BBO Discussion Forums: Coronavirus - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 47 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Coronavirus Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

#41 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,611
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-March-01, 12:16

Some of us are already deeper into it than that.
Schools and offices closed, empty shelves in some supermarkets, and worst of all, no bridge.
0

#42 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-March-01, 12:48

For some perspective, the most recent numbers I have seen say that this virus has a morbidity rate of 2%. This sounds low until one considers that the great flu pandemic of 1918-1919 had a morbidity rate of 2.5% and it killed around 40 million people worldwide.

Fortunately, here in the U.S.A. we have a very stable genius who has placed a non-believer in science in charge of keeping us safe. I hope his thoughts and prayers vaccine doesn't make my arm ache.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#43 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,611
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-March-01, 14:29

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-March-01, 12:48, said:

For some perspective, the most recent numbers I have seen say that this virus has a morbidity rate of 2%. This sounds low until one considers that the great flu pandemic of 1918-1919 had a morbidity rate of 2.5% and it killed around 40 million people worldwide.


I suspect you're confusing morbidity (having disease) with mortality (dying from it).
The ratio of dead/diagnosed is not mortality either, especially when an outbreak is just starting up, but for now it is one of the few hard numbers we know and is currently around 3%.
Recent Chinese data was 2.6% but has gone up, Italy is hovering around 3% even with less victims (but an older population) and more available intensive care.
As you say, the mortality at first sight seems dangerously similar to 1919. Extremely mortal viruses are actually less of a threat.
Luckily the main threat is to old people, but that of course is little consolation to bridge players.
0

#44 User is online   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,059
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Writing, learning about life and bridge from others, Poodles, helping Poodles write

Posted 2020-March-01, 14:29

We don't know what the rate is yet because the true denominator is currently unavailable. That is, there is currently underreporting of the number of mild cases. On the other hand we also don't know much about it at all.
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek; N'écris jamais une lettre et n'en détruis jamais une.
1

#45 User is offline   thepossum 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 823
  • Joined: 2018-July-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2020-March-01, 16:24

Given the (at least to me) somewhat over-anxiety in relation to Covid19 risk compared to all the other risks we face every day. I found this article about differences between influenza and Covid19. At a cursory glance the main difference appears to be that they are simply caused by different coronaviruses.

Covid19 vs Flu

Also reading another article somewhere (I will try to find the link) suggesting that over-anxiety is often caused by failure to understand the difference between overall public health (eg health resources) and individual risks, and also the tendency to look at risk from coronavirus alone without adjusting for all the other risks to give a more accurate marginal increase in risk

PS Please take everything I write on this subject with a grain of salt since I am not a doctor, virologist, epidemiologist, public health official etc. Just an interested community member :)

PPS although at this moment I am feeling quietly confident that despite extreme temperatures, drought, bushfires and floods in Australia so far this year the heat and sun will be somewhat protective against viruses
0

#46 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-March-01, 17:48

To my understanding, the biggest threat for Covid-19 seems to be that it has not been seen previously, much like the 1918-19 flu was a strain of which younger, healthy people had no previous exposure so had no immunity.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#47 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-March-01, 17:49

View Postpescetom, on 2020-March-01, 14:29, said:

I suspect you're confusing morbidity (having disease) with mortality (dying from it).
The ratio of dead/diagnosed is not mortality either, especially when an outbreak is just starting up, but for now it is one of the few hard numbers we know and is currently around 3%.
Recent Chinese data was 2.6% but has gone up, Italy is hovering around 3% even with less victims (but an older population) and more available intensive care.
As you say, the mortality at first sight seems dangerously similar to 1919. Extremely mortal viruses are actually less of a threat.
Luckily the main threat is to old people, but that of course is little consolation to bridge players.


Yes, thank you.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#48 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,993
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-March-01, 19:27

View Postthepossum, on 2020-March-01, 16:24, said:

Given the (at least to me) somewhat over-anxiety in relation to Covid19 risk compared to all the other risks we face every day. I found this article about differences between influenza and Covid19. At a cursory glance the main difference appears to be that they are simply caused by different coronaviruses.

Covid19 vs Flu

Also reading another article somewhere (I will try to find the link) suggesting that over-anxiety is often caused by failure to understand the difference between overall public health (eg health resources) and individual risks, and also the tendency to look at risk from coronavirus alone without adjusting for all the other risks to give a more accurate marginal increase in risk

PS Please take everything I write on this subject with a grain of salt since I am not a doctor, virologist, epidemiologist, public health official etc. Just an interested community member :)

PPS although at this moment I am feeling quietly confident that despite extreme temperatures, drought, bushfires and floods in Australia so far this year the heat and sun will be somewhat protective against viruses




I agree that the public health risk and my personal risk are different matters, very much so.

