Corona Virus

[Sour Masher]

I understand the math.

I also understand that if some of the new efforts - one is antibodies for 45-minute testing, for example - are successful quickly, then the mass media hype of millions of deaths, though grounded in some science, also will seem to have been massive media overhype.

guess what the result of that will be come November?

the seeming 'confidence' of millions of deaths - it's not the right word, but it LOOKS like that - in the US sets up an amazingly low bar for declared success if that doesn't happen. it also doesn't account for possible "deus ex machinas" like I mentioned.

once again, I am feeling Cassandra moments - and there is still nothing I can do about it.

talk about a brutal scenario: be right with grim projections, and it's Armageddon.
be wrong, and.... well....

I've already given up hope for the 2020 election. I don't know why I am surprised the Democratic Party ended up with a nominee with intrinsic flaws at his best, who also now happens to be at his worst mentally, but here we are. Top that off with this crisis and the way American voters inexplicably love to stick with the devil they know in a crisis (see Bush), and that is a recipe for the reelection of the most vile president of my lifetime (I'd argue the most vile in our nation's history). It seems not to matter to voters that the US has done, if not the worst, damn close, job of containing this virus, largely because of Trump.

If this ends up being better than the worst case projections, it won't be because of Trump. It will be despite him. But I fear too many voters will fail to realize that.

[rhd]

As I said in the posts above, the only logical explanation for Fauci's optimism, besides poor models or lying, is their models assume a rate of infection far exceeding the ones you or even I am assuming. There is no way around this being far worse, as you say, unless they are assuming that 100x or more people have this already than have been tested and verified as having this. IF that is the case, and, again, that is the only situation I can see for such optimism as the apex of the curve happening in two weeks (if it is, that 100k death by then would represent about the midpoint, which fits within the upper end of Fauci's estimates). If rather than 142k people having this in the US right now there is already 14.2 million, and yet we are now at 2500 dead, you can get to the numbers they are projecting, or even lower. If someone has a better explanation for those low numbers than the assumption that we already have millions of infections and thus the mortality rate is far lower than we fear, I'd love to hear it. Or if you just think they are outright lies, express that too. I am open to any possibility.

Re: Fauci's projections, I guess I'd say unrealistic models driven significantly by the fact he wants to save Trump's presidency and his own job. To speculate that there are actually 100 x the confirmed # of cases is absolutely incredible. They're undercounted but not by nearly that much. The death count from current cases is far below what it is eventually will be because it takes 2 weeks or so for many if not most people to die and most of the cases are not 2 weeks old. I think that there is a good chance the deaths are more undercounted than the cases. I'm an optimist, too, and I've tried to be optimistic about this crisis but I can find little valid reason for it. I went back to my first stats update post, which is from 3/10. The number of deaths then was 27. Doubling that # every 3 days would give 1728 deaths on 3/28. Yet on this date, the # of deaths actually was 2211, so it's been doubling more often than every 3 days since then. The cases, to my surprise, have increased even faster than that. On 3/10, there were 753 cases. Doubling that every 3 days would give 48,192 cases on 3/28. But the actual # was much higher, 123,871. Now that we're doing more testing, the # cases probably will rise even faster. But the death rate is not decreasing. I was hoping that the travel restrictions, closings and lockdowns would have a strong effect that would have shown up by now, but it hasn't. And our hospitals are starting to get overwhelmed, which will not help stem the death rate either.

[Sour Masher]

Re: Fauci's projections, I guess I'd say unrealistic models driven significantly by the fact he wants to save Trump's presidency and his own job. To speculate that there are actually 100 x the confirmed # of cases is absolutely incredible. They're undercounted but not by nearly that much. The death count from current cases is far below what it is eventually will be because it takes 2 weeks or so for many if not most people to die and most of the cases are not 2 weeks old. I think that there is a good chance the deaths are more undercounted than the cases. I'm an optimist, too, and I've tried to be optimistic about this crisis but I can find little valid reason for it. I went back to my first stats update post, which is from 3/10. The number of deaths then was 27. Doubling that # every 3 days would give 1728 deaths on 3/28. Yet on this date, the # of deaths actually was 2211, so it's been doubling more often than every 3 days since then. The cases, to my surprise, have increased even faster than that. On 3/10, there were 753 cases. Doubling that every 3 days would give 48,192 cases on 3/28. But the actual # was much higher, 123,871. Now that we're doing more testing, the # cases probably will rise even faster. But the death rate is not decreasing. I was hoping that the travel restrictions, closings and lockdowns would have a strong effect that would have shown up by now, but it hasn't. And our hospitals are starting to get overwhelmed, which will not help stem the death rate either.

