March Madness and Covid-19

[soonertravis]

I already did. Because it feeds on a few classes of people and is out of control in a couple of hot spots. For THOSE people and in THOSE areas, yes, it's scarier than the flu.

As of this morning 80% of the deaths in Oklahoma are people 65+.

If you back out the 65+ group in OK altogether (cases and deaths), we are left with this:
Confirmed cases - 3,156
Confirmed deaths - 54
Percentage - 1.7%

Let's say that 10% more of the non-65+ Oklahomans have been infected and didn't know it (and I think 10% is extremely low):

Going to pull my population data from here:
https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-oklahoma

Total pop - males 65+ - females 65+
3.6M - 215k - 273k = 3.1M

10% of 3.1M is 310k. If 310k Oklahomans under the age of 65 have gotten this, and I'm feeling nice so I'll double the reported total deaths for those under 65 to 104, that would mean the death rate for those less than 65 is somewhere around 0.034%. Even if you reduce the 310k by 1/3, and keep the known death rate doubled (104/203k), that death rate for those under 65 would be 0.051%.

From what I've seen, it appears the flu death rate is generally reported around 0.1%.

You can keep playing with my denominator above all you want, but you can lower it all the way to 100,000, while still using double the known deaths, to get to 0.1%. 100,000 would be only 3% of the non-65+ population of Oklahoma.

There is no way only 3,156 non-65+ year olds in Oklahoma have contracted this virus. None. Especially with reports daily that the majority of those infected may show no symptoms. I've seen much higher percentages than the 10% number I threw out used. Like I said, even at THREE PERCENT, with the known deaths, we're right around the flu death rate for non-65+ year olds.

I think the idea that 10% have been infected is erroneous. Even in studies of people in California where there had been more exposure only suggested 5%. I think your numbers are not based upon current studies or evidence.

 

[WTSooner]

I think the idea that 10% have been infected is erroneous. Even in studies of people in California where there had been more exposure only suggested 5%. I think your numbers are not based upon current studies or evidence.

Did you see where I dropped it to 3% while doubling known deaths, and we still were right at the death rate of the flu? Use the correct known deaths, and at 1.5% of those under 65 being infected we're still right at the flu numbers.

 

[WTSooner]

I think the idea that 10% have been infected is erroneous. Even in studies of people in California where there had been more exposure only suggested 5%. I think your numbers are not based upon current studies or evidence.

The problem is nobody knows how many people have/had this thing, and didn't have symptoms. The higher that number goes or is suspected to go, the less deadly this thing is to those under 65.

 

[Eielson]

I'm no expert and hesitate to wade into this argument, but I am not sure why people think that it is impacting people in the NE differently than it would impact people in our part of the country. The most likely thing in my view is that it just had not moved to our part of the country in large swaths before we went into the lock down. The lock down clearly had a huge impact on the spread. That has been very good for us overall.

I don't think you should hesitate to contribute in this thread. "Experts" in this exist only in the relative sense, and nobody in this thread has any claim to even the relative title. Your two posts have shown you seem to have a better grasp on this than most.

At one point there was discussion that there may be two separate strains, but I believe that lately the medical community has been starting to lean the other way (still TBD, though). The shutdown likely helped keep it from hitting OK as hard, but I think population density is the key player here. Population in the NE is a completely different animal, and it's unlikely it would have ever hit OK as bad. I was surprised it didn't sweep through the rest of the NE, and I'm not entirely convinced it won't eventually, but I think OK may end up relatively safe. We will see -- everyday is a science experiment.

 

[stormspencer]

At one point there was discussion that there may be two separate strains, but I believe that lately the medical community has been starting to lean the other way (still TBD, though). The shutdown likely helped keep it from hitting OK as hard, but I think population density is the key player here. Population in the NE is a completely different animal, and it's unlikely it would have ever hit OK as bad. I was surprised it didn't sweep through the rest of the NE, and I'm not entirely convinced it won't eventually, but I think OK may end up relatively safe. We will see -- everyday is a science experiment.

