Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

wuhan - coronavirus

Recommended Posts

La repubblica seem to be quoting that they are possibly at the peak and starting to plateau.  It sounds hopeful.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Katy said:

Maybe.  Or maybe that tuberculosis vaccine infants get in other countries REALLY DOES prevent deaths from children, and maybe it's partially the reason why younger people have some of their immunity. So far the infant that died in Chicago they haven't found a good explanation.  I'm sure they'll run genetic tests and do a full autopsy, but we don't know what happened.

I don't think they've found younger deaths anywhere without the tuberculosis vaccine, have they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/
 

death by age group for Italy shows 0pc for under 29 not sure if that means 0 deaths or such a low number that it doesn’t show.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/

60-69 is showing at 7pc though. 😞 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I don't think they've found younger deaths anywhere without the tuberculosis vaccine, have they? 

 

I know China has the vaccine and had at least one death in the 12-18 range, but I don't think I ever saw anything regarding whether that child had a pre-existing condition or not.

5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/
 

death by age group for Italy shows 0pc for under 29 not sure if that means 0 deaths or such a low number that it doesn’t show.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/

60-69 is showing at 7pc though. 😞 

 

Italy definitely had at least two deaths in 20-19 year olds, one of them was a soccer coach who was told he had leukemia and the virus at the same time.  At least I think that guy was Italian.  I might be mixing it up with Spain?

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 

Scary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But again, relevant numbers should be in the hundreds, if it's really scary. Anecdotes aren't ever going to help. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, square_25 said:

But again, relevant numbers should be in the hundreds, if it's really scary. Anecdotes aren't ever going to help. 

 

If they help people keep their kids HOME instead of taking them on play dates, it does help.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katy said:

Italy definitely had at least two deaths in 20-19 year olds, one of them was a soccer coach who was told he had leukemia and the virus at the same time.  At least I think that guy was Italian.  I might be mixing it up with Spain?

But again, that's extremely low compared to deaths from other causes. If this virus was as easy for 40+ year olds as it is for teens, it would be a nonevent (even though it would still kill some teens!) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katy said:

 

If they help people keep their kids HOME instead of taking them on play dates, it does help.

I'm not in favor of terrifying people with misleading information. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce Aylward, who led the World Health Organisation's recent mission to assess the pandemic in China, said his team found there had been many deaths in people without other health conditions, and in people decades younger than the groups deemed most are risk

"In some areas there were less than 50, less than 20 per cent who [local healthcare workers] could identify had comorbid conditions," Dr Aylward said.

"Indeed, people who did have comorbid conditions had a much higher ratio of dying from the disease, but in most people there were no other predictors, apart from age, that they could die.

"I would also emphasise that there were a lot of people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, who were dying as well," said Dr Aylward, speaking in a webinar for Australian health protection officers earlier this month.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-03-18/coronavirus-covid-younger-people-also-risk-serious-illness-death/12059326

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Bruce Aylward, who led the World Health Organisation's recent mission to assess the pandemic in China, said his team found there had been many deaths in people without other health conditions, and in people decades younger than the groups deemed most are risk

"In some areas there were less than 50, less than 20 per cent who [local healthcare workers] could identify had comorbid conditions," Dr Aylward said.

"Indeed, people who did have comorbid conditions had a much higher ratio of dying from the disease, but in most people there were no other predictors, apart from age, that they could die.

"I would also emphasise that there were a lot of people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, who were dying as well," said Dr Aylward, speaking in a webinar for Australian health protection officers earlier this month.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-03-18/coronavirus-covid-younger-people-also-risk-serious-illness-death/12059326

 

I think it's very valid to point out that this is not, on average, an easy disease in your 30s and 40s, and especially in your 50s and 60s. (I get the sense from some of our politicians that they don't really realize that -- they say "seniors" and they mean "my mom," when it really could mean them.) But it so far is not scary in kids, and I think that's also important to communicate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, square_25 said:

I'm not in favor of terrifying people with misleading information. 

