Coronavirus Numbers

[samhexum]

Sixty-four children in New York state have been hospitalized with a rare, life-threatening inflammatory illness linked to the coronavirus, a new state Health Department report released Wednesday reveals.

 

Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker issued an alert to medical providers regarding the “potential association” between “multi-syndrome inflammatory syndrome” — or Kawasaki disease — and COVID-19.

 

“As of May 5, 2020, sixty-four (64) suspected pediatric clinical cases compatible with multi-system inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 have been reported in children in New York State hospitals, including New York City,” the advisory said.

 

The alert said a majority of patients with the inflammatory syndrome have tested positive for COVID-19 or COVID-fighting antibodies.

 

The state directive said hospitals must immediately report cases of pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome or Kawasaki disease to the Health Department and immediately perform tests for COVID-19 on patients.

 

Kawasaki disease and multi-inflammatory syndrome are rare childhood illnesses that cause the walls of blood vessels in the body to become inflamed. Symptoms include high temperature that lasts for five days or longer, redness in the eyes, rashes and swollen glands in the neck.

 

Children younger than 5 are most at risk.

 

The state health advisory said while older adults are at risk for severe COVID-19 illness, children can still get sick, though they rarely become severely ill.

 

“Early recognition by pediatricians and prompt referral to an in-patient specialist, including to critical care is essential,” the alert said.

 

The New York City Heath Department issued its own health alert Monday night after reporting that four of 15 kids between the ages of 2 and 15 who had symptoms of Kawasaki disease also tested positive for the coronavirus.

 

“We haven’t seen any fatalities yet, but we are very concerned by what we’re seeing. We’re learning more every day about how COVID-19 affects the body. This is a ferocious disease,” Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted on Tuesday.

[+ tassojunior]

Because infection and death figures for CV vary so much, I like the NYT's new method of giving the extra deaths over the normally expected as the guideline. It causes the worst-hit to look worse and many low-case places to look better. California shows being hit harder though.

[+ bigjoey]

An interesting comparison to the 1968 pandemic and today. Note they place an equivalent number higher than what I have been assuming. Even at a lower equivalent figure, the 1968 pandemic had more deaths:

https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/

 

The reaction then and now makes an interesting comparison. The 1957 pandemic had an even higher death count and the reaction was about the same as in 1968.

 

As I have noted, we are far from done and the numbers from our current pandemic will not be finalized for some time. But our numbers seem to be in line with these two prior pandemics that occurred during my lifetime.

[Guest]

Because infection and death figures for CV vary so much, I like the NYT's new method of giving the extra deaths over the normally expected as the guideline. It causes the worst-hit to look worse and many low-case places to look better. California shows being hit harder though.

I would be careful about doing that. Some extra deaths are due to the lockdown itself. People are not getting the medical attention they need. Some people have lost jobs and more, and committed suicide. The longer the lockdown, the worse things are going to get. I saw on CBS news yesterday that they have tested the virus and found out it gets killed by heat or UV light. More evidence to support easing restrictions and observing (especially in the northern Hemisphere). On 60 Minutes, they interviewed people involved in vaccine trials. The scientists are trying a novel approach, although one person they interviewed said that when that approach has been tried in the past with other viruses, it has never worked on humans, although it does work on other animals. I believe it will be a major mistake to try to insist that everyone stay the same course until we have a vaccine available. Almost every day, we learn something new, and we need to act on what we learn, rather than behave as if our knowledge hasn't changed.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Unicorn

[+ bigjoey]

I would be careful about doing that. Some extra deaths are due to the lockdown itself. People are not getting the medical attention they need. Some people have lost jobs and more and committed suicide. The longer the lockdown, the worse things are going to get. I saw on CBS news yesterday that they have tested the virus and found out it gets killed by heat or UV light. More evidence to support easing restrictions and observing (especially in the northern Hemisphere). On 60 Minutes, they interviewed people involved in vaccine trials. The scientists are trying a novel approach, although one person they interviewed said that when that approach has been tried in the past with other viruses, it has never worked on humans, although it does work on other animals. I believe it will be a major mistake to try to insist that everyone stay the same course until we have a vaccine available. Almost every day, we learn something new, and we need to act on what we learn, rather than behave as if our knowledge hasn't changed.

 

You are correct there are negative effects on the health of the total population besides those who have had the virus. CVS just put out the following:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/dowjones/202005072102/cvs-warns-of-nonvirus-health-crisis-wsj

 

This is exactly what I was talking about in balancing a total lockdown which saves lives with other effects that are harmful. I believe the correct response is somewhere between the two extremes.

[+ tassojunior]

[quote="bigjoey, post: 1910479,

I would be careful about doing that. Some extra deaths are due to the lockdown itself. People are not getting the medical attention they need. Some people have lost jobs and more and committed suicide. The longer the lockdown, the worse things are going to get. I saw on CBS news yesterday that they have tested the virus and found out it gets killed by heat or UV light. More evidence to support easing restrictions and observing (especially in the northern Hemisphere). On 60 Minutes, they interviewed people involved in vaccine trials. The scientists are trying a novel approach, although one person they interviewed said that when that approach has been tried in the past with other viruses, it has never worked on humans, although it does work on other animals. I believe it will be a major mistake to try to insist that everyone stay the same course until we have a vaccine available. Almost every day, we learn something new, and we need to act on what we learn, rather than behave as if our knowledge hasn't changed.

 

You are correct there are negative effects on the health of the total population besides those who have had the virus. CVS just put out the following:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/dowjones/202005072102/cvs-warns-of-nonvirus-health-crisis-wsj Quote]

 

This is exactly what I was talking about in balancing a total lockdown which saves lives with other effects that are harmful. I believe the correct response is somewhere between the two extremes.

 

There are additional deaths because of the epidemic, not the lockdown. Because of the epidemic many patients refuse to go hospital where they will contact the virus, and also many doctors will not go. So including those additional deaths because of there being an epidemic is justified and it's only reflected in places where the death toll is obviously higher than normal. It is not reflected in the number of deaths offically by the virus.

[+ tassojunior]

The coronavirus outbreak in New York City became the primary source of infections around the United States, researchers have found.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/new-york-city-coronavirus-outbreak.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

[+ tassojunior]

Assuming 70% will eventually be infected, the flattening saved more remote areas for a while but now that the former hotspots are level or declining, the remote areas will get the explosion of cases they avoided sooner. (same with countries)

 

[LivingnLA]

It's strongly suspected the coronavirus is able to hide in the testes. Now we have a very small study that the virus is in semen, which would be expected if it's able to hide in the testes. Yet another reason to use a condom for oral and anal sex just in case it's infectious.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/health/coronavirus-semen-china-health/index.html

Edited May 8, 2020 by LivingnLA

[Guest]

It's strongly suspected the coronavirus is able to hide in the testes.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Great comparative graphics, even with animated lines of progression to contrast different countries.

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/el-mundo/coronavirus-conoce-ritmo-contagios-argentina-comparalo-otros-nid2362909#/

[+ Pensant]

It's strongly suspected the coronavirus is able to hide in the testes. Now we have a very small study that the virus is in semen, which would be expected if it's able to hide in the testes. Yet another reason to use a condom for oral and anal sex just in case it's infectious.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/health/coronavirus-semen-china-health/index.html

The endless torrent of bad news.

[+ keroscenefire]

Some good news: Most recovered COVID patients do have antibodies. The test was done in hard-hit New York with recovered patients donating their convalescent plasma for those still battling COVID. Researchers tested 1,343 people, the largest antibody study so far with a test that produces less than a 1 percent false positive rate.

 

One promising development was that nearly everyone who recovered from COVID had antibodies regardless if their symptoms were mild, moderate or severe. And doctors do believe these antibodies offer some protection to reinfection from COVID with antibody levels in most patients being high enough to neutralize the virus. Though of course they also cautioned that we still don't know how long these antibodies last and the only way to know is through time.

 

But it's looking more and more clear that many of those who have been sickened once by COVID are at least temporarily resistant to a second infection. That may mean many people could soon people able to return to their lives and also offers encouraging hope that convalescent plasma could be used as a successful treatment for those still suffering from the disease.

