Artemis wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:20 amI just bought 3 packages for $2.99(CAD) ($3.35AUD) each on special.nausearockpig wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:19 pmCan someone send me a pack of dunny paper? All of our shops are out.
If you want to pay for shipping, I'll send you some.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatl ... le/504098/SCIENCE
Are Wet Wipes Wrecking the World's Sewers?
The battle over what it means to be “flushable”
creep wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:05 pmwhy would you assume i flush them? i am more responsible than that.i just put them in a plastic bag and bring them in the car and throw them out the window.
most modern wastewater plants screen out baby wipes, syringes, tampons and anything else that gets flushed. they then go to the landfill. putting grease down the drain is much worse for the sewer system.
Here are the actual numbers so far:Hype wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:54 amSo, not to single you out, Hoka, but that's a great example of how humans are not great at statistical reasoning. The R0 factor for COVID-19 is high enough, and the severity of the disease among most people is so mild, that 40-70% is not exaggerated. It's already in more than 95 countries (it was 77 countries a day or two ago).mockbee wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:11 pmI wouldnt say a year is exaggerated at all....Hokahey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:10 pmWhat is the time frame for that 40-70%? If it's this year, that seems grossly over exaggerated.
It's estimated that 40-70% of the world is going to catch this, and 80% of those will be mild or even asymptomatic -- corona-viruses cause 30% of all colds (rhinoviruses cause the other 70%). But for the other 20%, most of whom will be over 60, there will be pneumonia and bacterial infections and death for upwards of 15% of them, and for the other 85%, hospitalization, and a long recovery.
I probably already had/have it.......the Oregon case was literally where I was last week.
A 1,000,000+ people on the west coast probably already have/had it. It started here almost a month ago based on their forensic findings to date.
We are sooooo behind on the science....
Consider how numbers double. Start with one person with a disease, and assume that each person will tend to spread it to about two other people (COVID-19 seems to have a more infectious rate than that, but two is easier to understand). Now take into account that symptoms tend to be observed between 1 and 2 weeks. Let's go with 2 weeks. That means we can count the increased numbers fairly accurately every two weeks, or 26 times in a year. So, how many people would get it after 26 two-week intervals, starting from one person at a rate of 2 people catching it per previous person infected? (which, again, is way oversimplified)
Week 2: 3 people.
Week 4: 9 people.
Week 6: 27 people.
Week 8: 81 people.
Week 10: 243 people.
Week 12: 729 people.
Week 14: 2187 people.
Week 16: 6561 people.
Week 18: 19683 people.
Week 20: 59049 people.
Week 22: 177147 people.
Week 24: 531441 people.
Week 26: 1594329 people (after just half a year, starting from one person).
Week 28: 4782987 people.
Week 30: 14348961 people.
Week 32: 43046883 people.
Week 34: 129140649 people.
Week 36: 387421947 people.
Week 38: 1162265841 people.
Week 40: 3486797523 people. (This is pretty close to 40% of the world's current population, after just 40 weeks.)
Week 42: 10460392569 people. --- This is more people than are currently alive on Earth.
Keep in mind that this is a rate of transmission of only 2 people per infected person every two weeks. Because the disease is so mild in 80% of people, and because it's so widespread already, these numbers are likely to increase much faster.
Here are fairly current numbers: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
100,000+ cases, of which about 45% still haven't recovered.
The incubation period is 2-14 days (but potentially up to 27 days). This means that cases may increase faster than tripling every two weeks. This all depends on the ability of countries to mobilize enforcement of emergency health measures, quarantines, etc.
So, no, I don't think 40-70% is exaggerated. Keep in mind that the reported numbers depend entirely on how much testing is actually going on. The United States has not been testing anywhere near enough, and yet cases have been found all over the country, on both coasts.
Bear in mind, the US isn’t testing properly, and China has dramatically reduced its infection rate (at least reported). But the rest of the world’s rates are starting to increase.From known confirmed cases (worldwide):
Week 1: 0 dead, 1 case
Week 2: 1 dead, 15 cases
Week 3: 2 dead, 62 cases
Week 4: 41 dead, 1287 cases.
Week 5: 362 dead, 17,200 cases
Week 6: 813 dead, 37,198 cases
Week 7: 1,665 dead, 68,500 cases
Week 8: 2,465 dead. 79,930 cases
Week 9: 2,989 dead, 87,642 cases
Week 10: 3,666 dead, 107,947 cases
Coronavirus Cases:
111,381
view by country
Deaths:
3,882
Recovered:
62,661
Don't you think the cases, in reality, is under-counted in an exponentially large capacity....?
What about asymptomatic or mild/moderate symptom cases, no one is reporting those, why would they ever be tested. I suppose Korea is doing more sweeping tests, probably way better statistical data.Hype wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:19 amCases are absolutely going way under-reported in the United States. In countries that have socialized health insurance, people are far more likely to report these kinds of symptoms, and most of these countries are testing more actively than the United States is. This, by the way, is one reason why the current reported death rate is sitting at 6%, when the actual death rate is more like 3-4%. The United States has a president who openly says stupid things like "will the flu vaccine work for this?" and "I didn't know people died of the flu", neither of which have anything directly to do with COVID-19.
After British Columbia Health officials identified six new cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) Saturday morning, including two residents of a long-term care facility on Vancouver’s North Shore, BC’s provincial health officer Bonnie Henry said on Monday morning that one of those residents has now passed away as a result of the virus.
The news follows Henry’s announcement on Saturday, that a health care worker at the Lynn Valley Care Centre also tested positive as BC’s 21st case of COVID-19. She was identified as the province’s first case of community transmission earlier this week, meaning her illness was not tied to travel or direct contact with someone else known to have COVID-19.
According to BC’s pandemic response plan, COVID-19 has about a 1% mortality rate in generally health people. But for people with underlying heart conditions, respiratory issues, daibetes, hypertension, and cancer, the mortality increases to between 5 and 10%.
Henry also announced on Monday that five new cases have now been identified in the province, bringing the total number of cases in the province to 32.
More to come…
In a week, from Mar 2nd to today, we went from 27 to 72 confirmed cases.Artemis wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:56 pm27 cases of COVID-19 confirmed in Canada. No deaths reported yet.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/ ... ction.html
None of this is knowable without knowing true infection numbers which we all agree are vastly under reported due to low symptom or asymptomatic cases.
I think we have to be careful not to mix up two different sets of numbers. The numbers that medical professionals like the hospitals, CDC, etc., are working with are either the actual documented cases (taken from testing), or modeled data from projections based on that data and on existing epidemiological data and modelling. These are distinct from the actual number of people infected. In some ways that latter number doesn't matter, because we can only use data. What does matter, of course, is how much testing is done, and how good we can make the modelling.
Nowhere in the article does it mention New Rochelle businesses to close, but the alert states it:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... e-updates/
Live updates: Cuomo orders coronavirus containment zone in New York State; major colleges close classrooms as virus spreads
By Adam Taylor, Rick Noack, Kim Bellware and Alex Horton
March 10, 2020 at 1:07 p.m. EDT
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) on Tuesday announced schools and places of worship within a one-mile zone of the city of New Rochelle will close their doors for 14 days, and National Guard troops will help deliver food and disinfect common areas inside the zone.
...
I guess I will make sure to stock up on toilet paper tomorrow assuming I'm not in some sort of lockdown.BREAKING: N.Y. governor orders coronavirus containment zone in New Rochelle, closing schools, businesses; National Guard to deliver food
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... rc=nl_most
Coronavirus is mysteriously sparing kids and killing the elderly. Understanding why may help defeat the virus.
William Wan and Joel Achenbach
March 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. EDT
One of the few mercies of the spreading coronavirus is that it leaves young children virtually untouched — a mystery virologists say may hold vital clues as to how the virus works.
In China, only 2.4 percent of reported cases were children and only 0.2 percent of reported cases were children who got critically ill, according to the World Health Organization. China has reported no case of a young child dying of the disease covid-19.
Meanwhile, the new coronavirus has proved especially deadly on the other end of the age spectrum. The fatality rate in China for those over 80 is an estimated 21.9 percent, per the WHO. For ages 10 to 39, however, the fatality rate is roughly 0.2 percent, according to a separate study drawing on patient records of 44,672 confirmed cases. And fatalities and severe symptoms are almost nonexistent at even younger ages.
That means the new coronavirus is behaving very differently from other viruses, like seasonal influenza, which are usually especially dangerous for the very young and very old.
“With respiratory infections like this, we usually see a U-shaped curve on who gets hits hardest. Young children at one end of the U because their immune systems aren’t yet developed and old people at the other end because their immune systems grow weaker,” said Vineet Menachery, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch. “With this virus, one side of the U is just completely missing.
Figuring out why children are so unaffected could lead to breakthroughs in understanding how and why the virus sickens and kills other age groups, said Frank Esper, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. Among the questions Esper and others are exploring: Is the severity of infection related to what patients were exposed to previously? Does it have to do with how our immune systems change with age? Or could it be due to pollution damage in the lungs that people accumulate over years?
“Or maybe it has nothing to do with the virus and has to do with host, like underlying conditions in the lungs, diabetes or hypertension. After all, few 7-year-olds or newborns have hypertension,” said Esper, who studies viral respiratory infections and new diseases. “Figuring out what’s at play here could be helpful in so many ways."
Previous coronavirus outbreaks have also mysteriously spared the young. No children died during the SARS outbreak in 2002, which killed 774 people. And few children developed symptoms from the deadly MERS coronavirus, which has killed 858 since 2012.
To find out why, Menachery has been giving mice at his Texas lab SARS — which is a very close cousin to the new coronavirus. Baby mice at his lab have shaken off the infection, while the older mice have had their lungs and bodies ravaged by the disease.
Menachery found the older mice’s fatalities were strongly related to not just weakness in their immune systems but also a “disregulation” that caused their immune systems to overreact to the SARS coronavirus. That’s similar to how humans die of infections from the new coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2.
“It’s the aggressive response from their immune system that is damaging them, even more than the infection itself,” Menachery said. “It’s like police responding to a misdemeanor with a SWAT team crashing through the door.”
The question he and others have still struggled to answer, however, is why the baby mice escape unscathed.
Some experts have floated a theory that because children are so heavily exposed to four other mild coronaviruses, which circulate every year and cause the common cold, that may give kids some kind of strengthened immunity. But many have doubts about that argument because adults catch the common cold coronaviruses too, and the immune systems of children — especially under the age of five — are underdeveloped, which should make them more vulnerable, not less.
“If it bears out that kids are less prone to infection, then I suspect there’s something more mechanical than immunological going on,” said Esper, the pediatric infection expert. “Something about the receptors in children’s bodies or their lungs is interfering with the virus’ ability to attach itself.”
“It just shows you how much we don’t know about this virus,” said Stuart Weston, a virologist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine who has been testing anti-viral drugs that could help treat the new coronavirus. “The focus now is on vaccines and treatment, but there are all these big questions we’re going to want to answer in the long-term if we want to really understand how these coronaviruses work.”
So given all that, does it make sense to close schools?
Because so few cases have been found in children, there’s been speculation children are simply less likely to get infected.
But many epidemiologists suspect mild symptoms may simply be masking that children are getting infected the same rates as adults. New data published last week by Chinese researchers showed authorities searching for coronavirus cases based on symptoms found lower rates in kids. But when they relied on contact tracing — testing people who come in contact with a confirmed case — children seemed to be getting infected at the same rate as adults.
“We know from pandemic research that closing schools can be effective in slowing down transmission because children are often a driver of infection. They spread it to parents, relatives and the wider community,” said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
Some districts may find themselves closing schools because it will be tough to stay open as teachers, principals and janitors get infected, said Rivers, who has children herself. “We may end up closing schools in part to protect the adults and staff."
