Coronavirus News: D-III NCAA Tournament games at JHU (Maryland) will be played in an empty arena
Stay safe, Maryland folks. Relatedly, I wonder what effect this might have on our game at Maryland tomorrow, or on the upcoming conference tournament games and D-I NCAA Tournament games. I would think the concern would be even greater for D1 games, given that the crowds are bigger.
This is so stupid. People in the DC area are infected with a fear virus due to overexposure to politics and media hype. I'm booking a bunch of flights for the next few months thanks to cheap airline fares.
Purell would like to have a word with you...
Yeah usually young people don't give a shit until the virus shows up where their parents live.
If you looked at all of the places in both the US and the world where there have been significant closings/cancellations you’d realize that suggesting this is some DC specific phenomena is not supported by any facts.
Well yes, the unjustified panic is worldwide
61,000 people died last year from influenza. Focus on regular flu before you worry about corona flu
The regular flu has a 0.1% mortality rate. Covid-19 is somewhere around 2.5-3.0%.
I'm not all for panic mode, but let's at least acknowledge covid-19 is killing at over 20x the rate of normal flu.
I wish there was still better overall data to really capture how/if this virus is as serious as the 3% reports are saying. What is the death rate in the US or other Western countries? Are younger, healthier people contracting this and dying? The 1919 Spanish Flu was so deadly because it was affecting otherwise healthy individuals and they were dying and an exorbitant rate. Granted modern medicine has evolved so much in 100 years, It would still be beneficial to know how much this disease is impacting individuals without pre-existing conditions
Here's data for you. Scroll down to see the breakdown by country.
Now remember that this is only confirmed cases; it is a given that there are infected people who are not included in these totals. Because very sick people are disproportionately likely to get themselves tested and hospitalized, it is very likely that the true mortality rate for this coronavirus is significantly lower than the official 3% figure.
Are younger, healthier people contracting this and dying?
Almost none. Viruses tend to strike down both the very young and very old but curiously, very few children have died from this virus, at least based on what we know so far. The overwhelming majority of fatalities have occurred in the over-60 age group.
In addition to bad data, there are still questions about reinfection with the possibility that the second round of infection, if in fact that occurs, is worse than the first.
There was a recent study that came out of China that suggested that the virus may mutate to a less virulent strain.
Hopefully, we will find that the virus, which has a high R nought value (a measure of how easily the virus is spread) is only producing mild flu-like symptoms or is asymptomatic in a majority of people and life can go on in a somewhat normal fashion as it usually does during flu season. Until that happens, there will be lots of changes. Should an outbreak occur in the U of M community, I'd be most surprised if they didn't end the semester early.
I keep seeing comments like "its likely that the mortality rate is significantly lower than 3%" due to incomplete testing and people not realizing they have it. Sorry but this argument is extremely hand-wavy. How likely is it? What is significantly lower? Is it 2x lower? 10x? 100x? Right now the numbers might be slightly inflated, and in the early days the data is incomplete but its still the data we have and we have to make decisions based on the available numbers.
Hopefully, the numbers are overly conservative and we can get better estimates soon, but we cant just say "its likely completely over exaggerated" with absolutely nothing to back that statement up. Related corona viruses have had mortality rates between 0.1% and 10%. So its not inconceivable that the mortality rate is somewhere from 1 to 3%. People say its a bad flu and the flu kills more people every year. Thats true, but this is spreading much faster than the typical flu. So even if its just a bad flu its still worth being cautious until that more reliable data I mentioned comes in.
due to incomplete testing and people not realizing they have it.
Here's the thing: we don't just have incomplete testing, we have almost no testing at all, outside of the Diamond Princess cruise ship and certain areas of China and South Korea.
Beyond that we're relying almost entirely on people getting themselves tested, and for obvious reasons that sample is skewed towards those who are seriously sick. Common sense dictates that there are other carriers of this virus who simply haven't been identified, but exactly how many is unknown, because we aren't testing at all. So we can't answer your question, and won't actually be able to answer it for a long time.
