Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic

[MadGreenSon]

And both Iraq and Afghanistan have cost about a trillion dollars each... so a couple trillion dollars to prevent the risk more of that seems like a sound economic investment in its own right. With or without discussing factors such as morality and human life.

Click to shrink...

Also, stopping quarantine and having the death toll spike and continue to do so will fuck over the economy worse than the quarantine will, it's just that it feels better to those advocating for an end to the lockdown to look like they're doing something to fix it.

 

[evildice]

Remember, this fucking virus (as is fairly typical of a novel disease) kills men at least twice over as much as it kills women (thanks to the reality of lacking a second x chromosome)... and most soldiers are men. You do the math.

Click to shrink...

That math says that we're living in the pilot episode of a wish-fulfillment harem "romance" anime.

(Then we get NEKOVID-21 which turns half the remaining population into catgirls.)


Also, have some memes:

(... but is there is no Cure)

Click to shrink...

Careful, last one's a doozy.


EDIT: Removed one which, when I read it again, seemed more political than necessary.

 

[Germtheory3Z]

Then this is where you should stop. Because from looking at your links, you've got nothing except an ideology driven agenda, a fairly blase disregard for risks as long as it's other people taking them, and zero backup for it other than wishful thinking.

Click to shrink...

I've done a share of legwork so now I'd like to hear what you think the proportionate cost is going to be here. What would the 'nothing done' death rate have been, what would a 'lesser lockdown' death rate have been and what do you think the total costs are going to add up to? Even taking the official numbers at face value I can only see it as completely out of proportion to all our usual priorities.

I don't expect you to believe me now I just hope you check in next month and compare the cost difference of lockdown vs no lockdown countries to anything else you'd like the money spent on, like doctors without borders, roads, schools or whatever.

As it should be, in my opinion. One's right to choose being infected stops being valid as soon as it threatens others' right not to be infected from oneself.

Click to shrink...

I disagree with the precedent even if I'd voluntarily take this one but arguing why would really go off topic.

2 500 000 $ per person sounds as a good a trade, even assuming that full scale pandemic would be without financial costs (on the other hand it also assumes no deaths caused by lockdown, hopefully it is balanced).

2 500 000 $ per person sounds as a good a trade.

Click to shrink...

The cost wouldn't be £500,000 per person, that's the absolute minimum if we assume they save everyone, there are zero private costs like long term unemployment, defaulting on mortgages, losing a business etc and lesser measures wouldn't have saved anyone. The numbers are going to be far, far, higher for the marginal difference when we compare lockdown and non-lockdown countries. Now there is an argument for the lost value of the dead, definitely, but I'd argue the sensible rebuttal is what else could the money be spent on that would save more lives more cheaply? In the UK the money could go directly into the national health service to be spent on anything.

Like I care at all about what you suspect. Interpreting data is not easy but I am confused why you think that your baseless unexplained "suspicion" is worth anything. It is clear that it is not "little worse".

And if there is a credible data that it is flu-level lethal then link data.

Click to shrink...

Psychologically here's what I see going on. Until March everyone who looked at this agreed this was a bad flu like all the other bad flus. Then thanks to the media monofocus it became a political football and the out parties were suddenly able to blame all the deaths on the in parties and the public believed them. That forces the in parties to call their bluff and have huge expensive interventions until the pain of them outweighs the fear of Corona and the public wants them stopped. Meanwhile the out parties want to argue for the highest possible danger to make the in party look irresponsible for doing nothing and the in party wants to argue for the highest possible danger if they'd done nothing, so whatever actually happens seems like proof their efforts did something. Meanwhile most of the public is going to assume because we're doing something this big there has to be a reason. You'll be able to look back in a month or two and see how this really went by comparing countries outcomes.

