zebros_95 said:

---

Here's my thing and I have seen all genetic tracking maps. This thing was running around China in November we know that. With the high R0 and the amount of travel between China and the US it is virtually impossible this wasn't introduced earlier than mid January.

We weren't testing back then so the lack of samples to test genetic tracing simply dont exist.

---

That was the point I tried to make on another thread. It is either insanely infectious, or it took 2 months to get here. It's hard to believe that it could be both.

There are direct flights from Wuhan to SeaTac, SFO, LAX, PDX, and many more international airports. All it would take is one person on a plane from Wuhan who was asymptomatic to get the fire started over here.

I was told the science was settled.

This graphic is about a month old, but the trend has held up:

HotardAg07 said:

---

This graphic is about a month old, but the trend has held up:

---

What about long term medical outcomes other than death, such as greatly reduced renal and cardiac functions for people in their 30's and 40's who survived this illness and will have medical issues for the rest of their lives?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

This graphic is about a month old, but the trend has held up:

---

What about long term medical outcomes other than death, such as greatly reduced renal and cardiac functions for people in their 30's and 40's who survived this illness and will have medical issues for the rest of their lives?

---

I would say it's likely way too early to tell if these effects will be lifelong or temporary/improve over time. I'm not a doctor though.

HotardAg07 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So this raises the question "Why didn't Santa Clara, and the SF Bay area, become a hot spot in the way Seattle did?"

One thought? Santa Clara is young. The median age of 33.9 is about 5 years less than than entire US, and 15 years younger than Italy.

COVID kills noticeably high numbers in the 70+ demographic. Until it gets into a cluster in that segment of society, it's more difficult to spot.

---

The median age of NYC is 35.8 and the median age of Seattle is 35.2.

---

Moving the median of a large population data set is not a trivial thing. It means you're missing a LOT of octogenarians and nonagenarians.

But it shouldn't surprise anyone that Silicon Valley might not have a ton of born-before-the-baby-room residents.

UncleNateFitch said:

---

I'd bet money that my father in law had this virus right around February 15th to 20th, here in Texas. When this all shakes out, we're going to find it was widespread by that time and all the pseudoscientists here were wrong.

---

When you say widespread, what are you implying? Even the California studies - Stanford, LA - suggest that no more than 3% of populace has been exposed. Much, much more than confirmed sick previously, but I still wouldn't call that widespread by my definition. Also, the test was conducted early April and that shows 3%, potentially, at that time - back in February, I assume that it would be far less so again I am not sure widespread is accurate.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

This graphic is about a month old, but the trend has held up:

---

What about long term medical outcomes other than death, such as greatly reduced renal and cardiac functions for people in their 30's and 40's who survived this illness and will have medical issues for the rest of their lives?

---

I would say it's likely way too early to tell if these effects will be lifelong or temporary/improve over time. I'm not a doctor though.

---

Then click the link I posted and read the comments from a real doctor with experience treating this disease.

---

I did read it. No reason for attitude. I'm not sure anyone can truly know the long lasting effects of this disease because it's only been around a few months. That was my point.

---

Don't be so sensitive and think critically. There is no certainty in life but people with experience make the most probable predictions. Medical professionals can observe and measure the physical damage caused by this disease. If you want to use the "no one can know" line of reasoning, take it to the Politics board with the rest of them.

---

I'm not being sensitive. I was simply stating a possibility. Furthermore, I try to steer clear of that god awful and hateful board. The post you referenced was from a doctor on the front lines who is physically and mentally exhausted and probably very emotional right now based on all the horrible things he's being exposed to. Why is it so bad to hope that there aren't wide spread long lasting effects from this? Especially when there isn't any actual data showing that...unless you can share that with me?

SkiMo said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

This graphic is about a month old, but the trend has held up:

---

What about long term medical outcomes other than death, such as greatly reduced renal and cardiac functions for people in their 30's and 40's who survived this illness and will have medical issues for the rest of their lives?

---

I would say it's likely way too early to tell if these effects will be lifelong or temporary/improve over time. I'm not a doctor though.

---

Then click the link I posted and read the comments from a real doctor with experience treating this disease.

---

I did read it. No reason for attitude. I'm not sure anyone can truly know the long lasting effects of this disease because it's only been around a few months. That was my point.

---

Don't be so sensitive and think critically. There is no certainty in life but people with experience make the most probable predictions. Medical professionals can observe and measure the physical damage caused by this disease. If you want to use the "no one can know" line of reasoning, take it to the Politics board with the rest of them.

---

I'm not being sensitive. I was simply stating a possibility. Furthermore, I try to steer clear of that god awful and hateful board. The post you referenced was from a doctor on the front lines who is physically and mentally exhausted and probably very emotional right now based on all the horrible things he's being exposed to. Why is it so bad to hope that there aren't wide spread long lasting effects from this? Especially when there isn't any actual data showing that...unless you can share that with me?

---

But you didn't. You said the probability of long term effects can not be reasonably caculated at this point, which is just wrong. There are plenty of unknowns, but there is plenty of data to make probable predictions. For one, ARDS is not new. You can look up the long term health effects.

https://www.boston.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/20/massachusetts-coronavirus-covid-19-deaths

In Boston, the average age is ~81

My sister in laws daughter who is 10 was hospitalized in Jan with the classic symptoms of Covid. The testing was quite limited at that standpoint. She recently tested positive with the more advanced testing. They believe she had had it twice. They live in Queens.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Dr. Fauci said the models they were using predicted 100-200K deaths and we are over 45K deaths now with over 2,500 deaths a day.

The predictions seem to be on track.

The 'you can't know' arguments are just ridiculous, uneducated internet jabber that should be on the Politics board.

---

Actually, no. The predictions have changed to currently be 65,976. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america Those numbers are updated every week and go down and up but it is currently predicted to remain under 100k through August 4th.

AggieBiker said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Dr. Fauci said the models they were using predicted 100-200K deaths and we are over 45K deaths now with over 2,500 deaths a day.

The predictions seem to be on track.

The 'you can't know' arguments are just ridiculous, uneducated internet jabber that should be on the Politics board.

---

Actually, no. The predictions have changed to currently be 65,976. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america Those numbers are updated every week and go down and up but it is currently predicted to remain under 100k through August 4th.

---

Based on the daily death toll trend, I would bet all the money on the internets that we pass that number in 10 days or less. And I'd hope that you'd win the bet.

this would fit in line with the random sampling of santa clara county residents that saw a 50-85X in number of actual cases.

Carnwellag2 said:

---

this would fit in line with the random sampling of santa clara county residents that saw a 50-85X in number of actual cases.

---

This is an interesting point. Don't know if I think it's valid, but it does make you rethink the Santa Clara study a little bit more given this finding despite the study's problems.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

AggieBiker said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Dr. Fauci said the models they were using predicted 100-200K deaths and we are over 45K deaths now with over 2,500 deaths a day.

The predictions seem to be on track.

The 'you can't know' arguments are just ridiculous, uneducated internet jabber that should be on the Politics board.

---

Actually, no. The predictions have changed to currently be 65,976. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america Those numbers are updated every week and go down and up but it is currently predicted to remain under 100k through August 4th.

---

Based on the daily death toll trend, I would bet all the money on the internets that we pass that number in 10 days or less. And I'd hope that you'd win the bet.

---

Remember that they are also predicting a continual decline int the daily death toll not a continual increase or even a level amount. If the model is correct, the daily number gets smaller and smaller making it more difficult to hit greater than 100k. Let's hope they are correct regardless of why.

Guess he had the same question.

Could have just been dumb luck. Didn't hit a "super spreader" early on, perhaps.

Unfortunately it wasn't random, and they didn't find 50-80x. They got 50/3300 positive tests. They then grossed that number up for a demographic adjustment, then applied a statistical sampling correction to the 50 to account for the false positive/false negative rate of their test. There's been much weeping and gnashing of teeth of how they did it.

But, if we forget all that and assume their 1.5% test finding is spot on, you get a ~13x multiplier of known cases (1.928 million x 1.5% = 29,200 estimated vs 2283 reported). If you use a 4 uniform day doubling and go back from 4/3 you get a start date of Feb 1. Seems pretty reasonable to me, for a back of the envelope kinda scratch work.

Keegan99 said:

---

Guess he had the same question.

Could have just been dumb luck. Didn't hit a "super spreader" early on, perhaps.

---

I wonder what his criteria for "late" January is. Is it last 10 days of the month? Assuming Jan 20 is the earliest date this guy would qualify as "late" January, that means if the first death on Feb 6 caught it on the 20, that's a 17 day cycle from time of catching the virus to death. Is this consistent with the timeline we are seeing now from catching the virus to death? I genuinely don't know and couldn't find it on a quick search.

Maybe this doesn't change his timeline at all, but we are talking about a small window the Feb 6 death could have caught it and progressed through the cycle until death. I'm just pointing out that it does leave open the possibility of maybe as slightly earlier introduction date.

Keegan99 said:

---

Guess he had the same question.

Could have just been dumb luck. Didn't hit a "super spreader" early on, perhaps.

---

this is my hypothesis for why NY has been so hard hit. They hit the unlucky jackpot with their combination of population density, mass transit, multiple introductions due to being a travel hub, and they had at least one "super-spreader" (the lawyer) who was likely infectious as early as the 3rd week in february, or a full month before their shelter in place.

Beat40 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Guess he had the same question.

Could have just been dumb luck. Didn't hit a "super spreader" early on, perhaps.

---

I wonder what his criteria for "late" January is. Is it last 10 days of the month? Assuming Jan 20 is the earliest date this guy would qualify as "late" January, that means if the first death on Feb 6 caught it on the 20, that's a 17 day cycle from time of catching the virus to death. Is this consistent with the timeline we are seeing now from catching the virus to death? I genuinely don't know and couldn't find it on a quick search.

Maybe this doesn't change his timeline at all, but we are talking about a small window the Feb 6 death could have caught it and progressed through the cycle until death. I'm just pointing out that it does leave open the possibility of maybe as slightly earlier introduction date.

---

Sure there is certainly the possibility of an earlier introduction in this area. More than likely there were probably multiple introductions from different travelers returning/visiting the area, not just one. Its possible that this infection chain, while ultimately unfortunately killing this person, was stopped early that didn't progress to a full blown spread as later occurred. I think this is what Trevor is trying to say. The person infected could have just stayed home, not gone out or only traveled to sparsely populated places and thus not initiated a larger spread during this time.

This still tho does not point to a larger spread occurring in January or earlier. It is still very unlikely that you or your family were infected with the virus in January.

Ranger222 said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Guess he had the same question.

Could have just been dumb luck. Didn't hit a "super spreader" early on, perhaps.

---

I wonder what his criteria for "late" January is. Is it last 10 days of the month? Assuming Jan 20 is the earliest date this guy would qualify as "late" January, that means if the first death on Feb 6 caught it on the 20, that's a 17 day cycle from time of catching the virus to death. Is this consistent with the timeline we are seeing now from catching the virus to death? I genuinely don't know and couldn't find it on a quick search.

Maybe this doesn't change his timeline at all, but we are talking about a small window the Feb 6 death could have caught it and progressed through the cycle until death. I'm just pointing out that it does leave open the possibility of maybe as slightly earlier introduction date.

---

Sure there is certainly the possibility of an earlier introduction in this area. More than likely there were probably multiple introductions from different travelers returning/visiting the area, not just one. Its possible that this infection chain, while ultimately unfortunately killing this person, was stopped early that didn't progress to a full blown spread as later occurred. I think this is what Trevor is trying to say. The person infected could have just stayed home, not gone out or only traveled to sparsely populated places and thus not initiated a larger spread during this time.

This still tho does not point to a larger spread occurring in January or earlier. It is still very unlikely that you or your family were infected with the virus in January.

---

Because I haven't been following this that much, can you answer this for me: is the extent of the genome testing taking people who are currently positive today (or a month and half ago) and tracing it back to the first few US cases?

If that's the case, and as long as there is a possibility of earlier introduction, the question of how early still needs to be answered. I mean, we JUST now found people from Feb 6 and Feb17, over 2 months afterward. That Feb 6th death leaves a pretty tight window for catching the virus and then going through the virus cycle time until death. Are there people from earlier? Can we answer no with any certainty after learning of COVID related deaths about 23 days earlier than we have on record?

I want to state this for the record - I am someone who does not believe the virus was here in November or December.

My only point is deaths that early, that we are just now discovering, lead to questions that should be considered through some sort of investigation rather than a practice in logic.

Keegan99 said:

---

So this raises the question "Why didn't Santa Clara, and the SF Bay area, become a hot spot in the way Seattle did?"

One thought? Santa Clara is young. The median age of 33.9 is about 5 years less than than entire US, and 15 years younger than Italy.

COVID kills noticeably high numbers in the 70+ demographic. Until it gets into a cluster in that segment of society, it's more difficult to spot.

---

Santa Clara is spread out and not at all dependent upon public transportation like NY. Also, far more alternative hours/ telecommute jobs in the Silicon Valley vs NY. California also reacted quickly with lots of cooperation from population to stop the spread. Lots of reasons for the different paths the virus took.

4 days incubation, hospitalization is common on day 10 of symptoms. So 17 days from incubation to death could be reasonable. The other question is did this person die with COVID19 or from it?

bay fan said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So this raises the question "Why didn't Santa Clara, and the SF Bay area, become a hot spot in the way Seattle did?"

One thought? Santa Clara is young. The median age of 33.9 is about 5 years less than than entire US, and 15 years younger than Italy.

COVID kills noticeably high numbers in the 70+ demographic. Until it gets into a cluster in that segment of society, it's more difficult to spot.

---

Santa Clara is spread out and not at all dependent upon public transportation like NY. Also, far more alternative hours/ telecommute jobs in the Silicon Valley vs NY. California also reacted quickly with lots of cooperation from population to stop the spread. Lots of reasons for the different paths the virus took.

---

Comparing Santa Clara to NY doesn't really explain why Seattle and Santa Clara had such divergent experiences before either area enacted interventions.