Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Trump's correct.  The risk IS low.  It's getting late in the season, and compare to 1918 when 675,000 were killed by the flu. If there were 100K infections, I wouldn't say that, but there aren't many right now.

Thank god that finally a photographer with an advanced degree in epidemiology and no doubt decades of public health expertise and experience has contributed to this thread and set our fears to rest about this viral hoax.

Baanthai wrote:
Thank god that finally a photographer with a medical degree in epidemiology and decades of public health expertise and experience has contributed to this thread and set our fears to rest about this viral hoax.

You left out Clairvoyant and Weather Forecaster.
We've had 6 deaths in Washington state so far, it is here.
And, we've had fairly heavy (for the coastal area) snowfall in mid-April.
Not unusual to be wet and fairly brisk well into May.

Assuming this is just like the flu (which is not yet known) there may be some basis in fact even though people getting flu in the summer is not unheard of, nor has something "gone away" if it thrives in the Southern Hemisphere for six months. On the other hand, some research shows it is more like a cold virus, summer colds are fairly common and easily spread.

Reality will happen regardless of what people say to make themselves feel good.

Edited, the death toll in Washington state is now 6...

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Trump's correct. The risk IS low.  It's getting late in the season, and compare to 1918 when 675,000 were killed by the flu. If there were 100K infections, I wouldn't say that, but there aren't many right now.

Trump, and you, are wrong. We are not talking about the FLU, which has a LOWER mortality rate. We have no idea in the US how many infections we have because of delays in testing, faulty tests, and shrinking the disease control agencies. Even with Pence praying the virus away, the likelihood is a spike in infections in the near future.

Baanthai wrote:

Thank god that finally a photographer with an advanced degree in epidemiology and no doubt decades of public health expertise and experience has contributed to this thread and set our fears to rest about this viral hoax.

Lmao
/thread

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
If the mortality rate was closer to 10% or higher, then I'd be a lot more concerned.

During the Spanish Flu, between 2% and 3% of those that were infected died. The estimates are that there were between 17 and 55 million fatalities.  Just to put it that 10% figure in perspective.

As of this morning the current fatality rate for COVID-19 appears to be 3 1/2% (3,115 died, 90,000 cases).

That does NOT mean that we'll see the same impact, at all.  It just means that the potential is there.  And, as the World Health Organization says this morning, we're now in uncharted territory.  So yes, we have to to behave in a smart, non-panicked, but cautious way.

The most disturbing thing is how that 3 1/2% actually breaks down when it comes to age. 3 1/2% is just a mathematical average.  If you're young and healthy the odds are almost non-existent. But if you are middle aged +, then the odds are MUCH higher.

That's great news if you're young and healthy, but not so great for the rest.  So don't just write it off, but don't panic either.  Just be practical and smart about it.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
You dont have to be an expert in any of this. all you need is life experience. SAR's, West Nile, Ebola,Swine flu.
most of us are just too old. we've been here before, and the same types will be in absolute panic over the next thing.
I'd worry more about people being susceptible to CNN panic panic panic reports than the actual thing <insert virus here>

“It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine,”

LightDreams wrote:
During the Spanish Flu, between 2% and 3% of those that were infected died. The estimates are that there were between 17 and 55 million fatalities.  Just to put it that 10% figure in perspective.

As of this morning the current fatality rate for COVID-19 appears to be 3 1/2% (3,115 died, 90,000 cases).

That does NOT mean that we'll see the same impact, at all.  It just means that the potential is there.  And, as the World Health Organization says this morning, we're now in uncharted territory.  So yes, we have to to behave in a smart, non-panicked, but cautious way.

The most disturbing thing is how that 3 1/2% actually breaks down when it comes to age. 3 1/2% is just a mathematical average.  If you're young and healthy the odds are almost non-existent. But if you are middle aged +, then the odds are MUCH higher.

That's great news if you're young and healthy, but not so great for the rest.  So don't just write it off, but don't panic either.  Just be practical and smart about it.

