art wrote:

I think it is extremely important to gain some idea of the level of prevalence since that will place governments in a position where they can make decisions on a more informed basis.

Today's UK mumbers are about 17,000 confirmed infections with about 150 in critical care. It is known that the real number of cases is higher. What is not known is whether the real number of cases in the country is a little over 17,000 or 170,000 or 1,700,000 or 17,000,000. That degree of uncertainty renders highly suspect the basis on which any countermeasures are taken.

Why fliy almost blind when, without much difficulty, you can to illuminate the environment through which you are flying?

Prevalence is not very useful when dealing with a dynamic disease because it is a snapshot of the current. Even if starting today, by the time you finish testing even 1/100 of the UK population (660K) for COVID-19, the number of cases would have been very different to what is now. Bear in mind also all tests have a false negative rate. Let's say it is 10%. Are you going to fund the bill, not to mention the risk of crashing UK's radiology service, by performing 66000 CTs for confirmatory testing?

You vastly underestimated the work required to test on a population level. Just for a matter of perspectives-so far a little more than 100K COVID tests have been done in the UK. "without much difficulty", really?

LCDFlight wrote:

So, I have been reading the news, but no real useful information was there. What is the prevalence of COVID-19 in each country? How likely is covid 19 to kill you, if you are infected? I would be satisfied just with the prevalence numbers. That would allow us to determine if COVID 19 is dangerous, and if so, to whom.

Random testing of the population to get prevalence % should be the top priority. We know that among sick people, some of them have it. We also hear anecdotes that maybe COVID is dangerous to healthy people as well. But no probability or magnitude data AFAIK. A lot of people die horribly gruesome deaths by exercising, also. That's an anecdote that does not imply anything about public health.

COVID may extend life. That's how little we know right now. Without background prevalence%, to pair with death counts, we won't know the danger level. I would even accept a good extrapolation of prevalence, if available. Nothing yet.

Here you go, it’s continuously updated.

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

Aesma wrote:

BN747 wrote:

You guys do know that the next time (and their will be one) a lethal viral menace to make the rounds in the near future will be put on steroids, right?

In case you are missing my point, the next time will be marshal law total lockdown and a home-by-home visit by medical techs to gauge your vitals....

...those reading 'above normal',

"You and everyone who lives here must come with us."

We are already being groomed, prepped and conditioned.

Unless, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk (or other non-govt) type geniuses launch a bio-tech firm to go deep on DNA strands to make us all immune to cancer, harmful viruses and pathogens.

My money...is on the powers that be and they include a Musk or a Bezos.

BN747

I thought "they" wanted to thin the herd ?

They must be the DVD, where is Spyhunter when you need him!!!

Aesma wrote:

art wrote:

A lot of data is published every day regarding confirmed cases including deaths in the same. Little effort has been made to gather data on the accumulated total of people who have contracted the virus.

I think it is extremely important to gain some idea of the level of prevalence since that will place governments in a position where they can make decisions on a more informed basis.

Today's UK mumbers are about 17,000 confirmed infections with about 150 in critical care. It is known that the real number of cases is higher. What is not known is whether the real number of cases in the country is a little over 17,000 or 170,000 or 1,700,000 or 17,000,000. That degree of uncertainty renders highly suspect the basis on which any countermeasures are taken.

Why fliy almost blind when, without much difficulty, you can to illuminate the environment through which you are flying?

Without much difficulty ? If we have trouble testing people with the virus active in them, why do you think it would be easier to test people after they beat it ?

The tests are being developed but it takes time, especially if you want something reliable.

I have no info on the reliability of the antibody test .

The test is self-administered and gives a result without the need to send samples to a lab.

An antibody test can detect if a person has had the coronavirus before and has since recovered. The test, carried out by a device that pricks your finger for blood, works this out by testing your blood for coronavirus antibodies to see if they have already beaten the virus and gained some immunity to it. It can do this in about 15 minutes.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... body-kits/

Edit: the article mentions the accuracy claimed by one manufacturer:

SureScreen, a Derby firm, has created a finger-prick test which they say takes 10 minutes to return a result and is 98 per cent accurate. The tests are reportedly being used by private companies a number of European countries.

Here's something about vaccines/drugs in the pipeline for treatment:

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/ana ... cov-drugs/

I'm most excited about the antivirals, some of the HIV drugs, and drugs that help assuage the cytokine storm syndrome in severe/critical patients.

Cerecl wrote:

Prevalence is not very useful when dealing with a dynamic disease because it is a snapshot of the current. Even if starting today, by the time you finish testing even 1/100 of the UK population (660K) for COVID-19, the number of cases would have been very different to what is now. Bear in mind also all tests have a false negative rate. Let's say it is 10%. Are you going to fund the bill, not to mention the risk of crashing UK's radiology service, by performing 66000 CTs for confirmatory testing?

You vastly underestimated the work required to test on a population level. Just for a matter of perspectives-so far a little more than 100K COVID tests have been done in the UK. "without much difficulty", really?

How about a test of 2000 radomly selected people, just to get an idea of where we're at?

No doubt the impact on the health system is bad, but if it is a consequence of 50% having had the disease or 5% makes a huge difference in the choices we have to make going forward.

Right now we might end up in a situation where we cannot handle future pandemics, afford new cancer treatments etc. because of the impact to our economy now.
Everything has a price.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aesma wrote:

BN747 wrote:

You guys do know that the next time (and their will be one) a lethal viral menace to make the rounds in the near future will be put on steroids, right?

In case you are missing my point, the next time will be marshal law total lockdown and a home-by-home visit by medical techs to gauge your vitals....

...those reading 'above normal',

"You and everyone who lives here must come with us."

We are already being groomed, prepped and conditioned.

Unless, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk (or other non-govt) type geniuses launch a bio-tech firm to go deep on DNA strands to make us all immune to cancer, harmful viruses and pathogens.

My money...is on the powers that be and they include a Musk or a Bezos.

BN747

I thought "they" wanted to thin the herd ?

They must be the DVD, where is Spyhunter when you need him!!!

He is advising the governments of the UK and USA.

Dieuwer wrote:

Does anyone know of someone (perhaps a relative or friend) who has recently contracted COVID-19 and is hospitalized?

No personally, but I've had about 8 people I know in the DMV area contact me with the same symptoms of early COVID. Infrequent-intermittent dry cough, sore throat, fatigue... And DC said as of 3/28 there are 342 cases...nope, this thing is way more widespread than that IMO.

Dieuwer wrote:

Does anyone know of someone (perhaps a relative or friend) who has recently contracted COVID-19 and is hospitalized?

Yes I man I work with wife had it. She was off work for about three weeks. He was off work for a different reason, got it and is off work for then next week or until he’s better

Kiwirob wrote:

Aesma wrote:

BN747 wrote:

You guys do know that the next time (and their will be one) a lethal viral menace to make the rounds in the near future will be put on steroids, right?

In case you are missing my point, the next time will be marshal law total lockdown and a home-by-home visit by medical techs to gauge your vitals....

...those reading 'above normal',

"You and everyone who lives here must come with us."

We are already being groomed, prepped and conditioned.

Unless, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk (or other non-govt) type geniuses launch a bio-tech firm to go deep on DNA strands to make us all immune to cancer, harmful viruses and pathogens.

My money...is on the powers that be and they include a Musk or a Bezos.

BN747

I thought "they" wanted to thin the herd ?

They must be the DVD, where is Spyhunter when you need him!!!

Covid-19 escaped from the DVD's germ lab in rural China, the only question is whether it was accidental or deliberate.

With the DVD also disrupting the supply-chain, it's hardly surprising there are no tinfoil hats in the supermarkets.

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Cerecl wrote:

art wrote:

I think it is extremely important to gain some idea of the level of prevalence since that will place governments in a position where they can make decisions on a more informed basis.

Today's UK mumbers are about 17,000 confirmed infections with about 150 in critical care. It is known that the real number of cases is higher. What is not known is whether the real number of cases in the country is a little over 17,000 or 170,000 or 1,700,000 or 17,000,000. That degree of uncertainty renders highly suspect the basis on which any countermeasures are taken.

Why fliy almost blind when, without much difficulty, you can to illuminate the environment through which you are flying?

Prevalence is not very useful when dealing with a dynamic disease because it is a snapshot of the current. Even if starting today, by the time you finish testing even 1/100 of the UK population (660K) for COVID-19, the number of cases would have been very different to what is now. Bear in mind also all tests have a false negative rate. Let's say it is 10%. Are you going to fund the bill, not to mention the risk of crashing UK's radiology service, by performing 66000 CTs for confirmatory testing?

You vastly underestimated the work required to test on a population level. Just for a matter of perspectives-so far a little more than 100K COVID tests have been done in the UK. "without much difficulty", really?

Are we talking about the same thing? I am talking about a test that will show the presence of antibodies. These will be present in people who have been infected by COVID-19. Some info on these tests:

Self-administered
Result available quickly (15 min)
No need for a lab to process
Inexpensive (<$10)
Available in largest pharmacy chain in UK or via Amazon
If there is a failure, my layman's guess is it should fail to show the presence of antibodies (rather than give a false positive, so fail safe*)

* There are thousands of key workers in isolation who may have been infected, recovered, cannot infect others but are sitting out 7/14 day isolation pointlessly. If the test fails to detect antibodies which are there, the test subjects will simply complete their isolation period.

I look forward to a large enough sample of the population for smallish statitical inaccuracy to be tested to determine roughly what proportion have been infected with subsequent recovery. Everyone is guessing at the moment in the absence of a decent dose of data being available. Guesses in UK vary : >30 million (Oxford research group),, >1.5 million (Edge Health) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... estimates/ and doubtless several other studies.

I don't see the point of thrashing around in the dark trying to model numbers when real ones are sitting around waiting to be gathered. A failure to collect them seems like a dereliction of duty to me.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Love me some government intervention into a private business!

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Because it has not yet been proofen to work. Studies are currently underway.

KFTG wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Love me some government intervention into a private business!

I'm as pro-business as anyone, but not when the government has given nearly $80 million dollars to you. Don't take the money if you don't want an outside entity giving you conditions.

TTailedTiger wrote:

KFTG wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Love me some government intervention into a private business!

I'm as pro-business as anyone, but not when the government has given nearly $80 million dollars to you. Don't take the money if you don't want an outside entity giving you conditions.

The most important thing is that the government forbids them from selling the drug to other countries. It must be for the USA only!

seahawk wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Because it has not yet been proofen to work. Studies are currently underway.

It's been around since 2014. The FDA is severely broken if they can't figure out if a drug is safe in that length of time. But the FDA is responsible for millions of deaths due to type 2 errors.

TTailedTiger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Because it has not yet been proofen to work. Studies are currently underway.

It's been around since 2014. The FDA is severely broken if they can't figure out if a drug is safe in that length of time. But the FDA is responsible for millions of deaths due to type 2 errors.

It has not been tested on Corona patients to an extent that shows if it is helping or not. Results can be expected in April though.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Two words - "experimental" and "unproven". Are you volunteering to test it?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2020 ... 934583001/

An experimental and unproven coronavirus treatment...

President Donald Trump called the drug, remdesivir, “promising” 10 days ago, though there is no data yet to show whether it is safe and effective at treating COVID-19. It was originally created as a potential treatment for the Ebola and Marburg viruses.

Your leader says it's "promising" so why not take a few doses and let us know how it goes?

scbriml wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

Two words - "experimental" and "unproven". Are you volunteering to test it?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2020 ... 934583001/

An experimental and unproven coronavirus treatment...

President Donald Trump called the drug, remdesivir, “promising” 10 days ago, though there is no data yet to show whether it is safe and effective at treating COVID-19. It was originally created as a potential treatment for the Ebola and Marburg viruses.

Your leader says it's "promising" so why not take a few doses and let us know how it goes?

What are you going on about? A good number of people with coronavirus begged for it and thankfully received it. If I was very sick then yes I would want to try it. You've already got one foot in the grave at that point. What's to lose?

TTailedTiger wrote:

A good number of people with coronavirus begged for it and thankfully received

OK, was not part of a research project but all the same its effect in a number of patients must have been observed. Were there signs it was of benefit to COVID-19 patients?

TTailedTiger wrote:

What are you going on about? A good number of people with coronavirus begged for it and thankfully received it.

Which part of "though there is no data yet to show whether it is safe and effective at treating COVID-19" are you struggling to understand?

There are reasons why drug approval is a long, drawn out process.

If this news is true we humans might as well seal goodbye kiss to earth !

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -bats.html

Can you guys think of any solution to fix this?

scbriml wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

What are you going on about? A good number of people with coronavirus begged for it and thankfully received it.

Which part of "though there is no data yet to show whether it is safe and effective at treating COVID-19" are you struggling to understand?

There are reasons why drug approval is a long, drawn out process.

Let's hope and pray that the powers that be are working on removing some of the moral restrictions to speed the approval process, the science is not the only thing making it a long process.
At present everyone is talking flattening the curve, not much about what they are going to do after if no cure is found in a few weeks.
Wonder if they are looking at confining the virus to a country not named China.....need some foil...

Just comparing vaccines compulsory in Italy and India , to understand why Italy has had such a high death rate, assuming infection rates are same, with India doing much less testing.
For italy-
"Vaccines against the following diseases are mandatory for Italian schoolchildren: polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenzae B, measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, and chickenpox."

For India ‐
India’s UIP provide free vaccines against 11 life threatening diseases - Tuberculosis, Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Polio, Hepatitis B, Pneumonia and Meningitis due to Haemophilus Influenzae type b (Hib), Measles, Rubella, Japanese Encephalitis (JE) and Rotavirus diarrhoea. (Rubella, JE and Rotavirus vaccine in select states and districts)".

Tuberculosis vaccine in India, and maybe in other 3rd world countries, for lung related issues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scienc ... t-it-first

"Australia's Trialing a TB Vaccine Against COVID-19, And Health Workers Get It First
AFP
28 MARCH 2020
Australian researchers are fast-tracking large-scale human testing to see if a vaccine used for decades to prevent tuberculosis can protect health workers from COVID-19, they announced Friday.".

TTailedTiger wrote:

Why is there such little talk about remdesivir? So far it seems to be the only sure thing that is working. It's been around since 2014 and the US government has invested tons of money into the drug. The pharmaceutical company needs to be ordered to either immediately ramp up production or temporarily allow it in generic form until the pandemic is over.

MDs ARE talking about it. Gilead is switching to "expanded access" meaning doctors can give it to multiple patients at a time. To get it though you're going to have to be severe/critical and at a facility with a doctor willing to get it for you. It's not proven to be a cure-all and is experimental.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... id-19-drug

More info on how a “Human Challenge Trial” would be conducted and how it would save time, potentially months, to find a vaccine:

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand ... sAllowed=y

A game changer': FDA authorizes Abbott Labs' portable, 5-minute coronavirus test the size of a toaster

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 932766001/

The continuous spate of Corona Virus cases happening across the globe has raised the debate of whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' or 'Stay At Home' will play a key role in reducing the spread of this disease and eventually killing it.

While there are some in the favor of 'Total Lockdown' based on the evidence that we are seeing in China (if it is true), there are others that are concerned about the 'Economic Impact' that people will face due to this lockdown.

There are some nations that are under total lockdown for more than 3 weeks.

So, I would like to know from all the esteemed members here that whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' across the globe, especially in the US, as the only answer to killing Corona Virus?

There is no such thing as "total lockdown," nor is it realistic.

From what I've been reading, the best case model for recovery is isolating as many people as we can muster in order to flatten the curve. Most people afflicted by the virus, including those with severe reactions, can be saved if there are enough medical personnel and respirators. What we are experiencing in Manhattan and Italy are seriously afflicted people who have no access to said remedies because too many are sick at one time!

Reducing infection numbers is the entire game.

Why the CDC botched its coronavirus testing

The first testing kits from the Centers for Disease Control had a simple fault, and red tape prevented other labs from creating their own.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6153 ... s-testing/

aerosreenivas wrote:

The continuous spate of Corona Virus cases happening across the globe has raised the debate of whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' or 'Stay At Home' will play a key role in reducing the spread of this disease and eventually killing it.

While there are some in the favor of 'Total Lockdown' based on the evidence that we are seeing in China (if it is true), there are others that are concerned about the 'Economic Impact' that people will face due to this lockdown.

There are some nations that are under total lockdown for more than 3 weeks.

So, I would like to know from all the esteemed members here that whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' across the globe, especially in the US, as the only answer to killing Corona Virus?

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.
The main argument has been to 'flatten the curb' allow the hospitals to have sufficient beds for the deluge of people needing health services. In the US as we write this, and being the world leader in coronavirus infections, no city or state, not even NY has seen lack of beds, both normal and ICU beds. Thus far. Though that might change. Early last week they expected to be at capacity, then moved to later that same week, and moved to early this week (Monday 30th of March) but that will also be moved since as of this writing NY is still running normal in hospital capacity (according to news reports).

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

A good question could be are we going to lock down and stop people from using cars, considering 1.25 million people die each year (in the world) from car accidents? what's the main argument to these actions? saving lives? people are to die with or without coronavirus. If we extend lock down at the expense of creating a global economic depression, millions will die as a result. Our politicians are over reacting to the panic, and not realizing that the long term economic impact will be far more severe than this virus.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.

In the US as we write this, and being the world leader in coronavirus infections, no city or state, not even NY has seen lack of beds, both normal and ICU beds. Thus far.

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

A good question could be are we going to lock down and stop people from using cars, considering 1.25 million people die each year (in the world) from car accidents?

Very disturbing comment. Why are so many people like you blinded ?
The problem is not the number of death, it's the saturation of the healthcare system, which proves that we're facing something totally unusual and unforseen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/nyre ... itals.html

A WHO study on 1000 COVID-19 patients in Norway began Saturday 28th of March. It's to study the effects of Hydroxyklorokin/Plaquenil, Ebola-medicine Remdesivir og en HIV-medicine Lopinavir/Ritonavir.

Link to article (translated into English for you):

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... i-norge%2F

And another useful bit of info for those talking about the real numbers of COVID-19 cases:

A week ago when the official numbers in Norway of tested and confirmed cases were about 2500, the Government said publically during a press conference they were operating with a number of 23,000 cases. I'm not entirely certain of why they chose that number, but it could be because a self-reporting system was implemented a couple of weeks ago. It's very useful to give the scientists and researchers more data to work on. Not everyone who self-reports will be counted as a Corona patient, only those where the reported symptoms were likely to be COVID-19.

So confirmed cases x 10 should get you closer to the real number.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

aerosreenivas wrote:

The continuous spate of Corona Virus cases happening across the globe has raised the debate of whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' or 'Stay At Home' will play a key role in reducing the spread of this disease and eventually killing it.

While there are some in the favor of 'Total Lockdown' based on the evidence that we are seeing in China (if it is true), there are others that are concerned about the 'Economic Impact' that people will face due to this lockdown.

There are some nations that are under total lockdown for more than 3 weeks.

So, I would like to know from all the esteemed members here that whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' across the globe, especially in the US, as the only answer to killing Corona Virus?

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.
The main argument has been to 'flatten the curb' allow the hospitals to have sufficient beds for the deluge of people needing health services. In the US as we write this, and being the world leader in coronavirus infections, no city or state, not even NY has seen lack of beds, both normal and ICU beds. Thus far. Though that might change. Early last week they expected to be at capacity, then moved to later that same week, and moved to early this week (Monday 30th of March) but that will also be moved since as of this writing NY is still running normal in hospital capacity (according to news reports).

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

A good question could be are we going to lock down and stop people from using cars, considering 1.25 million people die each year (in the world) from car accidents? what's the main argument to these actions? saving lives? people are to die with or without coronavirus. If we extend lock down at the expense of creating a global economic depression, millions will die as a result. Our politicians are over reacting to the panic, and not realizing that the long term economic impact will be far more severe than this virus.

It takes 2-3 weeks for things to take effect, then another 2 for the number to be reflected. Deaths should be peaking in Italy and Spain right now.

And what makes you think quarantine doesn't work? South Korea had successfully flatten the curve after shutting down most of the country, especially Daegu, for almost a month and counting.

BTW, since you keep suggesting that things are still dandy in NYC hospital, maybe you should join the frontline and take a look yourselves?

sebolino wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.

In the US as we write this, and being the world leader in coronavirus infections, no city or state, not even NY has seen lack of beds, both normal and ICU beds. Thus far.

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

A good question could be are we going to lock down and stop people from using cars, considering 1.25 million people die each year (in the world) from car accidents?

Very disturbing comment. Why are so many people like you blinded ?
The problem is not the number of death, it's the saturation of the healthcare system, which proves that we're facing something totally unusual and unforseen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/nyre ... itals.html

I am not blinded, I am just not convinced that this is an overall solution or remedy that ultimately can cost more lives in the long run.

And that piece you cited, its extremely sensationalist and has nothing to do with bed capacity, but rather logistics. 13 deaths in a hospital is 'apocalyptic'? have you ever seen how many people die in a hospital in a normal day? Maybe you haven't that's why you believe that its apocalyptic.

Come back with 30 or 40 dead in a hospital for coronavirus so we can start talking about 'apocalyptic'. The NYT and their writers are doing the utmost to create panic out of nothing yet occurring. If that's apocalyptic tell me how can we describe Italy with almost 1000 dead per day.

zakuivcustom wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

aerosreenivas wrote:

The continuous spate of Corona Virus cases happening across the globe has raised the debate of whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' or 'Stay At Home' will play a key role in reducing the spread of this disease and eventually killing it.

While there are some in the favor of 'Total Lockdown' based on the evidence that we are seeing in China (if it is true), there are others that are concerned about the 'Economic Impact' that people will face due to this lockdown.

There are some nations that are under total lockdown for more than 3 weeks.

So, I would like to know from all the esteemed members here that whether or not a 'Total Lock Down' across the globe, especially in the US, as the only answer to killing Corona Virus?

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.
The main argument has been to 'flatten the curb' allow the hospitals to have sufficient beds for the deluge of people needing health services. In the US as we write this, and being the world leader in coronavirus infections, no city or state, not even NY has seen lack of beds, both normal and ICU beds. Thus far. Though that might change. Early last week they expected to be at capacity, then moved to later that same week, and moved to early this week (Monday 30th of March) but that will also be moved since as of this writing NY is still running normal in hospital capacity (according to news reports).

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

A good question could be are we going to lock down and stop people from using cars, considering 1.25 million people die each year (in the world) from car accidents? what's the main argument to these actions? saving lives? people are to die with or without coronavirus. If we extend lock down at the expense of creating a global economic depression, millions will die as a result. Our politicians are over reacting to the panic, and not realizing that the long term economic impact will be far more severe than this virus.

It takes 2-3 weeks for things to take effect, then another 2 for the number to be reflected. Deaths should be peaking in Italy and Spain right now.

And what makes you think quarantine doesn't work? South Korea had successfully flatten the curve after shutting down most of the country, especially Daegu, for almost a month and counting.

BTW, since you keep suggesting that things are still dandy in NYC hospital, maybe you should join the frontline and take a look yourselves?

Italy has been on lock-down for more than 3 weeks. Infections haven't declined yet. So to me that seems as not having any effect thus far.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/comme ... erspective

I have family in NY and NJ, of course I am worried, but from the official information coming out, there aren't any scenes of Italy or Spain over there, thankfully yet.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.
The main argument has been to 'flatten the curb' allow the hospitals to have sufficient beds for the deluge of people needing health services. In the US as we write this, and being the world leader in coronavirus infections, no city or state, not even NY has seen lack of beds, both normal and ICU beds. Thus far. Though that might change. Early last week they expected to be at capacity, then moved to later that same week, and moved to early this week (Monday 30th of March) but that will also be moved since as of this writing NY is still running normal in hospital capacity (according to news reports).

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

A good question could be are we going to lock down and stop people from using cars, considering 1.25 million people die each year (in the world) from car accidents? what's the main argument to these actions? saving lives? people are to die with or without coronavirus. If we extend lock down at the expense of creating a global economic depression, millions will die as a result. Our politicians are over reacting to the panic, and not realizing that the long term economic impact will be far more severe than this virus.

It takes 2-3 weeks for things to take effect, then another 2 for the number to be reflected. Deaths should be peaking in Italy and Spain right now.

And what makes you think quarantine doesn't work? South Korea had successfully flatten the curve after shutting down most of the country, especially Daegu, for almost a month and counting.

BTW, since you keep suggesting that things are still dandy in NYC hospital, maybe you should join the frontline and take a look yourselves?

Italy has been on lock-down for more than 3 weeks. Infections haven't declined yet. So to me that seems as not having any effect thus far.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/comme ... erspective

I have family in NY and NJ, of course I am worried, but from the official information coming out, there aren't any scenes of Italy or Spain over there, thankfully yet.

There is some indication the quarantine has worked. At least in Norway. According to the numbers the spread has slowed to about 1/4th of the previous spread rate, if you look at the data for Influenza spread (which spreads the same way as Corona, but maybe not as aggressive).

My post from a couple of days ago:

JetBuddy wrote:

Some interesting information:

Norway implemented the first shutdown Thursdag, March 12th. And the Public Health Insitute is reporting a sudden downturn in spread of Influenza since then. Influenza and Corona spreads almost exactly the same way.

This means the lockdown is working.

- The proportion of positive Influenza tests at Norwegian laboratories fell from 15,7% to 3,6% in the last two weeks.

- The proportion of doctor visits for "Influenza-like" illness fell from 1,5% to 0,9% during the same two weeks.

Link (translated to English):

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... sa-i-norge

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.

Lockdown is doing what it was designed to do - slow down the rate of infection so that healthcare systems might be able to cope. If you actually look at the numbers, new cases are levelling off or in decline in both Italy and Spain. How are you not seeing this? Which other numbers are you expecting to decline?





Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

AirWorthy99 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

And that piece you cited, its extremely sensationalist and has nothing to do with bed capacity, but rather logistics. 13 deaths in a hospital is 'apocalyptic'? have you ever seen how many people die in a hospital in a normal day? Maybe you haven't that's why you believe that its apocalyptic.

More and more creepy comments.
Where I live (Strasbourg, France) there are no beds left in Intensive care whatever the cause. We have to send people by train, plane and helicopter to southern France and to Germany.
Hospitals in Paris are being saturated just now.

Very normal days indeed.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

So you want to spread a pandemic virus with no vaccin around the globe? Trying to establish a new world order?

sebolino wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

More and more creepy comments.
Where I live (Strasbourg, France) there are no beds left in Intensive care whatever the cause. We have to send people by train, plane and helicopter to southern France and to Germany.
Hospitals in Paris are being saturated just now.

Very normal days indeed.

Very sorry to hear that, I am talking from the vantage point of the US. Europe has seen the worse of this virus. And that has yet to be determined why.

The US the world leader in infections hasn't seen any scenes of chaos in hospitals yet, thankfully, and I hope we don't get that anytime soon. And don't know what's creepy and 'disturbing' from what I post, it seems that anyone who thinks differently has to be sidelined and ridiculed for thinking opposite.

marcelh wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

So you want to spread a pandemic virus with no vaccin around the globe? Trying to establish a new world order?

What I think is we should just keep at home those vulnerable, those on the age groups that are at risk. The rest of us should carry on. That's been my belief for a long time and I have posted the same thing many times in this thread.
I care about future generations having an economy that would allow them for an education as the one we have, and also health services as we have enjoyed. All of that could cease to exist with an economic depression.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Very sorry to hear that, I am talking from the vantage point of the US. Europe has seen the worse of this virus. And that has yet to be determined why.

For the exact same reason that hospitals were saturated in eastern France sooner than in Paris: bad luck.
But make no mistake, you will face the same thing if you don't do what's needed to be done (And Trump will apparently not do it from the beginning).

AirWorthy99 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So far there is no proof that any lock-down in the western world has worked, thus far. Italy, Spain and other European nations have been implementing lock downs for weeks, and yet their numbers haven't seen a decline.

In the US as we write this, and being the world leader in coronavirus infections, no city or state, not even NY has seen lack of beds, both normal and ICU beds. Thus far.

In my opinion, I have yet to see any positive result of stopping the world's economy over this, and locking down billions of people, when in reality this is mostly a catastrophe based on deaths in Wuhan China, Northern Italy, Iran and parts of Spain.

A good question could be are we going to lock down and stop people from using cars, considering 1.25 million people die each year (in the world) from car accidents?

Very disturbing comment. Why are so many people like you blinded ?
The problem is not the number of death, it's the saturation of the healthcare system, which proves that we're facing something totally unusual and unforseen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/nyre ... itals.html

I am not blinded, I am just not convinced that this is an overall solution or remedy that ultimately can cost more lives in the long run.

