Jump to content
FishandChips

Corona virus general questions mega thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Kartazion said:

In French we have an expression that says: 'ça veut dire ce que ça veut dire'
Apparently it doesn't work with google translate :rolleyes:  Sorry about that.

Directly in an equivalent common English phrase, it probably means "It is what is and we can't change it"... C'est ce que c'est et on ne peut pas le changer (from Google Translate). Ours is an  expression of resignation. We usually just say "It is what it is"

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

According to worldometers.info on 03-22-2020 @12:30 afternoon which is the top site from a google search of “coronavirus numbers”

Total Cases: 321,278

Active cases: 211,573

Recovered: 96,006

Deaths:13,629

 

First of all, I am not a doctor nor am I mathematician. However, I was tested as profoundly gifted at logic in college which means that I have a knack for problem solving.

These numbers are based on only what we know as reported by governments around the world. Of course the numbers may not be accurate due to political fudging and of course testing is not anywhere close to 100%.

However, it seems to me that the odds of dying after testing positive is not really around 4% as reported by most media outlets.

This number seems to be a best possible spin of the numbers i.e. # of deaths divided by total cases:

13,629/321,278 = 4.264%

I believe this is the wrong way to calculate the numbers because it includes the 211,573 of active cases which are uncertain as to whether they will result in a recovery or a death.

If you test positive and you ask the question: what are the odds of coming out alive when all is said and done then a more accurate prediction should be the number of deaths divided by (the number recovered plus the number of deaths).

13,629/(96,006+13,629) = 13,629/109,705 = 12.49%

Now to be fair, there is quite a large lag-time between the number dead to the number recovered because it’s early in a growth dynamic scenario where death generally occurs much more quickly than recovery so we can probably assume the recovery number should be much higher but still, I think the most accurate number should be something like somewhere between 4.3% and 12.5%.

Thoughts?

 

 

Edited by TakenItSeriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would also need to account for the greater delay for those who have tested positive with no symptoms. It could be up to two weeks before they develop symptoms and two or more weeks before they become critically ill, die or recover.

You would need to track the numbers over several weeks to be able to calculate a more accurate figure. 

Much harder to account for is the number of people who have the contracted the disease but have not been identified (by testing or displaying symptoms). This will tend to bring the fatality rate down. Modelling can estimate how many more people there might be by looking at rates of transmission in the population. 

You can probably rely on the fatality rate estimates from WHO and other researchers because they will have attempted to take all these factors into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Khan academy made a video giving a good explanation of how estimates are made:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

EDIT: Please note that I posted this message as the first in a new thread I created. However, soon afterwards, a moderator merged it with this thread.

Hi Everyone

To begin with, some people in the UK Government were saying that we need to achieve "herd immunity" in order to eradicate Covid19. However, recently, they have gone off the idea and are increasing the restrictions somewhat. However, I personally can't actually see how Covid19 will ever be eradicated without herd immunity. My reasoning is as follows:

Let's say, as a result of really tight restrictions, we get to a situation whereby we believe we have eradicated Covid19. We then, as a result of believing we have eradicated it, lift all of the restrictions. As a result of the restrictions, most of the population will still not be immune to Covid19. If we truly have eradicated Covid19 then this is not a problem.  But what if we are mistaken and there is still a small amount of Covid19 left? As soon as this hits the general population (who mostly are still not immune) it will cause a new surge in infections.

What do you all think?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Edited by tim.tdj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

Hi Everyone

To begin with, some people in the UK Government were saying that we need to achieve "herd immunity" in order to eradicate Covid19. However, recently, they have gone off the idea and are increasing the restrictions somewhat. However, I personally can't actually see how Covid19 will ever be eradicated without herd immunity. My reasoning is as follows:

Let's say, as a result of really tight restrictions, we get to a situation whereby we believe we have eradicated Covid19. We then, as a result of believing we have eradicated it, lift all of the restrictions. As a result of the restrictions, most of the population will still not be immune to Covid19. If we truly have eradicated Covid19 then this is not a problem.  But what if we are mistaken and there is still a small amount of Covid19 left? As soon as this hits the general population (who mostly are still not immune) it will cause a new surge in infections.

What do you all think?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

I think herd immunity is the endgame but politically it's a bit of an insensitive/unethical strategy because of the likely unnecessary fatalities entailed in going all out on this approach... it needs to happen in a more graduated way, hence the increasing social distancing, with, hopefully, as minimal serious casualties as possible.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think herd immunity is the endgame but politically it's a bit of an insensitive/unethical strategy because of the likely unnecessary fatalities entailed in going all out on this approach... it needs to happen in a more graduated way, hence the increasing social distancing, with as minimal serious casualties as possible.

Hi StringJunky

Thank you very much for your reply.

I think that I agree that it needs to be graduated to some extent in order not to overload the hospitals but there does need to be some infection between non-vulnerable people in order to achieve herd immunity. However, the longer it takes, the worse it is for the economy and therefore the greater is the risk of a dystopian collapse of civilised society as we know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

Hi StringJunky

Thank you very much for your reply.

