Corona Virus

[Sour Masher]

The case rate, as in the number of positive tests recorded by the NY Department of Health, divided by the population of the state.

Well, yeah, but the preliminary, and perhaps not random, antibody testing is suggesting that actual infection rate may be 10x the reported case rate. I see that as good news.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Well, yeah, but the preliminary, and perhaps not random, antibody testing is suggesting that actual infection rate may be 10x the reported case rate. I see that as good news.

Right. I think we're saying the same thing here. I was providing the denominator for the comparison.

[Sour Masher]

Right. I think we're saying the same thing here. I was providing the denominator for the comparison.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, still well short of herd immunity, but suggestive of a worst case scenario death count being less than some fear based on current mortality rate percentages of reported cases.

[Ken]

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, still well short of herd immunity, but suggestive of a worst case scenario death count being less than some fear based on current mortality rate percentages of reported cases.

Side note -- Is this unreported count a new thing? Do we count unreported flu cases in the flu mortality rate, for example?

[rhd]

What we apparently dont know is what level of antibodies are sufficient to provide high protection against getting reinfected severely enough to require special medical care. I've heard of many people that were "cured", then got reinfected. What % of people fall into this category, I have no idea. If people get infected but not severely enough that they even realize it, do they have a sufficiently high enough level of antibodies to provide significant immunity? I would suspect not. So, I'm not sure how beneficial this news is, if any. Please enlighten me on this if you can.

[Kevin Seitzer]

What we apparently dont know is what level of antibodies are sufficient to provide high protection against getting reinfected severely enough to require special medical care. I've heard of many people that were "cured", then got reinfected. What % of people fall into this category, I have no idea. If people get infected but not severely enough that they even realize it, do they have a sufficiently high enough level of antibodies to provide significant immunity? I would suspect not. So, I'm not sure how beneficial this news is, if any. Please enlighten me on this if you can.

My understanding, which I think is about as anecdotal as yours, is that most of the people who get reinfected do not have serious medical consequences during the second infection.

[Sour Masher]

Side note -- Is this unreported count a new thing? Do we count unreported flu cases in the flu mortality rate, for example?

I assume that almost all flu cases that are fatal get reported as fatal. I don't know how we come up with the estimates on flu infections, but I know it isn't based on verified testing. There is no way there are 10s of millions of official tests for the flu. There has to be extrapolation going on for flu infections too.

But the point is that we know, pretty much how many people die of the flu. And we didn't know how many could die of COVID-19. Some feared we could lose millions, based on a mortality rate over 2%. If, through antibody testing, we know the number of people infected, we can reassess the worst case mortality rate. If it is really in the .5-1% range, that means far less deaths that if the number were over 2%, even if, as I fear will happen, we open back up early and we don't close again for the next spike.

ETA: My prediction, based on how antsy many Americans are, is that we will develop enough antivirals and get enough PPEs and the like that thee government justifies staying open and instituting "middle ground" initiatives for the next spike. But time will tell. I guess it depends on how bad it will be and how many people are dying.

[rhd]

Now that I've thought about this a little more, I think I'm beginning to understand. If the true # of infections is actually 10x higher than the # of reported cases (what the NY study suggests), this would mean that instead of having about 891,000 cases in the US now we'd actually have 8.91 mil. That would reduce the mortality rate from 5.65% to 0.565%. Still the exact same # of people will have died. Item #1 that's changed is that there are about 8 mil less people that can become infected now (assuming they dont get reinfected) because they already got infected . There are still about 322 mil more people in the US that could become infected but the more important item that's changed is that if the true mortality rate is 0.565% then even if everyone eventually gets infected only 1.82 mil more people would die, as opposed to this figure being 18.2 mil deaths if the mortality rate really is 5.65%. I dont really know at all, but I'm skeptical that more than 30% of the population becomes infected. So, based on this % of population getting infected, the number of additional US deaths would be about 546,000 for a total of about 596,000. This figure agrees w the "guesstimates" that I previously came up with.

