Coronavirus: Miles away from ordinary.

The NYT piece is pulled from obituaries (which explains why Oliver Stokes was reported as Black N Mild, as that was the name he was somewhat famous under as a DJ). The 100,000 figure is the one being reported by health departments. So even if the NYT list is completely wrong, it doesn't mean anything about the accuracy of the 100,000 number. My guess as to why there's (at least one) error in the NYT list is because some intern was just scraping obits for the phrase "COVID-19" and caught one where the phrase popped up, not as a cause of death, but as a justification for a small private funeral, as was the case with Jordan Haynes. Sloppy journalism? Yes. A smoking gun proving the illegitimacy of the reported death count? not even a little bit.

 

Whether I remain a part of this board or not is immaterial to me. You have threatened me in the same manner before for similar reasons, mainly disagreeing with my perspective and using my language as a means to threaten me. Which is fine, I'm not the least bit butthurt, that is your right as an admin. This board is gettting rather echo chamber-y anyway, I don't want to be in the way after all. So, if this is it, then peace!

I have been pretty consistent on this thread in disagreeing with the positions and conclusions made. As the virus developed and reality didn't match the models, there was no clear answer as to why we continued on the same path. I don't think the damage done was worth it. His response to that post that started this issue was full of shit, expert or not. Your threats don't change that. Besides, there are a lot of people out there that question the models - https://www.syracuse.com/news/2020/...oo-early-to-tell-if-reopening-is-working.html and there are a lot of people who question the decisions made based on the models as well as the lag in responding when the real-time data didn't match the models. We can review what people have gotten wrong on this board in painful detail, if you like. The experts and the parrots have been wrong about: IFR, hospitalization rates, two more weeks, Florida being a hotspot because of the people on spring break and the human sacrifice experiment in Georgia. We can keep going, if need be.

The NYT bullshit was only a piece of the bigger argument. I provided you a link to an article from Colorado where they are actively investigating pumped up numbers. I provided you a link to an article from Washington State where they admitted they were including gunshot deaths as COVID-19. That's not a newspaper, that is a State-level Department of Health. For everyone on the board to continue to parrot the line that it is strictly under-counted is false. That's the point. Understanding the truth of the matter is all but impossible because, as I pointed out to the people on this board, the NYT (clearly a preferred source by the board readers), the Paper of Record, can't be fucking bothered to verify facts. Some might even call that fake news.

I'm done with this argument. We'll see who is right in the coming weeks.

 

Months.

One of my biggest frustrations (out of many) with how we're talking about this virus is the total lack of regard for how long the period of time over which these things play out is. The impact of all of our decisions, both smart and stupid, has a very long tail, but we're so impatient we want to declare conclusions about those decisions in a matter of days or, at most, weeks.

 

What exactly do you think should have been done or we should be doing?

If in March, when the lockdown started, there was any reliable information as to how bad COVID was as a virus, I'd be more inclined to believe shutting down the economy for a couple weeks was probably a little much, but there wasn't any solid information on any statistics at that time so the government did what they did. Reopening, which should probably have occurred a week or two ago hasn't happened in a swift manner mostly because our government, from top to bottom, is a fucking shit show who has done VERY little to put in place any sort of policy/program to help deal with the virus. Can you honestly point to any significant federal level, country wide policy/program put into place to help? When I say help, I'm talking about combating a virus, not financially. We are woefully behind in testing outside of NYC. We still don't have any significant track/trace program. We still don't have a reliable anti-body test. We still don't have an agreed upon, universal standard of care. Up until 3 weeks ago, hospitals were just discovering putting patients on their stomachs was greatly helping them breathe. Why is it I can't buy a decent mask anywhere within a 50 mile radius from my house? I literally got lucky as I'm working on my house and bought a large pack of N95 masks about 3 weeks before the shutdown. Where is the federal government using their powers to force a company like 3M to mass produce masks for the US population and giving them out to anyone who wants them?

Where do we go from here? Well, the virus, although not particularly deadly to a good portion of the population, is still deadly for a lot of people. I'd say there are roughly 100 million people in the country who are at a higher risk of dying if they catch COVID. What do we do with these people? Do we just open up with no restrictions and say, fend for yourselves? There isn't an easy way to jump start the economy again even if it was shut down for only a month. The damage is done, rightfully, but it's done. Continuing the lockdowns in certain parts of the country, probably a good idea. Letting them go on in others, it probably isn't quite as needed.
Yes there are some strong language about people being stupid and instantly dying. It's probably a bit much in some instances, but photos from the Ozarks party, that's just stupid and risky behavior, probably not for the people attending, but for the people who they will come in contact with down the road. It's selfish behavior, plain and simple.

With the above said, I'm all in favor of opening back up the economy and ending most of the lockdowns as long as there is something resembling a plan, from anyone. The president of the US has literally done the absolute bare minimum in a country wide crisis and in some cases has done things which are hugely destructive and beyond reproach for someone in his position. There are very few states doing anything of value to help their citizens, either by opening up without any sort of plan in place, or staying under lockdown without any plan to exit. This should be a time when people are coming together to put aside political divides and working towards recovering from a global pandemic. Sadly, that's the farthest thing from what's happening right now.

 

Sorry, fella. You aren't omnipotent, just an admin. Throw me out if you want. His response wasn't thoughtful and even.

 

Refute you? Why? It's not like you're arguing in good faith. You wouldn't give me the opportunity to change your mind, or even point out the flaws in your argument, some of which I already have.

Ok, then exactly how many people HAVE died of COVID-19? And why should anyone believe your assessment of death, over the thousands of doctors, coroners and medical professionals actually dealing with the deceased? The burden of proof is on YOU, because I have seen the death counts from CDC and HHS. I've confirmed them with hospitals in MD, DC and VA, and at least three times now, with the families of people taken by the virus as it's hit my staff and coworkers.

"The media is pumping this thing and flat out lying". I wouldn't really know, because I'm getting a lot of my information direct from the source. Seriously, what are you doing to do if a LOT fewer people are lying to you than you think? What is an appropriate reaction for something that is literally more deadly than certain forms of cancer? That's killed more people than the last 40 years of military engagements combined? What do you expect the media to do, except what they've always done which is generate headlines for clicks? I'm sorry you think that it's somehow profitable to lie, fool and manipulate you. However, again, it's not where I'm getting information about the raw numbers being discussed.

You've already made it clear that anything to do with the government is tainted, thus by extension, I am somehow a less reliable source than a bunch of blogs, Fox news and random internet sites. Shrug. Why bother? I would like to see you put your money where your mouth is and try living somewhere with no government, and see how that goes. Take a little trip to a failed state or two, check out exactly how troublesome a government is when it's simply not around...I promise you will change your tune.

Regarding the earlier posts: fuck everyone else's math, let's do our own, shall we?
We have about 330 million people in the US. This virus does kill people, consistently enough to develop a pattern. Let's say that pattern correlates to a death rate of a half percent (.5%) or as high as 5%. Herd immunity kicks in around 50% of a population, generously speaking. So, if 165 million people get it, and it's deadly for a half a percent of them, that's...825,000 dead (165m X .005). If it's higher than that, say the 1.5% we estimated early on, that's 2.4 million. If it kills 5%, that's over 8 million deaths.

So....where's the part where you can't figure that out and follow along? Do you think it somehow kills less than 1%? Cool, show me that population and what's different about them? Do you not think 330 million Americans CAN get this if exposed? Awesome, why not? Show your work, then we can have a real conversation.

Yes, I posted articles, many of which had estimates that were not accurate. I had to. It's not like I am going to leak information literally marked "For Official Use Only" or "Do Not Circulate"....here, am I? To prove a point to YOU? No, thanks, not that invested in winning an internet argument.

I've been pretty consistent all along saying this is a failed response. I would love to be wrong about the numbers, that there's somehow not 100,000 of my countrymen dead thanks to a completely avoidable catastrophe. I would love to be wrong that this danger is overestimated and we can get back to normal. I just require a bit more evidence than you've provided. There's no victory in this, it's been a tremendous failure at multiple levels.

The cherry-picking of South Dakota doesn't strike you as odd? Hell, SD showed up as the hottest of hot spots because of ONE place, fortunately it was caught and the number of dead/infected started to decline. Somehow, not having hundreds dead is seen as "blowing this out of proportion" and a media fabrication, not as evidence of a microcosm of an effective response.

 

This is pretty well said. Everyone is searching for answers, and we don't have any. Everyone is looking for leaders, and the ones we do have are playing the blame game. The scientists are being discredited by accusations of "fake news" and "alternative facts" at a time when everyone with an internet connection thinks they're an expert in the field. This virus impacts so many people in so many different ways and it's hardly a one-size-fits-all solution. If we even had a solution. The best advice and practice change on a seemingly weekly basis not because the previous advice and practices were wrong, but because what we know now is different than what we know yesterday. And the ones in charge, who are supposed to make this all these really smart gears click together with something resembling nation-wide project management skills, all have their thumbs up their asses. There isn't an answer to any of this now, and there won't be in a few weeks or even months. And that's a really tough thing for people to grasp, never mind accept.

Best we can do is deal with the circumstances as they come, be flexible and understanding to the greatest extent of our abilities, and be kind to one another.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Looking at their best estimate they are saying .4% average for symptomatic cases, unsure where that puts the number if you control for 35% being asymptomatic (I question how they arrive at a 35% asymptomatic being a best case scenario, it depends on how they view a best case, I guess?) but it definitely moves the needle further into the less deadly category. I also question whether all asymptomatics are actually infectious but I will leave that alone. Beyond that, the data shows that the elderly in the waiting room are the ones hardest hit. As a matter of fact, if you are younger than 50 this is less deadly than the flu. So, back to your number, 825k die. We have already shown that the hospital system won't be overwhelmed by this and I hope we can agree that a vaccine is a far away goal, correct? So what does that leave? Therapeutics? We aren't going to remain closed for years to develop a vaccine, so what more is there to do right now that requires lockdown?

The other part that is interesting to me when discussing herd immunity is how the information on antibody test approval and usage has all but completely dried up. Why is that? At some point, surely, we will get a test that people are comfortable with and understand our actual position here?

In short, I don't know. My main gripe with everything I see here is exactly as stated in some of my posts above. I can point to specific examples of Health Departments "miscalculating" the numbers. The hospital systems have a vested financial interest to do so. Yet, the only thing I read is its undercounted, its undercounted. Well, maybe, but a more accurate statement is the count is wrong. This wouldn't be the first time the higher-ups have been fed incorrect information coming from the field and made calculations and assumptions based on those figures and they are off. In the DoD world it happens all the time.

My argument with the numbers and the count remain the same. Why are we still locked down? Why were places like Omaha or pick any of a dozen states ever locked down? The major metros, I get it.

That was in response to the VIs response about meat packing plants being decimated. Easy numbers.

I don't know, what is our reaction to those forms of Cancer? Pancreatic cancer looks like it sucks but I don't see an end to sugar in site. I'm not trying to be flippant but generally our reactions to these types of things are not this out-sized.

That's fair of you to say. I may be reacting to you differently based on how I feel about the Government. This isn't an opinion formed in a message board. This is formed from working alongside the Government for more than a decade and having to deal with it. I actually did live in several war-torn shit holes. I spent several years in Iraq, several years in Afghanistan, several years in Kuwait and a year in Djibouti. Truthfully, in some cases, dealing with the Government there was much easier and straightforward. Frankly, I won't get into the specifics of that statement, I am strictly speaking from my experiences. EDIT - Forgot Qatar and KSA as well

 

The link you provided is using data/assumptions a month old (yes, that matters). Also, it was released in part because the internal version leaked. The three death rates mentioned averaged together are.....056%, or a little bit worse than the 825k scenario I described.

