Coronavirus Outbreak...

[Roy]

Currently there are 203,608 cumulative cases in the USA and 4476 deaths. That works out to 0.2% mortality at this point in the USA. (of course that is with the mitigating techniques we are using)

World 911,308 cumulative cases, 45,497 deaths. 0.49% mortality.

Sparko, you're forgetting that you can only calculate the mortality rate once the disease has run its course - you don't yet know the outcome of most of those 911,308 or 203,608 cases.

Latest figures from here show

935,197 cases:
047,192 deaths
193,989 survivors
694,016 still in progress.

Of the 241,181 cases that have run their full course 47,192 resulted in death. That's about 20%, not 0.49%.

For the US the figures are:
215,003 cases:
005,102 deaths
008,878 survivors
201,023 still in progress.

Of the 13,980 cases that have run their full course 5,102 resulted in death. 36%.

Obviously the outcome of the ongoing cases will affect these figures, almost certainly downwards. But you're assuming that anyone with coronavirus that hasn't died yet will recover. This is going to give you the wrong answer, since you're assuming a favourable outcome for 93% of the US cases.

[Roy]

I so concentrated on the error in technique that I completely missed the error in the calculations. I'm slipping

[carpedm9587]

Sparko, you're forgetting that you can only calculate the mortality rate once the disease has run its course - you don't yet know the outcome of most of those 911,308 or 203,608 cases.

Latest figures from here show

935,197 cases:
047,192 deaths
193,989 survivors
694,016 still in progress.

Of the 241,181 cases that have run their full course 47,192 resulted in death. That's about 20%, not 0.49%.

For the US the figures are:
215,003 cases:
005,102 deaths
008,878 survivors
201,023 still in progress.

Of the 13,980 cases that have run their full course 5,102 resulted in death. 36%.

Obviously the outcome of the ongoing cases will affect these figures, almost certainly downwards. But you're assuming that anyone with coronavirus that hasn't died yet will recover. This is going to give you the wrong answer, since you're assuming a favourable outcome for 93% of the US cases.

I had not thought of this in terms of "percent of cases that went to conclusion."

Those are scary numbers. Hopefully, they are high because cases that go to death with this virus apparently tend to go bad quickly whereas recovery is more prolonged. And I'm sure there are tens of thousands of cases that will never be tested and people who will be asymptomatic or misdiagnose themselves with the flu for the milder cases. Sorting all of that out may never be possible.

[simplicio]

I had not thought of this in terms of "percent of cases that went to conclusion."

Those are scary numbers. Hopefully, they are high because cases that go to death with this virus apparently tend to go bad quickly whereas recovery is more prolonged. And I'm sure there are tens of thousands of cases that will never be tested and people who will be asymptomatic or misdiagnose themselves with the flu for the milder cases. Sorting all of that out may never be possible.

I read where some models even suggest that Seattle may see a single bump or epidemic (no real bump in cases after easing of social distancing) because it may be that widespread. The fact is we have no idea how many have been infected. We have no data on which to make informed decisions on this.

As epidemics and responses to them are local, the scenario in one part of the U.S. could differ from that in another. A report from the Institute for Disease Modeling suggests that even Seattle’s relatively prompt response may have only slowed the spread of the infection and it may see a single-peaked epidemic with much of the population infected, despite social distancing efforts. If accurate, recently reported fever data from a networked thermometer company that illness rates may be coming down, not just growing more slowly, then we may see a second peak once social distancing efforts are lifted.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/01/...d-19-pandemic/

(The link in that paragraph is to a series of models)

[oxmixmudd]

I had not thought of this in terms of "percent of cases that went to conclusion."

Those are scary numbers. Hopefully, they are high because cases that go to death with this virus apparently tend to go bad quickly whereas recovery is more prolonged. And I'm sure there are tens of thousands of cases that will never be tested and people who will be asymptomatic or misdiagnose themselves with the flu for the milder cases. Sorting all of that out may never be possible.

