Coronavirus II

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:So, for you to be right, the second wave of Covid-19 will need to have a 1% fatality rate. Got it.

Isn't the fatality rate the number of deaths over the number of infected? That looks like 1% of all people, infected or not?

Don't bother him with details. He is too busy laughing his fool head off in an attempt to downplay/disparage/degrade whatever I have to say. It's his M.O. when confronted with logic and truth that render his points pointless.

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:So, for you to be right, the second wave of Covid-19 will need to have a 1% fatality rate. Got it.

Isn't the fatality rate the number of deaths over the number of infected? That looks like 1% of all people, infected or not?

Tee, the official number of those infected is no where near the number of those actually infected. They are listing about 1.71 million cases. Hell, there are more than that in NY state alone. Governor Cuomo is saying the infection rate in NY is close to 20% of the state which would be about 3.8 million. I image that if they ever test everyone for the antibody they will find that about 30 million people have already been infected. A little over a week ago the CDC said that out of 10.8 million tests there were 1.4 million positives. If 330 million were tested how many positives do you think there would be?

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:So, for you to be right, the second wave of Covid-19 will need to have a 1% fatality rate. Got it.

Isn't the fatality rate the number of deaths over the number of infected? That looks like 1% of all people, infected or not?

The chart he shared is titled "Deaths Per 1000 Persons". The second peak is at 10. 10/1000 = 1/100, no?

ramblinman wrote:

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:So, for you to be right, the second wave of Covid-19 will need to have a 1% fatality rate. Got it.

Isn't the fatality rate the number of deaths over the number of infected? That looks like 1% of all people, infected or not?

Don't bother him with details.  He is too busy laughing his fool head off in an attempt to downplay/disparage/degrade whatever I have to say.    It's his M.O. when confronted with logic and truth that render his points pointless.  

Good grief...you are so full of yourself.

You posted a graph with data from one of the deadliest pandemics EVER. Like, in all of history. And I'm the one suffering from a logical fallacy?

Give me a break. I have already said that there will be additional outbreaks as the country opens back up. But these outbreaks, if they follow your graph, will be substantially SMALLER than the initial outbreak. And will infect and kill FAR FEWER PEOPLE than the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic.

Once again...what is the math? How many infections stopped or lives saved is worth the socioeconomic devastation that you ivory tower dwellers are willing to wreak upon small business owners, poor people and minorities, and other vulnerable populations?

The 1918-1919 influenza pandemic was far more calamitous than the Covid-19 pandemic. It's not even close. To compare the two is the very definition of logical fallacy.

Not trying to derail the thread again, but a news story about an earlier derailment-

"Women's Health"
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vid-of-planned-parenthood-legal-testimony-directly-contradicts-public-statements-on-body-parts-sales

Absolutely cannot compare COVID with Spanish Flu, it's comparing apples to oranges. Spanish Flu was much more deadly across all demographics whereas COVID has a very specific demographic where the complications are fatal.

The people's frustration is starting to reach a breaking point and numbers across all states, those open and not open, are starting to fall, and there has not been a significant increase in ICU for about 6 weeks, and that is nationwide.

The government's job is to protect our rights, not protect our health. Protecting your health is an individual's responsibility not that of the government. I understand the role of public health but when basic rights are violates, it sets a bad precedent for any potential disease in the future. Key word in that sentence is potential. All the experts got this wrong, Fauci has admitted it, so now when we expect a bad flu season, lockdowns will likely occur, and probably near an election cycle so a handful of people can get elected.

Even if a second wave is coming, it will be nowhere near where we were at a month ago and my guess is that because so many people are positive without knowing it, the is more herd immunity than the epidemiologists expect.

dusty7 wrote:Absolutely cannot compare COVID with Spanish Flu, it's comparing apples to oranges.  Spanish Flu was much more deadly across all demographics whereas COVID has a very specific demographic where the complications are fatal.  

Wasn't comparing the two diseases.  Was absolutely trying to depict what happens when second and third waves occur in an epidemic.  

dusty7 wrote:The people's frustration is starting to reach a breaking point and numbers across all states, those open and not open, are starting to fall, and there has not been a significant increase in ICU for about 6 weeks, and that is nationwide.  