I struggle with the antibody tests, because they are hard to replicate. The unreliability of those tests enables people to jump to conclusions they were seeking to land on anyway, and they are often being used for political air coverage to justify a decision, rather than scientific evidence of some semblance of safety. I also struggle with the asymptomatic cases because...well, it's exceptionally hard to find them in a trustworthy way. Especially since the testing is spottier than a Dalmatian's menstrual cycle, it's not very reliable. The most reliable data we have is the mortality data, which is far from perfect. What we can tell is that March, April and May are shaping up to be far deadlier months than they should have been, and we won't know the true damage done in May until we're well into June, closer to July.

You're making some very bold assumptions that I am not comfortable with.
1. If 825k people die, they "won't be overwhelmed by this". Maybe, but...where are they dying? How long does it take? If that number is evenly distributed across the country, it's a strain, but it won't be overwhelmed. That's not how pandemics work, these people dying must first be infected, and they will be concentrated in a few areas. It's not 825k dying all across the land that breaks the system, it's 10k or 20k in a single state. We only have about 6600 hospitals nationwide, and 825k divided by 6600 is only 125. That means if it was 100% even between all hospitals, each would have to assume 125 deaths, and whatever "sick but not dying" multiplier. Let's call it 3x, so one in 4 hospitalized dies. So, 375 people with COVID-19 are hospitalized for serious illness (ie, multiple days) and 125 die, for a total of 500. Going backwards, that means 2.4m infected. We do not have the capacity to hospitalize 2.4m people all at once AND keep healthcare providers safe for an extended period of time. And again, this is assuming an impossibly even distribution all at once. That's simply not how it's going to unfold. To go from 0 to 825k deaths, the vast majority of those deaths will be concentrated in places where the outbreak originated, like NYC suffered. Those systems were overwhelmed, and again there is nothing in place that prevents that from happening again. So, to your Omaha question: that's why, we have no idea where the outbreak will heat up and overwhelm.

2. Public health has to consider...the whole public. That was the first question asked: what happens if left unchecked? The answer was and still is: 330,000,000 people eventually get exposed. Many of them die. Many more are disabled and have permanent damage. Estimates vary, but those numbers are terrifying anyway you slice it. You have to start from there and work backwards to solutions. If you start from where we are now, you ignore the largest risk pool and the virus does not give a shit. So many people are delusional that what we have done so far is enough, that the virus can't go back to exponential growth and that this is over. The only real reason for this as far as I can tell is they desperately want it to be so, but it is not.

There are two avenues: Prevention and treatment. Prevention is a wildly more effective option. It's not even a mathematical comparison, you are SO much better off preventing exposure and contracting this virus than you are getting treated for it. The drugs being touted for this as treatment are not the silver bullet we need to ignore the spread: getting treated is still very risky and a terrible experience. A vaccine would be the best preventative measure, and while I think we will set the speed record for it, it's still months away. Preventive measures that work in the meantime are simply limiting your exposure to things other humans touch, and other humans. There is no scenario of "we did enough to 100% ensure you were not exposed to COVID-19". I emphasize: there is no way to guarantee your safety. So, if you get it, whose at fault? Literally, who is responsible for your care and treatment if you get the Coronavirus? And how are those systems set up, can they survive a shock of hundreds or thousands of people with other illnesses? No insurance? From the "entire public" perspective, this can get a lot worse and there's precious little standing in the way of it. When we ask the question of "who assumes that risk", there aren't a lot of hands going up.

