That is a interesting article

alaskanassasin said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

That is a interesting article

Yep.  Lots of things popping up like this now, essentially the result of the realization that so many people are walking around with this thing with very few to any symptoms.

 Indicating that the mortality rate may not be nearly as high as was first indicated.

Very possible.  The best science I had read was suggesting a 1% mortality rate.  If you look at the data out of South Korea, the country that has tested by far more than just about anywhere else (on a per capita basis), they are seeing a 2% lethality.

As I have written here for some time, however, focusing on mortality misses the real concern for the virus, which is how efficiently it spreads and the impact on our critical care facilities.  

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

johnnyp said:

Dobie said:

Mortality is the impact. 

And is exacerbated when limited resources are stretched thin.

Everyone understands mortality is the impact.  Higher patient to doctor ratios and reduced surge capacity inevitably leads to lower quality care.

That’s correct.  Hospitals that are overrun lead to higher mortality rates and additional, ancillary deaths.

johnnyp said:

Dobie said:

Mortality is the impact. 

And is exacerbated when limited resources are stretched thin.

Everyone understands mortality is the impact.  Higher patient to doctor ratios and reduced surge capacity inevitably leads to lower quality care.

And can lead to other downstream effects - there is a report that will be coming out in the Journal of American College of Cardiology that preliminary analysis during the early phase of the COVID pandemic shows an estimated 38% reduction in US cardiac catheterization laboratory STEMI activations, similar to the 40% reduction noticed in Spain.

If people experiencing blocked arteries aren't coming to the ER out of fear of overcrowding and/or contracting covid - that is going to increase mortality of blockages.

Given the study's estimate of 48,000 to 81,000 infections in early April – and a three-week lag from infection to death – the 100 deaths suggest that the infection fatality rate is between 0.12% and 0.2%. 

That's a far contrast from the county's mortality rate based on official cases and deaths as of April 17 -- 3.9%.

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

1% would be ten times more lethal than the flu.  That’s plenty deadly.

What would flu mortality be without vaccines?

It will be interesting to see the antibody test results on large numbers to see a better estimate of the contagion and reevaluate the mortality. And if that number is a large amount of people who had it and recovered are now immune. The herd immunity with vaccines is preferable but it’s a ways off, if large numbers are now immune they could go back to work safely . 

HeavyG said:

I see they are giving away barrels of oil right now.

So we got that going for us, which is very nice.

I guess.

Sarcasm I hope....Ain’t nice for any of us. Our economy hinges heavily on petroleum overall. This will kill many families financially, shudder businesses, crush the economy for multiple cities along the gulf coast

Dobie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

1% would be ten times more lethal than the flu.  That’s plenty deadly.

What would flu mortality be without vaccines?

It will be interesting to see the antibody test results on large numbers to see a better estimate of the contagion and reevaluate the mortality. And if that number is a large amount of people who had it and recovered are now immune. The herd immunity with vaccines is preferable but it’s a ways off, if large numbers are now immune they could go back to work safely . 

We’ll need reliable antibody tests at scale to pull this off.  I think that’s still very much a work in progress.

JohnInCarolina said:

Dobie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

1% would be ten times more lethal than the flu.  That’s plenty deadly.

What would flu mortality be without vaccines?

It will be interesting to see the antibody test results on large numbers to see a better estimate of the contagion and reevaluate the mortality. And if that number is a large amount of people who had it and recovered are now immune. The herd immunity with vaccines is preferable but it’s a ways off, if large numbers are now immune they could go back to work safely . 

We’ll need reliable antibody tests at scale to pull this off.  I think that’s still very much a work in progress.

I love the disagree flag.  So, we won’t need reliable tests?  Or we won’t need lots of them?  Or they’re not still a work in progress?  I am a so confused by whomever seems to be so confused.  

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Dobie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

1% would be ten times more lethal than the flu.  That’s plenty deadly.

What would flu mortality be without vaccines?

It will be interesting to see the antibody test results on large numbers to see a better estimate of the contagion and reevaluate the mortality. And if that number is a large amount of people who had it and recovered are now immune. The herd immunity with vaccines is preferable but it’s a ways off, if large numbers are now immune they could go back to work safely . 

We’ll need reliable antibody tests at scale to pull this off.  I think that’s still very much a work in progress.

I love the disagree flag.  So, we won’t need reliable tests?  Or we won’t need lots of them?  Or they’re not still a work in progress?  I am a so confused by whomever seems to be so confused.  

They have to be reliable and they have to be specific to antibodies to THIS virus, not another corona virus.  It’s also not clear what immunity ends up looking like here, how long it will last, if it will be different from getting the virus vs a vaccine, etc.  So many unknowns still.  No silver bullets, it’s a process that we have to let the medical community follow.

I almost hit "Disagree" but remembered I'm a rational person.

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Dobie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

1% would be ten times more lethal than the flu.  That’s plenty deadly.

What would flu mortality be without vaccines?

It will be interesting to see the antibody test results on large numbers to see a better estimate of the contagion and reevaluate the mortality. And if that number is a large amount of people who had it and recovered are now immune. The herd immunity with vaccines is preferable but it’s a ways off, if large numbers are now immune they could go back to work safely . 

We’ll need reliable antibody tests at scale to pull this off.  I think that’s still very much a work in progress.

I love the disagree flag.  So, we won’t need reliable tests?  Or we won’t need lots of them?  Or they’re not still a work in progress?  I am a so confused by whomever seems to be so confused.  

We have folks on here who believe heart disease is contagious.  I'm just saying...

JohnInCarolina said:

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Dobie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

1% would be ten times more lethal than the flu.  That’s plenty deadly.

What would flu mortality be without vaccines?

It will be interesting to see the antibody test results on large numbers to see a better estimate of the contagion and reevaluate the mortality. And if that number is a large amount of people who had it and recovered are now immune. The herd immunity with vaccines is preferable but it’s a ways off, if large numbers are now immune they could go back to work safely . 

We’ll need reliable antibody tests at scale to pull this off.  I think that’s still very much a work in progress.

I love the disagree flag.  So, we won’t need reliable tests?  Or we won’t need lots of them?  Or they’re not still a work in progress?  I am a so confused by whomever seems to be so confused.  

We have folks on here who believe heart disease is contagious.  I'm just saying...

I'm 90% sure that comment was meant in a "I'm at higher risk for heart disease because I hang out with people that eat too much and drink too much and especially eat a lot of smoked red meat" sort of way.

I think it just came up when you were in one of your "I have a need to insult someone's intelligence" spells...

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Dobie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

I hear ya but when this thing came out they said over 4% of the people who catch it are going to die.  I’m glad to hear that may be way off.  

1% would be ten times more lethal than the flu.  That’s plenty deadly.

What would flu mortality be without vaccines?

It will be interesting to see the antibody test results on large numbers to see a better estimate of the contagion and reevaluate the mortality. And if that number is a large amount of people who had it and recovered are now immune. The herd immunity with vaccines is preferable but it’s a ways off, if large numbers are now immune they could go back to work safely . 

We’ll need reliable antibody tests at scale to pull this off.  I think that’s still very much a work in progress.

I love the disagree flag.  So, we won’t need reliable tests?  Or we won’t need lots of them?  Or they’re not still a work in progress?  I am a so confused by whomever seems to be so confused.  

We have folks on here who believe heart disease is contagious.  I'm just saying...

I'm 90% sure that comment was meant in a "I'm at higher risk for heart disease because I hang out with people that eat too much and drink too much and especially eat a lot of smoked red meat" sort of way.

I'm sure you're right Dan.