Italy is already at 3000 deaths — boethius

1800+ as of yesterday. I can't find if there's a separate number for triage deaths though.

Could be, Covid19 has been matched to a virus found in Pangolins. The trade in Pangolin scales for Chinese medicine has increased massively over the last few years. The price per kilo is astronomical.

Even if the death rate were 5% of those infected, that wouldn't equate anywhere near 5% of the total population. Communicable diseases are common and with no controls at all come no where near infecting 100% of the population. — Hanover

In my view there are three simple reasons why this won't be so huge:

a) People aren't going to tested en masse for the corona virus. Hence the vast majority who will get it, but don't have so severe symptoms that they need hospitalization, will simply not be seen in the stats. Already epidemiologists are saying that the likely infections are 20-30 times greater than the official statistics. Yet that's still not much.

b) A tiny fraction of the people having fever and flu symptoms are actually having covid-19. And quite likely a lot of those corona-virus victims will be misdiagnosed as being killed by ordinary flu. This will result, as I said earlier, in that we will be surprised at the statistic in historical studies (done in the 2030's and later) that put the number of deaths far higher than now are going to be informed.

c) The drastic measures taken now will surely have an effect on the death rate. That people take caution will have an effect.

The more that news that comes out about shutdowns in the wake of CV, the more I keep thinking back to this passage penned by the anarchist outfit le Comité Invisible just 6 years ago (in their To Our Friends):

"In a world where the organization of production is decentralized, fluid, and largely automated, where each machine is now but a link in an integrated system of machines that subsume it, and where this system-world of machines, of machines producing machines, tends to be unified cybernetically, each particular flow is a moment of the overall reproduction of capital's society. There is no longer a "sphere of reproduction" of labor power and social relations distinct from the sphere of production, which itself is no longer a sphere, but rather the web of the world with all its relations.

To physically attack these flows, at any point, is therefore to politically attack the system as a whole. If the subject of the strike was the working class, the subject of the blockade is whoever. It's anyone at all, anyone who takes a stand against the existing organization of the world. It's generally when they reach their maximun degree of sophistication that civilizations fall apart. Every production chain is now reaching such a level of specialization through so many intermediaries that if one of them disappeared that would be enough to paralyze, or even destroy, the whole chain."

This was a point that left a deep impression on me at the time, but I never imagined that the vector of attack would be not the dispossessed, but a simple, mindless, virus. There's a recent interview with Zizek which I really like too, where he maintains his blessed optimism for a better world among - perhaps especially because of - catastrophe:



Capitalism has never let a good disaster go to waste however, so the fight over the social and political significance of the virus is one still to be waged.

I don't know where you're getting your figures, — frank

Based on a recent report by the WHO-China joint mission on COVID-19, 20 percent of the confirmed cases will be severe and require hospitalization for sustained monitoring and supportive treatment. The report indicates that 6 percent of total confirmed cases (or about 30 percent of those hospitalized) will become critical and require specialized intensive care, such as mechanical ventilators.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/news/covid-19-outbreak-crisis-update-march-13?fbclid=IwAR1G4-3OBhuBjIu3WLvVrWBix1Q0uW8l27U8dDyrHEvxnA8YSpU-UwF7QyQ

I start with the assumption that containment fails, and that any measures of isolation will only slow the spread until (hopefully) acquired immunity stops the spread at about 80% infection rate.

So population times 80%, times (optimistically) 5%, Minus the number of people who can be treated with respirators will give you the death rate. Do you have more reliable figures?

I’m rather shy by nature so the social distancing thing is going to be a walk in the park. I imagine it will be tough for extroverts. — praxis

It's been a week since I went to a bar/club. It's killing me. :sad:

Better clear up soon.

1800+ as of yesterday. I can't find if there's a separate number for triage deaths though. — Benkei

Yes, I was off by a factor of 0.3 in my lower bound estimate in making the point that order of magnitude differences in deaths have much different implications.

But it will be at 3000 shortly in Italy. Death rate is still rising

368 die of coronavirus in Italy in 24 hours — CNN

And this is with measures that were taken, albeit too late to avoid overload, but relatively proactively based on testing. So, the US could be much worse.

An order of magnitude worse would have very different implications not simply for the health system but for societally and politically. According to official confirmed cases, the number of cases increases by an order of magnitude every 2 weeks about, so waiting for that to happen by not testing and downplaying can have a massive difference in outcome. A week of delay of the needed response can mean 2 doubling times.

