Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

wuhan - coronavirus

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I have seen this mentioned in relation to Germany’s lower death rate - they are doing very few posthumous tests.

And even with that, they are inching up to 1%, hm. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes, that is how I'm reading it. 

It says my county has a less than 10% decrease in average distance traveled. So it doesn't matter if we normally travel farther to go grocery shopping - we're still going as far as we normally do overall. 

Maybe some in higher density areas are choosing the local store rather than the one they really like across town? 

My county probably deserves its C, but a high percentage of my small rural town either works at the local hospital, a local manufacturing plant, or for the utilities. (The school system is another large employer, but more like 10% vs. 50%+ for the other three listed.) So, most of those are still working.

For us, I've chosen to travel into the bigger town (30 min away, still under 7,500 population) to take advantage of Wal-Mart pickup than walk across the street to enter the grocery store in person. So yeah, traveling further. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took screenshots of the horrible graphs Dr. Birx just showed at the press conference in case one of you wanted to look at them. 

2E175D2F-47F1-45A9-BF93-A3E3B9EBB9EB.png

7570B7FD-BA58-45E0-B4AF-51FD6D10ED4B.png

159BD600-1D85-4052-A6EA-838C05EEEB6F.png

E120FB7C-7211-4BBA-BF53-A255E724C49F.png

9853D349-43CF-47E0-BAF9-AFAB4F6760FF.png

Edited by Plum
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RootAnn@Pen

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/coronavirus-covid-19-uk-boy-dies-12596462

“LONDON: A 13-year-old British boy has died days after testing positive for COVID-19, hospital officials and his family said on Tuesday (Mar 31), with relatives saying he had no underlying illnesses.

The boy, who died Monday at King's College Hospital in London, is believed to be Britain's youngest confirmed death in the coronavirus pandemic.

A 12-year-old girl, whose death was confirmed earlier on Tuesday in Belgium, is thought to be Europe's youngest victim.

The boy's family said Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab "started showing symptoms and had difficulties breathing" before he was admitted to hospital.

"He was put on a ventilator and then put into an induced coma but sadly died yesterday morning," the family said through a family friend, Mark Stephenson, adding: "We are beyond devastated."

Nathalie MacDermott, a lecturer at King's College, said: "While we know it is much less likely for children to suffer severe COVID-19 infection than older adults, this case highlights the importance of us all taking the precautions we can to reduce the spread of infection in the UK and worldwide."

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

On Tuesday, Britain announced 381 deaths from COVID-19 in the past 24 hours, the highest figure in the country since the start of the pandemic, bringing the death toll to 1,789.”

  • Sad 10

Share this post


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

@RootAnn@Pen

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/coronavirus-covid-19-uk-boy-dies-12596462

“LONDON: A 13-year-old British boy has died days after testing positive for COVID-19, hospital officials and his family said on Tuesday (Mar 31), with relatives saying he had no underlying illnesses.

The boy, who died Monday at King's College Hospital in London, is believed to be Britain's youngest confirmed death in the coronavirus pandemic.

A 12-year-old girl, whose death was confirmed earlier on Tuesday in Belgium, is thought to be Europe's youngest victim.

The boy's family said Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab "started showing symptoms and had difficulties breathing" before he was admitted to hospital.

"He was put on a ventilator and then put into an induced coma but sadly died yesterday morning," the family said through a family friend, Mark Stephenson, adding: "We are beyond devastated."

Nathalie MacDermott, a lecturer at King's College, said: "While we know it is much less likely for children to suffer severe COVID-19 infection than older adults, this case highlights the importance of us all taking the precautions we can to reduce the spread of infection in the UK and worldwide."

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

On Tuesday, Britain announced 381 deaths from COVID-19 in the past 24 hours, the highest figure in the country since the start of the pandemic, bringing the death toll to 1,789.”

 

On the one hand, that's really sad for the kids and the families. 

On the other hand, focusing on these extremely events definitely increases panic. From what I've seen, this disease is NOT worse than the flu in minors (please correct me if I'm wrong.) I feel like keeping track of the rare minors it does kill isn't useful. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/france-production-masks-respirators-covid-19-macron-12594786

“Macron said consumption of face masks in France had soared from 4 million per week to more than 40 million and the state's pre-crisis inventory of 140 million masks was insufficient.

"Before, we believed that we could import masks quickly and in great quantity from the other side of the world ... and that we did not need to store billions and billions of face masks," Macron said during a visit to the Kolmi-Hopen face mask factory near Angers, western France.

He added the world has changed and that there is now unprecedented tension on global markets and that France needed to boost domestic production to become self-sufficient.

France has ordered more than one billion face masks from China and the first orders are already arriving, Macron said.

France's four face mask factories will also boost their combined output from 3.3 million per week before the start of the crisis to 10 million per week by end April, and production by new players such as car parts maker Faurecia, tire maker Michelin and retailer Intermarché will push total output to 15 million per week, Macron said.

In addition, in three to four weeks the country will also be able to produce a million masks per day for people in other professions than the medical sector, he said.

