Help the Fight Against COVID-19

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some more good news (provided it isn't just a blip):

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

Deaths plateauing or dropping.png

I've been watching the Deaths number a lot for various reasons:
1. Deaths is objectively measurable, and we're pretty sure we're measuring all of them. This isn't true for Confirmed Cases, since asymptomatic persons and mild cases aren't measured and don't become part of the Confirmed Cases number. There's no reason to suspect a huge percentage of unreported Deaths.
2. We can probably presume that Deaths are proportionate to the Hospitalizations number and the Ventilators number, both of which we've been afraid would exceed our capacity and lead to distressing triage choices. So by focusing on the Deaths number, we can see whether trends are leading towards the outcomes we fear the most.

Anyway, this is one of those graphs where bad news is exponential (doubling every X days), meh news is linear (adding the same amount every X days), good news is flat (same number from day-to-day), and great news is falling (fewer deaths later than earlier).

From March 14 to March 17, we went from 405 to 817, a doubling in 3 days.
From March 17 to March 21, we went from 817 to 1,625, a doubling in 4 days.
From March 21 to March 27, we went from to 1,625 to 3,270, a doubling in 6 days.
The peak, on April 2, was 5,979. The closest number to half of that was on March 26, 7 days earlier.

So it was already looking like it was falling away from true exponential due to the increase in doubling-time.

After that we have what looks like a brief plateau, and then a reduction.

To be sure, this could be a small zig right before a large zag. If the deaths start shoot up over 6,000 in the next day or two, then these variations are mere statistical noise. But it could hold, and obviously we all hope it does.

NOTES:
1. It occurs to me that the final date measured, April 5, might be showing incomplete data if some locations take a day or two to report their totals. If so, that number (4,737) might rise as the remaining reports arrive. If that happens, we'd be looking at a plateau, not a drop.

2. I've also been tracking the state-by-state projections, here. The projections for nearly every state I regularly check look better today than they did a week ago, as hospital beds ramp up and new cases slow down. But New York (state) is still in a bad way, and the reason appears to be New York City. Great efforts are being made, but the projected shortfall of hospital beds, ventilators, etc., is alarming. Worse, their projected day of maximum need is 2 days away, this Wednesday. Not much time to take additional action.

For comparison's sake, most of the states I check regularly (throughout the southeast, where I have family members) are projected to hit their max-usage sometime around April 20th, and none of them are short on standard hospital beds, although some are short on ICU beds specifically.

It appears to me that larger cities correlate to greater likelihood of exceeding the maximum ICU beds available. Boston's causing big issues that show up in the numbers for Massachusetts. Georgia contains Atlanta, and they're projected to overshoot their needed ICU beds starting tomorrow. North Carolina, with only Charlotte to worry about (and a very robust medical industry in the state generally) won't overshoot at all. Virginia stands in the middle, overshooting on the 11th, but not by much. Tennessee is in great shape, as @Donnie B. notes, below.

I guess one rule of thumb is, if there's gonna be a pandemic, don't live anywhere with a population density exceeding 5,000 persons per square mile. (NYC: 26K; Boston: 13K, Atlanta: 3.4K, Charlotte: 2.7K.) But one doesn't always have the luxury of avoiding such places.
 
Last edited:
To be sure, this could be a small zig right before a large zag. If the deaths start shoot up over 6,000 in the next day or two, then these variations are mere statistical noise. But it could hold, and obviously we all hope it does.

On a related note, stay at home seems to be paying off in Tennessee in a pretty dramatic way.

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/n...cts-dramatic-covid-19-flattening-in-tennessee

This was talked about on TV this morning and it's popping up all over the internet too.
 
Uk only had 403 deaths in the last 24 hours. Second day of falling numbers. I think a couple of days ago it was just over 700 in one day.
Not saying this is solved obviously but it MIGHT (slim chance) be the First signs of change As we approach the Easter weekend where Friday and Monday are public holidays and EVERYTHING is closed on sundays.
 
Four week lockdown in Italy is working!! 4,316 new cases yesterday (Apr. 5th) and down to 3,599 today (Apr. 6th)!


1586200504682.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: jon
From a Dutch study regarding the different medical treatments available or tested in more or less too limited conditions it seems that chloroquine or hydrochloriquine associated with azomythricine is for the time being the less bad treatment if early administered. Really difficult to interpret, as a matter of fact all the other solutions are without any proven results, or not tested on humans or even better not to be used at all....bad times to go to hospital with covid-19.

https://swab.nl/nl/covid-19
 
First world leader - at least that's been reported.
Should be a definite eye opener for some.

ANYONE can get it - doesn't matter how rich or powerful or how many people you pay to keep you safe.
 
Boris in intensive care now.
gutted.
Here's one article on that: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604
Apparently there's a 10 day point where if you haven't gotten better you can go downhill FAST.

I don't have the articles handy but New York ICU mentioned a few times about people coming in at that 10-ish day point walking & talking but then deteriorating so fast in 10-12 hours they're sedated and on a ventilator.

Johnson is not a skinny guy, and if he has any underlying conditions he's in real danger. They better come up with a succession plan fast. He might be on a ventilator by now.
 
Last edited:
Here's one article on that: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604
Apparently there's a 10 day point where if you haven't gotten better you can go downhill FAST.

I don't have the articles handy but New York ICU mentioned a few times about people coming in at that 10-ish day point walking & talking but then deteriorating so fast in 10-12 hours they're sedated and on a ventilator.

Johnson is not a skinny guy, and if he has any underlying conditions he's in real danger. They better come up with a succession plan fast. He might be on a ventilator by now.

I really really hope he gets through it. I have a feeling he will but we will know soon enough I guess.
I didn’t even vote for him. I voted for the 3rd or 4th place losers but when he won that election the way he did the entire country took a massive breath and it felt like I was high on drugs for an entire week. Massive anticipation and excitement for the future in this country under Boris‘ rather splashy leadership....then this damn plague came along and has just ruined the entire world.
The last 5 years have been exhausting to be british...
 
Some more good news (provided it isn't just a blip):

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

View attachment 65931


1. It occurs to me that the final date measured, April 5, might be showing incomplete data if some locations take a day or two to report their totals. If so, that number (4,737) might rise as the remaining reports arrive. If that happens, we'd be looking at a plateau, not a drop.

Yeah, this has been the case on the WorldOMeters site... most likely the last day in the chart will have updated numbers a day or two later.


I agree that this appears to be some relatively good news. It seems like pretty solid evidence that the lockdowns and social distancing are starting to have an effect. From what I've ready, the incubation period is 5-12 days, and its usually about ~7 days from onset of symptoms to progression to critical condition (if it goes that direction). That means that if you prevent new infections (via lockdown / social distancing), you should see a reduction in critical/serious cases within 12-19 days, and a reduction in deaths beyond that range. The time from critical condition to death varies, but logic would tell us that starting around day 14 beyond any lockdown/distancing, the deaths curve should start to gently ease.... and by day 21 it should be improve further.

It has been 28 days since Italy and some other countries started lockdowns... and then a ton of other countries/states started lockdowns and social distancing around 21 days ago (the USA included). It's also worth noting that just the news of the Virus has an effect of voluntary social distancing. For instance, my wife and I took our kids out of school when Italy locked down and we started distancing before the official guidelines in CA.

In the future, we'll have more detailed data for analysis country-by-country and state-by-state, with analysis of how strong the distancing/lockdown measures were, and at which point in time. I'm interested to see in the States how critical cases and deaths per capita varies from state to state or city to city, since we have some states that have done more and some less.

But so far, it appears from a global standpoint, the social distancing is working :)

Now the million dollar question... what happens if we suddenly or slowly ease the lockdowns and distancing?
 
Mr. "None" :D
(Check old posts by The Real Knuckles)
What on earth...? Nearly, but not quite all, of his posts are either "None" or "Zero?" Someone has a strange sense of humor.
Interesting... I seem to recall he used to be called "Knuckles" but somebody hacked his account or something, which is when "The REAL Knuckles" was born.

Wonder if he's been hacked again?
 
Now the million dollar question... what happens if we suddenly or slowly ease the lockdowns and distancing?

Good question :). As I understand it, the idea is the current lockdowns prevent the first wave from overwhelming hospitals. After that passes, the lockdowns can be relaxed. With luck, the subsequent waves that follow should be smaller and less likely to tax the health care system than the first wave. In other words, it should be safer to get sick at that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom