• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Coronavirus (Stay on Topic)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Overweight people by far are suffering the most when looking at other countries data. I’m surprised the CDC has not strongly encouraged eating healthier and exercising more specifically as a corona measure.
 
While the lower numbers look good also keep in mind they have cut back on test and the backlog of existing test is huge at the moment with literally 10's of thousands of pending test....so we may have hit the upper end of what a daily number increase will look like simply based on what the current capabilities are to produce test results.
And the fact they are telling people to not get tested if they have only mild symptoms. People demean China for it but we are following China’s lead. China is not truthful but I still agree with Bill Gates on trusting and working with China in many many aspects.
 
Appears to be significant delay over the weekend causing Monday numbers to be larger.
 
As much as I hope the growth in new cases in certain areas is leveling off, I am suspicious of Sunday numbers. If I recall correctly, the past couple of weeks have had similar looks for some regions, but the Monday numbers would be significantly higher.
Yeah the Georgia numbers yesterday evening weren't that impressive as other days. I feel like the weekend the speed they process cases drops or something. The new numbers for us will be out any minute.
 
Unfortunately, the back side of the curve will be several times larger than the leading up to the peak.
I may be wrong but flattening the curve doesn't lead to less people catching it. It just spreads it out so that the hospitals can keep up. Correct?
 
Georgia up to 2809 cases and 87 deaths. 707 now hospitalized.
I noticed something on Georgia numbers, from the report at 7 last night there is 126 additional cases, but the test count basically stayed the same. Do you think there’s an error there or possibly no entered new tests in the data and its 126 new cases from backlogged tests?
 


Great video simulating an Epidemic, and how hand washing and social distancing effect the numbers and the patterns.
 
Georgia up to 2809 cases and 87 deaths. 707 now hospitalized.

But there appears to be a decrease in new cases; hopefully this trend continues.

1585588530226.png
 
But there appears to be a decrease in new cases; hopefully this trend continues.

View attachment 38083

This is on purpose. Similar to the delay in beginning testing to avoid high numbers we just simply arent testing enough. Less test, less new cases the better the "public perception" can be influenced.
 
I may be wrong but flattening the curve doesn't lead to less people catching it. It just spreads it out so that the hospitals can keep up. Correct?

In a hand-wavy sense, flattening the curve does not automatically mean more or less total people are eventually affected by the virus in the very long run (due to human behaviors, randomness, etc), it increases their chance of survival however as the healthcare system doesn't become overloaded, decreases the chance for the virus to mutate (into something different or more/less virulent) more rapidly, and provides more opportunity for vaccines and medicines to be developed.

However, the underlying probable-likely reality is, that as you impose increasingly stringent measures to limit the spread of the virus and as the limit of the peak of the number of cases approaches zero, less people in total will actually be infected by the virus to the point where it does in fact go to zero and the chance that nearly the entire population will be infected over time "t" also decreases. Therefore, limiting the spread of the virus actually causes the total number of people affected to go down (see Japan & South Korea for ex). I think a viable analog in nature is black body radiation as a function of temperature. As you increase temperature, the radiation peak heightens & narrows, but the total amount of radiation emitted actually scales up exponentially by a factor of the temperature quarted (to the 4th power).

Obviously, keep in mind that we're dealing w/ people instead of radiation and that the total population isn't necessarily seemingly limitless, s.t. there's an inherent cap on the height and width of the coronavirus case peak, however I think there's legitimate physical reasoning behind the rationale that limiting the spread of the virus actually increases the chance that less people become infected by it.

Undoubtedly, such control measures save millions of lives globally.

1585589905820.png
 
In a hand-wavy sense, flattening the curve does not automatically mean more or less total people are eventually affected by the virus in the very long run (due to human behaviors, randomness, etc), it increases their chance of survival however as the healthcare system doesn't become overloaded, decreases the chance for the virus to mutate (into something different or more/less virulent) more rapidly, and provides more opportunity for vaccines and medicines to be developed.

However, the underlying probable-likely reality is, that as you impose increasingly stringent measures to limit the spread of the virus and as the limit of the peak of the number of cases approaches zero, less people in total will actually be infected by the virus to the point where it does in fact go to zero and the chance that nearly the entire population will be infected over time "t" also decreases. Therefore, limiting the spread of the virus actually causes the total number of people affected to go down (see Japan & South Korea for ex). I think a viable analog in nature is black body radiation as a function of temperature. As you increase temperature, the radiation peak heightens & narrows, but the total amount of radiation emitted actually scales up exponentially by a factor of the temperature quarted (to the 4th power).

