Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[viper37]

Canada just banned foreigners, except Americans.

Seems pointless with that huge, gaping caveat. Hopefully they're doing temperature screening at the border. NY and Washington state are going to spill over into your backyard. They're going to be Italy level by the end of the month.

The city of Montreal and the Government of Quebec are now screening passengers at Pierre-Elliot Trudeau (Montreal).  That should be the Fed's job.  Sadly, the US does not allow foreigners to become President.  But maybe we could find some State where we could ship that moron.

[Iormlund]

This is a comms failure by the government because I wouldn't be explaining it if they'd done their job on communications - I hope that's correcting now - but it's really annoying.

I'd say communication is the one thing that the UK is doing rather well. But then again that's compared to the likes of Sánchez (who's way out of his depth) or Trump (yikes).

[Admiral Yi]

First case of community transmission reported in Johnson Cty

[Caliga]

The 1918 influenza was notable for it killing healthy young people more than old people.

You're right, I had forgotten about that.

[viper37]

The lethality rate you project is too high. Evidence is more like under 1%. But aside from that, I don't think you can say this has a sunny ending with a lower end total infection rate.

Evidence is 3% globally, from WHO:
https://ca.style.yahoo.com/coronavirus-covid19-death-rate-who-121730573.html

As of Sunday night, Italy has had 24 747 cases and 1809 deaths.  That makes it 7,3%.

Suppose all the measures we have adopted do lower the infection rate to 20-30%. We then declare victory and go back to live our lives. The problem is the disease isn't going to disappear. If normal activity would result in a 70% infection rate, we will go back there in another outbreak. Either we live like this forever (extremely hard pass) or we hit whatever the total infection rate would normally be before the community immunity stops further spread.

As someone explained to you, the idea is to spread the infection rate over time, so our health care systems can cope with it.  There is a fixed number of available units at any time.  this isn't like tax time when accountants can do overtime and temp resources are hired to help.  Fixed, like straight line, y=m(x)+b and m=0, meaning y=b.  Of course, by adopting some measures, we can potentially raise the bar a little.  Instead y=b, we'll have, maybe y=b+c where c is the number of units we have converted.  Again, it ain't double or tripple.  Just a few more.

The alternative is that we lock down until there is a more effective treatment or vaccine, but I don't think we can wait that long.

No, it is not the alternative.  By spreading it over time your fixed resources can be used more efficiently.  If we go back to my original model of 70 infected and 14 requiring intensive care for a week, do you see a difference between needing 14 units at the same time and needing 14 units over 20 weeks?

There aren't enough ICU beds or health care professionals for what most projections indicate. I know that politicians will have a tough time admitting that - they just want to make the statements that sound good, and initiate ineffective but popular measures like random travel bans that exclude allied countries or key trading partners. But we should be willing to see things for what they are.

So, your solution is to let people die because you know you can not help everyone?  If we were to refer to the Titanic, give that we know there is not enough safety boats for everyone, your solution would be to prevent anyone from using any safety boat rather than see some people escaping a near certain death?  How... leftist of you.

[alfred russel]

Evidence is 3% globally, from WHO:
https://ca.style.yahoo.com/coronavirus-covid19-death-rate-who-121730573.html

As of Sunday night, Italy has had 24 747 cases and 1809 deaths.  That makes it 7,3%.

It definitely doesn't. It means Italy measured 1809 deaths and 24747 cases. Since a lot of people are completely symptom free--maybe even more than half--and Italy has had limited testing focused on sick people, the case number is likely significantly understated.

What is true in Italy is also true globally, though to a lesser extent.

Korea had the most extensive testing regime and look at their results.

[Sheilbh]

This is a comms failure by the government because I wouldn't be explaining it if they'd done their job on communications - I hope that's correcting now - but it's really annoying.

I'd say communication is the one thing that the UK is doing rather well. But then again that's compared to the likes of Sánchez (who's way out of his depth) or Trump (yikes).