Looking at s Korea helps. Because they have put a. Lid on spread, they have a much larger percentage that have completed the disease. Wgat we saw. During the lull was a convergence towards around 3 to 5% of the naive and worst case numbers. Then worst case shot back up with the return of exponential growth. It takes less time for the disease to kill than to recover. And there are. Many. Mild cases not in the stats. Those elements. When taken into account show numbers more in the 1 to 2% range. If s Korea keeps theirs contained, we will get a. Clearer picture. Soon.

[Mountain Man]

That is MM's and Pix's lie they have been pushing forward for a while now.

Go ahead, say you wouldn't be happy if this situation resulted in Trump losing the election. Tell me you wouldn't breath a sigh of relief and say it was all worth it in the end.

[carpedm9587]

Looking at s Korea helps. Because they have put a. Lid on spread, they have a much larger percentage that have completed the disease. Wgat we saw. During the lull was a convergence towards around 3 to 5% of the naive and worst case numbers. Then worst case shot back up with the return of exponential growth. It takes less time for the disease to kill than to recover. And there are. Many. Mild cases not in the stats. Those elements. When taken into account show numbers more in the 1 to 2% range. If s Korea keeps theirs contained, we will get a. Clearer picture. Soon.

Yeah - I have been watching S. Korea and they are a pretty decent shining example. Germany also appears to be shaping up that way. From my perspective, we have S. Korea as an example of the best a democracy can do, and Italy as an example of the worst. The U.S. is between the two, but drifting towards Italy.

Part of the problem we have is that we are both a country and a collection of 50 states. Defeating this at the national level will require strong coordination at the national level. Unfortunately, we have about a dozen states not taking it all that seriously, and poor coordination from the top.

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah - I have been watching S. Korea and they are a pretty decent shining example. Germany also appears to be shaping up that way. From my perspective, we have S. Korea as an example of the best a democracy can do, and Italy as an example of the worst. The U.S. is between the two, but drifting towards Italy.

Part of the problem we have is that we are both a country and a collection of 50 states. Defeating this at the national level will require strong coordination at the national level. Unfortunately, we have about a dozen states not taking it all that seriously, and poor coordination from the top.

Germany stands at 1.2% naive right now. But they are still very early in the curve with lots of testing. S. Korea is the best case for real numbers in that they have done a lot of testing, and they have a MAJORITY recovered, something not seen anywhere else except China. And amazingly, this puts their worst case mortality at 3%, naive - bast case still sits at 1.7%. If we look for the best possible news, e.g. we take Iceland's report of 50% asymptomatic, then we won't see less than .9% or so out of Korea, even if we test everyone. They still have 55 on the critical list, so assuming 25% of those die (which is lower than the averages seen for once a patient is in that state) we are still looking at 1 to 2% depending on the ratio of uncaught asymptomatic cases up to 50%. S. Korea is a younger population than italy, but the US population is in fact younger (according to https://www.nationmaster.com/country...-States/People). So we may fare better - if we somehow can keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed, which so far seems unlikely.

We really should not be in this situation. There is still something wrong at the top - this should be an all hands on deck make the stuff and get it where it is needed situation. We still just are not there.

Keep an eye on Germany. With their aggressive testing but rising mortality, it offers a good European(Western) comparison against S. Korea in terms of what the disease actually does in a population with adequate mitigation of the spread.

Unfortunately, the US is heading to a big crash in terms of overwhelmed hospitals, and that pushes mortality up.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I read where some models even suggest that Seattle may see a single bump or epidemic (no real bump in cases after easing of social distancing) because it may be that widespread. The fact is we have no idea how many have been infected. We have no data on which to make informed decisions on this.

As epidemics and responses to them are local, the scenario in one part of the U.S. could differ from that in another. A report from the Institute for Disease Modeling suggests that even Seattle’s relatively prompt response may have only slowed the spread of the infection and it may see a single-peaked epidemic with much of the population infected, despite social distancing efforts. If accurate, recently reported fever data from a networked thermometer company that illness rates may be coming down, not just growing more slowly, then we may see a second peak once social distancing efforts are lifted.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/01/...d-19-pandemic/

(The link in that paragraph is to a series of models)

A large portion of the population infected with mild cases would tend to slow or even stop spread (herd immunity). We are not seeing that sans social distancing, so that would be an argument that whatever portion of the population is getting what they think is a cold, it still is not a sizeable percentage and thus will not push mortality down to 'safe' levels as it were. Again, look at S.Korea and Germany were best case mortalities are above 1% and testing is significant and aggressive. Germany seems to be following a similar rise in mortality with aggressive testing that we have seen in S.Korea. The difference is S.Korea acted very early. They are tending to average 100 to 150 new cases per day. Spread is being held constant at a very low level, which may be the best that can be done without complete isolation/quarantine of the population and isolation from the world itself.

