This is where I’m at. Am I worried about my kid, wife, myself? No. Am I worried about giving it to my mom or patients? Hell yes. Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops mobile app
Here’s a thread from a biologist that makes the point—it’s not enough for only the elderly/sick to limit movement; the proper public health response is for all to limit movement to help flatten the curve of disease outbreak. His key point: “What low risk individuals do right now will determine the scale and time-course of the epidemic.” Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops mobile app
I don't know what's real any more, I'll say this, there's info out there from scientists and mathematicians that are freaking me out just from the logic of stats and math...
The deaths in China were 50x what was reported. I have reliable information (via phone conversation with those living there) that the number in Iran is about the same.
So if flattening the curve is achievable by closing schools and requiring quarantine for all citizens aside from those necessary to maintaining civil services, then why not do that? Because that would be ridiculously extreme based on the information at hand. I’m willing to let our best minds in healthcare and public safety formulate a plan that will be effective. Maybe naive, but I’m admittedly not wired to be an alarmist. As to the the situation in Italy—I’ve been told by my medical friends who’ve traveled there that the healthcare is substantially subpar to ours. I’d like to think our approach will result in less fatalities.
At a Biogen conference in Boston 3 people were infected. Those people alone infected over 70 others. If every person that has it infects only 3 people, we are only about 6 weeks from a million people having it, and 3 months from the entire US population having it. That’s 6 weeks from about 40,000 deaths (assuming 2% fatality rate and 1 week incubation) and 9 weeks from 1 million deaths. These numbers don’t account for the decreased care any individual patient will receive if healthcare systems get overwhelmed. This isn’t fear mongering, it’s math. Feel free to question the inputs, but the math isn’t wrong. If a child goes to school, if we go to sporting events, we run the chances of exposing massive groups of people. Decreasing the rate at which the virus spreads is what will save lives, not some sort of blind faith that what is happening everywhere the virus has been allowed to spread won’t happen here. Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
The fatality rate in the US will more than likely be higher due to the fact that 46% of the American population is overweight and the Center for Infectious Diseases's has said that is similar to what they have seen with smokers who have gotten the vurus and the fatality rate in those victims is about 10%. So you could be looking at a much higher rate than the 2-3.5% By the way that isn't in people older than 55 that's people in general...
It does appear extreme (in execution) but I would argue it’s not extreme ( if the goal is to stop the spread of the virus. Wuhan has already served as a case report and all indications are that their extreme measures worked. That doesn’t mean we have to exactly replicate measures in Wuhan with the entire US. But I would argue—at the least—that areas where there have already been outbreaks and confirmed community transmissions that the scientifically grounded approach is to have massive closures and restricted movement (eg Seattle). Again, this is to meet a primary goal of limiting the virus. I know this appears extreme but seems to be what experts broadly suggest and what the Wuhan (and S Korea) examples have shown to work. We should be thankful there are examples of what to do. Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops mobile app
You would think the Chinese fatality rate would be higher than it’s reported 2.3% as 27% of its population are smokers (and an alarmingly 52% of the male population). So if smoking and being overweight have comparable fatality rates, if still appears the overall fatality rate is in the 2.3% range based on China’s numbers.
So the plan is to close schools and the students can go on spring break. We know that college students ( from all over the country) will be socially responsible, washing their hands frequently, keeping a safe distance between them and other people and not exchanging bodily fluids, right? Then after the break, they go back to their respective colleges all over the country. That's the plan? To quote the immortal philosopher Forrest Gump, " I am not a smart man, but...." As someone in the at risk category ( over 60), I am taking a deep breath. Closing down the United States for two weeks seems both extreme , not to mention impossible. By the way, according to the most recent statistics I could find in 2014, there are more than 50,000 deaths in the United State each week to keep things in a little perspective.
I haven’t heard of anyone closing schools, they’re just holding class remotely. I agree that it’s impossible to shut down the United States, but does that mean that we shouldn’t make our best efforts? Also, of course lots of people die, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to save everyone we can. Like I know my parents are going to die sometime, but that doesn’t mean I’m indifferent about when. Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
I don't think spring break locations will be open very much longer. Many major conventions are already shutting down. My wife and I had planned to take my special needs son to Universal to see the Harry Potter area. F'n sucks that we will likely have to tell him we can't go when they decide to close the theme parks.
It's quite likely more a question of when the system get overwhelmed, not if. That's what people who argue this isn't a big deal don't seem to appreciate. And for that issue, it doesn't matter if 50,000 people die every week from all causes or 50,000 people die some years from "regular" influenza. Those numbers are already baked into the system's capacity. This is a new, additional stressor on the healthcare system and it will likely have a difficult time meeting the needs of every patient who has the most serious complications of COVID-19. Maybe this happens nationwide, maybe it doesn't, but it will almost assuredly occur in multiple localized locations.
So help me understand this. If smoker’s fatality rate is 10% and a large percentage of Chinese (nearly 30% overall and 52% of men are smokers) and their reported overall fatality rate is 2.3%, then why would the US rate (with obese Americans with similar 10% morbidity rates) be “much higher” as you theorized? Wouldn’t those remain static?
Because the Chinese government stepped in and closed everything down immediately so that what happened in Hubei wouldn't spread throughout. We are clearly seeing here in the US we are not doing any extreme measure yet to curb the spread. They contained it for the most part to a single province. So of the reported cases in China, if you were a smoker and had the disease the fatality rate for those was 10%. If the US would put drastic actions together to curb the spread you would see a similar effect. But it isn't happening hence, the fatality rate overall in the US I would garner in the next few days, weeks, months to be substantially higher than the reported world wide rate of 2-3.8% Maybe, maybe not. Just using pure numbers and hope that isn't actually the case.
Yes quite sobering. I’m definitely going to get his book. It should also be noted China owns quite a bit of Italy, resulting in frequent travel between the countries. That would explain the explosion of the virus there early on. Sent from my iPad using Butler Hoops mobile app
