New coronavirus in/from China

[Vortex2]

Stuff it .. it's not the weekend but we're breaking out the red wine ..

Becoming more and more aware of the seriousness of this bug and what effects it will have on us plus the economic doom ahead is getting to us ... it's red wine time!

[kenneal - lagger]

They feel they need to “go back to work� — not that they need massively more support from the government,

Sorry, it's written in English!! He is saying that they feel that they need to go back to work rather thAn that they need more support from their government..

[clv101]

Anyone just watched Trump's press conference?

[kenneal - lagger]

I didn't see Trump but I did get the impression that having spoken to Boris Trump has changed his mind, if that is the right word for what is in his head, again and decided to support the scientific consensus to keep the lockdown in place for a while longer.

Trump's supporter, the Governor of Georgia, seems to be happy to kill off his voters by letting the well off and vain and the trailer trash indulge in their favourite pastimes unrestrictedly.

[vtsnowedin]

They feel they need to “go back to work� — not that they need massively more support from the government,

Sorry, it's written in English!! He is saying that they feel that they need to go back to work rather thAn that they need more support from their government..

If it was written in English it would have read --not that they don't need massively more support from the government.
As written it is gibberish.

[vtsnowedin]

Anyone just watched Trump's press conference?

Yes.
Interesting bit about the sunlight factor. He got in some Sleepy Joe in his basement digs.

[vtsnowedin]

If you are trying to start up your important pieces of the economy why do you start with Tattoo parlors?

[Little John]

From Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. By August, when the second wave began in France, Sierra Leone, and the United States,[102] the virus had mutated to a much more deadly form. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic.

This increased severity has been attributed to the circumstances of the First World War. In civilian life, natural selection favors a mild strain. Those who get very ill stay home, and those mildly ill continue with their lives, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus. The second wave began, and the flu quickly spread around the world again. Consequently, during modern pandemics, health officials pay attention when the virus reaches places with social upheaval (looking for deadlier strains of the virus).

The fact that most of those who recovered from first-wave infections had become immune showed that it must have been the same strain of flu. This was most dramatically illustrated in Copenhagen, which escaped with a combined mortality rate of just 0.29% (0.02% in the first wave and 0.27% in the second wave) because of exposure to the less-lethal first wave. For the rest of the population, the second wave was far more deadly; the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches – adults who were young and fit.

So, that would imply had the young and fit caught the virus in the first wave instead of being locked down, then they would have had immunity for the mutated deadly Autumn 2nd wave.

[UndercoverElephant]

From Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. By August, when the second wave began in France, Sierra Leone, and the United States,[102] the virus had mutated to a much more deadly form. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic.

This increased severity has been attributed to the circumstances of the First World War. In civilian life, natural selection favors a mild strain. Those who get very ill stay home, and those mildly ill continue with their lives, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus. The second wave began, and the flu quickly spread around the world again. Consequently, during modern pandemics, health officials pay attention when the virus reaches places with social upheaval (looking for deadlier strains of the virus).

The fact that most of those who recovered from first-wave infections had become immune showed that it must have been the same strain of flu. This was most dramatically illustrated in Copenhagen, which escaped with a combined mortality rate of just 0.29% (0.02% in the first wave and 0.27% in the second wave) because of exposure to the less-lethal first wave. For the rest of the population, the second wave was far more deadly; the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches – adults who were young and fit.

So, that would imply had the young and fit caught the virus in the first wave instead of being locked down, then they would have had immunity for the mutated deadly Autumn 2nd wave.

It probably isn't helpful making comparisons with the 1918-19 flu, because it had such a different age range of fatalities. That flu was especially dangerous for young, fit people. The immediate cause of death was a massive immune reaction, so paradoxically it was killing more people in their 20s than people in their 50s. The stronger a person's immune system, the more likely they were to die. Covid-19 doesn't do this.

[Little John]

From Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. By August, when the second wave began in France, Sierra Leone, and the United States,[102] the virus had mutated to a much more deadly form. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic.

This increased severity has been attributed to the circumstances of the First World War. In civilian life, natural selection favors a mild strain. Those who get very ill stay home, and those mildly ill continue with their lives, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus. The second wave began, and the flu quickly spread around the world again. Consequently, during modern pandemics, health officials pay attention when the virus reaches places with social upheaval (looking for deadlier strains of the virus).

The fact that most of those who recovered from first-wave infections had become immune showed that it must have been the same strain of flu. This was most dramatically illustrated in Copenhagen, which escaped with a combined mortality rate of just 0.29% (0.02% in the first wave and 0.27% in the second wave) because of exposure to the less-lethal first wave. For the rest of the population, the second wave was far more deadly; the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches – adults who were young and fit.

So, that would imply had the young and fit caught the virus in the first wave instead of being locked down, then they would have had immunity for the mutated deadly Autumn 2nd wave.

It probably isn't helpful making comparisons with the 1918-19 flu, because it had such a different age range of fatalities. That flu was especially dangerous for young, fit people. The immediate cause of death was a massive immune reaction, so paradoxically it was killing more people in their 20s than people in their 50s. The stronger a person's immune system, the more likely they were to die. Covid-19 doesn't do this.

No, it was the second wave that killed the young. The second wave was a more deadly variant. The first wave killed the elderly and immuno-compromised. That is a direct comparison.

[vtsnowedin]

Deaths in USA for the last seven days averaged to 2525 per day. The week previous averaged 2542 so basically flat over two weeks with day to day variations of as much as 2100 in a day. Highest day was 4926 and lowest was 1501.
Reported cases continue to come in about 29,000 each day but with such data quality issues I have no confidence that any trend shown is real.

[Vortex2]

Deaths in USA for the last seven days averaged to 2525 per day. The week previous averaged 2542 so basically flat over two weeks with day to day variations of as much as 2100 in a day. Highest day was 4926 and lowest was 1501.
Reported cases continue to come in about 29,000 each day but with such data quality issues I have no confidence that any trend shown is real.

I suppose that a 'leaky lockdown' would lead to this steady-state of new cases and deaths.

A more relaxed lock-down could simply increase the level of the steady-state, possibly to a level which overloaded the hospitals.

[vtsnowedin]

Deaths in USA for the last seven days averaged to 2525 per day. The week previous averaged 2542 so basically flat over two weeks with day to day variations of as much as 2100 in a day. Highest day was 4926 and lowest was 1501.
Reported cases continue to come in about 29,000 each day but with such data quality issues I have no confidence that any trend shown is real.

I suppose that a 'leaky lockdown' would lead to this steady-state of new cases and deaths.

A more relaxed lock-down could simply increase the level of the steady-state, possibly to a level which overloaded the hospitals.

I consider the present lockdown fairly tight especially in hot spots like New York which is as tight as they can get it considering the logistics of the city. Relaxing the lockdown and going back to work will undoubtedly increase both case load and deaths but that can not be avoided for long.
Troubling is the relationship between new cases and deaths. 2535 / 29,000= CFR of 8.7%. If you predict that daily new cases stays steady, which is optimistic while reopening the economy you could have 2535/day for the rest of the year or 650,000 deaths. A tiny portion of 333 million but it will cause political chaos.

[Vortex2]

Deaths in USA for the last seven days averaged to 2525 per day. The week previous averaged 2542 so basically flat over two weeks with day to day variations of as much as 2100 in a day. Highest day was 4926 and lowest was 1501.
Reported cases continue to come in about 29,000 each day but with such data quality issues I have no confidence that any trend shown is real.

I suppose that a 'leaky lockdown' would lead to this steady-state of new cases and deaths.

A more relaxed lock-down could simply increase the level of the steady-state, possibly to a level which overloaded the hospitals.

I consider the present lockdown fairly tight especially in hot spots like New York which is as tight as they can get it considering the logistics of the city. Relaxing the lockdown and going back to work will undoubtedly increase both case load and deaths but that can not be avoided for long.
Troubling is the relationship between new cases and deaths. 2535 / 29,000= CFR of 8.7%. If you predict that daily new cases stays steady, which is optimistic while reopening the economy you could have 2535/day for the rest of the year or 650,000 deaths. A tiny portion of 333 million but it will cause political chaos.

A year or more of steady-state 'acceptable' deaths will exhaust our medical staff ... and kill many of them.

[Little John]

I suppose that a 'leaky lockdown' would lead to this steady-state of new cases and deaths.

A more relaxed lock-down could simply increase the level of the steady-state, possibly to a level which overloaded the hospitals.

I consider the present lockdown fairly tight especially in hot spots like New York which is as tight as they can get it considering the logistics of the city. Relaxing the lockdown and going back to work will undoubtedly increase both case load and deaths but that can not be avoided for long.
Troubling is the relationship between new cases and deaths. 2535 / 29,000= CFR of 8.7%. If you predict that daily new cases stays steady, which is optimistic while reopening the economy you could have 2535/day for the rest of the year or 650,000 deaths. A tiny portion of 333 million but it will cause political chaos.

A year or more of steady-state 'acceptable' deaths will exhaust our medical staff ... and kill many of them.

A year or more of economic Armageddon will exhaust a lot more than that and for a lot longer.

Addittionally:

....the deaths among health and social care workers are approximately 0.5 per cent of all deaths, suggesting they are not overrepresented....

https://www.hsj.co.uk/exclusive-deaths- ... 71.article