Numbers across all states are falling?  What numbers?  Comparing last week to the week before, the number of new cases is up over 50% in five states:  Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Vermont.  In 12 other states, the number of new cases is up between 10% and 50% between last week and the week before.  13 states are flat.  The remaining 20 states are down between 10% and 50%.  Wanting numbers to go down across all states and actually witnessing them go down are two very different things.  I realize that the new cases numbers are going up in large part because testing is going up.  But still.  This thing is not going away anytime soon.

dusty7 wrote:Even if a second wave is coming, it will be nowhere near where we were at a month ago and my guess is that because so many people are positive without knowing it, the is more herd immunity than the epidemiologists expect.

Interesting theory.  Hope you are right.  Still think the jury is out about antibodies and immunity.

19delta wrote: Give me a break. I have already said that there will be additional outbreaks as the country opens back up. But these outbreaks, if they follow your graph, will be substantially SMALLER than the initial outbreak.

On what basis do you say that the additional outbreaks will be substantially smaller?  Is that just a gut feeling of yours?  If not, what public health officials or epidemiologists are your source?

19delta wrote: Once again...what is the math? How many infections stopped or lives saved is worth the socioeconomic devastation that you ivory tower dwellers are willing to wreak upon small business owners, poor people and minorities, and other vulnerable populations?

How many are too many?  Seriously.  How many lives lost would there have to be in the next wave for you to agree to shut back down?  Obviously, you are cool with 100,000 over an 8 week period.  So, what is it?  100,000 in half that time?  Nah, I think you would want to take a wait and see approach.  Don't want to be too hasty with all those turnips to harvest, right?  Let's go to 8 weeks, because we already know that 100,000 deaths over that time frame are insufficient reason for you to agree with shutting things down.  Would 200,000 deaths in 8 weeks be cause for concern?  Or would there need to be more?  Half a million?  Is there any number you are comfortable with?

19delta wrote: The 1918-1919 influenza pandemic was far more calamitous than the Covid-19 pandemic. It's not even close. To compare the two is the very definition of logical fallacy.

Wasn't comparing the diseases.  Was simply suggesting what a shit ton of trouble might look like if I am right and you are wrong.  Remember?

ramblinman wrote:

19delta wrote: Give me a break. I have already said that there will be additional outbreaks as the country opens back up. But these outbreaks, if they follow your graph, will be substantially SMALLER than the initial outbreak.

On what basis do you say that the additional outbreaks will be substantially smaller?  Is that just a gut feeling of yours?  If not, what public health officials or epidemiologists are your source?

19delta wrote: Once again...what is the math? How many infections stopped or lives saved is worth the socioeconomic devastation that you ivory tower dwellers are willing to wreak upon small business owners, poor people and minorities, and other vulnerable populations?

How many are too many?  Seriously.  How many lives lost would there have to be in the next wave for you to agree to shut back down?  Obviously, you are cool with 100,000 over an 8 week period.  So, what is it?  100,000 in half that time?  Nah, I think you would want to take a wait and see approach.  Don't want to be too hasty with all those turnips to harvest, right?  Let's go to 8 weeks, because we already know that 100,000 deaths over that time frame are insufficient reason for you to agree with shutting things down.  Would 200,000 deaths in 8 weeks be cause for concern?  Or would there need to be more?  Half a million?  Is there any number you are comfortable with?

19delta wrote: The 1918-1919 influenza pandemic was far more calamitous than the Covid-19 pandemic. It's not even close. To compare the two is the very definition of logical fallacy.

Wasn't comparing the diseases.  Was simply suggesting what a shit ton of trouble might look like if I am right and you are wrong.  Remember?

Your own chart says subsequent outbreaks are smaller.

RM, if you are following the science the S Korean study shows that those with the antibody have immunity. The only question is how long the immunity lasts.
As far as the virus not going away soon science suggests that it will be on the wane during the Summer, like most viruses. You aren't following the science, which is what you have accused others on here of doing.

19delta wrote:

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:So, for you to be right, the second wave of Covid-19 will need to have a 1% fatality rate. Got it.