Of course, apologists for Trump will say "ahh, but he's learning now! he's doing what's needed now! He stopped the flights". This misses the point that response to this sort of situation needs to be quick and needs to be informed by real data. Neither of which happened, and so the situation is going to be bad. Howe bad will depend on how out of control the virus has been left to spread before extreme measures are taken.

As I'm sure you agree with this basic point.

And I'm sure you will also be amused that when deaths aren't in the "do nothing case" of millions, because "something was done", the same apologists for Trump will say "see, see, I told you so! not thaaaat many people died".

I've previously been arguing why "the sooner the better" for lowering the rate of infection, there is no scenario where the economic costs of stopping flights a month ago would be higher than the economic costs we're seeing now, nor is there a scenario where you want to "make a quick dash to heard immunity".

As an epidemiologist wrote:

I’m an epidemiologist. When I heard about Britain’s ‘herd immunity’ coronavirus plan, I thought it was satire — https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19

Obviously, defending against a threat is not possible by letting that threat run rampant. It's like resolving a fire hazard in your house by burning down your house; yes, situation now resolved, but if the goal was to prevent or stop the fire the concept of "fires do burn out you know when they have no more fuel", isn't helpful. Yes, by maximizing the damage the damage can be mitigated.

Apparently the UK is walking back the whole "herd immunity strategy" and some officials are now explaining it was just "a medical concept" but not an actual strategy.

They've decided "isolate 70 year olds" is a nice stepping stone to ease themselves into admitting eventually, as in today or tomorrow, that they'll do as the rest of Europe is doing. BUT! And this is the critical point, their followers will remain ignorant of the easily avoidable mistakes made along that story arch of self realization.

Apparently the UK is walking back the whole "herd immunity strategy" and some officials are now explaining it was just "a medical concept" but not an actual strategy. — boethius

It never was an actual strategy. The govt has never said it was, but perhaps not denying others' reports has caused speculation that it might be. Being quick and candid about their strategy has not been a strong point of UK govt communication so far!

Even if the death rate were 5% of those infected, that wouldn't equate anywhere near 5% of the total population. Communicable diseases are common and with no controls at all come no where near infecting 100% of the population. — Hanover

Communicable diseases that aren't controlled but don't reach 100% is because the disease has a hard time spreading. Maybe very dangerous, but is not crazy infectious.

Something very infectious, like the flu, basically does infect close to 100% of people, just not in any given year as a large portion of the population still has immunity. But eventually, nearly everyone gets the flu at least once.

For a new disease, highly infectious, and no one has immunity, without controls, the base line assumption is it would infect about 70 percent of people, at least.

Once infected, including recovered and now immune, population passes 50 percent then the disease has a hard time finding new hosts, as now the majority of people are either recovered or already infected. Especially if those that aren't yet infected is because of behavior that lowers their chances, which is statically guaranteed. So 20 or 30 percent may not get infected.

For instance, something very infectious like cold sores, follows this pattern and it's thought 50 to 80% of adults have it. We aren't bothered too much by this because cold sores don't put 10% of people in intensive care within weeks of getting the disease, and large amounts of people are getting it for the first time because it's a new disease.

Which is why I used 70 percent of people get infected in my calculation.

However, that's only true for 1 wave. If the disease comes back in another wave, then statistically you're going to "get" part of that population that didn't get it the first time. And if it keeps coming back like the flu where one part of the population has lost immunity due to a new strain, then you'll get close to 100 percent over several waves. This maybe the case of corona.

But in terms of the short term consequences, I have been mainly discussing the first wave.

In the first wave, assuming the disease stays the same, and no effective treatment is found, especially applicable to large numbers that would otherwise be triaged, if nothing is done to slow the infection rate, such as the little measures that have been taken so far in the US, then numbers can get really big, really fast.

Clearly not anywhere close to the "uncontrolled" case, but big enough to cause major disruptions, and a single doubling time left to its own devices can result in a very different situation. Whatever problem you already have, now you have two of them.

Something very infectious, like the flu, basically does infect close to 100% of people, just not in any given year as a large portion of the population still has immunity. But eventually, nearly everyone gets the flu at least once. — boethius

"The flu" doesn't really describe a particular disease, but each year it's a different strain. If you're saying that at some point in everyone's life they'll get some viral infection, I think that's obvious, but that doesn't equate to saying that each year we should expect 100% (or anywhere close to it) will get that year's particular virus.

Which is why I used 70 percent of people get infected in my calculation. — boethius

The answer to whatever your'e trying to figure out will be found by looking at actual infection rates over time, not by whatever calculations you're throwing together. I can say that I've never been in a school or work situation where 70% of the people were gone due to the flu.