I don’t think it’s misleading to say some kids may die or write a story about families where that happens.  We have write ups in the news from time to time of kids who die from rare parasites or diseases even when they are one in a million.  I do think the articles should remind and emphasise the low risk.  If i read that kids can’t die from the virus and kept sending them to school because the pm said we should and my kid was the one in a million (Figuratively speaking we don’t know exactly) who did die I’d be angry and feel misled.  

I also note that in China in spite of saying it wasn’t effecting children there were a couple of stories at least in the news about babies who had recovered after being on ventilators so I’ve been somewhat wary about that.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I do think the articles should remind and emphasise the low risk.  If i read that kids can’t die from the virus and kept sending them to school because the pm said we should and my kid was the one in a million (Figuratively speaking we don’t know exactly) who did die I’d be angry and feel misled.  

Argh, but arguing the "but SOMEONE has to be the one in a million" point is unreasonable! Your kid's chance of dying from getting on the school bus is more than one in a million. Do you feel misled that people don't harp on that? We all take risks. It is not reasonable to worry about risks that are smaller than the usual risks of day to day life. 

Publishing human interest stories that make people overestimate the likelihood of things happening is irresponsible. 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Argh, but arguing the "but SOMEONE has to be the one in a million" point is unreasonable! Your kid's chance of dying from getting on the school bus is more than one in a million. Do you feel misled that people don't harp on that? We all take risks. It is not reasonable to worry about risks that are smaller than the usual risks of day to day life. 

Publishing human interest stories that make people overestimate the likelihood of things happening is irresponsible. 

I’m on team publish the stories but emphasise the low stats in the stories.  They do publish stories here about kids being overheated in cars or hit by cars in the driveway or drowned.  Those are all risks but very low risk.  I think mostly when kids are dying unexpectedly it’s a story that gets published.  Most news stories are about outliers.  Most people’s houses don’t burn down but we still publish when someone’s does.  Most car accidents don’t result in fatality but we still publish the story here at least when they do.  Your chance of being killed in a car accident here is roughly 1/20,000 if I did the math right but we still publish every incident.  We publish their families stories etc.  statistics are important especially for people making public health decisions but media has never really been about statistics.  

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of the eight whistleblowers - who were arrested and forced to recant, Dr. Li died of covid19.  Now Dr Ai Fen  has disappeared.  She recently made a  file available of the virus.  She wanted the information to get out.   Reports of her speaking out again, and positing information (which was quickly deleted but there are screen shots) were posted on the 11th.  now she's missing.

 

Just two weeks ago the head of Emergency at Wuhan Central hospital went public, saying authorities had stopped her and her colleagues from warning the world. She has now disappeared, her whereabouts unknown. #60Mins pic.twitter.com/3Jt2qbLKUb
— 60 Minutes Australia (@60Mins) March 29, 2020

Edited by gardenmom5
  • Sad 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, square_25 said:

But again, relevant numbers should be in the hundreds, if it's really scary. Anecdotes aren't ever going to help. 

 

I think it’s important that people not continue to think that under 20 is pretty much immune. 

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing coronavirus related but just saw there was a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in Idaho - hope everyone’s ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Nothing coronavirus related but just saw there was a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in Idaho - hope everyone’s ok

It was fun 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s something I don’t understand. I grasp the idea of flattening the curve and the importance of social distancing to slow the spread. But I don’t understand, looking at the flattening the curve charts like the one shown in tonight’s press conference that shows millions of deaths without mitigation, and hundreds of thousands with. If this is that contagious, aren’t people still going to get it when social distancing is lessened? Unless we lockdown until we have effective treatment or a vaccine, I don’t understand why the numbers are so much less for our scenario. 
 

