k2aggie07 said:
Or realize that it's basically impossible to contain it.
If it's not containable, it'll be over fast. 1918 flu came and went from cities in about a month and a half.
how accurate is the 10% hospitalization rate stat?PJYoung said:
Five days ago I wrote this medium post (COVID-19: New York Will Be The Next Italy, But Doesn't Have to Be). In it, I forecast that NYC's hospitals would be at capacity as early as March 30. Unfortunately, I was wrong. New numbers suggest that NYC's hospitals will reach capacity of approx. 3,000 cases by March 24. (This error was from a lower than anticipated case detection rate.)
While there is now nothing we can do to prevent reaching capacity short of immediately adding beds, we can prevent additional deaths and hospitalizations by fully shutting down NYC except for absolutely essential services, like Italy's current restrictions.
Here's the math behind this new projection.
COVID-19 Hospitalizations in NYC as of Mar 19 (today): 777 cases
COVID-19 Hospitalization rate from medical research: approx. 10%
Time from infection to hospitalization for severe COVID-19 cases: 79 days
Using this, we can estimate the number of infections 8 days ago.
777 cases / 10% = 7,770 cases on Mar 11.
On Mar 11, the NYC region had 220 cases reported. Meaning:
Detection rate: 2.8% (220 reported cases / 7,770 estimated cases)
While testing capacity has increased substantially, it has barely closed ground with forecasted new infections, which have continued to grow exponentially. (We estimate a current detection rate of just 5.6%)
Since roughly 10% of cases require hospitalization, we can also forecast the total number of hospitalizations of coronavirus cases in the NYC region. We just take 10% of the cases in the forecast and shift them forward by 8 days, to account for the delay from infection to the onset of symptoms.
At the outset of this crisis, NYC had between 1,200 and 3,000 beds available for coronavirus cases. Since we already have 777, we will hit capacity no later than March 24. Unfortunately all of those cases are already infected over the last few days.
The question now is whether we will stop adding to the cases a week from today, after the hospitals are already at capacity. If we don't, we may see mortality rates similar to the peak mortality rates in Wuhan (~3%).
With the new infections that occur over the next 24 hours, we will be adding approximately 100 new hospital cases on Mar 28 EVERY HOUR.
As I have noted in my previous two posts about this topic, it is essential that policymakers act quickly to stop the spread of COVID-19. They also must act equally quickly to address the severe economic consequences for NYC's residents. I endorse Jason Furman and my former colleague Claudia Sahm's proposals on this topic. Moving quickly on these policies are essential if we expect people to stay at home without incomes.
PJYoung said:
Five days ago I wrote this medium post (COVID-19: New York Will Be The Next Italy, But Doesn't Have to Be). In it, I forecast that NYC's hospitals would be at capacity as early as March 30. Unfortunately, I was wrong. New numbers suggest that NYC's hospitals will reach capacity of approx. 3,000 cases by March 24. (This error was from a lower than anticipated case detection rate.)
While there is now nothing we can do to prevent reaching capacity short of immediately adding beds, we can prevent additional deaths and hospitalizations by fully shutting down NYC except for absolutely essential services, like Italy's current restrictions.
Here's the math behind this new projection.
COVID-19 Hospitalizations in NYC as of Mar 19 (today): 777 cases
COVID-19 Hospitalization rate from medical research: approx. 10%
Time from infection to hospitalization for severe COVID-19 cases: 79 days
Using this, we can estimate the number of infections 8 days ago.
777 cases / 10% = 7,770 cases on Mar 11.
On Mar 11, the NYC region had 220 cases reported. Meaning:
Detection rate: 2.8% (220 reported cases / 7,770 estimated cases)
While testing capacity has increased substantially, it has barely closed ground with forecasted new infections, which have continued to grow exponentially. (We estimate a current detection rate of just 5.6%)
Since roughly 10% of cases require hospitalization, we can also forecast the total number of hospitalizations of coronavirus cases in the NYC region. We just take 10% of the cases in the forecast and shift them forward by 8 days, to account for the delay from infection to the onset of symptoms.
At the outset of this crisis, NYC had between 1,200 and 3,000 beds available for coronavirus cases. Since we already have 777, we will hit capacity no later than March 24. Unfortunately all of those cases are already infected over the last few days.
The question now is whether we will stop adding to the cases a week from today, after the hospitals are already at capacity. If we don't, we may see mortality rates similar to the peak mortality rates in Wuhan (~3%).
With the new infections that occur over the next 24 hours, we will be adding approximately 100 new hospital cases on Mar 28 EVERY HOUR.
As I have noted in my previous two posts about this topic, it is essential that policymakers act quickly to stop the spread of COVID-19. They also must act equally quickly to address the severe economic consequences for NYC's residents. I endorse Jason Furman and my former colleague Claudia Sahm's proposals on this topic. Moving quickly on these policies are essential if we expect people to stay at home without incomes.
bmks270 said:
I told my friend to leave Manhattan and fly to my place and use my second bedroom... he said he would wait another week to see how it goes... I said it might be a bit late by then.
TheCougarHunter said:bmks270 said:
I told my friend to leave Manhattan and fly to my place and use my second bedroom... he said he would wait another week to see how it goes... I said it might be a bit late by then.
Hope you're ready to get infected too
I ran into this dude at a Bridgestone in Austin, getting repairs done on his car. Was bugging the **** out of me that I couldn't place who he was while he was up at the register, but after 5 minutes it finally dawned on me.Bregxit said:
I hadn't checked in with JP on Youtube for awhile. Here is some COVID levity...
InternetFan02 said:how accurate is the 10% hospitalization rate stat?PJYoung said:
Five days ago I wrote this medium post (COVID-19: New York Will Be The Next Italy, But Doesn't Have to Be). In it, I forecast that NYC's hospitals would be at capacity as early as March 30. Unfortunately, I was wrong. New numbers suggest that NYC's hospitals will reach capacity of approx. 3,000 cases by March 24. (This error was from a lower than anticipated case detection rate.)
While there is now nothing we can do to prevent reaching capacity short of immediately adding beds, we can prevent additional deaths and hospitalizations by fully shutting down NYC except for absolutely essential services, like Italy's current restrictions.
Here's the math behind this new projection.
COVID-19 Hospitalizations in NYC as of Mar 19 (today): 777 cases
COVID-19 Hospitalization rate from medical research: approx. 10%
Time from infection to hospitalization for severe COVID-19 cases: 79 days
Using this, we can estimate the number of infections 8 days ago.
777 cases / 10% = 7,770 cases on Mar 11.
On Mar 11, the NYC region had 220 cases reported. Meaning:
Detection rate: 2.8% (220 reported cases / 7,770 estimated cases)
While testing capacity has increased substantially, it has barely closed ground with forecasted new infections, which have continued to grow exponentially. (We estimate a current detection rate of just 5.6%)
Since roughly 10% of cases require hospitalization, we can also forecast the total number of hospitalizations of coronavirus cases in the NYC region. We just take 10% of the cases in the forecast and shift them forward by 8 days, to account for the delay from infection to the onset of symptoms.
At the outset of this crisis, NYC had between 1,200 and 3,000 beds available for coronavirus cases. Since we already have 777, we will hit capacity no later than March 24. Unfortunately all of those cases are already infected over the last few days.
The question now is whether we will stop adding to the cases a week from today, after the hospitals are already at capacity. If we don't, we may see mortality rates similar to the peak mortality rates in Wuhan (~3%).
With the new infections that occur over the next 24 hours, we will be adding approximately 100 new hospital cases on Mar 28 EVERY HOUR.
As I have noted in my previous two posts about this topic, it is essential that policymakers act quickly to stop the spread of COVID-19. They also must act equally quickly to address the severe economic consequences for NYC's residents. I endorse Jason Furman and my former colleague Claudia Sahm's proposals on this topic. Moving quickly on these policies are essential if we expect people to stay at home without incomes.
Quote:
Based on roughly 2,000 cases confirmed as of Wednesday, de Blasio said 554 were hospitalized and 169 were in intensive care.
bmks270 said:
NY the state has like 50,000 hospital beds... not sure how many are available in NYC for new sick patients. I would think more than 3,000. But NYC will be like scenes out of a movie.... I really do hope some people take time to film and document everything in some of these cities... in a few years the documentaries and lessons learned will be interesting.
aggie2812-2 said:
That's taking into account all of the city's...can you provide one for a certain city? Of course it would be drawn out as it makes its way across a country. But to really to say someone's wrong you'll need to produce one for a city itself.
Bo Darville said:
Would probably work but you'd get a lot of "reeeeee communism" screeching.
Quote:
"Test, test, test" has become the WHO's leading recommendation for tackling the virus, and has been described by experts as the key to success in countries such as South Korea, who implemented widespread initiatives to test thousands of people a day early into its outbreak, and seem to have gotten those numbers under control.
Christian Drosten, a virologist at Berlin's Charit hospital who advises the government, told Watson Daily earlier this month that testing is one of the structural reasons for Germany's low fatality. Making testing readily and quickly available has formed the basis of Germany's approach to the virus. Covid-19 tests have been available through Germany's statutory healthcare since January, far earlier than most.
While Germany doesn't test at the same hugely accelerated rate as South Korea, people can be tested if they show mild symptoms or have had contact with an infected person, which has been the case for over a month. In the UK, some people are still struggling to get access to testing. Additional initiatives, like a drive-through coronavirus testing site, are an example of how the country promoted easy access to it.
Younger age group
That testing revealed a wider spread of people with the condition, many of whom were young and displaying negligible or minor symptoms. People considered a higher risk include those with a prior health condition, adults 70 and over and now and pregnant women. As a result, the German death rate would be expected to be lower, as more of the cases it is reporting are milder.
The Robert Koch Institute's report from Wednesday found that the majority of cases - 6,557 of the 8,198 recorded at that time - were between 15 to 59 years old, and the median age was 47.
Beat40 said:Bo Darville said:
Would probably work but you'd get a lot of "reeeeee communism" screeching.
But wouldn't it be the big government that you detest?
I agree that it speeds up the inevitable in many cases, but it seems to do a lot better job of kicking people off the cliff than the seasonal flu.FbgTxAg said:
I actually agree with the Germans on this to an extent. If the difference between one person recovering and another person dying is that one has emphysema, then they're not exactly wrong.
Certainly you can get carried away with it, but we all know that this thing is "speeding up the inevitable" for a lot of folks who were already knocking on that door.
FbgTxAg said:
I actually agree with the Germans on this to an extent. If the difference between one person recovering and another person dying is that one has emphysema, then they're not exactly wrong.
Certainly you can get carried away with it, but we all know that this thing is "speeding up the inevitable" for a lot of folks who were already knocking on that door.
Speeding up the curve and herd immunity in 30 days. Area under the curve is the same.Nuclear Scramjet said:
Brilliant decision-making by the Brits!
Like including suicides in "gun violence" stats.Quote:
That can be taken to the extreme though. How many people are diagnosed with hypertension that unfortunately only have it due to family genetics. They can be otherwise perfectly healthy and well under control with medicines. Germany could end up saying, nope this wasn't coronavirus it was hypertension related. Not saying it is that extreme but you can twist the numbers however you want to fit your country's narrative.
Hence the Certainly you can get carried away with it part....ONE-TWO-- said:FbgTxAg said:
I actually agree with the Germans on this to an extent. If the difference between one person recovering and another person dying is that one has emphysema, then they're not exactly wrong.
Certainly you can get carried away with it, but we all know that this thing is "speeding up the inevitable" for a lot of folks who were already knocking on that door.
That can be taken to the extreme though. How many people are diagnosed with hypertension that unfortunately only have it due to family genetics. They can be otherwise perfectly healthy and well under control with medicines. Germany could end up saying, nope this wasn't coronavirus it was hypertension related. Not saying it is that extreme but you can twist the numbers however you want to fit your country's narrative.
