| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/23/20 11:21 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
 |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 11:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3513
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 12:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I think most everyone agrees that we can't allow our healthcare system to collapse, which would produce wider problems than just caring for CV patients. The proposal in the NYT article doesn't address that, just the economic issues. Telling the general public to co-mingle again is not going to cut down on the worried-well who are clogging our ER's...it may make that problem worse. And depending on whose numbers you use, 40-50% of the patients hospitalized with CV are age 20-54. "Letting herd immunity develop" in the general population isn't going to flatten the curve enough to provide hospital care to everyone that needs it.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 12:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Thankfully, NYS is getting strong, sober leadership from Cuomo at a time when the USA has a lying moron at the helm.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 1:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I think most everyone agrees that we can't allow our healthcare system to collapse, which would produce wider problems than just caring for CV patients. The proposal in the NYT article doesn't address that, just the economic issues. Telling the general public to co-mingle again is not going to cut down on the worried-well who are clogging our ER's...it may make that problem worse. And depending on whose numbers you use, 40-50% of the patients hospitalized with CV are age 20-54. "Letting herd immunity develop" in the general population isn't going to flatten the curve enough to provide hospital care to everyone that needs it. |
The NYT article is very focused on the current "all out war" medical approach and the alternative "surgical" medical approach the author advocates -- not on the economic issues.
If herd immunity were to develop, there would no longer be a curve to flatten. The population would be immune.
There are several problems with the curve flattening approach that don't get mentioned enough. Dragging out the curve won't decrease the total number of cases or the total number of fatal infections. What it may do is result in less of a spiked clog on medical resources and deaths attributable to that clog, the number of which is speculative. Meanwhile, as the lockdowns are continued for a longer period of time, the economic, social, economic, and mental health consequences are prolonged and made worse.
Finally, as linked articles discuss, unless some measure of herd immunity is developed (absent a vaccine to do so), the number of cases will just jump up again after the lockdown measures are relieved, making all the economic and social pain medically useless and necessary again and again. |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 2:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
 |
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3513
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 3:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I think most everyone agrees that we can't allow our healthcare system to collapse, which would produce wider problems than just caring for CV patients. The proposal in the NYT article doesn't address that, just the economic issues. Telling the general public to co-mingle again is not going to cut down on the worried-well who are clogging our ER's...it may make that problem worse. And depending on whose numbers you use, 40-50% of the patients hospitalized with CV are age 20-54. "Letting herd immunity develop" in the general population isn't going to flatten the curve enough to provide hospital care to everyone that needs it. |
The NYT article is very focused on the current "all out war" medical approach and the alternative "surgical" medical approach the author advocates -- not on the economic issues.
If herd immunity were to develop, there would no longer be a curve to flatten. The population would be immune.
There are several problems with the curve flattening approach that don't get mentioned enough. Dragging out the curve won't decrease the total number of cases or the total number of fatal infections. What it may do is result in less of a spiked clog on medical resources and deaths attributable to that clog, the number of which is speculative. Meanwhile, as the lockdowns are continued for a longer period of time, the economic, social, economic, and mental health consequences are prolonged and made worse.
Finally, as linked articles discuss, unless some measure of herd immunity is developed (absent a vaccine to do so), the number of cases will just jump up again after the lockdown measures are relieved, making all the economic and social pain medically useless and necessary again and again. |
Absent a vaccine, the only way herd immunity is acquired is by allowing the population to become infected. Estimates are being given that for coronavirus, 50-70% of the population would need to be infected (and recover) to produce herd immunity. 60% is the most cited estimate. (The percentage varies based on the infectivity rate...for example, measles is very contagious so herd immunity through vaccines should be 95% or higher; for the flu, which is not as contagious, 30% is used.) (https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comments-about-herd-immunity/)
US population is 330M. At a herd immunity rate of 60%, we'd need 200M to become infected and recover. That would require infecting everyone from the age of 5 to 59, while protecting the very young, the elderly, and the people with serious medical problems. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/). A conservative figure for those requiring hospitalization is probably 15% (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/coronavirus-covid-19-deaths-by-age), which is 30M patients requiring hospital beds, in a country with <1M. That brings us back to the "flattening the curve" concept.
[img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ljarh_ngto7aQq67AqeIC5ePAuA=/0x0:1497x841/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1497x841):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19780273/flattening_the_curve_final.jpg[/img]
Using a case fatality estimate of 1%, those 200M patients (age 5-59) will yield 2M deaths. That's not counting deaths from other patients being turned away at hospital doors.
This is exactly why the UK dismissed the herd immunity option after re-evaluation.
