General COVID-19 Topic

[No Mulligans]

On 4/3/2020 at 3:57 PM, iacas said:

Are you aware that many of those people who die would have done so within the next six months anyway?

 

Do you mean 100, a 1,000, 10,000.  Those are all many.  What percent are you referring too?  Is there a source for this?

I'm immune compromised, have been for about 10 years.  There certainly are a lot more in my situation than there are with a prognosis of six or fewer months to live.  My prognosis, a full life.  Although, with the coronovirus being active maybe our prognosis has changed.

Your statement is overly dismisive.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by No Mulligans

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Do you mean 100, a 1,000, a 100,000.  Those are all many.  What percent are you referring too?  Is there a source for this?

The number I recall reading was up to 50%. That number may have been from Italy, which is older and much more likely to smoke, but the fact is that some number of COVID deaths are being classified as COVID when the person would not have lasted much longer anyway.

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I'm immune compromised, have been for about 10 years.  There certainly are a lot more in my situation than there are with a prognosis of six or fewer months to live.  Your statement is overly dismisive.

It is not dismissive at all.

I'm striving to understand, and like anything, this is multi-faceted. We can't just look at a death total and derive all conclusions. Italy isn't like the U.S., China is not like Italy… Philly is not like Pittsburgh, and the death of an 84-year-old lifelong smoker with lung cancer is not like the death of a 42-year-old otherwise healthy person.

There are a lot of layers to this, and I'm seeking to understand all of those layers.

We don't know how many people have had COVID and recovered, either. Some numbers estimate 50%.

We don't know how many people get COVID and have mild or no symptoms. I read a thing today that said up to 75%!

Many facets to this. If the mortality rate is (making this up) 0.8%, and 0.3% of that is people who are likely to die in the next six months, 0.3% of that is people who are immune-compromised, and most of the remaining 0.2% are people aged 50 and over, that kind of information would shape policy moving forward, particularly as we start to uncover treatments, etc. If those numbers (completely made up) were real, for example, maybe most people could go back to work while maintaining social distancing and washing hands and all that, and only the immune-compromised and the older people would be advised to stay home and avoid close contact with everyone.

[No Mulligans]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Interesting and good points.  However, Italy is not so unique, New York is right on there heels based on deaths per million of population.  I wish he would also talk about New York.

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by No Mulligans

[iacas]

Just now, No Mulligans said:

Interesting and good points.  However, Italy is not so unique, New York is right on there heels based on deaths per million of population.

Italy ≠ New York.

DIfferent median/mean ages, different health backgrounds, different population density, different population size, etc.

I disagree. They're both unique. Even Philly is different than NYC.

These differences are one of the things making it tough to draw good conclusions.

---

Again, man, be safe, and be well. I'm trying to share what I come across (without actually going out and looking for much), regardless of what position it takes, so long as it seems somewhat credible.

[No Mulligans]

As an aside, New York is really doing bad relatively speaking.  They have about the same confirmed cases as Italy with a population of 14% of Italy's population.

And based on population, Calif. is doing pretty well.

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Many facets to this. If the mortality rate is (making this up) 0.8%, and 0.3% of that is people who are likely to die in the next six months, 0.3% of that is people who are immune-compromised, and most of the remaining 0.2% are people aged 50 and over, that kind of information would shape policy moving forward, particularly as we start to uncover treatments, etc. If those numbers (completely made up) were real, for example, maybe most people could go back to work while maintaining social distancing and washing hands and all that, and only the immune-compromised and the older people would be advised to stay home and avoid close contact with everyone.

Yes.

Edited April 5, 2020 by No Mulligans

[Cartboy]

To cut to the chase . . . no one, anywhere, has been able to contain/mediate/stop the virus.

Why tempt fate?

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Cartboy

[iacas]

The numbers here got a LOT better over the weekend, in just about every state I looked at:

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

---

Explore hospital bed use, need for intensive care beds, and ventilator use due to COVID-19 based on projected deaths for all 50 US states and District of Columbia

NY went from 60,000 beds short to 24,000.

PA went from 87 ICU beds short to several in reserve.

OH, NC, FL all dramatically improved too. The peak dates moved up (closer to today) in virtually every state.

These assume some things about staying in the current state through August, but if the peaks are THIS low, people can start to go about some semi-normal activity while maintaining good distancing (and possibly wearing masks, etc.) sooner than was previously projected.

We're still not going to be attending PGA Tour events or MLB games in packed bleachers any time soon, but this is a big positive turn.

[Beastie]

I have attached a graph  from The Economist discussing mortality rates in heavily affected areas. I think it is pertinent to the discussion.
 