I think it's relied too much on old-fashioned political journalism when it actually needs far more transparency. So someone does a briefing and explaining the thinking, which is a "Number 10 source" - I think it encourages some of the conspiracy stuff and tea-leaf reading, especially because not all journalists are getting the same information. And there's no real time public explanation of why things have changed - what's new. But it also encourages the perception that the government hasn't got a grip - regardless of reality.

That's starting to shift now there'll be a daily press conference with PM or senior minister plus scientists.

I think the comms will help because my view is the government's never had a plan of a set action that logically follow each other. I think it's more of a strategy so a framework of actions which might be taken at different times - and the science guys were emphasising in the right combination. I think the comms failure hasn't given that message across and is partly to blame for things being called a "u turn" and understood like typical government policy, I don't think it is.

I mentioned this in relation to Italy, but the EU should be doing more - especially as a "geopolitical" Commission: Serbian President: "The only country that can help us is China [...] By now, you all understood that European solidarity does not exist. That was a fairy tale on paper. I believe in my brother and friend Xi Jinping, and I believe in Chinese help."

[viper37]

Situation in Quebec:
50 cases, up from 34 yesterday.  No deaths as of yet, no one recovered yet either.  3000 more tests awaiting results, the government asked us to prepare for a spike in numbers in the coming days.

No more new measures enacted, but the Premier has asked everyone who can to donate blood to replenish the reserves.  I haven't heard everything, but apparently, there are now more test points, and we will get results faster than the usual 48hrs.

The Premier said new measures should be announced later today, with regards to increase support for healthcare workers who will have (and are already making) to do a lot of sacrifices over the coming weeks, as well as for individuals and businesses affected by the covid-19.  Finance minister was scheduled to hold a press conference this afternoon at 16:00 zulu time.  Haven't had time to read the reports yet, but it will be first aimed at workers in self isolation who are unable to get federal unemployment insurance.

On the home front, I have had to appointments cancelled today, one is in self isolation with no symptoms (sketchy on the details, but possible contacts with infected), the other has a respiratory infection but no fever and has chosen to stay isolated by preventive measure, unless there is a very real emergency.

One of my good friend living in Montreal (south shore) wants to come over here to flee the virus.  His boss is extremely sick and she has been tested for the virus, but still awaiting results.  He is a lab technician in a huge engineering faculty, in contacts with lots of travelling students.  One of his friend and co-worker has been put under mandatory self isolation and must work from home, no symptoms, but possible contact with someone affected.  On the one hand, I'm happy to see him here, or the other hand, he&his daughters have cold-like symptoms...  I've seen reports that it begins like a common cold, gets better, than you're hit by a truck...  We'll see.

[alfred russel]

As someone explained to you, the idea is to spread the infection rate over time, so our health care systems can cope with it.  There is a fixed number of available units at any time.  this isn't like tax time when accountants can do overtime and temp resources are hired to help.  Fixed, like straight line, y=m(x)+b and m=0, meaning y=b.  Of course, by adopting some measures, we can potentially raise the bar a little.  Instead y=b, we'll have, maybe y=b+c where c is the number of units we have converted.  Again, it ain't double or tripple.  Just a few more.

Lets use real numbers. The US has a bit under 115,000 ICU beds. Lets assume we hit 70% infection rates, and to use your numbers 20% require ICU beds. That means that we need 46.2 million ICU beds. Lets say each of those ICU beds can turn over a patient a week. That means - if we completely clear the ICU of all other patients--in a year's time we can treat just under 6 million covid - 19 patients in the US in the ICU.

The reality is that the ICU beds are significantly taken already--there isn't nearly that excess capacity--but even if there was, you can spread this out all you want and there just isn't the capacity.

Yes you can care for a marginally few more people if it is spread over a few months versus a year, but there are significant other costs (some of which will even result in more covid 19 deaths, for example, you could more easily isolate the elderly for a short time versus a year).

