Tracking the COVID-19-Virus in Germany, the USA, Italy and other hot spots in the world

View attachment 107841 [/QUOTE]

That is very iffy. Many people are catching the virus and getting serious ill who are neither old nor with any of the usual medical conditions. Added to that the virus is already changing so it is unlikely that immunity gained this year will cover over to next year. I am sure that if that had been thought to be in any way acceptable Cummings would have pushed it. If you read the article a heavy hammer - that is as much as possible a total lock down as China had allows for RO to come down - in China it came down in Wuhan to around 0.3 which is totally manageable. Under this system people can continue working but would need to stop working again if the RO got above 1.

If you look, he goes into it in the article at how areas like South Korea and others have worked with mass testing, strong contact follow up, isolating quickly small areas, mask wearing, do not forget mask wearing etc, they have managed to continue without any mainsteam shut down. Unfortunately countries like the US and UK and other European countries have not done this looking for mass infection. We already will have an enormous amount of our population infected. The chances of our hospitals being overwhelmed is massive.

 

The better argument is even safer:

Assume that everyone has COVID-19. Develop and mass-produce a COVID-19 antibody prick-test that proves within minutes whether a person's body has already developed the natural immunity to the disease, meaning, they already went through it and cannot be infected again. Test EVERYONE. Those who test positive for the antibodies: give them a written bill of health and put them back to work immediately. Keep EVERYONE else at home and as more and more people pass the prick test, send them back into the workforce. That should be happening every three weeks at the lastest By doing this, you will reduce the number of first infections to begin with. This only works, however, if you test everyone all at once.

 

I was wondering if it was possible to do something mathematically that might help us get an even clearer picture: If we could figure out the average rate that it takes to get from "ill" to "critical". And likewise, that it takes to get from "mild" to "recovered".

Because there's one stat that remains a constant. The 95% Mild-5% critical has been a constant, since almost this began.

 

That is very questionable particularly due to it being known the virus is changing. Apparently it has the greatest ability to change where there is mass infection. Getting the RO down seems to be the only feasible method of taming this till a permanent solution is found. When you get the RO rate down to below 1 people can return to work.

 

Really? It was 80% mild until very recently and at that time the death rate of known cases was 6%. You are right that the sever/critical has recently gone down but the death rate of known cases has gone up to 14%

 

Agreed. I was using conservative numbers so no one could accuse me of being alarmist.

 

That is something that I would support but is there a reliable test yet. I fear that the current route of having lockdowns is doomed because a significant percentage of the population becoming immune will not be reached for few years and will be worse when the Northern Hemisphere is in winter. Herd immunity IMO is the only way forward even though there will be a spike in people requiring hospital care in the early stages. Perhaps herd immunity rolled out in specified locations so as to spread out the need of hospital beds across the country

Please reply if you wish but I don't want to hijack your thread as I can see that this is not the subject of your thread.

 

Someone provided a link that mutations on this virus are rarer than other viruses so immunity to one strain will provide some immunity to other strains of the virus

 

Countries that are enforcing distaciation are also taking mesure to beef up the health services and hospitals so that when the isolation measures are lifted they'll be in a better position to take care of the new influx of patients to come.

 

The lockdown is only required until the RO goes down to one. That requires resolute follow up of those infected contacts and isolating of them. Then you have to play out what has already happened. Then once the RO is down to below 1 it is at a level which can be handled and people can go back to work with continued surveillance of all contacts of new infections and isolating of them. I heard somewhere that 10% of those currently being infected are health workers. We need to do all the things we did not do after this happened in China when we refused to give WHO the $360 million it needed to work on what was needed. We need to get medical workers far better protected and to work out how and when it is safe for people to return to work - probably wearing masks in the short term.

 

It was said that China reported yesterday that they have cases of a new strain and also a second wave of infections from chinese getting back from abroad.

 

They are rarer than mutations to flue but they are happening. Europe has a different virus to China and the US has a different virus to both China and Europe.

 

My girlfriend who is a nurse in a ward treating patients with the virus said that there are now 4 distinct strains. Commonly reported as being only two strains

 

Although there is still a lot more about this virus that needs to be understood and studied, my examination of the spread and mortality rates from the virus within the concluded cases category leads me to suspect that not only there are different strains of the virus, but that the strain in China/South Korea will prove to have been less lethal than the strain that is now in Europe. (The strain mostly prevalent in Iran appears less lethal than the one in Europe but more lethal than the one in East Asia).

 

I heard someone suggest that yesterday but you also need to take into account management of the disease..

 

Update from my hospital in Frankfurt, Germany. We now have three Covid patients, none of them in a critical condition, no ventilators needed, no ICU beds needed, so far.

