Coronavirus and Pandemics

Not a problem for men's doubles.

People aren't developing mouth, lip, or skin sores, so I don't think these are vulnerable areas. Some very anecdotal evidence I have seen points to alveolar cells being the major reservoir. We have had individuals who test positive from a nasopharyngeal swab (push the swab back until it hits the sinuses) and negative from a nasal swab (swab just the nostril). Since the assay we are using is quantitative, that strongly points to a drop in viral particles just from the sinuses to the nostril. Again, this is based on a single individual so it isn't conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, but it is interesting. Currently, companies and the FDA are doing tests on saliva to see if it can be used in the same assay due to a quickly dwindling supply of nasopharyngeal swab kits.

China was not any kind of, quote, power when it helped North Vietnam 40 plus years ago.China and Vietnam were not likely allies, communist Vietnam included. But that is another story.China was not an exporter of communism by the time we got deep into Vietnam. Again,another story.But ,your point about the low impact proxy conflicts is correct.

The case fatality rate is 0.4 percent but with 35 percent asymptomatic rate, that makes for 0.26 percent.For under 65, it is more like 0.1 percent.This sequel to SARS has been a great disaster when it comes to contagiousness, but it is nowhere near the killer once you are infected. SARS was 10 percent fatal, if you got it.Open the economy, but protect the elderly and vulnerable. NOW.Now.

Ser article TELL ME WHAT TO DO PLEASE. EVEN EXPERTS...

Guess I will respond to my own post.The new Washington Post article is something of a painful history.It puts this failed lockdown policy into perspective, though that might not have been quite the exact point of the article.Trump ordered a 15 day national lockdown way back on March 16, when there were only 85 deaths.By the time he extended the lockdown, on March 30, another 30 days, there were over 3000 deaths.Almost 60 days later, we are at about 100,000 deaths.Now, what do we do.I think that one in 3 seniors have diabetes. PROTECT THEM.Open the economy, but finally help the vulnerable.We need some actual policy aside from lockdown city, lockdown nation.AbE:Source: ‘Tell me what to do! Please!’: Even experts struggle with coronavirus unknownsEdited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Add link to Washington Post article.

The overall death rate, for those with symptoms is 0.4 percent.The asymptomatic rate is estimated at 35 percent, so that slices t the e death rate down to 0.26 percent.But, before the 35 percent slice, here us the death rate by age.0 to 49 years old 0.0550 to 64 0.265 plus 1.3Then the CDC chopped off 35 percent to get the 0.26 percent best estimate.At the same time, JAMA published a report by researchers at the University of Southern California ,which matched the 0.26 coronavirus death rate. The lead author of the USC study was Neeraj Sood, professor of health studies at USC. The Los Angeles county health department was part of the team that worked with professor Sood. Sood said the fatality rate was 0.13 percent outside nursing homes, but the overall death rate was 0.26 percent when nursing home Covid 19 deaths were included in the overall death numbers.So, a 0.26 death rate.But let's say it is 50 percent higher. We can then see the CDC 0.4 numbers to quantify the number of deaths per infection in the broad age groups.One in 500 50 to 64 year olds infected with Coronavirus will die.One in 2000 people infected with the virus will die if they are under 50.About 4 deaths per 300 infections if you are over 65.THEN WE NEED TO CONSIDER...The dead typically will be those with underlying conditions, though not always.We need proper public policy to protect the elderly and the vulnerable.

That would be ~800,000 deaths in the US alone if everyone becomes infected, and the number would climb if there was a surge that overwhelmed the health care system.About ~3,000 people died in 9/11, and we have spent about $2.4 trillion on that war. If we were to keep things proportional, we should spend $640 trillion on COVID19.

I don't understand your results. At this moment there are 1,668,083 confirmed cases of covid19 and 100,040 deaths in the US. That gives a death rate of 5.99%! What am I missing? Those numbers have been subject to a lot of discussion and challenge, particularly the case number, but are certainly not off by a factor greater than 2.

I think the CDC and USC feel that 20 million plus have already gotten infected.I think 6 percent of the United States has either been infected or is presently infected.

But what if the vulnerable were protected, and we let the 200 million people that die at a 0.1 percent rate get infected, survive, and then possibly get immunity.That would mean 200,000 deaths in a best case scenario. Granted it is too late to protect the elderly and vulnerable people who already died, due to the fact that the United States abandoned them in the time of need.

I've been holding off posting the latest charts of cases and deaths because of the Memorial Day holiday and it's likely interference with reporting, but here now are the latest.Here's today's graph of deaths per day from The Washington Post Coronavirus Page. There remains a clear downward trend, but this graph shows the expected pop up from renewed reporting after the Memorial Day holiday. We passed the 100,000 death mark yesterday: Here's the bar graph of new cases from ArcGIS Dashboards Classic as of yesterday. There's remains a clear downward trend, but obviously the most recent few days are underreported. Yesterday should have popped up as cases from the holiday period that weren't reported finally made it into the data, but it didn't. If the data doesn't pop up tomorrow or the next day then it means our efforts at mitigation (masks mostly) are highly successful, which would be a very good sign. I think it's too early to conclude this because there may be a Memorial Day week effect (meaning many people took the entire week off, including people involved in reporting), but we'll keep our fingers crossed that this holds up: --Percy

Confirmed cases are going to be fewer than actual infections due to lack of testing and asymptomatic carriers. I think there are a few epidemiological studies going right now to determine the ratio between overtly symptomatic cases (i.e. confirmed cases) and asymptomatic cases. Actually, they could be off by more than a factor of 2.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the second study, from Australian researchers, looked at 217 people on a cruise bound for Antarctica. The ship set sail in mid-March, just after the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic.

​

The first fever on board was reported eight days into the voyage. Over the following two weeks, eight people had to be evacuated from the ship because they fell ill.

​

All of the 217 people who remained on board were tested for COVID-19. More than half (59 percent) tested positive, but just 19 percent of those patients had symptoms. The other 81 percent were symptom-free.
https://www.nbcnews.com/...be-more-common-suspected-n1215481

---

That's a 1:4 ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic infections.

But the CDC is reporting an asymptomatic rate of 35%, not 75%! Maybe the difference is in the sample size: 1.7million vs. 217. Here is the CDC site that lays out their scenarios that LNA uses to get the .26% fatality rate. I honestly don't understand where they are getting the model numbers from and .26% of what, confirmed cases? US population? or what? The only numbers I am able to tract down are 1.7million confirmed cases and 100,000 deaths giving >5%. To say that that percentage is off by a factor of 20 requires analysis and details that I can't find.

As I pointed out previously, NY state, with 6% of the country's population, has 20% of the country's confirmed cases and 25% of the deaths. If you remove NY state from your graphs, the rest of the country is remaining pretty steady to slightly increasing in both statistics. Since NY's cases and deaths are now both in rapid decline and will have a declining impact, I suspect that you will see your graphs steadily becoming more worrisome.Governor Andrew Cuomo of NY likes to point out that that state's front line workers (medical personel, police, emts) have half the coronavirus incidence as the general population despite being in frequent and often close contact with infected individuals. He considers this to be proof of the effectiveness of wearing masks and how they protect the wearer as well as others.