Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Tuor]

Deaths/Country population x 100 = Percentage population died cumulatively with Covid-19, subtract from 100 = percentage of population still alive/survived.

The problem with your math is that most population hasn't been infected...yet.

So lets toy with math, since you seem to enjoy it

The UK has 67,886,004 people according with wikipedia, in the first exercise i will calculate the 70% herd imunity

67,886,004*0.7 = 47 520 202 people infected

The second exercise i will calculate the 5% critical people

47 520 202*0.05 = 2 376 010 people in critical situation

The third exercise i will be calculating the death toll with the supposed 1%

47 520 202*0.01 = 475 202 people dead.

Question, can your country afford this?

[stevenho]

The problem with your math is that most population hasn't been infected...yet.

So lets toy with math, since you seem to enjoy it

The UK has 67,886,004 people according with wikipedia, in the first exercise i will calculate the 70% herd imunity

67,886,004*0.7 = 47 520 202 people infected

The second exercise i will calculate the 5% critical people

47 520 202*0.05 = 2 376 010 people in critical situation

The third exercise i will be calculating the death toll with the supposed 1%

47 520 202*0.01 = 475 202 people dead.

Question, can your country afford this?

Now divide this by 50 and you will see the number of projected deaths if you only isolated the 60+ demo.
Can we afford it now?
What is the number we can afford that you propose?

[Tuor]

What is the number we can afford that you propose?

The lowest possible, that is the goal of lockdowns.

[stevenho]

The lowest possible, that is the goal of lockdowns.

Lowest possible is 0.
Anything above that means that you could have tried better.
It is also ridiculous. I thought the goal of lockdown was flattening the curve, did the goalpost move?

[PhaelixWW]

Ideally symptomatic cases should be tested at a doctor - but many places don't have enough testing capacity for that; and people are just told to self-isolate - and some might wait until getting tested.

They clearly shouldn't go to the store, that's why anti-body tests in shops are likely to underestimate the number of infected. But it could be different as previously explained.

The cross-section of still-infected, symptomatic, not sick enough to get tested, but too sick to consider going to the store is going to be such a small one as to have only a very, very slight effect on the outcome of that study.

There were indications it was overrun; we will see how much that explains.

There were articles that used the word "overrun", but I didn't really see concrete details from a medical perspective, like we saw in Italy with ventilator triage. Still, the situation in New York is as bad as we ever want to see it, for sure.

Also, he has some really different POV, like the herd imunity will be hited at 25%.

That's not what he said. He said that Stockholm has an estimated 25% already immune, not that the herd immunity threshold is 25%. I admit that the wording early in the quote is slightly misleading, though.

[Forogil]

Not what he's saying at all. He's saying they think about 25% of the population is currently immune, not that herd immunity only requires 25%. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Just to be clear: that's 25% immune in Stockholm (population 1.6-2.4 million; depending on where he draws the line), not in Sweden in general (population 10 million).

[Tuor]

Lowest possible is 0.
Anything above that means that you could have tried better.
It is also ridiculous. I thought the goal of lockdown was flattening the curve, did the goalpost move?

Ridiculus? Since when avoinding unecessary deaths is ridiculus?

If we flatten the curve, we will be avoiding death's because less people will be infected.

[Skulltaker]

Lowest possible is 0.
Anything above that means that you could have tried better.
It is also ridiculous. I thought the goal of lockdown was flattening the curve, did the goalpost move?

The goal of the lockdown is to reduce the number of infections to the lowest that is possible. The intermediate goal is to get the rate of new infections to manageable numbers, so the healthcare system is not completely overrun. We put the term 'flatten the curve' to it, because it's a concept that's easy to grasp for the vast majority of people. Sadly, if you can't put a problem in simple terms, the majority of people won't care or understand. That's why medical professionals gave politicians 'flatten the curve', it's easy to explain, easy to spread, and gets the job done without overwhelming the public with details they don't need or understand. If you told people 'Press the R-zero factor below one' the collective answer would have been 'what?'

[Grapemask]

Not what he's saying at all. He's saying they think about 25% of the population is currently immune, not that herd immunity only requires 25%. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

And near as I can tell, that 25% number is pretty bad science, too. They're estimating that about 25% of people in Stockholm have been exposed to the virus - they're basing this on a study of Stockholm hospitals (unclear on whether this was a single hospital or multiple hospitals) that found that about 25% of staff had antibodies. So basically, they believe 25% of Stockholm is immune because of A) antibody tests that are still giving higher-than-average false positives B) administered to people who have been exposed to the virus to a degree many times greater than the average Stockholm resident.

