Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 7)

[anonymous-user]

[p1stonhead]

grumbledoak said:

vaud said:

Well given the demographic in Florida you are going to get plenty of hospitalizations and deaths, sadly.

Possibly There is maybe the beginnings of a rise in the last three days here
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/flor...
but I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions from that.

Disney is already open. If it does spike they only have themselves to blame.

[vaud]

grumbledoak said:

Possibly There is maybe the beginnings of a rise in the last three days here
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/flor...
but I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions from that.

Really?



Source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-stat...

I'd be pretty worried.

[NerveAgent]

I always remember looking at the New York stats reporting 1000 deaths a day and California reporting 7 or so and thinking California has just locked down extremely early and will just delay the inevitable.

[grumbledoak]

vaud said:

Really?

I say cases don't matter, only deaths, and that there is a slight rise. So you show cases and ask "Really?"

Deaths -

a slight rise.

[vaud]

grumbledoak said:

I say cases don't matter, only deaths, and that there is a slight rise. So you show cases and ask "Really?"

Deaths -

a slight rise.

Both matter as if you have a massive rise in cases, you place additional strain on the health services and also delay other treatments, indirectly then impacting other patients as they are deprioritized.

Also deaths lag cases. Sure, since the pandemic has started treatment has improved, but I would not be comfortable looking at a very steep curve of cases. See where we are in 2 weeks.

[anonymous-user]

I wonder how many deaths countries like Russia or India have actually had.

If you look at populations



And assume some of the African countries don’t have loads of elderly people due to life expectancy and Covid is apparently worst for the BAME, old, overweight you’d expect America might not do too well but someone like Russia ought to have big numbers too (although it’s not diverse ethnically) and India. Obviously reporting and testing isn’t the best in some of these places but there ought to be massive death tolls in Russia.

Certainly much more than the 11,000 below

[survivalist]

vaud said:

grumbledoak said:

I say cases don't matter, only deaths, and that there is a slight rise. So you show cases and ask "Really?"

Deaths -

a slight rise.

Both matter as if you have a massive rise in cases, you place additional strain on the health services and also delay other treatments, indirectly then impacting other patients as they are deprioritized.

Also deaths lag cases. Sure, since the pandemic has started treatment has improved, but I would not be comfortable looking at a very steep curve of cases. See where we are in 2 weeks.

Depends on the demographic. Everyone I know that has either had it or is suspected to have had it has had no medical interaction. Stayed at home for as long as required, time off work etc

Seems to be an assumption that if you're ill with Covid 19 you are automatically in ICU, but the reality is that most won't leave home unless there is a severe risk.

Relatives if colleagues on the other hand have been older and have needed hospital treatment, but either we have got better at shielding this demographic or they have sadly passed away in the early weeks/months of the pandemic.

[survivalist]

El stovey said:

I wonder how many deaths countries like Russia or India have actually had.

If you look at populations



And assume some of the African countries don’t have loads of elderly people due to life expectancy and Covid is apparently worst for the BAME, old, overweight you’d expect America might not do too well but someone like Russia ought to have big numbers too (although it’s not diverse ethnically) and India. Obviously reporting and testing isn’t the best in some of these places but there ought to be massive death tolls in Russia.

Certainly much more than the 11,000 below

Why would you assume Russia would be badly hit? Given that the UK stats show than men are more vulnerable than women and the Russian average life expectance for a man is 65 years (2018). I would have expected Russia to be less affected as other ailments have killed off the men before Covid 19 got to do it's work.

[smashing]

vaud said:

Both matter as if you have a massive rise in cases, you place additional strain on the health services and also delay other treatments, indirectly then impacting other patients as they are deprioritized.

Also deaths lag cases. Sure, since the pandemic has started treatment has improved, but I would not be comfortable looking at a very steep curve of cases. See where we are in 2 weeks.

you are assuming all cases require treatment which is wrong

[vaud]

survivalist said:

Depends on the demographic. Everyone I know that has either had it or is suspected to have had it has had no medical interaction. Stayed at home for as long as required, time off work etc

Seems to be an assumption that if you're ill with Covid 19 you are automatically in ICU, but the reality is that most won't leave home unless there is a severe risk.

Relatives if colleagues on the other hand have been older and have needed hospital treatment, but either we have got better at shielding this demographic or they have sadly passed away in the early weeks/months of the pandemic.

I partly agree. I (think) I had it early in the UK cycle and the symptoms are mild.

My point is more about the sunshine state, the demographic and looking at a near vertical acceleration of cases, from which many deaths will sadly follow.

I have lots of US colleagues saying "ahh this is second wave" when quite clearly for their state it is the first wave and will kill the more vulnerable in that state... and some (in the case fo Florida) still not not mandating masks. A wave in NY does not correlate to a wave in FL.

[vaud]

smashing said:

you are assuming all cases require treatment which is wrong

I'm assuming no such thing.

[grumbledoak]

vaud said:

Both matter as if you have a massive rise in cases, you place additional strain on the health services and also delay other treatments, indirectly then impacting other patients as they are deprioritized.

Also deaths lag cases. Sure, since the pandemic has started treatment has improved, but I would not be comfortable looking at a very steep curve of cases. See where we are in 2 weeks.

Test numbers matters. If everyone has a disease and we go from 100 tests per day to 10,000 we will see a big rise in "cases".
Demographics matter. Young cases don't lead to hospitalizations and deaths.

We will have to wait and see. We have heard "2 weeks" several times now...

