showmethesnow

Just stop. There are so many variables involved here to try to figure out why things went better in some countries and worse in others will probably only be determined after the fact with much study (I pointed out a few days ago some reasons why I thought Italy may have been hit harder). It may be nothing more then having to do with genetics. I know you are so desperately trying to disparage our current administration but to deny that most if not all of this could have been avoided for the US and even for a good chunk of the world if we would have that extra month plus warning is just folly. And about those test kits that everyone is going on about? While they are useful at any given time during a pandemic, they are far more useful and key at the very beginning when you have small individual cases where you can far more easily contain an outbreak. I think we are going to find that by the time we were aware of the problem that it was far too late as we were already into community spread where containment measures were no longer feasible. And need I remind you of the study that suggested only a 3% infection rate (I don't believe it myself). But if that is truly the case we are looking at a major win for this administration especially after the 24/7 dooms day scenarios of millions dead thrown out by the media on a daily basis. And before you go, 'But, but, but the second wave'. All I can say is let's deal with the first problem first. I think we are going to find that we will mostly be alright for any follow up. eta: Seeing as you keep bringing up S Korea as evidence that the US failed I think I will take a hard look into them. Have a feeling you might not like my conclusions with some of things I already do know. eta: I see PhineasC answered you. Notice all the variables? Still will probably take a look at it anyway.

Hopefully we don't see the CCP sit on the next one a month+ as they did this one. If we had had that extra month plus we could have stopped this crap in its tracks. Saw one report that if the CCP would have been forth coming with the information that we could have reduced the impacts by 95%.

Been saying this for a couple of weeks now (higher infection rate/lower mortality rate). With how we were seeing the virus spread it made more sense then the lower figures for infection they were throwing out. Think they will also find that we were at the community spread level a couple of weeks sooner then what they believe now.

But is it typical/normal for one specific Corona Virus to be able to infect over multiple species that we are seeing here?

I have stayed at a Holiday Inn but I've got nothing.

There were reports of dogs contracting this as well. I know back and forth is possible but is it normal to see a virus be able to jump from 4 different species (bat, dog, lions, humans)?

Seems that a tiger in the Bronx Zoo has contracted the virus. 2 other tigers and 2 other lions have developed a dry cough a symptom of the virus.

I am not sure what to think at this point. Typically I would side with you even though we do have the coincidence of this being the only Level 4 lab in existence in China to the best of my knowledge. But, and let me adjust my tin foil hat before I continue, there are other things going on that put a big question mark in my mind. Now I just sort of brushed over some of the things I have read the last couple of weeks, there are more things out there. We are seeing researchers/doctors involved in the outbreak in Wahun being muffled with a couple/few that have disappeared off the face of the earth. We have also seen one of them die with the listed cause of death as Coronavirus. This seems reasonable except when you start seeing what is happening with the other professionals it starts to put a doubt in your mind. We are also seeing the destruction of records about the outbreak in Wahun. Now the CPC has basically put a clamp on information coming out . All information has to go through them and get their stamp of approval. So much of the information is second hand so it is very difficult to know what to believe and not to believe. Now what I have mentioned so far has a good chance of being correct because much of it has come from these same doctosr/researchers that are in the middle of the crap. Now there is other information coming out but it is coming from the average Joe so it is hard to gauge. information that if true really drives home how hard the CPC seems to be trying to erase all information in regards to the outbreak in Wahun. But the fact that we are seeing quite a bit of collaboration of the facts from others starts to make you believe that the information may be true. Now this could be nothing more then the CPC trying their damnedest to save face in the worlds eyes. But to me it is really starting to look as if they are trying desperately to cover up something. eta: There was one other thing I forgot to mention. There was a large aberration through this period with cell phone service. There was a cut to service of over 2 million phones. Now I am not sure exactly where these were cut from. Whether in was nation wide or focused on a certain region but it tells me that the CPC might have been trying to cut contact for these individuals to the outside world.

I looked over IHME model projected 3% infection rate nation wide and seriously went HUH??? I know the impacts of social distancing are somewhat of an unknown but I really question that number. As is, the 1 out of 7 figure for DC is more in my line of thinking for what we will see in the major cities though I believe even that is low balling it.

