Page 122 of 157 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122123124132 ... LastLast
Results 2,421 to 2,440 of 3132
  1. #2421
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Well

    Quote Originally Posted by fisheyes View Post
    Here's some good news.

    Necessity is the mother of invention once again:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/tech/...rus/index.html

    Dyson developed a ventilator for mass production in 10 days and he is calling it the CoVent. 15,000 to be made in short order.

    Brilliant!

    I hope it doesn't suck
    It's not like they're making this in a vacuum.

  2. #2422
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by fisheyes View Post
    Here's some good news.

    Necessity is the mother of invention once again:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/tech/...rus/index.html

    Dyson developed a ventilator for mass production in 10 days and he is calling it the CoVent. 15,000 to be made in short order.

    Brilliant!

    I hope it doesn't suck
    Good, he owes us one for making those germ catching hand dryers that were all the rage once. Give me a motion sensor operated paper towel dispenser any day.

  3. #2423
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by DUKIECB View Post
    If this works and they really are able to get it to market that quickly it would be astonishing. Hopefully they will.
    I have a Dysdon vacuum cleaner that may be the best, most reliable appliance in my house. If Dyson says these things work, I trust them.

    If I did not already own a Dyson, I'd buy one now. What a great story of a super rich genius using his company to help the world (he's also donating 5,000 ventilators to countries that need them).
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  4. #2424
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I've seen this sentiment expressed in many places, and I'm sympathetic to the argument, but on the other hand: did the Great Depression increase death rates? Did death rates increase in the civilian population in World War 2 when a massive chunk of our GDP was diverted to military production? AFAIK the answer is no, but history buffs may know better.
    The argument I've heard is that economic hardship increases homelessness, mental disorders manifest themselves more, suicides, and other ailments. So, it's not a direct black and white count like the COVID-19 mortality, but individuals argue that there still is a "death toll" from prolonged economic hardship. This article I quickly found when I googled Great Depression death rate seems to suggest the answer isn't 100% clear:
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ates-46713514/
    Here's the paper:
    https://jech.bmj.com/content/66/5/41...0-8272b1ca03b4

    Of course, what happened in the Great Depression may not necessarily be perfectly analagous to today's world.

  5. #2425
    But you would have to factor in depression/suicide from those that couldn’t deal with the mass suffering from the huge death toll under a reopen scenario as well.

    I have a hard time believing that the follow on effects from deaths for an economic catastrophe could compare to the direct effects from the pandemic.

  6. #2426
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieInKansas View Post
    Question from the non-statistician in the group - they have been reporting the increase in confirmed cases locally. Wouldn't the number of cases as a percent of those tested be a relevant piece of information? If the cases doubled but the number tested also doubled, it doesn't seem as troubling to me but if the number tested stayed the same, it would be much scarier. Example - Day 1 150 positive out of 1000 tested and 300 out of 2000 on Day 2 vs 300 out of 1500 tested on Day 2.
    There are two schools of thought on this I think. On the one hand, there is the thought that you have mentioned above. Which has validity. On the other, there is the fact that they are still undertesting. So there's no way to know what the true infection rate is, nor how fast it is growing or how it is spreading.

    All the testing that is going on at this point is still just playing catchup. We know that it was underestimating disease wildly before, and it probably still is. The problem is that, if the virus is more widespread than folks realize, it's that much harder to contain. That's why we're seeing the spike in cases in New Jersey now... because they didn't have a real sense of the scale of the problem in NYC until the cases were already growing rapidly.

    If we test 100 people and get 20 positives today, then scale up to 1000 people and get 200 positives tomorrow, it's hard to know whether that is a sign that there were 200 true positives yesterday and 200 today or 100 yesterday and 200 today or 150 yesterday and 400 today or 400 yesterday and 800 today, and so on. All we know is that as we are increasing the testing we are seeing an increase in case counts, which just reiterates that we're underestimating the number of cases today (which we already knew). So I don't know that it should be viewed as a positive or as a negative at this point.

  7. #2427
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    I cannot find the link again that said there were two deaths among Vo residents. I found very many from several days ago that said 1 death. So, OK, maybe there was only 1 death (could have sworn I found somewhere that said 2 but since I can't find it again, I will amend my stats. 1/90 is still more than 0.1%, about 10 times more. And it's still not enough data to make pronouncements about COVID 19.)
    The example said that if the prevalence of the infection in Italy is the same as its prevalence in the town of , then comparing the total number of deaths in Italy to the extrapolated number of infected people gives a fatality rate of .06%. It’s just a rough estimate, intended to show that the officially reported numbers differ from this number by over two orders of magnitude. Would you have expected that to be the case? It no doubt causes the public to ask for an explanation. What’s wrong with that? Maybe Vň is two orders of magnitude different from the rest of Italy.

