Coronavirus (non-sports related)

[Fishhead]

1 hour ago, Nutriaitch said:

Today makes 2 weeks for Louisiana, which is the reported Incubation period. Meaning we are not yet seeing statistical results from said lockdown.
So the first 2.5 months we weren't on lockdown, why did it not explode into the millions like the flu does?

Louisiana had it's frost "confirmed" case less than 2 weeks after mardi gras.

It was another 2 weeks before a lockdown.
The flu flourished during this time (average of just under 5,000 case per week in Louisiana) because as you said we moved around freely.
So, during the 5 weeks between Mar 9 (1st case) and now, why aren't the COVID numbers astronomically higher than flu numbers for the same time frame?

COVID has no vaccine and is reportedly "more contagious" and "easier to transmit"
Flu has a vaccine and is reportedly less contagious.

So why during that 5 week period does the more contagious one with no vaccine not easily outpace the other?
 

Devil's advocate, lack of testing could be why. 

But like I said,  a GD tiger got it. We're all gonna be exposed. We should take measures to avoid it like washing hands, cleaning surfaces, e.t.c. 

But we gotta have people working. 

NOLA is how it is due to Mardi Gras. I don't think anyone can reasonably question that. 

NYC is how it is because it's the most populated city in the country, yet nowhere NEAR the largest geographically. It's a vertical city. People get to work via germ capsules called subways. Folks from all over the world travel to NYC carrying who knows what more than they do anywhere else. 

I live in TX. Bexar County, same county as San Antonio, although barely...I live in the country.  A high percentage of cases in Bexar County were literally brought to Bexar County from a cruise ship in February, already infected. A similar amount is in a single nursing home. A literal couple dozen cases in all of Bexar County are NOT from these two sources. Bexar County is home to the San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo which goes on for weeks in February... big concerts every single night plus thousands packed into the show arenas all day every day for weeks. 

A couple dozen people got the virus outside those two previously mentioned sources. Even though a very Mardi Gras esque event happened right when this was starting up. Not before, but right when it was becoming known. Mid-February and after. A couple dozen people in a large city. 

So why?

Perhaps because these thousands and thousands at the stock show and rodeo aren't from overseas like many at Mardi Gras. I don't know why. 

But what I do know is in my zip code, there's not a single reported case. Yet the whole friggin county is on lockdown. 

How about this. 

Take REASONABLE measures. A city like NYC obviously is going to be affected more than most places. But that doesn't mean shut the damn country down.  Sure, limit international travel, particularly for leisure. Hold off cruise lines (talk about germ capsules!!). But we MUST have some capability to earn a living, and quite frankly, to live.  

I said early on in this topic, the truth is somewhere in the middle. So is the solution.  Yet here we are still in extreme panic mode because NYC,  NOLA,  and a couple other cities are in crisis mode. Can't keep going on like this. 

[LSUDad]

The star of the Virginian has passed. 
 

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/james-drury-dead-dies-the-virginian-1234572123/

[dachsie]

Nootch - another thing about this virus is that there are people who are asymptomatic who are spreading it.  But we don't know who they are because they are not being tested.  That's why the infection rate is higher.  There are still people with milder symptoms not being tested as well. Your numbers are going to be skewed with this one until everyone can be tested either with infection or for antibodies

[Nutriaitch]

18 minutes ago, dachsie said:

Your numbers are going to be skewed 

 

which has been my point since the beginning of this thread.

 

[Nutriaitch]

9 hours ago, Fishhead said:

But like I said,  a GD tiger got it. We're all gonna be exposed.

 

actually, the Tiger having it is normal and should be expected.
they've said from the beginning that they've known about this in Animals for YEARS. 

just that up until recently there had never been an Animal to Human transmission. 

my sister worked in a vets office for a few years like 15-20 years ago and it was known then. 
we just couldn't catch it from them.