I've maintained this from the start. People live on top of each other in NYC (the five boroughs). They are stacked up like sardines in apt buildings, ride up and down in elevators (infection boxes) and utilize crowded subways and buses for transit. Hell, at times when you are simply walking down the street....people are "in your space". This should not be a surprise that this spread like wildfire in that petri dish. And to use NYC as the "boiler plate" as to how it will affect the rest of the country is misguided.....imho.

Also, many people who work in NYC live in Connecticut and NJ....and this would certainly explain some of the spread in these areas. Maybe Eielson can attest, but I would imagine the rates of infection/spread as well as death is likely significantly lower in areas of upstate New York (Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, etc.). And those areas (as far as population density) are much closer to what we would see in larger cities in this part of the country. I could reasonably expect maybe another hot spot in a densely populated city (maybe New Orleans, Miami, or Chicago), but we will see nothing like what we've seen in NY....I really believe it's the outlier. Even here in DFW, there are over 6 million people, but only a couple of areas within the city would be considered "densely populated".....and nothing like NYC. We are fairly spread out here despite our actual population numbers.

 

[steverocks35]

I don't think you should hesitate to contribute in this thread. "Experts" in this exist only in the relative sense, and nobody in this thread has any claim to even the relative title. Your two posts have shown you seem to have a better grasp on this than most.

At one point there was discussion that there may be two separate strains, but I believe that lately the medical community has been starting to lean the other way (still TBD, though). The shutdown likely helped keep it from hitting OK as hard, but I think population density is the key player here. Population in the NE is a completely different animal, and it's unlikely it would have ever hit OK as bad. I was surprised it didn't sweep through the rest of the NE, and I'm not entirely convinced it won't eventually, but I think OK may end up relatively safe. We will see -- everyday is a science experiment.

This is so true and it's why I get so exasperated. Just because this disease may not kill you, doesn't mean that it won't have long-term effects on your health. This virus is novel, so nobody knows for sure what this will do to your body in 5-10-15 years. Doctors don't know what the sequela are, and neither does anybody else. This is why we should ALL do everything we can to keep from catching this and spreading it to others. It's an unbelievably selfish mentality to say, "I'm not worried, it usually only kills people 65 and over." Does this give you license to go out and potentially spread the virus by not social distancing and not wearing a mask? First of all, public health is not all about *you*, and secondly, just because it probably won't kill you doesn't mean it won't devastate you.

 

[soonertravis]

Did you see where I dropped it to 3% while doubling known deaths, and we still were right at the death rate of the flu? Use the correct known deaths, and at 1.5% of those under 65 being infected we're still right at the flu numbers.

You are also comparing the known death rate of the entire population for flu to those under 65 for Covid. The death rate for those under 50 with the flu is around .01%.

 

[thebigabd]

My company returned to office work today... it's like herding cats. We have all these policies in place to keep it safe, but it's hard to do given the makeup of the staff.

• 20% think it's a conspiracy
• 25% are MAGA-folks and think their freedom is being stripped by being asked to wear a mask. They are my companies equivalent to armed gunmen showing up at the capitol building in Michigan to pressure the governor (with weapons) to ease restrictions
• 20% are liberal, think its a thing, and follow the rules to the letter
• 45% are "general public" people who don't have strong feelings either way, but follow the rules

Managers roaming around 1 hour into our return forcing people to put masks on, etc.

 

[SuperHoops]

My company returned to office work today... it's like herding cats. We have all these policies in place to keep it safe, but it's hard to do given the makeup of the staff.

• 20% think it's a conspiracy
• 25% are MAGA-folks and think their freedom is being stripped by being asked to wear a mask. They are my companies equivalent to armed gunmen showing up at the capitol building in Michigan to pressure the governor (with weapons) to ease restrictions
• 20% are liberal, think its a thing, and follow the rules to the letter
• 45% are "general public" people who don't have strong feelings either way, but follow the rules

Managers roaming around 1 hour into our return forcing people to put masks on, etc.

At least your company is giving it 110%

 

[vbdad]

The surgeon general has said not to wear masks. The CDC says to wear masks. The N95 masks contain most of the viral particles. The others aren't small enough to do it. Studies have shown if you have the disease and wearing a typical mask the outside of it has as much or more viral particles than the inside which is strange.
Of course no one in the public including me wears a mask without touching it and repositioning etc. so if any of the virus is contagious via touch the mask isn't helping it.

Also all standard surgical masks become saturated by 2 hours and should be changed.

So wear a mask but realize it may help but realize there are serious limitations. It is mostly something to make people feel as if they are doing something.

 

[AdaSooner]

My company returned to office work today... it's like herding cats. We have all these policies in place to keep it safe, but it's hard to do given the makeup of the staff.

• 20% think it's a conspiracy
• 25% are MAGA-folks and think their freedom is being stripped by being asked to wear a mask. They are my companies equivalent to armed gunmen showing up at the capitol building in Michigan to pressure the governor (with weapons) to ease restrictions
• 20% are liberal, think its a thing, and follow the rules to the letter
• 45% are "general public" people who don't have strong feelings either way, but follow the rules

Managers roaming around 1 hour into our return forcing people to put masks on, etc.

Better keep an eye on those liberals. They don’t like to follow the rules.

 

[coolm]

It is mostly something to make people feel as if they are doing something.

No. This is absolutely, positively 100% wrong and all the nitpicking about problems with the masks is absolutely ignorant to their import. Once again someone with a limited view of materials offering an opinion on the topic of contagion. Neither you nor he knows enough about each particular use or their function in general to make that comment. People get just enough information about a subtle glimpse of a topic and think they can make policy decisions over actual professionals from that field. It's the classic definition of ignorance.

 

[steverocks35]

The surgeon general has said not to wear masks. The CDC says to wear masks. The N95 masks contain most of the viral particles. The others aren't small enough to do it. Studies have shown if you have the disease and wearing a typical mask the outside of it has as much or more viral particles than the inside which is strange.
Of course no one in the public including me wears a mask without touching it and repositioning etc. so if any of the virus is contagious via touch the mask isn't helping it.

Also all standard surgical masks become saturated by 2 hours and should be changed.

So wear a mask but realize it may help but realize there are serious limitations. It is mostly something to make people feel as if they are doing something.

It's my understanding that the masks are more to protect others than to protect you. They will keep your droplets from projecting outwards a long distance. You should definitely keep your hands clean and not touch your face, but my understanding (from everything I've read and heard) is that breathing in droplets is the most direct way to catch this.

 

[Eielson]

I've maintained this from the start. People live on top of each other in NYC (the five boroughs). They are stacked up like sardines in apt buildings, ride up and down in elevators (infection boxes) and utilize crowded subways and buses for transit. Hell, at times when you are simply walking down the street....people are "in your space". This should not be a surprise that this spread like wildfire in that petri dish. And to use NYC as the "boiler plate" as to how it will affect the rest of the country is misguided.....imho.

Also, many people who work in NYC live in Connecticut and NJ....and this would certainly explain some of the spread in these areas. Maybe Eielson can attest, but I would imagine the rates of infection/spread as well as death is likely significantly lower in areas of upstate New York (Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, etc.). And those areas (as far as population density) are much closer to what we would see in larger cities in this part of the country. I could reasonably expect maybe another hot spot in a densely populated city (maybe New Orleans, Miami, or Chicago), but we will see nothing like what we've seen in NY....I really believe it's the outlier. Even here in DFW, there are over 6 million people, but only a couple of areas within the city would be considered "densely populated".....and nothing like NYC. We are fairly spread out here despite our actual population numbers.

