Covid-19

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This virus has a 20% world kill rate versus those who have recovered. In the US 32% have died versus those who have recovered.

You might want to double-check your numbers--the actual mortality rate is not anywhere close to 20%.

Fox article asks: Would you give up health or location data to return to work? The answer is obvious: hell no. You don't need my data and you damned sure won't get me to voluntarily give it. Track me by an app on my phone? I'll just throw it in a lake and get a new phone.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Italian bishop breaks ranks to publicly challenge coronavirus restrictions [In-Depth]

Don Angelo leads the Way of Cross liturgy at the Ospedale di Circolo in Varese, Italy, Friday, April 10, 2020. (Credit: Luca Bruno/AP)


Now that Italy has begun to relax some of its restrictions, allowing bookstores, stationary shops and stories for babies and children to reopen today, there are signs the compact between church and state over church closures may be fraying.


ROME -- Dating back to March 8, when the bishops' conference announced the suspension of all public Masses in keeping with government measures to combat the coronavirus, Italy's ecclesiastical lockdown is the longest-running in the world, and to date support at the leadership level has been remarkably compact.

On Holy Saturday, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte wrote to Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian bishops, to thank them for the cooperation.

"Above all, I desire to express my gratitude for having taken the painful decision to celebrate the liturgies sine populo ("without people"), in the awareness of the greater good involved in this difficult chapter of our national story," Conte wrote, himself a Catholic whose uncle was a Capuchin friar and assistant to St. Padre Pio.

"The Italian church once again has demonstrated its natural vocation to dialogue and cooperation with civil institutions, and its capacity to read, with wisdom and discernment, the signs of the times," Conte said.

Yet now that Italy has begun to relax some of its restrictions, allowing bookstores, stationary shops and stores for babies and children to reopen today, there are signs the compact between church and state may be fraying.

On Easter, Archbishop Riccardo Fontana of Arezzo became the first Italian prelate to push a government official publicly about the shutdown.

"Why is it okay to go to the market to buy an artichoke, but not to go to church for the blessing of olive oil?" Fontana asked during a traditional Easter evening TV message to the citizens of Arezzo, with Mayor Alessandro Ghinelli also taking part.

Fontana's reference was the usual Holy Thursday Chrism Mass, when oils are blessed to be used in sacraments throughout the year. In late March, the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments ruled that local bishops could decide to reschedule the Chrism Mass but not other Holy Week liturgies.

"The cathedral is the largest covered edifice in the city, so explain to me why it's permitted to enter supermarkets in reasonable numbers but not the church," Fontana said. While insisting that the local church has been obedient, he also called the limits on sacramental life "horrible" and a source of "great suffering."

A seemingly startled Ghinelli replied that the restrictive measures, which he called "a sacrifice for everyone," are intended to end the crisis as quickly as possible.

"The sooner we can get out of this situation, the sooner we can hug each other again," he said.

Though Fontana is the first bishop to break ranks in such a public fashion, he's hardly the only religious voice in Italy questioning the logic of the complete suspension of normal church life.

[...]

Yet the coronavirus restrictions also have prominent defenders in the Italian church.

Theologian Vito Mancuso, a laicized ex-priest who's a theological protégé of Archbishop Bruone Forte, a key ally and adviser to Pope Francis, dismissed calls from some Italian politicians to reopen churches in an Easter interview.

"Those who've backed reopening the churches in order to gain a few points in the polls are part of that category of humanity that's always used God to support their earthly traffic," Mancuso said. "There's never any shortage of them, but it has nothing to do with spirituality."

For now, it remains to be seen when Italy's government may greenlight a gradual return to normal ecclesiastical life.

[...]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hundreds of vehicles surrounded the Capitol building in Lansing as "Operation Gridlock" got underway to protest Governor Whitmer's executive overreach, under which retailers are forbidden from selling "non-essential" items--the definition of "essential" is, well, not defined, so it could be anything--and bans even small family get-togethers of any size--technically, a family unit could not have a backyard picnic or they would violate the directives.

Social distancing? Fine, okay, whatever--just stand over there.

Force-close all business and tell business what they will or will not sell? Fuck that shit. All small businesses should just go back to work tomorrow morning with limited customer access--perhaps by appointment only--and have employees keep their distance from each other when possible.

What are they going to do, arrest *everyone*? Good old-fashioned civil disobedience and defiance is what we need right now because although there may be life there is neither liberty nor the pursuit of happiness.

[TheFallen]

...and in the least surprising news of the day, as predicted (but sadly not by them), the re-re-revised projection of cumulative Italian coronavirus deaths to occur by the 4th of August this year made by the utter geniuses at the IHME got surpassed again today.

For info, the latest IHME projection (made 2 days ago) on this was 21,130 Italian deaths by Aug 4th. Today's official released figures from Italy state a total so far of 21,645...

So yet again the IHME's ultra-sophisticated modelling algorithms have been categorically and indisputably proven to be 100+ days out. That is orders of magnitude wrong and as such, one helluva fuck-up... but one that's now occurred three times and counting.

I can barely contain my excitement at the next re-re-re-vised pearls of wisdom to be announced by these clueless and howling morons.

[SoulBiter]

Just because I am a math person and a spreadsheet person I thought I would take a trip down the lane of darkness and try to anticipate how many deaths between now and June from Covid-19. That is using the same scale that Obi and Hashi thinks is bent. But its what I have to work with.

28K deaths in the US.... 2400 in this last day. Even if the infection rate slows, this will continue for weeks after. Average over the last couple of weeks is 2K per day. By my calculations in 16 days we will be at the 60K deaths in the US total.

March 1 = 6 deaths
March 31 = 4064 deaths
April 15 = 28383 deaths

That's 24,321 deaths in 15 days.

April 30 = 57K deaths.

That assumes we have reached the peak. Reduced deaths will lag the peak by a number of weeks.

Mid May 80K deaths,

Assuming the number of deaths takes a significant turn to the better during May.

May 31 = 90K deaths

That's on the optimistic side. I actually think it will be higher.

June 10th - 100K

Lets take a look at this as time progresses and see if my math holds out.

I know some of you are going to poo on these calcs. But hey, lets take a look at this as time progresses and see if my math and estimates hold out.

FYI-
I am not a doom and gloom person. In fact I am mostly an optimist. I also think we need to open the economy and soon, while we have one left to save.. But be aware that the numbers will be higher than many think. Its now at a point where its unavoidable to think we can save everyone and we did what we were supposed to and try to turn the peak. To give time for resources to be made available.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I was going to use the data from the Johns Hopkins site, starting from 1 February until the most recent numbers. I will probably have to start that tonight, though--about to shut down job A then head to job B. The United States is about to hit its distribution curve's peak.

[TheFallen]

28K deaths in the US.... 2400 in this last day. Even if the infection rate slows, this will continue for weeks after. Average over the last couple of weeks is 2K per day. By my calculations in 16 days we will be at the 60K deaths in the US total.

March 1 = 6 deaths
March 31 = 4064 deaths
April 15 = 28383 deaths

That's 24,321 deaths in 15 days.

April 30 = 57K deaths.

That assumes we have reached the peak. Reduced deaths will lag the peak by a number of weeks.

Mid May 80K deaths,

Assuming the number of deaths takes a significant turn to the better during May.

May 31 = 90K deaths

That's on the optimistic side. I actually think it will be higher.

June 10th - 100K

Lets take a look at this as time progresses and see if my math holds out.

Heh... welcome to the macabrely fascinating pastime of COVID-19 bingo, SB.

I'm already on record from back on April 3rd with the following predictions:-

a) 750,000 cases of identified infection in the US by April 15th (I've got this one wrong and overcalled it slightly. The official figures on Apr 14th were 614k, so therefore the US won't hit my 750k case prediction until the 19th - and so I'll end up being 4 days out).

b) 33,000 US deaths by end April. That one I left myself loads of leeway in and that threshold will be reached within the next 2 or 3 days. (Though to be fair, I did actually say it'd end up being closer to 50k by the end of this month).

c) 100,000 US deaths by end 2020. That one is more distant, but I still reckon my estimate is hugely conservative and that this threshold will be reached at the very least 3 to 4 months sooner. Maybe not mid-June, but certainly around end Aug.

d) 1 million global deaths by end 2020. Ditto.

