COVID-19 Thread

[FVBrewerFan]

I’d rather be poor and alive than dead.

 

Yeah I mean what's the other option? Let the virus run it's course?

 

Yes. It's running it's course anyhow.

[FVBrewerFan]

I have to ask if you any of you still saying this is an overreaction know any nurses or doctors. I do, and they are all describing nightmares at work already.

 

I don't think it's an overrection. I also think we can't go on this way for months or longer. We're talking about total collapse of our economy, unemployment at 20%...30% who knows. That just can't happen. Focus need to be on how to best insulate the at risk population as best we can, and the rest of us need to move forward.

 

That would involve mass testing and we seem to be behind the curve on that.

 

Why? We already know who the at risk people are.

[adambr2]

My personal opinion is that the mortality rate is going to be far, far less than originally anticipated.

 

I understand that viewpoint is probably far too optimistic for some and I respect that. It's just my opinion.

 

In this country, the only ones even getting tested are the ones who either are in a position of means and high class (NBA player, for example), or the ones who are severely ill, enough so to seek medical attention.

 

In most areas, those who get mildly sick are simply being asked to stay home and self-care and self-quarantine. They are not being tested or counted. By most accounts, that is 80-90% of cases. So how are those accounted for when determining how lethal this is?

 

I think the spread of this, being a novel virus that no one is immune too yet, is far more widespread than we see in current numbers. That's a good news/bad news thing. Very contagious, but much less lethal overall than earlier thought. Obviously that mortality rate is going to vary greatly based on the availability of proper medical care, as we are seeing in contrast in Italy and South Korea.

 

Just my uneducated thoughts.

[nodakfan17]

You can apparently mix Energen-C with vodka to make a ‘quarantini.’

[PeaveyFury]

 

That would involve mass testing and we seem to be behind the curve on that.

 

Why? We already know who the at risk people are.

 

But we don't know who is carrying it to give it to them.

[Fear The Chorizo]

 

That would involve mass testing and we seem to be behind the curve on that.

 

Why? We already know who the at risk people are.

 

But we don't know who is carrying it to give it to them.

 

So you restrict contact with the at risk people for a month, hell 3 months, potentially having to quarantine caregivers with them during that time. Then you let the virus run its course though the incredible majority of people it doesnt severely impact during that time without putting the world on house arrest. It sucks, but compared to this it's probably an easier process to implement and actually implement properly.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

My personal opinion is that the mortality rate is going to be far, far less than originally anticipated.

 

In this country, the only ones even getting tested are the ones who either are in a position of means and high class (NBA player, for example), or the ones who are severely ill, enough so to seek medical attention.

 

 

You do realize that test shortages are one of the major issues in the US? That is why they are testing that way. Athletes come in contact with people every day and travel extensively. That is why famous people have been tested for it. Idris Elba was rubbing shoulders with the Trudeaus. There is a reason they would be a testing priority.

 

I do think the mortality rate will end up lower than predicted at the start. But I also think it's funny that random people feel qualified to alter the policy widely recommended by people who have been studying this for decades.

[reillymcshane]

My personal opinion is that the mortality rate is going to be far, far less than originally anticipated.

 

I understand that viewpoint is probably far too optimistic for some and I respect that. It's just my opinion.

 

In this country, the only ones even getting tested are the ones who either are in a position of means and high class (NBA player, for example), or the ones who are severely ill, enough so to seek medical attention.

 

In most areas, those who get mildly sick are simply being asked to stay home and self-care and self-quarantine. They are not being tested or counted. By most accounts, that is 80-90% of cases. So how are those accounted for when determining how lethal this is?

 

I think the spread of this, being a novel virus that no one is immune too yet, is far more widespread than we see in current numbers. That's a good news/bad news thing. Very contagious, but much less lethal overall than earlier thought. Obviously that mortality rate is going to vary greatly based on the availability of proper medical care, as we are seeing in contrast in Italy and South Korea.

 

Just my uneducated thoughts.

The mortality rate has been much lower in South Korea vs Italy. Italy's had 30,000 cases and 2500 deaths - that's an 8% death rate!!! However, that's because data is just getting collected. They likely have tons more cases that have not been reported - or will ever be reported. In Korea, you have a population that has been tested a lot more often, and more mild cases have been registered (unlike other places, as you note, where people just head home and stay there).

 

The mortality rate in Korea was more like .65% (I think that's correct). And some reports out of China have the rate at closer to 1.5% -- again, much lower than 3-4%.

 

However, a big difference between these two populations is age. In South Korea, you have a younger population (18.5% of the population is over 60 compared to 28.6% in Italy). The elderly are especially vulnerable - and Italy has a lot more people in that age group.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/opinions/south-korea-italy-coronavirus-survivability-sepkowitz/index.html

 

Still, there is hope that things will not be as bad as some of the projections.

