That assume a mortality rate of no more than 1%.
Assuming the worst, that somehow we suck so bad at healthinating that we hit the current WHO estimate of 3.4%, we’d be looking at 5,610,000 deaths if half the population was infected.
ETA: “Plan for the worst; hope for the best” doesn’t work as a strategy if you lie to yourself about what the worst could be.
At my university, they’ve just sent out a message (about an hour ago) saying that this week is the last week of face-to-face instruction, and that all classes will be taught online for the remainder of the Spring semester, which is another 7 weeks of classes.
All domestic and international travel for university business is cancelled, and all university-sponsored events between now and April 30 are cancelled. They are still planning and hoping to have the Commencement ceremony in late May, but we’ll see how that goes.
Part of the library will remain open to students who need access to study spaces or technology resources like computers. Students living in campus housing are going to get a separate message about how that will be handled.
This all happened pretty quickly. At a meeting with faculty at lunchtime today, our university president was leaning towards trying to keep the campus open for face-to-face classes until our Spring Break week, which is just over two weeks away, but some people at the meeting were not happy with that decision and were pushing her to close the campus earlier, especially since other universities in the San Diego County area had already announced their move to online instruction.
I’m facing a bit of a personal dilemma. My university is in California, but my wife and I live in Connecticut. I’ve just been renting a place out here for the semester. I’d like to get back home and spend the rest of the semester (and then the summer) with my wife, but I’m also conscious that it’s better to limit non-essential travel. I’m tossing up what to do.
Does this travel ban make sense? I am trying really really hard not to let my distaste for Trump lead me to be outraged by anything he does, but it seems stupid. We know CORVID-19 is here, in 38 states. Domestic travel is as likely to move it from one place to another as is international travel. But even if we decide we need to take draconian measures to prevent any additional points of infection from entering the country, I can’t see any reason to allow travel from the UK.
What am I missing?
I think it is something. An imperfect containment plan is better than no plan. For instance, Italy has just shut down all businesses except grocery stores and pharmacies. The virus is still going to spread in these places, but at least it isn’t going to be spread around in all the other places at the same time.
I might be confabulating this so don’t be mad at me if it turns out I’m wrong, but I believe people coming from the listed countries will not be able to bypass the ban just by flying from the UK.
We are stuck in Florence, Italy until next Wednesday :. it’s a bloody ghost town. Only allow three people in the grocery stores at a time. We’re flying out to the UK then home. They said what Italy did was draconian. But it might be helping. The medical has been playing catch-up.
He did not predict 1.6 million deaths, that was just the worst case estimate he threw out there. He just did a little calculation and ended up with the truly massive range of 327 dead to 1.6 million. It was a mildly interesting thought experiment at best and predicts exactly nothing.
Basically a few people are going to die, some people are going to die or a lot of people are going to die. Not a shocker.
The whole point of these “draconian” methods is to keep it from BEING a total epidemic, like the Bubonic Plague, or the Spanish Flu. You know what they say about the best defense being a good offense?
Not necessarily. Perhaps not out right quarantine, but cancelling big events, and encouraging people to stay home and not go out unless absolutely necessary? History seems to show that’s a good idea.
That’s not true. Your post reminds me of the statement attributed to Henry Kissinger about how he advised Nixon on every foreign policy crisis, that the first two options were (1) total thermonuclear war with the Soviets, or (2) complete surrender.
The third option would be his preferred policy. In this case, We could have been testing for fever or diverting passengers from certain areas to a quarantine, for example. I learned yesterday that at at least one major US airport, people were arriving from Italy like normal, no screening or questions asked.
This is just un-fucking-real.
It’s so bad that people who suspect they have corona can’t even get tested. Medical professionals have to ration testing to people who are highly suspected to have the virus, which means only people with direct contact of someone known to be infected or having returned from an area with high incidence.
What does this really mean? It means that community-spread COVID is going undetected – by the thousands and maybe the tens of thousands.
What you’re going to see - perhaps in just a matter of days - is people flooding emergency rooms, crushing the health system in some places. Take a good look at Italy: this is going to be us, in about 2-4 weeks. Get the coffins ready.
The lack of testing necessitates all the closures and event cancellations. When people don’t know where the clusters are, then the safest assumption is they are everywhere.
First up, I’m going to suggest that you all read this article from Medium. It goes into exhaustive detail, with lots of data, about COVID-19 and what an enormous distance social distancing can make.
Testing does a lot more than help the sick person. It educates researchers on disease behavior. Learning more about how this works is critical. It also helps asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals get identified and quarantined.