Yes, upstate NY wasn't hit nearly as bad as NYC. It's kinda hard to say whether that's because population density or because things locked down before it spread there (or most likely a contribution of both). When it first hit, NYC was the epicenter, but it was spreading to other less densely populated areas like Long Island (admittedly most there have some exposure to NYC). I thought it was inevitable that it would devastate the whole NE, and that it would likely spread to most of the country eventually. I assumed Dallas would eventually become a hotspot and that it would spread from there into parts of OK.

I'm still amazed it didn't hit Philly harder than it did, but that's an area that will be extremely vulnerable once we start to reopen things. I still think Dallas and Houston will be vulnerable as well, and I think OK is bound to get hit with more, but I'm hopeful that it might not be as devastating as once thought. I'm hopeful that the summer will slow down the coronavirus spread, though I know people have been back and forth on that topic (haven't looked into it too much personally).

At the very least, I think we've spread this pandemic out and now that we've had a chance to catch our breath, other states will have better plans in place for how to not overrun the healthcare system. Hopefully we'll be able to move ventilators/equipment around from state to state as it spreads. I don't think our management of the virus itself has improved to the extent most are hoping for, though. Only a few things have changed. All of our trials have failed, and I suspect antivirals will continue to fail, as we're likely not catching this fast enough to have much of an effect. I'm hopeful that anti-inflammatory drugs (remdesevir, anakinra, steroids, etc) will start to show a benefit in terms of counteracting the cytokine storm in the coming weeks. That and avoiding intubation at all costs (and the creative ways we've been doing it) are probably going to be the only major changes in management.

 

[Eielson]

No. This is absolutely, positively 100% wrong and all the nitpicking about problems with the masks is absolutely ignorant to their import. Once again someone with a limited view of materials offering an opinion on the topic of contagion. Neither you nor he knows enough about each particular use or their function in general to make that comment. People get just enough information about a subtle glimpse of a topic and think they can make policy decisions over actual professionals from that field. It's the classic definition of ignorance.

"Absolutely, positively 100% wrong"

What is that statement based on?

 

[coolm]

"Absolutely, positively 100% wrong"

What is that statement based on?

pretty sure that was a self-explanatory statement. and it's based on running thousands of airborne contaminant drills and procedures.

 

[Eielson]

pretty sure that was a self-explanatory statement. and it's based on running thousands of airborne contaminant drills and procedures.

Very strong claim. Would love to see any data to support it.

 

[coolm]

you wanna see data from radcon drills? Not sure that the NRC or IAEA either one keep such data. There are all kinds of OPNAV regs but you don't have the security clearance for that.

actually you can get some idea from the generalized OPNAVINST if you'd like to peruse some general emergent training requirement instructions. here's the FE&S training guidance from COMNAVFLT.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Di...shore/11-300 Utilities Services/11320.23G.pdf

 

[Eielson]

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31042-4.pdf

Finally some positive news on the anti-viral front. Haven't gotten to read over it thoroughly, but this seems to support what I (and many others) had hypothesized about them. The earlier we start them the better. A lot of our antivirals have been saved for the sickest patients, but by then it's likely to be of little use. I'd figured patients would likely present too late for them to be of much use, but perhaps there is still some hope.

I imagine the biggest issue moving forward will be sheer numbers. The patients that would ideally be treated are the ones that are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, which represents a massive number (and most of which will recover on their own). It's also likely to require a rather large number needed to treat, so mild side effects may not be insignificant. Perhaps we could empirically treat all patients over a certain age or with certain comorbidities aggressively in order to preserve available treatments, while still benefiting those that are most vulnerable. And then perhaps saving anti-inflammatory drugs for those in later stages.

Starting to ramble again...

 

[Eielson]

you wanna see data from radcon drills? Not sure that the NRC or IAEA either one keep such data. There are all kinds of OPNAV regs but you don't have the security clearance for that.

actually you can get some idea from the generalized OPNAVINST if you'd like to peruse some general emergent training requirement instructions. here's the FE&S training guidance from COMNAVFLT.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Di...shore/11-300 Utilities Services/11320.23G.pdf

That doesn't seem to support your claims that non-N95 masks "absolutely, positively 100%" work against coronavirus.