 

However, the big caveat is that you have trust all the people with mild symptoms to actually stay home. A person with a light cough or a little fatigue might not even know they have the illness, and head out to their job at a nursing home or grocery store or wherever. This is where you need people to be super diligent. But that can be hard. Especially for a person who can't afford to miss a shift or whatever.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Why? We already know who the at risk people are.

 

But we don't know who is carrying it to give it to them.

 

So you restrict contact with the at risk people for a month, hell 3 months, potentially having to quarantine caregivers with them during that time. Then you let the virus run its course though the incredible majority of people it doesnt severely impact during that time without putting the world on house arrest. It sucks, but compared to this it's probably an easier process to implement and actually implement properly.

 

Possibly easier, but shown to be less effective in every scenario/simulation I've seen.

[homer]

 

So you restrict contact with the at risk people for a month, hell 3 months, potentially having to quarantine caregivers with them during that time. Then you let the virus run its course though the incredible majority of people it doesnt severely impact during that time without putting the world on house arrest. It sucks, but compared to this it's probably an easier process to implement and actually implement properly.

 

Who is at risk and how do you isolate them? Are people with pre-existing health issues (I.e. immuno compromised) supposed to volunteer as tribute?

[homer]

 

Still, there is hope that things will not be as bad as some of the projections.

 

However, the big caveat is that you have trust all the people with mild symptoms to actually stay home. A person with a light cough or a little fatigue might not even know they have the illness, and head out to their job at a nursing home or grocery store or wherever. This is where you need people to be super diligent. But that can be hard. Especially for a person who can't afford to miss a shift or whatever.

 

Yeah there is just a ton we don't know right now. As more cases are discovered and more people recover they'll figure out a lot in a short period of time.

[adambr2]

My personal opinion is that the mortality rate is going to be far, far less than originally anticipated.

 

In this country, the only ones even getting tested are the ones who either are in a position of means and high class (NBA player, for example), or the ones who are severely ill, enough so to seek medical attention.

 

 

You do realize that test shortages are one of the major issues in the US? That is why they are testing that way. Athletes come in contact with people every day and travel extensively. That is why famous people have been tested for it. Idris Elba was rubbing shoulders with the Trudeaus. There is a reason they would be a testing priority.

 

I do think the mortality rate will end up lower than predicted at the start. But I also think it's funny that random people feel qualified to alter the policy widely recommended by people who have been studying this for decades.

 

First off, as a "random person," I never once said I "felt qualified to alter" policy. I was giving an uneducated opinion, nothing more. I was relatively clear about that, several times. I wasn't saying that high class individuals have been given easier access to testing to bemoan them.

 

Secondly, there is no policy for this. It's uncharted waters for most countries and is mostly a day to day thing. They don't know what next week will look like much less next month. Even the people who have been studying this for decades aren't all in agreement on what the best courses of action are.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I wasn't referring to you when I said random person. I realize that people don't have a lot to do, but there are a lot of random people on the Internet who seem to have the master plan on handling this nailed down and seem a little too confident about saying quarantine is a mistake.

 

But the part about who is being tested seemed off base. Why would you use a limited resource like a test on a 25 year old underwriter when you could use it on an athlete who's been to 5 airports in a week, signed 40 autographs, volunteered at a hospital and had 60 different people stick a microphone in his face? I don't think it has as much to do with affluence as it does with testing high priority individuals and a lack of supply.

[adambr2]

I should have been more clear as to why the affluent lifestyle leads to priority testing because of their numerous contacts, I do understand the prioritization of those and the symptomatic ones who have become seriously ill.

 

Ideally we will hopefully see testing become as readily available in the near future as a flu test so we don't have to worry so much about prioritizing.

[DHonks]

A single nursing home in Spain has had 17 deaths in 5 days.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-nursinghome/madrid-prosecutors-probe-case-of-17-coronavirus-deaths-in-single-nursing-home-idUSKBN2151Y1

 

This is the scariest thing. The death rate amongst the elderly and vulnerable has been quite high.

 

China reported the mortality rate among the elderly as such:

60-69 year olds 3.6%

70-79 year olds as 8%

80+ as 14.8%

 

Stats are supposedly skewed towards men. From my limited experience, a major factor is the extremely high smoking rates for men in China. Any lung damage makes someone especially vulnerable.

[DHonks]

My personal opinion is that the mortality rate is going to be far, far less than originally anticipated. .

 

I can't imagine that. Initially the guesses were like .1%. Sounds like they are going to be at least 10 times higher, if not 20 times higher. Now it's spreading in sub-Saharan African countries, so I would see world-wide mortality rates increasing.

[homer]

People with asthma are susceptible to getting very sick.That's like 25 million people in the US.

 

From WHO:

Does the new coronavirus affect older people, or are younger people also susceptible?

People of all ages can be infected by the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease) appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus.

 

WHO advises people of all ages to take steps to protect themselves from the virus, for example by following good hand hygiene and good respiratory hygiene.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

My personal opinion is that the mortality rate is going to be far, far less than originally anticipated. .

 

I can't imagine that. Initially the guesses were like .1%. Sounds like they are going to be at least 10 times higher, if not 20 times higher. Now it's spreading in sub-Saharan African countries, so I would see world-wide mortality rates increasing.

 

I think he's referring to 3-4% figures the WHO was throwing around at one time and I do think it will be a lot lower than that in the US.

[PeaveyFury]

People with asthma are susceptible to getting very sick.That's like 25 million people in the US.

 

From WHO:

Does the new coronavirus affect older people, or are younger people also susceptible?

People of all ages can be infected by the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease) appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus.

 

Right. It's not as easy as a just "keep the old people away from everybody" strategy. It's "keep the 50 million Americans over 70 away from everybody." And also "keep the 26 million Americans with diabetes away from everybody." And "keep the 120 million Americans with heart disease away from everybody".

[MrTPlush]

They get tests because they have money and get special treatment. It is that simple. The whole they interact and travel a lot is BS. Many other normal people do the same and won't get special treatment. Part of the NBAs argument for getting all the tests is because they think positive tests for athletes will bring awareness...LOL, right.

 

Nothing like wasting tests on celebrities and athletes.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

They get tests because they have money and get special treatment. It is that simple. The whole they interact and travel a lot is BS. Many other normal people do the same and won't get special treatment. Part of the NBAs argument for getting all the tests is because they think positive tests for athletes will bring awareness...LOL, right.

 

Nothing like wasting tests on celebrities and athletes.

 

You're wrong, and this doesn't even make sense. Do you think the celebrities and athletes went to Dr. Oz and demanded a COVID-19 test? Most of them were probably forced into taking one. The average Joes who got a test early on, were people who had come back from various parts of Asia. There is no priority in testing a regular Joe at Northwestern Mutual who hasn't traveled in 4 months and has a mild fever. Why would you test that person before Giannis? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

[reillymcshane]

A single nursing home in Spain has had 17 deaths in 5 days.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-nursinghome/madrid-prosecutors-probe-case-of-17-coronavirus-deaths-in-single-nursing-home-idUSKBN2151Y1

 

This is the scariest thing. The death rate amongst the elderly and vulnerable has been quite high.

 

China reported the mortality rate among the elderly as such:

60-69 year olds 3.6%

70-79 year olds as 8%

80+ as 14.8%

 

Stats are supposedly skewed towards men. From my limited experience, a major factor is the extremely high smoking rates for men in China. Any lung damage makes someone especially vulnerable.

 

I read that in South Korean something like 40% of men smoke. But only 5% of women. That is likely contributing to more issues with men.

[xisxisxis]

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no SINGLE COVID-19 virus. Each time it replicates there is a chance that a mutation occurs that either 1) makes no difference; 2) makes the new virus more "severe"; or 3) makes the new virus less "severe". While infected you will have multiple different subtypes in your body that will go through selection during it's course and through any treatment. Each infection (new individual) is another round of "natural" selection. There will be subtypes and subtypes "evolving" over time. Part of the reason for not letting it infect everyone is that it just increases the chance that a really bad killer version occurs. It's just math. The killer evolution isn't likely a single mutation and is likely very rare, but nonetheless it is possible. Keeping the numbers down until we begin to acquire immunity is very important.

 

The reason HIV was so hard to treat, initially, is that due to the mutation rate, almost every individual had a variant subtype that was resistant to the first line of treatment. So while they got better initially as the susceptible virus went down, the variant multiplied then the patient relapsed. Combination therapy finally worked because the chance that a mutant virus was resistant to all drugs was much lower than the viral load in an individual.

[LouisEly]

I have to ask if you any of you still saying this is an overreaction know any nurses or doctors. I do, and they are all describing nightmares at work already.

It depends what the source of the nightmares are.

 

I have not been hearing about a shortage of hospital beds in the US; if that is not true, please correct me. What I have been hearing is a shortage of supplies (testing, preventative, treatment). That is much more attributable to the inventory policies put in place, which are a temporary situation that can be easily changed. As someone else said several days ago, the implementation of AI and analytics to minimize inventory holding costs is the cause. Manufacturing also functions off of AI and analytics to reduce manufacturing and inventory holding costs. Changing/overriding the manufacturing and inventory algorithms will rectify the shortages sooner rather than later.

[LouisEly]

And I'm talking about locally owned-operated places - not McDonald's or Taco Bell or Wendy's. Those will do fine in the long run, but it's smaller, independent places that are going to be killed by this.

 

 

The line at the Wendy's drive through in my neighborhood is like 40 cars deep.

Might be the only ones left open. I just checked the places that I frequent here in Chicago, and most of them are closed. One BBQ place is open for take out until they have sold their food inventory, then they are closing. Lettuce's restaurants are open for delivery/takeout, but not really what I'm looking for - I'm looking for a burger that is a step or two up from Wendy's, but those places are closed. Fortunately the place around the corner, Frontier, is still open (for now) for takeout and they have a really good burger and other meat dishes.