Coronavirus Outbreak...

[simplicio]

That isnt what is happening in Italy. Or Iran. Or Spain. O France. Or UK.

Doctors in America do not admit everyone from the clinic or ER into a hospital bed. And I am sure that the doctors in Europe do likewise. I am surprised that posters have not figured this out yet.

The media's fear mongering is not causing hospital beds to be at full capacity, covid 19 is the cause. Real people with real illness.

The hospital beds are not clogged up with people who could recuperate at home.

How many years has it been since Obamacare was debated before it was passed? How many years since Ebola hit the US and the news? Some of these same discussions occurred back then.

[rogue06]

Canada is closing its border and Mexico has threatened to close theirs saying they don't want infected Americans coming into the country. There's some weapons grade irony there.

00000000000000ab000-00aaaL.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

My point was you told MM that "You're quoting a mortality rate 1/10 that of the flu. It would be impossible for a disease with such a low mortality rate to overwhelm any modern medical system."

Even with that low of a mortality rate (which I agree isn't that low) you could easily overwhelm the medical system. A - people panic and B - there could be more serious cases that require hospitalization but not end in death which could mean a very serious illness but with a low mortality rate.

Sorry I used the word impossible. I should have qualified it with, "given the characteristics of this disease" and/or substituted "unlikely" for "impossible".

Of course the point of the post was that trying to claim this disease presents with a mortality 1/10th that of the flu is absurd. Your argument is more about the difference between 99% stupid and 100% stupid

[Mountain Man]

Was just at Aldi, and the shelves were reasonably well stocked despite the closure of restaurants in my state. The things in short supply were frozen entrees and bottled water, of course, but also chips, which I thought was odd. I didn't assess the toilet paper.

[carpedm9587]

Back at the start of this exchange, Pixie criticized wiping down shopping carts without gloves or mask. Reducing the germ load is possible without a mask or gloves, which is one goal of wiping down. And another goal which I did not bring up is the behavioral symbolism of wiping down surfaces, which cannot be ignored since it is significant. Shopping carts cannot be reasonably disinfected, sanitization is the goal. Army doctrine distinguished between sanitization and disinfecting when it comes to bio agents, bioweapons and normal disease agents in both combat and health care. (military portable hospitals are not designed for dealing with infectious diseases, rather battlefield traumas. Which is why soldiers are moved out as quickly as possible)

My point is that each task in health care has an appropriate level protective gear, which parallels Army SOPs. Hospitals battled ubiquitous bugs like orsa and mersa, dangerous bugs like the flesh eating staph, etc. Seldom was full gear used. Hospitals have varying levels which are considered essential for the task (and I note that it has been less than a generation since gloves have been used for all contact with patients).

CDC knows what they are doing (I hope). If not, there are countless nursing and medical professionals out there. And they have thought through these things, and the information is out there.

Thanks!

[carpedm9587]

How many people are rushing to the hospital and demanding unnecessary testing and treatment because they have a cough and are now convinced they're going to die because of the media's fearmongering, but in reality would recover quite well at home with a little rest and chicken soup? That will clog up the healthcare system just as readily as legitimate serious cases.

You ask a question that has no answer. One could just as easily ask, "how many people would die due to out-of-control virus spread without the constant drumbeat of "beware - this is dangerous" from the media?" We have no way to predict or project those numbers, so accepting one point of view as "true" over the other requires the person holding the view to assume their conclusion.

I look at it this way:

1a. We could take little/no precautions and the bug could die out: outcome good.
1b. We could take little/no precautions and the bug could become pervasive: outcome very bad.
2a. We could take significant/strong precautions and the bug could die out even sooner than 1a: outcome very good.
2b. We could take significant/strong precautions and the bug could spread in a more limited fashion: outcome so-so.

The really bad outcome is a result of doing nothing. So I applaud the media and the medical experts who are speaking out strongly to warn people and ensuring that 2a or 2b is the more likely outcome. I'd rather not roll the die between 1a and 1b, especially with the initial mortality numbers and infection rates we are seeing.