Just to add a bit to what you are saying. It appears that the very young (10 and younger) can get infected, but all will recover.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
You dont have to be an expert in any of this. all you need is life experience. SAR's, West Nile, Ebola,Swine flu.
most of us are just too old. we've been here before, and the same types will be in absolute panic over the next thing.
I'd worry more about people being susceptible to CNN panic panic panic reports than the actual thing <insert virus here>

What's your point, exactly? "SAR's, West Nile, Ebola,Swine flu..."  were no big deal? Nothing to worry about? And your gratuitous swipe at CNN speaks volumes.

Dorola wrote:
I worked in China in 2003 during the SARS outbreak, so I have some first and expirinse at ground zero. Most of what you see in the news is just the media flapping their lips and making noise. The goverenment officials don't want to create panic because is is bad for commerce and they have led the people to beleive that there are effective controls being put in place. Read  how some similar happened over 100 years ago and kill 500 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

Key Point: Its not 100 years ago or the middle ages

matt-h2 wrote:
Just to add a bit to what you are saying. It appears that the very young (10 and younger) can get infected, but all will recover.

Ah, but grade schools are great for spreading contagions.  Kids come home and infect other family members including grand parents.  My aunt caught chicken pox from her 9 year old daughter and died.

LightDreams wrote:
During the Spanish Flu, between 2% and 3% of those that were infected died. The estimates are that there were between 17 and 55 million fatalities.  Just to put it that 10% figure in perspective.

I get that.  Even if 3% of the billions of people out there get sick, that still means millions could die.

I think the big difference between 1918 and today though, is how advanced science and medicine have become since then.  Our standard of living is also much better than it was back then.  So, while tons of people will get sick, I wonder if the fatalities will level off in first world countries. 

China might be technologically advanced, but it also has a billion people to take care of.  I don't imagine they're all living in the best conditions or have access to good hospitals.

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:

I get that.  Even if 3% of the billions of people out there get sick, that still means millions could die.

I think the big difference between 1918 and today though, is how advanced science and medicine have become since then.  Our standard of living is also much better than it was back then.  So, while tons of people will get sick, I wonder if the fatalities will level off in first world countries. 

China might be technologically advanced, but it also has a billion people to take care of.  I don't imagine they're all living in the best conditions or have access to good hospitals.

Agreed. Plus we have much better ability to communicate to everyone the steps to take to better protect themselves.  The more that people calmly adjust, and act accordingly, the better.

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
I get that.  Even if 3% of the billions of people out there get sick, that still means millions could die.

I think the big difference between 1918 and today though, is how advanced science and medicine have become since then.  Our standard of living is also much better than it was back then.  So, while tons of people will get sick, I wonder if the fatalities will level off in first world countries. 

China might be technologically advanced, but it also has a billion people to take care of.  I don't imagine they're all living in the best conditions or have access to good hospitals.

Yes, this isn't 1918 in terms or personal nutrition and health for many of us here in the developed nations.  But for many people in the developed nations and through out the world, there are similarities to life in 1918.  It doesn't matter how good health care has become if there isn't any available to you or you can't afford it.  Just because a large segment of the population is better off nutritionally, it doesn't mean there aren't millions of people who can't afford to eat right, or have access to good food.

But this isn't 1918.  And the stark reality is that if the fatality rate for this disease is 2% in this country, it is 2% in this country.  The conditions of life in 1918 are not relevant.  A disease that has a 2% fatality rate now, probably would have had a much higher rate in 1918.  And the truth is, we have no idea what the infection rate or the fatality rate will be. 