As for data, even official announcements think the case fatality rates are seriously underestimating the number of cases. The case rate given is around 3% [2] and the number of people infected is around ten times higher than confirmed, tested, cases.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...us-cases-may-have-topped-9-000-scientists-say

As of Saturday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website reported 164 confirmed and presumptive cases in the United States. However, on Sunday, most media reported more than 500 cases in the country.

Click to shrink...

More than 9,000 people in the United States may have been infected with the new coronavirus as of March 1 -- a figure much higher than reported, researchers say.

Click to shrink...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51857856

There have been 596 confirmed cases across the country. However, the actual number of people infected could be between 5,000 and 10,000, the government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said.

Click to shrink...

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/24/science.abb3221

We estimate 86% of all infections were undocumented (95% CI: [82%–90%]) prior to 23 January 2020 travel restrictions.

Click to shrink...

If the case fatality rate is only ~0.3% that's really not much worse than a bad flu season. It would warrant a bigger response but only something proportional to that, like maybe 5 times as much.

There's another argument to be made there about residents in a Chinese industrial city with huge smog problems being more vulnerable to a respiratory problem than most populations too, so those figures might be higher than they would be with a larger sample. Smokers appear to have more problems with this so maybe being exposed to that much air pollution raises your risk similarly?

https://coronawiki.org/page/covid-1...-cessation-during-respiratory-virus-epidemics

Definitive evidence on whether current smokers are at increased risk of disease, morbidity and mortality from covid-19 are, to our best knowledge, not yet available. An article reporting disease outcomes in 1,099 laboratory confirmed cases of covid-19 reported that 12.4% (17/137) of current smokers died, required intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation compared with 4.7% (44/927) among never smokers.

Click to shrink...

 

[zup]

Careful, last one's a doozy.

Click to shrink...

It made both laugh and cry. Good job finding it.

 

[MadGreenSon]

So now you look like you're doing a malevolent con job. Congratulations, you've made yourself look actively evil.

How many people are dead right now? Why are you only pulling shit from more than a month ago?

 

[wichajster]

Now there is an argument for the lost value of the dead, definitely, but I'd argue the sensible rebuttal is what else could the money be spent on that would save more lives more cheaply? In the UK the money could go directly into the national health service to be spent on anything.

Click to shrink...

Yes, lives can be saved more efficiently.

I still think that as far as our society spends money 2 500 000 $ (or 5 000 000 $ or 10 000 000 $) to save one life is still above average of how we spend money so I see no problem with that.

If you have evidence that costs of lockdowns, compared to cost of no lockdowns are actually higher then provide sources.

So far estimates provided by "lockdowns should be ended" people are in my opinion supporting continuation of lockdowns.

Psychologically here's what I see going on. Until March everyone who looked at this agreed this was a bad flu like all the other bad flus.

Click to shrink...

Maybe in media that you consumed, in what I was encountering there was also "just flu, bro" but also plenty of opinion pointing out evidence indicating that may be clearly worse than any flu since 1918.

And anyone even a bit informed was aware that it is virus distinct from flu.

(note, I am not from USA)

If the case fatality rate is only ~0.3% that's really not much worse than a bad flu season. It would warrant a bigger response but only something proportional to that, like maybe 5 times as much.

Click to shrink...

It is also possible that we are underreacting to flu. Note that we are undercounting both infections and deaths. If you have decent sources discussing real infection fatality rate then please link it. And yes, case fatality rate is badly affected by undertesting or testing heavily ill people so statistics like 10% fatality rate over population are clearly a nonsense.




https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

Our current best assumption, as of the 9th April, is the CFR is 0.72% – the lowest end of the current prediction interval and in line with several other estimates.
Evaluating CFR during a pandemic is, however, a very hazardous exercise, and high-end estimates should be treated with caution as the H1N1 pandemic highlights that original estimates were out by a factor greater than 10.

(...)

Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.36%.*
Data from COVID deaths in Gangelt, Germany, suggests an IFR of 0.37%. A random sample of 1,000 residents of Gangelt found that 14% were carrying antibodies (2% were detected cases), which led to the lowering of the IFR estimates
*Demographic changes in the population could vary the IFR significantly. If younger populations are infected more the IFR will be lower. Comorbidities will have a significant impact to increase the IFR: the elderly and those with ≥ 3 comorbidities are at much higher risk.

Click to shrink...

So it appears to be 3 to 4 times deadlier than flu, even with an extreme reaction. Though given uncertainties it may be between "less deadly than flu (after heavy reaction) to ten times deadlier than flu (even after reaction)".

 

[Ragnarok]

A bit aside, I purchased the game Vampyr yesterday, and I had a bit of a giggle when I learned it took place in 1918 at the height of the spanish flu. And you play as a doctor turned vampire. And there are posters telling citizens to stay at home and avoid crowds. And that droplets from sneezing spread it.

This game was released in 2018.

 

[TotalAbsolutism]

A bit aside, I purchased the game Vampyr yesterday, and I had a bit of a giggle when I learned it took place in 1918 at the height of the spanish flu. And you play as a doctor turned vampire. And there are posters telling citizens to stay at home and avoid crowds.

This game was released in 2018.

Click to shrink...

I also learned a fun fact about that epidemic recently. Due to Twitter, of all things.

https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073

Amusingly, there's a typo in their first tweet saying '2018' instead of '1918'; they address it at the end. The TL;DR? People in San Francisco during the Spanish Flu refused to start wearing masks again after initial efforts successfully curbed the spread. Things seemed to be improving, restrictions were lifted, they got worse, they tried to put the restrictions back and people rebelled. Everything got worse.

Gosh, that does sound familiar...

 

[wichajster]

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries is interesting

Basically, one may take statistics about deaths from previous years, and we can usually expect very similar statistics each year.

Sudden unexplained spikes are very suspicious. And in some cases spike of COVID-related death is unable to fully explain death spike. What indicates severe undercounting of deaths in Lombardy, Netherlands or Instanbul and probably catching in statistic nearly all COVID deaths in say NY.

Note that it is very tricky to judge this: maybe with lockdowns expected death count should decrease? That would mean more uncounted COVID deaths.

And for anyone with "tropics report low death rate, it means that it is stopped by warm weather":

Indonesia is one of the first developing countries to have released data about excess mortality—not an official count of deaths from all causes, but instead a tally of burials from Jakarta's department of parks and cemeteries. Typically, the department records about 2,800 burials a month (accounting for roughly 75% of all people who die in the city). But in March, the department reported 4,400 burials, suggesting an excess of at least 1,600 fatalities.

Although Jakarta has been the epicentre of the covid-19 outbreak in Indonesia, at the end of March its official death toll was just 84, barely 5% as high as the excess burials. Even on April 19th, the city's official tally of dead was still only 290. This suggests that the country is drastically under-counting the severity of the outbreak.

Click to shrink...

 

[TotalAbsolutism]

I think it is important to remember that any numbers will probably inaccurate for quite some time given we are still currently in the middle of the pandemic.

 

[wichajster]

Excess mortality data is not very accurate but is often a good tool for judging real death count.

It is less prone to undertesting (or lack of testing), it is available more often, it is less targeted by people willing to distort official statistics.

Main drawback is that it takes all excess mortality together what may both result in too high and too low total number.

 

[Germtheory3Z]

So now you look like you're doing a malevolent con job. Congratulations, you've made yourself look actively evil.

How many people are dead right now?

Click to shrink...

If you aren't willing to look at the costs and benefits of what you're proposing you'll only end up with a far higher bodycount and perverse pride in what you've achieved. Why are Corona deaths sadder than any other death? What, except for the media focus and being in the public eye at this very moment, makes it worse to die from this than cancer, obesity, murder or anything else?

Please go find your own estimates of the costs and benefits, to governments and individuals, and think whether this is good long term. Everything that goes into this is going to come out of something else later. People won't be able to afford to eat well, they won't be able to afford medical treatment, they won't be able to afford this, that or the other. Unemployment and financial stress cause lots of health problems that are going to effect a lot of people long term and government spending will need to be cut in a lot of fields to cover the debt. This isn't just some trade off of video games and holidays to save grandparents' lives here, this will come at real cost to real people, including their lives.

Why are you only pulling shit from more than a month ago?

Click to shrink...

These keep coming out, I already showed you the Iceland and Massachusetts study as well. Here's yet another for six days ago that gives as much as 50 times reported cases.

I still think that as far as our society spends money 2 500 000 $ (or 5 000 000 $ or 10 000 000 $) to save one life is still above average of how we spend money so I see no problem with that.

If you have evidence that costs of lockdowns, compared to cost of no lockdowns are actually higher then provide sources.

So far estimates provided by "lockdowns should be ended" people are in my opinion supporting continuation of lockdowns.

Click to shrink...

Those figures I showed were just for current known government spending, there are going to be direct and indirect deaths resulting from the lockdown as well you can compare directly that won't be known for years. If someone loses their job or business and can't afford medical treatment next year that can be counted directly against this, for example. Then personal spending government spending will need to be cut in a whole range of fields to pay the debt and that'll cut into quality of life years somewhere and add up to megadeaths. The sums could get worse if the lockdown is extended much longer.

To look at the lockdown costs I think the fairest thing is probably to compare the Netherlands or Sweden to their neighbors once the numbers are in, but naturally if everyone near you decides to jump off a cliff to a recession there's nothing you can do to avoid having one of your own and needing to spend money to fix the problems that causes.

For a current source one pro lockdown study I've been shown actually claims there's a benefit of +5 Trillion to the US economy of the lock down by pricing each death at 10 million dollars and thinks social distancing would save around a million lives. They give the lockdown cost to GDP as ~14 Trillion and the loss without a lockdown as ~6.5 Trillion. It also demonstrates the problem we're having from no-one really wanting to discuss quality of life years vs number of lives. If a virus is mostly hitting the elderly with health problems then the number of quality years lost is significantly lower than the base death toll would suggest and pricing that at the $10 million benchmark is just silly. You haven't 'saved' someone at that age the same way you could a ten year old who'd been hit by a car, you buy them another few months or if you're lucky years of decent living before something else gets them. You also need to seriously consider whether it's pointlessly cruel or not to prolong their lives with an end of life month long hospital stay in ICU or let them go with morphine. (There's even an argument the 'flatten the curve' focus on providing ICU places for them is basically pointless anyway, since I keep seeing reports that 85%+ of people who get put on ventilators die anyway.)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561934

Using a $10 million value of reduced mortality risk (VSL) for the lives saved, the benefits of social distancing are $12.4 trillion. The cost of social distancing is the difference in present value terms of the GDP losses without ($6.49 trillion) and with ($13.7 trillion) the policy, which is $7.21 trillion. The main result is in the bottom row: under our benchmark assumptions, social distancing generates net benefits of about $5.16 trillion

Click to shrink...

It is also possible that we are underreacting to flu. Note that we are undercounting both infections and deaths. If you have decent sources discussing real infection fatality rate then please link it. And yes, case fatality rate is badly affected by undertesting or testing heavily ill people so statistics like 10% fatality rate over population are clearly a nonsense.

So it appears to be 3 to 4 times deadlier than flu, even with an extreme reaction. Though given uncertainties it may be between "less deadly than flu (after heavy reaction) to ten times deadlier than flu (even after reaction)".

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't mind a few changes to how we deal with sickness in general, especially making masks socially acceptable in western countries and making sick leave more of a public duty than a luxury, but talking about Corona specifically there are lots of testing studies out there. I can keep linking studies of tests of the public finding far more infected than predicted, but the only way I can see to prove deaths aren't being vastly under reported is to look at all causes mortality.

This is another recent study testing the public.

These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

Click to shrink...

