Posted By: alsetalokin

Posted By: BigOilRep

Posted By: alsetalokinUsing today's USA numbers on worldometers, there have been 3,142,244 tests performed so far, and 618,893 total cases identified, and 26,334 deaths. The deaths per case numbers yield a CFR of around 4.3 percent. Assuming one test per person and a population of 327,000,000, we can estimate a prevalence of about 20 percent, giving an estimated total of 65,400,000 infected. Say 80 percent of those do not present clinically. That leaves around 13,080,000 hospitalizations. Applying the astonishing CFR of 4.3 per cent to that figure gives a bit over 560,000 deaths expected in the USA in this first wave of the pandemic.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

Whew, that's a relief.

Care to show your working?

I was just responding to your polite plea :)

Seriously though, the sample of people who have been tested significantly biased, massively so in fact. If you are asymptomatic (which some experts think might be up to 50% of infected) then you don't get tested and if you only have mild symptoms (like the majority of people) you are just told to self isolate until better - again not tested. The USA is quickly running out of test kits - they aren't using them up on some 18 year old who felt a bit hot for a couple of days. There are likely 10s of millions of people who have had the infection, not 600k.

Also, we don't know how many people have been tested from your figures. Three million tests done is not the same as three million people tested - it's likely to be a lot less as hospital patients and front line staff are sometimes tested every day, especially if they have a positive test already. Maybe that's only a million people tested? I've no idea, as I couldn't find that data.

The CFR seems to be homing in around 0.3-0.4% where they have carried out extensive testing, or done 100% population tests (like the town in Germany). Of course that depends on how many vulnerable people you have in the first place. A hypothetical city of 16 year olds would barely lose anyone (more like to knife each other to death, at least here), whereas somewhere like Lombardy...

I'm not trying to downplay it, 0.4% CFR for something that spreads like wildfire is clearly an absolute shit show.

Nunavut.
So far , anyway

Tip leads police to 17 bodies at a New Jersey nursing home

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/us/bodies-found-new-jersey-nursing-home/index.html

Peek-a-boo.

Posted By: alsetalokinPrevalence data from New York indicates approx. 14 percent have antibodies. This brings the CFR in NY down to about 0.5 percent.

If full herd immunity needs about 60 percent then four times the current total fatalities may be expected in NY.

It gets a bit more complicated than that. The mortality is not evenly distributed across the population, far from it - over 90% of deaths occur in people over 60 years old (and many dying under 60 have comorbidities) .

So theoretically you could infect everyone under 60 leaving over 70% of the population with antibodies and a much smaller number of deaths than the crude estimate (especially if you also protected those with preexisting conditions).

How this would work in practice, I've no idea. However I suspect there will be staggered return to work, with the youngest "unlocking" first. Schools would be first back in operation, as children barely notice the thing.

Posted By: Growler

Posted By: BigOilRepHow this would work in practice, I've no idea. However I suspect there will be staggered return to work, with the youngest "unlocking" first. Schools would be first back in operation, as children barely notice the thing.

But only if they have very young, fit, teachers? It would be a good way to wipe out the wealth of experience in the teaching profession - fill their workplace with asymptomatic young carriers who WON'T socially distance themselves whatever they (the teachers) try to do....

The great majority of teachers are under 60, but those with comorbidities should obviously stay away or be risk assessed in some way.

This would all need to be done with extensive testing, contact tracing and isolating the symptomatic. The fact is we can't lock down for ever, and schools have to get back in operation. It might not be next week, or next month but it will happen and we have to work out the safest way to do that.

Posted By: DuracellSocial distancing will be very difficult to implement in schools, especially for younger children. "Unlocking" the children in schools first would also unlock their parents and siblings, their teachers and their teachers' spouses, children and parents, etc.

It might make more sense to first ease up on unnecessary restrictions (e.g. you can go for an unnecessary drive or walk just to get out of the house as long as you maintain social distancing), and then to try to "unlock" the places where social distancing can more easily and feasibly be implemented and maintained (e.g. shops and workplaces that, by virtue of the types of work being done there and the physical layout of the premises involved, can easily and feasibly accommodate and facilitate social distancing between staff and customers), before then moving on to the more difficult challenges such as pubs, restaurants, schools and sporting events etc.

Makes sense I think, however a number of European countries are starting to open schools pretty soon. What we need more than anything is a plan - whatever it is. My wife's school is desperate for some kind of guidance - some dates to plan around.

When do you think the riots will kick off in earnest? My prediction for the UK is June ...

I don't think we will have riots, though that really depends on how long the lockdown and how severe the economic impact will be. At the moment the lockdown has 90% support, but obviously that will fade as businesses fold, people run out of money and not being able to socialise becomes intolerable to some.

I can see social unrest and protests kicking off, though I think the government will relax the guidelines long before anything you might call a riot. Then again, the higher then unemployment (especially among the young), the more chance you have of serious unrest. The aftermath will to be handled very carefully.

Well, we hardly need more ignorance. Maybe a compromise...?

I see no reason why, in this modern day and age, the kids cannot use their network devices to attend virtual classes, perform and turn in homework, and et cetera. They are on the damn phones most of the time anyway, in school or not. There is however considerable evidence that schools full of children are breeding grounds for all kinds of diseases, like common colds and influenza. If you don't believe we adults get sick from our children bringing home diseases from school, I just don't know what to say to you. "Ostrich" is not a verb.

Posted By: alsetalokinI see no reason why, in this modern day and age, the kids cannot use their network devices to attend virtual classes, perform and turn in homework,

It's actually nowhere near as good as classroom teaching. My wife has been delivering virtual lessons - a French class she took today had 16 out of 28 in there. But all she can do is go over old stuff, spelling and vocab. Teaching new stuff is almost impossible, as you simply can't get proper communication going - it's impossible for her to know whether kids have understood stuff, and a 1 hour lesson would take like 3 hours to deliver. So it's better than nothing, but a fraction of the intensity you get in real classroom teaching. She says Google classroom is actually excellent though.

Also schools serve all sorts of vital functions, they don't just shovel education into their heads. For a start, they look after kids all day so their parents can work. This includes all the health care workers who can't juggle the long hours of their jobs with looking after children

It's generally agreed that closing schools has some effect on the spread of seasonal flu, however the degree of effect is actually highly debated. There are no randomised trials to turn to, so the data is open to interpretation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/316203/School_Closures_Evidence_review.pdf

The Lancet has a good paper discussing school closures in relation to C-19

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30095-X/fulltext

If you don't believe we adults get sick from our children bringing home diseases from school, I just don't know what to say to you. "Ostrich" is not a verb.

Opening schools will lead to an increase in the spread, without a doubt, however plenty of experts think it will be pretty marginal. Some don't. Take your pick.

However pretty much everyone thinks we can't have indefinite lockdown and school closure - you're Ostriching if you think that can happen. Yes, we need mass testing and contact tracing in first, but it will have to happen.