This is wrong - it's 15-20% of identified, diagnosed and subsequently monitored infected people, isn't it?
I thought there was a mass of unidentified infected people, and even basically diagnosed but told to just deal with it at home with no further contact as they're low risk and minimal symptoms, and (obviously) 0% of these groups are going into hospital? This is what Wikipedia says at the moment.
Or am I wrong?
A lot more ventilator are going to be needed, not in % but in hard cold real absolute number. Isn't that more important ?
But you are also right that people are needed to administer those. No doubt about that. As is also true a person can administer several of those machines.
And, just because something tries to address A only (and not B and C), does not mean we should not do it because B and C. Separate issues. Beside, to train people, you need spares to train on.
Yes - I think we should challenge misleading information wherever we see it in this situation. Fighting panic is part of the problem and bad numbers cause panic.
I mean, if we don't really care that the numbers aren't accurate because it's more important to emphasise why the project is important, we might as well go all the way and say 99% of people need a ventilator and really sell the project.
There was a news report recently implying a 50/50 survival rate, due to this same kind of assuming everyone realises that you're talking about some group that's already in a bad way, but not actually saying that in the text.
There was no actual food supply issue. But people have panicked due to unchecked bad information and now we do have a real food supply issue, at the very worst time to have one!
Maybe if someone had said to people 'hang on that's not quite right there's plenty of food being supplied' we'd have one less problem.
There are some questionable cases, like people hording years worth of toilet paper (which can cause real temporary shortages and actually significantly inconvenience people), but everyone stockpiling a months worth of food seems like a good thing.
Not to everyone's homes. For example: old people who can't rush to the shops and elbow their way through the queue may get nothing.
I am talking about buying x times as much as you usually do when you go grocery shopping to build up a stockpile, including a larger supply of food that you can store for a long period of time (canned/frozen/dry goods).
Edit: And yes, it doesn't include everyone's homes. In particular it doesn't include the homes of people who didn't do this. Unless the store is literally bare it does still help those people though, because it means there are less people in the store who might transmit the virus to them.
basic reproductive number vs effective reproductive number
How? What has it done to "more than inconvenience" them? Specifically what has it done to them except possibly cause them to have to buy different food today because they got a bit unlucky and the store is currently running low on what they normally eat?
On the flip side it means that when they go shopping in the future, when lots of people are sick, there will be less people at the store. This reduces their chance of infection. Do you really think the inconvenience today outweighs that benefit, even if we just look at them in isolation instead of looking at the cost/reward to society as a whole?
So... We couldn't get any of those to our home. That's kind of a problem.
People just need to chill.
Also - what happens if something changes and now literally 20% of people do require ventilation? You won't be able to get that message across now because that's what they already think and the message won't be any change to readers!
Plus, we don't know when the site was set up. Two weeks ago ? Four weeks ago ? Our collective knowlegde is changing every day. Could just be they have been busy and did not find the time to update it ?
And finally, blueprint for a cheap OSS FEV will always be useful. COVID or not.
Please don’t confuse the two. It’s hard enough to fight the misinformation as is without well-intentioned people such as yourself introducing red herrings.
Again, your point is coming from a good place. But we need to be really careful about not accepting misinformation.
Indeed, and your information is wrong and misleading, stop it. You listed no sources and are going on "I thought..." You thought wrong.
There's no evidence supporting the theory that large numbers of asymptomatic people offset the figure of 20% of patient being severe cases. Hospitalizations and death skyrocket in Covids infected areas, we know what this thing looks like at scale. Plus Who report, pattern of infection, China and Korea eliminated visible cases and haven't seen many more etc.
You are wrong according to the statistics that came out of Korea - if there was an invisible group of asymptomatic, Korea's infection rate couldn't have been controlled. [2]
This destructive belief has persisted for a while because it made sense for various flu epidemic and gave the comforting idea most infections would be harmless. But is now with us at scale and all the evidence points to a rough 20%, 1-in-5 hospitalization rate [3]. I wish actual authorities would spend more time debunking this (even get fully clear on it themselves).
[1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-chi...
[2] Look at covid19info.live and look at the South Korean statistics. There's reason to think Korea found most if not all infection. Similar reasoning also applies to China.