3. Stop thinking of lockdown as binary. There are plenty of places that have operated continuously, and we need to focus on them to learn how they have done so safely. Is it safe to go to a baseball game with 60,000 people right now? Nope, and it won't be for some time. Everyone assesses risk differently, and what's acceptable to you and me, might not apply to the mom with kids at home or the dude with emphysema. Since we're occupying the same society, we need to be considerate. There is no 100% safety, so the individual states are deciding what's acceptable risk, based on their systems. Most of them are making a decision based on politics not safety, and that's upsetting to put it mildly. For all intents and purposes, we have hit "fuck it", and the things that were supposed to have happened during lockdown largely didn't happen. People are justifiably pissed about it, me included.

4. Errors in data do not invalidate the data. 100k is not wrong, those people are dead. It's the best count we have running. It's the exact same scenario FEMA deals with in most major (Type 1) disasters: how to attribute death. The answer: the coroners and medical professionals do their fucking jobs. Again, what is the most likely scenario: thousands of medical personnel conspire to inflate numbers for nebulous and conspiratorial reasons, or there's a few minor fuck ups. There is no financial incentive for hospitals to inflate numbers. There is an incentive for hospitals to deflate numbers, so they can open back up for the services they actually make money on. The penalties for misleading health officials are prohibitive and effective. To put it mildly, you think no one is checking their work now? I know some folks in CDC and HHS are reviewing coroner's reports, because they want to protect the highest quality data we have. Again, if the choice is between two lying groups, pick the one that has a vested interest in your safety.

Our reaction to those forms of cancer is billions of dollars of research and treatment every year, and the critical distinction is they aren't contagious. You can get cancer from your bad decisions, but not mine. You can give a whole Goddamned community of people COVID-19, and the ensuing death, disability and suffering would be your fault. This is exactly how awful this situation we're in is, and why politicizing a fucking virus is a nightmare: your safety depends on other people adhering to guidelines. If those people don't, or think they are making some kind of political statement, it's your safety and your family's safety at risk...and possibly medical bankruptcy, a crippling disability and a nightmare of a hospital stay. So...yeah, fuck those people.

This is another issue: this is brand new. We've spent decades studying AIDS, flu, cancer, etc. We've spent weeks, at best, studying this. So many early studies are limited by data (bad data especially), lab samples, testing, equipment, on and on. Think of it like this: if you discover an alien corpse in a field somewhere and want to safely study it, the odds are that your first few studies are going to be atrociously wrong. Your ability to observe and draw conclusions will reflect the limits on the resources and the lack of comparable data.

We have years of work ahead of us to understand what we need to do differently, and the top of the list is leadership. This is the hill I will die on: this was preventable, and should not have happened. Competent leadership does not allow this to happen.

The places you've been sound more like you were dealing with OUR government abroad than you dealing with a foreign government as a citizen of it. No wonder you think it sucks....DOD is a nightmare. Try not to paint the whole world black to match your stubbed toe.

 

Saying we shouldn't be under lockdown because the virus isn't killing enough people sounds pretty fucked up.

Can someone who is pro reopening everything please help me understand why we should place more value on greasing the wheels of capitalism with the blood of grandparents and cancer survivors over, you know, keeping these people alive?

 

Because they are being financially ruined, and perceive the virus as very little risk to themselves, and would rather the high risk groups just stay at home. I don't 100% agree with it, but I don't get how it's so hard to understand.

 

First, allow me to bow and scrape to keep Binary properly satisfied.

Now that the cursory show of deference has occurred. A clarifying question: I hadn't run the numbers, just assumed that they rolled to the .4% shown, so the calc is off; is that their control for asymptomatics, the .4%? Secondly, you mention the data is old. Is the under 50 number correct? Is the CDC essentially saying if you are under 50 this is no more dangerous than seasonal flu?

 

Why? Because AMERICA, that’s why motherfucker:

https://www.chron.com/news/amp/Open-Carry-Texas-plans-rally-to-teach-Ector-15288897.php

...something potentially awful/hilarious is about to happen in Texas.