Edit: Since the antibody study was just of NY state, the figure I should have used was the NY mortality rate, which currently is about 7.77%. This would give a real mortality rate of 0.777%, which would result in 750,000 more deaths for the US based on a 30% infection rate for a total of 800,000 deaths. Still w/I the range of my "guesstimate".

[Sour Masher]

Now that I've thought about this a little more, I think I'm beginning to understand. If the true # of infections is actually 10x higher than the # of reported cases (what the NY study suggests), this would mean that instead of having about 891,000 cases in the US now we'd actually have 8.91 mil. That would reduce the mortality rate from 5.65% to 0.565%. Still the exact same # of people will have died. Item #1 that's changed is that there are about 8 mil less people that can become infected now (assuming they dont get reinfected) because they already got infected . There are still about 322 mil more people in the US that could become infected but the more important item that's changed is that if the true mortality rate is 0.565% then even if everyone eventually gets infected only 1.82 mil more people would die, as opposed to this figure being 18.2 mil deaths if the mortality rate really is 5.65%. I dont really know at all, but I'm skeptical that more than 30% of the population becomes infected. So, based on this % of population getting infected, the number of additional US deaths would be about 546,000 for a total of about 596,000. This figure agrees w the "guesstimates" that I previously came up with.

Yeah, and this was also why my guesstimates from many weeks ago in response to CBB and others was also in the range of 500k, as I had longed assume a mortality rate of around 1%, based on early suggestions by experts, and in infection total of around 1/3 the population over the next year and a half. It is all still depressing, but getting more data that validates my long held belief of a mortality rate of 1% or less is better than the alternative. It still means, if we end up with close to 1/3 the population infected, which seems conservative based on how contagious this is, that we have only reached 1/10 of the death total in our country that we will end up with over the next couple of years. And it could be much worse in the developing world when this thing really starts to hit those countries there, although I'm hopeful the indications that sunlight kills this thing that many countries will be spared the worst of things this summer. That reprieve, if it happens, may keep the numbers down some for a blessed few months.

However, none of this takes into consideration deaths caused by other factors related to the pandemic. For instance, how many people had other symptoms they didn't go to a hospital for, because they feared getting COVID-19, or they feared a lack of service, or they didn't want to displace hospital workers who could be serving those with the virus? How many people will die related to supply chain issues for essential drugs? How many will die because of poverty related hardships because of the shut down? I hope the answer to all of these is a small number, but it won't be zero, and we may not even have a decent estimate on it for a long time.

[rhd]

There are several wildcards that will significantly determine how severe this pandemic turns out to be:

1) What will happen after we open back up?
I think there inevitably will be a 2nd wave but the question is how severe will it be. This will depend on whether people continue to practice social distancing, use protective/preventative facegear, limit their travel, particularly to crowded places and exercise effective hygiene, particularly handwashing.
2) What % of the population will become infected and how long will this take?
Hard to predict but as I've stated before, this pandemic seems very similar to the one in 1918 and in that one about 28% of the population got infected and it lasted about 2 years.
3) How much immunity do previously infected people have against reinfection and how long does the immunity last?
I have no idea and I dont think much of anyone has any good idea at this point either.
4) Are there different infection and/or mortality rates for different strains of the virus? (if I'm correct, there are 3 different strains now)
Again, I dont think much of anyone has any good idea at this point.
5) How soon will vaccine(s) become available and will we need a different vaccine for each strain?
People keep saying from 12-18 months in the US. I think the 1st vaccines undoubtedly will come from other countries that dont have as strict requirements as we do. I have no idea whether it is necessary to have a different vaccine for each of the 3 strains.
6) Will the virus mutate and will this make it more or less dangerous?
No one knows but it probably will mutate and usually mutations result in less dangerous viruses but in 1918 a more deadly mutation occurred which made the 2nd wave of infections from that virus much worse than the first.
7) How many cases and deaths have there been really been in totalitarian countries like China, Russia, Turkey and Iran?
If we ever find this out, it may not be until after the pandemic is over.

[Gregg]

Gov. J.B. Pritzker extends ‘modified’ Illinois stay-at-home order through May 30

Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced Thursday he will extend a statewide stay-at-home order through May 30, with modifications beginning May 1 that will require people to wear a mask or face covering in most public settings, allow certain businesses to reopen with distancing precautions and start a phased-reopening of outdoor recreation including state parks.

[revo]

Not the "game changer" Trump had hoped. I guess waiting for the doctors to give it a blessing is better than a desperate guy trying to look like a hero to get re-elected:

"Citing a “primary outcome” of death, researchers cut short a study testing anti-malaria drug chloroquine as a potential treatment for Covid-19 after some patients developed irregular heart beats and nearly two dozen died after taking doses daily.

Scientists say the findings, published Friday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, should prompt some degree of skepticism from the public toward enthusiastic claims and perhaps “serve to curb the exuberant use” of the drug, which has been touted by President Donald Trump as a potential “game changer” in the fight against the coronavirus."

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus-citing-a-primary-outcome-of-death-researchers-cut-chloroquine-study-short-over-safety-concerns.html

[Kevin Seitzer]

However, none of this takes into consideration deaths caused by other factors related to the pandemic. For instance, how many people had other symptoms they didn't go to a hospital for, because they feared getting COVID-19, or they feared a lack of service, or they didn't want to displace hospital workers who could be serving those with the virus? How many people will die related to supply chain issues for essential drugs? How many will die because of poverty related hardships because of the shut down? I hope the answer to all of these is a small number, but it won't be zero, and we may not even have a decent estimate on it for a long time.

The studies I've seen from the UK, Italy, and New York are that the total excess deaths (deaths above what would be normally expected at this time of year) are about twice what is being reported as official COVID-19 death totals. So, for example, if there are 1000 deaths being reported due to COVID-19, there are probably another 1000 deaths more than normal that are not officially being attributed to COVID-19, whether they come from undiagnosed COVID-19 cases, people who would have otherwise been saved by hospitals but couldn't be because the system is overwhelmed/distracted, etc.

There are presumably a lot of contributing factors to that overall death total, in both directions. Probably fewer car accidents due to the shutdowns, but maybe more suicides.

[Sour Masher]

Not the "game changer" Trump had hoped. I guess waiting for the doctors to give it a blessing is better than a desperate guy trying to look like a hero to get re-elected:

"Citing a “primary outcome” of death, researchers cut short a study testing anti-malaria drug chloroquine as a potential treatment for Covid-19 after some patients developed irregular heart beats and nearly two dozen died after taking doses daily.

Scientists say the findings, published Friday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, should prompt some degree of skepticism from the public toward enthusiastic claims and perhaps “serve to curb the exuberant use” of the drug, which has been touted by President Donald Trump as a potential “game changer” in the fight against the coronavirus."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/coro...-concerns.html

He has decided to double down on the irresponsible advice, moving from dangerous malaria drugs to floating the idea of injecting sunlight or a disinfectant into the body, prompting the makers of Lysol to release a statement telling consumers to NOT inject themselves with Lysol. This guy is 100% the dude in the brainstorming room who makes the most idiotic suggestion imaginable and all you have is awkward silence, because he also happens to be the boss: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...lungs-n1191216

Trump said, "So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

[DMT]

He has decided to double down on the irresponsible advice, moving from dangerous malaria drugs to floating the idea of injecting sunlight or a disinfectant into the body, prompting the makers of Lysol to release a statement telling consumers to NOT inject themselves with Lysol. This guy is 100% the dude in the brainstorming room who makes the most idiotic suggestion imaginable and all you have is awkward silence, because he also happens to be the boss: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...lungs-n1191216

Trump said, "So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

No silly, that was sarcasm!