Pushing the Panic- CoVid 19

[Commander]

I am not a medical professional, nor do I play one on TV (or the web, in today's world). I have no sage advice of a medical nature to hand out to the denizens who occasionally gather here. For that, I would steer you to the The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or your individual doctor.

What I am concerned about are those people pushing the panic. Not just the crazy individuals buying up the toilet paper and hand sanitizer, but those on youtube and elsewhere pushing a daily narrative about "how the world is going to change". The world always is changing, so unless you think this is a second black plague and we are going to enter the second dark ages, exploiting the panic isn't going to make things better.

I watched a video from a homesteader youtuber. This gentleman is located in the Pacific Northwest and was concerned because of all the lock downs going on in the area that his daily routine was going to be changed? I'm not sure I follow, but most homesteaders I have known have started that life style to get "off the grid" and be self supportive. Other than how it may affect the kidlings schooling, there should be only a minor change in day to day affairs and one would think he would be in the cat birds seat. But he is online vlogging, pushing the panic in my opinion. Just sit back, wash your hands and grab a . If symptoms appear, contact your health professional.

To all who visit and are members here, try to relax, take stock of your situation and be prudent in your actions, Stockpiling extra rolls will probably only mean that you will not have to buy any for a while. Not stockpiling extra rolls and being in the worst case position (quarantined for up to a month, shall we say) just means you'll have to use a rag to wash your toosh. So be safe, don't take any unnecessary risks, and chill.

[Commander]

[Commander]

[Commander]

One additional item, a question;

Why don't we see these two additional statistics regarding not only this outbreak, but any outbreak?

• The number of cases in which patients recovered
• The number of recurring cases

That would be information I would truly think pertinent, and in a positive way.

[Bob Austin]

One additional item, a question;

Why don't we see these two additional statistics regarding not only this outbreak, but any outbreak?

• The number of cases in which patients recovered
• The number of recurring cases

That would be information I would truly think pertinent, and in a positive way.

John Hopkins University has a very good map that does some of this. It is at https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 7b48e9ecf6. When it first comes up it shows red circles everywhere - this is the cumulative total since the outbreak. At the bottom of the map is a tab marked "Active Cases". Click on it and the circles turn tan and get a bit smaller.

Click on a circle at any location and a box will pop up showing:

• The location
  Number of Confirmed Cases
  Number of Deaths
  Number Recovered
  Number Active

On the left is a listing of each country. Click on the country of your choosing and it will show Confirmed Cases (Total), Deaths and Recovered.

On the bottom right of the page is a graph showing daily cases. Click on the tab marked "Active Cases" under the graph. This is a daily bar chart showing world wide new confirmed cases and new recovered.

Hope this helps

[Commander]

Thanks for the info Bob. This helps put things in a perspective, even though the numbers are early for the United States with only 12 showing as recovered at this writing compared to 69 deaths. That number of deaths stat is skewed I believe by the sad occurrence of one of the first places being hit in the United States being one of the most vulnerable (a nursing and rehabilitation facility).

When we go to China, the first acknowledged area hit, we find more positive numbers in 81,032 cases with 3,217 deaths and 67910 recoveries.

I would expect the numbers elsewhere for recoveries to be more positive as they would be more aware and not as strained as the Chinese were with the initial surge.

I do not mean to make light of any loss and my sympathies go out to anyone suffering because of this terrible virus. What I am trying to entertain is that a lot of this is blown up hyperbole. We must of course be cautious and use do care, but Pushing the Panic isn't necessary.

[Bob Austin]

One of the things to remember when looking at deaths versus recovered is that death occurs early in the process, especially in those who have comorbid factors (underlying lung disease, immunocompromised). Those numbers get reported early. Recovery from the virus is typically 2-3 weeks, followed by the additional time for the follow-up testing to show the virus is gone. The front of the curve shows deaths primarily, the back of the curve survivors, simply because of the time periods involved.

The other factor that the map does not show is the impact on other "unrelated" deaths. In Italy they are being hammered right now. The spread of the virus is peaking and hospitals are overrun. Because of this they are short on intubation tubes and ventilators (COVID 19 strikes the respiratory system resulting in an interstitial pneumonia. Serious cases require the patient be intubated and placed on a vent until the body can recover from the virus). Because of the high number of COVID-19 patients and limited tubes and vents, their current protocol is anyone presenting over age 65 does not get intubated and is not put on a vent, regardless of how sick they are. Anyone under 65 with comorbid factors is treated the same way - no tube and no vent. This also means that cardiac patients and stroke patients that would normally receive a tube and a vent as part of their treatment don't get a tube or vent. So their death rate also increases. If you dig deep (after the main COVID-19 event is over better numbers will be released) you will find that the overall death toll during this time period will be higher when you factor in these "unrelated deaths."

This is the purpose of social distancing and staying home. Right now we can't stop the disease. There is no cure, no vaccine (although that is being worked on). However, social distancing can slow it down. It flattens the curve of those being sick and needing hospitalization. It takes longer, as the same number of people will get sick however over a longer time frame. But by slowing it down we can reduce the surge of patients on hospitals. If we reduce the surge, then equipment and treatments are available for not only for those who have COVID-19, but other patients as well. Italy admits they waited too long to start social distancing. They are paying for it now. In a couple of weeks we here in the US will know if we waited too long as well.

In the end COVID-19 is really a math problem.

[Commander]

You bring up some very interesting points, Bob. Too many people are unaware of the total numbers, all they hear about are the deaths. It's no wonder there isn't a larger panic.

The only thing I might take issue with is the affect of the social distancing. Yes it is beneficial, so don't take me wrong in that respect. However to make the assumption that the end numbers who become affected by the virus will end up the same as if we didn't pursue the distancing is I believe disingenuous. The assumption with that result is that we never find a vaccine or take other preventive measures to stop the spread. With that type of thinking, we are all going to get polio, it's just a matter of time.
One possible side affect of saying that we are just pushing the possible affected people out over a longer time is that some younger people might say, "heck, I'm going to get it anyway, so why not just get it over with now and go out and have a good time?"

Vaccine testing has already begun, and we are learning more and more every day about the virus. Yes the vaccine testing may take some time, yet we are moving forward faster than in preceding pandemics. Also with the "Right to Try" laws making testing easier to get drugs to market, who knows what the results may be.

The main thing is not to take chances (no licking of the infected shrines), not buy into the hype (either way) and use your god given common sense.

[Bob Austin]

You bring up some very interesting points, Bob. Too many people are unaware of the total numbers, all they hear about are the deaths. It's no wonder there isn't a larger panic.

The only thing I might take issue with is the affect of the social distancing. Yes it is beneficial, so don't take me wrong in that respect. However to make the assumption that the end numbers who become affected by the virus will end up the same as if we didn't pursue the distancing is I believe disingenuous. The assumption with that result is that we never find a vaccine or take other preventive measures to stop the spread. With that type of thinking, we are all going to get polio, it's just a matter of time.

Ah, one of my "what I meant isn't exactly what I wrote" screw-ups. You are correct, they are working on a vaccine and if things go correctly, we should have something hopefully available this time next year (assuming they relax some rules and push development - normally a 12-18 month process). So yes, you are correct.

When working with math models such as this, to keep things in perspective you need to use the same numbers. If we assume "x" number of infected, how do we reduce the rate of infection or slow the spread (so hospitals can keep up with the number of patients they are seeing). That allows you to compare "apples to apples". If left unchecked, the number of COVID-19 patients will triple every three days (we are seeing that in places not practicing social distancing). If we practice social distancing (along with other good hygiene practices) we can reduce the speed of the uptake.

A really good article on the math behind this can be found at https://medium.com/@Jason_Scott_Warner/ ... 0145881993. Written by a mathematician he does a far better job of explaining it than I can. It takes a few minutes to read, but well worth it.

Again. sorry for implying something I didn't really mean.

[Commander]

I am not trying to berate you for your trying to explain something difficult. I am just pointing out how assumptions and what we say can lead to errors. As an example, I am in the land surveying field. i was checking a drawing that a draftsman had submitted and came across an discrepancy in the draftsman's distance on a building wall length and what the field crew had written in their notes. I asked the draftsman how he came up with his number, knowing that the field note's distance was obviously a mistake. he told me he calc'd it such and such a way and came up with 24.8'. the notes had said 27.1'. I asked him to check with the field crew about the distance. He came back and told me the field crew confirmed the 24.8' distance. The field crew had not had enough time to run back out to the site and check the distance. Now my dilemma came in by how the draftsman had asked the field crew to confirm the distance. If he had asked them, " I get a distance of 24.8' for that wall, is that good?" the information to me is still in question. The field crew could just say that yes that was it and save themselves a trip back out to the site. But if he says to them, "the distance you marked as 27.1' appears to be wrong, could it be something else?" and if they were to say, "yea, I remember that, I had to add two numbers (or whatever excuse) it should be 25.1'". At which point the draftsman might respond "could it be 24.8'?" That second way confirms the number as best we can without a return trip. The first really doesn't.

Maybe a long winded story. but I hope it explains my point, and not that I am perfect. I had a boss who had tyo explain a lot to me at one point in time. Life is a learning process.