All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (14 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[Dragon]

So now I am right wing for stating numbers from the CDC. I guess you are calling the CDC a right wing entity now?

No I'm saying that some of OUR right wing politicians says that "it was not so bad..:" and calling OUR shutdown for unnecessary due to the effective containement of the virus

 

[coldseat]

The numbers from the CDC show that the rush to lock everything down the way we did may have been too reactionary, they were based on a much higher mortality rate. The deleterious impacts on the economy could end up causing many more fatalities than the virus itself. But that is almost impossible to quantify.

You could read it that way, but that also doesn't mean that's accurate when you look at the timeline of how things developed and what we knew when. First, we have always known that the first projections from models that came out would not be very accurate. The models were based a very little data and a lot of assumptions. They were also clearly predicated on taking no action and allowing the virus to spread. The fact that such drastic action was taken world wide was always going to effect those numbers.

Second, while the IFR value has come down (something we also knew was going to happen as we learned more about the disease), we still don't know what that number is.

Third, a lot of the article deals with and is very critical of New York. That's understandable as New York was one of the early hotspots in the US as the virus hit first there. They were dealing with and creating policy on the fly, having to deal with a lot if problems at once. Clearly the decision to send Covid patients back to nursing homes was a disastrous one, but that was also done early on when hospitals where overloaded so it's not clear what other options there were at that time. It's also clear that many people outside of New York, espicially the eldearly in Flordia, saw what was going on and took their own precautions and limited themselves prior to state actions. This one act help slow the spread down significantly outside of New York. Because of that though, it would seem logical to conclude that if everything opens back up, there should be serious concern to increasing spread the virus beyound hospital capacity. We already know that has disastrous effects.

 

[Dragon]

The numbers from the CDC show that the rush to lock everything down the way we did may have been too reactionary, they were based on a much higher mortality rate. The deleterious impacts on the economy could end up causing many more fatalities than the virus itself. But that is almost impossible to quantify.

you could also have had a situation like Brazil if you hadn't shut down. Point is that it is impossible to say.

 

[wardorican]

That

From the CDC on the 24th.

The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19

reason.com

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

That's an interesting read. A lot of data, and a lot of references that I'd like to dig in more later.

This is my early thinking. I think the article is misleading a point (not sure intentionally, since that's what the CDC used for one of their 5 scenarios).

0.4 % infected will die, is still high. That's still about 4 times higher than the Flu. And for older adults they still said it was 1.3% for those over 65, so about 13 times higher than the seasonal Flu (approx 0.1% on the average, didn't look for age adjusted values).

If we go with the fact that 35% are asymptomatic carriers and the bulk of our COVID-19 testing was for symptomatic people only (I know Florida and I think NY has allowed people without symptoms to be tested.. so some of them are now in the mix).. but let me assume, worst case, none of the asymptomatic carriers are 'counted' in the testing data....

Today we're at about 1.7Million cases and 100k dead (5.88% death rate). Adding in 35% more cases makes it 2.295 Million cases, with that same 100k dead, is a 4.3% death rate. I"m not sure where they're getting the 0.4%. Something about the math isn't in agreement.

I keep saying it, look at the deaths. If this disease really had a 35% asymptomatic case rate, and only 0.4% of cases resulted in deaths, assuming 2,295,000 cases (that's adding that 35%), we would only have 9,180 COVID-19 deaths. Using the official case count of around 1.7 Million, that would mean we'd only have 6,800 deaths.

So, without digging into this more later, or seeing if they mean a "going forward death rate", I can't see how those two concepts work with each other.

In order to arrive at anything near a 0.4% death rate (on the aggregate), we'd need approximately 25 Million infected people. That means 93% of carriers would have to be asymptomatic.

But, I may just be missing how the CDC is applying those figures.

However, the point of the article is looking at the data to better make policies and safeguards for the people who really need it. That's fair, but I feel like it is downplaying it overall.

 

[Dragon]

If you read the notes at the bottom of that paper it says "Estimates only include death dates between March 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020" and "Estimates only include onset dates between March 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020"

New York daily number of dead didn't even peak until April 7th and the highest number (march 31st was almost half what the number was on april 7th)

Sometimes it pays to read the fine print when things don't add up

 

[wardorican]

If you read the notes at the bottom of that paper it says "Estimates only include death dates between March 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020" and "Estimates only include onset dates between March 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020"

New York daily number of dead didn't even peak until April 7th and the highest number (march 31st was almost half what the number was on april 7th)

Sometimes it pays to read the fine print when things don't add up

That only applies to the death reporting statistic. Gotta look for the two **'s

For table 1, what the fuss is all about.

 

[SystemShock]

If we go with the fact that 35% are asymptomatic carriers

The fact, or the assumption?

 

[BobE]

 

[wardorican]

The fact, or the assumption?

OK, CDC's assumption. Good point.

 

[insidejob]

At least Louisiana is at the bottom of this list.

These 24 States Have Uncontrolled Coronavirus Outbreaks, Study Says - News Break

A shocking new report estimates that 24 states have an uncontrolled COVID-19 spread, right as the country considers reopening. "While we are confident that some states have controlled transmission, we are similarly confident that many states have not," the researchers, from Imperial College of...

www.newsbreakapp.com

 

[J-DONK]

Sen. Loeffler’s husband cuts $1 million check to pro-Trump super PAC

The Georgia senator is facing a tough election battle amid questions about her stock trading.

www.politico.com

 

[Heathen]

From Alabama:

"We're surging:" Alabama reports largest COVID-19 increases to date

The number of cases confirmed per day has been rising since April 30, showing no sign of slowing.

www.alreporter.com

 

[The moose]

From Alabama:

"We're surging:" Alabama reports largest COVID-19 increases to date

The number of cases confirmed per day has been rising since April 30, showing no sign of slowing.

www.alreporter.com

,,

They are in bad shape.

Opening up while still climbing is gonna be horrible for the population.

The sad thing is Alabama has real auto plants. All the Benz SUVs for the world are built there.

They also build Honda's, Hyundai, Toyota, in the state. The opening and shutting down is not gonna be good for that industry as well as the population.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

,,

They are in bad shape.

Opening up while still climbing is gonna be horrible for the population.

The sad thing is Alabama has real auto plants. All the Benz SUVs for the world are built there.

They also build Honda's, Hyundai, Toyota, in the state. The opening and shutting down is not gonna be good for that industry as well as the population.

Nobody here is taking it seriously. I don't see any masks anymore when I go out.

 

[The moose]

Nobody here is taking it seriously. I don't see any masks anymore when I go out.

Be safe man.

New Orleans is still masking pretty much.

But if you get out of the city you won't see many at all.

It is sad you can break mask use down by red or blue areas.

 

[coldseat]

Be safe man.

New Orleans is still masking pretty much.

But if you get out of the city you won't see many at all.

It is sad you can break mask use down by red or blue areas.

It's hard to describe the opposition to wearing masks during a pandemic as anything other than either ignorance or stupidity. Assuming there isn't a medical reason you can't wear one, you're just potentially hurting yourself and those around you. It takes minimal effort and it's proven to slow down the spread of the virus.

There is absolutely no sound reason to be opposed to it, much less with the fervor that some people display. It just seems like so many people would rather watch the world burn as opposed to acquiesce to recommendations made by basically ALL public health officals. I suppose because those public health officials are viewed as elitist because they have knowledge form years of study and work and have advanced degrees, so they must be wrong. Or so goes the logic.

 

[The moose]

It's hard to describe the opposition to wearing masks during a pandemic as anything other than either ignorance or stupidity. Assuming there isn't a medical reason you can't wear one, you're just potentially hurting yourself and those around you. It takes minimal effort and it's proven to slow down the spread of the virus.

There is absolutely no sound reason to be opposed to it, much less with the fervor that some people display. It just seems like so many people would rather watch the world burn as opposed to acquiesce to recommendations made by basically ALL public health officals. I suppose because those public health officials are viewed as elitist because they have knowledge form years of study and work and have advanced degrees, so they must be wrong. Or so goes the logic.

The sad thing people wore them during the Spanish flu and we can't get everyone on board now is just stupid.

It truly is minimal amount of effort to do your part to stop humans from dieing early.

It truly is how ungodly selfish a people we have become and lack any empathy what so ever.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Andrew Cuomo is ripping DC right now. He's delivering a very strong message (and his ASL interpreter looks hilarious in translating him).