3 ms·

If COVID19 was spreading in the US since November then the US hospital system should have been overwhelmed by now with intensive care patients. The first infect

If COVID19 was spreading in the US since November then the US hospital system should have been overwhelmed by now with intensive care patients. The first infection in China was traced back to November and they were building hospitals by early February. The only places I've seen the first US infection being dated that early are conspiracies on Chinese social media that claim the origin of COVID19 to be the US instead of Wuhan. The only way that theory works is to date the first infection in the US and claim that Americans bought it into China during the Wuhan Military games. That theory is easy enough to debunk with common sense because if the US had COVID first the hospitals would be completed overwhelmed before China's was, but it's not the first time wishful thinking's buried common sense in Chinese history.

mrfusion 7y ago
You’d think mild cases wouldn’t have the same viral load as the severe cases. Even if you’re technology contagious it may be less for the mild cases. Especially asymtomatic. You’d not be coughing or sneezing more than usual which must have some effect. Just a thought. No one seems to have mentioned this idea.
- mynegation 7y ago
  What is this idea exactly? That the virus rolled through Seattle and other areas with just a bunch of relatively mild cases and without a critical uptick in hospital load? I am not an epidemiologist but that does not seem realistic.
irq11 7y ago
”If COVID19 was spreading in the US since November then the US hospital system should have been overwhelmed by now with intensive care patients.” Or the fatality and hospitalization rates have been overestimated due to severity bias. We know this to be true, actually. We just don’t have good estimates of what the true rates are. It wouldn’t be shocking at all to find out the virus is already widespread, and only slightly more dangerous than influenza. Even in Italy, if there is widespread infection, the ~4k dead would reflect a low mortality rate.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
  21 days to death, doubles every 2.5 days, exponential growth. Do the maths.
- watwut 7y ago
  It would be shocking to epidemiologists. All their confidence intervals are well above influenza. They are fully aware of all caveats amateur people talk about here and don't think it is like normal flu. In italy in hard hit city, they were unable to cremate people fast enough and army had to move bodies. Influenza does not cause that.
  - irq11 7y ago
    Everything I said above was directly taken from non-amateur epidemiologists. I have invented nothing. The error bars on CFR estimates run from fractions of a percent to a few percent. In countries that have tested large numbers of people who are not severely ill, the case fatality rates have been at the low end of that range. This isn’t “shocking to epidemiologists”, it’s shocking only to people who dismiss basic facts and try to use irrelevant distractions (like cremation rates) to incite fear.
    - watwut 7y ago
      Epidemiologists say that influenza is easier to control. Irrelevant distraction relevant to topic says that only school here and there has to be closed to contain it. Epidemiologists say on that that one infected person with influenza infects less people then one infected with corona. Epidemiologists do count with overwhelmed hospitals and services, excess deaths due that that, excess deaths on unrelated heath problems. It not just something they talk about, they have it in their models too. This does not happen with influenza, because it is easier to control. Irrelevant distraction there is Italy or Spain lately. Epidemiologists do talk also about costs after epidemic ends, in treatment of people who will need care for long. What amateurs do is to ignore all the above, pick up case fatality ration in well run non-overwhelmed health care system and pretend that is situation same as influenza to feel good.
fragmede 7y ago
"spreading in the US since November", and "there's a new, highly infectious respiratory disease since November" are two very different things. I don't know anyone that credibly believes it was in the US in November. We did, however, that something was amiss that early, and if the US had a pandemic response team who's job was to see something like this coming, we could have been getting testing ready since then.

mrfusion 7y ago

You’d think mild cases wouldn’t have the same viral load as the severe cases. Even if you’re technology contagious it may be less for the mild cases. Especially asymtomatic. You’d not be coughing or sneezing more than usual which must have some effect. Just a thought. No one seems to have mentioned this idea.

mynegation 7y ago
What is this idea exactly? That the virus rolled through Seattle and other areas with just a bunch of relatively mild cases and without a critical uptick in hospital load? I am not an epidemiologist but that does not seem realistic.

irq11 7y ago

”If COVID19 was spreading in the US since November then the US hospital system should have been overwhelmed by now with intensive care patients.” Or the fatality and hospitalization rates have been overestimated due to severity bias. We know this to be true, actually. We just don’t have good estimates of what the true rates are. It wouldn’t be shocking at all to find out the virus is already widespread, and only slightly more dangerous than influenza. Even in Italy, if there is widespread infection, the ~4k dead would reflect a low mortality rate.

gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
21 days to death, doubles every 2.5 days, exponential growth. Do the maths.
watwut 7y ago
It would be shocking to epidemiologists. All their confidence intervals are well above influenza. They are fully aware of all caveats amateur people talk about here and don't think it is like normal flu. In italy in hard hit city, they were unable to cremate people fast enough and army had to move bodies. Influenza does not cause that.
- irq11 7y ago
  Everything I said above was directly taken from non-amateur epidemiologists. I have invented nothing. The error bars on CFR estimates run from fractions of a percent to a few percent. In countries that have tested large numbers of people who are not severely ill, the case fatality rates have been at the low end of that range. This isn’t “shocking to epidemiologists”, it’s shocking only to people who dismiss basic facts and try to use irrelevant distractions (like cremation rates) to incite fear.
  - watwut 7y ago
    Epidemiologists say that influenza is easier to control. Irrelevant distraction relevant to topic says that only school here and there has to be closed to contain it. Epidemiologists say on that that one infected person with influenza infects less people then one infected with corona. Epidemiologists do count with overwhelmed hospitals and services, excess deaths due that that, excess deaths on unrelated heath problems. It not just something they talk about, they have it in their models too. This does not happen with influenza, because it is easier to control. Irrelevant distraction there is Italy or Spain lately. Epidemiologists do talk also about costs after epidemic ends, in treatment of people who will need care for long. What amateurs do is to ignore all the above, pick up case fatality ration in well run non-overwhelmed health care system and pretend that is situation same as influenza to feel good.

fragmede 7y ago

"spreading in the US since November", and "there's a new, highly infectious respiratory disease since November" are two very different things. I don't know anyone that credibly believes it was in the US in November. We did, however, that something was amiss that early, and if the US had a pandemic response team who's job was to see something like this coming, we could have been getting testing ready since then.