Now every outbreak starts with a patient Zero as shown above on the first example. As of now patient zero seems to have originated in Wuhan in late December from animal to human transmission. But that may not actually be correct if reports that have come out of some victims/deaths beforehand as early as early/mid November are in fact true. I will explain in a little bit what this may imply. There are several theories on how this transmission occurred. But the major one is that there was animal to human transmission in a Wuhan wet market. The other one that has some support is that this was a bio-engineered virus (weaponized) that escaped from a level 4 bio-hazard lab in Wahun. Now there are others out there but they have very little support at this time. Won't even discuss China's (CPC) claim that this was a virus created in a US army base and then intentionally sent over there. Now the major theory is pretty self explanatory. Either the vendor or customer/s contracted it from an animal within the market (believe they are talking a bat at this time). As for the second one, escaped from a biolab, well it has met with some resistance and down played. The reason being that the experts claim the markers on the virus suggest this was most definitely not a man-made virus and was naturally occurring. The CPC (Communist Party of China) claims this is proof that the virus never escaped from the bio-lab. One problem with their claim is that just because it was naturally occurring doesn't mean that it didn't escape from the lab. It just means that it wasn't bio-engineered by them. Now there are some possibilities here. First, the lab also used animals in their experiments, some of the same animals that that would be found in the wet market probably coming from the same sources. So now we have the possibility of the virus physically being in the lab. Now one possibility is an employee contracted it in the lad and then brought it out of containment. Now there is also another possibility as well. If they are true, there were reports that China arrested an employee shortly after the outbreak for selling test animals from the lab to the wet market. Now let's jump back to the possibility that the reports on earlier cases (as early as November) are in fact true. These case were reported to be outside of the Wuhan region. This might imply a couple of things. First, it might be verification that the animal with the virus was being transported up to Wuhan and people involved with the handling of the animal may have contracted the virus. Now there is also one other possibility. We may have very well seen a small flare up elsewhere which may or may not have been contained. This brings in the possibility that ground zero may have actually happened elsewhere but the virus didn't gain traction until Wuhan. This also brings another possibility up as well. Was there a small flareup that was contained that the Chinese brought samples up to it's lab to study where it subsequently got loose. Now if there were in fact earlier cases we will have to study where these cases were, the number, and clustering and the time frame involved between the cases. These will give us an idea of which of the possibilities above is most likely, if not present another whole scenario. Not sure if we will ever really know the answers to these questions though. Chinese have been very closed mouth with the details (much of what we are getting are from other internal sources), they are destroying evidence that would help decipher what happened , they are refusing any outside investigators into the region and they are feeding the world faulty information. None of this helps to promote the ability to decipher what happened, where mistakes were made, and how we can improve our chances down the road.