[Mountain Man]

You ask a question that has no answer.

That was the point. We're making guesses based on incomplete data. We probably won't have solid numbers for several months.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry I used the word impossible. I should have qualified it with, "given the characteristics of this disease" and/or substituted "unlikely" for "impossible".

Of course the point of the post was that trying to claim this disease presents with a mortality 1/10th that of the flu is absurd. Your argument is more about the difference between 99% stupid and 100% stupid

I think it is quite possible, and perhaps even likely, to overwhelm a modern medical system with a 1% mortality rate, though it strongly depends on the infection rate (which is commonly ignored in this discussion). AFAICT, this coronavirus shows infection rates similar to the common flu (and other coronaviruses). With vaccines available, the flu still hits an average of 34 million people in the U.S. per year. With a 0.1% morality rate, that translates to an average of about 34K deaths per year. If the coronavirus is ten times that, then deaths closer to 340K are not unreasonable. BUt there is no vaccine, so infection incidents could be even higher. Since the range of flu deaths is 11-61K per year (since 2010), if coronavirus follows a similar path, a range of 110K to 610K is easily possible. If the lack of a vaccine acts as a multiplier, the numbers could be even worse. And that is counting those who actually die - not all those who become critically ill enough to require hospitalization. Some leaders in the medical community have projected mortality numbers as high as 2.2 million (though I personally think, or hope, those are WAY too high).

The U.S. has an estimated 925K hospital beds total. That has to serve ALL needs, so they are not ALL available for coronavirus. 64K of those are ICU beds. There are 160K ventilators nationwide. So, if this bug, if it runs rampant and has a steep infection rate, most certainly could overwhelm the U.S. medical system, as it has done in Italy and other countries.

[carpedm9587]

Was just at Aldi, and the shelves were reasonably well stocked despite the closure of restaurants in my state. The things in short supply were frozen entrees and bottled water, of course, but also chips, which I thought was odd. I didn't assess the toilet paper.

I just came back from Costco and our local grocery chain (Hannaford). The shelves in many areas were barren - including bread, flour, toilet paper, paper towels, tissue paper, cereal, any form of sanitizer, and the list goes on. The "family planning" shelves were well stocked, which leads me to think we are likely to see a surge of births in about 9-10 months. When they grow up, we can call them "Quaran-teens"

In conversation with the staff at Hannafords, the problem is both supply and demand. People are buying at a record pace, and supply trucks have not been delivering for two days now.

[carpedm9587]

That was the point. We're making guesses based on incomplete data. We probably won't have solid numbers for several months.

And I, for one, do not believe we should wait, which was the point of my post. If we do not act, and the worst case manifests (as is evident in Italy, Iran, and Spain) the consequences are too extreme. By the time we learn there is little to worry about, we will have passed a critical nexus if there IS something to worry about. There is ample evidence that the disease has a powerful downside.

Sometimes, you make your best guess and move from there. Certainty is not a luxury we can afford, IMO.

[Mountain Man]

And I, for one, do not believe we should wait...

Where did you get the idea that I was advocating waiting to take action?

[lilpixieofterror]

Back at the start of this exchange, Pixie criticized wiping down shopping carts without gloves or mask. Reducing the germ load is possible without a mask or gloves, which is one goal of wiping down. And another goal which I did not bring up is the behavioral symbolism of wiping down surfaces, which cannot be ignored since it is significant. Shopping carts cannot be reasonably disinfected, sanitization is the goal. Army doctrine distinguished between sanitization and disinfecting when it comes to bio agents, bioweapons and normal disease agents in both combat and health care. (military portable hospitals are not designed for dealing with infectious diseases, rather battlefield traumas. Which is why soldiers are moved out as quickly as possible)

My point is that each task in health care has an appropriate level protective gear, which parallels Army SOPs. Hospitals battled ubiquitous bugs like orsa and mersa, dangerous bugs like the flesh eating staph, etc. Seldom was full gear used. Hospitals have varying levels which are considered essential for the task (and I note that it has been less than a generation since gloves have been used for all contact with patients).