I'm seeing the same things, but holding out hope that the numbers are skewed by limited testing and death rates of confirmed cases being too high, because most testing is being done on the sick and elderly. The younger, healthier people are being told to not be tested, to stay away from hospitals, in fact, so medical workers can focus on saving the worst cases. That skews things a great deal. That is what I am choosing to believe for now, at least.

To your first point, if Fauci is saying this to protect Trump, it will backfire spectacularly if he is underselling this. Better to prepare people for the worst case than say that absolute worst case is 100-200k dead, as he did today, when, if your projections are correct, he will be proven wrong in just a matter of weeks: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...5uv?li=BBnb7Kz

"Fauci softened his dire predictions at the Rose Garden briefing, saying they were based on models that were run to show the worst-case scenario if Americans did not follow stay-at-home directives."

"We feel the mitigation we are doing right now is having an effect," Fauci said. "The decision to extend this mitigation process until the end of April is a wise and prudent decision."

[Sour Masher]

Also, rhd, where are you seeing that it takes two weeks or more "for many if not most people" to die of COVID-19? My understanding is that the vast majority of deaths come within the two weeks window.

[Judge Jude]

"I guess I'd say unrealistic models driven significantly by the fact he wants to save Trump's presidency and his own job."

Fauci is 79 years old/young (he'll turn 80 on Christmas Eve).

he has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump. he graduated 1st in his class at Cornell Medical School in 1966 and has an impeccable reputation.

two weeks ago, the New York Times called him "the nation's leading expert on infectious diseases."

and you think he needs to "save his own job" by kowtowing to Trump?

ack, delusions like this are why I will hate being Cassandra come November.

[Sour Masher]

"I guess I'd say unrealistic models driven significantly by the fact he wants to save Trump's presidency and his own job."

Fauci is 79 years old/young (he'll turn 80 on Christmas Eve).

he has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump. he graduated 1st in his class at Cornell Medical School in 1966 and has an impeccable reputation.

two weeks ago, the New York Times called him "the nation's leading expert on infectious diseases."

and you think he needs to "save his own job" by kowtowing to Trump?

ack, delusions like this are why I will hate being Cassandra come November.

You really think the reason Trump may win in November is primarily because several sources and some MSM outlets on the left are touting the worst case scenarios on this as being worse than what you believe they will be? Most people outside of these boards do not believe or even know of those worst case projections. The death tolls have already exceeded Trump's own promises and predictions. Do his denials of this being a problem for several weeks, causing our current shut down and the spike in cases we are seeing mean so little when compared to some sources and some in the media touting worst numbers than may come to pass?

ETA: Good point on Fauci. Everyone respects him and he should be too old to play such games, I agree. Then again, we saw such kowtowing from Hatch, even as he was on his way out. It was sad to see, and unexpected. I'm not saying that is happening here, but it is not impossible. It is also not impossible that Fauci is overestimating both the effectiveness of the measures we are taking and the American people to follow those guidelines (have you seen the people proclaiming all this as nothing and engaging in risky behavior, which isn't too surprising when our president has said the same until very recently)?

But again, I very much hope he is right, and we come in under 100k deaths to COVID-19. That would be great compared to what I have been fearing could happen.

[rhd]

"I guess I'd say unrealistic models driven significantly by the fact he wants to save Trump's presidency and his own job."

Fauci is 79 years old/young (he'll turn 80 on Christmas Eve).

he has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump. he graduated 1st in his class at Cornell Medical School in 1966 and has an impeccable reputation.

two weeks ago, the New York Times called him "the nation's leading expert on infectious diseases."

and you think he needs to "save his own job" by kowtowing to Trump?

ack, delusions like this are why I will hate being Cassandra come November.

