5 ms·

Leaving aside the fact that here in the US tests are literally not happening on an epic scale that will be the subject of numerous investigations, hearings (, a

Leaving aside the fact that here in the US tests are literally not happening on an epic scale that will be the subject of numerous investigations, hearings (, and prosecutions?) in the years to come. And forget that even if we had legit numbers, those numbers we can see are a tip of the iceberg, representing at most 20% of the actual more-serious cases. Put that all aside. Remember-- the numbers we see now are a look at the PAST. The infection incubates silently for a median 5 days. Then symptoms present. Then a week goes by with relatively mild illness. THEN shit gets real. THEN comes the hospital visit, the fight for a test, the time it takes for the test results to come back (if it happens). THEN the number gets added. Then you see it on wikipedia or the news. These numbers we're seeing today are a time machine view backwards to recognize infections from 14 days ago. So infections spreading TODAY will show up AFTER the current Italy-like situation has already taken hold in the United States. If it is possible, STAY HOME.

zozbot234 7y ago
> Don't forget-- the numbers we see now are a look at the PAST. The infection incubates silently for a median 5 days. Then symptoms present. Then a week goes by with relatively mild illness. THEN shit gets real. And the "shit gets real" part only occurs 20% of the time, give or take - which means the virus might spread quite a bit while showing symptoms no more severe than a common cold. That also introduces some further unpredictable lag between any social distancing behaviors being introduced and their effects on the actual numbers.
- fattire 7y ago
  Yes, exactly. I said 14 days but again, that's the median. The US is flying blind right now. We're using a cracked, dirty camera lens to film a small fraction of the tip of a rapidly growing iceberg.... And the photo processing time is two weeks.
- MetalGuru 7y ago
  It gets hospital-level serious for 20% of cases? I thought the lethality rate wasn’t even that high for the most at-risk demographics (something like 14%).
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    > It gets hospital-level serious for 20% of cases? I thought the lethality rate wasn’t even that high for the most at-risk demographics (something like 14%). Well, substantially all of the cases that end up dying go to the hospital first, and many more besides that and up recovering. It shouldn't be surprising that the hospitalization rate is higher than the fatality rate.
    - fattire 7y ago
      About 15-20% require hospital care of some kind. Then depending on how prepared/overrun the health care system is, 0.6-5% cases are fatal. These numbers are ballpark and the lack of data makes it hard to know with confidence. The CFR gets more severe with age and comorbidities.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    Yes, hospital-level serious for 20% of cases. 5-10% require ICU care. The ~2% fatality rate is with ICU support and ventilation. When the hospitals get overrun it increases to ~7%, which is what we saw in Wuhan and now Italy. Your chance of dying if you do need hospitalization but don't get it appears to be > 50%. Death rates by age range also assume ICU care. It's virtually unheard of for healthy middle-aged people if they have access to good medical care, but plenty of 30- and 40-somethings can and have died from it once the hospitals are overrun.
    - Retric 7y ago
      It’s far from clear how accurate those numbers for Italy and China are. China essentially gave up on testing the general population in Wuhan and their numbers mostly represent the most serious cases. Italy’s infections seem to be mostly centered around the elderly with 40% of infections in the 70+ age range despite 65+ year olds only representing 21.53% of their population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_I... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy
CydeWeys 7y ago
> If it is possible, STAY HOME. People need to stay home, period. Unless you work in healthcare, a grocery store, or some essential service, or are going to one of the same, you need to stay home. I know there's lots of reasons people aren't staying home yet, like they don't have paid sick leave, but still, none of this overrides the sheer importance of stopping the pandemic. So the phrasing should be "Stay home, period." Not "Stay home if possible".
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  I wonder if you'd be so absolute if this meant your job ceasing to exist.
  - fattire 7y ago
    Yes, it's a risk vs. benefit calculation where the risk is very very high. And not only risk to yourself but risk to others...
    - solidasparagus 7y ago
      The risks of large portions of the economy shutting down and millions of people losing their jobs is also very significant, particularly in a country where so many live so close to the edge of disaster. It's a difficult balance, but it feels like the economic fallout is sometimes lost on the readers of HN, most of who would quite comfortably live through a period of complete lockdown.
      - sdkaufman 7y ago
        Forget losing jobs - without a lockdown, millions of people will lose their lives. Including many of our loved ones. We already know this from Italy and Wuhan, where entire families have died one by one in their homes. The only way to save some of these lives is to flatten the curve to avoid overrunning hospitals, and reduce deaths before a cure or vaccination is widely available.
  - 7y ago
sneak 7y ago
I have been telling a lot of my friends this, but many are scheduled to work on Monday (most in public-interacting roles) and if they don't go to work, they lose their job and can't make rent next month. This is a real issue, and I have no solutions. The only thing I've been saying to them is that all bars and restaurants will be closed here in 2-3 weeks and that their bosses will understand then. They are understandably worried that in the aftermath of all of this, there will be so many unemployed servers/bartenders/cooks/drivers that it will be difficult or impossible to get their job, or any other job, back, with no way to pay rent in April or perhaps May either.
- mtsr 7y ago
  This is not going to be over in April or May, except maybe in the worst case scenario. The point of social distancing etc is flattening the curve and spreading the load on healthcare systems over a longer time. The only thing that might help there is if warmer weather reduces the spread. But then it could very well come back in the fall.

zozbot234 7y ago

> Don't forget-- the numbers we see now are a look at the PAST. The infection incubates silently for a median 5 days. Then symptoms present. Then a week goes by with relatively mild illness. THEN shit gets real. And the "shit gets real" part only occurs 20% of the time, give or take - which means the virus might spread quite a bit while showing symptoms no more severe than a common cold. That also introduces some further unpredictable lag between any social distancing behaviors being introduced and their effects on the actual numbers.

fattire 7y ago
Yes, exactly. I said 14 days but again, that's the median. The US is flying blind right now. We're using a cracked, dirty camera lens to film a small fraction of the tip of a rapidly growing iceberg.... And the photo processing time is two weeks.
MetalGuru 7y ago
It gets hospital-level serious for 20% of cases? I thought the lethality rate wasn’t even that high for the most at-risk demographics (something like 14%).
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  > It gets hospital-level serious for 20% of cases? I thought the lethality rate wasn’t even that high for the most at-risk demographics (something like 14%). Well, substantially all of the cases that end up dying go to the hospital first, and many more besides that and up recovering. It shouldn't be surprising that the hospitalization rate is higher than the fatality rate.
  - fattire 7y ago
    About 15-20% require hospital care of some kind. Then depending on how prepared/overrun the health care system is, 0.6-5% cases are fatal. These numbers are ballpark and the lack of data makes it hard to know with confidence. The CFR gets more severe with age and comorbidities.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  Yes, hospital-level serious for 20% of cases. 5-10% require ICU care. The ~2% fatality rate is with ICU support and ventilation. When the hospitals get overrun it increases to ~7%, which is what we saw in Wuhan and now Italy. Your chance of dying if you do need hospitalization but don't get it appears to be > 50%. Death rates by age range also assume ICU care. It's virtually unheard of for healthy middle-aged people if they have access to good medical care, but plenty of 30- and 40-somethings can and have died from it once the hospitals are overrun.
  - Retric 7y ago
    It’s far from clear how accurate those numbers for Italy and China are. China essentially gave up on testing the general population in Wuhan and their numbers mostly represent the most serious cases. Italy’s infections seem to be mostly centered around the elderly with 40% of infections in the 70+ age range despite 65+ year olds only representing 21.53% of their population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_I... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy

CydeWeys 7y ago

> If it is possible, STAY HOME. People need to stay home, period. Unless you work in healthcare, a grocery store, or some essential service, or are going to one of the same, you need to stay home. I know there's lots of reasons people aren't staying home yet, like they don't have paid sick leave, but still, none of this overrides the sheer importance of stopping the pandemic. So the phrasing should be "Stay home, period." Not "Stay home if possible".

solidasparagus 7y ago
I wonder if you'd be so absolute if this meant your job ceasing to exist.
- fattire 7y ago
  Yes, it's a risk vs. benefit calculation where the risk is very very high. And not only risk to yourself but risk to others...
  - solidasparagus 7y ago
    The risks of large portions of the economy shutting down and millions of people losing their jobs is also very significant, particularly in a country where so many live so close to the edge of disaster. It's a difficult balance, but it feels like the economic fallout is sometimes lost on the readers of HN, most of who would quite comfortably live through a period of complete lockdown.
    - sdkaufman 7y ago
      Forget losing jobs - without a lockdown, millions of people will lose their lives. Including many of our loved ones. We already know this from Italy and Wuhan, where entire families have died one by one in their homes. The only way to save some of these lives is to flatten the curve to avoid overrunning hospitals, and reduce deaths before a cure or vaccination is widely available.
- 7y ago

sneak 7y ago

I have been telling a lot of my friends this, but many are scheduled to work on Monday (most in public-interacting roles) and if they don't go to work, they lose their job and can't make rent next month. This is a real issue, and I have no solutions. The only thing I've been saying to them is that all bars and restaurants will be closed here in 2-3 weeks and that their bosses will understand then. They are understandably worried that in the aftermath of all of this, there will be so many unemployed servers/bartenders/cooks/drivers that it will be difficult or impossible to get their job, or any other job, back, with no way to pay rent in April or perhaps May either.

mtsr 7y ago
This is not going to be over in April or May, except maybe in the worst case scenario. The point of social distancing etc is flattening the curve and spreading the load on healthcare systems over a longer time. The only thing that might help there is if warmer weather reduces the spread. But then it could very well come back in the fall.