deadbq03 said:

---

Aust Ag said:

---

Well, people are either dying of Covid or they're not. No guesswork there.

---

I'd bet a coke that there's been deaths in Jan and Feb that went down as pneumonia, etc, and actually were untested Coronavirus.

---

Is there anywhere that we can get the data for pneumonia related deaths for Jan-Feb of this year and compare them to previous years?

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

Moxley said:

---

A much earlier / higher population spread just doesn't jive with the current hospitalization numbers.

Unless there's some other factor driving hospitalization, we can't really explain the sudden surge in New York, New Orleans, or other hot spots. Those numbers seem to indicate the virus is new to the area, not old.

If there was massive subacute spread over time there would not be a sudden spike in hospitalization like we are seeing. Of course, there's always the chance, however unlikely, that the virus got into a community a month or so ago and spread like absolute wildfire to a huge percentage of the population with only very few needing hospitalization, but that is unlikely.

---

I actually somewhat agree about his number, but also agree with you regarding the faults in his reasoning. My complete off the cuff guess is 4 million total in the US have been infected, but guesses are worthless. What we know is that most people are seeing 4-7 day delays in results of tests. We also know that at least in the ER, people are not getting tested frequently (my test rate for suspected cases is probably around 10%). We also believe sensitivity for the test is possibly as low as 70% (don't have a source for this, just a number quoted to me by a colleague who puts out a lot of medical education material), meaning many are likely falsely testing negative. We also know that many people are appropriately staying home and self-quarantining while they battle the infection without ever getting tested. And we also know that many people, for whatever reason, are asymptomatic. This is not to say we should be using the completely arbitrary 4 million number as the denominator for CFR, as most of that number would likely be in the early stages of infection. True CFR can really only be reliably calculated retrospectively.

---

Here is the study that is at least one of the sources for that 70% number
https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/comparing-rt-pcr-and-chest-ct-for-diagnosing-covid19

What is the number tested in the US and China?

Mattowander said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Texas has done an outstanding job of limiting spread! We have fewer cases per 100k than states with virtually no density like Montana and the Dakotas. That's just exceptional. I mean, that would be virtually impossible but we've found a way. Credit to our state and local governments for finding a way to pull off the highly unlikely.

---

We have been doing such a poor job of testing that I have very little confidence in our numbers.

---

Agree with the lack of confidence in the numbers. If people acknowledge this, they also have to agree that the mortality rate is also much lower than what is being calculated.

And IMO rates of hospitalization, intubation and mortality are the most important numbers. We should all be praying that tests reveal this has spread much much broader, and therefore those states rates are far overstated.

We cannot stay shut down indefinitely. It's impossible.

Even if a vaccine was discovered and proven today, it would take 12-18 months to get it injected into person. So everyone is going to get this, even at the lower slower spread numbers that shutdown is hoping to achieve.

Slowing down gets you three potential things (1) improvements in supportive care with existing therapies such as the malaria drugs (2) a chance to ramp up PPE production to possibly achieve the same goal of slowing the spread without all the economic costs and (3) spread the cases out to not overtax the ICU and ventilator capacity available

emando2000 said:

---

Mattowander said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Texas has done an outstanding job of limiting spread! We have fewer cases per 100k than states with virtually no density like Montana and the Dakotas. That's just exceptional. I mean, that would be virtually impossible but we've found a way. Credit to our state and local governments for finding a way to pull off the highly unlikely.

---

We have been doing such a poor job of testing that I have very little confidence in our numbers.

---

Agree with the lack of confidence in the numbers. If people acknowledge this, they also have to agree that the mortality rate is also much lower than what is being calculated.

---

I would probably agree with this, although I wonder how many cases of deaths caused by Coronavirus were actually officially attributed to other causes (not saying this is happening in Texas but I have seen some anecdotal mention of this happening)