My personal risk:
The most obvious difference is that there is a vaccine available for the flu and I get me flu shots yearly. Surely when comparing flu danger with covid danger at my personal level, I would take that into account.
As to how lethal it could be if I get it, I am 81, I am in fairly decent health. Surely being 81 makes me a higher risk, being in decent health makes me a lower risk.
Comparisons with things I have gotten. Last May I came down with pneumonia. Yes I had taken my pneumonia shot but I got it anyway. The docs knew what to do, I did as they said, I came through it fine. With covid, I think they are mostly still working on what to do. Maybe stay hone and rest if I were 30, at 81 it could be trickier.
Perhaps the basic point, one that I regard as often useful, is that most statistics are far to broadly based to be of much use in any assessment of my risk.
I doubt that anyone yet can accurately foresee all of the dangers.
So caution seems advisable. I don't regard exercising caution as equivalent to panic.

Public health: There is no way around the basic point, as far as the US is concerned. I really wish someone else were in the White House. I do not regard myself as highly partisan but after 81 years I can recognize a self-important BSing blabbermouth when I see one. This virus is a worldwide problem to be sure, so I want to go easy on speaking of our own specific national problems, but I would hope for honest assessment, broad international cooperation, things such as that. Well, I can hope.



Ken
1

#49 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,202
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-March-03, 05:17

Wow

https://www.nytimes....rveillance.html
https://twitter.com/...310754452434945

Just the coronavirus supercharging the development of China into a complete surveillance state, with a thoroughness George Orwell couldn't have imagined.

Quote

as soon as a user grants the software access to personal data, a piece of the program labeled “reportInfoAndLocationToPolice” sends the person’s location, city name and an identifying code number to a server.

The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#50 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-March-03, 08:43

View Postkenberg, on 2020-March-01, 19:27, said:

As to how lethal it could be if I get it, I am 81, I am in fairly decent health. Surely being 81 makes me a higher risk, being in decent health makes me a lower risk.

A preliminary Chinese study puts the death rate at 8% for 70-79 and 15% for 80+. It's a preliminary study and is based on confirmed cases, so it likely on the high end as it wouldn't include people who weren't diagnosed for the virus.

Still, compare these rates to the ~0.2% mortality rates for those under 50 and anybody can see the potential risk for super seniors.
0

#51 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-March-03, 09:25

View Postjohnu, on 2020-March-03, 08:43, said:

A preliminary Chinese study puts the death rate at 8% for 70-79 and 15% for 80+. It's a preliminary study and is based on confirmed cases, so it likely on the high end as it wouldn't include people who weren't diagnosed for the virus.

Still, compare these rates to the ~0.2% mortality rates for those under 50 and anybody can see the potential risk for super seniors.


There is little solid information on this virus, but there is a good understanding of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. The issue with that influenza pandemic was that the mortality risk was highest not in the young and old but for people in their prime.

It is unknown what the mortality rate was for very stable geniuses.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#52 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 20,240
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-March-03, 10:10

View Postcherdano, on 2020-March-03, 05:17, said:

Just the coronavirus supercharging the development of China into a complete surveillance state, with a thoroughness George Orwell couldn't have imagined.

To be fair, China already had a head start in this direction. The Chinese people are used to being monitored and ordered around by the government, so it's probably easy for them to accept the additional levels due to coronavirus.

#53 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,611
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-March-03, 11:08

View Postjohnu, on 2020-March-03, 08:43, said:

A preliminary Chinese study puts the death rate at 8% for 70-79 and 15% for 80+. It's a preliminary study and is based on confirmed cases, so it likely on the high end as it wouldn't include people who weren't diagnosed for the virus.

Still, compare these rates to the ~0.2% mortality rates for those under 50 and anybody can see the potential risk for super seniors.


Exactly 8 days since the first Italian cases were discovered, yesterday evening Italy had 1835 confirmed cases of which 52 dead (2.8%) and 166 in intensive care (9.0%, or 11.8% counting also those no longer here). Almost half the cases have no symptoms, but the vast majority of those with symptoms require hospitalization (40.4%). Today's data will be available soon, but almost certainly you can just take these numbers and add on one fifth. There is no public breakdown of cases and victims by age group, but a few days ago the TV said no victims were under 60.