[survivalist]

vaud said:

survivalist said:

Depends on the demographic. Everyone I know that has either had it or is suspected to have had it has had no medical interaction. Stayed at home for as long as required, time off work etc

Seems to be an assumption that if you're ill with Covid 19 you are automatically in ICU, but the reality is that most won't leave home unless there is a severe risk.

Relatives if colleagues on the other hand have been older and have needed hospital treatment, but either we have got better at shielding this demographic or they have sadly passed away in the early weeks/months of the pandemic.

I partly agree. I (think) I had it early in the UK cycle and the symptoms are mild.

My point is more about the sunshine state, the demographic and looking at a near vertical acceleration of cases, from which many deaths will sadly follow.

I have lots of US colleagues saying "ahh this is second wave" when quite clearly for their state it is the first wave and will kill the more vulnerable in that state... and some (in the case fo Florida) still not not mandating masks. A wave in NY does not correlate to a wave in FL.

I guess that their benefit is they now have a wealth of information on which to base their decisions. Those at risk should have the option to shield but they should learn from our collective mistakes. Protecting care homes and allowing the elderly and vulnerable to perform their food shopping away from the less vulnerable part of the population make sense.

To me, trying to stop Covid19 from infecting the young, non-vulnerable parts of the population is both pointless and futile. The UK put in place a huge level of support for those unable to work during lockdown. The US simply won't do that, so there is no point in trying to force people to stay at home, not work, even wear masks and social distance.

The sad element of that is that it'll increase the wealth gap, but short of a miracle that ship sailed decades ago in the USA.

[survivalist]

grumbledoak said:

vaud said:

Both matter as if you have a massive rise in cases, you place additional strain on the health services and also delay other treatments, indirectly then impacting other patients as they are deprioritized.

Also deaths lag cases. Sure, since the pandemic has started treatment has improved, but I would not be comfortable looking at a very steep curve of cases. See where we are in 2 weeks.

Test numbers matters. If everyone has a disease and we go from 100 tests per day to 10,000 we will see a big rise in "cases".
Demographics matter. Young cases don't lead to hospitalizations and deaths.

We will have to wait and see. We have heard "2 weeks" several times now...

Two weeks is nonsense if we are talking about deaths. You could be in ICU for 2 weeks then on a ventilator for another 2. Admissions are also challenging in the US, as the rich will insist on being cared for even if they have only mild symptoms. The poor will stay away for fear of costs and only show up when on deaths door.

The only countries we can easily compare to are other European ones and, possibly, Canada. But even then the demographics can be significantly different.

[anonymous-user]

survivalist said:

Why would you assume Russia would be badly hit? Given that the UK stats show than men are more vulnerable than women and the Russian average life expectance for a man is 65 years (2018). I would have expected Russia to be less affected as other ailments have killed off the men before Covid 19 got to do it's work.

Ah ok, didn’t realise the life expectancy was so low.

[vaud]

survivalist said:

The US simply won't do that, so there is no point in trying to force people to stay at home, not work, even wear masks and social distance.

The sad element of that is that it'll increase the wealth gap, but short of a miracle that ship sailed decades ago in the USA.

On this I agree, and the balance of trust/respect/power between federal state, state, county and individual probably prevents anything meaningful happening.

The wealth gap is appalling in many areas.

[MOTORVATOR]

WatchfulEye said:

sambucket said:

Can someone translate this chart for me. Does this mean everything above the line was wasted?

It's showing where the constraints on capacity are. It also shows the amount of extra capacity which can be released by various policies.

Lime green shows where the normal capacity limitations lie (i.e. lack of nursing staff for critical care, and lack of beds for normal wards).

The different colours represent different policies to increase capacity. E.g. cancelling elective cases frees up beds, and staff.

The eventual demand on critical care is shown as exceeding the capacity of the staff and beds - even after maximum interventions to increase this capacity.

In contrast, on the general wards, the main limiting factor was beds - which was more than adequately addressed by cancelling elective work.

There have been plenty of soundbites on the news that the NHS was not overwhelmed - maybe not on the general wards. I would disagree that ICUs were not overwhelmed. There may have been enough ventilators; but general strain on the staff, particularly the nursing staff and junior doctors was very obvious; and this study shows this.

Edit:
Yes - your assessment is correct. Critical care is normally very well staffed with senior doctors. The limiting factor is nurses - and at baseline level of capacity, the nursing limitiation would barely have managed 10% of the covid-induced demand.

Edited by WatchfulEye on Sunday 12th July 16:54

Not sure if that is England or UK?

England according to Kingsfund

"In March 2019 there were 112,031 doctors, 311,380 qualified nursing staff (including midwives and health visitors) and 34,556 managers in the NHS out of a total workforce of 1,093,638 (all figures are full-time equivalent)."

And from the current .gov stats.

Peak covid patients in hospital occurred 21st April

Total 17,172 with 2,881 on mech ventilator

Todays figures

Total 1,477 with 139 on mech ventilator

[Chedders]

Found out my uncle has tested positive for Covid this afternoon. He has been fighting cancer for the past couple of years

[motco]

rover 623gsi said:

new positive tests and deaths

Sunday 12 July - 650 / 21
Sunday 5 July - 516 / 22
Sunday 28 June - 814 / 36
Sunday 21 June - 1,103 / 43
Sunday 14 June - 1,368 / 36
Sunday 7 June - 1,198 / 77

hospital admissions continue to fall
https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/healthcare...

I suspect that a large chunk of the increase in positive tests is caused by increased testing and very localised clusters. I would like the govt to get the message out there (remind people?) that the vast majority of people who get coronavirus do not suffer serious symptoms

Edited by rover 623gsi on Sunday 12th July 17:23

Thanks rover 623gsi, I look for your very helpful tables every few days.