    You argue that the authors, out of malign motives, hid the fact that one of the 90 infected people in Vň died (actually, he was the first person in Italy to die and that is why they tested the entire town). You suggest that 1/90 gives a proportion of roughly 1%, not .06%, thus demonstrating that a country-wide fatality rate of .06% must be wrong. But .06% relates to the entire population. Some segments of the population will have a much higher fatality rate and some lower. The decedent was a 78 year old man, and people in that category will have the highest rate. It could be 1% or higher, depending on his pre-existing conditions. Younger people have a much lower rate of death. In the U.S., for example, the death rate from the annual flu of those ages 5 – 14 is 0.3% of the death rate of those aged 65 and up. When we average all these rates together we get an overall rate for the entire country. One couldn’t point to a group of 100 people in which a high-risk person died, and proclaim that therefore a country-wide average of less than 1% is shown to be false.

  8. #2428
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by acdevil View Post
    But you would have to factor in depression/suicide from those that couldn’t deal with the mass suffering from the huge death toll under a reopen scenario as well.

    I have a hard time believing that the follow on effects from deaths for an economic catastrophe could compare to the direct effects from the pandemic.
    Yeah, it's a really hard question. Would the stock market and economy in general crash again anyway if there is a new spike and way more deaths that overwhelm the healthcare system and perhaps even cause another lockdown? Seems a possibility. And if so, that might have the same effect as the economy crashing due to being really restrictive trying to prevent the spread of disease... only then you'd have the economy-related disaster AND a bunch more virus-related disaster.

    Not saying that would definitely happen by any means. Just that it needs to be a scenario considered when talking about reopening the US. Just as the death toll isn't necessarily an either/or situation, the economy isn't necessarily an either/or situation either.

  9. #2429
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Economic hardship can lead to death. Fatality rates may exceed Covid-19. There has to be balance. Striking that balance is PP territory.
    Has anyone cited any thing on this point? I have seen maybe people raise the issue of increased suicides, for example, but have seen no analysis. Curious if you have.

    It is undoubtedly true that economic hardship is associated with poorer outcomes, but I have not seen anyone address this issue other than in an armchair fashion.

  10. #2430
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    The argument I've heard is that economic hardship increases homelessness, mental disorders manifest themselves more, suicides, and other ailments. So, it's not a direct black and white count like the COVID-19 mortality, but individuals argue that there still is a "death toll" from prolonged economic hardship. This article I quickly found when I googled Great Depression death rate seems to suggest the answer isn't 100% clear:
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ates-46713514/
    Here's the paper:
    https://jech.bmj.com/content/66/5/41...0-8272b1ca03b4

    Of course, what happened in the Great Depression may not necessarily be perfectly analagous to today's world.
    I *think* richardjackson199 addressed this waaaayyy up thread somewhere or perhaps in another thread and his links about our recent recession indicated that problems like depression and suicide %ages all increased mildly (moderately?) for several years.
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  11. #2431
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Texas

    Stay Home Orders

    Like many places around the country, most of the counties in Houston and the surrounding area have issued stay-at-home orders until April 3rd. Each county seems to want to come up with its own name for the same basic thing.
    Harris County (Houston) is under a "Stay Home, Work Safe" order. The county judge and the mayor each spent 5+ minutes in the press conference explaining why they didn't want to call it a "shelter in place" order. We also have "Stay Safe", "Stay Safe at Home" and "Stay at Home To Save Lives" orders.

    Are other county/city governments also getting creative with their "stay at home" order names?

  12. #2432
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    The example said that if the prevalence of the infection in Italy is the same as its prevalence in the town of , then comparing the total number of deaths in Italy to the extrapolated number of infected people gives a fatality rate of .06%. It’s just a rough estimate, intended to show that the officially reported numbers differ from this number by over two orders of magnitude. Would you have expected that to be the case? It no doubt causes the public to ask for an explanation. What’s wrong with that? Maybe Vň is two orders of magnitude different from the rest of Italy.
    The whole article is about the death rate. So, yeah, talking about the deaths seems relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    You argue that the authors, out of malign motives, hid the fact that one of the 90 infected people in Vň died (actually, he was the first person in Italy to die and that is why they tested the entire town). You suggest that 1/90 gives a proportion of roughly 1%, not .06%, thus demonstrating that a country-wide fatality rate of .06% must be wrong.
    That is not at all what BostonDevil said. He or she made no statements about the validity of the 1 in 90, nor any definitive statements about the invalidity of the 0.06%. Just that it is convenient that the authors ignored it, and that their analysis was very flawed. He or she even said that the 0.06% number could even be correct or not, but that the evidence the authors used was a really poor way of proving it.

    Although, given that the fatality rate is already over 0.01% of the total population in Italy, I would suggest that their 0.06% case fatality rate is probably an underestimate.

    But again, you have misrepresented the argument BostonDevil was making with the sentence above.

    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    But .06% relates to the entire population.
    No, 0.06% relates to their VERY back of the envelope calculation of the entire population.

    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Some segments of the population will have a much higher fatality rate and some lower.
    Which is precisely why their extrapolation is flawed. Because (a) there is no evidence that the 3300 sample of Vo is representative of the entirety of Italy, or even the entirety of Padua; and (b) there is no evidence that the 90-person sample of infected cases ISN'T representative of the entirety of Padua or the entirety of Italy. Yet the authors have decided to suggest that the 3300 sample IS a representative sample while the 90 is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    One couldn’t point to a group of 100 people in which a high-risk person died, and proclaim that therefore a country-wide average of less than 1% is shown to be false.
    And BostonDevil has agreed with this point, and hasn't said that the less than 1% is demonstrably false. But the converse is true too. One shouldn't point to a group of 3300 people in which 90 were infected and proclaim therefore that the nationwide case fatality rate of 1% or greater is false. And that last sentence is the point that BostonDevil was making.

  13. #2433
    Quote Originally Posted by LegoBatman View Post
    re other county/city governments also getting creative with their "stay at home" order names?
    "Stay the @#$% home so this virus doesn't spread and we can get back to normal as soon as possible. You selfish @#%! that aren't practicing social distancing are going to make this take longer than it needs to be"

    At least, that's what I would call it if I were in charge!

  14. #2434
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Has anyone cited any thing on this point? I have seen maybe people raise the issue of increased suicides, for example, but have seen no analysis. Curious if you have.

    It is undoubtedly true that economic hardship is associated with poorer outcomes, but I have not seen anyone address this issue other than in an armchair fashion.
    There is a link between economic hardship and suicide. During the “Great Recession” (2007-2010) suicide rates rose 4.5% in the U.S. and 6.5% in Europe, resulting in 4,750 and 7,950 “excess deaths” respectively, not to mention the misery and psychological trauma caused by economic hardship and bankruptcy.

  15. #2435
    Let’s say we do reopen after Easter and hundreds of thousands of thousands of Americans die, how strong will the economy be then? If I’m watching people all around me die I sure as heck won’t be leaving the house and spending my money.

  16. #2436
    Quote Originally Posted by kshepinthehouse View Post
    Let’s say we do reopen after Easter and hundreds of thousands of thousands of Americans die, how strong will the economy be then? If I’m watching people all around me die I sure as heck won’t be leaving the house and spending my money.
    For the most part the damage being done to the economy is the damage that will be done if we let the pandemic rage.

    * Is anyone going on a cruise anytime soon?
    * Is anyone flying?
    * staying at a hotel?
    * eating out at a restaurant?
    * planning a vacation?

    I know the economy is a complicated thing, but we know the travel and hospitality businesses would be the first casualties in a pandemic *OR* in a shelter in place order. It's just that simple. The longer we let the pandemic rage, the longer those industries will be shut down (either by order of the government, or by lack of customers).

  17. #2437
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    This is not going to happen.

    Not only do we not have enough kits, but we are also running low on the swabs necessary to obtain samples for testing. We are currently scrambling to find other swabs from other manufacturers that will be suitable for testing, not only for SARS-CoV-2, but also for our standard multiplex PCR.

    If the outbreak continues to expand, the focus will be more and more on blocking testing on asymptomatic and marginally symptomatic people, as testing will be aimed at more severely symptomatic and those who are more likely to actually have the disease.

    Currently, I have the unfortunate job of being the "gate-keeper" for all SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing in our entire area. I am taking phone calls night and day. I approved about 35% of requests yesterday. (For perspective, I am a PEDIATRIC infectious diseases doctor; the pandemic looks a lot different from where we sit. As of yesterday, Seattle Children's Hospital had tested over 750 children with fever and respiratory symptoms and have had a total of 5 positive tests. A peds hospital in NYC reports only 7 or 8 admissions, and only one ICU admission so far, despite their location in a current hotspot).