This is nothing like influenza.
0

#54 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,611
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-March-03, 11:33

Update on 3 March: now 2263 confirmed cases (+23% in a day) of which 79 dead (3.5% of cases) and 229 alive in intensive care (10.0%).
0

#55 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-March-03, 14:47

View Postpescetom, on 2020-March-03, 11:08, said:

Exactly 8 days since the first Italian cases were discovered, yesterday evening Italy had 1835 confirmed cases of which 52 dead (2.8%) and 166 in intensive care (9.0%, or 11.8% counting also those no longer here). Almost half the cases have no symptoms, but the vast majority of those with symptoms require hospitalization (40.4%). Today's data will be available soon, but almost certainly you can just take these numbers and add on one fifth. There is no public breakdown of cases and victims by age group, but a few days ago the TV said no victims were under 60.

This is nothing like influenza.


The truly spooky part - to me - is that those half of cases with no symptoms may still be spreading virus unknowingly. I have not heard if that is or is not the case.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#56 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,120
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2020-March-03, 15:04

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-March-03, 14:47, said:

The truly spooky part - to me - is that those half of cases with no symptoms may still be spreading virus unknowingly. I have not heard if that is or is not the case.


There seems to be a great deal of certainty that this is not the case; asymptomatic people are not contagious. The problem is that for many people the symptoms of the virus are quite mild (like a bad cold) and that those people are contagious.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
2

#57 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,611
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-March-03, 15:35

View Postawm, on 2020-March-03, 15:04, said:

There seems to be a great deal of certainty that this is not the case; asymptomatic people are not contagious. The problem is that for many people the symptoms of the virus are quite mild (like a bad cold) and that those people are contagious.


My understanding is that all positive cases are contagious or were so in the past, symptoms or not. Beyond that I think it's a question of how you define asymptomatic: the specific symptom is pneumonia, but many have only a mild fever or nothing at all. Nobody here has reported people having symptoms like a cold or influenza.
1

#58 User is offline   thepossum 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 823
  • Joined: 2018-July-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2020-March-03, 17:09

Another article about Covid19 vs Flu and latest on Covid19 from an editorial by Dr Fauci in the NEJM - admittedly from several days ago but...

NY Times - Covid19 vs Flu
NEJM - Dr Fauci Editorial

NEJM - latest

Plenty of other resources around.

I cant help wondering if cases of influenza, especially severe and fatal cases, were reported in the same way as Covid19 there could be a bit more perspective on overall risks. Some of the behaviour in community caused by anxiety of the new virus already seems rather out of proportion but.......as I was trying to express above, addressed by Ken and others, my concerns were simply a reasnoably informed community member being rather concerned about perceptions of risk. I hope nobody misunderstood my post that I was trying to downplay risks etc. But having read a great deal about the illness so far, apart from the lack of vaccine at this stage, it seems that many of the figures (eg severity, fatality percentages) are heading towards being comparable with a serious flu outbreak. Do people know, for example how many people are estimateed to die from influenza every year - directly and from complications - the nature of the symptoms, treatment and what causes mortality. I genuinely feel that community concern, while obviously warranted, is potentially getting out of hand towards panic behaviour. That is simply the understanding, reading and concerns of a community member - nothing more

I'm wondering how everyone feels the communication of severity and risk perceptions have been communicated and received in different countries and through different media platforms. The thread to date (of course early days) shows much of the lack of clarity common everywhere to my view

PS I have great confidence in the respective experts and agencies. Please, I hope nobody misunderstands my posts as anything else
0

#59 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-March-03, 17:18

View Postpescetom, on 2020-March-03, 15:35, said:

My understanding is that all positive cases are contagious or were so in the past, symptoms or not. Beyond that I think it's a question of how you define asymptomatic: the specific symptom is pneumonia, but many have only a mild fever or nothing at all. Nobody here has reported people having symptoms like a cold or influenza.


This is from the NYT article to which the possum linked:

Quote

In both flu and the illness caused by the coronavirus, people may be contagious before symptoms develop, making it difficult or even impossible to control the spread of the virus. Nobody knows how many people infected with the coronavirus have only very mild symptoms or none at all.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#60 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,611
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-March-04, 08:14

Quote

In both flu and the illness caused by the coronavirus, people may be contagious before symptoms develop, making it difficult or even impossible to control the spread of the virus.

Seems reasonable to me: I don't think that contradicts anything I said.

Quote

Nobody knows how many people infected with the coronavirus have only very mild symptoms or none at all.

Medical authorities must be starting to get an idea by now. Data from the Italian Health Ministry about people diagnosed (not the same as people infected, of course) suggests that about 50% have no symptoms, 10% have mild symptoms and 40% have severe respiratory problems.
A Chinese study published in the Lancet found that lung changes were evident in asymptomatic cases however and that of those with symptoms, 90% had abnormalities in both lungs.
0

Share this topic:


  • 47 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google