Will this end up being the pandemic that cried wolf?

[godisney14]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/cor...an-reported-cases.html?&qsearchterm=la county
So, if you take the lower end of their estimate (30 times the number of cases) - the rate of fatality is .14% (1/10th of 1 percent) and the rate of hospitalization is .84% (8/10th of 1%). And that includes all the vulnerable. If we tell the vulnerable to be more cautious we don't have the big bad boogie man the media and certain officials are making this out to be.

I don't know about your areas, but people are definitely taking this less seriously than they did a few weeks ago. I know several people going to see their hair dresser or even having their parents over to their house. Life is for living not hiding under their bed. Yes it can be risky, but life is not without risks.

That LA study, just like the Stanford study, had sampling bias. Contrary to what is being advertised, neither was a random sampling representative of the general population if you spend some time to look into how the participants were actually recruited.

Plus, they were both using unapproved rapid version test kits.

 

[godisney14]

For those that have stated concern for children and people < 14 latest info from CDC as of today.

Since February 1, 2020, 169 children under the age of 14 have died of pneumonia or the flu not COVID. Only 3 have died from COVID.

Under age 24: 20 COVID deaths and 115 influenza (regular flu) deaths.

Also only 510 deaths under 45 years old out of 190 million people under 45. Some other great info here from the CDC to put things into perspective

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
View attachment 489683

That chart only shows 17,229 COVID-19 deaths. But, the US is in fact at about 43,000 deaths right now.

 

[Colleen27]

We can start with the fact that there is a vaccine for influenza, and that the rate it spreads is lower, that the incubation period for influenza is 1-4 days but 1-14 days for COVID-19, and the fact that hospitals have not been overwhelmed with patients needing vents for the flu. It's not a mystery to most people why the response to COVID-19 had to be radically different. I don't disagree that there are lessons we, collectively, could take from this and apply to other scenarios, but this is nothing like the flu.

Which is why I've been hesitant to use the parallel, because that's where everyone's mind goes. But the fact is, no one is shaming a school teacher who goes grocery shopping during flu season for possibly spreading the virus unintentionally, and we don't lock down even though tens of thousands of people die every year. We don't even make the vaccine mandatory, even though that would save lives. There's a psychological impact to COVID19 that is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[xuxa777]

That chart only shows 17,229 COVID-19 deaths. But, the US is in fact at about 43,000 deaths right now.

Yes as it says so in the charts, these are official states with some lag time included as of 4/18. The point is the trend for example if you triple it only 9 <14 would have died from COVID with close to 60,000 in total deaths.

 

[CarolAnn856]

Which is why I've been hesitant to use the parallel, because that's where everyone's mind goes. But the fact is, no one is shaming a school teacher who goes grocery shopping during flu season for possibly spreading the virus unintentionally, and we don't lock down even though tens of thousands of people die every year. We don't even make the vaccine mandatory, even though that would save lives. There's a psychological impact to COVID19 that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the facts and data surrounding the virus give a very reasonable explanation as to why the response had to be what it is, and I honestly don't think downplaying it by saying that the response is more than the sum of its parts is accurate or helpful.

 

[Colleen27]

But these studies do raise the possibility that in hard-hit areas, we may not see the sort of second wave many projections have warned about because enough of the population has already been exposed to begin slowing the spread. If you project the numbers from the L.A. study on Detroit, for example, the true size of the outbreak would be approaching 50% of the population. It will be very interesting to see if other serology studies outside of California find similar results because that would almost have to change the course of our response.

That's not what the serology studies out of the Bay Area or this once in LA County are showing.

• With just 4% of the population infected with the disease, LA County is still very early in the epidemic, said USC professor Neeraj Sood, who led the study.

They are showing that the number of confirmed cases they have are likely higher than their confirmed positives, but that it is still just 4% of the entire population of LA County. If true, what it does do is lower the fatality rate of the virus. But again, this means 96% of the that community is still vulnerable.

I'm talking about the multiplier they've found, not the percentage - they're finding 50-80x more positive immunity tests than would be expected based on confirmed case counts. It is still a low percentage there because the confirmed case counts are very, very low. But if we see a similar multiplier at work in harder-hit areas like Detroit or New York, we'd actually be getting into the foundations of herd immunity in those places. And I think in Michigan, in particular, we're going to see those numbers - I don't know how testing has been going in NY, but here, they're still not testing in many cases even when there is confirmed exposure. For example, if your spouse tests positive, you and your kids aren't tested unless you require hospitalization - as long as you can manage at home, you're told just to assume you're positive and act accordingly.

 

[WVMomof3]

Glad we closed schools for the year

In your world do the schools only contain children under 18? No teachers, no administrators, no bus drivers, no cooks, no janitors? And do these kids go home to households only containing children?

 

[KBoopaloo]

For those that have stated concern for children and people < 14 latest info from CDC as of today.

Since February 1, 2020, 169 children under the age of 14 have died of pneumonia or the flu not COVID. Only 3 have died from COVID. Nationwide

Under age 24: 20 COVID deaths and 115 influenza (regular flu) deaths.

Also only 510 deaths under 45 years old out of 190 million people under 45. Some other great info here from the CDC to put things into perspective

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
View attachment 489683

Glad we closed schools for the year

Sure because everyone knows the only people in schools are the children.

 

[xuxa777]

In your world do the schools only contain children under 18? No teachers, no administrators, no bus drivers, no cooks, no janitors? And do these kids go home to households only containing children?

So that is your takeaway from the data? If so we should close schools for the year for the flu too.

I am all for being skeptical but it seems a lot want the virus to be worse than it actually is after looking at the real data of what is happening.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So that is your takeaway from the data? If so we should close schools for the year for the flu too.

I am all for being skeptical but it seems a lot want the virus to be worse than it actually is after looking at the real data of what is happening.

The issue with the children is that they aren't the ones primarily showing symptoms and having complications from it but they are part of the group that can infect others.

In the beginning it was an unexpected thing that the virus wasn't hitting the children and young adults in such severity as other viruses we have so it did cause people to dismiss this. Until soon after we went thought about the asymptomatic individuals and realized that it could be affecting children and young adults just without their knowledge and thus could spread without their knowledge.

As for your flu thing it's lack of true full knowledge that is putting a lot on edge. I don't think we all have to agree with the methods being utilized, because I sure don't, but I do think we can agree that we've been trying to do more than for other things because we don't have that information to fall back on. Our confidence level isn't high enough at the moment. But as I said earlier on in the thread hopefully we can use this time to know for the future if such measures and which measures end up being the better options.

 

[dish rag]

Just thinking a minute following countries/areas have considerable anti government sentiment-
Spain with the Catalans
Mexico with the Cartels
Venezuela with the anti socialists
Various African countries with various factions

I don’t know of any in Asia but there well may be.

The US has become like two alien species forced to live together. As best I can tell or speculate it arose largely from a higher education system that wasn’t representative of the values of the country and didn’t value reality as much as ideology and maybe some extremely rich influencers.

Who do you mean, the Kardashians, Bruce Jenner, those types?

 

[kdonnel]

So that is your takeaway from the data? If so we should close schools for the year for the flu too.

I am all for being skeptical but it seems a lot want the virus to be worse than it actually is after looking at the real data of what is happening.

I don't think people really want it to be worse, they are just reluctant to accept the changing numbers because people generally are slow to accept change. A lot has been thrown at us in a short period of time and it is difficult to quickly change.

 

[Notrealname]

double post

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

So that is your takeaway from the data? If so we should close schools for the year for the flu too.

I am all for being skeptical but it seems a lot want the virus to be worse than it actually is after looking at the real data of what is happening.

I don't think people really want it to be worse, they are just reluctant to accept the changing numbers because people generally are slow to accept change. A lot has been thrown at us in a short period of time and it is difficult to quickly change.

What all of you who are claiming this is overblown are forgetting is these are numbers WITH mitigation efforts. With extreme measures and shelters in place. And people need to stop looking at just the number of Covid deaths when discussing opening back up the country and look at overall deaths because when Covid patients overwhelmed hospitals, which they would have, there are plenty of other emergencies that wouldn't have been treated, also leading to deaths. It happened in both Italy and NYC when first responders were given strict guidelines on how to treat cardiac patients in the field. Cardiac patients that would have otherwise gotten treatment.

 

[xuxa777]

The issue with the children is that they aren't the ones primarily showing symptoms and having complications from it but they are part of the group that can infect others.

In the beginning it was an unexpected thing that the virus wasn't hitting the children and young adults in such severity as other viruses we have so it did cause people to dismiss this. Until soon after we went thought about the asymptomatic individuals and realized that it could be affecting children and young adults just without their knowledge and thus could spread without their knowledge.

As for your flu thing it's lack of true full knowledge that is putting a lot on edge. I don't think we all have to agree with the methods being utilized, because I sure don't, but I do think we can agree that we've been trying to do more than for other things because we don't have that information to fall back on. Our confidence level isn't high enough at the moment. But as I said earlier on in the thread hopefully we can use this time to know for the future if such measures and which measures end up being the better options.

Yes, that is why I shared the actual data, it should help lessen the fears. I get that people are worried but with data coming out from the CDC showing it is not as bad as it has looked like. It is not my "flu thing" it is what the CDC is showing.

 

[xuxa777]

I don't think people really want it to be worse, they are just reluctant to accept the changing numbers because people generally are slow to accept change. A lot has been thrown at us in a short period of time and it is difficult to quickly change.

Totally agree with this, more and more data will come to light as we move forward.

 

[Jrb1979]

Yes, that is why I shared the actual data, it should help lessen the fears. I get that people are worried but with data coming out from the CDC showing it is not as bad as it has looked like. It is not my "flu thing" it is what the CDC is showing.

It might not end up being as bad. But as someone else said, numbers are lower cause of what we are doing by staying home.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

It might not end up being as bad. But as someone else said, numbers are lower cause of what we are doing by staying home.

This - so much this. Had we not stayed home we would be looking at hundreds of thousands dead in the US right now.

 

[kdonnel]

What all of you who are claiming this is overblown are forgetting is these are numbers WITH mitigation efforts.

I never said it was overblown and have mentioned many times that the numbers are the numbers due to aggressive social distancing, social distancing that I did not think the average person would actually follow through on.

The numbers I am referencing are the studies that appear to show a much wider exposure has already occurred, despite social distancing. Those numbers if true would indicate that the mortality rate is tremendously less then first suspected. Tremendously. It is hard to accept that the numbers could change so much and that is what I believe people are struggling to accept might be true.

 

[xuxa777]

It might not end up being as bad. But as someone else said, numbers are lower cause of what we are doing by staying home.

That is still up for debate, but we have already had that one, and there is no solid data at this time to say so either way.