 

I completely agree with you. But keeping the high risk groups at home, and those who live with them at home, is a lot easier said than done if everyone else is out frolicking around. Where I live, I refuse to even go into town anymore. The only people wearing masks are those my age, young healthy (from what I can see) and mobile. The vast, vast majority of the place is old people on mobility scooters. Who aren’t wearing masks or keeping an appropriate distance.

 

As a fellow Texan, I feel the need to opine:

they get what they deserve.

Not to get too much into political thread territory, but suffice to say, if I had money to bet, I'd bet on Texas going heavily blue in 2020. Harvey taught us a good lesson: if you need help, we'll help you. But if you're an idiot, then we can't fix that. If you can swim but refuse to do so, then not our fault you drown.... It's become almost a Scientology-level obsession toward "shunning" those who are acting, frankly, fucking stupid.

Yeah, go for it with your guns. Be an example of everything we are not. Fucking idiots. All of them.

 

No, that's not what the CDC is saying, even with the White House muzzle in place.

The "under 50" notion is unclear and possibly misleading: the people at highest risk of flu are not under 50.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm The top chart lists death from COVID-19 alongside total deaths. Play with some visualizations all you want, but if that suspicious bulge was in a lady's pants, she wouldn't be a lady, now would she? Especially if there's another third of it in there somewhere.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku/data It's incomplete, listing 68k total deaths. Reason why copied from the link:
"Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis, and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more."

If you split it at 55, (over 55 and under 55), the under 55 death count for COVID-19 is 5075 out of 68,998 or about 7% of the total.
For influenza, it's 1039 out of 6223, about 17% of the total.

I can see how you arrive at that conclusion, but it's misleading for several reasons:
1. Missing 1/3 of the COVID-19 data.
2. Likely only seeing a tiny fraction of actual flu cases.
3. Taking nothing else into consideration, like flu vaccines, comorbidity, etc.
4. You can just as easily make the claim that COVID-19 has killed 5 times more of the "under 55 population" than the flu.
5. Artificially selecting folks who die from the flu, which is a very small population, ignoring the very large population that contracts the flu.
6. We should normally see way MORE flu deaths (about 55k with flu/pneumonia, so about 5k per month), so there's something missing there as well.

So, let's do it this way. We don't really know the total cases by age for either illness, so it's hard to say 5075 and 1039 deaths divided by COVID-19 under 55 cases and Flu under 55 cases respectively.
Estimating here, but let's play with 68 million for the flu and 4 million for the 'Rona.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ for age distribution data.

Roughly 30% of the US population is over 55, so 70% should be under 55:
68 million * .7=47.6 m flu cases with 1039 deaths=a number so tiny, it's likely a rounding error (0.00000218)
4 million* .7=2.8m COVID-19 cases under 55, with 5075 deaths=.0018.
Assuming an even age distribution of Americans contracting both illnesses (unlikely), and that the flu numbers are suffering from the same reporting delay as COVID-19 (also unlikely).
Expressed as a percentage of the whole:
COVID: .18%
Flu: 0.00218%

Divide those two and COVID-19 is 82.5 times more fatal than the flu for that population (again, missing 1/3 of the data and not controlling for the age distribution of the infected).

Because math is super fun:
330 million Americans, divided by the roughly 4 million estimated actual cases is also 82.5.

Referring back to the first link:
COVID-19 is responsible for 8% of ALL death in the US in 2020, which considering we had 8 deaths as of March 1, is absolutely staggering.
Rough math: 4 million cases and 100,000 deaths is a death rate of .025. Even if we use stretchy estimates of 4.6m and 135,000 deaths it's still .029. So, the odds of getting it and surviving are pretty good at an individual level. One person will likely roll the dice on a survival likelihood of 99.97%. The problem is the population as a whole. That .029 is 10 million people.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
We 'normally" would have 2.8 million deaths in a year. So extrapolating the death rate over the last 90 days over the whole population is a Goddamned apocalypse, almost 5 times the total annual death.

Again, the issue we are confronting is the only thing preventing that is you wearing a mask in public and staying home as much as possible.