Herd immunity is going to happen eventually (if we're lucky, sooner rather than later with a vaccine), but we're going to need to achieve it by flattening the curve to avoid overwhelming our hospitals and causing excess deaths.
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 3:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| There is another problem with the "herd immunity" experiment. CNBC just interviewed the President of Quest Diagnostics. They are one the labs running COVID19 tests. He stated that as yet there is no test for immunities. So there is no way to know if it will even work.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3513
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 4:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Randy wrote: |
| There is another problem with the "herd immunity" experiment. CNBC just interviewed the President of Quest Diagnostics. They are one the labs running COVID19 tests. He stated that as yet there is no test for immunities. So there is no way to know if it will even work. |
I haven't seen any case reports of patients being reinfected after initial recovery, so I think the assumption is that some immunity is conferred. I'm sure the companies that are working on vaccines are also working on measuring antibody titers.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21928
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 6:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Dragging out the curve won't decrease the total number of cases or the total number of fatal infections. What it may do is result in less of a spiked clog on medical resources and deaths attributable to that clog, the number of which is speculative. |
smh...
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 7:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I think most everyone agrees that we can't allow our healthcare system to collapse, which would produce wider problems than just caring for CV patients. The proposal in the NYT article doesn't address that, just the economic issues. Telling the general public to co-mingle again is not going to cut down on the worried-well who are clogging our ER's...it may make that problem worse. And depending on whose numbers you use, 40-50% of the patients hospitalized with CV are age 20-54. "Letting herd immunity develop" in the general population isn't going to flatten the curve enough to provide hospital care to everyone that needs it. |
The NYT article is very focused on the current "all out war" medical approach and the alternative "surgical" medical approach the author advocates -- not on the economic issues.
If herd immunity were to develop, there would no longer be a curve to flatten. The population would be immune.
There are several problems with the curve flattening approach that don't get mentioned enough. Dragging out the curve won't decrease the total number of cases or the total number of fatal infections. What it may do is result in less of a spiked clog on medical resources and deaths attributable to that clog, the number of which is speculative. Meanwhile, as the lockdowns are continued for a longer period of time, the economic, social, economic, and mental health consequences are prolonged and made worse.
Finally, as linked articles discuss, unless some measure of herd immunity is developed (absent a vaccine to do so), the number of cases will just jump up again after the lockdown measures are relieved, making all the economic and social pain medically useless and necessary again and again. |
Using a case fatality estimate of 1%, those 200M patients (age 5-59) will yield 2M deaths. |
That was a good argument, Frozen, until you got to the quoted sentence.
The fatality rate for patients 5-59 should be nothing close to 1%. That's the rate Fauci speculated for the entire U.S. population including all the uber-vulnerable elderly. Others have estimated total population death rates lower than 1% for the U.S. and China. If a targeted mitigation program protected everyone over 59, the death rate among the remaining 200M population might be closer to .01%, which would be 20,000 deaths, half the flu mortality. Both our scenarios are unrealistic, in my opinion.
A real life test case was the Diamond Princess cruise ship that was quarantined in Japan. There were 3,700 people aboard, mostly older. They all shared common eating rooms and a common ventilation system. About 700 (19%) became infected and 7 died, a death rate of 7/3,700 = 0.19%. This micro-world actual experiment might suggest a herd immunity response at about a 20% infection rate (with mitigations), and a very low death rate even among an older population.
A lot of speculating, just like the experts. |
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7372
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 7:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I thought this thread was supposed to be about statistics as you keep reminding everyone of different political persuasion than yourself of with frequency. Please work to practice what you preach. There's a LOT of political bias in the above quote.
When you "thin the herd" to develop "herd immunity" there will be living, breathing people who will no longer be here. There are a GREAT number of people under 65 dying from this disease. Many have underlying conditions. Well, hello, a GREAT many people do live their lives with medical conditions. Their loved ones do EVERYTHING in their power so they can have as long and enjoyable lives as possible. Their lives have just as much - if not more - value as anyone's done. I see heartless posts virtually everywhere by people who treat people born with underlying medical conditions as if they are worth less.
Jammer, I have tried REALLY REALLY hard to obey all rules here. Comments about keeping politics out of posts are actually less harsh than others that have been posted over and over again. I do have big emotions due to having to get tested for COVID today and am living with the reality I could have infected people I love. If you feel any part has to be removed, please do so and let me stay. Thank you.
_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 8:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I thought this thread was supposed to be about statistics as you keep reminding everyone of different political persuasion than yourself of with frequency. Please work to practice what you preach. There's a LOT of political bias in the above quote.