Well then I guess I don't know why Fauci is giving these projections. But I still think they're incredibly unrealistic. Hopefully, he's right and I, along w many other, are wrong.

[Sour Masher]

It is worth pointing out again, cuz I've posted so many words and it might have gotten lost--even if we do see an earlier peak than previously thought, and the death toll from this first wave is better than we thought, we can't feel great at that point. Most of the models predicting more deaths than Fauci did do so on the basis of a second wave occurring in the Fall, with a whole new round of illness and deaths. The projected chance of a second wave of this hitting us is 73%. Here is one article that shows the ranges of predictions, with an average prediction of 193k dead in the US, with some models as high as 2.2 million dead, and the likelihood that we won't come close to knowing the real death toll for a long time: https://www.businessinsider.com/coro...tancing-2020-3

As I've said before, I don't think the US will have the fortitude to lock down again for the next wave, which may make it worse.

[rhd]

I'm seeing the same things, but holding out hope that the numbers are skewed by limited testing and death rates of confirmed cases being too high, because most testing is being done on the sick and elderly. The younger, healthier people are being told to not be tested, to stay away from hospitals, in fact, so medical workers can focus on saving the worst cases. That skews things a great deal. That is what I am choosing to believe for now, at least.

The following evidence is anecdotal but in Maryland at least, most cases are in the 30-59 age range w the highest #'s in the 40-49 and 50-59 categories. Also, a lot in the 20-29 category. The age distribution looks very much like a Gaussian curve w very few cases < 20 y/o, a somewhat larger # of cases over 60 y/o and the majority (55%) in the 30-59 categories. That's cases, not cases per capita in the age category so the #'s for the older age groups are held down by the fact that there are fewer older people. But the often stated assertion that the disease affects mostly older people I'm not buying so much. So this being a really significant factor I think may be overestimated. I think this idea is another reason why this crisis is so bad, that younger people are not taking it seriously enough.

BTW, there are slightly more female cases than male cases (634 to 605) so the assertion that males are susceptible doesn't hold up either, at least in Maryland.

[rhd]

Also, rhd, where are you seeing that it takes two weeks or more "for many if not most people" to die of COVID-19? My understanding is that the vast majority of deaths come within the two weeks window.

Sorry, you're right. It seems that many if not most seem to recover or not w/i 7-10 days. But I think my point still was valid. Most current cases have come w/i the last 7-10 days so those of these that die are not yet included in the death rate.

[fuhrdog]

Those who continue to defend this man and fail to see what a narcissistic, self-serving sociopath he is--I have no words for them.

Thankfully he doesn't live here.

[Kevin Seitzer]

The following evidence is anecdotal but in Maryland at least, most cases are in the 30-59 age range w the highest #'s in the 40-49 and 50-59 categories. Also, a lot in the 20-29 category. The age distribution looks very much like a Gaussian curve w very few cases < 20 y/o, a somewhat larger # of cases over 60 y/o and the majority (55%) in the 30-59 categories. That's cases, not cases per capita in the age category so the #'s for the older age groups are held down by the fact that there are fewer older people. But the often stated assertion that the disease affects mostly older people I'm not buying so much. So this being a really significant factor I think may be overestimated. I think this idea is another reason why this crisis is so bad, that younger people are not taking it seriously enough.

BTW, there are slightly more female cases than male cases (634 to 605) so the assertion that males are susceptible doesn't hold up either, at least in Maryland.

My totals across 17 states that are reporting cases by sex is that females are about 53% of the cases. But males are about 60-65% of the deaths.

I've been wondering about the age distribution and thinking I should start tallying that.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Florida Dept of Health gives a detailed breakdown on cases in that state, and the age demographics seem to be representative of other areas of the country:

https://floridadisaster.org/globalassets/covid19/dailies/covid-19-data---daily-report-2020-03-30-1013.pdf

[rhd]

Florida Dept of Health gives a detailed breakdown on cases in that state, and the age demographics seem to be representative of other areas of the country:



https://floridadisaster.org/globalas...03-30-1013.pdf

Thanx for this. Very illustrative.

[Kevin Seitzer]