[viper37]

Evidence is 3% globally, from WHO:
https://ca.style.yahoo.com/coronavirus-covid19-death-rate-who-121730573.html

As of Sunday night, Italy has had 24 747 cases and 1809 deaths.  That makes it 7,3%.

It definitely doesn't. It means Italy measured 1809 deaths and 24747 cases. Since a lot of people are completely symptom free--maybe even more than half--and Italy has had limited testing focused on sick people, the case number is likely significantly understated.

We've already had this debunked by the WHO study of all Wuhan cases.  It's up there somewhere in this thread.  Only a tiny minority of people experiencing mild symptoms did have the virus, something like 0,1% of the samples tested (about 1000, I think).  It's not definite proof, but it's an indication that, since symptoms are similar, people in an area with the coronavirus can still experience the seasonal flu and the symptoms could be confused in the absence of valid tests.

[viper37]

As someone explained to you, the idea is to spread the infection rate over time, so our health care systems can cope with it.  There is a fixed number of available units at any time.  this isn't like tax time when accountants can do overtime and temp resources are hired to help.  Fixed, like straight line, y=m(x)+b and m=0, meaning y=b.  Of course, by adopting some measures, we can potentially raise the bar a little.  Instead y=b, we'll have, maybe y=b+c where c is the number of units we have converted.  Again, it ain't double or tripple.  Just a few more.

Lets use real numbers. The US has a bit under 115,000 ICU beds. Lets assume we hit 70% infection rates, and to use your numbers 20% require ICU beds. That means that we need 46.2 million ICU beds. Lets say each of those ICU beds can turn over a patient a week. That means - if we completely clear the ICU of all other patients--in a year's time we can treat just under 6 million covid - 19 patients in the US in the ICU.

The reality is that the ICU beds are significantly taken already--there isn't nearly that excess capacity--but even if there was, you can spread this out all you want and there just isn't the capacity.

Yes you can care for a marginally few more people if it is spread over a few months versus a year, but there are significant other costs (some of which will even result in more covid 19 deaths, for example, you could more easily isolate the elderly for a short time versus a year).

Like I said, unboard the Titanic, you would have shot everyone who tried to get in a safety boat, since there was not enough for everyone, everyone should be doomed.

[viper37]

As someone explained to you, the idea is to spread the infection rate over time, so our health care systems can cope with it.  There is a fixed number of available units at any time.  this isn't like tax time when accountants can do overtime and temp resources are hired to help.  Fixed, like straight line, y=m(x)+b and m=0, meaning y=b.  Of course, by adopting some measures, we can potentially raise the bar a little.  Instead y=b, we'll have, maybe y=b+c where c is the number of units we have converted.  Again, it ain't double or tripple.  Just a few more.

Lets use real numbers. The US has a bit under 115,000 ICU beds. Lets assume we hit 70% infection rates, and to use your numbers 20% require ICU beds. That means that we need 46.2 million ICU beds. Lets say each of those ICU beds can turn over a patient a week. That means - if we completely clear the ICU of all other patients--in a year's time we can treat just under 6 million covid - 19 patients in the US in the ICU.

The reality is that the ICU beds are significantly taken already--there isn't nearly that excess capacity--but even if there was, you can spread this out all you want and there just isn't the capacity.

Yes you can care for a marginally few more people if it is spread over a few months versus a year, but there are significant other costs (some of which will even result in more covid 19 deaths, for example, you could more easily isolate the elderly for a short time versus a year).

Since so far, Canada (due to the excellent work of most provinces) has had a lower infection rate and a lower lethality rate than the US (we got the virus at about the same time, but acted differently), I believe our way to be superior.  Either that, or our public, single-payer healthcare system is vastly superior to the US one.  Pick one.

[alfred russel]

As someone explained to you, the idea is to spread the infection rate over time, so our health care systems can cope with it.  There is a fixed number of available units at any time.  this isn't like tax time when accountants can do overtime and temp resources are hired to help.  Fixed, like straight line, y=m(x)+b and m=0, meaning y=b.  Of course, by adopting some measures, we can potentially raise the bar a little.  Instead y=b, we'll have, maybe y=b+c where c is the number of units we have converted.  Again, it ain't double or tripple.  Just a few more.