Here in the UK, the demographics of Covid 19 fatalities are very much based upon age and underlying health  issues. However there is still a significant % of relatively healthy individuals who are dying from the disease. They chances of dying for anyone over 80 is currently about 15 %. Also men are twice as likely as women across all ages to die from the virus. 

The other graph show, by comparison, shows the risk of death in the Uk by age bands over the next year

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Beastie said:

However there is still a significant % of relatively healthy individuals who are dying from the disease.

Define "significant."

Also, the mortality rate is almost a complete unknown right now, because it does not include people who had the disease and suffered no or little symptoms, and so were never tested.

[Beastie]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Define "significant."

Also, the mortality rate is almost a complete unknown right now, because it does not include people who had the disease and suffered no or little symptoms, and so were never tested.

In the UK the percentage of fatal cases in adults(>18yrs) with no underlying symptoms is 2.4%. 22% of over >80yrs that require ICU treatment have no previously undiagnosed underlying symptoms other than advanced age. 

I can’t find data for the fatality rate of those 22%

1 minute ago, Beastie said:

In the UK the percentage of fatal cases in adults(>18yrs) with no underlying symptoms is 2.4%. 22% of over >80yrs that require ICU treatment have no previously undiagnosed underlying symptoms other than advanced age. 

I can’t find data for the fatality rate of those 22%

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Beastie
Addition

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Beastie said:

In the UK the percentage of fatal cases in adults(>18yrs) with no underlying symptoms is 2.4%.

Something's really off with the UK.

That's just a screenshot from Google. You guys have over 50% of the deaths with between 1/6th and 1/7th the number of positive confirmed tests?

P.S. By "off" I don't mean the data is bad, necessarily, but… yikes.

[Beastie]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Something's really off with the UK.

That's just a screenshot from Google. You guys have over 50% of the deaths with between 1/6th and 1/7th the number of positive confirmed tests?

P.S. By "off" I don't mean the data is bad, necessarily, but… yikes.

That’s explained by the lack of testing. The only people tested up until a few days ago were patients who were actually admitted to hospital.(It’s only in the last week that frontline health workers are being tested). The majority of people with symptoms of Covid have been instructed to self isolate at home and self assess using an online NHS tool. Only those who feel unable to manage their symptoms themselves or see any deterioration /lack of improvement are actually seeing a medical professional.

My actuarial pal told me his insurance company predict a level of infection at the very least 10x the #of positive cases

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Beastie said:

That’s explained by the lack of testing. The only people tested up until a few days ago were patients who were actually admitted to hospital.(It’s only in the last week that frontline health workers are being tested). The majority of people with symptoms of Covid have been instructed to self isolate at home and self assess using an online NHS tool. Only those who feel unable to manage their symptoms themselves or see any deterioration /lack of improvement are actually seeing a medical professional.

My actuarial pal told me his insurance company predict a level of infection at the very least 10x the #of positive cases

Right, so then all of that indicates that the mortality rate is a guess at this point. It might be 2.4% (unlikely), it might be 0.3% (about as unlikely, but somewhere in between).

The frustrating thing about this whole thing is the lack of data available. It's almost as frustrating as having to have my wife and kid around 24/7 for weeks or months in a row. 😄

[Beastie]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Right, so then all of that indicates that the mortality rate is a guess at this point. It might be 2.4% (unlikely), it might be 0.3% (about as unlikely, but somewhere in between).

The frustrating thing about this whole thing is the lack of data available. It's almost as frustrating as having to have my wife and kid around 24/7 for weeks or months in a row. 😄

 

[Missouri Swede]

14 hours ago, Cartboy said:

To cut to the chase . . . no one, anywhere, has been able to contain/mediate/stop the virus.

If that’s true, then social distancing and handwashing may not be effective. I’m not sure your premise is correct.

[iacas]

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

---

Explore hospital bed use, need for intensive care beds, and ventilator use due to COVID-19 based on projected deaths

THat's the UK chart, which they just added. Doesn't look good for you, @Beastie:

Hospital Bed Shortage:
US: 36,000
UK: 85,000

ICU Bed Shortage:
US: 16,000
UK: 24,000

Population:
US: 330,000,000
UK: 66,000,000

PA looks to be "okay":

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

---

Explore hospital bed use, need for intensive care beds, and ventilator use due to COVID-19 based on projected deaths

 

[Cartboy]

8 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

If that’s true, then social distancing and handwashing may not be effective. I’m not sure your premise is correct.

No, it's correct . . . so far.

 

[dennyjones]

Saw a report today.  Italy only reports deaths that happen in the hospital.   Many, many have died in nursing care facilities and weren't counted.  Their count is actually much higher.