[stevenho]

Ridiculus? Since when avoinding unecessary deaths is ridiculus?

Since not locking down anything to avoid hundreds of thousands of yearly global deaths caused by flu.

[breadisfunny]

toilet paper raids are still a thing ?
it was the most bizarre thing to happen in my life so far: to hunt tp in stores, not for stockpiling, just the usual amount. now we are back at 5 brands available all time at my local supermarket. german butts rejoyced

people can be pretty stupid.

[szechuan]

Since not locking down anything to avoid hundreds of thousands of yearly global deaths caused by flu.

You already know how disingenuous and pathetic that argument is.

[PhaelixWW]

That's what the Swedes have been doing from day 1 - isolate the old and sickly, for the rest COVID will be slightly more dangerous than flu.

And how's that working out for the "old and sickly" in Sweden?

[Sunseeker]

Since not locking down anything to avoid hundreds of thousands of yearly global deaths caused by flu.

Ok, and we've topped the highest estimate(flu deaths are not considered reportable) of national deaths from the flu (about 36000, from a specific strain of the virus which is normally more deadly), in three months, WITH A LOCKDOWN.

Go back to your basement and stop playing scientist since you clearly don't know fuckall about what you're talking about.

[stevenho]

You already know how disingenuous and pathetic that argument is.

What's pathetic is advertising locking down countries and aiming to achieve 0 deaths.
Although I feel like "laughable" would be a better adjective.

[breadisfunny]

OMG, i just want to celebrate, today my country hitted the minumum of new daily cases since 16 of March. Obviously it will spike again tomorrow, but today, i just want to celebrate.

while the u.s. is at nearly a million active cases.we are like a 20 car pile up on fire.

[PhaelixWW]

No. Lockdown is not worth that, who wants to see the world starve and unable to feed their families?

How many people have starved because of lockdowns so far? Can you point to the masses of dead people?

[Forogil]

The cross-section of still-infected, symptomatic, not sick enough to get tested, but too sick to consider going to the store is going to be such a small one as to have only a very, very slight effect on the outcome of that study.

The question is not only whether people feel that they cannot go to the store since they are to sick to shop, but also that they feel that they are bit sick (slight headache, a bit of fever before taking some medicine etc) and shouldn't go to the store since that may infect others.

And I don't see that everyone can easily get tested in NY - even now.

Based on the study we see that there are lots of untested cases in NY, and based on other studies we also know that a large number of the untested cases are not really asymptomatic - but mildly symptomatic. Thus the question is whether mildly symptomatic cases - who are not getting tested based on the numbers - do the right thing or not.

But that is just me - I also recently listened to a news-story where serious journalists also question the study for the same reason:
https://www.economist.com/science-an...s-to-the-virus

The survey in New York was similarly skewed. It was conducted in a series of shops, and thus netted only those who felt healthy enough to go out shopping. Many of the data from Denmark and the Netherlands, meanwhile, relied on blood donors—a category that excludes the old and the sick.

The reason I included the second sentence is that the study in NY is not the only survey of this kind, and others - such as the one on in Denmark - found different numbers, and the Danish government thus decided to ease lockdowns based on covid-19 being less severe than anticipated.

There were articles that used the word "overrun", but I didn't really see concrete details from a medical perspective, like we saw in Italy with ventilator triage. Still, the situation in New York is as bad as we ever want to see it, for sure.

And illustrated with patients in the corridors, which doesn't instill confidence.

[Shadowferal]

Vaccine by June? Looks promising

Another stone tossed down the road that we, in hope, follow. (Wonder if anyone gets the reference)

[PhaelixWW]

Since not locking down anything to avoid hundreds of thousands of yearly global deaths caused by flu.

Again, this is the most ridiculous argument possible. The flu has an R0 of around 1.3. It would never, ever, ever require a lockdown to reduce that below 1, which is what's necessary to stall and reverse the transmission curve.

SARS-CoV-2, on the other hand, has an estimated R0 of 2-4. Nothing is going to slow it down to below 1 short of extreme measures. And we're not talking about attempting to avoid hundreds of thousands of deaths, we're talking about attempting to avoid tens of millions of deaths.

I mean, objectively, we've already reached the hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide threshold in a few months, even with exhaustive measures, including lockdowns.

Your equivalency is most assuredly false.