You're not 3 weeks. You are 8 months pregnant. You are about 6 weeks from your due date, give or take. Please don't be one of those mommies. Also, as that child grows up, it is not 36 months old, it's a 3 year old. It's a 3 year old that survived a pandemic by sheltering in place inside of you.
I am not one for calling a 3 year old 36 months, but pregnancies change quickly so yea i am ok with saying 34 weeks pregnant.
Yeah, especially when you're watching for complications and specific testing markers, week-to-week dates DO matter. 'nerds, I know you're a parent, but until you have a fucking human growing inside you, gtfo with what kind of mommie she can be.
Both my boys were premees and spent significant time in the NICU. My eldest almost died there. My wife almost died while she was in labor with my youngest. I am well aware of the potential complications. I also know several people who are due within the next month or so and I am beyond nervous for them having to potentially face the hospital in this environment. I cannot imagine the stress she is going through; carrying a child is never easy under ideal circumstances, and these are not ideal times. But it is also going to get better, and 'wildered is smart. Can't knock anyone for taking extra precautions, when the reverse of that could kill. Though I imagine she has a pretty good routine at this point. She's been doing it for what.... 6-7 weeks?
Quarantine Sex Tip #34: Lean in and softly whisper in her ear, “I’m sheltering in place inside of you.”
Ok, so we have 433,000 cases and 15k dead as of right now. We have only tested 1.9m people. I don't know ANYONE who thinks we have confirmed 100% of the actual cases. So, we have four distinct populations: 1. Exposed. 2. Infected. 3. Confirmed. 4. Dead. We are confident in the dead. We know it's not 100%, there are COVID deaths that aren't part of that 15k, but it's the most reliable figure we have on any of these four populations. We are confident in the confirmed. There are false positives, etc. and there are still 200k tests pending, but it's safe to say the vast majority of the confirmed have the virus. HOWEVER, we are seeing the confirmed cases increase by about 30-40k per day. We only have done 1.9m tests, and we have about 100 labs capable of testing. So, we think we are seeing a ceiling in the ability to confirm new cases. The capacity for testing is maxing out. So, what looks like the curve flattening is misleading. We're not hovering at 40k/day because we're containing the spread, we literally can't confirm more than that. That capacity is supposedly coming online, but the folks responsible for this are companies like LabCorps, Abbott, etc. We are months away from Korea's drive-thru testing (possible because the government is the sole healthcare provider, whereas for us to do testing we have to negotiate with dozens of entities). I doubt we'll be able to double or triple the testing capacity inside 90 days. Ie, if we have 1 million infected now, it'll take us 5 million tests to confirm them all and it's unlikely we'll see 1 million confirmed in the next 90 days from testing alone. We may start to see fuzzier confirmations, like doctor's ascribing a case to the symptoms present (especially as the symptoms get easier to spot and differentiate from other illnesses), but we're not there yet, from what I can tell. So, the two populations we need to figure out are: 1. how many people are actually walking around infected? If we assume each confirmed case is equal to 2.8 unconfirmed infections, we're over 1 million cases. You can use whatever number makes sense, but we know it's not 1:1 confirmed to actual, and we doubt it's as high as 1:11. For simple math, let's say it's 1m actual infected. Also, we're not confirming cases evenly nationwide. It's a lot easier for Nipplefart, Kentucky to test 1000 people a day, and confirm 250 of them, than NYC to test it's 8 million residents. So, for those of you asking how long does this go on? The answer is how long does it take for 1 million people to expose 335 million people, and infect a pretty massive chunk of them. If we think it takes four days to double: 1 million today 2 million 4/13 4 million 4/17-roughly 1% of us population exposed 8 million 4/21 16 million 4/25 32 million 4/29-10% of US population exposed 64 million 5/3 128 million 5/7 256 million 5/11 100% exposure by 5/15. The problem with this is by 5/15, assuming testing capacity doesn't skyrocket, we'll only have about 2 million more tests done (about 45,000 confirmations/day). Which means the social distancing and quarantine bought us about 3 extra weeks. If it takes a week to double, we're looking at 10 weeks, or roughly mid-June. Absolute longest time frame I've seen for this outbreak (assuming no second-infections, new strains, etc) is 9 months. Some of that is the time frame for the feds to conduct "response" activities, but it's wildly unlikely it will take 9 months for every person in the US to get exposed to it at least once. Now, this is just exposed, ie you came into contact with someone who is contagious and risk infection. The more times you are exposed, and the more prolonged the exposure, the higher the likelihood you will get infected. The assumption is some folks are immune, some folks will get it and immediately fight it off and not know they got it, and some folks will be exposed, get it and be completely asymptomatic, we just don't know what percentage of the population that will be. TLDR: We're not flattening the curve, we are hitting the maximum we can test and confirm. This WILL go on into summer. At some point, we'll see confirmed cases switch from "confirmed by testing" to "confirmed by medical assessment", and will skyrocket. This will still not be all of the actual cases, because of the folks who get sick and don't/can't go to the doctor, but it will be closer to reality.
