I think the more likely explanation is that 35-50% OF CASES are asymptomatic. That would mean you would add some percentage to the number of cases (but we don't know how many asymptomatic people have been tested).
But taking a rough guess.. as of today we had 1.7 million infected in the US.. maybe that would mean the real number is 3 million. I guess the issue here is that it is hard to assess the risk and to control some of the factors (as opposed to driving where you can exercise caution). Consider that if you encounter 100 people in a day, it's likely that one of them would be infected, and that would be a reasonably high risk of infection without some measures.The COVID pandemic is a topic that has far more emotion than facts. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has a responsibility to speak to the hard data and assess risk. (LINK BELOW)
CDC says 35% to 50% of us already have COVID but most don't have and will never have serious symptoms.
The CDC reported today that under this most likely scenario your risk of hospitalization or dying of COVID-19 is as follows:
Fatality Risk if you have COVID Symptoms (aka you are positive)
0-49 years old = 0.05% = One chance in 2000 (about the same as the disk of dying by chocking on food)
50-64 years old = 0.2% = Once Chance in 500 (Less likely than dying by assault with a gun, or getting hit by a car)
+65 years old = 1.3% = Once Chance in 80 (Similar to the likelihood of death by opoids)
Hospitalization Risk if you have COVID Symptoms (aka you are positive)
0-49 years old = 1.7% = One chance in 59
50-64 years old = 4.5% = Once Chance in 22
+65 years old = 7.4% Once Chance in 14
QUESTION: Do you find this data changes how you view COVID or hobbying in this time?
This is pretty much what I have been saying since the beginning.
I have been saying since day one that it is VERY likely that the "cure is worse than the disease" Not that there isn't an actual disease, just that it's fatality rates for those of us who aren't in a couple of very high risk categories have been completely overblown and that the damage down by the medical community who by necessity have erred on the side of caution has been greater than any damage caused by the virus itself.
YES, we need doctors, but that doesn't mean that we have elected doctors to make every life and death decision we face today or in the future. Doctors add one very important POV to the equation, but I don't recall ceding to the CDC every decision I make going forward to them just because we have an unusually nasty strain of the flu this year.
I no longer see oriental providers, strictly Anglo-Amercans.
Why?
He probably also stopped eating Chinese food.
...stopped eating chinese food too, virus infection way too high with anything dealing with orientals imo.
I just call them Chinks. ROR
...and have always used the term orientals...not sure why it's offensive, perhaps you can enlighten me?
Certainly oreintals is not as bad as nips or gooks lol!
I don't know why it's offensive either. Oriental means "eastern." It doesn't have any other meaning.
Just like the word "negro" which is Spanish for "black". the word "oriental" is the Spanish word for "Eastern" Speaking as someone with slanted eyes myself, I honestly don't know who or why some dipshit decided one day that the term was offensive. I can almost guarantee you it was some stupid white person, maybe one of YOUR relatives? lol
What is kind of offensive is your stupid attitude about staying away from orientals just because the COVID virus originated in China. But you have the right to be as stupid as you like, more Asian pussy for me.
You gonna claim him off waivers???
...the same with the word "redskin." White liberals decided it was offensive despite several polls showing native Americans are overwhelmingly fine with the term. I believe the number was approx 90%.
Well actually "mick" is not really a complete word. The complete word is "Drunken fucking mick" but same thing I suppose. lol
Started but turns out the micks already know they are a viewed as a bunch of fucking drunks. Those requesting the poll then retracted the project as they realized they could not then use it to raise the awareness among the drunken fucking micks that there were being called drunken fucking micks.
How can you raise the awareness, and then justify all the things you are going to do on their behalf, of a people who accept that others are denigrating them and are more than happy to wear those labels as badges of honor?
Liberal do-gooders know how to deal with those poor people in denial but in this case. No, too risky, too many unknowns that might come back and bite.
But what's wrong with being a drunk?
I thought the rule was you're not drunk till you fall off the face of the earth. So micks are never drunk, just a wee bit tipsy at times.
Never particularly liked the language barrier with the oriental providers...throw in the china wuhan flu angle and well that's that, I'm out!
I wouldn't disagree if the data was there, but I haven't heard or seen any data that suggests a higher incidence along ethnic lines. (I realize for politically correct purposes, this sort of data would not be readily broadcast, but none the less, we can't just assume it to be true.)
Of course the data does NOT support any claim that oriental people are more likely to get, or did from Corona, the data actually has found that Black people and to a slightly lesser degree Latinos are the most likely to both come down with and to suffer more serious cases which includes dying from COVID.
Claiming that Asian people in this county have a higher risk of COVID is about as dumb as saying that African Americans are more likely to get Ebola just because Ebola came from Africa. DUMB DUMB DUMB.
"CDC says 35% to 50% of us already have COVID but most don't have and will never have serious symptoms. "
come from from. I might have just passed over it but don't think it was in the link you provided.
Not that I don't think that could be the case but a bit surprised CDC would be saying up to 50% in their estimates, even the 35% seems a bit higher than I would think they would want to say.
But to answer your question, not really changing my views. Unless it is true the CDC is not saying the spread is on the order of 35 to 50 percent of the population already have caught the disease and should have some level of immunity to it. Just means a lot closer to herd immunity.
While I personally believe the "real" number is 10-20 times higher than the official count of COVID cases, nowhere have I seen any legitimate source claiming the number is anywhere near as high as 35-50%, NO WHERE.
As far as herd immunity goes, as you said even 35-50% only gets us "closer" to herd immunity, it hardly even gets us close however.
I will also concede that many of the steps that were taken were necessary to keep our health care system from being overwhelmed, but only an idiot, (not that the world, or this board isn't full of idiots) could make the argument that perpetual lockdown is sustainable.
WHAT?!! We cannot live safely like this forever? CRAP!!!! What do I do now! lol
I think we are largely of the same view -- early on when we didn't know anything to speak of initially taking a wait and see approach is not irrational (as some seem to think) and then when we start seeing things that suggest it could potentially be bad if it gets out of control a much stronger reaction might make sense. But it is always a discovery process and adjustment to the emerging facts. I think we differ more on the I'm willing to give a bit more weight to the potential unknown that might be harmful (though not directly deadly) while you're more likely to say I'm not changing because there might be some boogieman coming this way. I'll deal with that when I actually see him.
The other big thing was the country lock down as if everywhere was NYC.
It is worth noting that some of the health care facilities will be overwhelmed as over stated as well. We really did not have a ventilator shortage or a bed shortage in a lot of places. Yes in some but if people don't start paying attention of the differences and underlying drivers and keep up with the one size fits all view we get from the media (and too many of the governmental orgs as well) we're doing the same piss poor job next time around.
Spread rate slows as partial "herd immunity" grows. It's not a brick wall function. That's why you can open up before you reach the immunity level needed for it to stop spreading at all. The spread rate will be slow enough to not over-run hospitals.
I did not change anything I did that I had control over. I only wore a mask someplace if I couldn't get in without one. If a store required one, I wore it. I thought it was a better option than killing the guy at the door.
During Feb, March and April, I saw 40 different providers. All but on was Asian. Since Kgirls are renowned for their hygiene, I concentrated my hobby activities in that market. I also have a Kgirlfriend on the outside. Her agency closed for the first three weeks of May, so this month, I spent most of my time with her. We did a little traveling as well. She starts back tomorrow and is fully booked through Thursday.
I believed from the beginning that all of the fear-mongering was just partisan politics. Your numbers seem to bear that out.
I've been wearing my mask (even back in March when Fauci said they aren't effective) and haven't been "living in fear" despite living in the epicenter. I pretty much stopped working though, but I think from now on I will only taking guys under 35...you know, for "safety" reasons.
you know, for "safety" reasons.
Yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. lol
I think you will find, that once most people have "truth or facts" in their head, its tough to change their thinking even with the data that proves without a doubt we were hoaxed.
I think anyone who trivializes covid has a right to do so.
I mean, who wouldn't look forward to intubation and then a 1:500 dice roll for death. Cool game! Even better, we get to play it over and over until we get a vaccine or the disease (assuming we can get long-term immunity at all).
And, oh by the way, that's a "socially distanced" rate of infection model... the odds get worse when social distancing gets worse.
And, oh by the way, disease severity increases with magnitude of exposure... the odds get worse when social distancing gets worse.
There can be no wealth without health.
"We are our choices" - Sartre
The longer we "lock down" the more people are going to end up on the street, the more businesses are going to fail, the more jobs are going to be lost, not to mention the more people who are going to put off other necessary medical procedures in order to avoid hospitals??? The list goes on and on.
If we wait for a "magic bullet" that is going to end COVID forever we may be waiting a VERY long time. Just how many years have we had the flu vaccine? We've had it since well before anyone here was born, and guess what? In spite of roughly 150,000,000 million shots being given each and every year we still have an infection rate of between 5-20%, MILLIONS of people catching it each and every year.
Do you suggest we stay locked down indefinitely?
We aren't "locked down" except in a very few remaining places. Almost everyone who HAD locked down started opening up to some degree last weekend. So take your head out of your ass and stop lying about it.
And who said we had to wait for a COVID vaccine in order to end the lockdown? No one. We're not doing that. So again you lie.
And here's another whopper: "we still have an infection rate of 5-20%." We do. And WHY? "MILLIONS of people" catch it each year because they're too dumb to get vaccinated. Yep, more lies from you for ignoring that.
and I think that is exactly what has been done.
Someone earlier in the thread suggested that we could have saved 40,000 lives for each day sooner the President had acted... that is an equally ridiculous claim on the opposite side. We would not have had a 20,000 person "baby boom" on the 3rd day sooner the President had acted (40,000 x 3 = 120,000 lives saved; actual lives lost about 100,000).
I think we have generally done what needed to be done, in the generally right time frame for doing so, regardless of political criticisms and grandstanding. After essential stay at home orders, reopening was/is a necessary inevitability. If done intelligently, infection rates (and intubations and deaths) will remain relatively low.
I 100% believe that the virus is now endemic; it will continue to percolate at a (higher or lower, depending upon intelligence of action) level that will persist until we find a vaccine, whenever that may be (and I don't think it will be as soon as most believe). I don't believe we'll achieve sustained herd immunity - early data about reinfections and weak immune response to low severity infection seem compelling.
Comparing this virus to the flu in an attempt to trivialize it is a bad idea, IMO. Transmissibility, unchecked infection rates, hospitalization rates, intubation rates, fatality rates - all are much higher for Covid. See the link; it isn't peer reviewed, but the case is sound IMO.
I'm for reopening intelligently, without the recriminations, second-guessing and sensationalizing. There is too much to do that is more important than playing politics.
My educational background is in occupational and environmental health, and engineering. I've worked in the field for over 25 years. I've spent the last 3-1/2 months working on nothing but covid infection control plans and policy for industry and helping essential industries to remain open with minimal covid impacts. I know that reopening can be done, and done intelligently - in a way that safeguards health. I resent sensationalists and the misinformed on both sides that make my job so much more difficult.
with social distancing as that seems more driven by underlying health concerns and not entirely (or perhaps even largely) driven by access to treatment.
I also agree with the bit about magnitude of exposure that that needs a bit of refining. Certainly both the viral density of the air breath and the duration of breath contaminated air seems to influence the severity of the infection and sickness in response. That is why studies found that the first person in the household tended to get the milder case while the other family members got worse cases. That is why, on average, medical staff will tend to have worse cases than the average population.
But that doesn't mean that simply being out in the park or the beach (or even walking down the street in your neighborhood) where a lot of other people are also out is producing either higher densities or increasing your exposure duration. Depending on how crowed together people mask might be highly recommended or largely irrelevant.
The problem is more prevalent in enclosed spaces. It's a bit interesting the Cuomo is trying to cast the results of so many recent cases have emerge while sheltering in place by claiming they must have violated the social distancing rules. He doesn't seem to think old, densely populated multi unit housing could have anything to do with increasing the concentration of the virus or preventing it from dissipating.
Those claiming that until a proven vaccine is found there is no way we can open up or consider the social interactions we used to have before are being just as foolish as those claiming it a hoax or "I'm so manly I can ignore that virus."
Bill Gates has spoken about how we were not ready for a virus pandemic years ago:
That 35-50% is more than I expected!
CDC is looking at it with a wrong or old lens by predicting by age group. Because that’s what they always do. When we will know enough it will not age that will be predicting this.
Interpretation of probability is a trick business and sometimes probability infects people’s mind differently depending on our prior training and biases.
Let me try an example: per OP there is 1/500 chance of getting hit by a car. Knowing that do you walk in front of a moving car arguing that hey low probability will save me?
I would say you don’t! Now think why? That might help you understand the social ramifications of an unknown disease.
And some other poster posted above, “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst!” ... only fools do the other way around!!!
A better analogy would be, the job that you depend on for your livelihood requires you to cross the street in order to get to it. Do you take the one in five hundred chance that you might get hit by a car, or do you take the 100% chance that you and and your family will be living in the street with a MUCH higher than 1 in 500 chance of getting hit by the very same car if you refuse to cross the street because you're scared?
As for "preparing for the worst" Actually catching COVID is NOT the worst, a repeat of the Great Depression and the massive, poverty, death and disease that would come with it is a much worse scenario.
BTW I do agree that the 35-50% number thrown out there by the OP sounds implausible and isn't backed up by any evidence I can find. I can call out "some" of the raw data put forth by the OP without calling all of it bullshit, everything else he claims does seem to be backed up by solid evidence
This has turned out to be a FAR less fatal event than first led to believe. For people under 60, this is the flu, fatality wise.
This is a VERY lethal disease for a VERY small part of our population and a VERY mild disease for a VERY large part so let's act that way.
The world fucked up by not taking care of the nursing homes. In many places those deaths (and prison ones) account for much more than 50% of the fatalities.
The Swedish model (fixing their issues with nursing homes) is the way to go moving forward. Let the under 60 and healthy crowd do their regular thing, taking some obvious precautions (i.e. extra hand washing, moving desks/tables further apart at work/retsaurants, allowing more to telecommute when/if possible, staggering work times, etc) and lets better protect the elderly and sick.
It really is the only way to go, when you factor everything in.
Let's take masks for example. Until just recently wearing masks was actually DISCOURAGED by the CDC, then they did an about face on the subject and all of a sudden Planet Stupid decided "without evidence" as they like to say about anything POTUS has to say on any subject, that masks are now the holy grail against COVID.
Let's see what that right wing internet source SNOPES has to say about how simple cloth masks, or even the high priced surgical masks are going to end this crisis.
This institution has been compromised, so it's data is suspect. The virus is here, it's not a "Hoax" but it's something I've learned to maneuver around. I'm still out and about still doing my thing. So my outlook is the same.It's the effects of the current circumstances that have limited me in my travels and that limits my "playing" time.But I'm seeing the light at the end of tunnel and I have plans coming up....So I'll and we'll be ok.
There is no way 35%-50% of the population of the US has been infected already
Reliable stats are still hard to come by. But in the end, it's about how fearful people will be to venture out...and start reenergizing the ecomony. If say 60% are willing to go to restaurants, shops, beaches, sports events, etc then that leaves 40% still hobbling the economy leading to more bankruptcies, layoffs, evictions. So IF the reopening is too aggressive, it could backfire on all the painful gains made so far.
Of course there is no one-size-fits-all across the country so some states are in effect giant lab tests. BUT, if things spike significantly as a result, the fear will be perpetuated...and the economy will spiral until a vaccine is widely available.
If the spike hits primarily the young and healthy, no cause for alarm there as 99.9% or so will survive and be just fine. We have to make sure the spike doesn't crush the elderly and/or sick if we have another wave.
We cant afford another long shut down. And I am not speaking solely about the economics of the situation. The mental health aspect i.e. the carnage that shutting down causes i.e. higher rates of depression, suicide, spousal and child abuse along with all the economic pain and hardship i.e. homelessness etc is a recipe for disaster.
Did the shut down do some good? Yeah, I am sure it did. But we have to look at all the harm it did as well so we can do a better risk vs reward analysis moving forward.
The key word you start with is "if"...and the stats of the "if" depend on what you believe - on either side of the debate. If you're in the more fearful camp, I'll bet you'll believe the stats that reinforce your fear. And vice versa.
One (somewhat anecdotal) observation is that women seem to be more cautious than men. Perhaps more inclined to protect their family, including their parents, kids, husbands, etc.
In the hobbying world, there seem to be a decent number of providers who have dropped out of sight or going for virtual sessions (are there really guys who buy that?) presumably from fear.
Ladies? Comments?
I think the more likely explanation is that 35-50% OF CASES are asymptomatic. That would mean you would add some percentage to the number of cases (but we don't know how many asymptomatic people have been tested).
But taking a rough guess.. as of today we had 1.7 million infected in the US.. maybe that would mean the real number is 3 million.
I guess the issue here is that it is hard to assess the risk and to control some of the factors (as opposed to driving where you can exercise caution). Consider that if you encounter 100 people in a day, it's likely that one of them would be infected, and that would be a reasonably high risk of infection without some measures.
I actually have a tracking spreadsheet for the area I live that includes a calculation for the chances of crossing paths with someone that is contagious. Where I am that has been about 25% chance. So on that my world is that (if nothing changes too soon) once every 4 days I will cross paths with someone that could infect me.
Now, it's not the case that simply because I walked past someone, or behind someone or next to someone at the self check out while shopping for groceries that I will with a high probability become infected. So I'm not entirely sure "high risk of" is the description I would use. Now, I'm also not in NYC where I suspect my numbers would change a good bit.
While I must confess that this is not a story of my life, I would say your high risk assessment might be appropriate if we change "encounter 100 people in a day" to "we encounter (as in have a session with) 100 escorts in a day". In this case I do think either your 1 person or my 1 person in four days is high risk of infection.
Maybe that puts some things in a new perspective for some... 
The head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health believes Norway could have brought the coronavirus pandemic under control without a lockdown, and called for the country to avoid such far-reaching measures if hit by a second wave.
Camille Stoltenberg, the agency's Director General, told state broadcaster NRK that the agency's analysis now suggested less restrictive measures would have been sufficient.
Asiannyc, I think you misunderstood something on the CDC website. It does not say that 35-50% of the population has had the infection. There have been a number of serologic testing studies in several urban areas and they all seem to indicate that approximately 5% of the general population have had the infection. Even in Spain the study showed about 5%. The exception is in NYC where the study showed approximately 20% of the population has had the infection. You are correct that the mortality risk in the younger (under 60) and healthier population is very low. But the point is that most of us have not yet faced that risk, ie we have not yet rolled the dice, or spun the wheel. And the reality is that we’re not all playing with the same rules. I think there are a fair amount of hobbyists in the high-risk groups. So you all stay safe out there.