Soaring already DOA for the season???

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 8:30:27 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Roy B. wrote on 3/29/2020 8:21 AM:
Eric:
Many of the news sources (like wsj) give prospective subscribers 3 or 4 free inline articles before they must subscribe or be blocked out. You might be over your limit of free articles. It is intentionally designed to be frustrating - so that you are forced to subscribe.
ROY

NYT, Washington Post, and many others, typically allow a few free articles per
month. The few times in the last 5 or 6 years I've tried to view a WSJ article, I
hit the paywall. How did Chrome, which I've never used for the WSJ, not let me
read a free article? Even my wife's computer, which has never been to the WSJ,
can't get a free article. It's a puzzle.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?

If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.

Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.

The latter rate is misleading because of selection bias in testing. The degree of bias is uncertain because available data are limited. But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills two million. If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far.

Population samples from China, Italy, Iceland and the U.S. provide relevant evidence. On or around Jan. 31, countries sent planes to evacuate citizens from Wuhan, China. When those planes landed, the passengers were tested for Covid-19 and quarantined. After 14 days, the percentage who tested positive was 0.9%. If this was the prevalence in the greater Wuhan area on Jan. 31, then, with a population of about 20 million, greater Wuhan had 178,000 infections, about 30-fold more than the number of reported cases. The fatality rate, then, would be at least 10-fold lower than estimates based on reported cases.

Next, the northeastern Italian town of Vò, near the provincial capital of Padua. On March 6, all 3,300 people of Vò were tested, and 90 were positive, a prevalence of 2.7%. Applying that prevalence to the whole province (population 955,000), which had 198 reported cases, suggests there were actually 26,000 infections at that time. That’s more than 130-fold the number of actual reported cases. Since Italy’s case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06%.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Iceland, deCode Genetics is working with the government to perform widespread testing. In a sample of nearly 2,000 entirely asymptomatic people, researchers estimated disease prevalence of just over 1%. Iceland’s first case was reported on Feb. 28, weeks behind the U.S. It’s plausible that the proportion of the U.S. population that has been infected is double, triple or even 10 times as high as the estimates from Iceland. That also implies a dramatically lower fatality rate.

The best (albeit very weak) evidence in the U.S. comes from the National Basketball Association. Between March 11 and 19, a substantial number of NBA players and teams received testing. By March 19, 10 out of 450 rostered players were positive. Since not everyone was tested, that represents a lower bound on the prevalence of 2.2%. The NBA isn’t a representative population, and contact among players might have facilitated transmission. But if we extend that lower-bound assumption to cities with NBA teams (population 45 million), we get at least 990,000 infections in the U.S. The number of cases reported on March 19 in the U.S. was 13,677, more than 72-fold lower. These numbers imply a fatality rate from Covid-19 orders of magnitude smaller than it appears.

How can we reconcile these estimates with the epidemiological models? First, the test used to identify cases doesn’t catch people who were infected and recovered. Second, testing rates were woefully low for a long time and typically reserved for the severely ill. Together, these facts imply that the confirmed cases are likely orders of magnitude less than the true number of infections. Epidemiological modelers haven’t adequately adapted their estimates to account for these factors.

The epidemic started in China sometime in November or December. The first confirmed U.S. cases included a person who traveled from Wuhan on Jan. 15, and it is likely that the virus entered before that: Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December. Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days. An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.

This does not make Covid-19 a nonissue. The daily reports from Italy and across the U.S. show real struggles and overwhelmed health systems. But a 20,000- or 40,000-death epidemic is a far less severe problem than one that kills two million. Given the enormous consequences of decisions around Covid-19 response, getting clear data to guide decisions now is critical. We don’t know the true infection rate in the U.S. Antibody testing of representative samples to measure disease prevalence (including the recovered) is crucial. Nearly every day a new lab gets approval for antibody testing, so population testing using this technology is now feasible.

If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measures focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible. Elective procedures will need to be rescheduled. Hospital resources will need to be reallocated to care for critically ill patients. Triage will need to improve. And policy makers will need to focus on reducing risks for older adults and people with underlying medical conditions.

A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health. We should undertake immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lockdowns.

Dr. Bendavid and Dr. Bhattacharya are professors of medicine at Stanford. Neeraj Sood contributed to this article.

At 03:18 30 March 2020, Eric Greenwell wrote:
wrote on 3/29/2020 7:31 PM:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 8:32:23 AM UTC-7, Eric
Greenwell wrote:
Duster wrote on 3/28/2020 7:19 PM:
A more tempered, but plausible, opinion from the WSJ
that=E2=80=99s w=
orth a read:

Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?
Current estimates about the Covid-19 fatality rate may be
too high by=
orders of magnitude. A universal quarantine may not be worth the
costs i=
t imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and
physical he=
alth. We should undertake immediate steps to evaluate the
empirical basis=
of the current lockdowns.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/is-the-coronavirus-as-
deadly-as-they=
-say-11585088464

I live in Washington State. In my area, with four nearby towns
totalin=
g about
250,000, we've had 5 covid-19 deaths in just one month.
Compare that t=
o four flu
deaths in 5 months (flu season), and while flu infections have
been de=
creasing,
Covid infections are increasing.

