Is/will the covid crisis be a bigger national crisis than 9/11 for the United States?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I worry that the containment efforts (in most Western countries) will not work well enough to get that infection-rate down substantially. Unless there's something akin to Chinese-style police-state/martial-law. It will slow the spread, but it could still reach 60-80% of the population, just more gradually.

Anything is possible but I doubt the outcome you describe. Look at California. We were the second state which recorded cases, after Washington. We instituted a lockdown very fast here. We are 12% of the nation's population. We have 4% of U.S. cases and 4% of deaths. Today, we added 100 cases and 4 deaths, less than 1% of what the nation added.

Our lockdown here isn't like China. No martial law. People aren't arrested for leaving their homes. But it's worked pretty well here to contain this.

New York didn't lock down until 9 days after we did, and they have very high density in NYC.

In any event, the kinds of lockdowns we're doing can work. It's just going to take longer for them to work if we waited too long at the start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Yes Hayabusa, in that quote I wrote death rate but meant to write infection rate. Doesn't really matter though, because you keep citing the 60-80% infection rate as a real number when it's not. It's based on inapplicable assumptions.

Sorry, but this is wrong, but this is outside of your area of expertise. The infection is based largely on the way the virus propagates. By social distancing, we reduce THE NUMBER OF INFECTIONS AT ANY ONE TIME.

AT THE PEAK of the curve the worst-case scenario is that 40% of the population is infected AT THE SAME TIME. In the best case we postpone the peak but the max percentage of infections becomes 6% AND THAT MEANS that there are enough health care resources and THAT determines in large part the overall mortality.

To be blunt this is a matter of care and science outside your area of practice.

Think not? Use contemporary analytical methods and figures provided by the CDC along with your knowledge of epidemiology and infections to prove me wrong.
Everybody can go back and forth and I guess this is what P^N is all about hashing out opinion in a civil manner!
But the cold hard fact are people are dying for whatever reason........
One thing we all know and it should give us hope is that if we all act responsibly and take care of our own and treat each others needs with respect and compassion we will get through this with or without these deaths!
Perhaps in doing so we will learn if we have not already that all we really have is each other and family. Everything matters little!
Yet we have idiots still trying =stock pile food and TP and water!
Just an example, I was in Lucky which is a supermarket in California and some guy had his cart full of TP and full of water. They had opened up the check yourself lines and he thought he could neak through, because he knew that they would`nt let him at a regular counter!
Long story short this older gentleman almost started crying when he saw what this other man was taking! The lady monitoring the quick check express had left her station but another person who was not dressed in a Lucky uniform noticed this man and brought over a cart and took what he had except for what he was allowed! She then turned to this older man who was visibly shaken and he told her his wife was sick and he had nowhere else top go for TP or for water! She gave him what he was allowed and then another customer bought what she was allowed and gave it to him after she had paid for hers! She walked him outside and helped him put his stuff in his car and all was again right in the world for the moment!
As a side note it turns out this woman was working as store security......all is well that ends well!!


We have a number of educated people with Dunning-Kruger making definitive conclusions without the basic tools to do so. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts as if that ever mattered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I worry that the containment efforts (in most Western countries) will not work well enough to get that infection-rate down substantially. Unless there's something akin to Chinese-style police-state/martial-law. It will slow the spread, but it could still reach 60-80% of the population, just more gradually.
What i worry about is at what point will we as americans start to take this seriously!!
You can have all the testing you want and you can even have a cure but at what point do people stop going to beaches gathering with frinds over a beer and steaks on the grill......I think that will be the defining factor as to the mortality rate! Sadly I know people who go out everyday to purchase TP and water and food because its a new day and you can go back and get more even if you don`t need more!!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I worry that the containment efforts (in most Western countries) will not work well enough to get that infection-rate down substantially. Unless there's something akin to Chinese-style police-state/martial-law. It will slow the spread, but it could still reach 60-80% of the population, just more gradually.

