Are you personally worried about getting the Coronavirus?

Are you personally worried about catching the Coronavirus?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.0%
  • No

    Votes: 59 59.0%

  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
In the year 2030 we will have more people aged 70 and above then at any time in our history, pandemic or not.

I don't need to watch the news to know that fact.

This will change our lives when it is over. Like 9/11 did, or the Kennedy assassination. This is a generation defining event. It's going to wipe out an entire major league baseball season. And this could be nature's way of telling us to be a little more careful with certain things the next time around.
My post was just a bad joke to point out the irony in the timing of talking about having too many elderly people.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
And pray tell how have you done an objective analysis of this issue when there has not been hardly any testing of the population to give even baseline truthful numbers of how many people have been infected.

It sure seems pretty apparent by now how contagious this virus is. I'm not a math major, but my equation is weeks of being in the country + people traveling all over + the virus already being reported everywhere + it being contagious as fuck = a shit ton of infected.

Here's one problem I've realized that changes my opinion and concerns me a bit more. When thinking about how many I would guess are infected compared to how many serious cases there are, it's easy to assume it's probably not too bad of a death rate. But what I haven't factored as much as I probably should have is the amount of time you can be infected before showing symptoms. I feel like by now there is an astronomical amount of people who have it but hardly anyone has died. Problem is, just because those people haven't died yet, doesn't mean they aren't going to. Does everyone who ends up in the hospital follow a pretty similar timeline? Does anyone know for sure what that is? I read as story of a couple who went on a trip where they probably got it, then ended up in the hospital 4 days later. But their trip was a handful of days so there's no telling exactly how many days they had it. Does anyone have a decent timeline of how slow this progresses to a death bed?
 

Northside Hawk

Well-Known Member
It will be much bigger.
I keep hearing phrases like "We will get through this" "We will come out on the other side of this"

I dont think so.

Life as we just knew it isn't coming back anytime soon. In their quest to protect a few most vulnerable our state and federal government has overreacted severely and it's going to lead to massive small business closures, if not rampages of crime.

Give people four to six weeks of this lifestyle and you are going to see people snap and go off the deep end and make this virus look like a zit on someone's hind quarters. Humans by nature are not isolated creatures.
 

CP87

Well-Known Member
Check out the difference in mortality rates:



Of note, even the lowest mortality rate on that graph is roughly 2x the mortality rate of the seasonal flu (and of course mortaility rates are hard to nail down).
 

InGoodCo

Well-Known Member
It's only been 8 days since they started closing things down. It's still going to get worse, much worse, then it will peak, then it will get better, then it will probably come back even worse. This threat and fear isn't going away until there is a vaccine or they find better ways to treat it. If we stay on the course we are on currently, our hospitals will be over run within weeks. The amount of cases vs the amount of hospital beds vs the amount of tests available is really alarming. Not to mention that most rural hospitals in Iowa are going on with things business as usual because what else can they do? They don't have what they need. This whole thing sucks. Stay healthy friends and hold on. We can ride it out, but the virus can ride it out longer.
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
Check out the difference in mortality rates:



Of note, even the lowest mortality rate on that graph is roughly 2x the mortality rate of the seasonal flu (and of course mortaility rates are hard to nail down).

Death rates can be skewed higher in areas and countries where the healthcare system cannot keep up. If a patient needs a ventilator but none are available then they die but it might have been preventable.
 

#1DieHardHawk

Well-Known Member
Check out the difference in mortality rates:



Of note, even the lowest mortality rate on that graph is roughly 2x the mortality rate of the seasonal flu (and of course mortaility rates are hard to nail down).
I'm not taking sides in the seriousness debate here, but I would point out that statistics such as these are inherently misleading.

The problem is the "% CASES" column. As a number that represents confirmed cases, that is as low as the denominator can be (we can't lower it by "unconfirming" cases), but, when you factor in what are probably large numbers of unconfirmed cases - either due to mild or no symptoms, or lack of available testing - the number could be much higher. When factoring that in, the adjusted mortality rates would be lower, and perhaps much, much lower.

Basically, all this graph is useful for is trying to get an idea of what your chance of dying is if you test positive, but that creates another statistical problem known as a selection bias - those that test positive are also most likely those that have significant symptoms in the first place, skewing the curve to the right and artificially inflating the mortality rate.
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
Well yea but out of the 20% that are in serious condition, dont you agree that a huge portion of those will come from the high risk category? Most of the 80% that don't need a hospital will come from the low risk category.

The news this morning out of Europe is there are more young people seriously ill than believed.

All these numbers are lagging by a few days also especially in the US where testing is almost non-existent. Yesterday the female doctor who is on TV with Trump and she worked for the military iirc was saying we will be seeing some spikes in the curve in the US.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
I keep hearing phrases like "We will get through this" "We will come out on the other side of this"

I dont think so.

Life as we just knew it isn't coming back anytime soon. In their quest to protect a few most vulnerable our state and federal government has overreacted severely and it's going to lead to massive small business closures, if not rampages of crime.

Give people four to six weeks of this lifestyle and you are going to see people snap and go off the deep end and make this virus look like a zit on someone's hind quarters. Humans by nature are not isolated creatures.

I have no idea why this seemingly overreaction, but I doubt it is just an overreaction. Beyond that, I have no real opinion. It's like predicting Iowa BB next year as we don't have enough info on LG and JB. Would be just taking guesses. If it is an overreaction,, it is criminal...hideous.
 

