Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[GhostHost1000]

I’ve posted the percentages of Americans who are considered high risk and it is easily ½ of the population. Add in family, dependents and care givers and it’s not hard to see that easily rising to ½ the population who are quarantined. Either way, you’re not getting to that 80% of the population stated for herd immunity.

that is very true

 

[Rimmit]

Other than HIV, which ones?

RSV is a big one. For the infant population this would be huge if we could get a vaccine for RSV. We have pavlizumab AKA Synagis which is a monoclonal antibody that we give to super high risk patients Once a month during RSV season, but no vaccine. There are some in the works but we have been unsuccessful so far making an RSV vaccine. Maybe in the next several years.

If we could be successful making an RSV vaccine we would probably put most children’s hospitals out of business as that’s one of their top admissions.

 

[Andrew C]

My question to this would be, the models already assumed social distancing through May, so how can we say the downgrade is due to social distancing? Is it just a case where the models become more accurate as more data is collected? If so, it seems the models they are using are wildly inaccurate with the same social distancing assumptions in place. Or is testing and treatment coming into play?



the latest projection is about 60k deaths by august

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

 

[mapleleaf1389]

Sure you do... if you actually look at things like citations, other sources, supporting materials, etc.

This 'my stuff isn't any worse than yours' defense is a deflect tactic. It is easy to discern what is credible in a piece if someone wants to. Reality is... most don't. They just want to see and share something that fits their disposition.

Agreed

I like the old Dylan line "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

All of NY closed
All of California closed
All pro sports paused of cancelled
All domestic Disney properties closed
All Las Vegas casinos closed

regardless of where the information is coming from, reality kind of drives the point home

 

[GhostHost1000]

My question to this would be, the models already assumed social distancing through May, so how can we say the downgrade is due to social distancing? Is it just a case where the models become more accurate as more data is collected? If so, it seems the models they are using are wildly inaccurate with the same social distancing assumptions in place. Or is testing and treatment coming into play?

I don't think anyone knows really... what happens if we return to "normal" and it starts up again. We don't have a vaccine yet so I'm trying to figure out how this works from here on

 

[peter11435]

Other than HIV, which ones?

Epstein-Barr
West Nile
Zika
Hepatitis C

I could go on

 

[Nunu]

I got a cancellation email for an ADR on 5/1 at California Grill this morning.

Me too, got a May 2, BOG ADR cancellation email this morning.

 

[mapleleaf1389]

My question to this would be, the models already assumed social distancing through May, so how can we say the downgrade is due to social distancing? Is it just a case where the models become more accurate as more data is collected? If so, it seems the models they are using are wildly inaccurate with the same social distancing assumptions in place. Or is testing and treatment coming into play?



the latest projection is about 60k deaths by august

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

The probability models live on assumptions until data can give better projections. Given the poor value of the data collected throughout most of the world when this started, the assumptions probably skewed a little higher as the fatality percentage of tested cases would have been higher. This is why testing is and always will be the key, as you can start to calculate and apply more meaningful percentages to the models which affects the curve dramatically.

I think it's also important and fair to realize that given the age of the virus itself (4-5 months), all the information on it is fairly young. As more is learned assumptions can be replaced with facts (how its spread, how viral it is, etc...), the facts will change a bit and allow better guidance on what the best things to do going forward are.

In electric we live on probability models (1 year event, 10 year event, 100 year event are the classifications we use), and we apply response factors in based on the level of severity. In our world we would consider this a 100 year event as it is so rare and unlikely. We do however have a plan in place in the event of a 100 year event, it just seldom gets tested as its rare and unlikely. Hurricane Sandy was our 100 year event about 10 years ago, as it did things we had rarely projected could occur.

 

[rowrbazzle]

Really interesting.

Would we even need to worry about over burdening the hospitals if we simply quarantined those with higher risk and built up herd immunity? No idea, I don't study this stuff, but fascinating nonetheless.

I wouldn't feel comfortable making this a study in the future lol.

I think it's kind of what Sweden is doing. At the moment their death rate is higher than the US, but lower than a number of European countries (e.g., UK, Spain, Belgium).

 

[flynnibus]

Should a newscaster be hysterical over the current level of .27% of prior year's fatalities? If you feel that current level warrants hysterical reporting, we will just agree to disagree.

Maths... they are hard I guess?

You are comparing deaths that were totaled after the fact over a year's duration...
To a number that only covers roughly a month.. and is still growing faster and faster.

Your attempt at math (0.27%) would only be correct if there were no more deaths from covid-19 for the next 11 months.

But even a caveman can see that's not going to happen.

So, do you really want to keep touting such things? Even a caveman knows better...

 

[Josh Hendy]

Articles like this are appearing on many news sites (pick your favorite). It concerns the question of whether infection by CV confers immunity.

This appears to be the study. The abstract is somewhat garbled so you might want to go straight to the pdf.

Obviously we need a lot more, high-quality research to be done before any of this will be clear. Among other concerns, the question of antibody levels and immunity could affect quarantine policies and vaccine development.

A team from Fudan University analysed blood samples from 175 patients discharged from the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre and found that nearly a third had unexpectedly low levels of antibodies.

In some cases, antibodies could not be detected at all.

“Whether these patients were at high risk of rebound or reinfection should be explored in further studies,” the team wrote in preliminary research released on Monday on Medrxiv.org, an online platform for preprint papers.

Although the study was preliminary and not peer-reviewed, it was the world’s first systematic examination of antibody levels in patients who had recovered from Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, the researchers said.

 

[LittleBuford]

Two different questions:

What will the eventual level of fatalities be? Impossible to know so TBD.

Should a newscaster be hysterical over the current level of .27% of prior year's fatalities? If you feel that current level warrants hysterical reporting, we will just agree to disagree.

By this logic, we should treat any event that causes an unexpected large-scale loss of life as unremarkable, since the number of people killed is always going to be a fraction of the yearly total.

 

[rowrbazzle]

Well guess what? 15 days later NY is now at 6,268 deaths which is more than twice the number of deaths of 9/11 and we still aren’t past the worst of it. They are losing 700+ a day at this point! Based on the current count of 6,268 that is a 4.1 percent uptick in deaths... and we are just getting started!!! Those numbers are even likely undercounted as the coroners state they don’t have enough tests to test those that died prior to testing or at home. The number of death/day is still increasing but thankfully the number of new cases is decreasing due to social distancing.

The latest model update now has NY deaths peaking in one day. Hopefully they're turning a corner.

 

[flynnibus]

By this logic, we should treat any event that causes an unexpected large-scale loss of life as unremarkable, since the number of people killed is always going to be a fraction of the yearly total.

I like this visualization...

The guy at the arrow thinks the train ride has been great.. nice and smooth.. what's all the fuss about?

 

[DisneyCane]

It's no different than the arguments made here to not 'kill' the economy for the sake of the deaths COVID causes. Their mantra is "the cure is worse than the disease."

And that's because they're willing to accept what would be -- without mitigation -- more than a million deaths in the U.S. They're willing to accept overwhelmed healthcare facilities where some people die because there aren't enough intensive care units and respirators to go around (and those with critical health issues for other reasons, for example, a heart attack, don't survive because all the ICUs are full).

So, he's right in that you can just let it run it's course and eventually we'll be immune to it. And by "we," they mean the survivors ignoring all those who died. So, don't flatten the curve and let it peak beyond our healthcare's system to possible save many of the infected.

And now, the ad hominem: But what do you expect from a website that traffics in conspiracies?

His point is that the same number of people will eventually be infected because "flattening the curve" just spreads the cycle out. Nobody is saying that any of these actions will get the new infection rate to zero. That would only be possible with a worldwide lockdown that isolated everyone (even within households) from each other for a month or longer. Obviously it is not possible to do that.

I understand the argument about preventing overwhelming the healthcare system.

 

[Rimmit]

What will the eventual level of fatalities be? Impossible to know so TBD.

FINALLY! You are finally getting it!!! That’s exactly the point. It is TBD!!! That’s the issue!!! We have zero idea where this is going to end up and that’s why we have to slow it down. There is zero chance of it stopping at 0.27 percent

Focusing on the current numbers mean squat except to try and extrapolate future death counts. You are finally understanding the problem!!

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Two different questions:

What will the eventual level of fatalities be? Impossible to know so TBD.

Should a newscaster be hysterical over the current level of .27% of prior year's fatalities? If you feel that current level warrants hysterical reporting, we will just agree to disagree.

Link to the hysterical newscaster? I’ve found that people on here inject how they feel about something they saw where others don’t see it. I’m not saying he wasn’t hysterical, just would like to judge it myself.
All the news stations I have watched so far, and they have been everyone mentioned here plus more, I haven’t seen a hysterical news person yet. Maybe one taking it to far to the left or right but not hysterical.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

But some people who aren't high risk get a bad case of it and some of those die.... So who do you quarantine?

Again, I'll emphasize that I don't study this stuff and I wouldn't want to run an experiment testing it.

 

[Disney Analyst]

For reasons I don’t understand you are fixated on current death numbers and cannot see the forest for the trees. There is a much bigger picture here that given your posting history you cannot seem to comprehend.

On Mar. 24th you posted the current death numbers in NY state as quoted below.



Well guess what? 15 days later NY is now at 6,268 deaths which is more than twice the number of deaths of 9/11 and we still aren’t past the worst of it. They are losing 700+ a day at this point! Based on the current count of 6,268 that is a 4.1 percent uptick in deaths... and we are just getting started!!! Those numbers are even likely undercounted as the coroners state they don’t have enough tests to test those that died prior to testing or at home. The number of death/day is still increasing but thankfully the number of new cases is decreasing due to social distancing.

CA has thankfully been more proactive than most states and that’s allowed them to keep their numbers from exploding into the exponential growth.

I do not know how else to help you understand exponential growth at this point as the numbers don’t lie.

To add to your point, comparing an "annual overall death" number, to a "specific cause of death" number, which is rising over an INSANELY short amount of time is INSANITY. We can't compare the numbers the easily.

Coronavirus is causing an obscene number of deaths, in a very short time span. People are going from well to dead in days.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

I’ve posted the percentages of Americans who are considered high risk and it is easily ½ of the population. Add in family, dependents and care givers and it’s not hard to see that easily rising to ½ the population who are quarantined. Either way, you’re not getting to that 80% of the population stated for herd immunity.

I suppose the number of high risk individuals is pretty high. Especially if we include those with comorbidities like obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Thanks for the perspective.