[Parallax]

If they close the Beer Store though, there's going to be hack to pay.

Yep. I'm all for reasonable precautions, but let's not overreact.

[photoptimist]

some good news in Kansas



[ I'm sure you must have reasons to suspect " infection or exposure " other than just age ]

More tests seems like good news but the fact that they still must ration out the tests means the disease is bound to continue spreading. The only way to limit the death toll from COVID-19 (without a multi-month shutdown of the US economy) is test EVERYONE who might have the disease including ANYONE who had significant contact with those who have it (like the way South Korea is successfully limiting the spread).

Right now, Kansas probably needs 10X higher testing capacity than this "good new" number. In a few days, it will need 20X higher testing capacity than this. In a few more days, it will need 40X higher testing capacity than this.

The central challenge is that the COVID-19 virus can make more virus factories (people who volunteer to be infected) faster than the healthcare system can make more tests, hospital beds, ventilators, etc.

Or to put things another way: if a person doesn't want to be a volunteer COVID-19 virus factory, they need to limit contact with other people. Those who continue to gather en masse are aiding and abetting the enemy.

[aslyfox]

It is good news only in the sense Kansas was supposed to have no testing ability this week before the new stuff was received

No tests available for any one under any circumstances

[Parallax]

It is also important to know that based on contact with an infected person, the corona virus is 3 times more likely to cause infection than most flu's. SO even though it's not killing people at the same rate as the flu, it has the potential to kill more.

No question but I refuse to believe it's going to kill, depending on what news source you quote, 5% -99% (okay, maybe a bit of hyperbole) of the world population.

[c.a.m]

Or to put things another way: if a person doesn't want to be a volunteer COVID-19 virus factory, they need to limit contact with other people. Those who continue to gather en masse are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Yesterday in his daily video briefing to Canadians, our Prime Minister said it plainly and simply: "Enough is enough. Go home and stay home."

- Craig

[beholder3]

If anybody is interested, Politco has a chart for each state that has total number of tests, total cases, and total deaths.

Coronavirus by State Map | Testing in the U.S. | Chart of New Cases

It seems like pretty much everyone tested in NJ is diseased. And they seem to have tested 1 out of every 3000 citizens so far only. I'd send some more test kits there. Fast.

[normhead]

No question but I refuse to believe it's going to kill, depending on what news source you quote, 5% -99% (okay, maybe a bit of hyperbole) of the world population.

In Canada we haven't had a lot of deaths, but they've almost all been over 65. If it got all of us, it still wouldn't be more than 15% of the Canadian population, so that would be a hard cap right there. But even among that population the death rate is only about 15%, so, 15% of 15% = 2% of the population might die.

I'm not in the "if we can save one life we should bankrupt the country to do it" camp. You really have to have some sympathy for our politicians, who have to sort this stuff out. Just another situation where one side will trash you if you do something, and the other side will trash you if you don't. I simply can't imagine the weight on these people at the moment.

[ZombieArmy]

In Canada we haven't had a lot of deaths, but they've almost all been over 65. If it got all of us, it still wouldn't be more than 15% of the Canadian population, so that would be a hard cap right there. But even among that population the death rate is only about 15%, so, 15% of 15% = 2% of the population might die.

You do realize 2% of your country's population is still 750k right? And when adjusted for the average mean time of death after symptom onset the actual CFR is looking more like 4-5%.

Not to mention younger people do die from this disease.

---------- Post added 03-24-20 at 11:37 AM ----------

Interesting. According to the chart NY has 20,875 positive test and 114 deaths. That's a rate for known cases of one half of a percent. Just a wee bit LOWER than the U.S. influenza death rate of .6%

Take any US numbers with a huge grain of salt. The US testing has been extremely poor in all regions, even the ones who have been hit the hardest.

And about deaths, according to the World Health Organization death occurs about 2 to 8 weeks after hospitalization. Many people who are alive now will die in mere weeks. Thus the numbers are skewed.

[photoptimist]

Interesting. According to the chart NY has 20,875 positive test and 114 deaths. That's a rate for known cases of one half of a percent. Just a wee bit LOWER than the U.S. influenza death rate of .6%

You can't just divide 114/20,875 to get the death rate because you are assuming that none of the most recently found cases will die. Those 114 deaths reflect that true case load (not the "tested case count') of about 2-3 weeks ago because that's the delay between getting infected and dying. The only way that the death rate can be just 1% and have 114 deaths right now is if 114,000 had this virus 2-3 weeks ago.

How does the new coronavirus compare with the flu? | Live Science "In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 36 million illnesses, 370,000 hospitalizations and 22,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

It's not fair to compare the end-of-the-season numbers for flu with the beginning-of-the-season numbers for COVID-19. And if you do compare beginning-of-the-season numbers for both diseases that's where you'll see that COVID-19 spreads faster, generates more hospitalizations, and kills more people that does the flu.

Worse, if you then extrapolate those numbers, you get a scenario where hospitalizations vastly exceeds hospital capacity and then you get a 3-8X increased death rate because the sick don't get the treatment they need (see Italy for what that looks like).

[normhead]

You do realize 2% of your country's population is still 750k right? And when adjusted for the average mean time of death after symptom onset the actual CFR is looking more like 4-5%.

Not to mention younger people do die from this disease.

Losing 2% would be huge....
Especially if I was one of them....

[ZombieArmy]

Losing 2% would be huge....
Especially if I was one of them....

Who would combat the trolls on the forums?!

[beholder3]

Interesting. According to the chart NY has 20,875 positive test and 114 deaths. That's a rate for known cases of one half of a percent. Just a wee bit LOWER than the U.S. influenza death rate of .6%

According to this study :Lower death rate estimates for coronavirus provide glimmer of hope - STAT the rate is 1.4% or more than x2 of flu.

How does the new coronavirus compare with the flu? | Live Science "In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 36 million illnesses, 370,000 hospitalizations and 22,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

That would mean only 11% get infected due to vaccines and low infection rates. For Covid19 the number of infected people if not stopped hard is estimated at being x6 - x8 higher.

[normhead]

You can't just divide 114/20,875 to get the death rate because you are assuming that none of the most recently found cases will die. Those 114 deaths reflect that true case load (not the "tested case count') of about 2-3 weeks ago because that's the delay between getting infected and dying. The only way that the death rate can be just 1% and have 114 deaths right now is if 114,000 had this virus 2-3 weeks ago.

It's not fair to compare the end-of-the-season numbers for flu with the beginning-of-the-season numbers for COVID-19. And if you do compare beginning-of-the-season numbers for both diseases that's where you'll see that COVID-19 spreads faster, generates more hospitalizations, and kills more people that does the flu.

Worse, if you then extrapolate those numbers, you get a scenario where hospitalizations vastly exceeds hospital capacity and then you get a 3-8X increased death rate because the sick don't get the treatment they need (see Italy for what that looks like).

To me that's the crutch of the issue. You simply cannot let the number of sick exceed hospital capacity. Even if you accept my 2% number, which is high or low depending on your outlook, that number was acquired with hospital services available to everyone who needs them. If you look at Italy, you'll see what happens if you exceed the ability of your health care system to deal with them. Not every country can be like China and just build 2 1000 bed hospitals in a couple weeks.

[ZombieArmy]

To me that's the crutch of the issue. You simply cannot let the number of sick exceed hospital capacity. Even if you accept my 2% number, which is high or low depending on your outlook, that number was acquired with hospital services available to everyone who needs them. If you look at Italy, you'll see what happens if you exceed the ability of your health care system to deal with them. Not every country can be like China and just build 2 1000 bed hospitals in a couple weeks.

It's especially scary because Italy is modern western nation. One can only imagine how this will impact densely populated poorer nations like the DRC or India.

[Parallax]

I'm not in the "if we can save one life we should bankrupt the country to do it" camp.

Nor am I.
If we did nothing there would be two possible scenarios:
1: You get it and die. Life is over.
2: You/your loved ones don't get it or get it and recover and life goes on as usual.

My fear is that we are taking such extreme measures that the two possibilities are:
1: You get it and die. Life is over.
2: You/your loved ones don't get it or get it and recover and life as we know it is over.

There has to be a happy medium in there somewhere.