[Guest]

Some good news: Most recovered COVID patients do have antibodies. The test was done in hard-hit New York with recovered patients donating their convalescent plasma for those still battling COVID. Researchers tested 1,343 people, the largest antibody study so far with a test that produces less than a 1 percent false positive rate.

 

One promising development was that nearly everyone who recovered from COVID had antibodies regardless if their symptoms were mild, moderate or severe. And doctors do believe these antibodies offer some protection to reinfection from COVID with antibody levels in most patients being high enough to neutralize the virus. Though of course they also cautioned that we still don't know how long these antibodies last and the only way to know is through time.

 

But it's looking more and more clear that many of those who have been sickened once by COVID are at least temporarily resistant to a second infection. That may mean many people could soon people able to return to their lives and also offers encouraging hope that convalescent plasma could be used as a successful treatment for those still suffering from the disease.

Well, the fact that one has antibodies does not mean that one has successfully fought off an infection, and can't get the infection again. We all know that having antibodies to HIV or syphilis doesn't mean the infection is gone for good. What may be more telling is that tens of millions of people on this planet have been infected with Covid-19, and so far I haven't heard of anyone getting the illness twice. While this doesn't necessarily imply long-term imperviousness to re-infection, it certainly suggests that, at least for some time, re-infection is pretty rare if it happens at all.

[+ keroscenefire]

Well, the fact that one has antibodies does not mean that one has successfully fought off an infection, and can't get the infection again. We all know that having antibodies to HIV or syphilis doesn't mean the infection is gone for good. What may be more telling is that tens of millions of people on this planet have been infected with Covid-19, and so far I haven't heard of anyone getting the illness twice. While this doesn't necessarily imply long-term imperviousness to re-infection, it certainly suggests that, at least for some time, re-infection is pretty rare if it happens at all.

 

Most scientists who have studied this suggest that neutralizing antibodies for COVID-19 do provide some protection against the virus. That is certainly what the doctors quoted in this article are saying. “It really shows that most people do develop antibodies, and that there’s very good correlation between those antibodies and their capability to neutralize virus,” Dr. Rasmussen said.

 

Furthermore, the study presented in this article does suggest that the presence of antibodies does mean they have fought off the COVID virus. All the donors who participated in the study had to initially test positive for Coronavirus, recover, return for the donation and then take another COVID test. While some still tested positive for COVID (possibly from some dead virus remaining in their system that is likely non-contagious), those that donated their blood tested negative for active COVID infection AND tested positive for neutralizing antibodies. This means that their body did indeed clear the virus and developed neutralizing antibodies as a result.

 

Of course the big unknown is how long these neutralizing antibodies last. In the coronaviruses that cause the common cold, it's often only months (though they did find that memory B immune cells do respond to these cold viruses and quickly develop antibodies). While more serious coronaviruses like SARS and MERS create immune responses that last a few years. Unfortunately, we probably don't know until time passes and scientists can follow those with antibodies to see how they do over time. Fortunately there are actually many studies doing that very thing, so we'll know eventually.

[+ bigjoey]

I would be careful about doing that. Some extra deaths are due to the lockdown itself. People are not getting the medical attention they need. Some people have lost jobs and more, and committed suicide. The longer the lockdown, the worse things are going to get. I saw on CBS news yesterday that they have tested the virus and found out it gets killed by heat or UV light. More evidence to support easing restrictions and observing (especially in the northern Hemisphere). On 60 Minutes, they interviewed people involved in vaccine trials. The scientists are trying a novel approach, although one person they interviewed said that when that approach has been tried in the past with other viruses, it has never worked on humans, although it does work on other animals. I believe it will be a major mistake to try to insist that everyone stay the same course until we have a vaccine available. Almost every day, we learn something new, and we need to act on what we learn, rather than behave as if our knowledge hasn't changed.

 

A number estimate put to the deaths caused due to mental health issues from the lockdown and the pandemic:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/05/08/coronavirus-pandemic-boosts-suicide-alcohol-drug-death-predictions/3081706001/

 

Continuing the lockdowns clearly is causing distress and for those whose jobs or businesses were lost due to the lockdowns, the mental harm will linger for years.