In the UK all causes mortality stats that exclude corona deaths have stayed stable at around 11,000 a week until this last week where we spike up to 16,000 which is probably Corona or people who couldn't get treatment because of Corona and should probably add into the figure. If we add ~5,000 people to the total of 18,000 it doesn't move the meter much if the actual infection spread could be 10 times the reported figure or several times that.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/weekly-all-cause-mortality-surveillance-2019-to-2020

Overall it just seems like the whole thing will be proven counter productive. Everyone got infected anyway, lots of people will suffer horribly to pay for it and the ICU treatment we were banking everything on either didn't work or was somehow actively counterproductive.

 

[MadGreenSon]

So.... if you're so certain, go out and get infected and tell us how that goes. Do remember to spread it to everyone you care about while you're at it.

 

[Ragnarok]

Why are Corona deaths sadder than any other death?

Click to shrink...

Well I don't know about you, but I find drowning in my own fluid-filled lungs is a pretty horrific way to go.

 

[Imabot]

Well I don't know about you, but I find drowning in my own fluid-filled lungs is a pretty horrific way to go.

Click to shrink...

I also sad because it's guaranteed that those people died alone. Nobody, friends or family, was allowed to be by their side in final moments. Doctors and Nurses are to busy trying to take care of other sick, and can't spare much time to offer even minimum of comfort of top of fact they must minimize amount of contact to avoid catching virus and getting sick.

 

[d.fish]

What the fuck. Are we seriously asking this.

 

[Germtheory3Z]

So.... if you're so certain, go out and get infected and tell us how that goes. Do remember to spread it to everyone you care about while you're at it.

Click to shrink...

You've not contributed anything to the discussion so actually go do some legwork here will you? Find sources you trust and get an estimate for the numbers you think would die in a fully infected population, the average life expectancy of those who would die, and the total costs of the lockdown we're under. Times the number of years by the number of people and divide the cost by that number. Once you've got that number ask yourself whether that's the amount you want to be taxed to pay for for the rest of your life or whether you've gotten worked up emotionally and aren't acting rationally. We can debate the numbers from there without acting childish.

Well I don't know about you, but I find drowning in my own fluid-filled lungs is a pretty horrific way to go.

Click to shrink...

Have you ever read, watched or seen anything about how people die? What late stage dementia looks like? What living with terminal cancer and the chemo treatments is like? What suffering a stroke feels like? If you aren't coming at this form an experienced background you just aren't talking rationally, you're mono focusing on the current scare. We see other people are scared, we get scared, they get scared and we all build shit up in our minds out of proportion. You can rise above that if you want to.

 

[Xicree]

... don't be fucking stupid please.

Pretty much every one of our members who is an ACTUAL MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL has pretty much let you know that this is the real deal.

Beyond that you need to sit down and remember that there is a lag between spreading and deaths. A lag which includes spreading via sources who don't know that they can spread.



And you know whats even worse than your stupid argument that this is worse for the economy than getting back to work before it's done? Its the fact that doing so will SMASH the economy ten times worse... and it only takes a little bit of commonsense to realize why.

1. Economy is made of lots of people making decisions to spend money on things and services.
2. The economy depends on those people feeling like its safe to spend that money because they'll be able to gather money to spend again.
3. Going places to spend money means that you mix and mingle with other people.
4. If enough people are sick but not showing it, and if enough people mingle in places where business is... then that means that those business around the areas that people got sick will see a sudden and catastrophic decline in business.
5. If people are told its safe to go out, and it turns out not to be safe then they will STOP GOING OUT no matter what ANYONE SAYS ABOUT IT.



Ie... You don't MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS GOOD first before letting people get back to work... then you have FUCKED yourself and your economy completely. Shattered the one thing that holds economies together. CONFIDENCE that tomorrow will be akin to today.


It irks me something fierce that people are actually arguing to sacrifice their parents and grandparents for the sake of 'the economy' when that's essentially burning people at an alter for a missing god.