[3] Edit: Discussion of CDC study: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/488325-cdc-data-show-c...
This is beyond ridiculous and you have no basis for making that assertion. As of last Saturday, In South Korea, as of the weekend only 248,000 people out of a population of 50,000,000, with 8,086 +ve cases and 72 deaths.
There is significant evidence that not only are most cases mild, but often asymptomatic.
https://www.sanitainformazione.it/salute/scovare-i-positivi-...
In English:
https://mobile.twitter.com/andreamatranga/status/12397748625...
> According to Crisanti, the director of the virology lab of U Padua, as little as 10% of #COVID2019 carriers show any symptoms at all. He sampled repeatedly the entire 3k+ population of Vo ', one of the initial clusters.
https://grapevine.is/news/2020/03/15/first-results-of-genera...
> 700 have been tested. Kári says that about half of those who tested positive have shown no symptoms, and the other half show symptoms have having a regular cold.
https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/...
> "The vast majority of people infected with Covid-19, between 50 and 75%, are completely asymptomatic but represent a formidable source of contagion". The Professor of Clinical Immunology of the University of Florence Sergio Romagnani writes
> But is now with us at scale and all the evidence points to a rough 20%, 1-in-5 hospitalization rate [3].
No. It doesn't. That link doesn't say why they were hospitalised. In America if your insurance is good enough you can be referred for little to no reason.
But this finding is not extrapolated to mean that the vast majority won't require hospitalization. There's a reason. When the virus is growing exponentially, most people have just gotten the virus and haven't gone the 2-3 weeks typical for becoming so sick that you require hospitalization. Exponential growth means 3-week old cases are rare. A weekly doubling time 1/16 of the cases of the cases are three weeks old. If 1/5 of those cases require hospitalization eventually, you will wind-up with only 1/80 of those cases seeming to require hospitalization if you're just taking a survey.
Some of my references are extrapolating things (correctly) but others are citing recognized authorities. Your entire argument is basically incorrect extrapolation based on not taking into account exponential growth.
This article widely read article summarizes the quandary we're in and how to extrapolate the current data.
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
People need to read it and stop with the destructive misinformation.
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
They won't, they don't, and you have no basis for making that claim. I don't know what your agenda is here but it is entirely clear you have no desire to honestly engage regarding the facts. Certainly a complete misreading, at best, of data presented.
It clearly deals with the symptoms during the while life cycle of the disease.
What precisely is your goal with this misinformation?
All the links in my original post are the basis of my claim - the WHO finding in China is very plausible and says exactly what I say - so saying I have "no basis" is clearly misrepresenting my above post.
I believe I'm characterizing your claim and their links as well as I can while vehemently disagreeing. As far as I can tell, you cite a survey finding many asymptomatic cases and think that proves things will stay that way but fail to consider the properties of a growing infected group. I'm entirely hostile to your position but I know only substantial arguments can help here.
My main goal is to make clear the urgency of this situation. There's a debate about whether the virus needs to be actively suppressed and I want to make it clear that this is indeed necessary. Basically, not seeing the American Health Care system collapse and hundreds of thousands of people die is my motivate. For that, we have to realize how many people will be coming in (though that's visible in Italy).
You talk of "engaging with the facts" but you don't present either facts or arguments in this post - plus alleging motives, etc.
Edit: Looking further at your link, you're describing the (important testing approach in the village of Vo). You can say "as 10%" were symptomatic but this is in the context of the virus being spread by them, again, not in the context of the people not getting sick later. There's really no reference to exactly what percentage of people go seriously sick.
This is on page 5 of the paper.
Edit: link https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
It’s not ok to deliberately over-estimate numbers in order to achieve this goal. That was my original point at the top of this thread.
You may think it’s ok because the ends justify the means, but it’s still wrong and dangerous.
I have given the reasons that I believe 1/5 is in no way overestimate. I don't have any to think you are arguing in bad faith yourself, simply that you're mistaken on a very important point. However, you are resorting imputing bad faith on my part simply through your disagreement with my argument. That's a pretty bad way to argue and I think indicates a poor approach to this critical question.
No. You have not.
You are clearly or for an argument. 1/5th cases are not as you say. That's a lie. Plain and simple
The cruise liner and the 3000 pop Italian village are the well studied exposed populations so far I think and they indicate a big asymptomatic percentage.