Can we do what the Chinese did?  I talked to a friend in China this morning, her store hasn't been open for a month.  I got videos from another friend yesterday, of her adult daughter playing the piano.  The daughter lives in Australia and her flight was canceled while she was on a layover.  She had to get another flight back to her mother's city, and she has no idea when she can return home to Australia.  Meanwhile, she is still paying rent and expenses and has no income.  Another woman I know is enjoying her time, and not getting any sleep, because her daughter and brand new granddaughter came to visit her for spring festival, and they can't go home!  If this stuff happens in the USA, how will people who live paycheck to paycheck survive and how is that going to affect the fatality rates?  But thank God the interest rate was lowered a half a point.

LnN Studio wrote:
I watched Gov Cumo on the news today and he was doing what a leader is supposed to do, calm people and reduce fear.

He also said the US has the best medical system in the world and especially in NY and NYC. I largely argree with him on this.
But like many other politicians he was also saying in the past that we have the worst in the world, behind every developed county and just barely ahead of some third world countries .

No, not what he was saying. We may have the best medical care available...if you have insurance or can afford it. We are at the bottom of the list as to universal availability and outcomes versus money spent, including the highest drug prices in the known universe. Pathetic, actually.

Focuspuller wrote:
What's your point, exactly? "SAR's, West Nile, Ebola,Swine flu..."  were no big deal? Nothing to worry about? And your gratuitous swipe at CNN speaks volumes.

Too bad so sad, cry me a river. I suspect you like most here couldnt even say what the particulars of each of those viruses I mentioned without google. THAT is what speaks volumes.  just farts in the wind in relation to the big picture and the media hype.
you panic. you swim with the wave. I know its silliness for a certain type who buys this ...every...single..time.

LnN Studio wrote:
How many pandemic scares have we had since 1975 that are going to be worse than the Spanish Flu?

Approximately 32 million people have died of AIDS since the 1980s.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
The conditions of life in 1918 are not relevant.  A disease that has a 2% fatality rate now, probably would have had a much higher rate in 1918.  And the truth is, we have no idea what the infection rate or the fatality rate will be.

Bubonic Plague has a modern mortality rate of around 10% for people who have access to decent hospitals. In the 14th Century, the mortality rate was around 60%.

***DISCLAIMER***

I have a degree in epidemiology. But! It’s from Trump University.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:

Too bad so sad, cry me a river. I suspect you like most here couldnt even say what the particulars of each of those viruses I mentioned without google. THAT is what speaks volumes.  just farts in the wind in relation to the big picture and the media hype.
you panic. you swim with the wave. I know its silliness for a certain type who buys this ...every...single..time.

MEDIA hype? You are a joke. The tsunami of misinformation, lies, utter nonsense, and "1984" newspeak coming from the slugs and drones of the most incompetent administration in history is all yours to defend. Enjoy yourself, friendo.

ethasleftthebuilding wrote:
How many of those deaths in Washington state were in the one nursing home?

Check that out and think about it for a minute.

The death rate among the nursing home (old age and weak health) population would not be the same as the death rate among the general population.

I agree, it should be higher among the elderly but we have little or no reliable data regarding the age or health conditions of the victims from other countries to compare to.

Most of our current worldwide stats came from China.
If you think they are going to provide detailed, factual information, think again.
We don't know much except raw numbers and those may or may not be reliable.
Their conditions are not like ours either, the quality of life is very different.

Your hypothesis is based on a sound idea, that disease will be more devastating to the elderly, the infirm, etc.
What is interesting is that they were not mobile, not cirulating among the general populace. So, how did the infection get into the nursing home? Somebody who works or was visiting there brought it.

Which means the coronavirus is circulating in the general population. It also means that if the death rate is lower than the current 3% figure that is calculated from assumed data from other countries, then the number of infected people could and should be much higher if we can postulate a ratio based on current fatalities.

One problem with that is as Light Dreams has pointed out, our testing system is well behind the curve. The Governor of Washington declared a state of emergency specifically because we do not know what our level of infection is here, yet.

It would have been easy to use the methods that were already proven for testing but poor decisions have been made at the national level, retarding progress.

News today was of confirmed cases in Florida and North Carolina, on the other side of the country. We will see more of this, you cannot contain people without diagnosis and that has been delayed by unreliable tests. We are (thankfully) not China and can't simply dictate to people what they will or will not do.

It is entirely possible that we will not have meaningful statistics on how the virus affects people in our country for some time to come. That makes it very difficult to reach any meaningful conclusions.

If it only kills the elderly that is still a hell of a lot of people.

ethasleftthebuilding wrote:
How many of those deaths in Washington state were in the one nursing home?

Check that out and think about it for a minute.

The death rate among the nursing home (old age and weak health) population would not be the same as the death rate among the general population.

The percentages he used were the average of ALL of the population, both the very healthy that were infected and the much more vulnerable.  So, based on what the authorities have said about it to this point, that rough math still applies.

To explain a little more.  There were, apparently, an unknown number of intermediate sources (i.e. in the general population) that got it to the nursing home.  There was no direct single link from a traveler to the nursing home that would support the single isolated group logic.  That's why the authorities were so concerned when they labelled it a "community based transmission" event.   It would have made everyone's lives a lot easier if there was a single direct source...

So the percentage applies to all of the people that were infected (and their offshoot infections) along the way including the nursing home.  So the logic Shadow Dancer originally used would be correct.  But it is clear that who dies (that percentage out of the total number of the general population that was infected) is going to be overwhelmingly tilted in terms of those that are older and in poor health (i.e. the nursing home).


P.S.  Two men in their twenties who the Seattle PI says have been added to the list (that were in Issaquah, Washington), don't have any known connection to the nursing home or any recent travel.  They're a mystery ("community based transmission").  The new case in North Carolina, however, is different.  That one DOES have a direct link to the Washington State Nursing home.

LightDreams wrote:
But it is clear that who dies (that percentage out of the total number of the general population that was infected) is going to be overwhelmingly tilted in terms of those that are older and in poor health (i.e. the nursing home).

You could probably add the homeless population into the higher risk group.

rxz wrote:
It would be interesting if China can trace back and identify patient "0" and the date of the first infection.  December, November, earlier?  And then make it public?

What would this accomplish ?

Baanthai wrote:
Bubonic Plague has a modern mortality rate of around 10% for people who have access to decent hospitals. In the 14th Century, the mortality rate was around 60%.

What is your point?  Are you just trying to bring a disease with a higher death rate into the discussion?  Or are you trying to say that current conditions reduce the death rate of BP?  BP is caused by a bacterium, so it can be treated with common antibiotics.  What you didn't mention is, without treatment, the fatality rate for BP is way higher than 10%.  10% is more like the low end of the survival rate.

We don't have historical data to compare CV-19 disease against.  The only data we have is from the past few months.  So, I reiterate:  The fatality rate for CV-19 in 2020 is the fatality rate of CV-19 in 2020.  You can break it down by country or age group, but even then the rate is the rate.  It doesn't matter what happened in other pandemics, with other disease, or in other times.


In other news: New Hampshire has a second confirmed case that was spread by a man that was told to self quarantine, and he didn't.  He went to a party.  The carrier works for a medical center.  Sheez.  So, expect a lot of cases in New Hampshire.

Focuspuller wrote:

MEDIA hype? You are a joke. The tsunami of misinformation, lies, utter nonsense, and "1984" newspeak coming from the slugs and drones of the most incompetent administration in history is all yours to defend. Enjoy yourself, friendo.

I will enjoy myself. for another 4 years of secure borders, a great portfolio and the killing of america's enemies.
hey I hear you can buy a hazmat suit on amazon. get it while you can!

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
What is your point?

You need to improve your reading comprehension, both what you read and what you’ve written.

Hunter GWPB wrote:
It doesn't matter what happened in other pandemics, with other disease, or in other times.

And there it is-A fundamental mistruth being coughed up like a viral fur ball. Sorry but the study of epidemiology really does matter. Past epidemiological experience and knowledge is wholly relevant to solving a pandemic of today. Yes, there really are experts that know more than you or me.