When you "thin the herd" to develop "herd immunity" there will be living, breathing people who will no longer be here. There are a GREAT number of people under 65 dying from this disease. Many have underlying conditions. Well, hello, a GREAT many people do live their lives with medical conditions. Their loved ones do EVERYTHING in their power so they can have as long and enjoyable lives as possible. Their lives have just as much - if not more - value as anyone's done. I see heartless posts virtually everywhere by people who treat people born with underlying medical conditions as if they are worth less.
Jammer, I have tried REALLY REALLY hard to obey all rules here. Comments about keeping politics out of posts are actually less harsh than others that have been posted over and over again. I do have big emotions due to having to get tested for COVID today and am living with the reality I could have infected people I love. If you feel any part has to be removed, please do so and let me stay. Thank you. |
RAF, I hope you recover and all is well with your friend.
I don't see differences of opinion or discussions about how to balance the benefits and costs of lockdown mitigations as being political in nature. In fact, it's sad that everything somehow becomes political.
My brief comment about Cuomo was not a politically partisan one. I'm saying that it would be medically, economically and common-sensically insane to kill the economy of New York to save "one" life. Probably Cuomo was just winging some off-the-cuff hyperbole. He's doing a very good job for his state, but I don't agree with the "flattening the curve at all costs" mentality.
And, I and my wife are in the highest risk category, so I'm hardly inclined to be insensitive or heartless toward my own self-interest for no good reason. I'm trying to state my opinions and reasons in a professional and intellectually honest way. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9617
Back to top |
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7372
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 9:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I thought this thread was supposed to be about statistics as you keep reminding everyone of different political persuasion than yourself of with frequency. Please work to practice what you preach. There's a LOT of political bias in the above quote.
When you "thin the herd" to develop "herd immunity" there will be living, breathing people who will no longer be here. There are a GREAT number of people under 65 dying from this disease. Many have underlying conditions. Well, hello, a GREAT many people do live their lives with medical conditions. Their loved ones do EVERYTHING in their power so they can have as long and enjoyable lives as possible. Their lives have just as much - if not more - value as anyone's done. I see heartless posts virtually everywhere by people who treat people born with underlying medical conditions as if they are worth less.
Jammer, I have tried REALLY REALLY hard to obey all rules here. Comments about keeping politics out of posts are actually less harsh than others that have been posted over and over again. I do have big emotions due to having to get tested for COVID today and am living with the reality I could have infected people I love. If you feel any part has to be removed, please do so and let me stay. Thank you. |
RAF, I hope you recover and all is well with your friend.
I don't see differences of opinion or discussions about how to balance the benefits and costs of lockdown mitigations as being political in nature. In fact, it's sad that everything somehow becomes political.
My brief comment about Cuomo was not a politically partisan one. I'm saying that it would be medically, economically and common-sensically insane to kill the economy of New York to save "one" life. Probably Cuomo was just winging some off-the-cuff hyperbole. He's doing a very good job for his state, but I don't agree with the "flattening the curve at all costs" mentality.
And, I and my wife are in the highest risk category, so I'm hardly inclined to be insensitive or heartless toward my own self-interest for no good reason. I'm trying to state my opinions and reasons in a professional and intellectually honest way. |
The fact that you don't see the quoted as "political" while you seize anything that presents an idea you vehemently disagree with basically proves that this has nothing to do with "politization" and everything to do with you getting your viewpoint to dominate the thread.
I wish I could say what I want to say here about exactly who should be included in any thinning of the herd to achieve herd immunity. But I will resist. I say go with ALL high risk classes and not pick out one you're not a member of.
_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7372
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 9:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
These are two of the best articles seriously analyzing whether the cure is worse than the disease . . . whether the total societal and economic costs outweigh the unverifiable medical benefit . . . whether a more surgical focus on protecting the elderly and allowing herd immunity to develop would be more medically effective than the blunderbuss waste of scarce medical resources.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? == There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Consider the costs -- The rush to impose sweeping restrictions on public and commercial life across the entire economy should be more carefully evaluated
I've felt this way from the beginning, and all my immersion in data, multiple expert opinions, and observations of daily life have strengthened this feeling.
Governor Cuomo's declaration that, "If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy", is insanity. But this view is symptomatic of the general hysteria. It evinces a monomaniacal focus solely on one element -- Covid-19 deaths -- of a gigantic social, economic, political, cultural and sweeping medical issue with all sorts of collateral consequences. And even the object of the single focus, Covid-19 deaths, is not based on reliable data and is rarely balanced seriously in context of the many infectious and other death agents in this world. To do so requires courageous leadership. |
I thought this thread was supposed to be about statistics as you keep reminding everyone of different political persuasion than yourself of with frequency. Please work to practice what you preach. There's a LOT of political bias in the above quote.
