When do you think virus-related disruptions will end?

[divinh]

Considering the lack of testing in the US, we have no idea what the chances of death from COVID actually is. Until recently, here in CA, COVID tests were given to patients being admitted to the hospital with symptoms.

Stanford did some testing and found quite a number of people had COVID antibodies from a sickness, thought to be a nasty flu, this past winter, and are now doing a study to determine how many may have had COVID then. It could bring the mortality rate down considerably if a lot of people have already had it thinking it was the flu, or even thought it it was COVID and were not tested at the time.

I specifically quantified that it's essential workers and symptomatic people who are being tested, not everyone. Yes, with more testing, asymptomatic people (some accounted for with essential workers) will make the mortality rate go down. We don't have that data yet. We do know that if you're sick, you don't have good odds.

 

[divinh]

There is a flaw in your math. The COVID mortality statistics you are presenting based on people tested and not exposed. The more you test the lesser mortality you will find.

How about this statistics : USS Roosevelt had 600 confirmed cases. 60% did not even manifest a symptom. Not a single mortality...

I quantified what my numbers referred to, essential workers (likely asymptomatic) and symptomatic, not everyone.

I also listed that the mortality rate varies between States, from 1.1% to 9.1%.

 

[BRT]

This argument is false. There are many diseases to which we have no natural immunity which have simply been "contained". Ebola, SARS 1, the Black Plague come immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are many others.

Any of those cured by lockdowns?

 

[BRT]

Agreed.

In the US, for example, mostly essential workers and symptomatic people are tested. Of those, between 1.1% to 9.1% die, depending on the State. The US, overall, has a 5.8% Covid-19 fatality rate, of course with not everyone tested and not everyone exposed. (Global COVID-19 Tracker & Interactive Charts | Real Time Updates & Digestable Information for Everyone | 1Point3Acres)

World War II US military had a fatality rate of 2.5% (16,112,566 served, 405,399 deaths).

For the US, a person is 2x more likely to die of Covid-19 than a soldier during WWII... and that's with lockdown and social distancing.

That might be valid, if there were a bunch of WWII veterans who went to war but were never aware of it.

 

[Bob DBF]

There are many diseases to which we have no natural immunity which have simply been "contained". Ebola, SARS 1, the Black Plague come immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are many others.

We would have no natural immunity for any diseases we have not survived, or survived something similar. If you survive any of the three, you will have immunity, although with SARS it is in the neighborhood of 3 years. There seems to be a connection between genetics and plague immunity, so someone might have natural immunity.

There are vaccines for both Ebola and the Black Plague. I had the plague shots decades ago and I would not want to have to do it again.

 

[Searcaigh]

Any of those cured by lockdowns?

Lockdowns are not a cure.

I'll credit you with bad English as you're probably American

 

[flyboy08]

Lockdowns are not a cure.

I'll credit you with bad English as you're probably American

No need for a cure if your not sick..and last line is a low blow internet bullying which makes you look rather small.

 

[Searcaigh]

No need for a cure if your not sick..and last line is a low blow internet bullying which makes you look rather small.

My sense of humour

 

[divinh]

Any of those cured by lockdowns?

Lockdowns were never meant to be a cure. I'd rather the lockdowns be hard and short so we'd actually have a chance to go back to relative normal, where we're dealing with localized flare-ups, instead of unknown general spread everywhere. It's not like people haven't dealt with pandemics before. There were and are protocols that would have helped greatly. Even as the virus spread, warnings from hard hit areas were ignored. People in Italy were warning us, in the US, a month ahead of time, but we didn't really heed.

This rush to open, while still unprepared to test, trace, and quarantine, will lead to more general public fear, which means businesses will still lack the business volume necessary to sustain themselves. You can open businesses, but customers need to feel comfortable to utilize.

The US is a big place. I don't think every place in the US needs to be locked down in the same way, nor opened up in the same way, however, there are guidelines that will make it work... decline in infections or few infections, capability to test anyone, capability to trace, capability to quarantine, etc. If there's a place in the US where there have been few infections, but they're increasing, it's likely the place has had a delayed reaction, much like between Italy, Spain and the US. It's likely not a place to open up, unless test, trace and quarantine can be done. Ignoring that is just asking for a repeat of trouble.

 

[divinh]

That might be valid, if there were a bunch of WWII veterans who went to war but were never aware of it.

US WWII soldiers were aware that they might die. They had a 2.5% chance of that.
Essential workers and symptomatic patients are/were aware that they might die. They have a 5.8% chance of that.