[Nutriaitch]

21 minutes ago, dachsie said:

Nootch - another thing about this virus is that there are people who are asymptomatic who are spreading it.  But we don't know who they are because they are not being tested.

not having this info throws off every other answer coming out of the models.

Without this, you can't calculate accurately:
infection rate
mortality rate
hospitalization rate
recovery rate

so any of the above are guesses right now at absolute best.

And my argument from the beginning has been that the numbers don't add up.
It's always been about the numbers.

The numbers being reported and screamed from tops of buildings are all skewed due to incomplete data.

 

[houtiger]

12 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

Today makes 2 weeks for Louisiana, which is the reported Incubation period. Meaning we are not yet seeing statistical results from said lockdown.
So the first 2.5 months we weren't on lockdown, why did it not explode into the millions like the flu does?

Louisiana had it's frost "confirmed" case less than 2 weeks after mardi gras.

It was another 2 weeks before a lockdown.
The flu flourished during this time (average of just under 5,000 case per week in Louisiana) because as you said we moved around freely.
So, during the 5 weeks between Mar 9 (1st case) and now, why aren't the COVID numbers astronomically higher than flu numbers for the same time frame?

COVID has no vaccine and is reportedly "more contagious" and "easier to transmit"
Flu has a vaccine and is reportedly less contagious.

So why during that 5 week period does the more contagious one with no vaccine not easily outpace the other?
 

Go to the link below.  Corona virus incubation period is 2 - 14 days, flu is 1 - 4 days, so from the same start date, wait a few weeks, and the infection rate will be different.

What makes corona virus so bad is that people who show no symptoms can be passing the infection.  With flu, symptoms appear quicker and people feel so bad they begin to isolate themselves out of necessity, i.e. they feel like hell.

 https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-vs-flu#differences

 

[houtiger]

13 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

Today makes 2 weeks for Louisiana, which is the reported Incubation period. Meaning we are not yet seeing statistical results from said lockdown.
So the first 2.5 months we weren't on lockdown, why did it not explode into the millions like the flu does?

We are counting confirmed cases of corona virus, so count confirmed cases of the flu.

This is from CDC:

That is about 250,000 confirmed cases nationally for since Jan. 1, 2020, NOT MILLIONS.  You are just making stuff up and comparing apples to oranges.

Flu tests are available in your doctors office to anyone who goes to the doctor.  Corona virus tests have been woefully inadequate and unavailable to many people that needed them.  The doctor had to make the diagnosis from the symptoms only.

Edited April 7, 2020 by houtiger

[Nutriaitch]

4 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Go to the link below.  Corona virus incubation period is 2 - 14 days, flu is 1 - 4 days, so from the same start date, wait a few weeks, and the infection rate will be different.

What makes corona virus so bad is that people who show no symptoms can be passing the infection.  With flu, symptoms appear quicker and people feel so bad they begin to isolate themselves out of necessity, i.e. they feel like hell.

 https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-vs-flu#differences

 

the below is from your link. 
The wording of this is why I question things.  This is a classic example of cherry picking data

Quote

COVID-19. An estimated 20 percentTrusted Source of confirmed cases of COVID-19 are severe or critical. 

"confirmed cases". we do not know how many people have (or had and recovered). So this percentage is simply not accurate.  It is not mathematically possible to give a percentage without having all info.  Which we simply do not have at this point.

Also, what is the date of this article?

Because according to the current numbers (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)

There are currently 993,960 active cases in the world, 47,618 of those listed as Severe or Critical.
That is 4.7%.

Total cases ever is 1,364,241.  Even if you add up all currently serious or critical and deaths combined is 124,056.
That is 9%.

In just the US, there are currently 337,923 active cases with 8,983 listed as severe or critical.
That is 2.6%.

Total reported cases ever in US is 368,737 with Critical/Severe plus Deaths combined for 19,983.
That is 5.4%.

 

Quote

 

Flu. An uncomplicated case of the flu typically resolves in about 3 to 7 daysTrusted Source. In some people, cough and fatigue may linger for 2 weeks or longer. 

 

"uncomplicated cases" why only give those?  why not give the "uncomplicated case" info for Corona as well?

And again percentages are skewed because we use estimated number of flu cases.  The flu has been around long enough that we can semi-accurately estimate how many people get the flu, self medicate, and recover without ever stepping foot in the Dr's office. 

As of now, we have zero clue how many people meet that description for coronavirus. And we don't have enough info to accurately guess either.
Without that number, any percentage is simply not going to be accurate.

Is that number in the thousands? ten thousands? hundred thousands? millions?
we have no freaking clue right now.  And that answer can drastically change the percentages.

just using round numbers:

actual (rounded up for ease of math) 340,000 active cases ; 9,000 sever = 2.6%

Estimated with 10,000 cases of never see Dr., self Medicate, recover, etc:
350,000 cases ; 9,000 severe = 2.5%

Estimated 50,000
390,000 cases ; 9000 severe = 2.3%

Estimated 110,000
450,000 ; 9,000 = 2%

Estimated 500,000
650,000 ; 9,000 = 1.3%

Estimated 1.1 million
1,350,000 ; 9,000 = 0.6%

Estimated 4 million people (Flu is estimated around 7 mil active per month)
5,000,000 ; 9,000 = 0.1%

 

So you see how wildly different this looks with missing info?

And as of this morning, we have no freaking idea which number is closer to the truth.
 

 

 

 

[houtiger]

10 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

the below is from your link. 
The wording of this is why I question things.  This is a classic example of cherry picking data

"confirmed cases". we do not know how many people have (or had and recovered). So this percentage is simply not accurate.  It is not mathematically possible to give a percentage without having all info.  Which we simply do not have at this point.

Also, what is the date of this article?

Because according to the current numbers (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)

There are currently 993,960 active cases in the world, 47,618 of those listed as Severe or Critical.
That is 4.7%.

Total cases ever is 1,364,241.  Even if you add up all currently serious or critical and deaths combined is 124,056.
That is 9%.

It is possible that the WHO has a different definition of severe and critical that the US uses.  I don't know.

The point of my post that you are attempting to discredit above was that the incubation period of corona is up to 2 - 14 days, while for flu it is 1 -4 days, and there is no disputing that.

Then you threw out the number of millions of flu cases and above I showed CDC nationally only confired 250,000 since Jan. 1, compared to over 300,000 corona, despite the fact that an adequate test did not exist is anywhere resembling adequate numbers through most of the infection, so confirmed cases could not be reported.  Your off the cuff number is wrong (millions).

[Nutriaitch]

4 minutes ago, houtiger said:

We are counting confirmed cases of corona virus, so count confirmed cases of the flu.

This is from CDC:

That is about 250,000 confirmed cases nationally for since Jan. 1, 2020, NOT MILLIONS.  You are just making stuff up and comparing apples to oranges.

This is also from the CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

 

Quote

CDC estimates that so far this season there have been at least 39 million flu illnesses, 400,000 hospitalizations and 24,000 deaths from flu.

Season is typically listed as beginning in October.

39 million / 6 months (so far) = 6.5 million per month

400,000 / 6months = 66,666 hospitalizations per month

24,000 / 6 months = 4,000 deaths per month

the phrase "at least" insinuates the true numbers are probably actually higher.

is the CDC just making stuff up too?

We base our flu info off that 39 million number, not your 250,000 number.

 

 

 

 

 

[houtiger]

1 minute ago, Nutriaitch said:

This is also from the CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

Season is typically listed as beginning in October.

39 million / 6 months (so far) = 6.5 million per month

400,000 / 6months = 66,666 hospitalizations per month

24,000 / 6 months = 4,000 deaths per month

the phrase "at least" insinuates the true numbers are probably actually higher.

is the CDC just making stuff up too?

We base our flu info off that 39 million number, not your 250,000 number.

I thought you were opposed to estimates.  And as I say, over and over, the flu numbers come out of a free society moving about, and go back to last Sept. when corona did not exist anywhere.  The first corona virus case in the US was reported in Washington state on Jan. 19, only 2.5 months ago.  It has barely had a chance to get going, but it is reported in all 50 states, with hot spots in NYC, south Florida, New Orleans area, Michigan, California.

Confirmed cases in the US since Jan 1, flu is about 250K, corona is about 370K with inadequate testing for the first two months of the outbreak.  And the incubation period for corona on average is at least 3 times longer than the flu, average 2-3 days versus 11 days for corona.  Corona started later, it incubates much longer, testing has been totally inadequate, and yet on confirmed cases it has passed the flu since Jan. 1.  All the doctors say it is more contagious, and when I look at comparable confirmed case data from CDC, that is what I see.

[Nutriaitch]

51 minutes ago, houtiger said:

It is possible that the WHO has a different definition of severe and critical that the US uses.  I don't know.

I've tried navigating WHO website, but haven't found any info outside Total Cases and Total deaths.

It may be on there somewhere, I just haven't found it.

Quote

The point of my post that you are attempting to discredit above was that the incubation period of corona is up to 2 - 14 days, while for flu it is 1 -4 days, and there is no disputing that.

I'm asking questions, not disputing or trying to discredit. 
And I have not even attempted to dispute the incubation period. 

 

Quote

Then you threw out the number of millions of flu cases and above I showed CDC nationally only confired 250,000 since Jan. 1, compared to over 300,000 corona, despite the fact that an adequate test did not exist is anywhere resembling adequate numbers through most of the infection, so confirmed cases could not be reported.

If we're only using "confirmed", then lets do that

242,000 confirmed flu since 2019 week 40
6,637 confirmed Flu deaths since 2019 week 40

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/#S6 (you'll have to follow the charts and click links that will download an excel spread sheet for you)

Death rate 0f 2.7%

HOLY fornicate!!!!! 

of course we know that number is artificially high. Because we can accurately estimate true numbers.

As i showed Above, the number of cases is up around 39 million, and deaths is up around 24,000

which is a death rate around 0.06%

This thing's confirmed death rate in US (377,317 / 11,773) is 3.1%.
A number that will absolutely plummet once we get more data. Data we already have for the flu. 

 

 

Quote

Your off the cuff number is wrong (millions).

my number is from the CDC.

I provided the link already.

[Fishhead]

Anyone using the lying W.H.O. as a source of credible info needs to realize this. 

A couple weeks ago, these idiots came out saying masks are useless for people without symptoms, and in fact could be more harmful.

Now they're saying everyone should wear masks in public.  They're clueless. I'd call em a joke but they're too dangerous for that. They've been in lock step with whatever China has said all along and if you think China hasn't been lying the whole time, you're nuts.

[Nutriaitch]

1 minute ago, houtiger said:

I thought you were opposed to estimates. 

I'm opposed to estimates with missing data.

As i've said quite a few multiple times, we have enough info on the flu to make accurate estimates. Info that was acquired over year and years and years of data input.
We currently do not have anywhere near enough info on this to make anything remotely resembling accurate estimates or guesses.

My stance has always been that we lack data for the numbers being released to mean what we are told they mean.
That's why the models and projected estimates keep swinging so wildly.
We are still so early in the game that even a little extra data shows off EVERYTHING.

We simply do not know enough, yet are making decisions based on these numbers being gospel.

 

[Nutriaitch]

13 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Confirmed cases in the US since Jan 1, flu is about 250K, corona is about 370K with inadequate testing for the first two months of the outbreak.  

we have tested 1,955,040 people for this with 377,317 positive cases. Roughly 19% positive.

according to YOUR CHART, we have tested 1,208,294 for the flu with 242,330 positive cases Roughly 20% positive.

3/4 of a million fewer flu tests.
Again, simple logic states if you test an extra 750,000 people you'll probably find more cases.

 

[houtiger]

7 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

We simply do not know enough, yet are making decisions based on these numbers being gospel.

No.  We are not making decisions based on these numbers being gospel.  We are making decisions based on the best data that we have, full well understanding that we have very little experience with this new disease, and that most of the data we have came from China and nobody knows how good or bad that data is, but we suspect strongly that their data is not complete nor accurate.  We are doing that because it is the best we have.  As we can compile data in the US, as testing becomes more widely available, and as mortality data becomes available, we will eventually be able to improve the models.  I believe the doctors are doing the best they can while acknowledging the fact that they are using compromised data.  I heard Dr. Fauci discuss the mortality rate, 3.5% from WHO, 2% from Italy, and he said he personally believes the mortality rate is 1%, but he is looking at several datasets, and I think he understands where there are different criteria and factors all of that into his best guess.  And that is the best we can do right now.

[houtiger]

2 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

we have tested 1,955,040 people for this with 377,317 positive cases. Roughly 19% positive.

according to YOUR CHART, we have tested 1,208,294 for the flu with 242,330 positive cases Roughly 20% positive.

3/4 of a million fewer flu tests.
Again, simple logic states if you test an extra 750,000 people you'll probably find more cases.

Tests for corona have not been widely available, so we cannot compare flu confirmed cases with corona confirmed cases.  But is is logical to conclude that with the deficiency of corona testing, if more tests had been conducted, we would have found more confirmed cases of corona.

[Nutriaitch]

8 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Tests for corona have not been widely available, so we cannot compare flu confirmed cases with corona confirmed cases. 

true or false, we have tested MORE people for Coronavirus than Flu?

746,000 more tests actually.

So you're right, we're testing such a disproportionately higher amount of people for Corona (with roughly the same positive % as when we test for flu) that we cannot compare.

 

Quote

But is is logical to conclude that with the deficiency of corona testing, if more tests had been conducted, we would have found more confirmed cases of corona.

oh, I'm sorry, but when I did that (based off CDC estimated numbers) for the Flu, I was shot down with the actual number and told i was "making stuff up".

 

[houtiger]

38 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

oh, I'm sorry, but when I did that (based off CDC estimated numbers) for the Flu, I was shot down with the actual number and told i was "making stuff up".

You used estimated NUMBERS, I did NOT use estimated numbers. 

I said it was a logical conclusion that if more people had been tested that there would be more confirmed cases of corona virus than we show today.  It is a fact that corona virus is circulating in the US and it is a fact that testing capability has been lacking ever since the outbreak started in the US.

Please state your argument to support the opposite conclusion, if you conclude that if more testing had been done, no more cases of corona virus would have been found.

[Nutriaitch]

12 minutes ago, houtiger said:

You used estimated NUMBERS, I did NOT use estimated numbers. 

I used numbers that are provided by the CDC. 
You said I made them up.

 

 

12 minutes ago, houtiger said:

I said it was a logical conclusion that if more people had been tested that there would be more confirmed cases of corona virus than we show today.  It is a fact that corona virus is circulating in the US and it is a fact that testing capability has been lacking ever since the outbreak started in the US.

I said it is also a logical conclusion that if we tested more for the flu, we would have more confirmed cases of it.
And i showed you using actual numbers from the CDC that we have tested more people for CoronaVirus in the last 2.5-3 months than we have people for the Flu since October of 2019.

In fact the CDC does exactly that every single year. They come to that logical conclusion using data gathered over many many years.

My contention is (and has been), that we currently do not have anywhere remotely close to enough information to do the same thing with CoronaVirus.
So literally any guesses or extrapolation out going forward will be in accurate and skewed due to lack of data.
Any percentages being spouted right now are also inaccurate, because there is not enough info to get accurate numbers.

It is mathematically impossible to calculate a mortality rate without knowing accurate TOTAL numbers.
It is mathematically impossible to calculate a hospitalization rate without knowing accurate TOTAL numbers.

yet people spout these numbers (including the article you linked earlier and their 20% number) as if they are mathematically accurate, when they simply aren't and can't be.