Northside Hawk

Well-Known Member
I have no idea why this seemingly overreaction, but I doubt it is just an overreaction. Beyond that, I have no real opinion. It's like predicting Iowa BB next year as we don't have enough info on LG and JB. Would be just taking guesses. If it is an overreaction,, it is criminal...hideous.
Anyone can self quarantine or self isolate for a week or two. Let's see what happens if people are asked to do it for three or four months. It will cause bigger issues than the virus ever did. People are literally being asked to stay away from each other. Outdoor playgrounds are being closed. OUTDOORS!!! Our high school athletic director told the kids to stop playing pickup basketball, school property or not. My sixteen years old is already depressed as hell.

You're correct about the unknowns. Let's pray that, like all flu strains, this one wanes as spring gets into full swing. And that we have an effective vaccination by the time the next flu season arrives.
 

#1DieHardHawk

Well-Known Member
Anyone can self quarantine or self isolate for a week or two. Let's see what happens if people are asked to do it for three or four months. It will cause bigger issues than the virus ever did. People are literally being asked to stay away from each other. Outdoor playgrounds are being closed. OUTDOORS!!! Our high school athletic director told the kids to stop playing pickup basketball, school property or not. My sixteen years old is already depressed as hell.

You're correct about the unknowns. Let's pray that, like all flu strains, this one wanes as spring gets into full swing. And that we have an effective vaccination by the time the next flu season arrives.
My 15 year-old daughter is just the opposite - no school and she doesn't want to go outside anyway. She can just lie around and facetime with her friends, which sadly is the new norm anyway.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
I'm not taking sides in the seriousness debate here, but I would point out that statistics such as these are inherently misleading.

The problem is the "% CASES" column. As a number that represents confirmed cases, that is as low as the denominator can be (we can't lower it by "unconfirming" cases), but, when you factor in what are probably large numbers of unconfirmed cases - either due to mild or no symptoms, or lack of available testing - the number could be much higher. When factoring that in, the adjusted mortality rates would be lower, and perhaps much, much lower.

Basically, all this graph is useful for is trying to get an idea of what your chance of dying is if you test positive, but that creates another statistical problem known as a selection bias - those that test positive are also most likely those that have significant symptoms in the first place, skewing the curve to the right and artificially inflating the mortality rate.
The two questions are how many people had it that never had severe symptoms and how many people that have already tested positive and are still alive are going to end up dying. One changed the rate one direction while the other changed it the other direction. I've got to assume the first number is considerably higher than the second which drastically lowers the death rate.
 

#1DieHardHawk

Well-Known Member
The two questions are how many people had it that never had severe symptoms and how many people that have already tested positive and are still alive are going to end up dying. One changed the rate one direction while the other changed it the other direction. I've got to assume the first number is considerably higher than the second which drastically lowers the death rate.
I posted in another thread when this all first started, that at the end of the day, my guess is that the mortality rate for CV-19 will level off at around 0.5%, which is still substantially higher than the flu but lower than current estimates. We probably won't have reliable numbers for 3-5 years. Until we have solid estimations of the prevalence, it all remains speculative.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
I posted in another thread when this all first started, that at the end of the day, my guess is that the mortality rate for CV-19 will level off at around 0.5%, which is still substantially higher than the flu but lower than current estimates. We probably won't have reliable numbers for 3-5 years. Until we have solid estimations of the prevalence, it all remains speculative.

I think the mortality rate will be lower than that. I don't believe for one second that China had 80,000 cases. That place is insanely crowded and very unsanitary. The number was probably off by at least a factor of 10.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
Let's pray that, like all flu strains, this one wanes as spring gets into full swing.

It will. I am testing it this weekend. It will be 77 on Saturday and I will spend the day smoking ribs and corned beef brisket (the only meats they had left at our grocery store yesterday).
 

kameltoez102

Well-Known Member
None of data will be accurate from my standpoint as everyone will not get tested. Many people that have the virus worldwide had underlying conditions that possibly skew the numbers. The data from China is by no means accurate and most likely never will be.

The other anomaly that could throw all the "numbers" off is on the chart posted above where is India? One of the most densely populated countries in the world with a less than stellar sanitation reputation. IF the outbreak gets bad in India it will devastate that country and ultimately the world.

It is going to be difficult for the US in the next several months to get through this but I think this has really opened the eyes of those that didn't believe we need to be more self sufficient. I think this will ultimately strengthen the US economy as a lot of the jobs being outsourced or not allowed here for regulatory BS will be allowed to come back. This is a generational event that has never been experienced before, people would be foolish to believe that this would go over smoothly.
 

Northside Hawk

Well-Known Member
I think the mortality rate will be lower than that. I don't believe for one second that China had 80,000 cases. That place is insanely crowded and very unsanitary. The number was probably off by at least a factor of 10.
Think of what would hapoen if it hit India or Bangledash.
 

Northside Hawk

Well-Known Member
My 15 year-old daughter is just the opposite - no school and she doesn't want to go outside anyway. She can just lie around and facetime with her friends, which sadly is the new norm anyway.
I posted one week ago today that the impending cancellation of the NCAA'S represented rotten timing, that this would be a memory in two months..

One week might as well been a decade ago. And I'm concerned that the effects of cooping up humans will have bigger effects than the virus, even with the amenities of social media. Domestic disputes, and criminal activity in general could go way up as people deal with layoffs, business closures, and being asked to act like caged animals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top