I was listening to a representative of the main ventilator manufacturing company, which makes many of the ventilators which are purchased in the world at the moment. He was saying that they have had many urgent orders from across the globe for many thousands of ventilators. The interviewer asked, can you step up production to 24hrs. He said, that in a good year they sell 500 ventilators, they may be able to increase by a few hundred over the next year.

Looks like there's going to be a short fall of maybe 50 million ventilators.

Looks like there's going to be a short fall of maybe 50 million ventilators. — Punshhh

One of the problems is that some of the more simple forms of non-invasive ventilation, positive pressure masks for instance, produce aerosols, that spread infection.

The flu" doesn't really describe a particular disease, but each year it's a different strain. If you're saying that at some point in everyone's life they'll get some viral infection, I think that's obvious, but that doesn't equate to saying that each year we should expect 100% (or anywhere close to it) will get that year's particular virus. — Hanover

That's exactly what I explain:

And if it keeps coming back like the flu where one part of the population has lost immunity due to a new strain, — boethius

Why it's considered the same disease is because it's phenomenologically similar, and descends fro the previous strains, just like you're considered the same person even if you cut your hair -- your different, but still the same person. A new strain that defeats immunity can be a small change like different hair for the virus; so it's considered the same disease, and the word "strain" is used to differentiate. That's why I used the word strain ... and also why you used the word strain in the same sentence as making the overall point that "it's actually a different disease".

The answer to whatever your'e trying to figure out will be found by looking at actual infection rates over time, not by whatever calculations you're throwing together. I can say that I've never been in a school or work situation where 70% of the people were gone due to the flu. — Hanover

Again, my comment explains why this is the case. Many people are immune to the new flu at any given time, and many others have so mild symptoms they think it's just a cold. So not everyone gets it any given year.

But take a new strain of highly infectious flu, such as happened in 1918, that no one seems immune to, and a high mortality rate relative the "normal flu" we have today, and the situation is very different.

My calculations are based on what we know so far.

- It's highly infectious
- No one has existing immunity to it
- It has demonstrated ability to kill of 0.5 - 1 % percent of cases in good care conditions, such as South Korea were infection rate was lowered to a manageable number, at least so far.
- It has demonstrated ability to kill 3 - 5 percent of cases in sub-optimal care conditions, such as Wuhan and Italy, were cases exceeded the medical systems ability to handle them.
- We do not know how many "mild" infections there are that don't result in cases, but the ice-burg hypothesis seems extremely unlikely at this time, as random sampling testing of the population has not revealed an iceberg of mild or asymptomatic cases, as is being done in Germany; there are some of these asymptomatic or super mild, but not close to twice as many, much less on the order of 10 times needed to significantly lower the danger and change policy to "it's not so bad guys", it is a few percent in this category.

Now, there can be lot's of infections that are in the incubation or first symptoms stage that have not moved yet towards cases and hospitalizations, but that is simply a time lag problem matching observations to the best model of what's going on requires estimating those infections and extrapolating critical care cases. However, in the "uncontrolled spread" scenario we don't care about current cases, just a ballpark estimate of infection to case ratio, and case fatality in triage conditions.

So, if left to go out of control, we could estimate 70% of people on the earth getting it this year, and if we conservatively estimate there's double undiagnosed and never diagnosed infections currently, so a 2.5% infection fatality that then matches up with 5% case fatality, then this is 120 million deaths this year.

I have not seen any data or analysis to suggest uncontrolled spread would far lower, such as 0.2%, than that estimate.

Of course, it's completely unfeasible to have an uncontrolled spread policy, so we're seeing extreme actions that will have a large affect on how things play out: these extreme actions are motivated to avoid this 70% infected, 1-5% infection fatality situation.

They ought to cage up the old and infirm in a box and let the rest of us go about our business. I'll deal with my vomit and fever while the old are stored safely away. That's how I'd handle it.

Something very infectious, like the flu, basically does infect close to 100% of people, just not in any given year as a large portion of the population still has immunity. But eventually, nearly everyone gets the flu at least once. — boethius

It's probably the case that eventually everybody will be infected by one of the various strains of influenza A (and may or may not experience a significant result) but don't you have to factor in vaccinations? Even though only 40% (+ or -) of adults get vaccinated for influenza each year, that is still many millions of people who won't get, and thus won't transmit, the influenza virus.

I think that a true libertarian’s ideas might sound more reasonable if they pretended to be a conservative or liberal — praxis

There is no need to pretend. A Libertarian is both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Libertarians are often mischaracterized, which is probably why you don't even understand what a Libertarian is.

Anyway, a ‘socialist’ could stand for a wide range of things. — praxis

Socialists can only be authoritarian as they think they know what is "good" for everyone, and want to impose their morality on everyone else. It really is no different than a religion.