They are not on top of this. If they were, we’d have tests and we’d have much more robust testing standards. Managing this has fallen to local and state governments, some of whom are responding better than others.
Maybe? They’ve also provided a model for how it can be contained, including the fact that they should have acted sooner. You know, like we are… oh, wait.
This is incorrect. China screens and test people at a very high level right now. Get on the bus, get screened before you can board. If you are symptomatic, you are sent to a testing clinic. In 2-3 hours, if you have the coronavirus, you are sent to a large isolation area (like the arenas that have been converted into make shift hotels. You do not return home or to work to spread infection. Screening is conducted in many places - before entering work, before entering your street or apartment building, before mass transmit.
When people say China is a model, they are not talking about the initial response. They are talking about the extreme measures that China adopted to get the disease under control in China.
I would agree that the President has miscalculated badly, starting with a few years ago when he gutted the CDC response capabilities. I do not agree that the Democrats are using this for political gain. I see Democrats pushing hard for an effective response and aid packages that actually help people instead of companies.
[/quote]
The CDC had clearly been muzzled by the White House. I certainly listen to what they’re saying, but I’m also looking at a lot of other information.
Again, look at the article I posted at the beginning. We must flatten the curve, or our healthcare system will be over-run and the disease will take a terrible toll on our country.
tl;dr NO (to the hell no), we are not doing enough at the federal level to slow the spread of COVID-19.
A friend’s wife is a trauma nurse at Stanford. He showed me a picture. She’s in a full suit and face mask, which is hot and uncomfortable. The hospital is swamped. They have no time for breaks for hydration, and they are scrambling to provide care to those who have shown up.
We don’t need to wait a few weeks. The healthcare system is already being strained.
True, and that will give us some measure of comfort in the short-run, but it will also lead to a false sense of security and we’re likely to have a relapse in the weeks that follow.
What’s preferable is to have a robust system of testing, strong coordination between the CDC and state departments of health, and access to the health system that doesn’t require to think about whether they’re ‘in network’ or gonna have to pay a hefty deductible. The US healthcare system is advanced in many ways, but we’re going to find out that it is uniquely susceptible to a community-spread pandemic.
The best way to fight this is to have maximum transparency - that’s much, much effective than shutting down community activity. And frankly, we already know that while there may be bans on crowds of 500 or more, there will be plenty of people inclined to say ‘Fuck this, I’m gonna have a house party with my bros’ or ‘I’m gonna have that retirement party’ and they’re going to invite 10, 20, or 40 people, and it’ll all fly right under the radar. People will still go to local jam sessions at some watering hole, and they will still be very contagious even if not apparently ill, and they’ll hug mom and dad the next day.
Testing is key and we don’t have it, and it’s just damn inexplicable that we don’t. You know, Trump did really well with older Americans, and it’s going to be poetic justice for some of them that his denials are going to send them to an early grave. At the same time, many others didn’t ask for this shit.
I am honestly sorry for your friend and his wife - they are going to have a hell of time these next few months. I worry about them as much as anyone - even more so. They’re literally risking their lives to save others, which is admirable to say the least.
Here’s a stat that will inspire confidence in America’s effort:
That was updated 28 hours ago, so the numbers are higher now, but y’all will get the point, I think: not enough testing.
The official number of 1600 cases is obviously low; in reality, right now, we probably have anywhere from a conservative figure of 4000 cases to 40,000 - and the number’s growing - by the hour.
Read it. Interesting stuff. It did raise a question for me, though: why did Italy let “restaurants and bars” open at all? I’d think that they’d be shut down along with everything else because of transmission concerns.
Wait, something else just struck me that has probably been often pointed out by others: a big reason some of the extreme measures taken in other countries haven’t been taken here is that no one can trust that the workers and small business owners affected by a forced shutdown won’t be left swinging in the wind when the crisis declines and bills need to be paid. That’s probably where the federal government can do the most good at this late stage.
I wonder: how much of what China did really is only possible because of authoritarianism? How much is the size of the United States versus, say, South Korea a factor?
I remember another post approvingly containing the advice to not treat other people like walking disease vectors… yet that sounds like what we’re being told to do via social distancing? And why are the banned gathering numbers so high? Why are we not forbidding gatherings of more than fifty people? Less?
I also wonder what the “extreme measures” if implemented in the United States would look like. Could they be exactly as they were done in other countries? Would people, especially with this president, accept the military coming in and telling them not to leave their homes, or cutting off supply lines?
In a word, no.
What did I post?
Not “predicts 1.6 million” but UP TO 1.6 million. As many as. A rough upper limit. Over a period of time. That’s all.
Back to topic.
77 out of 333 million. It’s a start. :smack: