PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[budwom]

If he uses rouge, should he also apply lipstick?

Seriously, I can't imagine Fauci acting in an other than professional manner. He is the best-known infectious disease expert in the world and has been for over 20 years. He will speak candidly about the disease and its treatment but not comment on political matters. Just my prediction, which could be soon confirmed or rejected, because he seems to be on the way out.

What a bunch of straight men you guys are! "going rouge is actually 'a thing;" mes amis:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Rouge

Yes, I suspect Fauci will remain above the fray, but as POTUS intensifies his personal attacks on him, I do feel his patience may not be infinite.

[dudog84]

Accurately predicting what will happen to number of deaths in the next few weeks is not something you can easily do that is "just numbers." The trends have been changing. It obviously has nothing to do with rockets, but it is, indeed, very difficult to get right (and understandably so). Anyone who says that the upcoming death counts are obvious based on "the numbers" is wrong.

I didn't give you a number. I said "Deaths will most certainly rise". Are you seriously arguing that deaths will stay level or decrease over the next few weeks?

[budwom]

yeah, ICUs are filling up in AZ, CA, other places ...>350 people on respirators in LA county alone...deaths have risen and almost certainly will continue to...

[freshmanjs]

I didn't give you a number. I said "Deaths will most certainly rise". Are you seriously arguing that deaths will stay level or decrease over the next few weeks?

It depends what you mean by few weeks, but yes. I think there is a real possibility that the 7 day moving average of deaths will be in the 700 range or lower 8 weeks from now (I also wouldn't be surprised if it's much higher). If you forced me to bet on that over/under, I genuinely would not know what to do based on the information I have.

Over the next 2-3 weeks, i do expect an increase, but I have no idea how big. I think there is a very broad range of possibilities.

[Matches]

I agree, of course, that 600-700 people per day dying is a lot.

The terrible outcomes other than death is a very difficult discussion to have. On the one hand, serious complications are clearly happening to real people with terrible consequences. On the other hand, there just isn't good data on how widespread and serious the complications are. There are lots of anecdotes, but anecdotes lead to very poor risk assessments. You could come up with very scary anecdotal stories about other viruses and many other dangers that would lead you to the wrong conclusion about aggregate risk and to bad public policy absent real data.

Sure. I do think that hospitalizations are a pretty good metric on that front, though. Maybe not everyone who is hospitalized ends up in the ICU or on a ventilator, but at minimum they were sick enough to go to the hospital. Can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm 46 and have never considered going to the hospital for the flu or a bad cold.

[Nrrrrvous]

I agree, of course, that 600-700 people per day dying is a lot.

The terrible outcomes other than death is a very difficult discussion to have. On the one hand, serious complications are clearly happening to real people with terrible consequences. On the other hand, there just isn't good data on how widespread and serious the complications are. There are lots of anecdotes, but anecdotes lead to very poor risk assessments. You could come up with very scary anecdotal stories about other viruses and many other dangers that would lead you to the wrong conclusion about aggregate risk and to bad public policy absent real data.

You're one of those people that I love. As 20 people run by them screaming "BEAR!"(anecdotal stories), they wait until they can actually see the bear(real data) before they start running. Maybe they run some tests on the bear to make sure that he is actually a bear, not a giant squirrel. Maybe they interview him to make sure he is THE bear that was chasing the others, not some innocent bear that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Meanwhile, I'll be in my car with the windows up and the doors locked, watching a bear have breakfast.

[freshmanjs]

Sure. I do think that hospitalizations are a pretty good metric on that front, though. Maybe not everyone who is hospitalized ends up in the ICU or on a ventilator, but at minimum they were sick enough to go to the hospital. Can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm 46 and have never considered going to the hospital for the flu or a bad cold.

Agree, hospitalizations is a good metric to assess severity.

According to the CDC, there were 410,000-740,000 influenza hospitalizations in the USA during the 2019-20 flu season (about 6 months).

