Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Very interesting

Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by mdfgator, Apr 17, 2020.

  1. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
  2. GatorLurker

    GatorLurker GC Hall of Fame

    6,168
    1,797
    608
    Apr 8, 2007
    That would be shocking if true.

    I am trying to square this with what has happened in some elder care facilities where lots have died.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  3. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    77,402
    46,422
    3,128
    Apr 3, 2007
    Could the fact the eldery would have some underlying health conditions contribute to this? I didn't see an age breakdown in the paper from the link above.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    4,893
    680
    438
    Apr 16, 2007
    Santa Clara county is 2,000,000. So while 80,000 might be multiples of the “official” number of confirmed cases, it’s still a relatively small slice of the overall population. It’s feasible that spread was low enough to keep it from ravaging nursing homes (especially as nursing homes ramped up their precautions).

    I don’t think anyone has believed or suggested the official counts are accounting for all those asymptomatically infected. It’s just a matter of figuring out whether the true number of cases (not deaths) is something like 2x bigger than official or its more like 5x or 10x bigger. Obviously the more asymptomatic or “unknown” cases the better, at least as far as determining a lower mortality rate. The official numbers suggest an almost 5% mortality rate. I don’t think anyone believes that is the true number, but even an order of magnitude difference like .5% probably still requires countermeasures such as social distancing. The flu is only .1%.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. tampajack1

    tampajack1 Premium Member

    6,970
    885
    333
    Apr 3, 2007
    What’s the good news? Is it that only a small percentage of people are dying from the virus? If so, any idea if they know how many people died from the virus out there rather than from other illnesses? Thanks.
     
  6. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    4,893
    680
    438
    Apr 16, 2007
    If they discover more people *had* the virus, it lowers the estimate on a true mortality rate and also gets us closer to building a herd immunity.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. tampajack1

    tampajack1 Premium Member

    6,970
    885
    333
    Apr 3, 2007
    That revised estimate is about 3% of the Santa Clara County population so I doubt that the hued immunity will happen. It would be nice to be able to accurately estimate the number of deaths from the virus, however, but that seems to be a more difficult tast at least right now because there does not seem to be much testing of people dying from respiratory failure.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    What's to square, have you ever been to an elder care facility? Those people are within months of dying. It's extremely depressing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    The paper isn't about the mortality rate it's about how many people have actually been exposed. That of course impacts the mortality rate. Age wouldn't be relevant.
     
  10. GatorLurker

    GatorLurker GC Hall of Fame

    6,168
    1,797
    608
    Apr 8, 2007
    I suspect that social distancing has resulted in a large number of people getting a very small dose of live virus so that their immune systems could ramp up before the virus overwhelmed them. Pretty much like a live virus vaccine.

    But I am not an expert in this.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Creative Creative x 1
  11. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    I don't think you're understanding the study, first 3000 is statistically significant. The range was 50-85 times more people than what the confirmed cases are telling us. That's massive and puts the death rate below that of the flu, even at the low end of the range. Age isn't relevant, the flu isn't .1% for the vulnerable either. The flu we can vaccinate people for this thing we can't. Hence the panic of outstripping our hospital resources, which was always the issue.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    Unlikely to be true. But viral load plays a key role in severity of symptoms.
     
  13. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    The good news is the mortality rate is likely at flu levels or lower. I can't answer how many people have died from the virus that were marked as dying from a heart attack or something else, I doubt that moves the needle much one way kr another, the lever was alway in how many unknown cases there were. This was a good study and it's good news for all of us. Would love to see more studies like this in other hot spot areas.
     
  14. GatorLurker

    GatorLurker GC Hall of Fame

    6,168
    1,797
    608
    Apr 8, 2007
    Yes, I have been to one. I have been to several. My grandfather started one associated with his parish church. He was pushed to the front of the line for admission when he needed it when he was 99. And I spent time going to them for entertainment in my youth.

    Some of my colleagues at UF entered places like that. I made many visits.

    In Alachua County the vast majority of cases has been in a "memory" unit. That is a euphemism for dementia. Those folks can live a long time because they are often otherwise healthy.
     
  15. GatorLurker

    GatorLurker GC Hall of Fame

    6,168
    1,797
    608
    Apr 8, 2007
    Why unlikely to be true? Especially given what you said next.
     
  16. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    Yes, but any virus in an elderly care facility will be awful. The flu can be vaccinated this one can't be. But the general mortality rate is what this impacts.
     
  17. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    because most people are not likely to have gotten the virus by someone sneaking in them or coughing in their face or sitting next to someone for hours, that's how you would increase viral loads significantly, most encounters are much more casual distancing or not. We have not been distancing for long and the antibodies would occur from one to three weeks after infection. Collections were on 4/3-4/4, shutdown was 3/21.
     
  18. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    14,685
    1,985
    1,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    NY will pass .1 percent of their total population dead in the next week or so probably (they are currently at 858 in a million), and that's with social distancing - that .1% number would assume every single person in the state was infected. As an example, the annual estimates on the flu are around 40 million infected out of a population of 330 million, that's with no social distancing measures but a somewhat less transmittable illness, so might be fairly comparable.
    It''s at least several multiples of .1%, exactly how many is the question to ask. Because .5% is a very different outcome that 2% on a number of levels.
     
  19. GatorLurker

    GatorLurker GC Hall of Fame

    6,168
    1,797
    608
    Apr 8, 2007
    You are just agreeing with me, but you don't want to do that.

    You said it should not political.
     
  20. mdfgator

    mdfgator GC Hall of Fame

    2,768
    471
    573
    Apr 3, 2007
    San Francisco
    Huh? Did you read my response? I answered your question.