Coronavirus Math
- Thread starter irvinehomeowner
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
California acted more swiftly and more decisively than NY. We sheltered a week before NY. One week is huge in altering the trajectory.
Much of New York didn't buy into it. New York City mayor De Blasio was telling people to go out to restaurants and movies in early March.
Most Californians I know already stocked up and started social distancing by early March.
California will still be in for some pain, but the time we bought by acting early will help tremendously.
Yes, you hit on a couple of big ones. A couple others we heard from our colleagues in NY are
1) patients don't want to die alone. They know if they go to the ER, that'd be the last time they'd be with family.
2) patients and families decided not to go after calling and finding out they will be on stretchers and triaged up to five hours outside followed by waiting 50-70, hours for an ICU bed.
Yup, the benefits of living in the suburbs is that we do not live on top of each other like people do in NYC.
What is burn rate? Death rate? Infection rate? Hospitalization rate?
NYC as of Sunday had 6179 deaths related to Covid-19. Based on annual flu averages, NYC with a population of 8.5 million should have approximately 1000 deaths from the flu each year.
Souix Fall South Dakota, Smithfield Processing Plant, 300+ infection out of 3700 workers in a couple weeks. That's closing in on 10% infected in a couple weeks.
That same Governor in South Dakota who won't issue stay at home orders, says she believes the models that suggest 70% will get the infection.
From prior posts early in NYC, anecdotal evidence showed a 15% hospitalization rate.
For a bad flu year, 15% +/- of the population gets it. Really bad 20%. Average is 10%. Covid appears that it can infect 10% of the population in a few weeks when unchecked non-social distancing. Projections are unchecked, 50-70% could get it.
For a bad flu year, near 50% of infections result in a medical visit (Dr. appt, urgent etc). We have no comparable Covid stat.
For a bad flu year, 2% of the infected get hospitalized. For Covid, the number we have is 15% likely overstated but unknown how much as that conversion rate is from early.
For a bad flu year 0.2% of the infected die. Current USA number nationwide is 4% of confirmed cases, again over-stated because primarily testing high risk. NYC as a stand in, 6X annual flu death in just 2 months. Recent numbers again from NYC have 7.6% of the hospitalized dying. The same as flu once hospitalized.
That leaves the critical missing numbers of total infected and hospitalization. Both of which appear to run a lot higher.
I might be going out on a limb but I'd venture to say that there are at least 10x the reported cases of people that are/were infected. The people that didn't have any real symptoms or had mild ones never thought to get tested and never went to the hospital or seek any medical care.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
On the last CDC NCHS weekly report thru 4/4/2020 , the weekly mortality from all causes is running below expected rates (85%). Overall less people are dying than expected even though covid deaths are increasing. Even New York is currently at 100% of expected deaths. Most interesting Covid-19 account for 7% of deaths week ending 4/4, overall deaths were only 36% of expected at 20,281.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
There have been recent posts on what Cali has done vs NY.
But in context, NY is also much more dense than Cali, and the culture there makes it hard for social distancing and to limit community spread (public transit, elevator buttons in buildings, etc etc):
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/7/21205890/coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-new-york-california
Lots of numbers in there but it's amazing that both states started around the same time but NY far outweighs Cali in cases, deaths etc while Cali has a larger population.
Or does that mean Cali is headed for more pain?
But in context, NY is also much more dense than Cali, and the culture there makes it hard for social distancing and to limit community spread (public transit, elevator buttons in buildings, etc etc):
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/7/21205890/coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-new-york-california
Lots of numbers in there but it's amazing that both states started around the same time but NY far outweighs Cali in cases, deaths etc while Cali has a larger population.
Or does that mean Cali is headed for more pain?
irvinehomeowner said:
California acted more swiftly and more decisively than NY. We sheltered a week before NY. One week is huge in altering the trajectory.
Much of New York didn't buy into it. New York City mayor De Blasio was telling people to go out to restaurants and movies in early March.
Most Californians I know already stocked up and started social distancing by early March.
California will still be in for some pain, but the time we bought by acting early will help tremendously.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I think geography/urban density helps.
This is one time our car mentality was a positive... everyone with their Teslas and microorganism filters.
This is one time our car mentality was a positive... everyone with their Teslas and microorganism filters.
freedomcm said:
Yes, you hit on a couple of big ones. A couple others we heard from our colleagues in NY are
1) patients don't want to die alone. They know if they go to the ER, that'd be the last time they'd be with family.
2) patients and families decided not to go after calling and finding out they will be on stretchers and triaged up to five hours outside followed by waiting 50-70, hours for an ICU bed.
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:I think geography/urban density helps.
This is one time our car mentality was a positive... everyone with their Teslas and microorganism filters.
Yup, the benefits of living in the suburbs is that we do not live on top of each other like people do in NYC.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I've been trying to Google this but what is the "burn rate" comparison of Covid-19 to the most recent bad flu numbers?
Not trying to say "Covid-19 is like the flu" but just interested in seeing a comparison of numbers (deaths mostly).
Not trying to say "Covid-19 is like the flu" but just interested in seeing a comparison of numbers (deaths mostly).
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Let's do some stimulus math.
How helpful will $1200 be? Does that cover for even the lowest wage earners for more than a month in a multi-month furlough/unemployment situation?
How helpful will $1200 be? Does that cover for even the lowest wage earners for more than a month in a multi-month furlough/unemployment situation?
qwerty
Well-known member
You probably need to factor the incremental 600/week for the next four months on top of the several hundred per week in regular unemployment. So about 3000/month all in for the next four months on top of the one time 1200.
Should be enough for most for the basics in the Midwest and south? And for the cheaper parts of the coasts.
Should be enough for most for the basics in the Midwest and south? And for the cheaper parts of the coasts.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
What is burn rate? Death rate? Infection rate? Hospitalization rate?
NYC as of Sunday had 6179 deaths related to Covid-19. Based on annual flu averages, NYC with a population of 8.5 million should have approximately 1000 deaths from the flu each year.
Souix Fall South Dakota, Smithfield Processing Plant, 300+ infection out of 3700 workers in a couple weeks. That's closing in on 10% infected in a couple weeks.
That same Governor in South Dakota who won't issue stay at home orders, says she believes the models that suggest 70% will get the infection.
From prior posts early in NYC, anecdotal evidence showed a 15% hospitalization rate.
For a bad flu year, 15% +/- of the population gets it. Really bad 20%. Average is 10%. Covid appears that it can infect 10% of the population in a few weeks when unchecked non-social distancing. Projections are unchecked, 50-70% could get it.
For a bad flu year, near 50% of infections result in a medical visit (Dr. appt, urgent etc). We have no comparable Covid stat.
For a bad flu year, 2% of the infected get hospitalized. For Covid, the number we have is 15% likely overstated but unknown how much as that conversion rate is from early.
For a bad flu year 0.2% of the infected die. Current USA number nationwide is 4% of confirmed cases, again over-stated because primarily testing high risk. NYC as a stand in, 6X annual flu death in just 2 months. Recent numbers again from NYC have 7.6% of the hospitalized dying. The same as flu once hospitalized.
That leaves the critical missing numbers of total infected and hospitalization. Both of which appear to run a lot higher.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
@nsr: My burn rate question was "deaths mostly".
The only problem here is any comparison will be skewed because of the social distancing. I'm sure if we didn't start taking precautions, the numbers would be way higher for Covid.
The only problem here is any comparison will be skewed because of the social distancing. I'm sure if we didn't start taking precautions, the numbers would be way higher for Covid.
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
nosuchreality said:
I might be going out on a limb but I'd venture to say that there are at least 10x the reported cases of people that are/were infected. The people that didn't have any real symptoms or had mild ones never thought to get tested and never went to the hospital or seek any medical care.
sgip
Well-known member
Hard to compare these numbers for one basic reason: there is a vaccine for the various flu strains but not one for COVID-19.
An area may have a 10 percent infection rate, but is that only because a greater portion of the population has had a flu shot? What are the infection rates for the flu among the unvaccinated? Within what population size? If that data exists then comparisons are a bit easier to calculate.
My .02c
An area may have a 10 percent infection rate, but is that only because a greater portion of the population has had a flu shot? What are the infection rates for the flu among the unvaccinated? Within what population size? If that data exists then comparisons are a bit easier to calculate.
My .02c
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
So what are the other sides of the death math?
- Car accident deaths down because no one is driving.
- Violent crime deaths down because criminals are not out and about, stores are closed, and everybody is home.
+ Other ailments deaths are up because no one wants to go to the hospital because they are afraid of covid?
+ Suicide deaths up because of depression over unemployment or not being able to leave the house?
- Car accident deaths down because no one is driving.
- Violent crime deaths down because criminals are not out and about, stores are closed, and everybody is home.
+ Other ailments deaths are up because no one wants to go to the hospital because they are afraid of covid?
+ Suicide deaths up because of depression over unemployment or not being able to leave the house?
morekaos
Well-known member
Increase the denominator and interesting things happen...
Coronavirus infections could be much more widespread than believed, California study suggests
In the weeks since the novel coronavirus outbreak has squelched daily life in America, researchers have struggled to assess the true spread of the virus. But initial results from a Northern California study on coronavirus antibodies suggest it has circulated much more widely than previously thought, according to a report released Friday.
The preliminary study, conducted by researchers at Stanford University, estimates that between 2.5% and 4.2% of Santa Clara County residents had antibodies to the new coronavirus in their blood by early April. Antibodies are an indication that a person?s immune system has responded to a past infection.
Though the county had reported roughly 1,000 cases in early April, the Stanford researchers estimate the actual number was between 48,000 and 81,000, or 50 to 85 times greater.
[url]https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-17/coronavirus-antibodies-study-santa-clara-county[/url]
Coronavirus infections could be much more widespread than believed, California study suggests
In the weeks since the novel coronavirus outbreak has squelched daily life in America, researchers have struggled to assess the true spread of the virus. But initial results from a Northern California study on coronavirus antibodies suggest it has circulated much more widely than previously thought, according to a report released Friday.
The preliminary study, conducted by researchers at Stanford University, estimates that between 2.5% and 4.2% of Santa Clara County residents had antibodies to the new coronavirus in their blood by early April. Antibodies are an indication that a person?s immune system has responded to a past infection.
Though the county had reported roughly 1,000 cases in early April, the Stanford researchers estimate the actual number was between 48,000 and 81,000, or 50 to 85 times greater.
[url]https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-17/coronavirus-antibodies-study-santa-clara-county[/url]