I think that I agree that it needs to be graduated to some extent in order not to overload the hospitals but there does need to be some infection between non-vulnerable people in order to achieve herd immunity. However, the longer it takes, the worse it is for the economy and therefore the greater is the risk of a dystopian collapse of civilised society as we know it.

We can also achieve herd immunity with a vaccine. And there is a very good chance the problem will ebb and flow, so we may be (almost) business as usual in a few months (till the next flow).

Share this post


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

We can also achieve herd immunity with a vaccine. And there is a very good chance the problem will ebb and flow, so we may be (almost) business as usual in a few months (till the next flow).

Hi Zapatos

Thank you very much for your reply.

They are saying that a vaccine for Covid19 is still a year away which I think is too long for the economy. I hope you are right about it ebbing and flowing so that restrictions can be lifted when it first ebbs. I then very much hope that the next flow will be much smaller than the first. Is it possible that artificial intelligence could massively speed up the progress towards a vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I think these minimum measures should be systematic. This poses a real problem when shopping at the supermarket.

Here are the facts: Coronavirus lives for hours in air particles and days on surfaces

Studies, including those in the link show an exponential decline within hours (with longer time on plastic surface). While you can recover active particles after a day or so, the number is greatly reduced (and will also depend on humidity temperature and other factors). You are also diluting the amount if you touch it and then touch your face, as each time there is less transfer. But as a whole it does not mean much more than wash your hands after touching stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting herd immunity by allowing the virus itself to run rampant seems like a Hell of a way to "get vaccinated" never mind risking increasing deaths and other bad outcomes for future health. 

I think with any future waves we'll benefit from any immunities that are acquired, but more so from the changes in the social norms the "herd" acquires. But it's pretty hard to predict the results we'll get at this point, no matter who might be doing the estimating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the actual plan. Governments are trying to slow-down the spreading to ensure the medical system will not become overwhelmed. But my guestimation numbers say it can cannot be the way.... take for example Italy.

It seems that Italy cannot handle more than 5000 new cases per day. More than this overwhelms  hospitals. There are 60 million people in Italy.... If government enforces severe restrictions to keep new cases under 5000, it will take 4000 days (11 years) until 1/3 of population obtains the immunity. But Italy cannot stand 11 years of quarantine.

So what is the actual plan?

a) To increase the capacity of hospitals so that the daily limit of new cases can be increased to 50000? Yes, it can be done in less than 11 years, but quite difficult now, under 'fire'.

b) To wait and hope for a vaccine or a cure?  Can this be called a plan at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

c) Develop a vaccine while reducing the rate of infection and increasing the ability to care for those who are sick.

Edited by zapatos

Share this post


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

c) Develop a vaccine while reducing the rate of infection and increasing the ability to care for those who are sick.

So, this is it - Italian government' plan is to wait for vaccine?

I wonder if we already have any vaccine for viruses in this family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

So, this is it - Italian government' plan is to wait for vaccine?

 

Did you stop reading my post after "Develop a vaccine..."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

So, this is it - Italian government' plan is to wait for vaccine?

I wonder if we already have any vaccine for viruses in this family?

Gilead is trialling remdesivir amongst covd patients.

ETA oops...It's not a vaccine, it's an attempt to cure an infection.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

So, this is it - Italian government' plan is to wait for vaccine?

They are at unprecedented maximum plan

The Italian government is not waiting. It is already fighting with all possible weapons.
Clearly the Italian government does not let things go against the virus.
If a vaccine arrives, then yes it will be welcome.

Edited by Kartazion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I hate to barge in on you like this, I just wanted to say that when I have to leave the house I started to carry a full sized window bottle sprinkler 500ml capacity filled with 70% ethanol. I’m officially living in a g damned scifi novel. 

Edited by koti

Share this post


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

I hate to barge in on you like this, I just wanted to say that when I have to leave the house I started to carry a full sized window bottle sprinkler 500ml capacity filled with 70% ethanol. I’m officially living in a g damned scifi novel. 

I hope you are using it topically and not as a throat spray. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I hope you are using it topically and not as a throat spray. ;) 

I think he is using Wild Turkey for a throat spray. 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had an email conversation with an elderly person that i know and she has told me that she has already had Covid19 and that her symptoms were mild. She says that she has not had a proper test for Covid19 but her doctor diagnosed her with Covid19 based on  her symptoms. Could her doctor have got it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

I have had an email conversation with an elderly person that i know and she has told me that she has already had Covid19 and that her symptoms were mild. She says that she has not had a proper test for Covid19 but her doctor diagnosed her with Covid19 based on  her symptoms. Could her doctor have got it wrong?

Yes. All the symptoms can be found with other illnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CharonY said:

Hope you dilute it down to 60-80 % first.

It’s 91%. Why the recommendation to dilute first? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s 91%. Why the recommendation to dilute first? 

Antibacterial and antiviral activity are lower if no water is present. Depending on microbe or virus, maximum effectivity were observed between 60-80%. Standard disinfection in lab is usually carried out with 70%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.