When you "thin the herd" to develop "herd immunity" there will be living, breathing people who will no longer be here. There are a GREAT number of people under 65 dying from this disease. Many have underlying conditions. Well, hello, a GREAT many people do live their lives with medical conditions. Their loved ones do EVERYTHING in their power so they can have as long and enjoyable lives as possible. Their lives have just as much - if not more - value as anyone's done. I see heartless posts virtually everywhere by people who treat people born with underlying medical conditions as if they are worth less.
Jammer, I have tried REALLY REALLY hard to obey all rules here. Comments about keeping politics out of posts are actually less harsh than others that have been posted over and over again. I do have big emotions due to having to get tested for COVID today and am living with the reality I could have infected people I love. If you feel any part has to be removed, please do so and let me stay. Thank you. |
RAF, I hope you recover and all is well with your friend.
I don't see differences of opinion or discussions about how to balance the benefits and costs of lockdown mitigations as being political in nature. In fact, it's sad that everything somehow becomes political.
My brief comment about Cuomo was not a politically partisan one. I'm saying that it would be medically, economically and common-sensically insane to kill the economy of New York to save "one" life. Probably Cuomo was just winging some off-the-cuff hyperbole. He's doing a very good job for his state, but I don't agree with the "flattening the curve at all costs" mentality.
And, I and my wife are in the highest risk category, so I'm hardly inclined to be insensitive or heartless toward my own self-interest for no good reason. I'm trying to state my opinions and reasons in a professional and intellectually honest way. |
I forgot to thank you for your personal kindness. THANK YOU! Who knew there was a heart in there?
_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 9:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
How South Korea Flattened the Coronavirus Curve
| Quote: |
No matter how you look at the numbers, one country stands out from the rest: South Korea.
In late February and early March, the number of new coronavirus infections in the country exploded from a few dozen, to a few hundred, to several thousand.
At the peak, medical workers identified 909 new cases in a single day, Feb. 29, and the country of 50 million people appeared on the verge of being overwhelmed. But less than a week later, the number of new cases halved. Within four days, it halved again — and again the next day.
On Sunday, South Korea reported only 64 new cases, the fewest in nearly a month, even as infections in other countries continue to soar by the thousands daily, devastating health care systems and economies. Italy records several hundred deaths daily; South Korea has not had more than eight in a day.
South Korea is one of only two countries with large outbreaks, alongside China, to flatten the curve of new infections. And it has done so without China’s draconian restrictions on speech and movement, or economically damaging lockdowns like those in Europe and the United States. |
Lesson 1: Intervene Fast, Before It’s a Crisis
Lesson 2: Test Early, Often and Safely
Lesson 3: Contact Tracing, Isolation and Surveillance
Lesson 4: Enlist The Public’s Help
| Quote: |
Experts cite three major hurdles to following South Korea’s lead, none related to cost or technology.
One is political will. Many governments have hesitated to impose onerous measures in the absence of a crisis-level outbreak.
Another is public will. Social trust is higher in South Korea than in many other countries, particularly Western democracies beset by polarization and populist backlash.
But time poses the greatest challenge. It may be “too late,” Dr. Ki said, for countries deep into epidemics to control outbreaks as quickly or efficiently as South Korea has.
China turned back the catastrophic first outbreak in Hubei, a province larger than most European countries, though at the cost of shutting down its economy. |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-south-korea-flattened-the-coronavirus-curve/ar-BB11AJwA?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7372
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 10:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/a-12-year-old-coronavirus-patient-fighting-for-her-life-had-no-preexisting-conditions-her-family-said/ar-BB11AgSW?ocid=spartanntp
Previously healthy with no medical conditions, a 12 yr old is fighting for her life.
No, you can't remove post because they disprove your beliefs, no matter how deeply those beliefs run.
This is happening right here in the US and will continue to happen at increasing rates due to utter ignorance in issuing guidelines. FOLLOW THE SCIENTISTS! Too late to save this girl, sadly. In this country, freedom means "I am free to lie and make up stuff, no matter how many people die as a result." Where the heck is this girl's freedom. Is freedom to tell bald faced lies more important than the life of this girl?