Isn't the fatality rate the number of deaths over the number of infected? That looks like 1% of all people, infected or not?

The chart he shared is titled "Deaths Per 1000 Persons". The second peak is at 10. 10/1000 = 1/100, no?

Yes. The second peak is at about 10 out of 1,000 or 1%. But that is 1% of all people. The fatality rate is the number of dead divided by the number of infected, not the number of living people. That chart does not describe a fatality rate of the Spanish flu. It describes how many living people died of the Spanish flu.

A fatality rate would be much easier to calculate if the denominator were the number of living people. As OSU said, we really don’t have any idea yet as to the number infected. That’s why nobody knows the fatality rate of this Covid virus.

dusty7 wrote:The government's job is to protect our rights, not protect our health.  Protecting your health is an individual's responsibility not that of the government.

Thanks for the civics lesson. Somebody better tell the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that they can close up shop. From their website: "It is the mission of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans. We fulfill that mission by providing for effective health and human services and fostering advances in medicine, public health, and social services."

OSUBucks wrote:RM, if you are following the science the S Korean study shows that those with the antibody have immunity. The only question is how long the immunity lasts.
As far as the virus not going away soon science suggests that it will be on the wane during the Summer, like most viruses. You aren't following the science, which is what you have accused others on here of doing.

Like I said, I hope he was right when he said that herd immunity would result in a smaller second wave than the first one.

This virus is too new to assume that once someone becomes immune that they will be immune to all further mutations of the virus. Science has already detected that the virus has mutated.

The virus is here to stay. It will wane and peak until it either runs out of people to infect or we develop a vaccine. That's what science says.

ramblinman wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:RM, if you are following the science the S Korean study shows that those with the antibody have immunity. The only question is how long the immunity lasts.
As far as the virus not going away soon science suggests that it will be on the wane during the Summer, like most viruses. You aren't following the science, which is what you have accused others on here of doing.

Like I said, I hope he was right when he said that herd immunity would result in a smaller second wave than the first one.  

This virus is too new to assume that once someone becomes immune that they will be immune to all further mutations of the virus.  Science has already detected that the virus has mutated.

The virus is here to stay.  It will wane and peak until it either runs out of people to infect or we develop a vaccine.  That's what science says.

And science will also tell you that a vaccine isn't going to do much. See the flu.

ramblinman wrote:

On what basis do you say that the additional outbreaks will be substantially smaller?  Is that just a gut feeling of yours?  If not, what public health officials or epidemiologists are your source?

Douchebag...go look AT THE VERY GRAPH YOU POSTED!!!

ramblinman wrote:
How many are too many?  Seriously.  How many lives lost would there have to be in the next wave for you to agree to shut back down?  Obviously, you are cool with 100,000 over an 8 week period.  So, what is it?  100,000 in half that time?  Nah, I think you would want to take a wait and see approach.  Don't want to be too hasty with all those turnips to harvest, right?  Let's go to 8 weeks, because we already know that 100,000 deaths over that time frame are insufficient reason for you to agree with shutting things down.  Would 200,000 deaths in 8 weeks be cause for concern?  Or would there need to be more?  Half a million?  Is there any number you are comfortable with?

The turnips never got harvested. The feudal lords made the peasants watch them rot in the fields.

ramblinman wrote: Wasn't comparing the diseases.  Was simply suggesting what a shit ton of trouble might look like if I am right and you are wrong.  Remember?

Then why post the scary graph if it isn't relevant? In 1919, the second wave of influenza was a "shit ton of trouble". But, unless the second wave of Covid-19 kills anywhere CLOSE to 1% of the population, the second wave is not going to be a "shit ton of trouble", at least compared to the incomprehensible damage done to the economy.

RM, I don’t think anyone in this debate has said this is going away anytime soon. This is a new disease and what we are currently experiencing is a new normal until a vaccine, which will likely won’t eliminate the disease anyway. COVID 19 is not near as deadly as other pandemics or even some epidemics. We don’t stop our lives at the threat of the flu, cancer, heart disease, which all have killed more since the beginning of this pandemic.

