Coronavirus prep

14748505253498

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    whoami67 wrote: »
    For Catholics, the Archbishop of Los Angeles has dispensed with the obligation to go to mass the next 3 Sundays. I don't see anything about that on the archdiocese website, but my parish put out a notice. I'm still trying to decide if I will go. I've had what I am about 99% certain is the flu and I'm almost recovered, but I'm not sure I can make it through mass without coughing at least once and I don't want to cause a panic.

    I mentioned this earlier, but the Archdiocese of Chicago canceled public mass. Churches that have the capacity are encouraged to broadcast something and people can go into a church for private prayer.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey, you're in NZ?

    Your border protection is probably the best in the world. I hope all goes well.

    No, I'm in Jordan, but I'm feeling hopeful because both the government and the people are taking this seriously. I'm also glad I'm not seeing any examples of extreme toilet paper hoarding lol - I still don't understand why toilet paper specifically.

    I wish I had a link, but there was a kind of convincing comment on BBC World Service last night from a guest in an expert-talk segment.

    He advanced an idea (that I won't clearly present here becaus it was kinda nuanced and I was listening while doing other stuff ;) ).

    The idea was that it has something to do with hard-wired fears of disease, association of disgust with disease, association of excretory functions with disgust, plus association of hygiene/cleanliness with self-protection/disease-avoidance . . . all at a sub-rational level. Then, poof, in a pandemic, we all go racing out to buy TP.

    Maybe? :lol:

    That IS interesting. Although, I was an early TP buyer before the Great TP Panic of 2020, and what I recall thinking at the time was:

    1. It's possible I may need to stay in the house for quite a while.
    2. What are things the lack of which would make sheltering in place exceedingly unpleasant and force me to venture out to the store, even if it's the zombie apocalypse out there?
    3. Lack of: TP, toothpaste, soap, laundry detergent, something to drink besides water, and cold cuts.

    So I stocked up on TP, along with the rest of the list.

    (Froze the cold cuts in 4 ounce servings - good for 2 ish months).
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    As far as killing all its victims and taking itself out, it can still spread for several days (symptoms may appear as much as 14 days after exposure)

    Eventually there's no one left to infect.

    See, it's a circular argument because *some* people are going to die. Some are going to survive. That's the way natural selection works.

    If the virus became too good at its mutation eventually everyone dies. Ta da, no more worries about global warming or retirement accounts. The planet gets to start over without humans.

    Not a bad thing, perhaps.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.

    so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?

    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Suppose a news report says "Confirmed cases in Town Z are up by 20%". What this means: If we had 20 confirmed cases, we now have 24 cases. We had 20, we added 20% of 20, which is 4, for a total of 24.

    What "up by 20%" does not mean: If that initial 20 confirmed cases was 1% of Town Z's population of 2000, we don't suddenly have 1% + 20% or 21% of the population confirmed as having XYZ virus, i.e., it's not suddenly 420 cases. A 100% increase (starting from 20 cases) would mean that 40 people are confirmed to have XYZ virus, not that everyone now has it.

    This I get - its the same way businesses pull in people on sales - 10% off! Until you realize its 10% off a $5 product, which means you're still paying $4.50......
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.

    so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?


    Yes.

  • sdavis484
    sdavis484 Posts: 160 Member
    jthillk wrote: »
    My family traveled to Oklahoma this weekend to visit other family (military) that was in the states from South Korea temporarily. Once we got to Oklahoma we discovered that virtually the entire city was without water for most of our trip. I feel like the Coronavirus is out to get me.

    I live in Oklahoma and haven't heard of any town being out of water. Where were you?!?!
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    yikes - the CDC's map is very behind, apparently, because its still showing 4 states without any confirmed cases. The CDC's map hasn't been updated since 3/12. Also, the CDC's website is very behind on total cases, too.

    But I went back and found the link that someone had posted to John Hopkins' map which was updated today at 4 pm, and Idaho is now showing 1 confirmed case and Alabama is showing 6 confirmed cases, so we're down to only 2 states with no confirmed cases: Alaska and West Virginia.

    The CDC's website is still saying 1,629 cases with 41 dead in the US, while the John Hopkins map has 2,572 cases with 51 dead.


    With Maryland's 28, Virginia's 31, Pennsylvania's 47, Ohio's 26, and Kentucky's 14, its gotta be just a matter of time until it finally gets here.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    lkpducky wrote: »
    Why is the UK government is taking this slow approach??
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51865915

    I was having this discussion a couple days ago when we first went on lock-down here in Washington state.

    First, government can't win on this no matter which way they go.

    When it becomes money or life, of course it has to be life. UK has socialized medicine that already is struggling so there's another layer.

    So that's what's mostly being decided with all the lock-downs in the U.S. Immediate life-saving is the most important thing. (?) Short term pain long term gain?





    But my other side says, "Maybe it's best to let this play out as Nature intended."