This is a Natural Disaster. A big slow-moving one... act like it. The economy bounces back easily if there are PEOPLE with CONFIDENCE to bring it back. We see it after every natural disaster across the world. This is no different.

 

[TanaNari]

What late stage dementia looks like? What living with terminal cancer and the chemo treatments is like? What suffering a stroke feels like?

Click to shrink...

False equivalency. All of those diseases are ones we have little to no ability to control or prevent... they're tragedies, but they're inevitable tragedies (for the time being- I have confidence that we'll have legitimate cures to cancer and gene treatments to curb the others within my lifetime).

What you're talking about is a disease that can, with effort, be prevented from hurting others. It isn't like dealing with cancer because we have no choice... it's like intentionally exposing people to deadly carcinogens. And not even the way the tobacco companies did it by lying about evidence for decades- one way or another, people choose to smoke. No, this is more like dumping thousands of gallons of lead and mercury into the environment where it will inflict indiscriminate harm upon countless innocents.

Fun fact... there used to be lead in gasoline, for reasons I'm sure made sense at the time... now it's illegal to use lead in gas, and indeed for most things lead was used for (pipes, utensils, paint, etc). Then there's asbestos, also now illegal. And I support those being illegal because they had a tendency to kill people in horrible ways. Do you disagree?

 

[OverReactionGuy]

This virus is a horrible way to go. That's all I'll say in this matter.

 

[OverMaster]

If you aren't willing to look at the costs and benefits of what you're proposing you'll only end up with a far higher bodycount and perverse pride in what you've achieved. Why are Corona deaths sadder than any other death? What, except for the media focus and being in the public eye at this very moment, makes it worse to die from this than cancer, obesity, murder or anything else?

Click to shrink...

Maybe it has something to do with the fact deaths from cancer, obesity and murder aren't contagied quickly across the whole globe on some exponential rate, and instead are reliant on separate incidents that are not connected to each other in an international web that needs to be stopped?

 

[lost star]

Why are people arguing that the quarantine will stop the virus? That's demonstrably untrue. At best it slows it down, and our halfassed way of doing it doesn't even seem to be doing that.

 

[TotalAbsolutism]

Why are people arguing that the quarantine will stop the virus? That's demonstrably untrue. At best it slows it down, and our halfassed way of doing it doesn't even seem to be doing that.

Click to shrink...

It does if you do it right. I invite you to examine the statistics for NZ and Australia. Mine and mishie's countries are totally winning the pandemic.

 

[Xicree]

Why are people arguing that the quarantine will stop the virus? That's demonstrably untrue. At best it slows it down, and our halfassed way of doing it doesn't even seem to be doing that.

Click to shrink...

That's kinda the point.

It needs to be done and needs to be done properly to slow it down to a point where it is Easier to weather. Not doing it properly basically just exposes you to more damage than otherwise.


Not that weathering it isn't costly and damaging... just LESS than not doing so. Because if you let it spread too much then it will hit a point where the hospital system cannot keep up. That is the point at which you will REALLY see deaths.

 

[TanaNari]

At best it slows it down, and our halfassed way of doing it doesn't even seem to be doing that.

Click to shrink...

First: slowing it is enough to save thousands of lives in the long run. It's bought time for people and healthcare industries to prepare for the coming storm and reduced the total numbers infected- more importantly, it means an order of magnitude fewer people infected at any given time, though it does mean it'll take longer for the fire to burn itself out. "Flattening the curve" as they say.

Second: the quarantine is *working* in most places. A handful of exceptions- notably the ones caught with their pants down (Italy), didn't heed the warnings (the middle-east and Africa), and/or have large population of uncooperative and/or transient residents (in the USA, that would be New York City, Chicago, and Urban California)- but the overwhelming majority of places are seeing excellent results, no matter what some appallingly cynical political actors are trying to claim in order to attack whichever party they happen to hate this week.

