Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[Kung Wu]

That's probably right.

This is why people we need people to stay home.

Can we agree that if you have a SEVERE case of coronavirus -- one that requires hospitalization -- it's nearly 98+% probable that you have been tested (the other 2% is for those people that have just gone to severe status within the last few hours and maybe haven't made it to the hospital or been tested quite yet)? That's reasonable right? Nobody with SEVERE coronavirus is being turned away in the US. Agreed?

[Kung Wu]

So it's fair to say since we know there are millions that have been infected but not been tested (similar to flu) that the corona mortality rate is once again substantially lower since it's based off of reported cases? Perhaps as similar to the flu mortality rate?

Just spitballing here. And no, that doesn't mean i have no sympathy for the 400+ that have died in this country or the 15,000 + worldwide. Just trying to get some possible perspective.

That's right.

[wsushox1]

Can we agree that if you have a SEVERE case of coronavirus -- one that requires hospitalization -- it's nearly 98+% probable that you have been tested (the other 2% is for those people that have just gone to severe status within the last few hours and maybe haven't made it to the hospital or been tested quite yet)? That's reasonable right? Nobody with SEVERE coronavirus is being turned away in the US. Agreed?

In large part, yes. Though I have heard some county health departments recommending to not test anymore and treat all patients that exhibit the symptoms as presumptive positives of COVID-19.

[1979Shocker]

Will coronavirus crash the internet?

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Can we agree that if you have a SEVERE case of coronavirus -- one that requires hospitalization -- it's nearly 98+% probable that you have been tested (the other 2% is for those people that have just gone to severe status within the last few hours and maybe haven't made it to the hospital or been tested quite yet)? That's reasonable right? Nobody with SEVERE coronavirus is being turned away in the US. Agreed?

I wasnt disagreeing with you. We're talking black/white with no gray right?

[Kung Wu]

I wasnt disagreeing with you. We're talking black/white with no gray right?

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply you were disagreeing. This was a new question. Fairly black and white, yes.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply you were disagreeing. This was a new question. Fairly black and white, yes.

Thank you for the clarification.

[SB Shock]

So it's fair to say since we know there are millions that have been infected but not been tested (similar to flu) that the corona mortality rate is once again substantially lower since it's based off of reported cases? Perhaps as similar to the flu mortality rate?

Just spitballing here. And no, that doesn't mean i have no sympathy for the 400+ that have died in this country or the 15,000 + worldwide. Just trying to get some possible perspective.

It is very possible that is true about mortality rates. The problem is having enough data to make statistically accurate statements one way or the other.

But one thing you have to be careful is when trying to compare the two is there is the flu vaccine. People who are in the largest at-risk group for Covid-19, for the most part, do get the flu vaccine. There are also treatments to speed recovery if you do get the flu. None of this is available for the present virus.

[Kung Wu]

Also can we agree one last thing? If we want to crunch some numbers, the worst case scenario is that all 33,500 known positive coronavirus cases are severe. Meaning that they all need hospitalization. We know for sure that's not true, but from a worst case scenario, we could assume it's true. Maybe in reality it's 50% of them, maybe it's 99%, so who cares, let's say its 100% of them so we can do some worst case number crunching.

Can we agree if all 33,500 cases are severe, that's the worst case scenario from a number crunching scenario?

[SB Shock]

Also can we agree one last thing? If we want to crunch some numbers, the worst case scenario is that all 33,500 known positive coronavirus cases are severe. Meaning that they all need hospitalization. We know for sure that's not true, but from a worst case scenario, we could assume it's true. Maybe in reality it's 50% of them, maybe it's 99%, so who cares, let's say its 100% of them so we can do some worst case number crunching.

Can we agree if all 33,500 cases are severe, that's the worst case scenario from a number crunching scenario?

Actually that data is available. No reason do dream up some imaginary scenario that may or may not happen. Otherwise, you are just like the media who tells us we are going to be in quarantine for 18 months (that is just pure BS).

But with today's numbers, you have to expect them to change for the good and/or bad.

a. As testing (especially quick testing e.g. test-2-results in 45 minutes) we might be able to start identifying the lesser cases (and thus quarantine) - this is the Good, this will likely drive down the fatality %, severe cases % of the population will hopefully go down.

b. The worst-case scenario is when hospital system become overwhelmed. That is what happened in Wuhan (the rest of china had much better numbers), that is what has happened in specific regions in Italy.

[Kung Wu]

Actually that data is available. No reason do dream up some imaginary scenario that may or may not happen. Otherwise, you are just like the media who tells us we are going to be in quarantine for 18 months (that is just pure BS).

Not dreaming anything up, where is the data that shows what percent of the 33,500 are severe or not?

[SB Shock]

Not dreaming anything up, where is the data that shows what percent of the 33,500 are severe or not?

go to the worldmeters.info site

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

It breaks down the active cased by mild (97%) and Severe (3%)

[Kung Wu]

go to the worldmeters.info site

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

It breaks down the active cased by mild (97%) and Severe (3%)

That's critical (ICU) and should be very small. I need hospitalizations which is a much larger number. For example, in South Korea when they had 5328 confirmed cases, they needed 2300 hospital beds. That's the number that would be helpful, I guess, ... hospitalizations.

[Topshock]

And now the conversation over common sense and realty starting to come forward:

WASHINGTON — Tensions are beginning to brew among the president, his advisers and public health experts over how long America needs to be shut down as they weigh the massive economic cost versus the public health benefits.

Administration officials, anxious to get the country back to business, have grown increasingly concerned in recent days about the devastating economic impact the tight restrictions on movement and social interactions are having. These officials said they worry that the White House went too far in allowing public health experts to set policy and that their actions did not need to be so draconian.

Public health officials have pushed the White House to urge Americans to stay at home in an effort to blunt the spread of the virus and "flatten the curve" of the number of new cases. Officials in Italy were slow to isolate affected regions and limit movement, leading to one of the world's worst outbreak so far.

There is hope that the expiration next Monday of the administration’s "15 Days to Slow the Spread" guidelines, which urge people to stay at home if they are older, feeling sick or who have been in contact with someone infected, could serve as a light at the end of the tunnel and possible pivot point to restart the economy.

Trump’s frustrations spilled into public overnight, tweeting, in all caps that “WE CANNOT LET THE CURSE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO.”

[WstateU]

And now the conversation over common sense and realty starting to come forward:

WASHINGTON — Tensions are beginning to brew among the president, his advisers and public health experts over how long America needs to be shut down as they weigh the massive economic cost versus the public health benefits.

Administration officials, anxious to get the country back to business, have grown increasingly concerned in recent days about the devastating economic impact the tight restrictions on movement and social interactions are having. These officials said they worry that the White House went too far in allowing public health experts to set policy and that their actions did not need to be so draconian.

Public health officials have pushed the White House to urge Americans to stay at home in an effort to blunt the spread of the virus and "flatten the curve" of the number of new cases. Officials in Italy were slow to isolate affected regions and limit movement, leading to one of the world's worst outbreak so far.

There is hope that the expiration next Monday of the administration’s "15 Days to Slow the Spread" guidelines, which urge people to stay at home if they are older, feeling sick or who have been in contact with someone infected, could serve as a light at the end of the tunnel and possible pivot point to restart the economy.

Trump’s frustrations spilled into public overnight, tweeting, in all caps that “WE CANNOT LET THE CURSE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO.”

Posted in another thread. This guy gives me hope... he's optimistic about the outcome. Worth 13 minutes of your time.

His message to congress, "error on being generous".

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes...avirus-crisis/