_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 10:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Update 12: Changes in 24 Hours since Last Update
U.S.:
- confirmed cases increased by 13,162 (40%) from 33,276 to 46,438
- deaths increased by 169 from 417 to 586
- death rate increased from 1.25% to 1.26% (the first increase over the prior day)
U.S. deaths each day since March 11 and U.S. cumulative death rate on that day:
?? – 3/11 2.89%
02 – 3/12 2.41%
07 – 3/13 2.16%
10 – 3/14 1.93%
12 – 3/15 1.83%
16 – 3/16 1.82%
23 – 3/17 1.70%
42 – 3/18 1.60%
55 – 3/19 1.44%
55 – 3/20 1.32%
76 – 3/21 1.26%
81 – 3/22 1.25%
169 – 3/23 1.26%
At today's task force press conference, Dr. Birx said that no one under 15 has yet died in Europe and only one child, a 14 year old, has died in China, which should be very reassuring to parents worried about their children.
Addressing Millennials and Generation Z, she said that "less than 1% of all the mortality is less than 50."
Questioned by Trump about worldwide fatality rates, Birx noted that the initial estimate for Wuhan was over 3.0% but outside of Wuhan there are estimates of 0.7% and that S. Korea is about 0.8%. "But, if anything it will go lower" because, due to the lack of worldwide testing of mildly symptomatic and asymptomatic people, the universe of the infected is larger than what we know now from testing. That's what we've been saying in this thread from the beginning.
Asked about the duration of the mitigation guidelines, Birx didn't want to get locked into a prediction but noted that in the two countries that seem to have quieted down, China and S. Korea, "the curves were about 8 to 10 weeks." She clarified that different places in our large country will have different curve starting dates because they all have different "seeding dates" for infection. As an example, she said we can tell from hospitalization data that the New York curve is about two weeks behind Washington's. This was all statistical backdrop to Trump's (and her) comments that in the future different places in the U.S. are likely to be having different and changing levels of mitigation and lockdown. Some places will be able to "open up" in Trump's terminology.
On edit: A few minutes after I originally made this post, the Johns Hopkins site increased the U.S. number of cases but reduced the number deaths. So I recalculated.
Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 03/24/20 12:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21928
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 10:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Given your previous claim that access to medical facilities makes no difference to survival outcomes, what is your hypothesis about why Italy's death rate is so high? Just an extreme shortfall in testing?
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/20 11:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| Given your previous claim that access to medical facilities makes no difference to survival outcomes, what is your hypothesis about why Italy's death rate is so high? Just an extreme shortfall in testing? |
I assume you're asking me about the two sentences you quoted in your previous post. Virtually everything I say in this thread are data or opinions I read about from experts, who frequently disagree with each other.
The longer version of my perhaps ambiguous first sentence is this: Assume there is unlimited hospital space and medical resources. If a spike curve and a flattened curve both have the same areas underneath them, then they both will have the same number of cases over time. And if the number of cases is the same under both curves, there's no reason to assume the number of fatalities will be different over time.
Since I know from your snark that you're not inclined to believe me, I've tried to find one of the authorities who say that. I'll offer this Australian article authored by three mathematicians at the University of Adelaide:
How to flatten the curve of coronavirus, a mathematician explains
| Quote: |
Health authorities around the world have been unable to completely prevent COVID-19’s spread. If cases double every six days, then hospitals, and intensive care units (ICUs) in particular, will be quickly overwhelmed, leaving patients without the necessary care.
But the growth rate can be slowed by reducing the average number of cases that a single case gives rise to.
In doing so, the same number of people will probably be infected, and the epidemic will last longer, but the number of severe cases will be spread out. This means that if you plot a graph of the number of cases over time, the rising and falling curve is longer but its peak is lower. By “flattening the curve” in this way, ICUs will be less likely to run out of capacity. |
See this GIF from the article demonstrating the same area under the curves.
I acknowledged the capacity issue in my second sentence by saying that flattening the curve may, in a real world where hospital resources are insufficient, "result in less of a spiked clog on medical resources and deaths attributable to that clog, the number of which is speculative." I believe my second sentence to be true.
The reasons for Italy's high case numbers and death rates have been amply explored in this thread and the other one, including the lack of capacity. The last two days of decreasing cases may be an indication that Italy has passed the peak of their curve.
On edit: I only brought up the issue of spiked vs. flattened curves to point out that in places where there is no reason to believe that hospital capacity will be an issue, flattening the curve with harsh mitigation measures will not decrease cases or fatalities but will cause all sorts of grave economic and social harm. |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/20 12:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| The current rightwing flavor of the day- return to work in order to save Wall St- will cause more longterm social and economic chaos/harm than the NY model, imo, and smacks of its usual "trickle-down" economic bullshit and shortsightedness.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
|
|