Note that regarding the flu, the 0.1% itself is an estimate based of studies of yearly outbreaks over the years. It is not the percentage of people hospitalized with the flu who die; that figure is higher. But for coronavirus that’s basically what we’re doing right now, studying only the hospitalized/quarantined.
Yes, what I'm saying is: The numbers are the numbers. Just ignoring the numbers because "its probably lower" isn't prudent. Even if the data is incomplete we can't throw out all the data and just guess. And you have no methodology for quantifying what "lower than 3%" means. I'm not trying to be alarmist, I'm just saying arguing the numbers because you *think* they are too high is illogical.
Look at it this way, when you are trying to extrapolate a limited data set to a much larger population, you generally include margins, conservatism, or factors of safety.
Two examples: If you did an analysis that said "Widget X will fail after Y cycles at Z temperature", you wouldn't then say "Well its likely my analysis over estimated those so we should be fine to operate at Y+n cycles and Z+m temperature." Instead you would in fact derate it and operate well below Y and Z. Especially for something that involves loss of human life.
If you did a study of a virus that you put in lab mice, and 5% of mice died, you wouldn't say "Well there are no mouse hospitals, so humans should be able to find treatment and have a much lower fatality rate, lets just guess 0.5%" That would be insane.
My point is the data is the data, the numbers are the numbers. I concede that the data is incomplete and the numbers are flawed because we live in the real world (not a controlled study). But you can't argue the numbers with your opinions if you have no way to quantify it. Especially when we are talking about human life. Its better to err on the side of caution.
Common sense dictates that there are other carriers of this virus who simply haven't been identified, but exactly how many is unknown, because we aren't testing at all. So we can't answer your question, and won't actually be able to answer it for a long time.
I've said yes the numbers may be high, but if you cant answer how much lower the fatality rate is then what are we even arguing? So its lower than 3%, okay cool, what does that even mean? You're just ignoring the data because you think its skewed, but if you cant say how much lower the fatality rate is then how do you assess the risk the virus poses? Yes 100 years from now we will have a sufficient database as to compare it to the flu and other corona viruses. But how does that help us make decisions today? The fact is you have to use the numbers, not feelings and guesses.
Someone below said 80% of cases are mild and unreported, no clue where that comes from, but okay lets take that at face value and say the number of cases is actually double whats been reported, that cuts the fatality rate in half....that's still 10x higher than the flu for a virus that seems to spread faster based on R0 values.
Edit: I want to say that I'm not advocating that people should panic. I personally don't feel like I am at risk and will be taking multiple flights this month. My point is that people are trying so hard to stem the panic that they have completely swung the pendulum too far the other way and are just ignoring the data with no basis. I don't know maybe its necessary to over correct in an attempt to stop the panic based on the way some people are over reacting, but that's human psychology and not my realm. As a scientist I am saying data matters, analyzing it is important, and we can't ignore it.
I don’t know why you’re addressing me with this straw-man argument. I’m certainly not advocating ignoring the data - I even linked it elsewhere on this thread. I’m saying that you can’t conclusively determine the mortality rate right now or properly compare it to that of influenza - we can’t properly answer the questions you’re asking right now.
That doesn’t mean that all is well or that we shouldn’t take precautionary measures. The fact that we have no immunity to this is sufficient reason to be cautious. But there is a middle ground between “OMG panic now!” and “Everything’s fine, I don’t need to wash my hands.”
I guess because I keep hearing this argument that "the mortality rate is likely lower than 3%". In my opinion that statement is meaningless (not quantified, based on a guess, and contradicts the data) and worse its useless when determining the proper response.
You don't need to conclusively determine mortality rate in order to properly compare it to that the of influenza. All the metrics say it is worse, thats a valid comparison. In the absence of evidence that says otherwise thats what we have. Says it's actually 0.3% that means the actual number of cases is 10x whats been reported. Not crazy considering only about 1 in 8 flu cases are reported. The R0 value of covid-19 is about double the flu. Bottom line: that means the deaths will be 6x more than the flu. Thats a big difference. The error bars may be much larger for covid-19 than the flu, and maybe my numbers are off (btw I'm open to someone doing this exersize with different numbers that they feel are reasonable) but its the best we can do at the moment. I think a lot of people saying the "flu is worse" or "the flu kills more people" are missing the implications of the numbers.
To sum up what I'm saying in one sarcastic statement:
Well I guess we can all breathe a sigh of relief because the fatality rate is less than 3%.
It's great that the youth of the world are much less affected by the disease than the older, but the older are hard hit by the disease, especially those with co-morbidities. If we loosen measures to control the spread it will go viral - pun intended - and affect MILLIONS of elderly and older adults with co-morbidities. We could suffer deaths in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Heck, we might still suffer that global disaster even with stringent measures, but we have to do our best for our fellow man/woman. That fellow man/woman might be a loved one, or at least someone you know; remember that.
Well actually it's really believed to be much lower. The reason being is they are theorizing a lot of cases go unreported due to the symptoms mimicing a cold in most people
let's at least acknowledge covid-19 is killing at over 20x the rate of normal flu.
Actually we can't acknowledge that right now. You are comparing highly incomplete data (this is the first year of this coronavirus's existence and most people have not been tested for it) with influenza which has been around forever.
Now, we do need to take precaution here because there is still much to learn about this virus and we don't have immunity to it. But we can't just flatly state that it kills X percentage of people, we don't know that yet.
I am a big fan of a free media, but damn, the media is going crazy with Corona. Yes, let’s all wash our hands better. No, let’s not close schools, the subway, and Disney World.
It’s something new. Coronavirus might be a yearly event like the flu.
Coronavirus is an annual event. Some forms of the common cold are Coronavirus. The rarer forms include SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.
Those death rates are likely way overstated for the US. Testing has been minimal so the denominator is likely much bigger than 400. You can't go by death rates in 3rd world countries with much different conditions and health care systems. I think ultimately it will turn out to be along the lines of a strong flu strain.
This is incorrect
Corona virus is killing at a 3% rate , vs .1 for influenza . The whole point is to make sure not as many people get Corona .
"So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 32 million illnesses, 310,000 hospitalizations and 18,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "
source ; https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html
Not to mention the hospitalization rate. ~1% of Americans who get the flu require hospitalization. It’s closer to 10x that for Covid-19. There simply aren’t enough beds for this disease to spread as widely as the flu — our medical system can’t take it.
Corona virus is killing at a 3% rate , vs .1 for influenza
Some context is important here. The coronavirus numbers are only for confirmed cases - and 99+% of people have never been tested, so we don't know if they have it or not - while the flu numbers are based on countless years of prior analysis.
The bottom line for a lot of discussion about mortality and hospitalization percentages is that while we have the numerators, we don' have the denominator and won't for some time.
It won’t take that many CoVID cases to overwhelm our hospitals that are routinely kept near 100% capacity. There aren’t enough vents and resp therapists to keep people alive if we see an influx of patients that China, South Korea and Italy have realized.
There's a vaccine available for the flu. There isn't a vaccine available for COVID-19 and likely won't be until next year. If then.
The flu vaccine isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination; I have to admit that I sometimes didn't get it. Now that my mother-in-law is in a nursing home, I make sure to get it.
Yeah, narrowly worry about the virus there are vaccines for already and not the one that has rapidly killed thousands already with no vaccine ready. We should just all man the fuck up, right? We should just pretend a virus that has killed people isn’t something to worry about making sure we don’t contract since there is no cure. Again, who gives a shit if this no-vaccination piece of viral scum is out there killing people quickly.
SXSW has been cancelled and the NBA has told teams to plan on playing in empty arenas too.
Thank goodness for the gambling community, which mandates that these games go on instead of just taking a break in the season.
Well, now they know what staee players have to look forward to.....
Why is there not more upvotes for this comment? Ha
I am glad they are taking precautions, although this seems a bit overreactive.
I had a good talk with my doctor about this yesterday (who is probably better informed about this stuff than any of the rest of us, myself included). She basically said what commonsense people are saying: take precaution like you would with the flu, but don't get caught up in click-bait fear. The disease is dangerous to a very particular age and medical demographic, but if you're going to worry, worry more for them and not yourself.
