I would think Italy would have the tightest Stay at Home rules in the world, no? So how are they still getting 4,000 new infections per day?

Aust Ag said:

---

I would think Italy would have the tightest Stay at Home rules in the world, no? So how are they still getting 4,000 new infections per day?

---

I don't know the real explanation but my guess is that it still spreads because it is not possible for all humans to eliminate contact with other humans. People still work in critical jobs, with their coworkers, and at times interacting with the public. The public still needs food, some medical care, etc. New cases are almost down by half from their peak, but only 0.25% of Italian population has tested positive. Even if the actual number of those who had it is 20 times higher, that's still only 5% of the population - it's going to keep spreading slowly. I consider the slow down a positive, hopefully the health care system can keep up.

if only 5 % of italy has it ( your estimate is as good of guess as any ) Herd immunity is way way far off. Hoping for better therapies keeping the sick out of the ICU and a nationwide quarantine policy.

if you feel bad , you get tested , if positive 2 weeks in a shelter. Even doing that there will be a constant but manageable spread until basically everyone has gotten it ( herd immunity)

Study hasn't been released yet.

700k without any intervention seems reasonable, almost. Population of California, 39.5mil. No intervention, so you quickly end up with 15% of population infected, 12% end up in the hospital. 711k beds.

Except NY said they needed 140K beds for a population half the size. Something tell me their math is different than CA math.

Oh, thought we were talking no intervention. Ie, no social distancing, no shutting basically everything down.

I am. Both NY calculated 140K beds if they did nothing. CA calculated 700K.

Cuomo was still saying he needed 140k beds on March 27th, well after social distancing policies had been implemented. And he was basing it on "experts" that he talked to at that time.

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/03/cuomo-refutes-trump-insists-ny-needs-up-to-40000-ventilators-i-operate-on-facts.html

True, but to be unusually fair to a Democrat, the bend in infections wasn't apparent yet. Certainly not in hospitalizations either.

Early on there was a funeral with lots of out of town visitors and lots of relatively elderly attending. Many deaths early on and they never really have got a handle on it. The small town of Albany is the epicenter. I don't know why it hasn't got national attention but the numbers are staggering and from what I have heard most victims have been in the black community.

NYT had an article early, but understandably I don't think any follow up. I'm just across the line in Alabama but it's frightening.

I think it was part this and part the squeaky wheel gets the grease, coumo was doing his best to hype up the NY danger to get his hands on as much supplies as he could


*Coming from a dem

Fry it would be interesting to see when each state went into lockdown, it's weird to me that they all follow the same line

Of the countries charted here, Portugal has the most impressive 'bend' in their curve. U.S. is probably 50% of where the trend line was headed 3 weeks ago. Although I've seen data on the average incubation period of 5 days from exposure to symptoms, I haven't seen the data on the average time between exposure and death so it isn't clear to me what the lag time is between exposure rate (impacted by social distancing and hygiene) and death rate (impacted by exposure rate and treatment efficacy) .

Can you share how you calculate the overall US CFR?

Today's death toll/# infected 7 days ago.

Section327Ag said:

---

Of the countries charted here, Portugal has the most impressive 'bend' in their curve. U.S. is probably 50% of where the trend line was headed 3 weeks ago. Although I've seen data on the average incubation period of 5 days from exposure to symptoms, I haven't seen the data on the average time between exposure and death so it isn't clear to me what the lag time is between exposure rate (impacted by social distancing and hygiene) and death rate (impacted by exposure rate and treatment efficacy) .

---

Death is roughly 14 days from first symptoms but has a large variance. Likely 10-30 days.

Thanks. I was confused cumulative US was lower than all the states tracked on the same chart, so you calculate those states with the same method? I understand no calculation is perfect but I like the one you are using for cumulative US.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Yeah. I do it the same way for each state.

Which means:

1). The overall CFR is probably much lower than 1.7% since NY and Michigan are pushing 8%

Or

2) Those states that have a high CFR have a higher at risk population.

Oh, and China's numbers are clearly fabricated.

---

I'm sorry dude how are we getting the 1.7%? I thought it was like 3-4%. Isn't it deaths vs total confirmed?

it is getting some coverage Especially when Nola was in the news 2 counties near nola and 2 counties near Albany were 1-4 in desths per capita

You know, let me double check my calcs and get back to you.

Maybe lockdowns can only do so much and are not effective after a few weeks?

"Philip J Fry" said:

---

Overall CFR=1.70%. Time to open the country back up.

---

Is there some CFR you've been personally looking to see? Am I mistaken that 1.7% is still pretty damn high given the r0 with a 'back to work' society. It's obviously lower than 1.7, but still...

Well, unfortunately....I made a mistake in the calc and it's a good 5% higher. The point is, if our CFR was 1.7 and places like Michigan and NY were at 8%, their numbers would have skewed the overall numbers. Which in a round about way means the CFR should still be substantially lower than what's being reported.

I'll leave my commentary to forum 16 on why the country should be functioning. I was on board with the 15 day thing, but man, we have to find a balance between health and economics.

DadHammer said:

---

Maybe lockdowns can only do so much and are not effective after a few weeks?

---

lockdowns make the growth rate linear or possibly parabolic instead of exponential.

the early locations where community spread got going supported the thesis if the govt does nothin spread is exponential

of course the data is a mess , even the # of dead is problematic both sides are aguing about if the cause of death is being peoperly attributed. That being said # of dead was definitely exponential for a period of several weeks

Gotcha, and that's unfortunate on the miscalculation. Understand, I don't want to derail this thread either. I thought I might be misunderstanding something, the skewing makes sense, wish it were more true.

Yep, this whole deal sucks.

Thanks for correcting, it didn't look right to me - unfortunately. I was hoping it was. Perhaps we'll get there through testing - way more active virus antibody testing. Beating a dead horse with everyone else on the need for extreme levels of testing. It's possible it doesn't show what we all want it to show - maybe 10% US exposure so far? But I hope it does.

I'd hate to make the decision between lives and economy. Much of the economy is still functioning and it's not like we are being passed by other countries not dealing with this - developed countries are all in this together. But massive job losses and they will always grow, needed stimulus is great for those that need help but leads to inflation, etc. I looked back at the Great Depression and suicides only went up slightly and overall life expectancy increased during that time - a depressed economy does not mean people die necessarily, and I recall my grandparents saying times were tough, no money, yet they still told lots of stories of great family times they had then. I'm not advocating for staying as we are, just offering a viewpoint. I think we can start AT A MINIMUM balancing back to work with protecting the vulnerable through isolation until treatments/vaccines and leaving the better prepared healthcare system ready to deal with those not at risk who still get very sick for reasons unknown (overall a smaller number). We may have to have government help for all those vulnerable who can't work as a result, but the bulk of folks can find jobs and not be on unemployment. I really think restaurants:m/bars/etc and tourism - the hardest host industries - will take a while to get customers back even if we lifted all restrictions tomorrow.

Ok I'm rambling. It's a fascinating situation, even if awful.

not much of an issue here , how long does it take for the extended cruise industry to get anywhere near pre covid levels. personally i think people will start flying with in 12 months not sure about getting on a boat

Yeah, for a good time there when I first start tracking it, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Now that the infection bend is in full effect, not so much :-/