Note that both South Korea and China outside Wuhan do extensive contact tracing and testing of people an infected individual can be determined to have interacted with, so they pick up a good deal of asymptomatic cases too.
Edit: I should have said "a large enough group of asymptomatic to push the fatality and sickness rate way".
Yes, there can a majority asymptomatic but that doesn't mean that 20% of the overall don't wind-up needing serious medical attention also.
Hopefully, you can read the comment I replied to and see the context
I mean, understand. Lots of people asymptomatic, a few quite ill, 1% die, sounds not terrible but it's very, very bad for it's health care overwhelm effect.
> But on Tuesday, a World Health Organization expert suggested that does not appear to be the case. Bruce Aylward, who led an international mission to China to learn about the virus and China’s response, said the specialists did not see evidence that a large number of mild cases of the novel disease called Covid-19 are evading detection.
> “So I know everybody’s been out there saying, ‘Whoa, this thing is spreading everywhere and we just can’t see it, tip of the iceberg.’ But the data that we do have don’t support that,” Aylward said during a briefing for journalists at WHO’s Geneva headquarters.
It's like saying 90% of basketball players require casts because, from the set who end up in ambulance, 90% of them have a broken arm. That doesn't mean 90% of basketball players require casts, and it certainly doesn't mean they need them all at once.
There was a study posted here recently that said as many at 86% of people were asymptomatic, then only some sliver of those with symptoms end up needing to go to hospital in the first place -- and 20% of that group that tests positive for the virus ends up needing a ventilator and 5% of them end up dead.
Net-net close to a 0% fatality rate under 29, 0.1% under 49.
Still gonna feel like crap tho.
If we acquiesce to 70% of the US getting nCoV-19 as the epidemiologists are suggesting that would require 50 million ventilators. There are about 70,000 in the US. So we'd need almost 1000X as many ventilators as we have.
If that were true we've have the national guard locking people inside their houses, and the UK wouldn't be contemplating giving nCov-19 to everyone young to foster herd immunity.
The UK appears to have decided allowing 500,000 of us to die was a bad idea and we're now on "lockdown". At least everyone is _advised_ to socially distance, because - it seems - then businesses can still fire people for not turning up to work, and insurers can avoid paying out ("you chose to stop the event, you weren't obliged to").
I'm not sure we can tell what the rates are, what's the testing false positive rate? UK gave up testing a while back (except emergency hospital admissions).
For the last week, at least, all new cases here are in theory emergency hospital admissions. 700 cases per day (and rising), 10% of our normal number of intensive care beds.
Well, it's China.
> The UK appears to have decided allowing 500,000 of us to die was a bad idea and we're now on "lockdown".
500,000 people dying wasn't going to happen. Korea's death rate is closer to 0.4%, almost entirely the older folks who were to be quarantined at home during this process anyways. Korea's death rate for under-40's is 0-0.1%, so at worst, ignoring that vulnerable folks in those demographics would also be quarantined, the death toll would less than 50K -- probably much, much less, and not drastically out of line with a bad flu year.
> I'm not sure we can tell what the rates are, what's the testing false positive rate? UK gave up testing a while back (except emergency hospital admissions).
Supportive treatment is the only thing you can do anyways. Beyond that PCR tests will only tell you if you currently actively have the disease not if you had it before and recovered. We need antibody tests for that.
As of Monday,
- 274,504 people tested
- 8,400 cases
- 81 deaths
- 0.96% CFR
> so CFR is very close to IFR
On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronav...
> As of Monday
> - 81 deaths
> - 0.96% CFR
I should say the same of you. Why are you posting numbers from 5 days ago? As of yesterday when I made that comment, Korea has 102 deaths and 1.16% CFR.
>> so CFR is very close to IFR
> On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible
On the basis of the beginning of that same sentence, which you inexplicably did not quote.
That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-a...
You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU.
> That's not how CFR works
That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.
I don't seen any quotes in your comment.
CFR matches IFR not when all cases are diagnosed but when all cases are resolved.
It might help if you don't get all your news from Twitter
I found his comment helpful because I wouldn't necessarily have thought of that.
Yours, however, adds nothing useful to the conversation.