The disease is not going to go away so how long should we keep the low income, impoverished, and inner city workers out of work?

How many more people need to lose their livelihoods to prevent the spread of a disease which has little negative health impact for most people?

How much more money should the government spend to assist big business from going under?

How many more hospital employees need to be furloughed because of the fear of getting medical care?

A positive test in by no means a death sentence and the impact on our medical system has not been anywhere near what was expected. We have proven we can adjust and adapt should a spike occur, so why not see what happens? An effective vaccine is several years away and we cannot continue the same flawed path to staying closed. Europe has not seen a spike, China has not seen a spike, Georgia, Wisconsin, have not seen spikes. Have positive cases gone up? Yes, but have the number of hospitalizations increased? NO, they have decreased for 6 weeks. We have the ability to handle the issue. Our government spent millions on temple hospitals that were never used, because our hospitals had the capacity to intake the sick. More people will die of this disease but more will die of other diseases than COVID, it we don’t seem to be doing much about them.

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/05/26/world-health-organisation-doctor-says-second-major-wave-of-coronavirus-being-increasingly-ruled-out/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Head Idiot wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:RM, if you are following the science the S Korean study shows that those with the antibody have immunity. The only question is how long the immunity lasts.
As far as the virus not going away soon science suggests that it will be on the wane during the Summer, like most viruses. You aren't following the science, which is what you have accused others on here of doing.

Like I said, I hope he was right when he said that herd immunity would result in a smaller second wave than the first one.  

This virus is too new to assume that once someone becomes immune that they will be immune to all further mutations of the virus.  Science has already detected that the virus has mutated.

The virus is here to stay.  It will wane and peak until it either runs out of people to infect or we develop a vaccine.  That's what science says.

And science will also tell you that a vaccine isn't going to do much. See the flu.

See smallpox, polio, measles, whooping cough, rubella, diphtheria, etc. There's a reason why you don't hear about those diseases a whole lot these days. Prior to vaccines being developed for them, they were a terrible scourge on society.

I compare this situation to snow days...first hint of snow / ice in the early winter, everyone bangs school. Then, a month later when it's twice as bad as it was the first time we called school, we are in the building. I'm not saying a 2nd wave won't be bad and we won't need to show it its due attention, but I'd be very surprised if we saw a mass shutdown and quarantine like we are now. Just my gut feeling.

dusty7 wrote:COVID 19 is not near as deadly as other pandemics or even some epidemics.

Correct.  But it is extremely infectious...as much, if not more so, than the Spanish Flu, except this time around our world population is almost four times as large as it was back then. So, while COVID 19 may not be as deadly in terms of the percentage of infected people who die from the disease, it is clear that the virus spreads very rapidly and easily and could infect substantially more people than did the Spanish Flu. It is estimated that the Spanish flu infected 30% of the world's population. I am reading that between 60-70% of the population will become infected with COVID if a vaccine is not developed and this thing just runs its course.

So...

If "only" 30% of the world's population get this disease and it "only" has a 1% fatality rate of those it infects, that is still roughly 22.5 million people who will die before this is all said and done.  God help us if 60% - 70% of the population gets COVID as some epidemiologists are predicting. Spanish flu's case mortality rate was 2.5%. Total estimated dead from the Spanish Flu was 50 million. God help us if 60% - 70% of the population gets COVID.

Here's what mystifies me.  The maskless bikers all over the place at Poopy's this past weekend daring the authorities to stop them from doing what millions of other people are NOT doing for their benefit.  The people on the beaches and in the pools not practicing social distancing.  People crowding bars in Wisconsin because they can.  People have been told over and over again that this disease is super contagious.  Yet, they don't give a shit because, God forbid, they aren't going to have their rights treaded on!  What a crock of crap.

dusty7 wrote:We don’t stop our lives at the threat of the flu, cancer, heart disease, which all have killed more since the beginning of this pandemic.

Perhaps you would live your life differently if you caught cancer and heart disease were highly contagious and you could catch them from other people.

dusty7 wrote:The disease is not going to go away so how long should we keep the low income, impoverished, and inner city workers out of work?

 
I don't know how long.  But I do think it that we shouldn't let down our guard at the top of the curve (or when it is still rising in some places) and put at risk all that we have sacrificed to keep this thing from being worse than it was.

dusty7 wrote:China has not seen a spike, Georgia, Wisconsin, have not seen spikes.  Have positive cases gone up? Yes, but have the number of hospitalizations increased? NO, they have decreased for 6 weeks.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/13/855117276/south-korea-and-china-see-covid-19-resurgence-after-easing-restrictions

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/26/coronavirus-as-states-reopen-us-hospitalizations-rise.html

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/05/26/daily-covid-19-hospitalizations-hit-30-day-high-in-wisconsin/

Once again, you wanting the numbers to go down and the reality seem to be at odds with each other.  That's a real trend with you.

19delta wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

On what basis do you say that the additional outbreaks will be substantially smaller?  Is that just a gut feeling of yours?  If not, what public health officials or epidemiologists are your source?

Douchebag...go look AT THE VERY GRAPH YOU POSTED!!!  

Oh no. Not douchebag. Anything but douchebag! The last thing I want is for you to be proudly standing with me.

WTF are you talking about anyway? The graph I posted shows a second wave substantially higher than the first. FIVE TIMES higher. Yet you claim it will be substantially smaller and you cite the graph? I'm guessing you have been exercising your freedoms a little too much at Poopy's.

19delta wrote:Then why post the scary graph if it isn't relevant? In 1919, the second wave of influenza was a "shit ton of trouble". But, unless the second wave of Covid-19 kills anywhere CLOSE to 1% of the population, the second wave is not going to be a "shit ton of trouble", at least compared to the incomprehensible damage done to the economy.

The graph is relevant because it depicts multiple waves of a pandemic with the second and third waves being substantially higher (not lower as you are predicting for this pandemic) than the first. The future waves of COVID19 don't have to be as high for them to be a shit ton of trouble. The first one has been trouble enough, if you ask me.

ramblinman wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:RM, if you are following the science the S Korean study shows that those with the antibody have immunity. The only question is how long the immunity lasts.
As far as the virus not going away soon science suggests that it will be on the wane during the Summer, like most viruses. You aren't following the science, which is what you have accused others on here of doing.

Like I said, I hope he was right when he said that herd immunity would result in a smaller second wave than the first one.  

This virus is too new to assume that once someone becomes immune that they will be immune to all further mutations of the virus.  Science has already detected that the virus has mutated.

The virus is here to stay.  It will wane and peak until it either runs out of people to infect or we develop a vaccine.  That's what science says.

Most viruses do mutate to some extent. COVID19 appears to have a generally low mutation rate. Current analysis suggests that the seasonal flu mutates about 4 times as fast as COVID19. It is mutating to some extent but that doesn't mean that an effective vaccine can't be developed. I don't know of one disease specialist who has said with certainty that COVID19 is here to stay. Chances are good that as more humans are infected their bodies will at least have some immunity should they become infected again. For the most part this disease kills elderly people or those with preexisting conditions. If you smoke you are more at risk than a non smoker. If you have a healthy respiratory system the odds on this virus killing you are very low.

lefty120 wrote:I compare this situation to snow days...first hint of snow / ice in the early winter, everyone bangs school.  Then, a month later when it's twice as bad as it was the first time we called school, we are in the building.  I'm not saying a 2nd wave won't be bad and we won't need to show it its due attention, but I'd be very surprised if we saw a mass shutdown and quarantine like we are now.  Just my gut feeling.  

I agree with you but probably for different reasons.  The reason why I think we won't see a mass shutdown, even if this next curve is higher and steeper than the first, is because it will be a much tougher sell politically to shut things down than it has been.  That's why I'm saying we should have stayed shut down a little longer, when we already were shut down and at the very top of the curve, and really try to put a huge dent in this thing.  

Too late now.  The cat is out of the bag.  Only time will tell if this was an ill advised move.  

Sure, we flattened this curve, but we didn't see it move down very far before states began to open up.  But what if we did more than just flatten it?  What if we reduced it to minuscule levels?  What impact would that have had on the NEXT curve?  What if, by opening up too soon and letting this thing survive in greater numbers, we are setting ourselves up for a curve that would make this last one look like child's play?  Again, only time will tell.

OSUBucks wrote: I don't know of one disease specialist who has said with certainty that COVID19 is here to stay.

Dr. Michael Osterholm,PhD, MPH, is Regents Professor, McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Public Health, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, a professor in the Technological Leadership Institute, College of Science and Engineering, and an adjunct professor in the Medical School, all at the University of Minnesota.   In addition, Dr. Osterholm is a member of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) and the Council of Foreign Relations. In June 2005 Dr. Osterholm was appointed by Michael Leavitt, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to the newly established National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity. In July 2008, he was named to the University of Minnesota Academic Health Center’s Academy of Excellence in Health Research. In October 2008, he was appointed to the World Economic Forum Working Group on Pandemics.

Now that this guy's scientific creds have been established, here are a few things that he has to say about the situation:

"We all have to confront the fact there’s not a magic bullet, short of a vaccine, that’s going to make this [COVID-19] go away....We’re going to be living with it. And we’re not having that discussion at all."

"Well, we have to understand that we're riding this tiger; we are not directing it. This virus [SARS-CoV-2] is going to do what it's going to do. What we can do is only nibble at the edges. And I think it’s not a good message to send to the public that we can control this virus in a meaningful way."

"You can't be in lockdown for 18 months. We'll destroy society as we know it, and we don't know what we'll accomplish with it....We can't just let the virus go. Lots of people will die and it'll shut down our health system, not just for COVID patients, but for anyone with a health problem. What we need is a plan."

By the way, I sure as hell don't want to be in lockdown for 18 months either.  Neither do I want to be in lockdown for two months, reopen too soon, and have that premature reopening result in another lockdown this fall/winter because shit just got real serious.

"This thing's not going to stop until it infects 60 to 70 percent of people....The idea that this is going to be done soon defies microbiology."

"As a country, we’re unprepared not just logistically but mentally for this next [COVID-19] phase....The way you prepare people for a sprint and marathon are very different. As a country, we are utterly unprepared for the marathon ahead."

"As we learn more about the transmission of this virus [SARS-CoV-2], it's very clear that it is at least, if not more, infectious than even what the world experienced in the historic pandemic influenza of 1918. And I'm convinced that this pandemic is following what we experienced in 1918."

"This first wave [of the coronavirus] … is just the beginning of what could easily be 16 to 18 months of substantial activity of this virus around the world, coming and going, wave after wave....It surely is a virus that likely will have to infect at least 60 to 70 percent of the population before you’re going to see a major reduction in its transmission."

I said, "The virus is here to stay.  It will wane and peak until it either runs out of people to infect or we develop a vaccine.  That's what science says."  You said, "I don't know of one disease specialist who has said with certainty that COVID19 is here to stay."  

Looks to me like this Dr. Osterholm is pretty certain about what he is saying.  Want me to find another disease specialist who concurs?  Or is this one enough for you?

Also from your article-

It surely is a virus that likely will have to infect at least 60 to 70 percent of the population before you’re going to see a major reduction in its transmission.

So, if we're not stopping it without a vaccine what is your point of staying in lockdown? This guy pretty much says you can't wait for a vaccine, but you're also not stopping it. So, the point of lockdown for any amount of time without a vaccine is....?

Head Idiot wrote:Also from your article-

It surely is a virus that likely will have to infect at least 60 to 70 percent of the population before you’re going to see a major reduction in its transmission.

So, if we're not stopping it without a vaccine what is your point of staying in lockdown? This guy pretty much says you can't wait for a vaccine, but you're also not stopping it. So, the point of lockdown for any amount of time without a vaccine is....?

To mitigate the numbers who do get it before a vaccine is developed.

To avoid infecting others.

To avoid our healthcare infrastructure crashing and burning.

To be among the 30% to 40% who don't contract it.

By the way, I am not saying we should stay in a lockdown indefinitely. I know you think otherwise, but you are wrong. I definitely do not think we should be relaxing restrictions as high up on this current curve as we are.