Don't come round here with all that readin and s***

Maroon Dawn said:

---

This thing is less deadly than the Flu for people under 60

Let the workers get back to work and build the economy and herd immunity

Keep Meemaw and Peepaw in quarantine

It's really that simple

Any desire to keep young healthy people locked up is being done to kill the economy and enable a Dem fascist police state

---

This isn't actually true. CV is more deadly at every age than the flu. The flu has the same age dependence of mortality that CV does. The death rate of covid for 25-34 year olds is less than flu among all age groups, but it is still deadlier than the flu for 25-34 year olds. You make it sound like the flu is more deadly for young people and that's not true.

B-1 83 said:

---

"While the "case fatality rate" was calculated to be 3.4% back in March and is 6.9% now, it was understood that there was a large amount of mild/asymptomatic cases that would lead to an eventual "infection fatality rate" of somewhere between 0.5% - 1.0%".

Ok............ If this virus sets up shop in your body, you have between 0.5 and 1% chance of not making it.

What is that rate in NYC? Doesn't it all come back to that?

---

I don't know how New York has such high numbers compared to every region of the world with big cities that don't have a fraction of its wealth.

ham98 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

"While the "case fatality rate" was calculated to be 3.4% back in March and is 6.9% now, it was understood that there was a large amount of mild/asymptomatic cases that would lead to an eventual "infection fatality rate" of somewhere between 0.5% - 1.0%".

Ok............ If this virus sets up shop in your body, you have between 0.5 and 1% chance of not making it.

What is that rate in NYC? Doesn't it all come back to that?

---

I don't know how New York has such high numbers compared to every region of the world with big cities that don't have a fraction of its wealth.

---

They just need two weeks and more testing.......

This is a great post. A lot to digest and go over again. Just scratching the surface, a few thoughts/questions.

Quote:

---

The hospitalization rate was initially way overestimated. This is being attributed to the data in Italy/China early in the outbreak showing much higher hospitalization rates than what we are currently seeing. In NYC, there is 3.5 hospitalizations for every death. Early estimates were 2-3 times that amount and had to be adjusted down after new data came out of the US. If you go back to nawlinsag post from March 25, you will see he states a 14% hospitalization rate and a 5% critical care rate. If you assume 80% of patients who receive critical care die, you get 14% hospitalization / 4% death = 3.5 hospitalizations per death. Texags knows stuff. I would hope part of the reason our rates are lower is that we have better doctors and better treatments. As a esult of overestimating our hospitalization early, many localities predicted doomsday scenarios that never came to pass. Lombardy was strained to the limit, but not many other places to the same degree.

---

This is the most puzzling piece of the puzzle to me. The NYC region was operating at something like 500 active cases per ICU bed for a good while. Yet, the emergency federal measures were not utilized.

Quote:

---

There is no proven vaccine, cure or treatment. We do have some treatments (HCQ, Remd., IL-6 Inhibitors, etc) that are now proving to be somewhat effective at reducing the severity or duration of the virus, but still nothing yet that resembles a knock-out punch. However, it does seem like some time in the next year we could have a vaccine available.

---

This is seems to be the least addressed issue with our public policy decision making. I was watching/listening to a call with one of the big ratings agencies last week or the week before, and their economic prognostications were based on a vaccine being available on a mass scale 12 months from now. Any delay in a vaccine, pushed their recovery estimate out by that same amount of time. This was due to consumer behavior not stabilizing until a vaccine was in hand.

I was pretty floored by what seemed like an extraordinary assumption with little thought of the alternative.

Quote:

---

We have spent trillions of dollars in economic recovery, but not nearly enough in testing and tracing resources. We should be unlocking every bottleneck nationally and enlisting and training as many people as possible to destroy the curve. It would be better for the economy to spend $500B on a testing/tracing national program than it would be to shelter at home one more month.

---

Can you please explain the importance of testing and tracing? I think you may have outlined it before; something about "even a 10% reduction in spread".

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Damn you must be bored.

---

You have way more free time than I ever have.

Doesn't that seem self evident? If you know as much as possible who is currently infectious and who has already had it and is now effectively immune, you can much more easily prevent spread and have people back working in roles without fear of spreading it to others.

Focus all available testing on nursing homes and hospitals and doctors offices and other areas where particularly vulnerable populations tend to exist in large numbers. Everybody else no stay at home orders. If a person is low risk tolerance or high vulnerability they can take precautions that make then feel safer. This would have decreased our number of deaths in the US to date my belief more so than any stay at home orders. Oh and probably temporarily halt mass transit and transportation and/or require ppe on those.

Today's projection is 168,000 deaths by early August. We are currently at 70,000.

Wonder what the predicted deaths are by Election Day? Wonder how many deaths until we see Biden upset Trump? Though this number maybe more dependent on the state level than the national level, if so, then the deaths in a particular swing state. Because Trump will win Texas regardless and will lose California regardless. We want Trump to win.

This page has been bookmarked so we can see once again when it is off by a magnitude of 50,000 and deaths are lower

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Doesn't that seem self evident? If you know as much as possible who is currently infectious and who has already had it and is now effectively immune, you can much more easily prevent spread and have people back working in roles without fear of spreading it to others.

---

To what extent, though?

Are there significant social benefits over and above moderate social distancing at the personal level?

Hard to be on the backside of a massive scam with false data. Less than 3,000 people have died of straight Covid. Trillions in damage. Suicides through the roof. Millions of families crushed. Liberals cheering. Democrats cheering. Limp wristed beta techies cheering. Trump will expose these rats too just like he is exposing the clowns now.

iluvpoker said:

---

Today's projection is 168,000 deaths by early August. We are currently at 70,000.

Wonder what the predicted deaths are by Election Day? Wonder how many deaths until we see Biden upset Trump? Though this number maybe more dependent on the state level than the national level, if so, then the deaths in a particular swing state. Because Trump will win Texas regardless and will lose California regardless. We want Trump to win.

---

How many are actually covid deaths to date? I'd really be interested in seeing the numbers you obviously have on that. And the predictions have been bullsht.

Narrator -- we did take the Scenario 2 path

I mentioned the prediction of ~160,000 deaths by Aug 1. On Aug 1 we had ~156,000 reported deaths.