Obviously, keep in mind that we're dealing w/ people instead of radiation and that the total population isn't necessarily seemingly limitless, s.t. there's an inherent cap on the height and width of the coronavirus case peak, however I think there's legitimate physical reasoning behind the rationale that limiting the spread of the virus actually increases the chance that less people become infected by it.

Undoubtedly, such control measures save millions of lives globally.

View attachment 38090
Thanks for the detailed answer!
 
Thanks for backing me up. Cant ask anything on here without getting attacked. I see all these crazy numbers and im just wondering when the social distancing is going to start working.

I think the best way to guess this is by looking at countries that are ahead of us. Italy appears to finally be on the downswing in terms of new cases. It took about 2 weeks and we arent doing what they are as far as regionally large lockdowns. It's still business as usual here sadly.
 
I think the best way to guess this is by looking at countries that are ahead of us. Italy appears to finally be on the downswing in terms of new cases. It took about 2 weeks and we arent doing what they are as far as regionally large lockdowns. It's still business as usual here sadly.
The other important piece of information to keep in mind is that the average population density of the us is considerably lower than countries overseas and we’re just much larger in general, this leads to at least one or more conclusions:

-1) even if we enact the same containment measures it will take considerably longer for the US to peak
-2) an even stronger conclusion is that because of these aforementioned geopolitical characteristics, the downward slide following the peak in cases will take much, much longer to pass in the US & thus all else considered equal, we’ll have to contend with CoV-19 much, much longer overall than other smaller, densely populated European countries
 
"On purpose"? So you're saying that GDPH is lying?

Not lying but by not testing as much it will cause a decrease in the daily number of new cases.....would you agree that by limiting who they are willing to test the overall number of new cases would decrease since they are not testing as many people...


"Underscoring the continued challenges of widespread coronavirus testing, three of Georgia’s largest hospital systems urged people on Monday not to come to hospitals to be tested if they have mild or moderate symptoms."
 
Thanks for backing me up. Cant ask anything on here without getting attacked. I see all these crazy numbers and im just wondering when the social distancing is going to start working.

It wasn't an attack... it was a legit question. You aren't stupid, at all. Obviously, we aren't going to see instant results. And considering that there are still many places that aren't adhering to what everyone is recommending, it may be a while.
 
The other important piece of information to keep in mind is that the average population density of the us is considerably lower than countries overseas and we’re just much larger in general, this leads to at least one or more conclusions:

-1) even if we enact the same containment measures it will take considerably longer for the US to peak
-2) an even stronger conclusion is that because of these aforementioned geopolitical characteristics, the downward slide following the peak in cases will take much, much longer to pass in the US & thus all else considered equal, we’ll have to contend with CoV-19 much, much longer overall than other smaller, densely populated European countries
Yea, I've thought about this too. On one hand, our urban metros are more spread out than countries overseas so we likely won't see the explosive growth per capita that Europe has seen.

On the other hand, our less dense metros are spread out all across the nation. The US has 53 metros of 1 million or more. That's a lot of...opportunity for this to stay around somewhere for longer. It might result in less spread per capita initially, but more spread over a greater amount of time. (as you mentioned).
 
Not lying but by not testing as much it will cause a decrease in the daily number of new cases.....would you agree that by limiting who they are willing to test the overall number of new cases would decrease since they are not testing as many people...

"Underscoring the continued challenges of widespread coronavirus testing, three of Georgia’s largest hospital systems urged people on Monday not to come to hospitals to be tested if they have mild or moderate symptoms."

From what I've read, this protocol is being practiced in a lot of places besides Georgia. Regardless, I imagine that it should become clearer - one way or the other - by the end of the coming week.

Speaking of which, anyone have any thoughts on how the cold front that's moving into the Southeast tonight might affect the situation? I seem to recall reading something about sudden large temperature variances exacerbating the incidence of sickness during the Spring flu season, but I can't find it.
 

THIS... this right here is why the gov't is stepping in and "taking away civil rights" according to some of you. I am glad he's going to jail.
 

THIS... this right here is why the gov't is stepping in and "taking away civil rights" according to some of you. I am glad he's going to jail.
My own hometown has a similar church, but this one doesn't even try to implement social distancing or sanitizing for the service. Just sad. It's not very loving of others when they gather by the hundreds like that. I'm also a Christian, but we have our church online.

https://www.ksla.com/2020/03/26/bat...welcomes-large-gathering-into-church-service/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top