I also do understand that more people would die if hospitals were overwhelmed, but that many more? Does this 200,000 deaths literally mean indefinite lockdown until vaccine or treatment? Because otherwise it seems to me we are looking at several million all at once with no mitigation, or somewhat less than that over a longer period of time because we are not being as restrictive and are still catching it from each other. How are we not catching it from each other to get to the 200k without lockdown?

I see Fauci and Trump talk about how the next few weeks will be bad, which is true. And then it’s quite possible the growth rates will slow and the curve will bend, and that’s because we are staying away from each other. But then what? If we loosen, won’t they just start to climb again? If not, why not? I feel like no one is saying that either we stay on lockdown for a very long time, or we gradually loosen restrictions and come a lot closer to the millions, but just spread out over a longer period.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m on team publish the stories but emphasise the low stats in the stories.  They do publish stories here about kids being overheated in cars or hit by cars in the driveway or drowned.  Those are all risks but very low risk.  I think mostly when kids are dying unexpectedly it’s a story that gets published.  Most news stories are about outliers.  Most people’s houses don’t burn down but we still publish when someone’s does.  Most car accidents don’t result in fatality but we still publish the story here at least when they do.  Your chance of being killed in a car accident here is roughly 1/20,000 if I did the math right but we still publish every incident.  We publish their families stories etc.  statistics are important especially for people making public health decisions but media has never really been about statistics.  

I think the problem with that logic is that lots of things are repeatable occurrences. Your chance of dying in a car accident over your lifetime is actually more like 1%. Your chance of getting seriously hurt in one is much higher. That means it makes sense to have public health initiatives targeting safe driving. 

Your kid getting this virus is probably a one-time event. They will probably have immunity for a couple of years; then there will be vaccines or treatment. It is not reasonable to treat it in the same way as something that's unlikely day to day, but not that unlikely in the aggregate. 

Thus spoke the probabilist, anyway ;-). Sometimes, I can't turn off the part of my brain that made me a mathematician in the first place. I think a good understanding of how all these numbers work is really useful in all these discussions. 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, livetoread said:

If this is that contagious, aren’t people still going to get it when social distancing is lessened? Unless we lockdown until we have effective treatment or a vaccine, I don’t understand why the numbers are so much less for our scenario. 

I think at that point you imagine very robust testing and contact tracing that allow us to quickly isolate people with it and slow down the spread without shutting down the country. You also hope for treatments. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I think it’s important that people not continue to think that under 20 is pretty much immune. 

 

But what if it's about as risky as the flu? Which I think is true. 

I think making people aware that people in their 50s (not just people about to die in a nursing home, anyway) are at risk is a much worthwhile strategy, because it's true. It's much better to work on people's sense of social responsibility than to try to scare them straight using anecdotes, from my perspective. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, livetoread said:

Here’s something I don’t understand. I grasp the idea of flattening the curve and the importance of social distancing to slow the spread. But I don’t understand, looking at the flattening the curve charts like the one shown in tonight’s press conference that shows millions of deaths without mitigation, and hundreds of thousands with. If this is that contagious, aren’t people still going to get it when social distancing is lessened? Unless we lockdown until we have effective treatment or a vaccine, I don’t understand why the numbers are so much less for our scenario. 
 

I also do understand that more people would die if hospitals were overwhelmed, but that many more? Does this 200,000 deaths literally mean indefinite lockdown until vaccine or treatment? Because otherwise it seems to me we are looking at several million all at once with no mitigation, or somewhat less than that over a longer period of time because we are not being as restrictive and are still catching it from each other. How are we not catching it from each other to get to the 200k without lockdown?

I see Fauci and Trump talk about how the next few weeks will be bad, which is true. And then it’s quite possible the growth rates will slow and the curve will bend, and that’s because we are staying away from each other. But then what? If we loosen, won’t they just start to climb again? If not, why not? I feel like no one is saying that either we stay on lockdown for a very long time, or we gradually loosen restrictions and come a lot closer to the millions, but just spread out over a longer period.

 

The whispered truth is you may very well be right, and this is going to last 18-24 months, until there is a vaccine, unless they find an effective treatment that already exists like that TB vaccine they're doing a trial on in Australia.  But that probability of 18-24 months will freak people out so they don't discuss it yet, and everyone is hoping that despite the transmission in hot countries that this will act more like flu and go away for the summer.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, livetoread said:

Here’s something I don’t understand. I grasp the idea of flattening the curve and the importance of social distancing to slow the spread. But I don’t understand, looking at the flattening the curve charts like the one shown in tonight’s press conference that shows millions of deaths without mitigation, and hundreds of thousands with. If this is that contagious, aren’t people still going to get it when social distancing is lessened? Unless we lockdown until we have effective treatment or a vaccine, I don’t understand why the numbers are so much less for our scenario. 
 

I also do understand that more people would die if hospitals were overwhelmed, but that many more? Does this 200,000 deaths literally mean indefinite lockdown until vaccine or treatment? Because otherwise it seems to me we are looking at several million all at once with no mitigation, or somewhat less than that over a longer period of time because we are not being as restrictive and are still catching it from each other. How are we not catching it from each other to get to the 200k without lockdown?

I see Fauci and Trump talk about how the next few weeks will be bad, which is true. And then it’s quite possible the growth rates will slow and the curve will bend, and that’s because we are staying away from each other. But then what? If we loosen, won’t they just start to climb again? If not, why not? I feel like no one is saying that either we stay on lockdown for a very long time, or we gradually loosen restrictions and come a lot closer to the millions, but just spread out over a longer period.

Basically yes.  Look at what China’s “loosened” restricrions look like.  Unless we eliminate it we’re in it for the long haul. There is some suggestion that it will be more of a rolling or moving restrictions scenario - very gradually loosening, observing trends and then tightening specific areas as needed.  For countries that manage to eliminate it if that’s possible (maybe NZ) it might mean long term border closures till we have a vaccine.

Edited to add what it does do is enable us to build up medical supplies and facilities to a point where we may be able to cope.  More ventilators, more masks, more beds.  Hopefully less doctors and nurses dying because of lack of facilities.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, square_25 said:

 

I gotta say, this crisis has made me VERY aware of local government, in a way I haven't been before. 

 

At the beginning when the first patient in our area made the news, we were told that our risk was very low.  And the local officials seemed to be more concerned with stigma rather than spread of the disease.  Now, we're basically prisoners in our homes.  

And originally we were told that healthy people didn't need to wear masks, but now the same health officials are re-thinking that.  Yes, a mask might be a good idea, but not the kind that medical workers wear,  just something homemade.  ( I don't sew but I have a partial box of N95's.  It looks like I have to decide if I want to wear one to the grocery store to try to avoid the virus or wear something much less effective like a bandana so that I appear to be a good citizen to my fellow shoppers.)  

https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/should-you-wear-a-mask-heres-what-a-uw-epidemiologist-says

Edited by Laurie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laurie said:

 

And originally we were told that healthy people didn't need to wear masks, but now the same health officials are re-thinking that.  


No mask available to buy though. I’ll probably keep the mask that I am issued when I have my oncologist appointment this Friday.

@mathnerd

“12:10 p.m. California considering mask advisory: Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a virtual news conference Tuesday that the state might end up telling residents to wear masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus, but there are risks in such a mandate because people could end up adjusting the masks and touching their face more often, which health experts have advised against.” https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/amp/Coronavirus-live-updates-news-bay-area-15169654.php

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, square_25 said:

Aren't they comparing to baseline? 

So if you normally travel 100 miles per day to work and you are still traveling 100 miles to work during "shelter in place" because you work in a factory that makes medical equipment in town x, you are at 100% of baseline.