We're winning this war, faster and more effectively than I expected, in spite of the occasional lost battle. Actually, part of the problem is the results are too good. Much like the idiocy that is anti-vaxxers... people aren't being directly hurt by the virus in most areas, and so many of those people fail to comprehend the beast that's being fought against and how well that fight is going.

Unlike, say, smallpox... a similarly infective (admittedly more destructive) disease which at the time of its extinction had ravaged billions, and which everyone agreed should be stamped out no matter the costs, because everyone on Earth had first hand knowledge of what it represented.

 

[Xicree]

Actually, part of the problem is the results are too good.

Click to shrink...

Yeah pretty much. I really don't want to down play Corona... but the virus itself is not nearly as bad as we COULD have gotten.

And yes this is looking at EXACTLY how terrible it is right now. It is not half the killer it COULD have been.


And we should probably count ourselves lucky that this is what we've been put to the first test with... because Yes. It could have been WAY WAY worse.

 

[lost star]

It does if you do it right. I invite you to examine the statistics for NZ and Australia.

Click to shrink...

I was talking about the US myself, which is admittedly my bad, but since you asked...

I'm using this because it has an easy to read graph: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/ Let me know if you use something different.

If you look at the cases, it looks like you're containing it. If you look at the deaths, it doesn't. In fact, you seem to have had a spike in deaths after the lockdown came into effect if I'm getting my dates right.

Which brings us to a problem about this disease. Testing has been horribly done almost all over. It's typically just for people feeling ill, and has been constrained by faulty and contaminated testing.

That's kinda the point.

Click to shrink...

Look at this graph and tell me when the lockdown started. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Keep in mind it has an incubation period. You should be seeing a slightly less steep angle around the start of April.

Second: the quarantine is *working* in most places.

Click to shrink...

Show me statically that our quarantine procedures have been working. Seriously. I am not seeing it at all.

 

[evildice]

Show me statically that our quarantine procedures have been working. Seriously. I am not seeing it at all.

Click to shrink...

It's this, from your link:

Daily new cases are NOT currently growing exponentially.

That's a quarantine working.

You're looking at a linear graph and noticing that it's increasing, which is bad, and that's valid but misleading.

Linear growth is what it looks like when we're winning. Exponential growth is what would happen normally, and that would be significantly worse.

 

[Xicree]

I was talking about the US myself, which is admittedly my bad, but since you asked...

I'm using this because it has an easy to read graph: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/ Let me know if you use something different.

If you look at the cases, it looks like you're containing it. If you look at the deaths, it doesn't. In fact, you seem to have had a spike in deaths after the lockdown came into effect if I'm getting my dates right.

Which brings us to a problem about this disease. Testing has been horribly done almost all over. It's typically just for people feeling ill, and has been constrained by faulty and contaminated testing.

Look at this graph and tell me when the lockdown started. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Keep in mind it has an incubation period. You should be seeing a slightly less steep angle around the start of April.

Show me statically that our quarantine procedures have been working. Seriously. I am not seeing it at all.

Click to shrink...

That's kinda the issue with a virus that spreads like it does LS. The biggest issue actually.


Deaths are a LAGGING indicator. Ie even when things are getting better the number of deaths will continue to grow up until a certain point. Death totals will always be at LEAST 2 weeks (and even up to a month or more) behind. Measures you take Today won't show any of the effects for a month later... and many of those effects will be obscured by the fact that... more people Not getting it is harder to quantify than more people getting it. You can literally get to a point where you have completely stopped it from spreading and Still be bleeding people by ever increasing numbers because you didn't stop it spreading early enough.


This is one of those really terrible situations where... if you did a good job, you don't get to know cause nothing changes... and if you did a bad job it becomes obvious cause everything is on fire.

 

[lost star]

Daily new cases are NOT currently growing exponentially.

That's a quarantine working.

Click to shrink...

Now do Sweden, which has no lockdown:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/