The first thing I have to say about your predictions is that they differ massively from what the idiots at the IHME are projecting...

...so that obviously counts massively in your favour.

The IHME's projected deaths for the US have pendulumed wildly over the last ten days. They started off at 81k deaths by early Aug, then were dropped a few days later to just 60k, but were then hiked up again after another couple of days back to 68k. Needless to say, all these projections must clearly be the most unreliable of horseshit, because their modelling algorithms blatantly obviously suffer from such fragility - as evidenced by the huge swings in numbers that each of their revised projections displays.

I'll say again that I still don't think that death figures are the most important or even relevant data points to watch. I think that cases of infection are much more telling at this stage of things.

However, I don't much differ from your projections, at least in the short term. The US does now seem to be plateauing in terms of newly identified infections (around 27k a day) and of course you're absolutely right to point out that it takes a fair while (I reckon between 3 and 4 weeks) for these to work their way though the system to one of two conclusions.

So I reckon you'll be close (within 15%) with your end Apr prediction. That'll make you a whole lot closer than the bozos upon whose advice the government is relying to inform its strategy.

[peter]

Flattening the curve is only as significant as what you can do with the time you buy and the efficacy of your existing practices in terms of survival rates. Of the people who are hospitalised due to Covid infection how many survive compared to how many would survive anyway if none were hospitalised? It's cynical, but the old vets used to talk of the "seventy - ten" rule (I forget the exact figures, but it was something like this) that practicioners could trade on. The deal was that seventy percent of the presented cases would get better of their own accord anyway and ten percent were fated to die no matter what you did. Pretty substandard vets could get away with practicing purely on the basis of this 'rule' because their survival/success rates were always carried by the 'would have got better anyway group' anyway.

This is difficult stuff to know - but if flattening the curve only means that your health service is not overwhelmed while you oversee much the same death numbers, simply stretched out along a longer time-line - then the destruction of the world economy on the back of the lockdown policy doesn't seem such a good trade off after all. If on the other hand, we really can use the time to get a safe vaccine, develop better treatments and ultimately save significant numbers of lives that would otherwise be lost, then yes - by all means wreck the economies of multiple countries, impose restrictions that the free world has never experienced in its history, change all our lives and future paths irretrevably and irreversibly - but be damn sure that the candle is worth the wick before you do so.

[TheFallen]

So... that's now three consecutive days of sub 5% growth in the number of newly identified coronavirus cases in the US, with around 28k being the average number of new cases reported over those three days.

On that basis and as previously promised, I'll now say - albeit with just a small amount of confidence - that the US has moved - currently at least - out of the rapid growth phase and apparently onto a plateau.

No doubt in large part down to the various social distancing measures (both recommended and mandated). The UK is following a nigh on identical pattern.

The questions that will now be of major interest are...

i) how long will that plateau last before newly identified cases start to drop?

ii) what's the period of "lag" before the number of deaths (current growth rate still 9.5% in the US) reaches the same plateau?

and most importantly of all,

iii) what will happen to the rates of change and the numbers once government-imposed social distancing starts to be eased?

On that latter point, I note that Spain, Austria and Denmark have started to ease things, with the latter re-opening schools. Germany is set to alow some shops to re-open as of the start of next week. Italy remains tightly locked down, though.

Here in the UK, we look set to extend the tight lockdown for a second period of three weeks, so up to the end of the first week in May.(this will be decided upon today, but it's a very solid bet). This is perhaps unsurprising, given that we were around three weeks behind Spain and Italy in following a very similar pattern. We also will get some benefit in being able to see at lease some early numbers coming in from those European nations that are now starting to relax things, which will of course help to inform our decisions over here.

In terms of the eventual effects of coronavirus from a global point of view, it'll be worth keeping a close eye on India, Brazil and Russia (what with all three nations being in the top ten most populous and between them accounting for over 22% of the global population). Brazil and Russia are both currently reporting high growth rates - you can decide for yourselves what the truth/accuracy/comprehensiveness of their reported number are.

Peter I agree pretty much entirely with what you've just posted... except with the major caveat that "being damn sure" of anything was never a viable option, unfortunately.

And even when the dust finally settles on this pandemic, we'll still be unsure whether we did the right things or not - even with the benefit of hindsight. Never being able to know the outcome of routes not taken and all that...

Taking your 70-10 example purely hypothetically and brutally simplistically, in that case we could assume that if there was no veterinary care at all, the remaining and affectable 20% would die, giving a total death percentage of 30%. And if there were entirely sufficient and totally effective vet resources available for all animals requiring veterinary care, that remaining and affectable 20% would instead of course survive, following suitable treatment and resulting in a total death percentage of 10%.

It is as you know purely a matter of weighing up what the relative value (measured using any set of standards you choose) of being able to save that affectable 20% is. (Of course, I'm completely ignoring the chunk of that 20% that would die, even with the best vet care in the world).

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

22 million Americans have now filed for unemployment in the last 4 weeks. Time to let the young and healthy go back to work.

[Ur Dead]

22 million Americans have now filed for unemployment in the last 4 weeks. Time to let the young and healthy go back to work.

So what industry are those young ones in?
What job did they have last?
If it was i the restaurant business, you see that it has slack off a bit.
What new job can they do without a whole lot of training?
Sticky position..

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

22 million Americans have now filed for unemployment in the last 4 weeks. Time to let the young and healthy go back to work.

So what industry are those young ones in?
What job did they have last?

Ummm, probably lots of different ones. Not sure that it matters.

[TheFallen]

Completely separately amid the doom and gloom, I think a genuinely heart-warming human interest story would be well worth posting here:-

Capt Tom Moore finishes NHS fundraiser as it tops 13m pounds

A 99-year-old war veteran has walked 100 laps of his garden to raise more than UKP 13m for the NHS.

Captain Tom Moore originally wanted to raise UKP 1,000 for NHS Charities Together by completing laps of his garden before his 100th birthday.

But he smashed his target after more than 650,000 people made donations to his fundraising page.

As he finished the challenge, he said: "I feel fine, I hope you're all feeling fine too."

...

Capt Tom began raising funds to thank the "magnificent" NHS staff who helped him with treatment for cancer and a broken hip.

With the aid of a walking frame, he completed 100 laps of the 25-metre (82ft) loop in his garden in Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire, in 10-lap chunks well before his birthday on 30 April.

...

Capt Tom, who is originally from Keighley in West Yorkshire, trained as a civil engineer before enlisting in the Army for World War Two, rising to captain and serving in India and Myanmar, also known as Burma.

Here's your link to the story

...and here's your link to the JustGiving page set up for him

I've just looked again at the relevant JustGiving page and since that story was written an hour ago, he's almost up to 15 million pounds. Not bad for an old age pensioner, once a captain in WW2, who's two weeks away from his 100th birthday and who had set out with the modest intention to raise just a thousand pounds in an effort to show his gratitude for the treatment he received from the NHS...

Hats off to Captain Tom. What an extraordinary man. What a genuine legend.

*** Added later edit ***

Captain Tom's JustGiving page is now showing over 15 million pounds and also no signs of stopping. Plus I ought to mention in that BBC story I linked to, there's a short video showing him completing the 100th lap of his garden... and as he did so, there was s guard of honour sent by his old regiment lining his garden path, all saluting him. That probably meant more to him than anything else.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my usual levels of cynicism about human nature in general have definitely been at least temporarily reduced...

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

You might want to double-check your numbers--the actual mortality rate is not anywhere close to 20%.

He said that the death toll was 20% of the total for dead and recovered (or was 20% vs. just recovered). Recovered is now at ~528,000, so dead or recovered are ~667,000, so 139,000/528,000 or 139,000/667,000 is the kind of ratio he's talking about.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not claiming victimhood at all. I am pointing out that your typical position on such things has devolved into an uncharacteristically coarse and irrational series of rants.

Point-by-point rebuttal of your statements isn't a rant. That's called a debate. I've always been course (though where have I been course here?), but here's nothing irrational about my statements.

I don't care that you disagree with me, though I'm surprised that you do. You've ignored my stated position on things like the infection rate (it doesn't matter if the virus doesn't make most people sick and symptomatic) in favor of.....I can't even tell what, as you're all over the place with your posts.

What is the infection rate? You keep making points about "the numbers" but never mention any.

I don't think that this virus is a crisis. I've explained why I believe that. The numbers that continue to come in support that position. You disagree. I don't think that it's worth upending our economy and abrogating our rights. You disagree.

You said you wouldn't support the measures we've taken even if the death toll was 10 million. So I don't know why you bother talking about "the numbers" at all. A slight lowering (relative to 10 million) of the projections is irrelevant to your original standard. Why don't you just repeat, "It's not 10 million!" over and over, instead of pretending like anything else matters?

I'm not sure why this has set you off, but it clearly has. That was not my intention, as I value your posts with considerable weight.

I'm not "set off." Nor panicking. Nor bullheaded. Nor ranting. Nor any of the other unflattering ways you address the person instead of the argument.

The argument: Do you think overwhelming our health care system would have been a crisis, even if 10 million people didn't die, or not?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I don't care that you disagree with me, though I'm surprised that you do. You've ignored my stated position on things like the infection rate (it doesn't matter if the virus doesn't make most people sick and symptomatic) in favor of.....I can't even tell what, as you're all over the place with your posts.

What is the infection rate? You keep making points about "the numbers" but never mention any.

Because we don't have good numbers. Without comprehensive testing and tracking, there's no way of knowing what the infection rate actually is. And good luck finding any source that nails down a concrete number. We think that the RO is somewhere around 2-2.5, but even that's a guess.

But more to the point, even if it's insanely contagious, it's not very lethal. Pink Eye is insanely contagious, but so what?

I don't think that this virus is a crisis. I've explained why I believe that. The numbers that continue to come in support that position. You disagree. I don't think that it's worth upending our economy and abrogating our rights. You disagree.

You said you wouldn't support the measures we've taken even if the death toll was 10 million. So I don't know why you bother talking about "the numbers" at all. A slight lowering (relative to 10 million) of the projections is irrelevant to your original standard. Why don't you just repeat, "It's not 10 million!" over and over, instead of pretending like anything else matters?

Because that's not my position, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

The argument: Do you think overwhelming our health care system would have been a crisis, even if 10 million people didn't die, or not?

Maybe that's your argument, it's not mine. But I'll play along. I don't think we were ever at risk for that. In certain high-density areas it's an issue, for the majority of the country it's not.

I have laid out in detail that I think this "crisis" was reacted to poorly. I believe that China screwed the world over with their lies, propaganda, misinformation, and secrecy. And I believe that when it became clear that this virus wasn't as lethal as initially feared (which is a good thing, not sure why you keep arguing against that), the feds and the states should have changed the way they were dealing with it.

The argument: The average lifespan in the US is 78. 75% of the fatalities from this virus are people over 65, with 50% of the total fatalities coming from those over 75. The vast majority of the remaining 25% had additional risk factors (smoking, obesity, other medical issues) that made them at-risk. Do you think that putting 22,000,000 (and counting) people out of work, making it a crime to be in a group of more than 10, and all the other extreme reactions were warranted?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

What is the infection rate?

Globally or by country? Check the Johns Hopkins site--for global numbers divided "active cases" by the global population you can find at worldometers (just round to the nearest thousand, you can't keep up with the hundreds or tens) but that will give you a very small rate. Here in Texas the infection rate is 0.053428%; New York's rate is 1.067%--is is 20 times worse there than it is here, mostly because of population density and Cuomo did not restrict flights or access to the airport. Don't forget--at one time Texas had the most cases because we were quarantining them at Lackland in San Antonio.

When we look back we will see the things which work--wearing masks/gloves in public, keeping our distance from each other, restricting customer access to stores based on floor area--and we will see the things which did not work or made other situations worse--actual "stay inside your home" orders, force-closing businesses, restricting First Amendment rights about gathering in groups.

[Ur Dead]

This virus has a 20% world kill rate versus those who have recovered. In the US 32% have died versus those who have recovered.

You might want to double-check your numbers--the actual mortality rate is not anywhere close to 20%.

Going by the John Hopkins site..

How I'm getting those numbers is; I use only the ones who survived and the one who died. Can't use the others because they are still considered sick
and havn't died nor recovered. It skews the known deaths/recovered ratio.
As of today the death rate is still 20%
But like all things.. the data may be flaw because we really don't know how many have really died or recovered.

[Zarathustra]

But more to the point, even if it's insanely contagious, it's not very lethal. Pink Eye is insanely contagious, but so what?

I don't understand how you keep missing the point. Pink eye doesn't threaten the integrity and availability of our health care system.

Because that's not my position, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

That's what you said: "I'd rather have 10,000,000 Americans die from this rather than see the government take our rights away."

The argument: Do you think overwhelming our health care system would have been a crisis, even if 10 million people didn't die, or not?

Maybe that's your argument, it's not mine.

It's the reason for the current measures. If it's not "your argument," it's only because you're not arguing the issue at hand, but instead some strawman figment about death toll and pink eye.

But I'll play along. I don't think we were ever at risk for that. In certain high-density areas it's an issue, for the majority of the country it's not.

Based on what?? The "numbers" that you say we don't know? There's nothing special about New York, except population density. The rest of the country doesn't have some special immunity. What is happening there could have happened everywhere else, except slower. The reason it *didn't* happen is because of the extreme measures we've taken, not some imaginary "it's not that big a deal" logic you back up with unspecified numbers. You've literally been making the same argument back when only 20 people had died. The numbers are meaningless to your points. 10 million or 20, the argument is the same, and it's not based on what's actually happening. Even with the extreme measures we've taken, infections are still going up, and our health care infrastructure is being stretched to the max--in some places. Without the extreme measures, many orders of magnitude would have been sick and flooded the hospitals.

. . . when it became clear that this virus wasn't as lethal as initially feared (which is a good thing, not sure why you keep arguing against that), the feds and the states should have changed the way they were dealing with it.

You keep saying "it's clear," but I've outlined how your logic isn't clear at all. You are free to make it clear, but you don't. You just keep repeating how clear it is.

I'm not arguing against the virus not being as lethal as thought. As I've said over and over, I'm not really considering lethality at all. I just don't think you've proven your point. Has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad, and you won't find a single quote where I've said otherwise.

Now, with that said, I do think it's time to move forward and get the economy going again.

The argument: The average lifespan in the US is 78. 75% of the fatalities from this virus are people over 65, with 50% of the total fatalities coming from those over 75. The vast majority of the remaining 25% had additional risk factors (smoking, obesity, other medical issues) that made them at-risk. Do you think that putting 22,000,000 (and counting) people out of work, making it a crime to be in a group of more than 10, and all the other extreme reactions were warranted?

Based on that criteria, no I don't think it's warranted. But, again, that's not the criteria I've repeated stated, and it's not the reason why the government(s) took the actions they have. So, it's not "the argument."

I don't think I've gone into any detail about which measures I support/do not support. I've only spoken in general terms. So . . . I think it's appropriate for the government to shut down schools and mass attendance events like sports and concerts. I don't think it's okay to outlaw groups of 10 or more. I think if people want to have private parties or gatherings, that's no one's business. Church? The government should have absolutely no say. However, I think businesses are different. I think the government has the power to regulate the economy, especially if it's putting people in danger. It already does this, in myriad ways.

I don't know about everywhere else, but here in Tennessee businesses started closing, operating under "carry out only," and sending employees to work from home WEEKS before the government made them do it. I think most of the economic harm would have happened anyway, on a strictly voluntary basis. Therefore, for multiple reasons, I think you present a false choice when you ask, "Was this worth it?" The government actions aren't the main reason it happened, and the risks you list weren't the things we were trying to avoid. Your entire argument is a strawman.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

How I'm getting those numbers is; I use only the ones who survived and the one who died. Can't use the others because they are still considered sick
and havn't died nor recovered. It skews the known deaths/recovered ratio.
As of today the death rate is still 20%

That is not how calculating a mortality rate works.