Miggs
Well-Known Member
It didn’t spread here til January. December was Wuhan.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
It didn’t spread here til January. December was Wuhan.
That's true. I'm looking at world wide numbers. I just updated my post above.
Yep, what I read was that the first registered case in the US was on January 20th - a US citizen who returned from Wuhan business trip.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
I’m curious. Did that person die?
It was spreading in China. The first registered case in the US was on January 20th.
If there were no measures ABSOLUTELY it would go way past 40M(and even with measures it's very possible it goes past 40M, it just might take longer depending on the measures). The best estimations all around the world - from China to South Korea to Europe to the US is that the number of infected jumps by about 35% every day, or lets say it doubles every 3 days... (again this is if there is no measures - if there is no social distancing, if the schools are working, if everybody is working like normal, etc.). You can do the math, it's really not that hard...
Lets say there are 150K cases in the US right now.
Day 0 - 150K
Day 3 - 300K
Day 6 - 600K
Day 9 - 1.2M = for simplicity sake, lets say it's 1M
Day 12 - 2M
Day 15 - 4M
Day 18 - 8M
Day 21 - 16M
Day 24 - 32M
Day 27 - 64M
Day 30 - 128M
This is one month from now.
On day 33 it would have infected 3/4ths of the US population(about 250M). This is all very simplified because after some point herd immunity takes effect and it will drop down simply because it will run out of oxygen(new people to infect and most people it meets will already be infected) but you get the picture. And again, I want to underline this part - this is if no measures are taken.
Here's a video from 1 month ago that talks about the epidemic on a world scale and exponential growth. It's scarily accurate with its prediction:
It takes into account that most countries are taking steps to combat it and it fits the growth with what has been observed by that period of time(by March 6th). The best fit of the graph is that with the measures taken the disease will continue spreading multiplying the existing cases by 10 every 16 days. They projected it will hit 1M cases in 30 days(by April 5th). We are at 740K right now. Can you guess how many we will have by April 5th? About 1M. Maybe even more. This is exponential growth. Until you break the exponential growth, the curve gets real steep the later you go. By that curve, if we keep the same tempo, on April 22 we will have about 10M cases worldwide and 100M by May 9th and 1 billion by the end of May.
Last edited:
No idea, I think I read he was in his 30s so probably not.
Those are big assumptions that it will follow that. It peaked quickly in China. Partially due to quarantine but not completely. There are many factors in it not exponentially growing.
But I guess we will see. I'm suspicious of those models that show it out growing what it did in wuhan. I think wuhan is worst case scenario.
Either way it should be taken serious. I'm not sure what level though.
I disagree that flu is already taken serious. It's not, we don't do basic things to prevent it like self quarantine when sick and most people don't get a vaccine. This might out grow the flu this year. But it will be a long long long time until it competes with the flu in what's happened in my life time of killing people and no one here was speaking out the easy they are about this. Especially the calling people murderer or similar for not isolating. Pretty much everyone here has gone out in public while contagious with the flu and is responsible in the same sense for killing lots of people.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
This is amazing
The measure that countries take all around the world are unprecedented. Right now it's still growing exponentially(it's why this guy's prediction for 1M cases on April 5th will very likely turn out right... and it might have even underestimated it a bit), but we have managed to slow down the exponential growth through measures - it's not doubling every 3 days, but rather every about 5-6 days.
Another factor that might help is the weather getting warmer in the Northern hemisphere. We still don't know for certain that it will have harder time spreading in warm weather, but other coronaviruses seem to follow that trend so... here's to hoping this helps too. Unfortunately this won't spare the Southern hemisphere where winter is coming soon. Also... keep in mind that if it turns out seasonal like the flu, even if it dies down in the summer it might return with full force and slightly mutated in the fall.
There also are series of anti-virals that are being tested that if proven to work, might help breaking the exponential curve too. It's not all hopeless, but yeah... hope for the best, prepare for the worst, wiser people than me have said.
I'm not sure I believe the Chinese numbers. It's very possible they are under-reporting what happened there. They also have unprecedented authoritarian measures that will never fly in the US or most of the rest of the Western world. I'm not sure Wuhan is the best example we should be drawing conclusions from. If you want to draw conclusions, look at more democratic and freer societies with more reliable information coming from their emergency task forces. The problem is that the western countries numbers are very much part of those models and fully support that type of conclusion.
But again - a lot of things can change, we might be able to break the exponential through the measures or through a drug that's proven to work, or through the weather or through a combination of all of those.
To some degree you are right. People in general are not taking the flu anywhere close to as serious as this one, but again - IMO there is a perfectly reasonable... reason for that - namely - this is much more serious. If we were taking the same measures for this that we take for the flu, there will be millions of dead in the US alone + whatever the economic damage will be if you had to lose lets say 5% of your population and hit your healthcare system like that. On the other hand if we were taking the same measures for the flu, it wouldn't take as many lives for sure, but at the same time we have to be proportional in our response to various threats and risks. For example, you can cut the car accident deaths to close to zero if you banned all private automobiles, but would that be reasonable step and would it be worth the damage and deaths you will incur in other spheres if this was to become the case? So I guess it becomes a question about public policy and where to draw the line of what a reasonable response is to a threat/risk? You might be right that our response to the flu is insufficiently serious. I personally haven't done the study for it so I don't know what a reasonable response would be. I know for sure that if I had a compromised immune system or some underlying conditions or if I had kids I would for certain take the flu shot every year. Not everybody thinks like that, though, and I don't know what can be done or should be done...
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
A very good article for those of you interested in the Federalists’ coronavirus birtherism. It’s a microcosm of how the conservative movements has become merely a reactionary movement. They’re against whatever their perceived enemies are for.
https://thebulwark.com/the-federalists-dangerous-coronavirus-trutherism/
https://thebulwark.com/the-federalists-dangerous-coronavirus-trutherism/
There are a lot of factors to this.
Wuhan did under report numbers, that is a fact. But USA has as well. Good news is that most those under reported numbers are people with with little to no symptoms. Meaning the infection rate might be higher but far less deadly. South Korea might have the best reported numbers.
This might kill more people in a year that the flu but it still won't catch the overall numbers from its long and gruesome history. Plus the flu has a lot of potential to be much worse than this virus and we are doing get little.
Simple things should be done to save lives from this and the flu. We don't need to go to full lockdown to save lives from the flu. Just do the proper simple things I've mentioned before and that would have saved millions is lives and not hurt anyone to do. But we don't bring attention to it. Because it isn't new. Maybe if we start giving it a name each strand like this virus it would make people do more.
Hopefully we get more proper testing and treatment soon. That's the way to stop this. Quarantine will only slow it. 2 weeks isn't enough time to stop it. Cases have gone longer without symptoms. The moment you stop all the stuff this will come back. It's going to come in waves. Our only goal now is to slow it so it doesn't overwhelm the medical field until we get vaccines and other treatments.
Sadly we have vaccines for the flu that most years are pretty effective. Unfortunately half of you don't take it putting the rest of the world vulnerable at risk.
Who has said the number would be well under 75M that previously said it would exceed it?
If we have loked down tightly enough and in sufficient time, we may not hit 75M this year. That's what "flattening the curve" means. Last I checked, though, the numberr of cases was still increasing exponentially.
You seem to carry some grudges for a long period of time. It's bad for you.
Sorry. That's not based on a loose projection. That is the actual data. It is truthful.
Here are today's Utah statistics:
** 719 positive diagnoses from a base of 13,993 tests administered to people showing symptoms
** 95% of tests are negative, meaning they have the flu or some other viral infection
** 2 deaths have occurred so far, resulting in a fatality rate of 0.28%
** Both fatalities were patients with underlying conditions
** If we assume that there are at least another 700 or so people out there with the infection who have not been tested, the fatality rate drops into the 0.12% - 0.17% range, which is indeed comparable with seasonal flu.
Yes, I understand that it takes people time to succumb to the virus and hence there is a lag in deaths relative to diagnoses. So we'll sit back and continue to watch data come in over the next 10 days or 2 weeks.
Also, you need to understand what the governments are trying to achieve with social distancing. They are already resigned to the fact that the Covid-19 virus is out there and that it will very likely become a regularly circulating and mutating coronavirus along with the other 18. The sole purpose of "flattening the curve" is to slow the rate of infection within the population so that local hospitals and their medical equipment do not get overwhelmed with cases all at once. There is currently no medical intervention other than to make sure the patient has oxygen while their body fights the virus.
Approximately, 15% - 18% of people who contract the virus will require hospitalization. A few areas in the U.S. (especially New York) are at the point where their medical facilities are becoming strained by the patient load. Most areas, however, are not strained and are not becoming strained.
Right now, the infection rate in Utah is less than 1 person per 5,000. So rest assured, when people here do get exposed to the virus, there will be a hospital bed and a respirator waiting for them, should they be needed.
Do you think Utah is some special place on Earth where death doesn't happen and where the virus won't have about the same effect on people as everywhere else? Do you think THIS sample is more representative of what the virus is likely to do to the population of Utah in the long-run?
I agree we don't know exactly how much your state will be hit, but it will be in the general range of what's reported elsewhere in the US and other countries. I guess we'll wait and see.
Oh I understand this perfectly well... and this is the best way to ensure you have enough ICU beds to accommodate all who need it when the peak hits. Not much I disagree with here...
latin jazz
Well-Known Member
It's refreshing to see people having a thoughtful debate. Stitches, I agree with you. But just to add to your point about car accident deaths and proportionality in public policy: many countries in Europe have embraced a very ambitious 'zero death' policy goal (Sweden leading the way). While it might not be realistic in the short term (or even long term), earlier results show a decrease in unnecessary traffic deaths if some "simple things"(to quote Ron Mexico) are implemented: better intersection design, wider sidewalks, traffic calming policies, decreased car dependency, more rigorous testing and police enforcement, etc.
If more awareness could be raised for serious issues such as the flu or car deaths (which according to the WHO, is the leading cause of death for people aged 15-29, costing about 3% of GDP globally), incremental steps could be taken to minimize unnecessary deaths. And this steps/simple things might not be as politically challenged as more strict and sudden measures.
Last edited:
Utah had its 3rd fatality over the weekend. Robert Garff, age 78, contracted the virus in Palm Springs and died in Utah. Utah data will be updated today.
There are at least two dozen states in the U.S. where the rate of infection is low enough and hospital resources are ample enough that it won't make sense to continue to stifle the local economies with shutdowns beyond another week or two.
What would make sense would be to impose travel restrictions both to and from hotspots like NY/NJ/CT and New Orleans.
https://covidtracking.com/data/#states-nav
Oh absolutely! It's never all or nothing when it comes to measures against serious risk. There are reasonable measures to take about any threat/risk that reduce the danger to the population and in some cases might even have positive economic effect.
Ron Mexico actually made me rethink something I said in my post - I said if I had compromised immune system or kids, etc. I'd be taking the flu shot every year. I think from now on I will be taking it anyways. Because it's not just about me or the ones close to me. It costs me close to nothing, but it might prevent a vulnerable person from serious complications or death. So yeah... thanks to him for changing my mind.
latin jazz
Well-Known Member
Oh absolutely! It's never all or nothing when it comes to measures against serious risk. There are reasonable measures to take about any threat/risk that reduce the danger to the population and in some cases might even have positive economic effect.
Ron Mexico actually made me rethink something I said in my post - I said if I had compromised immune system or kids, etc. I'd be taking the flu shot every year. I think from now on I will be taking it anyways. Because it's not just about me or the ones close to me. So yeah... thanks to him for changing my mind.
@stitches @Ron Mexico
I'll just leave this here...
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Trump then...“When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done,” Trump said. “We have it so well under control. I mean, we really have done a very good job.”
Trump now........“We can hold that down, as we’re saying, to 100,000, that’s a horrible number, maybe even less, but to 100,000 — so we have between 100- and 200,000 — we all, together, have done a very good job,”
Seems like he thinks that no matter what he does or doesn't do or what happens that he is doing a great job.
Trump now........“We can hold that down, as we’re saying, to 100,000, that’s a horrible number, maybe even less, but to 100,000 — so we have between 100- and 200,000 — we all, together, have done a very good job,”
Seems like he thinks that no matter what he does or doesn't do or what happens that he is doing a great job.