    In any case, unless things change drastically, we won't be able to expand testing because we don't have the necessary materials.
    Appreciate the detailed response, but it really doesn't explain if this is capability, logistics, or will. Do you know the answer to that?

    At peak monthly production, Ford rolled out 428 B-24 Liberators from one plant. (Edit: Another source says they put out about 1 per hour. Greatest Generation indeed.)
    Last edited by dudog84; 03-26-2020 at 10:53 AM.

  18. #2438
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Has anyone cited any thing on this point? I have seen maybe people raise the issue of increased suicides, for example, but have seen no analysis. Curious if you have.

    It is undoubtedly true that economic hardship is associated with poorer outcomes, but I have not seen anyone address this issue other than in an armchair fashion.
    I hear it commonly reported, and it makes sense to me. It goes further than just suicide. Loss of jobs means loss of health care, inability to buy medicine, starvation, malnutrition, increased drug and alcohol use (abuse), increased violent crime, domestic violence, and probably much more than is occurring to me right now.

    I doubt there really could be a comprehensive study. Perhaps someone could convince me the reasoning behind it is flawed.

    FWIW: I'm not advocating an immediate return to our "pre-covid" lives. We NEED to allow our medical system to catch up and resupply, and to ensure we are taking care of the health care workers on the front lines. On the other hand, we cannot shut down the economy until we have zero reported new cases. There must be a balance struck.

  19. #2439
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Economic hardship can lead to death. Fatality rates may exceed Covid-19. There has to be balance. Striking that balance is PP territory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I've seen this sentiment expressed in many places, and I'm sympathetic to the argument, but on the other hand: did the Great Depression increase death rates? Did death rates increase in the civilian population in World War 2 when a massive chunk of our GDP was diverted to military production? AFAIK the answer is no, but history buffs may know better.
    The issue with COVID-19 is its high infection rate. It could theoretically infect a significant percent of the US through the exponential growth in person-to-person contacts. Our gamble is that we can stop this spread almost totally with "social distancing," "shelter in place" and other measures within a few weeks or a couple of months -- at very finite costs to our economy.

    Similar problem to the statement of Lt. Gov. Patrick about being willing to take the risk of death for the benefit of the economy. It's not just just his individual risk, it is the devastation, if controls are lifted, from an exploding number of COVID-19 cases and a great increase in deaths.
    Last edited by sagegrouse; 03-26-2020 at 10:58 AM. Reason: Typos
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  20. #2440
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    There are two schools of thought on this I think. On the one hand, there is the thought that you have mentioned above. Which has validity. On the other, there is the fact that they are still undertesting. So there's no way to know what the true infection rate is, nor how fast it is growing or how it is spreading.

    All the testing that is going on at this point is still just playing catchup. We know that it was underestimating disease wildly before, and it probably still is. The problem is that, if the virus is more widespread than folks realize, it's that much harder to contain. That's why we're seeing the spike in cases in New Jersey now... because they didn't have a real sense of the scale of the problem in NYC until the cases were already growing rapidly.

    If we test 100 people and get 20 positives today, then scale up to 1000 people and get 200 positives tomorrow, it's hard to know whether that is a sign that there were 200 true positives yesterday and 200 today or 100 yesterday and 200 today or 150 yesterday and 400 today or 400 yesterday and 800 today, and so on. All we know is that as we are increasing the testing we are seeing an increase in case counts, which just reiterates that we're underestimating the number of cases today (which we already knew). So I don't know that it should be viewed as a positive or as a negative at this point.
    It also very strongly depends on how testing is being implemented.

    For example, the percentage of tests that turn positive might increase because of a decision made by a local group to only test severely symptomatic people, or to only test those who are being admitted to the hospital. On the flip side, the percentage could go drastically down if an area decides to test anybody who requests a test.

    There are a lot of variables, and none of them is being controlled at this point.
    A plane takes off from Baltimore and touches down on Bourbon Street

Similar Threads

  1. Lacrosse: The 2020 Season
    By burnspbesq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: Yesterday, 08:24 PM
  2. 2020 Final Four
    By szstark in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-09-2020, 11:00 AM
  3. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 11:28 AM
  4. FB: 2020 Schedule is out
    By nocilla in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-22-2020, 06:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •