COVID-19 (f/k/a "the Coronavirus")

[Coleman]

Generational war over the virus.  Younger people views on virus will make it more difficult to contain.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-generational-war-is-brewing-over-coronavirus-11584437401


This is an interesting juxtaposition considering younger people tend to care more about the environment, social wellness, and equality but when it comes to this virus that is not the case.

Anectdotally, it is entirely the opposite. All of my peers (30s) are freaked out and homebound, while our parents are still going out to eat.

[forgetful]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/health/coronavirus-uk-model-study/index.html

Interesting study running contrary to what everyone is doing. Suggests that all this isolation is going to cost countless lives.

Someone is right and someone is wrong. I'm hoping they are wrong.

[lawdog77]

I have a dumb question. If one gets the coronavirus, for how long is that person contagious?

[Coleman]

Whatever state you want to call it we are in some sort of lockdown nationally and it is impacting at least 50% of our economy directly and at least another 20% indirectly. If everything stays the same how long can we sustain this stance without irreparably harming our economy and/or the futures of millions of Americans? How do you balance the dozens of child that will be harmed by the current state of affairs with the handful of lives that will be lost as a result of going back to the status quo?

If I'm being really, really honest? I maintain the current status quo until the end of next week while simultaneously initiating a plan to rapidly expand hospital capacity. I then start slowly opening things back up until by the end of April almost all restrictions are off and maybe wait until mid-May for mass gatherings. We want the disease to spread but slowly aka flattening the curve but the peak of the curve can be changed by increasing capacity as well. Buy time for capacity then go nuts essentially.

Italy scared the bejesus out of everyone, understandably but they seem to be a worst case scenario as the result a bunch of factors:
-high average age
-higher than average comorbides
-a capacity gap
-a high population density
-a high tourism element

Not thar similar things can't happen else where but I think the thing people lose sight of is that the majority of the fatalities are due to a lack of intervention. The disease is survivable even in the highest risk population if we have available intervention. So really there are two curves we should be talking about, the incident curve and the capacity curve, as long as the capacity curve increases at a rate the same or better than the incident curve we are doing what we can.

What I'm having trouble rationalizing is how much national effort we put into avoiding Coronavirus deaths that we don't put into avoiding deaths of flu, or cancer, or car accidents, or overdoses, or suicides. I'm not trying to sound like I don't care, because I do, but at some point we have to have a frank conversation about how much "effort" is too much effort.

Here's where I disagree with your take...I think you are creating a false dichotomy. If we do less to save the economy, tons of people end up in the ICU and aren't able to work for a month. Even more are out for a week or two with milder symptoms. The economy is going to take a hit either way. Saving lives is the prudent choice.

[skianth16]

One of the first announcements I've seen from a major employer. 13,000 people potentially being furloughed without pay at Marriott. I wonder how many more of these we'll see in the coming weeks/months?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-17/marriott-starts-furloughs-that-could-hit-tens-of-thousands?srnd=markets-vp

[Coleman]

I have a dumb question. If one gets the coronavirus, for how long is that person contagious?

I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that.

[StillAWarrior]

How about more than we've been doing, but short of a national lockdown?

I don't know exactly where that line is, but our ever-escalating curve seems to indicate we aren't there yet.

First, I don't disagree. However, we still haven't seen whether actions taken last week (has it really only been 3-4 days?!) will have an impact on our "ever-escalating curve." It's Tuesday. Just last Friday, the Big East actually started a basketball game at MSG. It's hard to imagine that was only a few days ago. While many will argue that we're not doing enough, we are doing a lot. Over the next several days, we might be able to see if it is having an impact. But the any potential effects might be hidden in the data because (hopefully) testing is ramping up.

[skianth16]

Here's where I disagree with your take...I think you are creating a false dichotomy. If we do less to save the economy, tons of people end up in the ICU and aren't able to work for a month. Even more are out for a week or two with milder symptoms. The economy is going to take a hit either way. Saving lives is the prudent choice.

If the US matches China and ends up with 80,000 cases with a 10% hospitalization rate, that's 8,000 people in the hospital and 80,000 people out of the workforce for 2 weeks. In the lockdown model, you have the potential for millions or tens of millions out of work for 2-4 weeks or more. Then you have to factor in longer term effects of business closures.

I've made this point enough, so I'll back off it for now. But I think this topic and the numbers impacted in any scenario are worth discussing and thinking through.

[Pakuni]

Did I say no effort anywhere? Clearly some effort is required, the question is how much?

I don't think you said that, and I don't think I suggested you did.
But that still doesn't answer my question.
Most, if not all, of the discussion about economic consequences here seems to focus on the economic consequences that come with closings, delays, lockdowns, etc. that have been ordered to flatten the curve. I haven't seen much discussion - especially from those who question the level of effort - about the potential economic consequences of a lesser effort.
Certainly letting tens of thousands of people - even the ones who are old and less valuable  - get sick and/or die, will hurt the economy. Sick and dead people don't work. Sick and dead people don't go to stores, bars and restaurants. Sick and dead people don't take flights and cruises. Sick and dead people don't go to sporting events.
What sick and dying people will do is overtax and potentially collapse the hospital and health care system. And if that happens, now people with other illnesses and needs can't get the care they need, leaving even fewer healthy people to work, shop, dine out, travel, attend sporting events, etc., and even further overtaxing the system.

I haven't read every page of this thread, so if these issues have been addressed, my apologies. But I haven't seen it factored into the discussions of the past several pages in which some have questioned the "effort."

So, again, in your rationalizations, have you weighed the economic consequences of an insufficient response?

[Pakuni]

If the US matches China and ends up with 80,000 cases with a 10% hospitalization rate, that's 8,000 people in the hospital and 80,000 people out of the workforce for 2 weeks. In the lockdown model, you have the potential for millions or tens of millions out of work for 2-4 weeks or more. Then you have to factor in longer term effects of business closures.

I've made this point enough, so I'll back off it for now. But I think this topic and the numbers impacted in any scenario are worth discussing and thinking through.

Except China produced those numbers - if you trust them, which is a whole other issue - largely thanks to a massive lockdown that went far beyond anything happening here.
They didn't just do nothing and that's how it worked out. They followed the lockdown model times 100.

[mu03eng]

I don't think you said that, and I don't think I suggested you did.
But that still doesn't answer my question.
Most, if not all, of the discussion about economic consequences here seems to focus on the economic consequences that come with closings, delays, lockdowns, etc. that have been ordered to flatten the curve. I haven't seen much discussion - especially from those who question the level of effort - about the potential economic consequences of a lesser effort.
Certainly letting tens of thousands of people - even the ones who are old and less valuable  - get sick and/or die, will hurt the economy. Sick and dead people don't work. Sick and dead people don't go to stores, bars and restaurants. Sick and dead people don't take flights and cruises. Sick and dead people don't go to sporting events.
What sick and dying people will do is overtax and potentially collapse the hospital and health care system. And if that happens, now people with other illnesses and needs can't get the care they need, leaving even fewer healthy people to work, shop, dine out, travel, attend sporting events, etc., and even further overtaxing the system.

I haven't read every page of this thread, so if these issues have been addressed, my apologies. But I haven't seen it factored into the discussions of the past several pages in which some have questioned the "effort."

So, again, in your rationalizations, have you weighed the economic consequences of an insufficient response?

Thanks for the cliarification, I missed your point. I think there is negative economic impact baked in generally now regardless. The question is how bad the impact is based on the choices we make. Losing a million people in 6 months is going to be substantially worse than shutting down for 3 weeks, but is shutting down for 6 weeks worse? If we lose 50,000 over the next 3 months is that better or worse than shutting down for 3 weeks? I honestly don't know but those are the decisions we have to make. If we go the full China for a month but we save 20,000 people is that the right way to go?

[Archies Bat]

Interesting charts.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[injuryBug]

If the US matches China and ends up with 80,000 cases with a 10% hospitalization rate, that's 8,000 people in the hospital and 80,000 people out of the workforce for 2 weeks. In the lockdown model, you have the potential for millions or tens of millions out of work for 2-4 weeks or more. Then you have to factor in longer term effects of business closures.

I've made this point enough, so I'll back off it for now. But I think this topic and the numbers impacted in any scenario are worth discussing and thinking through.

Would not be 80K out of work how many would be retired then how many work from home.  Cannot just make up numbers some take them seriously

[injuryBug]

Interesting charts.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

that is great stuff.

My question is on recoveries how is that determined?  do people come in and get retested?  I would have to think that number is off just as the number of cases is off

[MUBurrow]

If the US matches China and ends up with 80,000 cases with a 10% hospitalization rate, that's 8,000 people in the hospital and 80,000 people out of the workforce for 2 weeks. In the lockdown model, you have the potential for millions or tens of millions out of work for 2-4 weeks or more. Then you have to factor in longer term effects of business closures.

But like, both those things happened?

China had 80,000 cases with 8,000 people in the hospital AND had to have millions or tens of millions out of work for 2-4 weeks or more.  Otherwise god knows how many cases they would have had.

We're starting to lose the forest from the trees here.

[rocky_warrior]

My question is on recoveries how is that determined?  do people come in and get retested?  I would have to think that number is off just as the number of cases is off

At least for the US, I believe the answer is that you need to be officially tested negative twice after "recovering" to be counted as recovering

[injuryBug]

At least for the US, I believe the answer is that you need to be officially tested negative twice after "recovering" to be counted as recovering

over what period of time? 
Day 1 new case
Day 15 test for recovery
Day 20 2nd test for recovery?

and again how many people get tested for recovery or just say i am feeling better i do not need to go back.

