Has the Liberal Media Gone too Far Sensationalizing the Coronavirus? (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I know one family that has it, a coworker with a niece, a friend who’s little girl whose classmate’s dad is in ICU. I’ve got a coworker whose niece just escaped critical care. A friend who’s a nurse and another coworker whose a nurse.

I know I'm almost a week late seeing this, hopefully I don't read any,ore on this other than good news.  Either way so sorry that this is no longer something you can think about in the abstract.  

 

[jon_mx]

Plus it’s not even true, the whole point of social distancing is that the ultimate outcome is path dependent.   There isn’t a set number of people that are going to die.

The point of social distancing is to spread out the curve so it is manageable.  The theory assumes the same number of people get infected (area under the curve is similar) but it is spread out so the peak is much lower.

That has little to do with the main point in that the mortality rate as being presented exaggerates the real mortality rate by a large amount.  

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

The point of social distancing is to spread out the curve so it is manageable.  The theory assumes the same number of people get infected (area under the curve is similar) but it is spread out so the peak is much lower.

That has little to do with the main point in that the mortality rate as being presented exaggerates the real mortality rate by a large amount.  

We’ll never know the mortality rate in the  US because of how incompetently this has been handled. 

Are there a symptomatic carriers? Yes. How many? Who knows?

The point is this disease is many times deadlier than the regular flu and appears to spread fairly easily. It threatens to overwhelm our hospitals, especially in places where the outbreaks are fastest growing. That will make its practical survivability far lower. Not flattening the curve will kill more people. Trump is directly responsible for that, as are a bunch of ignorant mayors and governors, all of whom just happen to be Trump supporters.

Arguing over the exact mortality rate (when we’ll never know it) or the technical definition of that rate is seriously a distraction from what matters. Which is exactly why you are doing it.
 

 

[Rich Conway]

The point of social distancing is to spread out the curve so it is manageable.  The theory assumes the same number of people get infected (area under the curve is similar) but it is spread out so the peak is much lower.

That has little to do with the main point in that the mortality rate as being presented exaggerates the real mortality rate by a large amount.  

Do you or do you not agree that the eventual mortality rate changes based on actions?  If the peak is higher, more people die due to the health care system being stretched further.  Yes or no?

 

[jon_mx]

Do you or do you not agree that the eventual mortality rate changes based on actions?  If the peak is higher, more people die due to the health care system being stretched further.  Yes or no?

There are infinite potential outcomes for what if scenerios.  But the question is what is the current mortality rate.  If you limit your population to known infected when we know most adults show little or no symptoms and were never tested means our population size of those infected is grossly understated.  So the mortality rates are known to be greatly exaggerated.  It is great for fear-mongering but not the best to be making hard decisions on what our best course of action is.  

 

[The Commish]

There are infinite potential outcomes for what if scenerios.  But the question is what is the current mortality rate.  If you limit your population to known infected when we know most adults show little or no symptoms and were never tested means our population size of those infected is grossly understated.  So the mortality rates are known to be greatly exaggerated.  It is great for fear-mongering but not the best to be making hard decisions on what our best course of action is.  

This goes both ways right?  How many people have died from this where they thought it was "natural causes' or some other complication?  This is why we can only talk about this in the lens of the known, not the "what ifs".  If we end up with X testing positive and Y dying from it, that's going to be the rate.  Any other talk about the other things is going to be pointless.  I'm going to be willing to bet 10's of thousands will have had the virus and never be part of the numbers and hundreds (if not thousands) will have died as a result of the virus without knowing the virus was what killed them.

It's a disgusting reality we didn't have to live with if we paid attention and did the needful, but here we are.

 

[jon_mx]

This goes both ways right?  How many people have died from this where they thought it was "natural causes' or some other complication?  This is why we can only talk about this in the lens of the known, not the "what ifs".  If we end up with X testing positive and Y dying from it, that's going to be the rate.  Any other talk about the other things is going to be pointless.  I'm going to be willing to bet 10's of thousands will have had the virus and never be part of the numbers and hundreds (if not thousands) will have died as a result of the virus without knowing the virus was what killed them.

It's a disgusting reality we didn't have to live with if we paid attention and did the needful, but here we are.

