[Mistral75]

(...) There can't be any living persons on the planet who haven't heard of COVID-19; let individuals take responsibility for protecting themselves and provide free testing for as many people as possible, instead of making sweeping pronouncements and tossing political footballs for lazy journalists to broadcast. Just my opinion, of course.

The problem is, most people aren't responsible, at least here in Paris where I live, in particular young people (≤30).

And there aren't the thousands and tens of thousands of virologists who would be required to test the whole population in a short period of time (and repetitively).

---

Last edited by Mistral75; 03-11-2020 at 11:50 PM.

[normhead]

How do you take responsibility when you can infect others 10 days before your own symptoms start?

[BigMackCam]

How do you take responsibility when you can infect others 10 days before your own symptoms start?

Catching one's normal sneezes and coughs in a tissue, binning it immediately, washing hands frequently and properly... Plus, I'd argue at this stage there's nothing but good can come from some level of social distancing. I'm not saying everyone should stay locked up indoors (although that's almost what it's coming to in Italy), but rather minimising involvement in crowds and confined public spaces. If everyone did that, I've no doubt the spread could be reduced and/or delayed...

[Mistral75]

How do you take responsibility when you can infect others 10 days before your own symptoms start?

An example of irresponsibility: because of the coronavirus outbreak a football (soccer) game was played behind closed doors yesterday night in Paris (Paris-Saint Germain - Dortmund, UEFA Champions League, round of 16, return leg), yet 3,000 people gathered around the stadium...

[beholder3]

An example of irresponsibility: because of the coronavirus outbreak a football (soccer) game was played behind closed doors yesterday night in Paris (Paris-Saint Germain - Dortmund, UEFA Champions League, round of 16, return leg), yet 3,000 people gathered around the stadium...

Same story here with a German football game (probable "only" 200-300 though). But then: Are you surprised that football "fans" do not show much of a brain or responsibility?

[Mistral75]

Same story here with a German football game (probable "only" 200-300 though). But then: Are you surprised that football "fans" do not show much of a brain or responsibility?

I'm not surprised: I consider that most people do not show much of a brain or responsibility (myself included in some instances).

This is the reason why I wrote

The problem is, most people aren't responsible, at least here in Paris where I live, in particular young people (≤30).

And there aren't the thousands and tens of thousands of virologists who would be required to test the whole population in a short period of time (and repetitively).

as an answer to RGlasel who had written

(...) There can't be any living persons on the planet who haven't heard of COVID-19; let individuals take responsibility for protecting themselves and provide free testing for as many people as possible, instead of making sweeping pronouncements and tossing political footballs for lazy journalists to broadcast. Just my opinion, of course.

Irresponsible people, and there is a vast majority of them, help the virus spread quicker and cause more damages, therefore coercive measures have to be taken.

[WorksAsIntended]

I'm working as event staff at two large public gatherings this weekend, the JUNO Awards (approx. 8000 people) and a cabaret for up to 3800 drunken university students; in my opinion cancelling public events is the wrong thing to do. It takes too long for the authorities to implement any plan (because it is always a delayed knee-jerk response to a public relations crisis, precipitated by a deluge of speculation) and getting the necessary level of compliance is always too expensive, too inconsistent and too late. There can't be any living persons on the planet who haven't heard of COVID-19; let individuals take responsibility for protecting themselves and provide free testing for as many people as possible, instead of making sweeping pronouncements and tossing political footballs for lazy journalists to broadcast. Just my opinion, of course.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I highly disagree. At the current state the mortality is pretty much unknown, somewhere between 2%-4% of diagnosed occurences seem likely right now, but the data vary much more than they should, so the data are currently just not good enough to predict. Many models that people that are in the opinion it is not as bad as it is currently presented refer to do not take into account that currently that the coefficient infected by dead is completley useless, as death by covid 19 often takes many weeks and numbers are still exponentially increasing, so the mortality will be higher. In the end, this will be something we know after it is over.

The spreading however is a major problem. It is extremely simple, we need to decrease the acceleration, because the number of infected at the same time will quickly overload hospitals making it impossible to save lifes that would not have been in danger otherwise. It is not anymore about holding it locally, only about slowing it down so the infections spread over a longer period of time.
My company, as many others working in data sciences, does a lot of simulations right now predicting different scenarios of spreading. While those models give very different numbers currently there are models that predict a too fast infection rate to handle it in our country (Germany). This is not a valid prediction, but a possible outcome. The point is, there is a good chance that it will escalate if we do not forcefully deaccelerate it.
Again: Our numbers vary highly with different models and we do not know which is the best, so there are no good predictions right now my company delivers and I suppose others have similar problems looking at current news contradicting each other over and over again.
Italy unfortunately does not give good data as it was undetect too long and China does not give trustworthy data either.
I am not in panic, I am also not one of those people who bought a year worth of noodles and toilet paper, but the more I learn, the more I am convinced that reducing hot spots of spreading is very important.
Let's just hope it will be good at the end and most people are not affected at all.

[yucatanPentax]

With and without measures to increase social distancing, including cancelling large scale events, reducing travel, etc. Italy is suffering so badly now because it apparently spread to a great degree in mild cases, then when there were sufficient critical cases to be noticed, it was pretty late in exponential growth path and medical facilities and care givers have been overwhelmed.

[Rondec]

And NBA 2020 is cancelled at present too...

Overall, I think it makes sense to be pretty aggressive at cutting down on large gatherings where the virus can be passed around. Mortality rates in those under 50 are significantly under 1 percent, but for people over 80 they are 15 percent (China statistics) and there is no treatment, only supportive measures. It means the best protection for elderly people is prevention of its spread.

The problems with virus are (1) People who are asymptomatic still shed the virus. That means one person at a gathering with cough and no fever could infect a bunch of others. (2) Testing takes two to three days to get results back. (3) There is no treatment. This isn't even influenza where at least there are some antivirals which could be effective. People are using Remdesivir, but there is no indication that that is going to have much benefit.

Anyway, I would rather the public health authorities be more aggressive at shutting things down in the short term than let things slide and end up with a lot of elderly deaths that could have been prevented.

[WorksAsIntended]

With and without measures to increase social distancing, including cancelling large scale events, reducing travel, etc. Italy is suffering so badly now because it apparently spread to a great degree in mild cases, then when there were sufficient critical cases to be noticed, it was pretty late in exponential growth path and medical facilities and care givers have been overwhelmed.

This is one of those graphs. It displays the problematic quite well and why measures are taken, BUT the modeling is something I do not believe to be that accurate as the graph suggests, or other people have better data or methods than we have access to.
Generally speaking I agree on the result though.

[clackers]

I think statistics from both China and Italy are flawed. In the case of Wuhan, we know people were unable to receive treatment, they were often turned away. In Italy, it looks like testing was only to people who displayed symptoms, so the mortality rate is a subset. Note that the average age of death is 81 in Italy, IIRC.

I think interesting examples in their own way are Germany and the Diamond Princess. 2700 cases for 6 deaths in Germany so far in a country with a good medical system that hasn't yet been overwhelmed for staff and facilities.

And the cruiseliner was an unfortunate but telling closed experiment. Confined to their cabins and without an intensive care unit, 7 dead (all old, I think) out of 700 people who on a cruise ship would skew to the elderly and wealthy. About half had no symptoms.

[RGlasel]

I think statistics from both China and Italy are flawed. In the case of Wuhan, we know people were unable to receive treatment, they were often turned away. In Italy, it looks like testing was only to people who displayed symptoms, so the mortality rate is a subset. Note that the average age of death is 81 in Italy, IIRC.

If only the Italian government had kept its octogenarians out of football stadiums. As high as the number of cases in South Korea is, the mortality rate is only about 1% (it is under 1% in Canada, but with 117 cases, that isn't statistically significant). India and Africa are COVID-19 deserts, yet the mortality rate in the U.S. is about 3% (although it is looking like it should be added to the list of under-reporters). The province of Alberta (population 4.3 million) conducted 1000 COVID-19 tests on March 10th alone, in the U.S. (population 330 million) CDC and public health labs managed 11,000 tests from January 18 to March 9. The only thing worse than bad statistics are government decisions based on bad statistics.

[THoog]

rresponsible people, and there is a vast majority of them, help the virus spread quicker and cause more damages, therefore coercive measures have to be taken.

I'm afraid I have to agree - in the first week of cases here, our state health department only found out about them when they were notified by other states (who had patients who had been in contact with ours). In one of those cases, the individual was in northern Italy, had a fever for two days, then came home, apparently without telling anyone. Even if I am generous and say he didn't know northern Italy was a hotspot for Covid-19 when he was there, it would have been pretty hard not to know by the time he got home. But human nature is going to say "I want to get home, therefore I am safe to travel", then "I don't want to be inconvenienced/stigmatized, therefore I didn't have the corona virus and don't need to tell anyone."

[clackers]

If only the Italian government had kept its octogenarians out of football stadiums. As high as the number of cases in South Korea is, the mortality rate is only about 1% (it is under 1% in Canada, but with 117 cases, that isn't statistically significant).

Something that did count against Italy is that IIRC it has the second oldest population in the developed world, and that compared to cultures like Australia, there are more generations living in the same house - extended, rather than nuclear, families.

Probably the government needed to not do as much as other countries for protecting the elderly, it needed to do way more, and earlier, because of the nation's demographics.

India and Africa are COVID-19 deserts, yet the mortality rate in the U.S. is about 3% (although it is looking like it should be added to the list of under-reporters).

I think you're right, the decision to let the CDC develop their own test instead of using the existing WHO one has already killed people, I reckon ...

As Coronavirus Numbers Rise, C.D.C. Testing Comes Under Fire - The New York Times

[WorksAsIntended]

I think statistics from both China and Italy are flawed. In the case of Wuhan, we know people were unable to receive treatment, they were often turned away. In Italy, it looks like testing was only to people who displayed symptoms, so the mortality rate is a subset. Note that the average age of death is 81 in Italy, IIRC.

I think interesting examples in their own way are Germany and the Diamond Princess. 2700 cases for 6 deaths in Germany so far in a country with a good medical system that hasn't yet been overwhelmed for staff and facilities.

And the cruiseliner was an unfortunate but telling closed experiment. Confined to their cabins and without an intensive care unit, 7 dead (all old, I think) out of 700 people who on a cruise ship would skew to the elderly and wealthy. About half had no symptoms.

The German data are not working for those statistics yet. The mortality can only be named after the people are cured. A few of those infected right now will, very unfortunately and sadly, die due to corona on a later time but are already taken into account by the number of infections. Also, as I had to be tested myself after a business trip - which fortunately turned out to be influenza a and a shortly after cought bacterial lung infection easily treated with antibiotics - it was hard to get a check in Germany for some time too. Now it changed a bit, but a few weeks ago it was nearly impossible for me to get checked. So the number of undetected infections is again very hard to predict. At least the local hospital now does checks quickly. There are reports that vary heavily in Germany of how easy it is to get checked.


The cruiseliner is statistically not big enough to draw final conclusions, but indeed a very defined situation.