 

12 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Please state your argument to support the opposite conclusion, if you conclude that if more testing had been done, no more cases of corona virus would have been found.

WTF?
when I have I ever even insinuated this?

no shyte if we test more, we'll find more.

what I did say is that the percentages will drop. 
Because right now we aren't testing the asymptomatic, or the less severe case where people are not going to the Doctor.

we have (according to my link earlier) a total of around 9,000 severe cases in hospital.
If we had tested an extra million people, that 9,000 in hospital number would still be 9,000, because adding to the total quantity of asymptomatic people, or people not even in need of a doctor we test has no impact on this total number of hospitalizations, because those are already accounted for.

So what that DOES affect is percentages.

Right now, based on confirmed numbers, this thing has a death rate of 3.1% in the US.
Which is not ridiculously higher than the Flu's confirmed death rate of 2.7% in the US.

but because we have more than enough Flu data (thanks to many years of data collection) to accurately estimate a truer total case number, which in turn gives us a more reasonable hospitalization and death percentages.

until we get enough info to accurately estimate a total case number, we can not accurately estimate any percentages either.

how many total case do we really have in America?
500,000? 1 million? 10 million? 39 million? 100 million?

we have no fornicating clue.

and without that number, any rate (recovery, hospitalization, death, etc) is hopelessly flawed and skewed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fishhead]

Nootch and his damn factual statistical analysis will get you every time

 

[houtiger]

Nootch, all your wailing about the lack of enough data is well understood by all involved. 

Now, what national policy would you set if you were president, with all of your top epidemiologists telling you that without a vaccine or an effective treatment, your only option is social distancing and lock down your population?  Most nations that have dealt with it have done the same thing, social distancing, lock down the population, higher per capita testing than the US.

In business, in war, sometimes you need a decision NOW and you don't have all the data you need.  You have to call the best shot you can call with the data you have, and the historical experience of the best experts available to complete the picture.  In this one, if you make the wrong choice, many more innocent people will die if you make the wrong choice.  Not too many choices have more lives riding on them.

So, would you really do anything different, and if so, what is it, and why would you do that?

I am satisfied that with the data we've got, and the analysis on the top experts advising the president, we're doing the best we can do with the lockdown.  We could have been better prepared, we could manage production and distribution of many things needed to fight this virus better than we are doing.

[Fishhead]

Not Nootch, but you take each area and handle it based on certain factors. 

NYC? Lock it tf down. It's inherently susceptible to fast spread. 

NOLA,  shut down the French Quarter and festivals have to wait. 

Schools in other areas not as susceptible Change the schedule and eliminate electives.  M,W,F group and Tu, Th, Sat group.  1/2 the number of kids in the same sized area. 

Obviously that's one example but step outside the box a bit and address each location based on the situation THERE instead of shutting down everywhere because it's bad in a couple places. 

Or we can just have 17 million unemployed and climbing, watch the decay of civilized society with suicide, domestic, and child abuse run rampant, and continue tanking the economy until we make the 30s look prosperous. 

[Nutriaitch]

Hou, 

for starters,  my lockdowns would be a lot more isolated vs wide spread country wide. 

we have the advantage of having a wide spread out country with a very diverse landscape.

How to isolate/lockdown an area with the population density of New York metro will be considerably different that of even upstate new york which is much more spread out and rural. 

The parades all happened prior to us knowing severity, so we can’t use hindsight on those. 

HOWEVER we do now know that area was basically a petri dish begging to be overflowing with it. Large numbers of people from around the globe squeezed together in a small area.   So NOLA gets a lockdown too.   But rural Sabine parish doesn’t get the same treatment, because they are so drastically different situations.

etc.  

I would not have based US projections on what happened in Italy (like was being screamed ad nauseam by the media) because again we are not very similar to each other. 
Italy is much more densely populated (532 per sq mi) than we are (90 people per sq mi).