Macron said a consortium led by respirator maker Air Liquide and including car parts maker Valeo, carmaker PSA and Schneider Electric, will produce some 10,000 ventilators by mid-May.

Some 250 emergency rooms ventilators will be delivered in the coming eight days, he added.

France has also boosted its production of disinfecting hand gel from 40,000 liters per day to 500,000 litres per day.

The French government will fund the purchase of masks and ventilators with a 4 billion euro (US$4.4 billion) boost to the state health budget.“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SeaConquest

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/cruise-ships-no-longer-able-to-drop-off-passengers-in-sd-under-new-restrictions/2264762/

“Several cruise ship passengers have been able to disembark in San Diego over the past two weeks but after Tuesday, those vessels will no longer be able to drop off its passengers in America’s Finest City through the end of the coronavirus pandemic.

County officials announced Monday during a coronavirus update that cruise ships will only be able to dock in San Diego for fuel or for supplies. The move was made amid concerns of COVID-19.

On Tuesday, county health officials confirmed a passenger aboard the Celebrity Eclipse tested positive for the novel coronavirus. It's the last ship that's allowed to drop off passengers in the city and it will continue to do so on Tuesday. Passengers will be screened prior to their departure and only those who have no symptoms or fever will be released.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urge Celebrity Eclipse passengers to self-quarantine for 14 days once they arrive home as a precaution.

A Disney Cruise ship that docked at the Port of San Diego last week said in a statement that two crewmembers and a “handful of guests” tested positive for the novel coronavirus.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

On the one hand, that's really sad for the kids and the families. 

On the other hand, focusing on these extremely events definitely increases panic. From what I've seen, this disease is NOT worse than the flu in minors (please correct me if I'm wrong.) I feel like keeping track of the rare minors it does kill isn't useful. 

 

I wonder if they are highlighting it in an attempt to get through to those young people who are unconcerned because they perceive no threat to themselves as individuals and are reluctant to comply with social distancing?

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

On the one hand, that's really sad for the kids and the families. 

On the other hand, focusing on these extremely events definitely increases panic. From what I've seen, this disease is NOT worse than the flu in minors (please correct me if I'm wrong.) I feel like keeping track of the rare minors it does kill isn't useful. 

 

I suspect if they look more closely he may have had an undiagnosed underlying problem.   I think we will never know, but I hope the family is able to receive more information for their peace of mind.  How awful for them.

 

Share this post


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

I wonder if they are highlighting it in an attempt to get through to those young people who are unconcerned because they perceive no threat to themselves as individuals and are reluctant to comply with social distancing?

I guess so? It still seems rather dishonest :-(. But I understand the temptation to find "human stories." The problem is that you can find a human story for just about anything -- kids die tragic deaths from all sorts of things. The scary story about this virus is in the numbers... 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

On the other hand, focusing on these extremely events definitely increases panic. From what I've seen, this disease is NOT worse than the flu in minors (please correct me if I'm wrong.) I feel like keeping track of the rare minors it does kill isn't useful. 

 

1 minute ago, TCB said:

I wonder if they are highlighting it in an attempt to get through to those young people who are unconcerned because they perceive no threat to themselves as individuals and are reluctant to comply with social distancing?


Parents too. Some parents are thinking kids won’t be infected 🙃
Also the initial messages on social media were that elderly and people with underlying conditions are the only ones susceptible, think they are just doing their job as news journalists to raise awareness now. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, the kid stories without the context of the larger infection statistics backing up that children catching it and experiencing severe complications and death is a statistically extremely rare occurrence is misleading to the point it looks like a scare tactic.  And that sort of reporting in other area has already damaged the credibility of many outlets, so you think they’d want to be painfully accurate and fastidious  😬

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 


Parents too. Some parents are thinking kids won’t be infected 🙃
Also the initial messages on social media were that elderly and people with underlying conditions are the only ones susceptible, think they are just doing their job as news journalists to raise awareness now. 

 

But it's extremely uncommon. What is the point of raising awareness for something less likely to kill your kid than the flu? Or then being in a car? (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

I suspect if they look more closely he may have had an undiagnosed underlying problem.   I think we will never know, but I hope the family is able to receive more information for their peace of mind.  How awful for them.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Still, the kid stories without the context of the larger infection statistics backing up that children catching it and experiencing severe complications and death is a statistically extremely rare occurrence is misleading to the point it looks like a scare tactic.  And that sort of reporting in other area has already damaged the credibility of many outlets, so you think they’d want to be painfully accurate and fastidious  😬

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

But it's extremely uncommon. What is the point of raising awareness for something less likely to kill your kid than the flu? Or then being in a car? (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.) 

I think if they promote the message heavily that kids don’t die and then one kid does they are going to get a pretty negative reaction.  But yeah to some extent it’s just about running a human interest story.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

I suspect if they look more closely he may have had an undiagnosed underlying problem.   I think we will never know, but I hope the family is able to receive more information for their peace of mind.  How awful for them.

 

In the stat report I posted yesterday from New York with the breakdown they had pre existing, no pre existing and being ascertained so I think they are looking for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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...