That's a valid concern which is what flattening the curve means. The lower total infected at any one time means that there is a higher ratio of providers and resources per patient. That doesn't alter the number of infected though as this is here to stay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yes, and for the third time now, the 60-80% infection rate is based on the assumption that no efforts are made to contain this. It's not a real number. It's hypothetical, based on the assumption that we do none of the things we are already doing. I'm not misunderstanding your math. It's your premise which is flawed.

I think the ultimate infection rate will be very high until a vaccine is developed. We're just trying to stretch it out over time so as not to overwhelm the system & have the death rate be higher because those most hard hit can't get necessary care. I don't know the numbers, but a fair % of people who end up on ventilators apparently do recover. People who need that & don't get it simply die. The death rate will also be high until other useful treatment is discovered.

Covid19 isn't going away. It will be part of the landscape for many years to come, likely from here on out. Social distancing can't be maintained indefinitely unless we find a whole different way to distribute basic goods & services which seems unlikely. Otherwise people will starve sheltering in place.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Sorry, but this is wrong, but this is outside of your area of expertise. The infection is based largely on the way the virus propagates. By social distancing, we reduce THE NUMBER OF INFECTIONS AT ANY ONE TIME.

AT THE PEAK of the curve the worst-case scenario is that 40% of the population is infected AT THE SAME TIME. In the best case we postpone the peak but the max percentage of infections becomes 6% AND THAT MEANS that there are enough health care resources and THAT determines in large part the overall mortality.

To be blunt this is a matter of care and science outside your area of practice.

Think not? Use contemporary analytical methods and figures provided by the CDC along with your knowledge of epidemiology and infections to prove me wrong.



We have a number of educated people with Dunning-Kruger making definitive conclusions without the basic tools to do so. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts as if that ever mattered.

Let's talk about facts.


A recent CDC projection estimated that the U.S. coronavirus epidemic could infect between 160 million and 214 million people over a period of more than a year — and kill anywhere from 200,000 to 1.7 million people in the country. A top CDC disease modeler presented the estimates to CDC officials and epidemic experts during a conference call last month, the New York Times revealed on Friday. The scenario did not factor in the efforts now underway to address the epidemic, but rather what could happen if no action was taken to slow the spread of of the disease.

Like I said.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I think the ultimate infection rate will be very high until a vaccine is developed. We're just trying to stretch it out over time so as not to overwhelm the system & have the death rate be higher because those most hard hit can't get necessary care. I don't know the numbers, but a fair % of people who end up on ventilators apparently do recover. People who need that & don't get it simply die. The death rate will also be high until other useful treatment is discovered.

Covid19 isn't going away. It will be part of the landscape for many years to come, likely from here on out. Social distancing can't be maintained indefinitely unless we find a whole different way to distribute basic goods & services which seems unlikely. Otherwise people will starve sheltering in place.

You don't think they'll have a vaccine before it infects half the world? Hmm. We'll see.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,722
3,130
136
You don't think they'll have a vaccine before it infects half the world? Hmm. We'll see.

a vaccine could still take a year and we know just how contagious this virus is. i would like to hear why you think the virus won't infect half the world before the vaccine is available.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
a vaccine could still take a year and we know just how contagious this virus is. i would like to hear why you think the virus won't infect half the world before the vaccine is available.

Go ask the experts. They project ~50% infection rates if and only if nothing is done to stop/slow the virus. Since things are being done, those projections are high by definition.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Go ask the experts. They project ~50% infection rates if and only if nothing is done to stop/slow the virus. Since things are being done, those projections are high by definition.
Can I ask a question that somebody who claims to know nothing might bask?
1 -- How can you be an expert on something that you have very little knowledge?
2 -- I unserstand there are ways via mathematics and percentages of the population and other ways at determining how many will get infected ans opposed to how many will die. But with that said the bottom line is everything is at best an guess or an educated guess, nonetheless a guess...
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,699
136
Three weeks ago I would have said that 9/11 was a bigger crisis but now I’m not so sure.
I said it a couple weeks ago or so. Much bigger than 911. Already more deaths. It will be 100x when this is done best case. Quite possibly 1000x as many deaths and far far far more economic impact.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Can I ask a question that somebody who claims to know nothing might bask?
1 -- How can you be an expert on something that you have very little knowledge?

I made no such claim. I am citing experts. I cited Fauchi and the CDC. I am not my own source.

2 -- I unserstand there are ways via mathematics and percentages of the population and other ways at determining how many will get infected ans opposed to how many will die. But with that said the bottom line is everything is at best an guess or an educated guess, nonetheless a guess...

Yes, we're all making educated guesses here. What's your point?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I made no such claim. I am citing experts. I cited Fauchi and the CDC. I am not my own source.
I did not mention your name-- it was a general question! Sorry you took it that way!



Yes, we're all making educated guesses here. What's your point?
Actually wouldn`t an educated guess fall under the terminology of a oxymoron??
You just made my point!! Thank You!!
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,722
3,130
136
Go ask the experts. They project ~50% infection rates if and only if nothing is done to stop/slow the virus. Since things are being done, those projections are high by definition.

please provide a source as i am obviously not going to "ask the experts", i highly doubt any of them will take my call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
You just made my point!! Thank You!!

You made whatever your point is as a reply to my post. If you want to make a general point, don't do it as a reply.

As to your point, I have no idea what it actually is, other than none of us knows for sure what will happen, but then again we already know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
please provide a source as i am obviously not going to "ask the experts", i highly doubt any of them will take my call.
Even if you did find an expert it would be nothing more than a - are you ready -- for this -- an educated guess!!
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
please provide a source as i am obviously not going to "ask the experts", i highly doubt any of them will take my call.

Why don't you just look at my nymag link to the article saying that the CDC infection rate estimate is based on the assumption that no action is taken to slow the spread of the virus. There's also google. No one suggested that you have an actual conversation with an expert. "Ask" was meant figurately.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
more people are gonna die and it will change our society more.
But unless a republican president can find some way to hang the flag on it and shout horse shit about patriotism, it won't "matter" as much.
Thats why the fat orange rapist keeps saying we're at war with the sovereign nation of Corona and he's a war time president.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Go ask the experts. They project ~50% infection rates if and only if nothing is done to stop/slow the virus. Since things are being done, those projections are high by definition.

I suspect the experts would put large error-bars on those estimates, though. For things like this I don't believe experts are all that expert. It's not physics! This is not just [whatever the study of viruses is called - virology?], it's partly sociology and psychology- and those are not hard-sciences.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Let's talk about facts.




Like I said.


So 170 to 200k best case, 1.7million plus worst. Congrats on finally getting what I said which is decidedly NOT what you originally posted.

But OK you now get an honorary degree in the medical sciences. You win the internet.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,722
3,130
136
Why don't you just look at my nymag link to the article saying that the CDC infection rate estimate is based on the assumption that no action is taken to slow the spread of the virus. There's also google. No one suggested that you have an actual conversation with an expert. "Ask" was meant figurately.

why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of saying "ask an expert"?

as for "action to slow the spread of the virus", it isn't happening nationwide, nor is our leadership doing a good job of communicating that.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I suspect the experts would put large error-bars on those estimates, though. For things like this I don't believe experts are all that expert. It's not physics! This is not just [whatever the study of viruses is called - virology?], it's partly sociology and psychology- and those are not hard-sciences.
Remember it is an educated guess as oppsed to a plain old guess.......
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
I'm not saying expertise means nothing, but for something like this it's not as vastly different from an educated layman's guess as would be the case for, say, climate science.

I'm just watching the numbers and worrying. US deaths-per-day continues to go up with each passing day. Well over 700 now. New infection cases also keep going up, though that's going to be dirty-data because it depends on the amount of testing. Deaths seems a slightly more objective metric.

As a genuine question - not being rhetorical or trying to make a point - at what point are the existing social-distancing efforts expected to produce a slowing of the spread? When would one hope to see the new daily cases start being _less_ than the figure for the previous day.