CDC knows what they are doing (I hope). If not, there are countless nursing and medical professionals out there. And they have thought through these things, and the information is out there.

[lilpixieofterror]

Absolutely. I'm sure that, for some people, FDR's interment of the Japanese dwarfs all other considerations and will make him the worst president ever. There is a reason why two people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at opposing viewpoints: the facts are assessed in light of pre-existing worldviews. As noted - opinion is always a factor.

So why should I listen to a single opinion you have, when it is a very easy task to spin almost any President, as among the worst?

At no point did I say anything about "the rise of China." China's resurgence as a political and military force has a long history with numerous factors at play. At no point did I say Trump was responsible for this, so I have no further comment. my observation that Trump has lessened U.S. influence (and therefore power - to some degree) in the world is obvious from his withdrawal from numerous agreements and his public attitude towards our historical friends and enemies. That he has provided an opening for both Russia and China to slip into places formerly heavily influenced by the U.S. is a matter of public record. "They did it too" is not a defense.

And that’s your opinion, not based in anything, but your opinion. Again, people said the same thing about Obama or lots of presidents. In realty, the US position really is no different today than in 2009 and if China or Russia slip in anywhere, the blame will sit at the feet of presidents, administrations, business leaders, and congressional members over the past 30 years, that have sold us down the river, to make a quick buck.

On that we will have to agree to disagree. Attempting to stop leaking of classified information is in no way comparable to the broad sweeping attack Trump has made on the fourth estate, for th ereasons I have already cited.

Again, your opinion, but you keep ignoring the presses role in the fight. Is it true or false that the press has lied to the public? Is it true or false that the press has created many issues whole cloth, without bothering to gather the facts first? Trump didn’t make the press turn a bunch of teenagers into racist villains, sent Twitter mobs on these kids, get them threatened, harassed, and tried to destroy their lives. The press did it all on their own. Closing your eyes and ignoring these details will not make it disappear. Trump was elected because of the abuses of the press (among other groups). A detail you ignore.

Mistakes and intentional false narrative are two separate things. While both have occurred by every single news outlet I have ever seen at one time or another, in general, journalistic integrity is actually fairly high from the reputable journalistic outlets, and the vast majority of what is reported is accurate and researched, AFAICT. Most of the time, a media outlet that finds they have pushed forward a false story owns it and acts on it. People are fired, public accounting is made, and corrections are published. Of course those corrections appear below the fold on page 11 while the original story was above the fold on page 1, but that has pretty much always been the case. Very few (if any) reputable news outlets have stood behind a false story. The comparison between Trump's intentional barrage of lies and misinformation does not even begin to compare, IMO.

Sorry, closing your eyes and making excuses for the media will not make it go away. The media saw a kid wearing a Trump hat, saw a video that was edited to give the narrative they wanted to hear, didn’t bother to fact check, than ran with it. This is just one of the many well documented cases of the media not fact checking and instead actively working at destroying people. Keep those fingers jammed in your ears all you want, it will not go away.

See my response above, and I'll leave the last word on this aspect of the discussion to you.

Keep those fingers jammed in those ears.

Actually, I condemn the actions I disapprove whether I like or dislike the person. FDR's actions with regard to the Japanese were unacceptable and reprehensible. Recognizing that, in the balance, he was more a good president than a bad one doesn't mean I forgive his bad choices. It means I recognize that bad people can do good things and good people can do bad things. His lying about his disability is not something I condone - it was wrong. It is, in the large scope of things, one lie that pales in comparison the the nonstop deluge that emanates from the current holder of that office. As for my assertion that Trump is probably the worst president in our history, that is based not only on the facts of his presidency, but also my position on what constitutes a "good president." Trump fails on the vast majority of those things, and succeeds on precious few. FDR succeeds on the vast majority of those things, and fails on a precious few (those some are fairly significant). You seem to want to make the case that a person who has a pimple is equally as diseased as the person who has stage four pancreatic cancer. I don't find your argument very compelling.

