likely to attract more customers.  If Store A implements social distancing measures and Store B does not, then any potential customers who are concerned about the virus will be more likely to shop at Store A.  You say the measures would not be in that stores financial interest, but I say it gets them more customers in the door.

You say theories that aren't borne out in reality. Efficacy of social distancing measures are not going to be the primary concern that shoppers have when they choose a place to do business with. Price, convenience, product selection, and brand loyalty are, just as they always are.

Check out this poll that someone did on the OKCTalk forums:


You can argue these people have the freedom to endanger themselves by choosing to patronize a store that refuses to implement social distancing. But that means more possible infections, more potential asymptomatic spreaders, and more people to potentially take up a hospital bed that you might need later on.

The wrong question was asked.

You might get different results to "Given the choice between Store A with ______ (fill in the distancing protocol) and Store B without ______, would you be more likely to shop at Store A than at Store B?"

Plenty of people would shop at a store without those measures, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer not to or choose which store to go to based on that.

Still not good enough.

Store A may be thought of as a Wegmans. Store B may be thought of as an Aldi.  Some people will always shop at Wegmans, no matter what.  So the results still wouldn't be conclusive.

You would need to phrase the question with some leading questions, such as: Where do you normally shop? 

Then, using that, would you be more likely or less likely to shop at that store if they instituted one-way aisles.

But that may not be good enough either.  If someone is in an area with only one shopping choice, the supermarket could institute insane policies that you have to go along with, or find something else. 

[Max Rockatansky]

The notion is to acknowledge that some people don't want to get sick but don't have the choice to stay inside.

They do have a choice.

Yeah, the choice between "go into work, catch coronavirus, and die" and "don't go into work, lose your job, lose your house, live under a bridge and die."

Some choice!

Still, chances of death for everyone long term is still 100%.  I'd rather risk that reported 0.3% mortality rate and still get paid so I can actually do some real living at some point. 

[US71]

Arkansas is going to start opening May 11. Of course, our death rate is still climbing (up to 57 today) , but big restaurants want their sales.   So who ordered the sacrificial lamb?

[kphoger]

One thing this pandemic has shown, is that a lot of what makes up the American economy is a facade - like an old western movie set.  It looks good from one angle, but if you really take a look around, it's not very substantive.

Please let us know what country's economy is able to withstand this.

[kphoger]

The dead spend no money.

No, but the millions upon millions of living, healthy Americans could spend plenty of money.

[wxfree]

The dead spend no money.

No, but the millions upon millions of living, healthy Americans could spend plenty of money.

Only if they believe they can go out without getting sick, and only if the supply chains continue to run.  Part of the supply chain is already in danger in spite of the restrictions keeping the numbers down.  If we had 20 or 50 or 100 times more people sick and dying, how many meat plant workers, crop pickers, truck drivers, warehouse and store workers, and other essential people would be willing and able to go to work and keep things moving?  I would argue that we saved the economy by keeping it running at a low level, whereas even the most basic parts of it could have shut down if we'd done nothing.

[kphoger]

If we had 20 or 50 or 100 times more people sick and dying, how many meat plant workers, crop pickers, truck drivers, warehouse and store workers, and other essential people would be willing and able to go to work and keep things moving?

more than zero

[Roadgeekteen]

If we had 20 or 50 or 100 times more people sick and dying, how many meat plant workers, crop pickers, truck drivers, warehouse and store workers, and other essential people would be willing and able to go to work and keep things moving?

more than zero

How much more than zero? 1 is more than 0.