[carpedm9587]

For those comparing this to the flu, and still asking "how serious can it be?" consider the following. In a very bad flu season, the U.S. experiences some 60,000 deaths. Last year it was just above 34,000. The flue season begins in November, climbs through December, peaks for January and February, and then begins to decline through March and April. If we assume that, in the worst season, ALL of the flu deaths occur in February and January, the death rate would average about 1,000 per day in the worst year. This is with vaccines but without social distancing.

U.S. deaths due to Covid-19 look as follows:

• March 23 - 141
• March 24 - 225
• March 25 - 247
• March 26 - 268
• March 27 - 400
• March 28 - 525
• March 29 - 363
• March 30 - 558
• March 31 - 759
• April 1 ---- 857

The predictions, right now, are for peak in 2 weeks. Can you imagine what these numbers would look like if 80+% of the U.S. were NOT practicing social distancing and other mitigation efforts? Any questions as to how serious this is should long since have ended, IMO.

[seer]

Can you imagine what these numbers would look like if 80+% of the U.S. were NOT practicing social distancing and other mitigation efforts?

Like stopping flights from other infected countries and closing our borders.

[carpedm9587]

Like stopping flights from other infected countries and closing our borders.

Yes - that is part of an overall mitigation strategy. It is a minimal effort. It is not enough.

[oxmixmudd]

For those comparing this to the flu, and still asking "how serious can it be?" consider the following. In a very bad flu season, the U.S. experiences some 60,000 deaths. Last year it was just above 34,000. The flue season begins in November, climbs through December, peaks for January and February, and then begins to decline through March and April. If we assume that, in the worst season, ALL of the flu deaths occur in February and January, the death rate would average about 1,000 per day in the worst year. This is with vaccines but without social distancing.

U.S. deaths due to Covid-19 look as follows:

• March 23 - 141
• March 24 - 225
• March 25 - 247
• March 26 - 268
• March 27 - 400
• March 28 - 525
• March 29 - 363
• March 30 - 558
• March 31 - 759
• April 1 ---- 857

The predictions, right now, are for peak in 2 weeks. Can you imagine what these numbers would look like if 80+% of the U.S. were NOT practicing social distancing and other mitigation efforts? Any questions as to how serious this is should long since have ended, IMO.

Mortality in the US is @ 2.4%, up from 1.5% March 19.
Likewise:

Germany: 0.25% -> 1.2%
Italy: 8.3% -> 11.9%
Spain: 5.02% -> 9.07%
France: 3.38% ->7.07%
UK: 4.41% -> 8.6%
S.Korea: 1.09% -> 1.7%

Anybody going down? Well, Ironically Iran, though not by much: 7.29% -> 6.26%

But the reality is, almost all nations with significant outbreaks are seeing rises in death rates.

[seer]

Anybody going down? Well, Ironically Iran, though not by much: 7.29% -> 6.26%

And we believe Iran why?

[carpedm9587]

Here's a funny little statistic. The 15 richest people in the U.S. are sitting on $870B in wealth. In the U.S. today:

• 70M people earn less than $25K/year
• 45M earn $25-50K/year
• 34M earn 50-100K/year

If we assume the average for each group is near the median (probably a high assumption actually), these 15 people could pay the salaries of everyone of these Americans for two months and then have to get by on a measly $1B each. If we factor in that not all of these people are unemployed, and we add in the next 85 richest people, we might even get half a year!

What do you say, top 0.1% - time to step up? After all - you made a substantial percentage of those riches on the backs of those very people!


ETA: I have to admit, it came as a bit of a shock that 115M people in the U.S. are living on less than $50K per year, 70M of them below 25K.