Right now everyone who is dying from anything remotely showing symptoms is tested, so no it is like a 1,000,000 to 1 comparing those.  Maybe some slipped through the cracks in January and Febuary, but not now.  If we know something is a huge mitigating factor it needs to be accounted for.  There are all kinds of ways to factor it in.  The first cut is just comparing the demographics of the known infected with the general population.  That would get you about 80 percent there.  

 

[The Commish]

Right now everyone who is dying from anything remotely showing symptoms is tested, so no it is like a 1,000,000 to 1 comparing those.  Maybe some slipped through the cracks in January and Febuary, but not now.  If we know something is a huge mitigating factor it needs to be accounted for.  There are all kinds of ways to factor it in.  The first cut is just comparing the demographics of the known infected with the general population.  That would get you about 80 percent there.  

Is this true?  They are using part of the limited testing resources on the deceased?  Have a link to this?  On it's face, given the circumstances, I find this kind of appalling.  Are you sure?

 

[Rich Conway]

Do you or do you not agree that the eventual mortality rate changes based on actions?  If the peak is higher, more people die due to the health care system being stretched further.  Yes or no?

There are infinite potential outcomes for what if scenerios.  But the question is what is the current mortality rate.  If you limit your population to known infected when we know most adults show little or no symptoms and were never tested means our population size of those infected is grossly understated.  So the mortality rates are known to be greatly exaggerated.  It is great for fear-mongering but not the best to be making hard decisions on what our best course of action is.  

None of that answered my question, of course.  I think I'm done here.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Is this true?  They are using part of the limited testing resources on the deceased?  Have a link to this?  On it's face, given the circumstances, I find this kind of appalling.  Are you sure?

They’re triaging cases of the living in the ER & often pronouncing them positive with no testing. At least here in NYC.

FWIW, there is a separate test to determine if you have the Covid-19 antibody in your bloodstream which is produced when you are positive.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I've read through this entire thread and maybe I missed it, but has anyone made the affirmative case that the media is sensationalizing it? Even the OP said he didn't have an opinion on it. Some 20 people voted yes, so I would appreciate hearing from any of them why they believe that. Ideally with specific examples.

The way they always do. Not by telling lies, but rather by withholding the facts that would soften the strength of one's opinion / concern or downright change the listener's perspective.

I say this as someone who still hasn't been convinced one way or another (catastrophic or overblown) as to what the outcome of the virus will be.

My opinion: People need to have a hunger for all perspectives and sources of all kinds and leanings. If you stick solely to the sources who confirm your viewpoint, you're no doubt going to have quite a warped perspective. I see it playing out here on a near post by post basis from both sides and it's equally saddening as it is frustrating.

 

[rcam]

The point of social distancing is to spread out the curve so it is manageable.  The theory assumes the same number of people get infected (area under the curve is similar) but it is spread out so the peak is much lower.

That has little to do with the main point in that the mortality rate as being presented exaggerates the real mortality rate by a large amount.  

Not true. Social distancing both lowers the peak and prevents people from getting infect. 

 

[jon_mx]

Is this true?  They are using part of the limited testing resources on the deceased?  Have a link to this?  On it's face, given the circumstances, I find this kind of appalling.  Are you sure?

Most are hospitalized and certainly need to be tested to diagnosis and give the appropriate treat.  Perhaps some who may die at home may not get tested.  I would think nursing homes would be pretty aggressive with testing.  

 

[jon_mx]

Not true. Social distancing both lowers the peak and prevents people from getting infect. 

You could be right that could happen, but the jist of the theory is the belief that the virus will run its course regardless.  As John Hopskins explains social distancing benefit:

"On a graph, a sudden surge in patients over a short time could be represented as a tall, narrow curve.

On the other hand, if that same large number of patients arrived at the hospital at a slower rate, for example, over the course of several weeks, the line of the graph would look like a longer, flatter curve."

 

[rcam]

There are infinite potential outcomes for what if scenerios.  But the question is what is the current mortality rate.  If you limit your population to known infected when we know most adults show little or no symptoms and were never tested means our population size of those infected is grossly understated.  So the mortality rates are known to be greatly exaggerated.  It is great for fear-mongering but not the best to be making hard decisions on what our best course of action is.  

S. Korea performed pretty comprehensive testing they have a mortality rate (deaths/recovered + deaths) of 3%. Singapore - also testing and locking down has a mortality rate of 1.1%. Vo Italy, entire city tested 1.1% mortality rate. Diamond Princess cruise ship - everyone tested 1.6% mortality rate. Best case scenario this is "only" about 11 times deadlier than the flu - but, by most estimates, about 2-3 times more contagious. That should be pretty terrifying to anyone who can operate a calculator. 

 

[rcam]

You could be right that could happen, but the jist of the theory is the belief that the virus will run its course regardless.  As John Hopskins explains social distancing benefit:

"On a graph, a sudden surge in patients over a short time could be represented as a tall, narrow curve.

On the other hand, if that same large number of patients arrived at the hospital at a slower rate, for example, over the course of several weeks, the line of the graph would look like a longer, flatter curve."

The idea is to not get everyone sick at the same time. However, it also prevents people from ever getting sick.

 

[The Commish]

They’re triaging cases of the living in the ER & often pronouncing them positive with no testing. At least here in NYC.

FWIW, there is a separate test to determine if you have the Covid-19 antibody in your bloodstream which is produced when you are positive.

Yikes to the first and I was aware of the second.  It's still taking resources away from the living to run those tests even if it's a blood test which is baffling to me.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This goes both ways right?  How many people have died from this where they thought it was "natural causes' or some other complication?

Probably less than ten. 

(In the US)

 

[The Commish]

Most are hospitalized and certainly need to be tested to diagnosis and give the appropriate treat.  Perhaps some who may die at home may not get tested.  I would think nursing homes would be pretty aggressive with testing.  

These are significantly different comments from the one I was asking you about.  I think the honest answer is, "even going through this, we aren't going to get an accurate picture of death as a result of this virus.  That's going to be because assumptions (either way) are going to run rampant as we struggle to get through this.  I'd expect death tolls to significantly increase as the hospitals reach capacity and we don't have a way to treat the volume even though we most likely aren't catching all of them.  That's been my fear all along and by all accounts that's exactly where we're headed.  

 

[The Commish]

Probably less than ten. 

(In the US)

based on?

 

[parasaurolophus]

based on?

They are post mortem testing if they didn't get a chance to before they die. 

When you consider the media is printing stories about cases as presumed covid deaths without even a positive test sometimes, it seems very illogical to assume that there are too many covid deaths sliding by. It is far more likely that there will be more deaths declared covid deaths, that were the cause of something else. In Louisiana for example it doesn't matter how they died. If they are a positive, it is a covid death. So if a man has a heart attack and had no other covid symptoms and a history of heart problems, he is still a covid death.  

 

[The Commish]

They are post mortem testing if they didn't get a chance to before they die. 

When you consider the media is printing stories about cases as presumed covid deaths without even a positive test sometimes, it seems very illogical to assume that there are too many covid deaths sliding by. It is far more likely that there will be more deaths declared covid deaths, that were the cause of something else. In Louisiana for example it doesn't matter how they died. If they are a positive, it is a covid death. So if a man has a heart attack and had no other covid symptoms and a history of heart problems, he is still a covid death.  

Yeah, this is what jon said too.  I haven't heard anything about this and it's a pretty big jolt knowing they are spending resources to do this when we are so far behind on testing for the living that we can potentially save.  Do you have any stories on this?  Where did you hear it?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yeah, this is what jon said too.  I haven't heard anything about this and it's a pretty big jolt knowing they are spending resources to do this when we are so far behind on testing for the living that we can potentially save.  Do you have any stories on this?  Where did you hear it?

Posted three links in the big thread yesterday. 

The bold makes zero sense too btw. Knowing how many died is the most significant thing there is. We are performing thousands upon thousands of negative tests. Pretty sure we can spare some for the dead. They also have relatives too that could have caught it. 

 

[msommer]

The President is talking about packed churches on Easter Sunday.

Not only is that idea sure to get people killed, it’s a signal to his followers, once again, that everything will be fine, “like a miracle”.

"They call it the Easter miracle"

 

[Mr Anonymous]

S. Korea performed pretty comprehensive testing they have a mortality rate (deaths/recovered + deaths) of 3%. Singapore - also testing and locking down has a mortality rate of 1.1%. Vo Italy, entire city tested 1.1% mortality rate. Diamond Princess cruise ship - everyone tested 1.6% mortality rate. Best case scenario this is "only" about 11 times deadlier than the flu - but, by most estimates, about 2-3 times more contagious. That should be pretty terrifying to anyone who can operate a calculator. 

Due the lack of testing worldwide, (both currently and in prior months) combined with the number of people asymptomatic or with mild symptoms - calculators are really only as useful as the knowledge of the person using them. And because of it, some of the numbers being thrown about are downright sensationalist.

Here's Dr Fauci and two co-authors yesterday in the NE Journal of Medicine...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2

Best case for the death rate is certainly not "11 times" deadlier than the flu. Best case according to experts is a death rate right on par with the flu.

Disclaimer: That is not to say that the best case is assured and that we should drop our guard and no longer be diligent of stopping the spread.

@timschochet - you wanted some possible good news?

 

[rcam]

Due the lack of testing worldwide, (both currently and in prior months) combined with the number of people asymptomatic or with mild symptoms - calculators are really only as useful as the knowledge of the person using them. And because of it, some of the numbers being thrown about are downright sensationalist.

Here's Dr Fauci and two co-authors yesterday in the NE Journal of Medicine...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

Best case for the death rate is certainly not "11 times" deadlier than the flu. Best case according to experts is a death rate right on par with the flu.

Disclaimer: That is not to say that the best case is assured and that we should drop our guard and no longer be diligent of stopping the spread.

@timschochet - you wanted some possible good news?

Vo Italy and the cruise ship literally tested everyone. No models, no lack of testing, no missed people. They both sit over 1% mortality with #deaths/(#deaths + #recoveries). Vo has a population of 3000 the ship had 3700. Between the two populations about 800 people tested positive with 11 dying so far. For a "best case scenario" of .1% you would need every. single. person. to be positive on both the ship *and* the city *and* add in another 4000 or so positive people that don't even exist to get up to 11000 people with 11 deaths. Does that seem like a reasonable model to you? It doesn't to me and it sure doesn't seem to be playing out that way in the rest of the world.

 

[The Commish]

Posted three links in the big thread yesterday. 

The bold makes zero sense too btw. Knowing how many died is the most significant thing there is. We are performing thousands upon thousands of negative tests. Pretty sure we can spare some for the dead. They also have relatives too that could have caught it. 

  I don't know.  From my perspective, the most important thing to know is how many are infected and where they're at.  Only the infected have the potential to die from this best I can tell.  Guess it's just a matter of perspective.  I'm not sure what the raw number of deaths buys us in getting this thing under control, but perhaps I am missing something.  The last sentence is the best argument I can think of for testing the dead, but then I think "maybe we should test the relatives"??  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Vo Italy and the cruise ship literally tested everyone. No models, no lack of testing, no missed people. They both sit over 1% mortality with #deaths/(#deaths + #recoveries). Vo has a population of 3000 the ship had 3700. Between the two populations about 800 people tested positive with 11 dying so far. For a "best case scenario" of .1% you would need every. single. person. to be positive on both the ship *and* the city *and* add in another 4000 or so positive people that don't even exist to get up to 11000 people with 11 deaths. Does that seem like a reasonable model to you? It doesn't to me and it sure doesn't seem to be playing out that way in the rest of the world.

A densely populated cruise ship with air vents circulating the same virus filled air is not exactly the test case I'm going to put a whole lot of stock into my friend. If anything, a death rate in those closed quarters of around 1% is a positive indicator. Keep an open mind about everything.

 

[rcam]

A densely populated cruise ship with air vents circulating the same virus filled air is not exactly the test case I'm going to put a whole lot of stock into my friend. If anything, a death rate in those closed quarters of around 1% is a positive indicator. Keep an open mind about everything.

What are you talking about? What you just posted is entirely irrelevant. Who cares if they are breathing the same air? That should *help* your position. You are literally saying that breathing the same infected air in close quarters makes you more likely to die.... but not more likely to get the virus and test positive. Do you see how ridiculous that is? If you want a .1% death rate you need to have *everyone* test positive in that city and ship and add another 4000 people that don't exist.

Even excluding the ship, Vo tested everyone - twice. 3000 people twice. A grand total of 95 were positive with 1 person dying. You going to argue they missed 900 positives? Testing everyone? Twice? With no further infections?

 

[parasaurolophus]

  I don't know.  From my perspective, the most important thing to know is how many are infected and where they're at.  Only the infected have the potential to die from this best I can tell.  Guess it's just a matter of perspective.  I'm not sure what the raw number of deaths buys us in getting this thing under control, but perhaps I am missing something.  The last sentence is the best argument I can think of for testing the dead, but then I think "maybe we should test the relatives"??  

Why would you test all the relatives if they didnt have covid19?

The purpose of knowing if somebody is infected is to contact trace and lock those people down. Why should we make people quarantine for 14 days unsure if they have the disease when we could test the person they came in contact with that is now dead? 

They dont put you in the hospital just because of a positive test. 

My guess is post mortem testing has a higher rate of positive than any other group.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

What are you talking about? What you just posted is entirely irrelevant. Who cares if they are breathing the same air? That should *help* your position. You are literally saying that breathing the same infected air in close quarters makes you more likely to die.... but not more likely to get the virus and test positive. Do you see how ridiculous that is? If you want a .1% death rate you need to have *everyone* test positive in that city and ship and add another 4000 people that don't exist.

Even excluding the ship, Vo tested everyone - twice. 3000 people twice. A grand total of 95 were positive with 1 person dying. You going to argue they missed 900 positives? Testing everyone? Twice? With no further infections?

Again a densely populated boat where people are packed on to a fixed small amount of relative space and where the original carrier(s) touched things in common areas which everyone on board is required to frequent in order to fulfill basic needs such food, drink, and sanitation, is not a good sample to base mass projections on. And when it comes to air circulation, room cabins are akin to the conditions on an airplane.

Besides, it's not me saying the death rate could wind up as low as 0.1%, it's Dr Fauci and two colleagues. Take your dispute of the numbers up with them.

 

[The Commish]

Why would you test all the relatives if they didnt have covid19?

If you knew for sure they didn't have it, you wouldn't.  What I am saying is don't waste what limited tests we have on the dead.  That does us zero good in combating this thing.

The purpose of knowing if somebody is infected is to contact trace and lock those people down. Why should we make people quarantine for 14 days unsure if they have the disease when we could test the person they came in contact with that is now dead? 

Testing the dead person doesn't tell you if the people alive have it or not   Testing THOSE people tells you if they have the virus or not...is this shtick or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?  The difference between what you're saying in these two sentences and what I am saying is I'm not wasting a test on a dead person the results of which do us no good in shutting things down.  It might be worth noting that I think regardless of symptoms or not, we should all be tested at some point.  We prioritize and include anyone in contact with the disease even if they aren't showing symptoms.  That might be the confusion here.

They dont put you in the hospital just because of a positive test. 

Ok?

My guess is post mortem testing has a higher rate of positive than any other group.

This is probably true, but what does knowing that a dead guy get us in stopping it from spreading to the living other than a wasted test on a dead guy?

 

[The Z Machine]

Vo Italy and the cruise ship literally tested everyone. No models, no lack of testing, no missed people. They both sit over 1% mortality with #deaths/(#deaths + #recoveries). Vo has a population of 3000 the ship had 3700. Between the two populations about 800 people tested positive with 11 dying so far. For a "best case scenario" of .1% you would need every. single. person. to be positive on both the ship *and* the city *and* add in another 4000 or so positive people that don't even exist to get up to 11000 people with 11 deaths. Does that seem like a reasonable model to you? It doesn't to me and it sure doesn't seem to be playing out that way in the rest of the world.

It's probable that both the cruise ship and a small town in Italy don't have the same demographics as the US as a whole, nor the particular town where any one of us live. Maybe some in some retirement communities in Arizona or something. The mortality rate skews heavily toward the elderly (but that doesn't mean those under 40 are in the clear), and I bet the average age on that cruise ship was 60.  That should change the numerator, but not the denominator.

I bet the real morality rate is sub 1%, but above 0.3%. That's still a lot of dead people, old and young before we get a vaccine or develop herd immunity.

 

[parasaurolophus]

if you knew for sure they didn't have it, you wouldn't.  What I am saying is don't waste what limited tests we have on the dead.  That does us zero good in combating this thing.

You aren't wasting tests on the dead. It is important to know fatalities. And we are "wasting" thousands upon thousands upon thousands of tests as it is on negatives. People that are dead from covid like symptoms are probably testing at a very high % for positive, which is important to know. It is important to know if they are negative too. If they died in their homes you would immediately tell all relatives to self quarantine. Test the person that died. If it is negative you release the quarantine. Bam, you just saved 20 tests. If it is positive, you can now bring everybody in for testing and keep the quarantine in place telling them they were in contact with a positive. You could also then put a lot more effort into further contact tracing, which is obviously harder with somebody dead, but worth the effort if it is a known positive. 

None of this even touches on the data that can be compiled then too. Is it more likely to affect high blood pressure? People on certain medications? People that have never had chicken pox? Who knows what can be learned yet about a disease that we barely know anything about. You would literally be burying data because you are trying to save one test. 

Then throw in the piece of mind for the deceased's family and I honestly have no idea how you can be arguing against post mortem testing.

All of this is super odd too considering your original theory was that you thought perhaps a lot of people had died from covid and we didn't know that. Now that you know that's not happening due to post mortem testing, you have decided post mortem testing makes no sense. 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

It's probable that both the cruise ship and a small town in Italy don't have the same demographics as the US as a whole, nor the particular town where any one of us live. Maybe some in some retirement communities in Arizona or something. The mortality rate skews heavily toward the elderly (but that doesn't mean those under 40 are in the clear), and I bet the average age on that cruise ship was 60.  That should change the numerator, but not the denominator.

I bet the real morality rate is sub 1%, but above 0.3%. That's still a lot of dead people, old and young before we get a vaccine or develop herd immunity.

Thanks for "getting it".

 

[Christo]

No, no it hasn't.

 

[rcam]

Thanks for "getting it".

He isn't "getting it" he is just saying the demographics for a cruise ship + town might not match the US. But, it really doesn't matter, because you would still need over 10000 more positive tests - 4000 from imaginary people - to get down to .1%. .1% is a pipe dream. 

 

[The Commish]

You aren't wasting tests on the dead. It is important to know fatalities. And we are "wasting" thousands upon thousands upon thousands of tests as it is on negatives. People that are dead from covid like symptoms are probably testing at a very high % for positive, which is important to know. It is important to know if they are negative too. If they died in their homes you would immediately tell all relatives to self quarantine. Test the person that died. If it is negative you release the quarantine. Bam, you just saved 20 tests. If it is positive, you can now bring everybody in for testing and keep the quarantine in place telling them they were in contact with a positive. You could also then put a lot more effort into further contact tracing, which is obviously harder with somebody dead, but worth the effort if it is a known positive. 

None of this even touches on the data that can be compiled then too. Is it more likely to affect high blood pressure? People on certain medications? People that have never had chicken pox? Who knows what can be learned yet about a disease that we barely know anything about. You would literally be burying data because you are trying to save one test. 

Then throw in the piece of mind for the deceased's family and I honestly have no idea how you can be arguing against post mortem testing.

All of this is super odd too considering your original theory was that you thought perhaps a lot of people had died from covid and we didn't know that. Now that you know that's not happening due to post mortem testing, you have decided post mortem testing makes no sense. 

I guess we just come from two completely different perspectives here.  For example, I don't think it's a waste of a test just because a person comes out negative.  I personally think that position is dishonest.  If they died in their homes (with the symptoms of course), I'd tell the people there to get tested ASAP.  However, you do make a compelling point in the middle section,.  Though I'd consider that ability a "luxury".  My perspective on this has always been from the "in our current circumstances" (where we are so way far behind in our testing and processing).  I'm not arguing that testing them would be pointless in all cases.  I am saying it would be low on my priority list given the circumstances and dire need for tests.  IF we ever get it under control and we have tests to spare, then go for it.  Maybe that's a bit clearer?  Hopefully?  

I'll also point out that I didn't assign a quantity or even a general quantity to what I think we've missed.  That's simply because I have no idea.  That's why I asked the questions I did instead of making statements.  And I don't "know" that we have a good handle on it.  You said you posted links about it, but that thread goes 4-5 pages in a blink of an eye and I never saw them.

 

[Snotbubbles]

My wife works in an ER and my response is no, they media isn't going to far.  This is a situation that I would rather be overreact than under-react and see a mortality rate jump from 1.5% to 10%.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

He isn't "getting it" he is just saying the demographics for a cruise ship + town might not match the US. But, it really doesn't matter, because you would still need over 10000 more positive tests - 4000 from imaginary people - to get down to .1%. .1% is a pipe dream. 

Again tell that to Dr Fauci. If he sees how the numbers could wind up around .1% when it's all said and done, I'm not going to rule it out because "rcam" does. You've already shown your unwillingness to look at complete pictures. (Pondering why a cruise ship wouldn't be representative. Remember that?) The big unknown is how many people are asymptomatic and how many people cycled through already with mild cases and were never tested. Those answers come only after this goes away following long exhaustive studies and some serious number crunching. That said, there must be a lot of clues being spotted by the experts to even throw around the notion that this could be down the list with the flu in terms of death rate. Do you have the data in front of you that Fauci and his colleagues are looking at? Does Fauci seem like someone to downplay this virus recklessly? My answers are an easy NO to both.

 

[rcam]

Again tell that to Dr Fauci. If he sees how the numbers could wind up around .1% when it's all said and done, I'm not going to rule it out because "rcam" does. You've already shown your unwillingness to look at complete pictures. (Pondering why a cruise ship wouldn't be representative. Remember that?) The big unknown is how many people are asymptomatic and how many people cycled through already with mild cases and were never tested. Those answers come only after this goes away following long exhaustive studies and some serious number crunching. That said, there must be a lot of clues being spotted by the experts to even throw around the notion that this could be down the list with the flu in terms of death rate. Do you have the data in front of you that Fauci and his colleagues are looking at? Does Fauci seem like someone to downplay this virus recklessly? My answers are an easy NO to both.

I am looking at several pictures none of them fit what we are seeing right now if the mortality rate is .1%. I'm sorry that you don't understand the cruise ship. It is you having comprehension issues here - not me. Yeah, I have the data, it is updated on several sites. I also posted breakdowns of comprehensive testing in a sample size of 6700 people. I'm sorry you don't understand that in order for .1% to be feasible literally, everyone who tested negative (about 6000 people) would all have to really be positive and asymptomatic and then we would need to add in 4000 more positive, asymptomatic people. If you think that is reasonable then continue with your pipe dream of .1%.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I am looking at several pictures none of them fit what we are seeing right now if the mortality rate is .1%. I'm sorry that you don't understand the cruise ship. It is you having comprehension issues here - not me. Yeah, I have the data, it is updated on several sites. I also posted breakdowns of comprehensive testing in a sample size of 6700 people. I'm sorry you don't understand that in order for .1% to be feasible literally, everyone who tested negative (about 6000 people) would all have to really be positive and asymptomatic and then we would need to add in 4000 more positive, asymptomatic people. If you think that is reasonable then continue with your pipe dream of .1%.

Fauci's "pipe dream" you mean. It's nice to know we've got world renowned immunologist rcam in our presence.

 

[adonis]

The greatest health crisis of the past 75 years and folks who have been lied to not to trust the MSM are still asking whether the liberal media is sensationalizing a virus that will kill hundreds of thousands in the US.

That's what Trump and the right wing media have brought us to.  Rampant denial of reality.

And now, after the headstart we had to address it was lost to Fox news and Trump belittling the threat, they're now all in on the threat and pretending they were on top of it all along.

Seriously - I have unfollowed folks I previously trusted when they were wrong about something 1% as serious as what Trump and Fox News have been wrong about here.  Yet folks will continue to believe we've always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[timschochet]

My wife works in an ER

Tell your wife thank you. 

You know how a lot of people, including myself, try to say to military people and veterans “thank you for your service”? That’s something that we should be extending to hospital workers theses days as well, IMO. 

 

[jon_mx]

Tell your wife thank you. 

You know how a lot of people, including myself, try to say to military people and veterans “thank you for your service”? That’s something that we should be extending to hospital workers theses days as well, IMO. 

I am pretty sure people are.  Nurses are already a lock for Person of the Year. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

Tell your wife thank you. 

You know how a lot of people, including myself, try to say to military people and veterans “thank you for your service”? That’s something that we should be extending to hospital workers theses days as well, IMO. 

She's off today but got an update on the situation.  Her hospital is now being overrun by cases.  There is currently a 3 day lag on getting tested and getting the results so workers are finding out well after the fact that they attended a positive days later.  This 15 minute Abbott test would be a game changer for isolating positives and keeping the healthcare workers safe.  She said they have PPE but they are rationing them out to conserve.  We've had discussions about isolating her from the rest of us.  I think the final solution is that the nurses might group together and stay at other nurses houses until the curve flattens.  But we're probably still weeks away from an apex. 

EDIT: I'll also add that the community is really rallying around the healthcare workers.  My wife has coordinated with local businesses to have meals sent to the workers on a daily basis.  They're being overrun with food donations.  It's really great to see people coming together.