As I mentioned yesterday, this is all a numbers game. Now this will be a very crude idea how it plays out and will only include the major players and not include other potential factors that will typically have much smaller impact. Would also like to add these are my thoughts alone (right or wrong) through reading a little on the matter over the years as well as how I see the math playing out. So I more then welcome criticism or debate so I can fine tune my thoughts or make major readjustments. Now below we have a small sample size of 20 individuals within a host pool that a virus has now been introduced. Now there are several things we need to consider to figure out how this will all play out. First, the probability of transmission on an encounter with an uninfected individual. Second, How many encounters will we see in a given day. Third how many days will this individual be contagious. And lastly how contaminated is the pool (In this case it is a clean pool with no infections except for patient zero). Now there are other factors that can come into play as well and actually be major players. These are two I can think of offhand. First, how quickly does the virus so incapacitate an individual where they are bed ridden and their encounter rate drops to a fraction of their typical day (this is why it is so important to keep infected and non-infected separated with hospitals). Second and of a more morbid nature is how deadly is the virus as this takes potential spreaders out of the equation (care needs to be taken with those that have passed because quite often they can still be contagious well after the fact). So let's get back to the virus that has been introduced into the self contained clean pool of hosts above. I am going to keep the numbers very simple here to give the general concept and we are going to let it play out without any outside interference. This is just an example to show how a virus (not necessarily coronavirus) will play out in a perfect bubble. Let's assume everyone in this pool has 5 interactions a day with different random individuals. Now let's place the probability rate of transmission for each encounter at 10 %. Then we are seeing an infection period of 4 days. And finally we are looking at a pool that is clean from infection. Now I am going to keep the math here as bare bones as I can without throwing in statistics which would makes this far more complex. Just know that it will give you a rough ballpark figure of the numbers we are talking about. So let's follow this infected individual over his 4 day infectious period. Now assuming a 10% infection rate with 5 encounters a day we are looking at a 50% chance of someone getting infected ((10+10+10+10+10)/100). Now lets expand that for 4 days (4*(10+10+10+10+10)/100) which gives us 200%. Broken down lets say this means 2 new infected individuals. So this is what we see at day 5 after the patient zero is no longer infectious. We now have 2 new carriers that are having 5 encounters a day. So 10 encounters a day. But we also are now seeing an inhibiting factor thrown in, though very minor at this time, that will start to impact the rate of growth in this process. This would be patient zero who has already contracted the disease and is now immune to it and can no longer be a spreader. So what happens, as the example below shows, he now is cutting into the carriers encounter rate with uninfected individuals. On this particular day we are now seeing 9 possible infectious encounters instead of 10. Now there is also one other inhibiting factor as well. If you have the virus and are a carrier you can't very well catch it once again from another carrier so these 2 carriers encounters with each other are also cutting into the encounter rate. In the example below this means that over a 4 day span instead of 40 encounters with uninfected individuals we can cut it by 4 to give us 36 encounters so we are now seeing a 340% probability over a 4 day span. ***Now rounding down would give us 3 new infections through the next period but in this case I am going to use 4 new cases.*** We are now at day 10. We now have 4 infections and 3 immune individuals. The encounter rate from these 4 individuals over the next 4 days will be 80. But the number of encounters with other infected and the immune is now at 24 and is starting to become a factor. So lets figure out the % we are looking at over the next 4 day span. 80-24= 56 encounters at 10% infection rate equals 560%. So lets say we now have 6 new infections for the next 4 day period. So here we are at day 15. 6 new carriers and 7 individuals that are now immune. With the 6 new carriers we would see an encounter rate of 120 over the 4 day span. Of those 120 encounters 72 cases are with a nonviable host. So now we are looking at 480% infection rate over this 4 day period. So basically 5 new infections will occur through this period. If you will note this is lower then the previous 4 day span which saw 560% rate and 6 infections. We have now entered a period of time where we are seeing diminishing returns. So we are now seeing a major impact with the inhibiting factor (infected and immune individuals) as the pool gets dirtied. This is the downward curve we are seeing on all these graphs. So let's move this forward one more 4 day period and see what we have with the 5 new carriers. This is where we are at at day 20. 5 new carriers but now we have 17 that can not get reinfected. At this point we are only seeing 3 that are not infected. So what are the chances now that these 3 uninfected individuals can get infected. Let's see. 5 individuals combining for 100 encounters over a 4 day period subtracting 90 inconsequential encounters gives us 10 legit encounters (100%) giving us 1 new infection. After this last infection we have basically achieved herd immunity leaving 2 individuals untouched or 10% of the population. Now all of the above is just a very crude idea of what happens in a perfect bubble using very simple math. In the true world there are so many more variables. You have mitigation and containment possibilities. The variables we used in the above examples will be different. Hereditary traits, geography, possible vaccine, population density, etc.., etc..., etc... can all greatly influence what we actually see. Where as the math I used was very bare bones simple the statistical math the experts use quickly becomes very complex as you throw more and more variables into the equation. Now over the coming few days/weeks as I find time (it seems I have plenty of time now) I plan on expanding on the above and even moving out in different directions as well as explaining the whys of some of the numbers I have thrown out. I more then welcome any healthy criticism and/or additions to the material from others all I ask is that we please try to keep it as apolitical as we can and focus on the science.

You know, I haven't really been following anything besides China, Europe and the US. But I wonder how much it will have an impact with the countries straddling the equator. Especially if this is a seasonal virus where warmth will mitigate the impacts in that region. My demographics are rusty but aren't the population densities also generally lower compared to Europe, US and China?

I admit, I kind of laughed as well when I played the clip and heard that. But statistically what we saw was of major significance. Not going back to reread the article but what did we see, 72 patients and I believe all showed improvement? That is pretty noteworthy.

LOL. Had a bet with myself that some people would just blow this off. Guess you win. There are several other charlatans out there in other countries as well. We are still talking small sample sizes but the results we are seeing with these studies are very promising from what I am seeing. Actually results with several malaria drugs have shown promise as also an aides drug as well.

Yeah, I get your point. I am not using the term quite correctly. Kind of cringe every time I use it in the way I sometimes do but I found it was much easier to use it instead of spending a couple of paragraphs every post trying explain that this is all a numbers game. After all most hear the term herd immunity and associate it with the more that get infected initially the more it will impact the infection rate on a second go round. And I know I have used the term reaching herd immunity (such as in the cities) but it really isn't, it is more so reaching a saturation point of taking enough possible hosts out of the equation that a large uncontainable outbreak is taken out of the equation and you are dealing with smaller containable flareups. And that rate varies depending on how long an individual is infectious and how easily transmittable a virus is. I am kind of thinking a 35% might be enough to reach that criteria. Think there is a good possibility we see that in some/most of the cities. But the social distancing is an unknown variable in the equation. Going to help cut down on the infection rate, but how much is the question. But the article did bring up a good point. Until we get a vaccine we will not reach true herd immunity. We are going to be dealing with ever smaller outbreaks due to the numbers game, but deal with them we will have to.

Sounds as if chloroquine is actually showing some very good promise. Have seen several articles/studies over the last week or so that have really picked up the thoughts that it may be a viable solution to mediate the impacts of the virus. Now mind you we are talking small studies but there is mounting evidence that there is in fact something there. The latest is a doctor Stephen Smith from the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health in New Jersey. Sorry its Fox, as I know how many of you feel about them, but I could only find this information on Conservative sites. https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-stephen-smith-on-effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine-with-coronavirus-symptoms-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-pandemic

As far the rural areas I think that may be more of a game of musical chairs between the rural and urban areas. Any secondary wave's impacts for most of the cities (there will be some exceptions I am sure) will be minimal as herd immunity will play a part from the higher infection rates we will probably see with the first wave. If the rural hospitals have the room for the extra beds they can always ship in supplies/materials from the urban areas where the demand will be nowhere near the first wave. Conversely if the rural areas lack the beds they can transport the patients to the urban hospitals. This scenario could also possibly play out between the rural and the suburban areas in some cases as well but that will depend on several factors. Really I think my bigger concern from a second wave isn't the disease itself by the measures they could possibly put in play to mitigate its impact. Our economy is taking a serious beating at this time with the measures put in place but I think we will be fine and the economy will quickly ramp up again (as long as we don't see this shutdown last months upon months). But I am not so sure it could take a double hit with a total shutdown for a couple of months for a secondary wave. Will really need to see a measured response focusing on local hot spots while keeping the rest of the country running. Now this is all assuming we even see a secondary wave which I am not so sure we will.

I never got into that. Think I collected a few the first year they had it but afterwords I just tossed them.

Was going to reply to some of your concerns about a secondary wave but thought it would be much easier to just direct you to a post (middle of page 6) I had made yesterday on this subject. That is if you haven't read it already.

Just going to throw some numbers at you to give you an idea of what your idea of a 15% or even higher mortality rate we are seeing in some of the harder hit European countries actually means. US population roughly 330,000,000 Now lets give a rough figure of a 10% infection rate (Think it will be quite a bit higher myself). US infected 33,000,000 Now lets give a 15% mortality rate. 4,950,000 deaths Now for arguments sake lets say we find we have an extreme infection rate of 40% US infected 132,000,000 19,800,000 deaths Now even you are arguing against yourself when you expect to see a few hundred thousand deaths when you compare it to the millions or even tens of millions your , 'We are going to be worse then Europe' comments imply. Now my intention is not to pick on you, please don't think that is the case. I am just trying to point out that the numbers just don't add up for your idea of what we will see. All that said, when the CDC came out with some numbers the other day (200,000+ deaths) I felt that they were potentially under playing the impacts somewhat. Have a feeling they were throwing out one of the better scenarios with a lower infection rate and/or mortality rate. Would not be surprised we end up seeing something that is more like double/triple that total. Hope I am wrong.

I didn't mind your reaction. It didn't hurt my feelings. I was just curious of your thoughts and what you found wrong with it.

I really see nothing to indicate at this time that we are going to see anything near what was seen in Europe. Really nothing. Even if we do see some of the States/Cities reach and break through their capacity with healthcare and treatment doesn't warrant the numbers you propose. And if we play this smart we can get through this with very minimal impact in that regards despite our limited resources. If you note the peak is reaching different portions of the country at different times. Think these peaks are spread over a month and half. It will come down to it being an elaborate shell game when all is said and told.

But also throwing out comments that we are going to see rates that will out pace even the worst hit European countries is useless as well.

For those that are pretty much sheltering in place are you also experiencing the sensation of losing track of time? My wife and I wake up each morning having to remind each other what day it is. It has been sort of a surreal experience where everything seems out of wack. Also in the back of my mind I am constantly having the sensation that I am forgetting something or there is something I should be doing. Guess I will put in my diary... Day 11 of self enforced exile. Slowly losing my mind.

Okay, that was the same study I was referencing above. I didn't see any reference to the 25% bottom range though. Maybe I am just overlooking it. One thing to take away from it though is that it was a limited study with a small sample size. Also need to consider other factors such as that hereditary back ground, blood type, genetic makeup etc..., With such a small sample size we aren't going to get a diverse representation that we see with a larger group let alone the diversity we see in the States. But it is a good starting point to get a base idea of what we can expect.