Here's the deal for me:
- we don't know if this will have a seasonal decline like the flu
does=

- we know it is much more infectious with higher mortality
- we don't have a vaccine
- we don't have a treatment
- at 77, I am a member of the high risk group

I totally support our current efforts to restrict social contact,
and =
other
precautions.
=20
If you look at actuarial tables, you'll probably find your risk of
dyin=
g this year is about the same as the 'high risk' covid group.

My point is getting infected increases my risk of dying, as the
actuarial=
tables=20
don't account for Covid-19.


--=20
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"
to email=
me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ions/download-
th=
e-guide-1

I think as a country you face two problems, one is the disease itself
and the other is your reaction to it. Like it or not your country is
being judged on the actions of your government, mainly your
president who appears to be hell bent on earning the name
"Spinning Trump" We see the number of aircraft criss-crossing the
USA and wonder why you are still allowing the spread of the disease.
We wonder why our government is still allowing aircraft from the
USA, particularly New York to land here. What you guys are doing
and saying over there is really scary. I feel that it is insensitive to
talk about exaggerated figures, particularly deaths on a forum that
can be seen in northern Italy.
The US could find itself a pariah, health wise, in the rest of the world
if your government(s) don't get a grip.

We are already considered a pariah. Nothing new there. Even the countries that we bled and died to free treat the US like ****. Most of us dont give a rip what the EU or Canada or the others think about us. We do our own thing we always have, always will. While I hear lots of US bashing I sure dont see any other country out there coming to OUR aid, I dont see anyone sending us ventilators or personal protection equipment but they sure expect us to jump and run when they have a crisis.

At 12:55 30 March 2020, wrote:
We are already considered a pariah. Nothing new there. Even the
countries
t=
hat we bled and died to free treat the US like ****. Most of us dont
give
a=
rip what the EU or Canada or the others think about us. We do our
own
thin=
g we always have, always will. While I hear lots of US bashing I sure
dont
=
see any other country out there coming to OUR aid, I dont see anyone
sendin=
g us ventilators or personal protection equipment but they sure
expect us
t=
o jump and run when they have a crisis.

That is actually not true, we have frequently come to your aid, and you
have come to ours. This despite dumping all that bloody tea, for which
we have yet to forgive you. We do, or most of us do, share your dislike
of the EU.

LOL well ya just gotta forgive us for that tea business, we had cut a deal on a shipload of coffee right before lol. Its just my hackles always rise when folks continually blame the ills of the world on america and our independant lifestyle.
Where is all the condemnation toward china which has given us every pandemic we’ve had the last 50 years, and who ALWAYS spins the truth about their real situation. I guess its not politically correct to point a finger at them, buts its always ok to down the usa. Thats the hypocracy that gets to me.
Dan

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:09:47 +0000, Don Johnstone wrote:

That is actually not true, we have frequently come to your aid, and you
have come to ours. This despite dumping all that bloody tea, for which
we have yet to forgive you. We do, or most of us do, share your dislike
of the EU.

Ironically, the whole tea-dumping bit seems to have been triggered by the
misdoings of the East India Company - see Peter Frankopan's "The New Silk
Roads" for details. Its well worth reading for the light it sheds on
global history starting from the dawn of writing up to the present day.
There are much worse things you can do than to read this while we can't
fly.




--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Please don't judge the U.S. by what a few loudmouths on this newsgroup or some of our leaders say any more than we judge other countries by what a few media outlets and politicians there say about us.

We are all in this together. About all I can add is that because the U.S. is such a vast, diverse country, the experience in some areas can be very different than in others. I live in the New York City area and have elderly parents in a health care facility in Florida and can relate very much to what is happening in, say, Italy and Spain right now.

Let people make noise. Ignore most of it. We will get through this.

Chip Bearden

Martin and my other friends, I think old England would have considered america’s founding fathers the “loudmouths� of their day, something to think about.

I've been skeptical of the projections of mortality rates for some time.
The article about the Swiss, and their reading of this is similar. As well as the recent change of the model to a reduced mortality rate by the author of the Imperial College bears out my original skepticisim.

From the artical on how Switzerland is still open:
"His team at the Public Health Agency of Sweden is critical of the Imperial College paper that warned this month that 250,000 people in the UK would die if the government failed to introduce more draconian measures. A week later Johnson ordered the police to implement a partial lockdown to combat the virus, telling people they “must stay at home�.


“We have had a fair amount of people looking at it and they are sceptical,� says Tegnell. “They think Imperial chose a number of variables that gave a prognosis that was quite pessimistic, and that you could just as easily have chosen other variables that gave you another outcome. It’s not a peer-reviewed paper. It might be right, but it might also be terribly wrong. In Sweden, we are a bit surprised that it’s had such an impact.�

I'm not being crass here, certainly this virus is one of the worst ever. That being said, real science allows for the correction of a theory based on newer data. That data is being gathered now as we get more real world evidence of the actual numbers, both infection rates and mortality rates.

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 4:06:55 PM UTC-4, K m wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 11:27:22 AM UTC-6, wrote:
I’ve got all the ammo I need however.
Dan

Dan, Thanks for this! I can't get through my day without reading about how superior your line of reasoning is to every where else. And for reminding us that any problem in the world can be solved with more guns and ammo. (Isn't the run on guns what got us through Y2K?) Just brilliant!
Thanks
Kirk

I just read that the gubmint has determined that the gun industry is a critical one to keep opening and functioning.
Gotta have your gun to protect your toilet paper supply!
LOL
UH