Coronavirus prep

Options
17273757778747

Replies

  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    Options
    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: 9,964 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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: 33,960 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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: 4,140 Member
    Options
    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/