    I don't think that's [necessarily] smart, or maybe it is, but it did cross my mind. Sort of a get-it-over-with stance. Not try to control it...because it's going to likely surprise us in a lot of ways. Like someone said in an article I read, "If this virus becomes too successful it kills all its victims and takes itself out."

    If we keep tamping it down it's an annoyance forever. It's a complicated dilemma. I am of the belief it will likely find its own level regardless of what we try to do.

    Well, the people who get it early while there are still plenty of medical resources to go around are probably luckier than people who get it at the peak, especially if the curve isn't flattened, and have to hope there will be a respirator for them if they need it. But I don't think that's a good reason to be cavalier about hand-washing and social distancing, as by the time you have good odds of catching it just by being generally careless, the odds are that you'll be fairly close to the incidence peak.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    edited March 2020
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    Death toll (if you mean fatality rate for the disease) is (number of people who die of the disease)/(number of people who have the disease). Right now, we don't know how many people have the disease.

    One thing for sure, math-wise: Once all of this is over, and this virus reduced (as we hope) to a normal, treatable, potentially preventable disease), we will have enough data to realistically estimate fatality rates for areas with good statistical infrastructure. Until then, it's a moving target, though as time progresses, the estimates should improve as more data rolls in.

    yep, that's what I was meaning when I say death toll.

    So looking at my CDC versus John Hopkins as of 3/14 at 4:30 pm EST, on 3/12, the CDC was reporting 1,629 cases and 41 deaths, resulting in a 2.5% death rate. Today at 4 pm, John Hopkins was showing 2,572 cases and 51 deaths, bumping that rate down to 1.9% actual. Understanding that as time goes on, that % will fluctuate. This is US, btw.
  • sdavis484
    sdavis484 Posts: 160 Member
    How do we keep people that are quarantined home though? Is that possible? I don't think it is. What would stop an infected person from being out and sharing germs?
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    lkpducky wrote: »
    Why is the UK government is taking this slow approach??
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51865915

    I was having this discussion a couple days ago when we first went on lock-down here in Washington state.

    First, government can't win on this no matter which way they go.

    When it becomes money or life, of course it has to be life. UK has socialized medicine that already is struggling so there's another layer.

    So that's what's mostly being decided with all the lock-downs in the U.S. Immediate life-saving is the most important thing. (?) Short term pain long term gain?





    But my other side says, "Maybe it's best to let this play out as Nature intended."

    I don't think that's [necessarily] smart, or maybe it is, but it did cross my mind. Sort of a get-it-over-with stance. Not try to control it...because it's going to likely surprise us in a lot of ways. Like someone said in an article I read, "If this virus becomes too successful it kills all its victims and takes itself out."

    If we keep tamping it down it's an annoyance forever. It's a complicated dilemma. I am of the belief it will likely find its own level regardless of what we try to do.

    Well, the people who get it early while there are still plenty of medical resources to go around are probably luckier than people who get it at the peak, especially if the curve isn't flattened, and have to hope there will be a respirator for them if they need it. But I don't think that's a good reason to be cavalier about hand-washing and social distancing, as by the time you have good odds of catching it just by being generally careless, the odds are that you'll be fairly close to the incidence peak.

    Exactly.

    Some people will die regardless of when they catch it, too. It seems that there is possibly a genetic component to who reacts with that immune storm...I'm not smart enough to know the answers but I do know that there's likely no one who can stop the general trajectory.

    It is surprising to me that SAR-Cov1 (the first one, "SARS") just became super virulent (in the range of 9% deaths) and then burned out in a year and there have been no recorded cases since. It didn't infect as many people, I think in the range of 9,000, maybe? - but I'm not sure if that's because of anything we did or didn't do. It's just interesting.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    sdavis484 wrote: »
    How do we keep people that are quarantined home though? Is that possible? I don't think it is. What would stop an infected person from being out and sharing germs?

    Well, one would hope that any decent human being would abide by quarantine requirements, but of course there will be some that don't.

    These are the (current) requirements for self-isolation in NZ (this is for anyone arriving into the country, or anyone who has had close contact with someone who has tested positive, I'm a bit unclear if the requirements are more stringent for those that have the virus): https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-self-isolation
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.

    so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?

    Yes, but the infection rate will be higher (and the threat of spread). The concern is in part that even lower infection rates will be devastating if some huge percentage of the population contracts it, and apparently a much higher percentage than the death rate need medical care (although we don't have a real clue about percentages now, IMO).
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,186 Member
    it may be a little too graphic for some people

    What does the coronavirus do to your body? Everything to know about the infection process
    A visual guide of coronavirus infection, symptoms of COVID-19 and the effects of the virus inside the body, in graphics
    Javier Zarracina, and Adrianna Rodriguez, USA TODAY
    Updated 7 hours ago


    https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/03/13/what-coronavirus-does-body-covid-19-infection-process-symptoms/5009057002/