5 ms·

We are royally screwed if this thing hasn't played out by June.

• zabana 7y ago
  How so ? Care to elaborate ?
  • notahacker 7y ago
    A lot of people will have died and our economies really aren't built for long term social isolation either.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
• ehsankia 7y ago
  Depends how much we're able to slow it down. For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. It is still exponential but much slower. Hopefully the new measures put in the past week will slow it even more. At which point, once we have fast and reliable testing, we can actually start having people go out more and reduce the isolation, since we can count on better testing to stop the spread.
  • greenshackle2 7y ago
    In Canada, growth was slower for a while, but the number of (detected) cases has doubled twice in the past 5 days, which just about matches what we saw in Italy and the US once they hit 100 cases.
    • r00fus 7y ago
      Sounds like what happens when one of the criteria to get tested (which is expensive) is "having been in presence of known existing COVID-19 case". It's a symptom of massive under-testing and would be greatly alleviated by an inexpensive test.
      • greenshackle2 7y ago
        Absolutely. Canada still only tests people with symptoms AND (have traveled recently OR have been in contact with a confirmed positive case). Yet the messaging until recently was "no evidence of community spread, risk remains low" with very lukewarm response. Of course there is no evidence if you don't look for it. I understand they don't want to incite panic but anyone who's been paying attention to other countries can see that community spread is inevitable unless you have strict measures and robust testing, very early on. I'm pissed our politicians have ignored lessons from other countries.
    • martinpw 7y ago
      Exactly. Starting from the first case is not useful. Starting from a baseline of 100 offers a more consistent comparison. And for that, almost all countries are following the same path. I think this site may be paywalled unfortunately (but there is just a $1 for the first month charge): https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441 https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06... The second graph in there shows Canada is tracking exactly the same path as most European countries and the US.
  • btilly 7y ago
    For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. My niece and great nephews in Victoria, BC just turned up with symptoms for COVID. They were told to self-quarantine and were not tested. You cannot believe the numbers from any country which does not have a robust testing regime. That emphatically includes Canada along with the USA.
    • jopsen 7y ago
      Yeah, in Denmark yesterday simple math says that 18% of people tested was infected. That's not to suggest that 18% of the population is infected. Merely suggests that positive tests is a useless metric because people are not tested. Number of people admitted to hospital might be a better indicator -- though this has a lot of delay.
• ohazi 7y ago
  I really don't see how anyone expects this to be over by June. Exponential growth at the current rate would have it burning through the global population by the end of June, but since exponential growth becomes logistic growth after an appreciable fraction of the population is infected, June is probably closer to the halfway point than the end date. And that's assuming zero curve flattening. The entire point of flattening the curve is to draw it out so that hospitals continue to function for longer. But this also makes the pandemic last longer. A vaccine isn't expected for over a year, and even then, I'd expect at least a few months of logistical difficulties getting enough manufactured, distributed, and administered, especially given the state that hospitals will likely be in.
  • Darkphibre 7y ago
    Not sure why your score is so slow, you're spot-on. This is literally the global pandemic we've been scared of. It just came out of China instead of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
  • Rapzid 7y ago
    Yes, this was what I had in mind when I made this comment. We would be screwed, IMHO, based on the current mitigation strategies around curve flattening that are not being communicated realistically to the public. The crop of shutdowns over the weekend were billed as 2-3 weeks.. Err, what? How are we even going to know what effect that's having without massive blanket testing? Then, nobody seems to believe anything less than 8 weeks is enough; and that's full-blown lock-down not fractions of half measures. But as you say, the just spreads it out. So what happens in 8 weeks when we still can't let up the restrictions because if we did that the number of cases would just explode again among the uninfected population? If we aren't turning the corner by June and getting the 40% of adults who can't afford $400 in an emergency back to work.. I'm sympathetic to the UKs strategy and hope the best for them.
    • mobilefriendly 7y ago
      The 40%/$400 item comes from a fed survey about liquidity. It includes 17% of households with $100,000 in income. It is an outlier, other surveys put it the percentage at 20%.
• empath75 7y ago
  actually we're more screwed if it has -- that means it would have burned out world wide in 6 months and 10s of millions would have died.
• ajuc 7y ago
  Economy is screwed either way, but for the people it would be better if it goes slowly - then our healthcare systems can deal with it. If it just goes unchecked exponentialy for 2 months then significant fraction of world population will die. Like 2-digit percentage.
  • eyegor 7y ago
    How could a 2-digit percentage die when the fatality rate so far is substantially lower (~3% last I saw)?
    • hcknwscommenter 7y ago
      Because that is the fatality rate range (0.9-5%) when everyone gets a ventilator/ICU bed when needed.
    • Buttons840 7y ago
      From what I've heard 12% have complications that would benefit from medical help, and 5% become "critical" and are likely to die without help. See https://youtu.be/BYTFk34nhoI https://youtu.be/BYTFk34nhoI from the 10 to 12 minute mark.
    • risyachka 7y ago
      I believe fatality rate is calculated using diagnosed cases, while the real number is probably way higher so fatality rate is probably close 0.9-1%.
  • BubRoss 7y ago
    That does not line up with any data collected before. Not only that, demographically the hardest hit population (80+) are not in the time of their lives where they spend the bulk of their money nor are they in the most productive time of their lives.
• blhack 7y ago
  In the White House press conference today, the head of the NIAID said don’t expect things to return to normal until July or August.
• nl 7y ago
  You realise this isn't going to play out by June, right? Do the math on those "flatten the curve" graphs and work out the X-axis given the projected infection rates (20%-60% of population), hospitalisation rate (15%-30%), days in hospital required (6-9) and the number of beds available. This ends with a vaccine or a mutation that gives (partial?) immunity and a lower death rate.