Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Indefinite lock-down?

Recommended Posts

My top health official said today we will be in lock-down until at least May.

Why May - what will have changed by then? Why not June, or July, or May of next year? Or a year in a half, the estimate for when a vaccine will be available?

This article states more clearly what I was thinking, and is worth reading.

https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b

Basically, as far as the contagious disease itself is concerned, these measures simply defer the exponential growth in cases. So come May, it's the same problem. Loosen up on the lock-down and you face skyrocketing cases. But it gets even worse, because instead of aiming to coincide the peak with summer, when ICUs are typically not overrun by flu cases, delaying too long leads to a peak in the next flu season.

As the authors state, the most important aspect of lock-down is to give us time to come up with better treatments, make more equipment, and so on. But then you still have to 'let it rip', or face indefinite lock-down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe May is a realistic timeline.  Naturally, we'll have a better idea of "how" realistic by late April.  

Part of what could change by then is that most of the currently infected people will have healed (or, in some cases, died) without infecting anyone else because:

1)  They self-quarantined or went to an ER where they became quarantined as an inpatient

2)  Healthy people stayed at home so asymptomatic but contagious people did not infect them.

That alone will dramatically reduce the spread of the disease, which is the whole point of all the measures we are taking.  With lower spread, there will be fewer infected people, and therefore even less spread, and therefore even fewer infected people, and therefore even less spread.  Etc.  

That said, once we get the greenlight to return to our usual lives, one sick person going to a concert or something could create a burst of another thousand people with COVID-19.

There's also hope that hospitals could have the equipment they need by then, as manufacturing catches up with demand.  There'd be more work on a vaccine or other medical measures.  Etc.

Is May a guarantee?  Absolutely not.  Could be June.  Could be July.  I don't think it will be a year, as long as people actually listen to the healthcare professionals instead of fighting against that guidance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I may need to walk back my "May is realistic."

Our local Hospital Association's latest projections show my city peaking in mid-May.  

Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Actinguy said:

That said, once we get the greenlight to return to our usual lives, one sick person going to a concert or something could create a burst of another thousand people with COVID-19.

That's what the article is saying! Lock-downs themselves don't solve the problem, they defer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

That's what the article is saying! Lock-downs themselves don't solve the problem, they defer it.

I may not have been clear in my full response.  I am acknowledging that, but the odds of that one person in the concert having COVID-19 in the first place is much lower following this lock down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

I may not have been clear in my full response.  I am acknowledging that, but the odds of that one person in the concert having COVID-19 in the first place is much lower following this lock down.

It doesn't matter much. Once it gets going again, you're back to lock-down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 1:31 PM, admin_270 said:

It doesn't matter much. Once it gets going again, you're back to lock-down.

I agree.  It is why this policy of locking everything down is not a sustainable option (especially considering the economic destruction that is occurring).  A vaccine is still over a year away, and locking things down until then is just not an option.  At this point, it may be better to have people build up natural immunity to the virus while working to protect the most vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvikings1 said:

At this point, it may be better to have people build up natural immunity to the virus while working to protect the most vulnerable.

Oh shush. Next you're going to be saying there might be a way to handle a disease that has an infection mortality rate of <1% in a way that doesn't destroy the economy. You're making way too much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

 infection mortality rate of <1% 

The mortality rate in the US was 1.5% last week.

Now it's 2.41%

Globally, it's 5.22%.

We are behind, but we are catching up.

And that's only basing the death rate off of the total number of positive cases.  Most of the cases are still active, where the outcome is unknown.

Of those where there's actually been an outcome -- either recovery or death -- 20% have died.

Twenty percent.

There's actually a reason the entire world is taking this more seriously than you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The mortality rate in the US was 1.5% last week.

Now it's 2.41%

Globally, it's 5.22%.

The case mortality rate is very different from the infection mortality rate. That's probably why there's such a range of numbers between countries for case mortality rates.

Care to link to anyone proposing an infection mortality rate estimate of 20%? Seems completely absurd given everything I have read on the subject. No serious expert I have read has proposed a number anywhere near that high. Perhaps you should write to your local representative and inform them!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

Care to link to anyone proposing an infection mortality rate estimate of 20%? 

Sure thing.

It's the same site the rest of the numbers come from, and they show their original sources at the bottom of the page.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
 

For the 20%, I am looking specifically at the "closed cases" number.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

For the 20%, I am looking specifically at the "closed cases" number.

That's not an infection mortality rate. Are you really this stupid?

The page you link to (which I check almost every day) says "The novel coronavirus' case fatality rate has been estimated at around 2%", which is a reasonable estimate - although my guess is the infection mortality rate is lower because of large numbers of mild or asymptomatic cases. That's arguable. 20% isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

That's not an infection mortality rate. Are you really this stupid?

I said:

"Of those where there's actually been an outcome -- either recovery or death -- 20% have died."

What are you disputing?  I showed my source.


 

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

The page you link to (which I check almost every day) says "The novel coronavirus' case fatality rate has been estimated at around 2%", which is a reasonable estimate - 

Would it surprise anybody to learn there are sentences that both come before and come after the sentence you quoted?

They're citing a press conference from January.  It is April.

They also say immediately after that "However, it noted that, without knowing how many were infected, it was too early to be able to put a percentage on the mortality rate figure."

Now we have more information about how many are infected, and the math is what I've cited above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

What are you disputing? 

Those numbers don't include probably the large majority where there's been an outcome. That's why I'm talking about the infection mortality rate.

You're certainly right that our knowledge about this is in flux, and there's much we don't know - I've said so myself repeatedly. Yet, again - you're not linking to a credible source estimating infection mortality rates at 20%.

Here's a link from about a week ago, which is also a good primer on the subject. 0.5% to 1% infection mortality rate estimate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51674743

*Even if that number is correct*, it's still really bad. But *no one* is saying something like 20% for an infection mortality rate. No wonder you're so spooked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

*Even if that number is correct*, it's still really bad. But *no one* is saying something like 20% for an infection mortality rate. No wonder you're so spooked.

 

No one, including me.  You are twisting what I said to discredit me, when my words are still right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Great! Then why do you think the 20% number is relevant?

Actually, for the reason I already said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...