And that piece you cited, its extremely sensationalist and has nothing to do with bed capacity, but rather logistics. 13 deaths in a hospital is 'apocalyptic'? have you ever seen how many people die in a hospital in a normal day? Maybe you haven't that's why you believe that its apocalyptic.

Come back with 30 or 40 dead in a hospital for coronavirus so we can start talking about 'apocalyptic'. The NYT and their writers are doing the utmost to create panic out of nothing yet occurring. If that's apocalyptic tell me how can we describe Italy with almost 1000 dead per day.

The real question is where are you getting the misinformation driving these unscientific conclusions?

Isolation and social distancing is already having a measurable impact on case growth, especially in places that did so more aggressively:



These are good indications these places won’t be seeing their healthcare systems completely overwhelmed.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Italy has been on lock-down for more than 3 weeks. Infections haven't declined yet.

Please stop posting false or misleading claims.

The number of infections will never decline since it's just a count of how many people have tested positive. When someone recovers from Covid-19, they don't reduce the infected count by one. Other data available on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries shows how many have recovered.

You need to look at daily new cases numbers in my previous post which are levelling off and declining in both Italy and Spain. New infections are declining.

theaviator380 wrote:

If this news is true we humans might as well seal goodbye kiss to earth !

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -bats.html

Can you guys think of any solution to fix this?

A new round of infections is what these idiots need before they stop these markets. It would probably take a few million dead before they take any action. Less than 4000 isn’t a game changer when your population is over 1.4 billion.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

Very disturbing comment. Why are so many people like you blinded ?
The problem is not the number of death, it's the saturation of the healthcare system, which proves that we're facing something totally unusual and unforseen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/nyre ... itals.html

I am not blinded, I am just not convinced that this is an overall solution or remedy that ultimately can cost more lives in the long run.

And that piece you cited, its extremely sensationalist and has nothing to do with bed capacity, but rather logistics. 13 deaths in a hospital is 'apocalyptic'? have you ever seen how many people die in a hospital in a normal day? Maybe you haven't that's why you believe that its apocalyptic.

Come back with 30 or 40 dead in a hospital for coronavirus so we can start talking about 'apocalyptic'. The NYT and their writers are doing the utmost to create panic out of nothing yet occurring. If that's apocalyptic tell me how can we describe Italy with almost 1000 dead per day.

The real question is where are you getting the misinformation driving these unscientific conclusions?

Isolation and social distancing is already having a measurable impact on case growth, especially in places that did so more aggressively:



These are good indications these places won’t be seeing their healthcare systems completely overwhelmed.

How do we exactly know that this is because of the lock-downs? can the aggressive testing have anything to do with those who are sick or positive with the virus self isolating?

Ok, so you all may have a point here, this may be slowing down because of a lockdown, how long should we stay lockeddown to keep this going like this? there is no vaccine yet.

scbriml wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Italy has been on lock-down for more than 3 weeks. Infections haven't declined yet.

Please stop posting false or misleading claims.

The number of infections will never decline since it's just a count of how many people have tested positive. When someone recovers from Covid-19, they don't reduce the infected count by one. Other data available on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries shows how many have recovered.

You need to look at daily new cases numbers in my previous post which are levelling off and declining in both Italy and Spain. New infections are declining.

There seems not to be much testing in Italy for those with 'mild symptoms', so even those numbers you posted aren't to be accurate

Galli explained that as the emergency situation rapidly deteriorated over the past month, Italy focused its testing only on people showing severe symptoms in areas with high epidemic intensity - the result, experts say, is that the currently available numbers produce a statistical artefact, a distortion.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/ ... 05536.html

I think this goes to the other countries in Europe too.

sebolino wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

Very sorry to hear that, I am talking from the vantage point of the US. Europe has seen the worse of this virus. And that has yet to be determined why.

For the exact same reason that hospitals were saturated in eastern France sooner than in Paris: bad luck.
But make no mistake, you will face the same thing if you don't do what's needed to be done (And Trump will apparently not do it from the beginning).

Well, don't know but seems to me things here in the US have ramped up in preparation for this (more testing) and increase production of ventilators. I hope we don't get to see the same issues in Europe, though it may happen.