 

It may be credible. India shut off visas for travelers from China, South Korea, Japan, Iran, Italy, Hong Kong, Macau, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand, Singapore and Taiwan on March 3rd.

India also has 200,000 ethnic Chinese living in the country. Compare with 900,000 in the U.S. New York City Metropolitan area. There are fewer potential "seeds", or people who would be most likely to have travelled to China in January for the Spring Festival in Wuhan and gone back home right before the Hubei shutdown.

It's also possible that India is just now starting to see some community spread. Yesterday they banned any flights from the majority of countries in the world. If they have 511 cases today and that is community spread, their numbers may be on the beginning of the curve.

 

I have considered that, as well as the different demographics, but while it is too early to tell with any degree of confidence, my tracking of some of the underlying statistics (particularly closed cases and overall trends in Italy, now Spain, France, Switzerland, Belgium and Netherlands), does make this a potential point to closely examine as well.

 

No, those are not the correct percentages.

80% mild, 14% serious, 6% critical.

 

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

 

Which anchor said, "not sure about the math," and "I believe ..." ?

 

I agree with you in general. The primary purpose of social distancing and staying at home "if you can" is to slow the spread enough to not overwhelm the available health services and forcing doctors to make decision about who lives or dies. The virus is not that lethal, but we don't have hospital beds when having a severe flu season, multiple "other" illnesses/injuries where people need to be hospitalized, plus a new virus where up to 20% of cases may need hospitalization.

Locking down entire populations almost entirely is extreme and the economic damage is likely to be far worse and last much longer than the actual impact of the virus itself, most especially for people who are already living paycheck to paycheck.

My city is locking down at midnight tonight for "shelter at home". I'm a bit resentful about that. I stopped going out socially about 3 weeks ago and have only been going to work (where the total employees consist of my boss and me sitting in separate offices), out for groceries, and then home. I can see the shut down as a "necessary evil" if it only lasts for one or two weeks, but I resent all the people who did not voluntarily stop non-necessary socializing. Only 25% of people needed to restrict their own actions to put most cities under the curve where we can accommodate 100% of people who need hospitalization. The onus for wrecking the economy by shutting down entire cities or countries is on all the people who didn't step up and do their part as individuals.

The shutdowns should allow people to 1) go to work , 2) buy food, 3) get medical help if required. How are they supposed to enforce that though? They can't stop everyone and ask them where they are going.

Anyway, people cannot stop working for an indefinite time period because 1 in 700 (New York) or 1 in 5000 (the rest of the U.S.) are getting infected.

There are no good solutions. Just pray this is over sooner, not later.

 

The benefit of lockdown is that it SUPPRESSES the transmission of the disease for the duration of the lockdown. The duration of the lockdown is anything from 3 to 7 weeks depending upon the SEVERITY of the infection and the conditions under which the residents are living.

If it is still in the relatively early stages of <1000 cases then national lockdown can bring it under control. This is what China and SK did successfully and they are now back to resuming life as normal.

If it is a single city like NYC a lockdown is virtually impossible to achieve. 8 million people packed into the 20 square miles of Manhatten alone means that it is impossible to enforce a lockdown inside apartment buildings containing thousands of residents on multiple floors. Even if you stop them from leaving the building you cannot stop them from visiting their neighbors.

So the lockdown measure works on a MACRO scale but not on a MICRO scale. All of America needs to be locked down with everyone observing the rules to remain indoors except for food and medical needs. Only essential services workers are allowed to travel to and from work for the duration of the lockdown.

Once the transmission rate falls below the rate of 1 the lockdown can be ended.

 

I understand the benefit of the lockdown. I also understand the economic devastation. They have to be balanced. They must allow people to buy food. They could allow people to go to their jobs. In most cases, people will be exposed to more people, and mostly new and different strangers, at the grocery store than they would be at work where they encounter the same people every day and for many jobs, are sitting at a desk which provides social distancing.

Well. Really, none of the lockdowns are enforceable to a very large extent. How many police will stop people and ask why there are out of their house and hear, "Going to buy groceries" as the response.

The jobs which are deemed "essential" have the highest risk of infection for the employees and the customers. Most people who are having their jobs and paychecks shut down are at lower risk.

 

It is not possible to determine the probability of infection because that number depends entirely on where you are located and the intensity of infection in your area. The average infected person will infect anyone from 2.2-3.4 people though.

The mortality rate also fluctuates wildly depending on the health infrastructure in your area. If you can get on a ventilator when needed, then the mortality rate in your area is probably going to end up around 1.5%. If you can't get to a ventilator when needed, the the mortality in your area will probably end up closer to 5 or 6%.