“I’m not making excuses but....”

Lots of opinion, little in the way of facts.

I don't see what any of this has to do with my position, so I'll leave it to you. As for your last sentence, I responded to that above.

That Trump is nothing new, he is a disrupter, elected to stir up the status que, like a lot of presidents were. That it is very easy to make almost any President look bad, if I am selective with my facts and figures.

I have no clue what the current state of education funding or the success/failure of our K-12 schools has to do with anything I've said. I have no idea what "these lies" refers to with respect to the press. I have no idea why pulling out a list of other examples of public lies in and from our government in any way exonerates the person holding the highest office in the land. Personally, I have not found myself particularly "failed" by any of our institutions. I'd love their to be less regulation with respect to our waterways - but that is a personal bias due to the current situation with respect to my home, and I recognize it as such. Other than that, I have no particular bones to pick with "government."

It’s pretty easy, Americans are not happy with their institutions.

I think you will have a hard time defending "a lot." As with many of these posts, example after example can (and probably will) be cited - but the journalistic world produces hundreds of thousands of stories every single day, and the vast majority of those stories can be shown to be accurate and well documented. But if you want to attempt to document "a lot," by all means do so. It might help to first quantify an agreed-upon level for "a lot." Are you counting stories? If so, you are probably not looking at the big picture. Are you looking for percentages? You would have to show thousands of stories per day that are lies to even arrive at a 1% rate of "lying" by the press. Somehow, I just don't think that will happen. But I'll be interested to see your response.

There is that ability to not notice the forest you are in and to lose the point. Many of the big stories of the past few years have been based on lies. Is that true or false or was everyone seeing things when the media tried to destroy a kid, for the crime of wearing a Trump hat and attending a pro life event?

[oxmixmudd]

I think it is quite possible, and perhaps even likely, to overwhelm a modern medical system with a 1% mortality rate, though it strongly depends on the infection rate (which is commonly ignored in this discussion). AFAICT, this coronavirus shows infection rates similar to the common flu (and other coronaviruses). With vaccines available, the flu still hits an average of 34 million people in the U.S. per year. With a 0.1% morality rate, that translates to an average of about 34K deaths per year. If the coronavirus is ten times that, then deaths closer to 340K are not unreasonable. BUt there is no vaccine, so infection incidents could be even higher. Since the range of flu deaths is 11-61K per year (since 2010), if coronavirus follows a similar path, a range of 110K to 610K is easily possible. If the lack of a vaccine acts as a multiplier, the numbers could be even worse. And that is counting those who actually die - not all those who become critically ill enough to require hospitalization. Some leaders in the medical community have projected mortality numbers as high as 2.2 million (though I personally think, or hope, those are WAY too high).

The U.S. has an estimated 925K hospital beds total. That has to serve ALL needs, so they are not ALL available for coronavirus. 64K of those are ICU beds. There are 160K ventilators nationwide. So, if this bug, if it runs rampant and has a steep infection rate, most certainly could overwhelm the U.S. medical system, as it has done in Italy and other countries.

Good points

The coronavirus has an infection rate about twice that of the flu. R0 between 2 and 3 vs the flu's 1.28


The claim was that the coronavirus mortality was 0.01%, not 1%. 1/10th that of the flu. It's a ludicrous claim

The coronavirus, in addition to a mortality 10 or more times that of the flu, tends to put a larger percentage in serious to critical condition.

As I've pointed out in other posts, a bad flu outbreak pushes the medical system to its limits as it is. Unchecked the Corona virus requires at least 10x the capacity to treat serious respiratory symptoms than currently exist.

[simplicio]

Because that was what you were arguing, whether you meant it or not!