 

Not sure how these numbers will be accounted for in the history books. Most likely history will just give an estimate of the direct number who die and not this collateral damage.

[+ José Soplanucas]

A number estimate put to the deaths caused due to mental health issues from the lockdown and the pandemic:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/05/08/coronavirus-pandemic-boosts-suicide-alcohol-drug-death-predictions/3081706001/

 

Continuing the lockdowns clearly is causing distress and for those whose jobs or businesses were lost due to the lockdowns, the mental harm will linger for years.

 

Not sure how these numbers will be accounted for in the history books. Most likely history will just give an estimate of the direct number who die and not this collateral damage.

 

I think if History lasts enough, and we do the right things, this pandemic will be seen as an experiment. Everyone should be collecting data right now like crazy.

 

COVID-19 is a relatively mild infection. It spreads fast, but its mortality rate is in the low side of epidemiology. This is the first time we are going through something like this, and we can make mistakes that are not terminal. I mean, I am sure we are making mistakes that are causing deaths and that is horrible and I am very sorry. But these mistakes do not threat society survival. At least not yet.

 

This should be a learning experience, because the next pandemic could be not this mild.

[+ bigjoey]

From the Economist, graphs that try to capture the uncounted deaths that the official counts miss. Some of these may other deaths be cases of people with the virus, suicides, etc.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

[borgerback]

The United Nations World Food Program is predicting 260 million people worldwide will face starvation due to the shutdown, which apparently is double last year's figures. I fear we will find that the total deaths worldwide due to the shutdown in most of the world's major economies will far surpass even the worst estimates of the virus. Because government and their 'expert' advisers will have to justify their actions, the data will be downplayed. And the models (which took into account the distancing and the lockdowns) were disastrously overstated - which has the effect of leading to the fear which will cause the economic pain (and let's try to be honest - it's not just about money - economic collapse WILL result in death as well) to extend. Hell of an experiment in dealing with a crisis of pandemic.

[Guest]

... Because government and their 'expert' advisers will have to justify their actions, the data will be downplayed. And the models (which took into account the distancing and the lockdowns) were disastrously overstated - which has the effect of leading to the fear which will cause the economic pain (and let's try to be honest - it's not just about money - economic collapse WILL result in death as well) to extend...

I agree with most of what you say, although I do think that the original decisions to shut things down in March and observe were wise, given the knowledge that we had then. The SF Bay Area counties have decided not to open things up even a bit now, however, and I think that decision is disastrous, almost criminal, given the horrific consequences. To not even go to "STAGE 2: Lower-risk workplaces; Gradually reopen retail (curbside only), manufacturing & logistics" flies in the face of all we've learned about the virus. Our hospitals have a very low census here. Both regular and ICU hospital beds are going empty. This extended lockdown is going to be killing more people than the virus itself.

[+ tassojunior]

Some good news: Most recovered COVID patients do have antibodies. The test was done in hard-hit New York with recovered patients donating their convalescent plasma for those still battling COVID. Researchers tested 1,343 people, the largest antibody study so far with a test that produces less than a 1 percent false positive rate.

 

One promising development was that nearly everyone who recovered from COVID had antibodies regardless if their symptoms were mild, moderate or severe. And doctors do believe these antibodies offer some protection to reinfection from COVID with antibody levels in most patients being high enough to neutralize the virus. Though of course they also cautioned that we still don't know how long these antibodies last and the only way to know is through time.

 

But it's looking more and more clear that many of those who have been sickened once by COVID are at least temporarily resistant to a second infection. That may mean many people could soon people able to return to their lives and also offers encouraging hope that convalescent plasma could be used as a successful treatment for those still suffering from the disease.

 

The really good news will be if we find that exposure to a small dose creates immunity. Most of us are probably exposed to small doses a lot.