It is very difficult to find cumulative hospitalization data on Covid-19, but based on my research, it does not appear to be significantly higher than that and may still be lower (although it is 4 months vs. 6 and the seasonality / sustained transmission within a region are unknown for Covid-19).

[dudog84]

I agree, of course, that 600-700 people per day dying is a lot.

The terrible outcomes other than death is a very difficult discussion to have. On the one hand, serious complications are clearly happening to real people with terrible consequences. On the other hand, there just isn't good data on how widespread and serious the complications are. There are lots of anecdotes, but anecdotes lead to very poor risk assessments. You could come up with very scary anecdotal stories about other viruses and many other dangers that would lead you to the wrong conclusion about aggregate risk and to bad public policy absent real data.

Those pointy-heads at Columbia have been compiling some "anecdotes" for you. BTW, this article was posted here a couple of days ago, it's not breaking news.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...dy/ar-BB16B8mr

[JasonEvans]

It's too bad that Rose died and that his refusal to wear a mask was potentially the reason, though we will never know for sure. Publicizing his example without publicly excoriating the guy may help drive the point home to positive benefit. Mocking him for his lack of common sense doesn't help anyone.

I hope you were not implying that I was mocking him. I have re-read my post to make sure I did not accidentally phrase something in a way that indicate that. I feel nothing but sadness at the loss of life here, especially because this would appear to be a life cut short that did not have to be had the decedent believed in the advice of the medical experts.

[freshmanjs]

Those pointy-heads at Columbia have been compiling some "anecdotes" for you. BTW, this article was posted here a couple of days ago, it's not breaking news.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...dy/ar-BB16B8mr

I assume your reference to pointy-heads at Columbia and the inappropriate use of "" around anecdotes means you are mocking me and think I am stupid or anti-science or something. I love science. The science denial trend is awful and I hate it. Relying on scary anecdotes to form views of aggregate risk is not science. It leads to bad decisions. Quick googling yields a number of almost identical articles about abnormal blood clotting and other serious effects seen in influenza. Without real data, it is impossible to form a useful view on the relative risks.

[budwom]

Not directly Covid related, but this is not great publicity for our alma mater:https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...s/?arc404=true


Some very harsh words for our student health center...

[cato]

Agree, hospitalizations is a good metric to assess severity.

According to the CDC, there were 410,000-740,000 influenza hospitalizations in the USA during the 2019-20 flu season (about 6 months).

It is very difficult to find cumulative hospitalization data on Covid-19, but based on my research, it does not appear to be significantly higher than that and may still be lower (although it is 4 months vs. 6 and the seasonality / sustained transmission within a region are unknown for Covid-19).

How are you differentiating between the usefulness of reported hospitalization numbers for flu and COVID-19? There is a very wide range in the flu number already, which you imply have some validity.

When you say COVID-19 hospitalizations numbers do not “appear to be significantly higher” what numbers are you using?

[freshmanjs]

How are you differentiating between the usefulness of reported hospitalization numbers for flu and COVID-19? There is a very wide range in the flu number already, which you imply have some validity.

When you say COVID-19 hospitalizations numbers do not “appear to be significantly higher” what numbers are you using?

On influenza, I assume the CDC influenza report has some validity, but I don't really know. Those are the numbers the CDC reports.

On Covid-19, I could not find complete cumulative hospitalization data. I triangulated in 2 ways to get a sense for it:

- We know total known cases are about 3M, and some have estimated 20% hospitalization rate on known cases. If that's right, it would put C-19 hospitalizations in similar range to the influenza hospitalizations

- This work from UMN has cumulative data for 38 states and their number is 269k for C-19 hospitalizations. Obviously, that is incomplete, but even if it only capturing half of hospitalizations, C-19 is still within the CDC influenza range. Their data is missing California and Texas, but includes New York and Florida. Even if their 38 states were only capturing 1/3 of real hospitalizations, it still would be within spitting distance of the influenza range.
https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/mili-m...acking-project

Based on that, I conclude that it doesn't seem likely that there are significantly more C-19 hospitalizations than flu hospitalizations so far.

I am not claiming this is just the flu or anything like that. Just think it is good to have some grounding facts. The # of deaths from C-19 has definitely been higher than from flu in the same time period, with the bulk of those C-19 deaths happening in Spring.

For those who believe there have been more C-19 hospitalizations than influenza hospitalizations since October of 2019, what is the evidence for that belief?

[Matches]

Agree, hospitalizations is a good metric to assess severity.

According to the CDC, there were 410,000-740,000 influenza hospitalizations in the USA during the 2019-20 flu season (about 6 months).

It is very difficult to find cumulative hospitalization data on Covid-19, but based on my research, it does not appear to be significantly higher than that and may still be lower (although it is 4 months vs. 6 and the seasonality / sustained transmission within a region are unknown for Covid-19).

I agree it's not entirely clear - however, based on the data on this page:

https://covidtracking.com/data


It looks to me as if we have had just over 1 million hospitalizations to date, with the caveat that Kansas and Hawaii do not report. I *think* that's what that says but I acknowledge I could be reading it incorrectly, so if someone else has a different take, of course feel free to share.

[MChambers]

According to a UK study: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...study-suggests

But, as has been suggested upthread, this is based on drops in antibody levels. The immune system has other ways to attack the coronavirus, including T cells. Still, this study should give anyone planning to go to a Covid party pause (as should the risk of death or permanent medical issues).

Here's the underlying study, not peer reviewed: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...09.20148429v1

[freshmanjs]

I agree it's not entirely clear - however, based on the data on this page:

https://covidtracking.com/data


It looks to me as if we have had just over 1 million hospitalizations to date, with the caveat that Kansas and Hawaii do not report. I *think* that's what that says but I acknowledge I could be reading it incorrectly, so if someone else has a different take, of course feel free to share.

I looked at that site and could not find any cumulative hospitalization data there. The only " just over 1M number" I see there is the number of known resolved cases, which is independent of hospitalization status. If it's there, please point me to it. Would love to have that data!

[Matches]

I looked at that site and could not find any cumulative hospitalization data there. The only " just over 1M number" I see there is the number of known resolved cases, which is independent of hospitalization status. If it's there, please point me to it. Would love to have that data!

Right - but the "recovered" and "deaths" figures only add up to about 1.03 million - far less than the total # of cases, and significantly less than worldometers' "resolved" figure. Wouldn't that mean that we've got 2 million+ cases that are currently not resolved? Because if so, that's terrifying.

[freshmanjs]

Right - but the "recovered" and "deaths" figures only add up to about 1.03 million - far less than the total # of cases, and significantly less than worldometers' "resolved" figure. Wouldn't that mean that we've got 2 million+ cases that are currently not resolved? Because if so, that's terrifying.

Yes, it does mean that. But that's because there is no follow-up / retesting program to resolve minor cases. There is no way for someone who gets a positive test and then recovers at home to be classified as resolved in most cases.

[CameronBlue]

I hope you were not implying that I was mocking him. I have re-read my post to make sure I did not accidentally phrase something in a way that indicate that. I feel nothing but sadness at the loss of life here, especially because this would appear to be a life cut short that did not have to be had the decedent believed in the advice of the medical experts.

No of course not. It was an observation that outside of DBR, social media will respond predictably with derision and cheap humor and therefore I didn't think I needed to make the connection. Lazy I guess, sorry about that.

[JasonEvans]

So, if freshmanjs' estimate is correct -- with most of us doing nothing to stop the spread of influenza, we end up with roughly the same number of hospitalizations (but not nearly the same number of deaths) as where we are right now on Covid. That is despite a large percentage of the nation observing social distancing and mask wearing on an order of magnitude unlike anything in our history. Even with those this unprecedented effort to control it, the disease is running rampant and spreading faster and faster every day.

I shudder to think of what hospitalizations and deaths would be like if we were to ease off even a little bit. I want to thank freshmanjs for providing such a convincing argument for us being even more vigilant!