I also did some learning about what's going on and made some interesting discoveries.
1.) The 100,000 plus number indicating infection is a misleading number. That number INCLUDES people who have recovered from it, and the total number of recovered is actually higher than the number infected (Again, media does not report this because it takes away from their "click-bait" fear modus operandi).
2.) The Coronavirus is not a "new" virus. This is a new STRAIN of the virus, but the virus itself has been known about since the 1960s (the nurse even showed me an old bottle of Lysol spray, which lists the coronavirus as one of the viruses which the spray will kill--good to know, by the way).
2.) The comparisons to the Spanish Flu are absurd for several reasons. The biggest reason is that the Spanish Flu virus went unknown for a considerable period of time before physicians in 1918 identified it. Many of the people who died from it did not receive a proper identification. In fact, it was not until 2008 that the exact function and operation of the Spanish Flu virus was fully understood. That's a BIG difference from 2020, as we know far more about what the coronavirus is. (BTW, the Spanish Flu existed for 50 years after its discovery in 1918, but was far less lethal).
3.) More people probably have had it than we realize, but simply passed it off as nothing more than a mild cold or flu. Over 80 percent of the cases are mild, and it's quite possible that people have had it, recovered from it, and did not report it (The man in Illinois who was quarantined for it said in an interview that it felt like nothing more than the common cold to him). This means that the mortality rate could be far lower than we realize, and that's a very good thing.
4.) The recovery rate for the virus hovers around 2,000 per day.
5.) From Feb 18th to March 4th, more people RECOVERED from the virus than contracted it. That's good news, and we hope that more of that trend continues.
6.) Potential treatments are being tried out, some as early as the end of this month. Again, that's good news, especially if those treatments yield positive results.
Bottom line: I'm not worried about this virus for myself. I do know people whom I would not want to see contract it (many in my church), and I fear that people will talk themselves into a panic, and fear can do far more damage than disease to a society.
Use your head. Wash your hands. Cover your mouth when you cough, and try to stay healthy. At the same time, this is not the Black Plague for the majority of the populace. Fear and rumors will do nothing to get through this. And remember that there will be good news with the bad; there usually is.
Good stuff. Thanks for posting.
In the United States cases have nearly doubled the last two days.
Small sample sizes can dramatically skew statements like that. Jumping 100% from a few hundred (or even a thousand) cases (out of a total population of 300+ million) is not really that severe, relatively speaking. Now if it was 10's or 100's of thousands (or even greater) and was still doubling every ~2 days, we'd have a major problem.
All of that sounds callous, and is always different on a personal/individual level - but perspective is still needed for larger scale assessments.
Well, it has started later than the country of origin, it is in the beginning stages of spread, and it is increasing quickly. Where it might level off nobody knows.
Where it levels off remains to be seen, but there are several epidemiology models that were developed in the mid-2000s to predict how the disease will spread within a population given several factors. The data suggests that so far, the worst case scenarios are not upon us.
I’m not familiar with those models, but do they take into account the very long incubation period of this virus? Two weeks of being asymptomatic seems like a perfect recipe for spread.
Among many factors, yes, including the herd mentality of human behavior.
Plus, it’s not like we’re screening everyone for this virus. We’re basically waiting for infected people to reveal themselves and a lot probably don’t know they have it, so the official number of cases is pretty useless.
This is a good opportunity to find cheap flights and hotels
Well, this sucks, I am taking the kids on vacaction in a few weeks and part of the trip included visiting the Staples Center and Disneyland.
Does anyone think Disney will shut dowm like they did in Asia?
Kinda doubt it, unless the local health authorities mandate it and that seems unlikely given the economic (and emotional) impact it would have locally. But I could see them capping number of daily entrants.
The public fears may actually help by keeping crowd densities down at amusement parks, thus making it more enjoyable for the people who go anyway and get shorter lines. I'm hoping it will be that way at airports and resorts when I'm heading to Jamaica in 3 weeks :)
You have a statistically higher chance of being killed by the Clintons than being killed by coronavirus......
This kind of propaganda shouldn't be here.
I recognize your material from other sites.
