Oldbear83 said:
You are linking disparate data points to present a false contention, TS.
Yes, COVID-19 is more lethal than the common flu, but it is far less lethal than past viruses such as SARS and MERS, Ebola or Marburg. The part of the math you are missing is to consider why those more lethal viruses did not kill more people than they did.
A virus is a simple thing, but it requires a delicate balance to thrive. We already know that viruses are seasonal, affected by things like heat and humidity, wind patterns and weather. Another point to consider is what we still do not know, such as why C-19 affects men almost three times as often as women, or why people under 25 seem to escape the worst symptoms of C-19. These details matter because knowing them would be important in finding an effective treatment, which in many ways is even more important than the vaccine under trials right now.
There is a simple fact that should be kept in mind. China handled the outbreak worse than any other country, and suffered the most cases and deaths because of that. Yet in that nation of more than a billion people, just over three thousand died, and while that number if tragic, it suggests that other nations, with better warning, prophylactic steps available to the public and other steps being taken, will suffer fewer cases and deaths.
Quote:
Ergo, it is rash to suggest the six hundred thousand death scenario, as there is no valid data to indicate this is anything but the most unlikely outcome. In similar logic, it is wrong to contend that the virus is "unchecked", as this implies medical professionals are not doing a lot to combat the virus, whether in researching the virus to find a vaccine or in testing different treatments to see which mitigate symptoms the best. There is precedent for focusing on symptom treatment, by the way - there is no known cure for Cholera, but the disease dies out in most cases if the victim is simply kept hydrated and treated for fever.
Again, I am not minimizing the effects of C-19, but we do have a decent understanding of what it does and simply treating the symptoms will help some patients survive, and others fight off the disease faster.
No, you don't understand the dynamics of this virus. Once patient's lung tissue becomes so inflamed and damaged, they die. Simply supporting patients is not always effective. At present, there is not treatment other than therapeutic life support.
Quote:
Yes, COVID-19 is more lethal than the common flu, but it is far less lethal than past viruses such as SARS and MERS, Ebola or Marburg. The part of the math you are missing is to consider why those more lethal viruses did not kill more people than they did.
Math? COVID-19 has already claimed more lives than SARS. Contact tracing was effective with SARS because symptoms were early, severe and easy to identify, and contain. The SARS virus was fragile and didn't have the ability to persist in the human population which led to its demise. This doesn't appear to be the case with C19.
MERS was similarly contained. C19 is spread before people have symptoms which is not the case with MERS, SARS and Ebola. Ebola is not comparable because it is transmitted by bodily fluids contact, not through coughing and aerosols. Ebola can be traced and contained more easily. Ebola does not live on surfaces. C19 is contagious before it is symptomatic. We don't know yet if C19 will die off in summer season. Not all viruses are the same. The best parallel is the Spanish Flu of 1918, which was easily transmissible with similar death rate, except C19 is more deadly to older people. Treating symptoms is good, but in those whose condition becomes serious, this disease damages the lungs to the point that many cannot overcome the virus in spite of treatment. C19 is 3 times more contagious than MERS, is an order of magnitude more contagious than Ebola; Ebola has a R0 1.9, and C19 has a 2.8 R0. SARS has a 3.0 R0, only slightly higher than C19.
Quote:
There is a simple fact that should be kept in mind. China handled the outbreak worse than any other country, and suffered the most cases and deaths because of that. Yet in that nation of more than a billion people, just over three thousand died, and while that number if tragic, it suggests that other nations, with better warning, prophylactic steps available to the public and other steps being taken, will suffer fewer cases and deaths.
At first China covered it up, but then took it serious with drastic efforts to contain C19. China, South Korea and Singapore have handled it the best. Italy actually has handled it worse than any other country so far, and that's why its out of hand there.They ignored it at first and didn't take it serious, much like what we have done here. If you don't think this is serious, take this into account - In the first two months authorities tracked it, there have been more cases of C19 than the 2002 SARS, 2012 MERS, and 2104 Ebola epidemics combined. In the U.S., the virus has now spread to more people than were infected with Polio during the peak year of the Polio epidemic.
Quote:
Ergo, it is rash to suggest the six hundred thousand death scenario, as there is no valid data to indicate this is anything but the most unlikely outcome. In similar logic, it is wrong to contend that the virus is "unchecked", as this implies medical professionals are not doing a lot to combat the virus, whether in researching the virus to find a vaccine or in testing different treatments to see which mitigate symptoms the best. There is precedent for focusing on symptom treatment, by the way - there is no known cure for Cholera, but the disease dies out in most cases if the victim is simply kept hydrated and treated for fever.
All the valid data suggest that a high mortality of 300,000 to 600,000 is the very likely
unless a timely comprehensive approach is under taken - broad testing of the population, contact tracing, quarantine, and social distancing. So far we're six weeks behind the curve.