[skianth16]

Certainly letting tens of thousands of people - even the ones who are old and less valuable  - get sick and/or die, will hurt the economy. Sick and dead people don't work. Sick and dead people don't go to stores, bars and restaurants. Sick and dead people don't take flights and cruises. Sick and dead people don't go to sporting events.
What sick and dying people will do is overtax and potentially collapse the hospital and health care system. And if that happens, now people with other illnesses and needs can't get the care they need, leaving even fewer healthy people to work, shop, dine out, travel, attend sporting events, etc., and even further overtaxing the system.

So, again, in your rationalizations, have you weighed the economic consequences of an insufficient response?

Interesting point, and you're right, I don't think it's really been discussed.

About 3,000,000 people die per year in the US. With a mortality rate of 1%-2%, we might see 1-2 thousand deaths from the virus. That's not much of an increase compared to a typical year. I don't see there being much economic impact.

Sick people and people who need to be hospitalized might have more impact, but it's still probably not going to be a huge spike. I found data for 2016 that shows almost 35 million hospital stays in the US that year. So even if we have 1 million cases and 100,000 hospitalized, that doesn't represent even half a percent increase in hospitalizations. If you put high but realistic numbers in place, and suggest we have 10,000 - 15,000 people hospitalized, it's hard to think that would move the needle much.

https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb246-Geographic-Variation-Hospital-Stays.jsp

[injuryBug]

Interesting point, and you're right, I don't think it's really been discussed.

About 3,000,000 people die per year in the US. With a mortality rate of 1%-2%, we might see 1-2 thousand deaths from the virus. That's not much of an increase compared to a typical year. I don't see there being much economic impact.

Sick people and people who need to be hospitalized might have more impact, but it's still probably not going to be a huge spike. I found data for 2016 that shows almost 35 million hospital stays in the US that year. So even if we have 1 million cases and 100,000 hospitalized, that doesn't represent even half a percent increase in hospitalizations. If you put high but realistic numbers in place, and suggest we have 10,000 - 15,000 people hospitalized, it's hard to think that would move the needle much.
agree with you there.  The biggest thing to me is the panic created over this virus.  that is the most volatile thing in all this
https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb246-Geographic-Variation-Hospital-Stays.jsp

[rocky_warrior]

over what period of time? 
Day 1 new case
Day 15 test for recovery
Day 20 2nd test for recovery?

and again how many people get tested for recovery or just say i am feeling better i do not need to go back.

From the CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html

People with COVID-19 who have stayed home (home isolated) can stop home isolation under the following conditions:
If you will not have a test to determine if you are still contagious, you can leave home after these three things have happened:
You have had no fever for at least 72 hours (that is three full days of no fever without the use medicine that reduces fevers)
AND
other symptoms have improved (for example, when your cough or shortness of breath have improved)
AND
at least 7 days have passed since your symptoms first appeared
If you will be tested to determine if you are still contagious, you can leave home after these three things have happened:
You no longer have a fever (without the use medicine that reduces fevers)
AND
other symptoms have improved (for example, when your cough or shortness of breath have improved)
AND
you received two negative tests in a row, 24 hours apart. Your doctor will follow CDC guidelines.

So basically, 24-48 hours after you feel better with 2 tests.  Or 72 hours to 7 days after you feel better if you're self monitoring.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Wisconsin just closed bars and restaurants to all but take out.  Starting 5:00 PM tonight.  Wonder if too many places were ignoring the suggestion of 50 people on St. Patricks Day.

[shoothoops]

I have a dumb question. If one gets the coronavirus, for how long is that person contagious?

People have been suggested to isolate for 14 days. People appear to be most contagious the week before symptoms and the week of symptoms.

[Hards Alumni]

I've negotiated enough contracts to know what it looks like when someone doesn't have the data for their position.

I know what capacity is.....in the US at what rate are we seeing positive cases turn into hospitalization? I almost don't care how many positives we see, its death rate and hospitalization rate that means anything

Get bent, dude.  I'm not doing your research for you.  You can't ask me a million questions that you won't just answer yourself with a simple search.  I'm not getting paid to do your research.

[#UnleashSean]

Interesting charts.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Is that chart accurate? Just checked Italy's and they have listed 2000 as critical cases and 26000 as mild.

Is Italy's problem that they have a massive amount of people in the hospital for no reason? because I cant imagine 2,000-3,000 being a huge strain on their system.

[Hards Alumni]

Interesting point, and you're right, I don't think it's really been discussed.

About 3,000,000 people die per year in the US. With a mortality rate of 1%-2%, we might see 1-2 thousand deaths from the virus. That's not much of an increase compared to a typical year. I don't see there being much economic impact.

Sick people and people who need to be hospitalized might have more impact, but it's still probably not going to be a huge spike. I found data for 2016 that shows almost 35 million hospital stays in the US that year. So even if we have 1 million cases and 100,000 hospitalized, that doesn't represent even half a percent increase in hospitalizations. If you put high but realistic numbers in place, and suggest we have 10,000 - 15,000 people hospitalized, it's hard to think that would move the needle much.

https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb246-Geographic-Variation-Hospital-Stays.jsp

I'd be elated if we only end up with under 10k deaths.