COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Mark Rippetoe]

That would mean it would kill about a million or so people worldwide this year. That’s close to the same number of people killed this year by tuberculosis. I’m not saying that isn’t bad, but when’s the last time you saw a news story about tuberculosis?

From: WHO (2019). World Malaria Report 2019. Switzerland: World Health Organization. pp. xii–xiii, 4–10. ISBN 978-92-4-156572-1:

In 2018 there were 228 million cases of malaria worldwide resulting in an estimated 405,000 deaths.[3] Yet we can't have any DDT.

[LimieJosh]

That would mean it would kill about a million or so people worldwide this year. That’s close to the same number of people killed this year by tuberculosis. I’m not saying that isn’t bad, but when’s the last time you saw a news story about tuberculosis?

Why would we see comparable stories about TB given in this country we have almost zero risk from it? The cases and deaths are almost exclusively in the undeveloped world, and while I was vaccinated against it 30 years ago I don't think we even routinely vaccinate against it anymore in the US. Despite a lot of Indians dying from it, Americans and most of the western world are at very little risk from it.

The issue with this virus are not about what the statistics show today, but what they will look like in 6 months if this reaches the same sort of population exposure as established pathogens like flu. If this gets worse it is likely to do so exponentially.

[tompaynter]

That would mean it would kill about a million or so people worldwide this year. That’s close to the same number of people killed this year by tuberculosis. I’m not saying that isn’t bad, but when’s the last time you saw a news story about tuberculosis?

Maybe this is why: "More than 95% of deaths occurred in developing countries, and more than 50% in India, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines." Tuberculosis - Wikipedia

Coronavirus seems to have quite a high death rate among people older than say 65, and people with underlying health conditions like diabetes. There are a LOT of people in those categories. I was at an event at my mom's church last weekend--mostly grey heads in the crowd--wondering of a lot of these folks were going to be dead in six months.

Also, something like 10% or more of coronavirus patients require intensive care--ventilators and so forth. And if they need it, they tend to need it for weeks. What happens when we run out of hospital beds? What happens when hospital staff are sick themselves? What happens to the death rate when people who need intensive care for coronavirus can't get it? What happens when people who need intensive care for other reasons can't get it because all the beds are full of coronoavirus patients?

The growth rate so far has been exponential. Panic isn't the answer, but there is reason for concern. It is encouraging that China seems to have slowed down the outbreak (if you trust their numbers), but they did so by drastically slowing their economy. Eventually people will have to go back to work.

I have seen claims that the modern history of epidemics is full of examples of the powers that be going out of their way to prevent panic--but few actual examples of harm due to panic, and many examples of harm due to failure to take aggressive preventative measures. For instance, in the 1918 flu outbreak some American cities continued to hold huge public events, and those cities had higher death rates. Panic isn't good but neither is complacency.

[jfsully]

The growth rate so far has been exponential. Panic isn't the answer, but there is reason for concern. It is encouraging that China seems to have slowed down the outbreak (if you trust their numbers), but they did so by drastically slowing their economy. Eventually people will have to go back to work.

I have seen claims that the modern history of epidemics is full of examples of the powers that be going out of their way to prevent panic--but few actual examples of harm due to panic, and many examples of harm due to failure to take aggressive preventative measures. For instance, in the 1918 flu outbreak some American cities continued to hold huge public events, and those cities had higher death rates. Panic isn't good but neither is complacency.

In my view, the downside to panic is the pressure put on healthcare resources by people who are simply worried and flood ERs, shortages of masks that healthcare workers need so they do not become vectors of disease but that do not help the public contain the spread. This is a problem for the reasons you mentioned.

There are alternatives to panic and complacency. One would be reasonable precaution: avoid unnecessary physical contact, wash your hands more often than you want to, stay home if you are sick or have sick contacts. If you or a family member are immunosuppressed or otherwise vulnerable, have a low threshold for medical evaluation. If not, leave your doctors office and local ED to the people who need it.