[borgerback]

I agree with most of what you say, although I do think that the original decisions to shut things down in March and observe were wise, given the knowledge that we had then. The SF Bay Area counties have decided not to open things up even a bit now, however, and I think that decision is disastrous, almost criminal, given the horrific consequences. To not even go to "STAGE 2: Lower-risk workplaces; Gradually reopen retail (curbside only), manufacturing & logistics" flies in the face of all we've learned about the virus. Our hospitals have a very low census here. Both regular and ICU hospital beds are going empty. This extended lockdown is going to be killing more people than the virus itself.

Unicorn, I don't disagree that the lockdowns were not the right move at the time in the face of the evidence then presented (although in hindsight I wish we had paid more attention to the data Sweden was looking at). But now, I think it should be clear that the lockdowns weren't effective - or as effective - for what they were trying to accomplish, and perhaps even harmful to that end (e.g., concentrated contact in lockdown). That's still debatable; but the premise under which I complied with the lockdown was avoiding overwhelming the health care system; that goal has clearly and I think indisputably been accomplished; so why are we still locking down so hard? I'm not even saying reopen with no measures; but to continue the strict lockdowns is - and will continue to be - unacceptably harmful.

[Guest]

I agree 100% with @borgerback. The entire premise was to flatten the curve and not overwhelm the healthcare system. I think only a lunatic would now believe that going to Phase 2 will result in an overwhelming of the healthcare system.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Unicorn

[+ bigjoey]

I agree 100% with @borgerback. The entire premise was to flatten the curve and not overwhelm the healthcare system. I think only a lunatic would believe that going to Phase 2 will result in an overwhelming of the healthcare system.

 

To me, the real problem is protecting seniors and vulnerable populations. If you look at the numbers around the world, that is where the big numbers of deaths are coming from be it NYC or Sweden or Italy. If those populations had been successfully isolated, the whole society would not have needed to shut down with the collateral damage we see.

 

The numbers indicate that as we age, most people lose the effectiveness of his/her immune system. Mother Nature gives young children a strong system and this makes sense from a Darwinian point of view. As we grow older, past our reproductive age, like a wilting flower, our purpose is over as far as nature is concerned.

 

Unless there is a vaccine for Covid19, the reason we are told there will be a second wave is the part of the population that was not infected and has antibodies will be open to getting infected in “round two.” At that point, the best we can hope is there are medical treatments for those that need hospitalization and that will lower the death rate. “Round two” can have large numbers of infected people without the death rates we see today.

 

The numbers are telling us who needs to be protected for the next waves. When those waves hit, it should be clear that the whole society does not need to be shut down. When those waves hit, the medical community should be better prepared. When those new waves hit, a test-trace-isolate program should be in place. When the next waves hit, we should know who to isolate and who can assume the risk of going out and about.

 

I hope this lesson is remembered, at least for the short run. No doubt, just as we forget the lessons of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, in time, we will forget the lessons of this one, too.

[cany10011]

To me, the real problem is protecting seniors and vulnerable populations. If you look at the numbers around the world, that is where the big numbers of deaths are coming from be it NYC or Sweden or Italy. If those populations had been successfully isolated, the whole society would not have needed to shut down with the collateral damage we see.

 

The numbers indicate that as we age, most people lose the effectiveness of his/her immune system. Mother Nature gives young children a strong system and this makes sense from a Darwinian point of view. As we grow older, past our reproductive age, like a wilting flower, our purpose is over as far as nature is concerned.

 

Unless there is a vaccine for Covid19, the reason we are told there will be a second wave is the part of the population that was not infected and has antibodies will be open to getting infected in “round two.” At that point, the best we can hope is there are medical treatments for those that need hospitalization and that will lower the death rate. “Round two” can have large numbers of infected people without the death rates we see today.

 

The numbers are telling us who needs to be protected for the next waves. When those waves hit, it should be clear that the whole society does not need to be shut down. When those waves hit, the medical community should be better prepared. When those new waves hit, a test-trace-isolate program should be in place. When the next waves hit, we should know who to isolate and who can assume the risk of going out and about.

 

I hope this lesson is remembered, at least for the short run. No doubt, just as we forget the lessons of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, in time, we will forget the lessons of this one, too.

 

 

Everything is done so erratically and people in the US are reticent to share cellphone data for contact tracIng, I i don’t trust the US government to handle that well at all.