"The flu" doesn't really describe a particular disease, but each year it's a different strain. — Hanover

True enough: "The flu" (as the term is used) may be any of several unrelated infections -- like a rhinovirus, a norovirus, or a bacterial disease. "Stomach flu" has nothing to do with influenza. "Influenza (A, B, and C) is a specific virus with specific genetic components. Type A infects both birds and swine, which is how it gets reorganized into its yearly version of fresh hell. Type A is the cause of epidemics and pandemics. Types B and C are usually not as serious.

Then there is "diplomatic influenza", where one is conveniently indisposed to go to work, attend a boring meeting, or a dull party.

Even though only 40% (+ or -) of adults get vaccinated for influenza each year, that is still many millions of people who won't get, and thus won't transmit, the influenza virus. — Bitter Crank

Flu vaccine doesn't really change the conclusion, as it does not provide 100% immunity, flu is constantly evolving to defeat the vaccine policy.

And what is essentially for certain is there won't be a vaccine for this first wave, which I'm currently focusing on as lot's of members of the discussion don't seem to understand the implications of this first wave.

A good basis of comparison to this first wave is the flu but no one's immune, and a high case fatality rate, as with the Spanish flu.

What's different today is that global travel, because there was no travel freeze when it could have made big difference, has done a great job of mixing up the disease in the major economies in a short period of time.

Socialists can only be authoritarian as they think they know what is "good" gor everyone, and want to impose their morality on everyone else. It really is no different than a religion. — Harry Hindu

But don't you want to impose your morality of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism on everyone else?

I agree, I wan to impose my morality of rule of law, universal health care, free education, and similar institutions on everyone. But don't you want to impose your morality of property rights, police and courts to manage those property rights, maybe some fire fighters, on everyone?

Seems, as per your definition, just a different kind of religion, just less institutions are desired but no fundamental difference. You claim your morality, if imposed on everyone, would be the best for society, so do I.

Flu vaccine doesn't really change the conclusion, as it does not provide 100% immunity, flu is constantly evolving to defeat the vaccine policy.

And what is essentially for certain is there won't be a vaccine for this first wave, which I'm currently focusing on as lot's of members of the discussion don't seem to understand the implications of this first wave. — boethius

The implications is those that survive will be immune. Viral Vaccines are often an injection of a lesser form of the virus so that your body builds immunity to the real thing. Some people even get a symptoms of the flu after getting the vaccine.

What's different today is that global travel, because there was no travel freeze when it could have made big difference, has done a great job of mixing up the disease in the major economies in a short period of time. — boethius

Thanks, China.

global travel — boethius

SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome) is a good example. SARS (another corona virus) jumped from animals to humans and first appeared in China in 2002, then showed up in several distant places. SARS has a very high fatality rate (15%, and 55% for elderly patients).

The implications is those that survive will be immune. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I've made that assumption clear. One of the unknown risks of the disease is re-infection rates of the same strain, which can happen with some disease, and of course mutation into a new strain.

If you're just repeating my points, thanks for pointing that out.

Thanks, China. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I think it very plausible China wanted to maintain air travel to make sure everyone else suffered as much or worse, in a zero-sum game view of geopolitics.

However, we've had all the data needed to make an optimum containment strategy regardless of what China wants. The West didn't pursue an optimum containment strategy, for neo-liberal ideological reasons according to my analysis, and the West is now paying the price for inviting the virus in to grow in an explosive manner, and soon essentially everyone will pay the price.

There were lot's of policy tools available to slow the spread to something manageable and all the information needed to design such policy since the start of the year.

SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome) is a good example. SARS (another corona virus) jumped from animals to humans and first appeared in China in 2002, then showed up in several distant places. SARS has a very high fatality rate (15%, and 55% for elderly patients). — Bitter Crank

Yes, but the difference with SARS is that, because it was so dangerous, containment was serious and effective.

We not only allowed Coronavirus to spread by plane, but abandoned effective containment as to not annoy a lot of plane travelers and so as to avoid a small decrease in airline and boeing stock 2 months ago. Obviously, not realizing airline stocks would be far lower as well as the stock market in general if containment was not pursued seriously, just shows how easily Western leaders are deluded by their own propaganda. Coronavirus is less dangerous than SARS, for the moment anyway, but still dangerous enough to cause all these extreme measures to be taken now; however, it seemed it was below a psychological threshold for our leaders and the general population to not take it seriously.

It's like dismissing a danger that will cut off your hand because "well, it's not like it's my head". Of course, anyone who has such an idea clearly changes it when their hand is being crushed in the gearing. Completely predictable. Easy to talk a tough game of "not even a head bro, not even a head", a lot harder to be zen when one's hand is being slowly pulverized.

Continental Europe, slightly less deluded and so slightly more responsible, but the UK and US reactions have really shown who has drank most of the coolaid.

But don't you want to impose your morality of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism on everyone else? — boethius

Lol. Do you even understand what that means? It means that we don't need a bloated govt to tell everyone else how to live. A Libertarian is fine with a restructured police force (the one we have now gives them too much power to avoid the repercussions of abusing their power and they often do). Libertarians want less govt and that means minimizing any one group or individual imposing their ideals on others.

Lol. Do you even understand what that means? It means that we don't need a bloated govt to tell everyone else how to live. — Harry Hindu

But you still need a government to tell people to live within the laws that you have in your system, and maintain the institutions to accomplish that.

You're just saying your religion with 3 rules is not a religion compared to a religion with 5 rules.

However, your society still has to compete with other society's, so if 5 good rules are better than 3, people may change their religion to the 5 rules because it has better outcomes.

Yes, I've made that assumption clear. One of the unknown risks of the disease is re-infection rates of the same strain, which can happen with some disease, and of course mutation into a new strain.

If you're just repeating my points, thanks for pointing that out. — boethius

Really? Care to point out where you said that?

Yes, I think it very plausible China wanted to maintain air travel to make sure everyone else suffered as much or worse, in a zero-sum game view of geopolitics.

However, we've had all the data needed to make an optimum containment strategy regardless of what China wants. The West didn't pursue an optimum containment strategy, for neo-liberal ideological reasons according to my analysis, and the West is now paying the price for inviting the virus in to grow in an explosive manner, and soon essentially everyone will pay the price.

There were lot's of policy tools available to slow the spread to something manageable and all the information needed to design such policy since the start of the year. — boethius

All of which wouldn't matter if China had closed their borders first and didn't produce misinformation from outset. The outrage about this whole crisis is misplaced. People are so emotional about Trump that they blame him more than the Chinese. It's pathetic to see one's politics overcome one's reason.

If he does go to hospice care, he will kill off everyone else in the care home — Punshhh

Everybody who goes to hospice is about to die. But I take your point. A sudden outbreak in a community where no one has immunity yet could briefly overwhelm the system. So the cancellations of large gatherings makes sense.

Libertarians want less govt and that means minimizing any one group or individual imposing their ideals on others. — Harry Hindu

There's no proof of this.

For instance, I would argue that healthy educated people can more easily minimize one group of individuals imposing their ideals on others.

Health and education make people more capable and efficient.

Now, granted, to have these healthy educated people we need to impose the ideal of wanting a healthy and educated population and pursue policies that accomplish that. I am willing to impose that ideal on society, not ashamed to say it.

Now, let's say to get rid of me imposing this ideal, you convince everyone that, even if they agree with that ideal they shouldn't impose it through the institution of voting that you do pursue, along with me, imposing on people. Ok, voting is part of the 3 ideals that you do impose on people, along with the police and property rights, no need to debate why, of course, as that may lead to a framework of reasoning from which to impose a dreaded 4th ideal, which we want to avoid, so better not to know why these 3 institutions but no more!

People agree, vote to ensure there's not an optimum health or education public policy, not even close.

Time passes, let's say, purely for the sake of argument, someone comes along who's clearly a corrupt self centered narcissist and also incompetent along most dimensions of institutions management, even 3 is too much for him; but low educated people like him and vote for him, he gets into office, imposes his ideal of a trillion dollar deficit on everyone and then incompetently manages the small public health institution you did allow in a sort of 3.5 institutions reasoning, that institution was then inefficient in stopping a public health crisis, and that leader, thinking nothing other than his own ego and money, did nothing to intervene early, because government intervention should be minimized and he has no clue what's going on anyways before it's too late to prevent a serious crisis.

Then the crisis unfolds, and large portions of people's freedoms you've been trying to preserve with your system, such as the freedom to just travel and meet who and where you want in whatever number you want, are now curtailed. Is this more or less freedom than the freedom lost in other people having access to health care and education that would mitigate, maybe even completely prevented, this "severe freedom restrictions" scenario?

Just, purely for the sake of argument, what if "less institutions" to ensure "more freedom" actually resulted in "less institutions causing less freedom"?

But you still need a government to tell people to live within the laws that you have in your system, and maintain the institutions to accomplish that. — boethius

You still dont get it. Libertarians arent concerened with telling others how to live. They only rule is "Do as you will but dont tread on me".