Lets use real numbers. The US has a bit under 115,000 ICU beds. Lets assume we hit 70% infection rates, and to use your numbers 20% require ICU beds. That means that we need 46.2 million ICU beds. Lets say each of those ICU beds can turn over a patient a week. That means - if we completely clear the ICU of all other patients--in a year's time we can treat just under 6 million covid - 19 patients in the US in the ICU.

The reality is that the ICU beds are significantly taken already--there isn't nearly that excess capacity--but even if there was, you can spread this out all you want and there just isn't the capacity.

Yes you can care for a marginally few more people if it is spread over a few months versus a year, but there are significant other costs (some of which will even result in more covid 19 deaths, for example, you could more easily isolate the elderly for a short time versus a year).

Like I said, unboard the Titanic, you would have shot everyone who tried to get in a safety boat, since there was not enough for everyone, everyone should be doomed.

Nope. The better analogy is that I'd let the titanic sink with people using the lifeboats available, rather than have the world stay inside for 12 months to somehow enable rowboats to reach the ship and save a handful more people.

[alfred russel]

We've already had this debunked by the WHO study of all Wuhan cases.  It's up there somewhere in this thread.  Only a tiny minority of people experiencing mild symptoms did have the virus, something like 0,1% of the samples tested (about 1000, I think).  It's not definite proof, but it's an indication that, since symptoms are similar, people in an area with the coronavirus can still experience the seasonal flu and the symptoms could be confused in the absence of valid tests.

You can study the Wuhan cases, but ultimately the only people ever tested were those presenting to be tested. Half the positive tests on the Diamond Princess were asymptomatic and wouldn't have been tested at all if they weren't on a cruise ship. Until you get extensive testing of an entire population, you are going to overstate the rate. The South Koreans have the most extensive testing, and unsurprisingly the lowest rate - but even they aren't testing asymptomatic people.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/early-mortality-rates-covid-19-misleading-experts/story?id=69477312

"Of the 705 passengers who tested positive for the virus on the Diamond Princess, six died -- which is a death rate of less than 1%. All of the patients who died onboard were more than 70 years old.
"In China, about 12% of cases were in the elderly," said Faust. "On the Diamond Princess, four times that many older people had the disease. So again, if you're trying to figure out what this means for the entire population, it might even mean that the overall fatality rate would be lower.""

[The Larch]

Nobody could have ever imagined it.

The UK Only Realised "In The Last Few Days" That Its Coronavirus Strategy Would "Likely Result In Hundreds of Thousands of Deaths"
Scientists advising the government say an aggressive new approach adopted to attempt to "suppress" the virus may have to be in place for 18 months.

The UK only realised "in the last few days" that attempts to "mitigate" the impact of the coronavirus pandemic would not work, and that it needed to shift to a strategy to "suppress" the outbreak, according to a report by a team of experts who have been advising the government.

The report, published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday night, found that the strategy previously being pursued by the government — dubbed "mitigation" and involving home isolation of suspect cases and their family members but not including restrictions on wider society — would "likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over".

The mitigation strategy "focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread — reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection", the report said, reflecting the UK strategy that was outlined last week by Boris Johnson and the chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance.

But the approach was found to be unworkable. "Our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US healthcare systems being exceeded many times over," perhaps by as much as eight times, the report said.

In this scenario, the Imperial College team predicted as many as 250,000 deaths in Britain.

"In the UK, this conclusion has only been reached in the last few days," the report explained, due to new data on likely intensive care unit demand based on the experience of Italy and Britain so far.

"We were expecting herd immunity to build. We now realise it's not possible to cope with that," professor Azra Ghani, chair of infectious diseases epidemiology at Imperial, told journalists at a briefing on Monday night.