If you live in a big city, you probably travel more when on a fun outing than when you're keeping it simple.  But if you live rural, it's not like that.  You have to drive unless you are furloughed, and even then, one grocery trip might be more driving than city folks do in a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need a mask and you have a washable scarf, handkerchief, or bandana and two hair ties this is by far the easiest thing I've seen.  DH wore a buff last weekend and hated it, it kept slipping down.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Follow this thread for some work in this area, and also the current issues in reporting/lags.

https://twitter.com/sidsanghi/status/1244268790440955904?s=21

5F0B033E-EB3A-4719-80C0-2A3AD8E64485.thumb.jpeg.b0d938a6bbaedc7a76c148659745225e.jpeg
I can’t remember where I saw more data broken out for this, though.  Too much information flowing too quickly across my feeds 😵

This is what I expected.  Hopefully overall it helps balance out the COVID19 tragedies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

The whispered truth is you may very well be right, and this is going to last 18-24 months, until there is a vaccine, unless they find an effective treatment that already exists like that TB vaccine they're doing a trial on in Australia.  But that probability of 18-24 months will freak people out so they don't discuss it yet, and everyone is hoping that despite the transmission in hot countries that this will act more like flu and go away for the summer.

I'd guess there will be 18 months of disruption but things will get back closer to normal in a few months. But perhaps that's wishful thinking? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SKL said:

This is what I expected.  Hopefully overall it helps balance out the COVID19 tragedies.

It's not reliable and has been retracted. I really wouldn't count those chickens yet. In Italy, the excess deaths in the one place they counted were very high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hope is that a month or two from now, we will be past the peak and at a point where the number of daily new cases is relatively small. Then if restrictions are eased, we will be back to where we were in January, except with a) warmer weather, b) better testing ability, c) better knowledge of potential treatments, d) more inventory of needed supplies, and e) at least a small percentage (maybe a significant percentage?) of the population that is immune. All of those things will mean that the next wave will be smaller and we will see it coming much sooner.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

She urged research into deaths outside the groups expected to succumb to infection as it "may indicate an underlying genetic susceptibility."

On the kid front, this is the part I thought was important. Do the younger people (translated as under 50, let's say) who die have something in common? If there is a commonality, I want them looking. I know there was talk at the beginning of this about something to do with the cytokine storm (I think) where there was a genetic mutation more common in some Asians that doctors thought might make this virus more deadly for those individuals. I haven't heard that since this spread worldwide, though. I'd love to know someone is looking for things that could help us determine who is more susceptible, why some people seem to be asymptomatic, what mutations of the virus might make it less deadly or less contagious, etc.

50 minutes ago, livetoread said:

Here’s something I don’t understand. I grasp the idea of flattening the curve and the importance of social distancing to slow the spread. But I don’t understand, looking at the flattening the curve charts like the one shown in tonight’s press conference that shows millions of deaths without mitigation, and hundreds of thousands with. If this is that contagious, aren’t people still going to get it when social distancing is lessened? Unless we lockdown until we have effective treatment or a vaccine, I don’t understand why the numbers are so much less for our scenario. 

I think your understanding is correct. Search for "the Hammer and the Dance" which talks about tightening & loosening the restrictions in cycles over time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

. I know there was talk at the beginning of this about something to do with the cytokine storm (I think) where there was a genetic mutation more common in some Asians that doctors thought might make this virus more deadly for those individuals. I haven't heard that since this spread worldwide, though. 


https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/devices/blood-filtration-tech-removes-harmful-cytokines-covid19-patients.amp.html
“According to Chan, CytoSorb is approved in the European Union as a cytokine filter. He says it’s been used to date in some 80,000 treatments across 58 countries “to treat life-threatening complications such as sepsis, lung failure, and potentially fatal low blood pressure, often called shock.” (He points out many patients with severe COVID-19 have been dying from some of the same causes.)

He says CytoSorb has also been used in more than 70 critically-ill COVID-19 patients in Italy, China, Germany, and France. Clinical data is not yet available on these cases, though Chan describes what has been reported back to him is “preliminary positive results in terms of controlling cytokine storm, improving lung function that has helped patients get off of mechanical ventilation, and reversing shock.”

Not yet approved for use in the United States, CytoSorb had already been in line for consideration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cardiac surgeries prior to the coronavirus outbreak.

But COVID-19 has now dialed up global attention on cytokine storms—and any effective therapies that could treat the sometimes deadly coronavirus-induced condition.

“This is a fascinating idea,” said Jessica Manson, consultant rheumatologist and honorary senior lecturer at University College London Hospital. She is one of six co-authors of a 13 March letter to the journal The Lancet arguing that doctors need to be aware of so-called cytokine storm syndrome when treating critical COVID-19 patients.

Manson is careful to point out that fighting cytokine storms may only be relevant for a subgroup of critical COVID-19 patients. Her team’s letter to The Lancet argues that any patient with a severe case of COVID-19 should be lab tested for “hyperinflammation.” This test would be completely separate from a coronavirus test. 

If a severe COVID-19 patient has markers for hyper-inflamed lungs, other organs, or similar conditions, her letter argues, cytokine storm therapies may need to be considered. She says one approved therapy is the drug tocilizumab, a.k.a. Actemra (which targets the cytokine IL-6). In fact, as of Monday, the FDA has launched Phase III trials of tocilizumab for treating COVID-19 pneumonia.”

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Laurie said:

At the beginning when the first patient in our area made the news, we were told that our risk was very low.  And the local officials seemed to be more concerned with stigma rather than spread of the disease.  Now, we're basically prisoners in our homes.  

And originally we were told that healthy people didn't need to wear masks, but now the same health officials are re-thinking that.  Yes, a mask might be a good idea, but not the kind that medical workers wear,  just something homemade.  ( I don't sew but I have a partial box of N95's.  It looks like I have to decide if I want to wear one to the grocery store to try to avoid the virus or wear something much less effective like a bandana so that I appear to be a good citizen to my fellow shoppers.)  

https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/should-you-wear-a-mask-heres-what-a-uw-epidemiologist-says

I was firmly on the "Don't take N95 masks from HCWs and the immuno-compromised train". I have seen too many not wear them properly and waste them.However, homemade masks, bandannas, scarves...whatever for everyone....normalizing masks on everyone is a good thing. If people have it and don't know they have and are walking around. I'd rather they walk around with a homemade mask to catch their droplets than nothing. This will of course change once N95s and surgical masks become freely available again. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, square_25 said:

It's not reliable and has been retracted. I really wouldn't count those chickens yet. In Italy, the excess deaths in the one place they counted were very high. 

The trajectory and other factors here are a lot different from Italy though.

It's just logical that when people avoid disease transmission of all kinds, there are going to be fewer deaths from all deadly diseases; and when they travel less, fewer accidents.  We'll see once the numbers play out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

The trajectory and other factors here are a lot different from Italy though.

It's just logical that when people avoid disease transmission of all kinds, there are going to be fewer deaths from all deadly diseases; and when they travel less, fewer accidents.  We'll see once the numbers play out.

 

I think there are a ton of factors here, yeah. Are people still getting adequate treatment? Are people doing stupid things due to isolation? Are people, in fact, safer because of lack of cars and lack of other disease transmission? 

I would be surprised but very pleased if we wind up with fewer deaths this year than last year. But we'll have to wait for the data :-). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lovelearnandlive said:

My hope is that a month or two from now, we will be past the peak and at a point where the number of daily new cases is relatively small. Then if restrictions are eased, we will be back to where we were in January, except with a) warmer weather, b) better testing ability, c) better knowledge of potential treatments, d) more inventory of needed supplies, and e) at least a small percentage (maybe a significant percentage?) of the population that is immune. All of those things will mean that the next wave will be smaller and we will see it coming much sooner.

 

I hope this is what happens.  

The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that's risky

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/us/coronavirus-vaccine-timetable-concerns-experts-invs/index.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

But what if it's about as risky as the flu? Which I think is true. 

I think making people aware that people in their 50s (not just people about to die in a nursing home, anyway) are at risk is a much worthwhile strategy, because it's true. It's much better to work on people's sense of social responsibility than to try to scare them straight using anecdotes, from my perspective. 

 

I don’t feel like I know the truth on this yet.

And the history on this virus of saying only animals, or only if in contact with animals.  Oops that was wrong, human to human spread happens.

But spread only froM symptomatic people at close range and not very contagious.  Oops that was wrong, asymptomatic spread possible , very contagious, longer distances possible.

etc

I hope it won’t happen but lots more kid cases would not surprise me. 

I am also concerned that the teens seem to have cases that the powers that be consider unusually contagious.  (What ‘s up with that, I wonder? An Unadmitted to more virulent mutation? Some kid immune system response?)

 I remember early on telling my kid that since he’s young he probably is not personally likely to be extremely sick from CV19.   But that he has to do his part for the community, medical system etc. 

But I no longer believe it to be true that he is personally unlikely to be extremely sick with CV19 due to protected status as a kid.  

And I think some of the believed to be CV19 being community spread locally including with very sick kids may be real, not some other virus with similar symptoms (though there *is also* probably another virus with similar symptoms at same time). 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it important to hear the details of illness/death in a new disease even or perhaps especially when it doesn’t fit the norm. Information is power. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against them reporting on a child dying, but knowing how sensational journalists are, the next breathless segment will be about how we should all be scared shitless for our kids.  Increasing the general stress level like that is not gonna be helpful.  But maybe there are responsible journalists on the job who will provide balanced info.

The fact is that children can, rarely, die of most things.  Every so often you hear of a normal-seeming child die unexpectedly of a heart attack, for example.  This does not change the fact that heart disease is not considered a regular childhood illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 6:06 PM, lovelearnandlive said:

I’ve been keeping track of how fast deaths are doubling, both worldwide and in the US.  Here is a snapshot (these numbers are approximate and from worldometers; they also aren’t exact doubles - I picked the end-of-day numbers that were closest to the actual double. 

Worldwide deaths:

Feb 18 2000

March 9 4000 (20 days to double)

March 17 8000 (8 days to double)

March 23 16500 (6 days to double) - actual double 16000

March 28 31000 (5 days to double) - actual double 32000

 

US Deaths

March 14 57

March 17 110 (3 days to double) actual double 114

March 20 250 ( 3 days to double) actual double 228

March 23 550 (3 days to double) actual double 456

March 25 1030 (2 days to double) actual double 912

March 28 2200 (3 days to double) actual double 1824

I really hope these rates change... if they don’t, we will be looking at 250,000 total worldwide deaths and 70,000 US deaths 15 days from now. 

 

 

 

Quoting myself to add: 

US deaths:

March 31 3900 3 days to double (actual double 3648)

Worldwide deaths haven’t doubled again yet (currently at 42000).

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SKL said:

The trajectory and other factors here are a lot different from Italy though.

It's just logical that when people avoid disease transmission of all kinds, there are going to be fewer deaths from all deadly diseases; and when they travel less, fewer accidents.  We'll see once the numbers play out.

I hope you’re right.  The flip side to that is people here are avoiding going to a hospital or doctor and things like breast cancer screening are being cancelled.  Dentist preventative work is being cancelled.  There may be an increase in deaths due to people being too scared to seek preventative care.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WendyAndMilo said:

It was fun 🙂

Ok?  I think.  We thought it was fun when we had a 3. Something and I sent the kids under the table.  A six sounds a bit more dramatic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Ok?  I think.  We thought it was fun when we had a 3. Something and I sent the kids under the table.  A six sounds a bit more dramatic!

The mercalli scale is more of an indicator of what the earthquake is really like.  We were 70 miles away and it registered as "light" and at the center it was only moderate.  I lived through a IX Violent earthquake at the epicenter so yeah, this one was a fun, rolling sensation 😉

Edited by WendyAndMilo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...