We can expect a doubling of cases every six days, according to several epidemiological studies. Confirmed cases may appear to rise faster (or slower) in the short term as diagnostic capabilities are ramped up (or not), but this is how fast we can expect actual new cases to rise in the absence of substantial mitigation measures.
That means we are looking at about 1 million U.S. cases by the end of April; 2 million by May 7; 4 million by May 13; and so on.
As the health care system becomes saturated with cases, it will become increasingly difficult to detect, track, and contain new transmission chains. In the absence of extreme interventions like those implemented in China, this trend likely won’t slow significantly until hitting at least 1% of the population, or about 3.3 million Americans.
What does a case load of this size mean for health care system? That’s a big question, but just two facets — hospital beds and masks — can gauge how Covid-19 will affect resources.
The U.S. has about 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people (South Korea and Japan, two countries that have seemingly thwarted the exponential case growth trajectory, have more than 12 hospital beds per 1,000 people; even China has 4.3 per 1,000). With a population of 330 million, this is about 1 million hospital beds. At any given time, about 68% of them are occupied. That leaves about 300,000 beds available nationwide.
The majority of people with Covid-19 can be managed at home. But among 44,000 cases in China, about 15% required hospitalization and 5% ended up in critical care. In Italy, the statistics so far are even more dismal: More than half of infected individuals require hospitalization and about 10% need treatment in the ICU.
Hype wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:29 pmhttps://www.statnews.com/2020/03/10/sim ... -covid-19/
We can expect a doubling of cases every six days, according to several epidemiological studies. Confirmed cases may appear to rise faster (or slower) in the short term as diagnostic capabilities are ramped up (or not), but this is how fast we can expect actual new cases to rise in the absence of substantial mitigation measures.
That means we are looking at about 1 million U.S. cases by the end of April; 2 million by May 7; 4 million by May 13; and so on.
As the health care system becomes saturated with cases, it will become increasingly difficult to detect, track, and contain new transmission chains. In the absence of extreme interventions like those implemented in China, this trend likely won’t slow significantly until hitting at least 1% of the population, or about 3.3 million Americans.
What does a case load of this size mean for health care system? That’s a big question, but just two facets — hospital beds and masks — can gauge how Covid-19 will affect resources.
The U.S. has about 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people (South Korea and Japan, two countries that have seemingly thwarted the exponential case growth trajectory, have more than 12 hospital beds per 1,000 people; even China has 4.3 per 1,000). With a population of 330 million, this is about 1 million hospital beds. At any given time, about 68% of them are occupied. That leaves about 300,000 beds available nationwide.
The majority of people with Covid-19 can be managed at home. But among 44,000 cases in China, about 15% required hospitalization and 5% ended up in critical care. In Italy, the statistics so far are even more dismal: More than half of infected individuals require hospitalization and about 10% need treatment in the ICU.
From 3blue1brown’s Grant Sanderson, this is an excellent quick explanation of exponential growth and how we should think about it in relation to epidemics like COVID-19. Depending on how rusty your high school math is, you might need to rewind a couple of times to fully grasp the explanation, but you should persevere and watch the whole thing.
The most important bit is at the end, right around the 7:45 mark, when he talks about how limiting person-to-person exposure and decreasing the probability of exposures becoming infections can have a huge effect on the total number of people infected because the growth is exponential. If large numbers of people start doing things like limiting travel, cancelling large gatherings, social distancing, and washing their hands frequently, the total number of infections could fall by several orders of magnitude, making the exponential work for us, not against us. Small efforts have huge results. If, as in the video, you’re talking about 100 million infected in two months (at the current transmission rate) vs. 400,000 (at the lowered rate) and if the death rate of COVID-19 is between 1-3%, you’re looking at 1-3 million dead vs. 4-12,000 dead.
So let’s start flattening that exponential. South Korea and China both seem to have done it, so there’s no reason the rest of the world can’t through aggressive action.