@downndirty so the global death rate is likely to be significantly lower than the current ~5.87% that the raw stats that are published are telling us because of the fact that we can't test enough people to keep up?
But if the death rate hits around 3%, you’re talking a 100% infection rate. Let’s assume that’s close enough for government work...that’s over 10 million people dead before Christmas. Is that what you think will actually happen?
No idea on global death rate. US death rate is shaping up to be high based on confirmed cases (3.5%). The initial rate we ran with was 1.5%, and the US rate is shaping up to be far higher than that for confirmed cases. Remember the testing capacity was only recently overwhelmed (we can assume we accurately confirmed a higher percentage of cases when they were below 3000, than assuming we accurately confirmed the number of cases when they are over 300,000). So, the death rate of when there were less than 5k cases is probably as good as it's going to get. However, with numbers that size, the death sample is small and there's a high likelihood the numbers we're seeing are influenced by random chance. If we go with 15k dead, and work backwards from that, using the 2.8 number: 440k X 2.8 is 1.232 million infected. 15,0000/1.232 million is about 1.2% We expect the 792,000 currently unconfirmed cases to get worse over time, and a healthy chunk of them will get confirmed, so if we apply the 1.5% rate to that estimated population of infected, we get about 18k dead. I think (!) for rough, but easy math you can say this: Roughly 1 million actual cases. 440k confirmed. 15k dead. The number of dead will unfortunately increase. The death rate will be artificially high, because there are many unconfirmed cases. It will also start to spike as localized outbreaks get overwhelmed and care isn't accessible/sufficient. Finally, the co-morbidities are a factor (ie, if you are more likely to die because of obesity, or high blood pressure, etc.). That is the biggest threat to data quality on the deaths, and the folks in charge have tried to keep the numbers artificially low. So, you'll have folks dying of heart failure or pneumonia, when they had the virus. We won't know what those numbers are for quite a while, when we can compare the "natural" death rate with the pandemic rate and tease out the circumstantial deaths.
100% infection rate isn't likely to happen. We know that, we just don't know what is a realistic infection rate. Optimistically, 50% of the population either can't get it, or gets it and they are asymptomatic or their symptoms are mild and they don't require any care. That still means about 170 million people get it. With a 1.5% death rate, that's 2.5 million dead. That assumes the factors I mentioned above (healthcare capacity, comorbidities) aren't worse. It also assumes that as this thing spreads, it doesn't mutate into something worse.
I'm sure the death rate is high because of the saturation of hospitals, but that is SUPER misleading. The problem with reporting closed cases that way is that essentially the only cases that are closed as "recovered" are people who were hospitalized and then discharged, and even then I don't know how reliable that reporting is. No one is calling all the people who have been managing at home to see if they're all better yet. So, yes, it is well and truly fucked but certainly not THAT fucked.