We’re all going to be exposed to this virus eventually, probably over a period of weeks to months if not sooner, unless you are a true hermit. Many people will get really sick, there will be deaths. My comparison with TB was not to minimize the impact of this thing, but to respond to the previous poster who felt that 0.05% fatality rate was “really really bad.” We don’t know what the true fatality rate will be worldwide or in the US yet, but 0.05% would be pretty darn good in the big picture.

We are all innately bad at judging relative risks, our brains are not wired to be purely reasonable about things like this. It is possible to overcome this tendency, however, and act rationally. I’m working at it, and am trying to encourage others who are doing the same. If you want to cope by panic or denial or in some other way, that’s cool. Different strokes, after all.

[Gerald Boggs]

shortages of masks that healthcare workers need

This detail has been overplayed by both the media and governments health officials. It wasn't until this Tuesday, that health workers were permitted to use the masks you commonly find at local stores. The N95 mask I use when steel grinding doesn't met the hygiene standards for health workers. Plus the supply chain is completely different.

[Yngvi]

As Elon Musk said: https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/...29449042198528

I question if these reasonable precautions are effective or just make people feel like they are doing something proactive.

In 1918 there were many highly aggressive panic responses and isolation attempts. Did any of them work?

[jfsully]

This detail has been overplayed by both the media and governments health officials. It wasn't until this Tuesday, that health workers were permitted to use the masks you commonly find at local stores. The N95 mask I use when steel grinding doesn't met the hygiene standards for health workers. Plus the supply chain is completely different.

As Elon Musk said: https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/...29449042198528

I question if these reasonable precautions are effective or just make people feel like they are doing something proactive.

In 1918 there were many highly aggressive panic responses and isolation attempts. Did any of them work?

Health care workers are permitted to wear any plain paper mask at any time AFAIK, and many hospitals require employees who do not get flu vaccine to wear one at all times during flu season. The fancier masks that require fit testing are required when working with patients on certain types of infection precautions. I agree that hospital mask shortage has not become an issue yet to my knowledge, and may be media hype.

The people outside of health care who should wear paper masks are people with febrile respiratory illness who should kindly wear the masks to keep their germs to themselves outside of their homes. Anyone who doesn’t have a mask yet will have a hard time finding one.

The bigger issue with panic, for me, is the crowding of EDs with the worried well. Other shortages or economic impacts are likely, but will probably not be tragic.

Yes, in the Spanish Flu epidemic some towns took severe isolation precautions, which did at times work. Look up Gunnison, CO for an example of this. Does “panic” work? I would say that panic, by definition, is excessive, but I suppose it can get results.

The good outcome here would be for the virus to move through our population slowly enough that we can care for the afflicted and save as many lives as possible. I’m not an epidemiologist or ID specialist, but I have not heard anyone so qualified suggest that we will avoid near universal infection sooner or later.

[tompaynter]

As Elon Musk said: https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/...29449042198528

I question if these reasonable precautions are effective or just make people feel like they are doing something proactive.

In 1918 there were many highly aggressive panic responses and isolation attempts. Did any of them work?

Steve Sailer has been posting about research on this.

"San Francisco, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Kansas City had the most effective interventions, reducing transmission rates by up to 30–50%.

Philadelphia had about twice the death rate of St. Louis. This is often blamed on a very popular war bond parade held in Philadelphia on September 28, 1918 for which 200,000 turned out. Within days, the hospitals were overflowing."

Severe social distancing cut 1918 death rate by 30%-50%, by Steve Sailer - The Unz Review

[Mark Rippetoe]

A lot of people are not going to like this, but I'm damned if I can argue with the man:

YouTube

[Mark E. Hurling]

Hmmm, Carlson sounds like he may be on to something. Let's look at US/PRC relations over the last few years.

* We enter into trade talks. Stalemates, tariffs, etc. ensue.
* Protests in Hong Kong against oppressive PRC rule break out. The US manages to achieve bipartisan consensus sending resolutions of support. Maybe some covert fomenting of it all.
* The PRC appears to fold on the trade agreement and all is resolved. At least so it seems.
* Shortly thereafter this virus breaks out,makes the news, and wreaks some volatility to US and worldwide financial markets setting loose the usual suspects to dog Trump. Again.

The PRC may be playing catch up with the US in general and Trump in particular.