View Poll Results: Pick your current level of personal/family concern

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm in my bunker, stocked with supplies

    1 1.11%
  • Yes, this sounds like it might get bad

    50 55.56%
  • Not at all worried

    32 35.56%
  • What, me worry?

    7 7.78%
Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 316

Thread: Coronavirus _ worried?

  1. #256
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana
    Posts
    2,457
    In this day and age, I always consider the source of information. I do not find the media very credible these days. I think they have strayed very far from facts. I find Dr. Fauci to have greater credibility.
    Last edited by Larry Frank; 03-14-2020 at 7:38 AM.

  2. #257
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Frank View Post
    In this day and age, I always consider the source of information. I do not find the media very credible these days. I think they have strayed very far from facts. I find Dr. Fauci to have greater credibility.
    He is widely acknowledged to be an expert on infectious diseases, that's very evident. He is also in a position where he must tred very carefully and he can't do his best job for America if he's not there.

  3. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    You may notice the "Flattening the Curve" graphic is different from the one used from MSNBC:

    Attachment 427843

    In this one the base of the timeline is about the same for both curves.

    It seems both graphics have one thing in common. No one knows how many will be infected nor do they know how long it will run.

    jtk
    One difference between the two graphics I notice is that the one not from MSNBC doesn't show the same initiation point for both curves. It look like it assumes that "distancing" begins before onset in the flattened curve, while the MSNBC graphic shows onset at the same point. Since we did not start distancing early, both curves should have the same initiation point.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 03-14-2020 at 10:59 AM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  4. #259
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    52,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Santos View Post
    Well the graphic certainly seems to illustrate what you posted. But it still doesn't make sense to me.
    Is it the presumption that a certain number of people are simply destined to contract the virus, and the point of mitigation is to toll out the cases to reduce the concurrence and thus the load on the health care system?
    Count me confused now.

    It just seems to make so much more sense that the containment and mitigation practices would be intended to help prevent people from getting it at all, ever. As opposed to - you're going to get it no matter what, we just want you to wait your turn.

    Count me confused now.
    The idea is to slow the spread of the virus so that the system can better cope with it within the resources available. If things peak quickly and overwhelm the resources as in the red curve on the graph, it may actually increase the mortality rate. There's no "stopping" the spread, but slowing it is a known way to be able to deal with it more effectively from a health care perspective.

    I agree with the comment(s) that the start point for both curves should be identical in time, even if that's estimated. Professor Dr. SWMBO, who is an epidemiologist agrees with that.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  5. #260
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    215
    If itís like every other flu, 40% of us will get it, hopefully spread out over time, and most fatalities limited to elderly with underlying health issues.

    I view the graph that the same number of people get infected, just spread out over time. I could be wrong but thatís how I interpreted it. Early diagnosis and quick isolation flattens the curve.

    The idea is that with early discovery, one can isolate and let ones own body fight off the virus with antibodies. In severe cases (1 in 10) the patient would have to be hospitalized.

    I am not worried. I do take the advice of scientists and exercise hygiene and limit social interaction.
    Regards,

    Tom

  6. #261
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Santos View Post
    Well the graphic certainly seems to illustrate what you posted. But it still doesn't make sense to me.
    Is it the presumption that a certain number of people are simply destined to contract the virus, and the point of mitigation is to toll out the cases to reduce the concurrence and thus the load on the health care system?
    Count me confused now.

    It just seems to make so much more sense that the containment and mitigation practices would be intended to help prevent people from getting it at all, ever. As opposed to - you're going to get it no matter what, we just want you to wait your turn.

    Count me confused now.
    Short of a magical perfect vaccine available tomorrow there is no stopping it. Its everywhere. We cant do a full global shutdown with zero contact between people for the next few months.. The assumption is 60 to 70% of the population will contract it. They are just trying to keep it to a 1% mortality rate rather than a 4%+ mortality rate when you are forced to let people die in the streets from lack of treatment.

  7. #262
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Grider View Post
    I'm curious as to what the "treatment" is. As a virus, antibiotics are apparently pointless. Doesn't treatment entail just letting it run its course? Someone with more knowledge than me please chime in.
    Antiviral drugs, antibiotics for secondary infections and intubation. All depending on severity of the individual case.

  8. #263
    I think people are over analyzing the curves. I doubt they are based on detailed information and I doubt they are intended to show total number of infected people is the same or not under the two scenarios. Nobody knows how many cases there are now much less projecting how many there will be. The one known value that could have been put on the curve is the capacity of the healthcare system. If you look there are no numbers on either axis. I'm sure the intent of the curve is just to illustrate the expectation that if measures aren't taken to slow the spread, then the number of cases can exceed the capacity of the healthcare system. If that happens whether for a week or a year people will go untreated and some will die that could have survived with treatment.
    As to "what treatment?", while there may not be medication to kill the virus, there are other measures such as putting critically ill patients on respirators (which are in limited supply).

  9. #264
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Clarks Summit PA
    Posts
    723
    Our former surgeon general has stated some of our finest hospitals are now working with substandard protective equipment and this is already effecting patient and healthcare worker safety. Shut all non essential interactions down.

  10. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Becker View Post
    The idea is to slow the spread of the virus so that the system can better cope with it within the resources available. If things peak quickly and overwhelm the resources as in the red curve on the graph, it may actually increase the mortality rate. There's no "stopping" the spread, but slowing it is a known way to be able to deal with it more effectively from a health care perspective.

    I agree with the comment(s) that the start point for both curves should be identical in time, even if that's estimated. Professor Dr. SWMBO, who is an epidemiologist agrees with that.
    If, under the flattened curve scenario, a person exercises more vigilance, and in doing so they avoid contracting the virus entirely, wouldn't they now be absent from both curves? And by extension if 1000 people do the same, or 100,000, then you see my point.

    Could you ask Professor Dr. SWMBO if it might be possible that the goal of containment and mitigation is twofold, meaning not only to reduce the peak stress on the healthcare system, but also to prevent some percentage of people from contracting it at all?

    Another way of saying it is the difference between the peak curve and the flat curve (in the vertical axis) represents a certain number of cases. Let's say it's 100,000. Could it be that some percentage of that 100,000 will indeed get metered out as eventual victims on the time chart, but some percentage will drop off the chart entirely because they didn't contract it because they successfully practiced mitigation steps like avoiding crowded places, vigilant handwashing, staying at home as much as possible, etc.

    Yes, I agree you can't stop it, but I think the advice is that you can mitigate it through actions, and this makes logical sense to me. I thought this is what Fauci was trying to say, but it's possible I misunderstood and if I did, then flattening the curve does not mean any avoidance, only delay.
    Edwin

  11. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared Sankovich View Post
    Short of a magical perfect vaccine available tomorrow there is no stopping it. Its everywhere. We cant do a full global shutdown with zero contact between people for the next few months.. The assumption is 60 to 70% of the population will contract it. They are just trying to keep it to a 1% mortality rate rather than a 4%+ mortality rate when you are forced to let people die in the streets from lack of treatment.
    Yes, I agree they're trying to reduce the mortality rate. I also think they are trying to reduce the total number of cases through any means possible. Even if only a percentage point or a few, it represents a lot of people.

  12. #267
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Highland MI
    Posts
    3,914
    Blog Entries
    11
    It will be interesting to look back on this a year from now to see how the stats stack up against other pandemics and to see whether or not we overreacted by closing down schools and sports.
    NOW you tell me...

  13. #268
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    The old pueblo in el norte.
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole Anderson View Post
    It will be interesting to look back on this a year from now to see how the stats stack up against other pandemics and to see whether or not we overreacted by closing down schools and sports.
    The problem with that view is this; if you think it was overreacting, it worked

  14. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by mike stenson View Post
    The problem with that view is this; if you think it was overreacting, it worked
    Could not say it any better.

  15. #270
    Monty Python did a comedy sketch years ago where they were going through a town during the plague crying "Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!" Come to find out, in the 14th Century during the Black Plague they really did that.

    I always think of that sketch whenever we have an epidemic.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •