Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Two factors I've read about are poverty and healthcare capacity. NYC's poverty situation is far more dire, and people in poverty are more likely to die by virtually everything. That dynamic is playing out in parts of Michigan and the rural south as well, and not unique to this disease. Poor people of color in those areas are getting infected and dying at rates not proportional to the population.

As for the capacity issue, I'm not aware that any place in Ohio or Central Florida has had to put up tents and have beds in the hallways. I imagine the doctor to patient ratio is a lot like the teacher to student ratio. The lower the ratio, the better the outcomes. The doctor stories all seem to share this theme of having to monitor and adjust constantly, so less time ordering X-rays and dialing in treatment leads to fewer positive outcomes (ventilators in particular apparently require a very delicate balance of O2, volume and pressure adjustments). Just speculation on my part.

NYC is 16% over 65, while OC is only 11%, but that's not mathematically a huge spread. There are higher instances of respiratory disease in NYC than other places, probably due to air quality, but I can't find any data about that.

SteveWoA said:

The biggest problem with any of this data right now is the amount of confirmed cases. If we could find a genie in a lamp and ask for that actual number of confirmed cases, THAT is the big key piece of information to get real percentages.

It's that pesky denominator at work. I have seen articles that say the actual infection rate is 5x the number reported, and I have seen articles that were as high as 80x if I recall correctly. Many of those were linked above as well. The denominator is what will determine whether this is "just a bad flu" or "maybe I should actually pay some attention to this".

BrettV said:

Also, how did Orange County, Florida get off relatively easy by comparison?

Is it true that this thing requires an incubation period, and a relatively long one, before you become contagious? If that is the case I would suspect that a vast majority of the people who may have gotten infected went home before they got contagious, and spread it elsewhere than OC. If I am wrong about that incubation period, then just ignore this paragraph.

I’m in Ohio and have quite a few friends in the healthcare industry. Just last night one of them told me that while they still consider things to be serious, they aren’t as overwhelmed as they feared or prepared for.

I think what's hard for me to understand is why it isn't just understandable that due to our general mobility within the country, having a highly contagious disease without a cure or vaccine and for which people are contagious without know it, makes this a dire situation that we all need to address. The areas of impact are only relevant while in a "stay at home" scenario. The first case we had in Colorado was due to a skier who traveled into the state to visit the resorts and didn't know he was infected. There are no safe places in the country where opening things up doesn't impact other places.

The other thing I'm struggling with is anytime folks put economics before humanity. And trust me, I'm a logical thinker about these things for the most part. But the idea that we think that protecting the economy is reason to accept the numbers we've seen in the past month of COVID, doesn't compute for me. I guess my scale is different that way.

I'm also curious how many here know of someone who has suffered from this. And that's not meant to be a challenge; I'm truly just curious. I know people have referenced the cases of those they have known who've had it or presumed to have had it and recovered without incident. How many know of those who didn't? It's kind of a game changer. At least it was for me. A colleague and friend of mine lost her father recently. And lost him after 14 hours earlier having him laughing and joking about getting better with a positive prognosis. It all deteriorated that fast and they had 30 minutes to say good-bye via zoom while he was unresponsive.

I know that's a sad, individual, singular, anecdotal story of a case in the vulnerable age bracket. But, as I said, it was a game changer for me.

Why does it feel like mom just came in and yelled at us for making too much noise?

Because you kids are driving me crazy!!

Edit: Oh, and I still hate babies, so naturally I want to protect the elderly. ;-)

Carrie J. said:

The other thing I'm struggling with is anytime folks put economics before humanity.

In my mind, the two are not mutually exclusive.

RCMAC said:

I’m in Ohio and have quite a few friends in the healthcare industry. Just last night one of them told me that while they still consider things to be serious, they aren’t as overwhelmed as they feared or prepared for.

Could it be because people actually stayed home?

Carrie, so sorry to hear about your friend’s father. I’ll add for context that my responses are those of someone who doesn’t know anyone personally that has had a confirmed infection. I have an aunt who works in an ER, but I’ve not heard any horror stories. They’re mostly stories about the precautions being taken.

As far as putting the economy ahead of people’s lives, I think that might be a misrepresentation of the viewpoints of those of us who have dabbled in contrarian opinions. None of us want anyone to die, and we aren’t trying to be casual about it. The reality is, though, that indefinitely shutting down the economy is something that will severely affect far more people than the virus ever will. I’m all for the recommendations of the medical experts, but their obligation is only to one side of the equation, and I think that everyone needs to accept that we’re on the slider whether we like it or not. We were never going to save everyone, which is a sad truth of any serious medical condition, so there is a point at which one must look at the other side of the slider. The economy can’t be put on pause for an extended period of time and then be restarted with everything going back to how it was. I’m not saying anyone here thinks of the economy that way, but I think that it can be easy to drift in the direction of that process when one isn’t struggling to put food on the table or has suddenly lost health insurance. I’m not in that boat, but if this drags out for a really long time, that could very quickly become a concern for any of us.

I also think that a lot of people are treating New York City as the inevitable outcome of any place that dares to get adventurous with opening back up, and I think that’s a faulty assumption. I don’t think Georgia, Tennessee, or Florida, with their far sparser population densities, are going to need fleets of refrigerated trucks no matter what they do, so it’s incredibly annoying to have things like #floridamorons going around or gloating when people who weren’t as convinced about the merits of the shutdown contract the disease or treating people who aren’t in favor of the masks are murderers. Some places can probably withstand a degree of spread without spiraling out of control, and I think that those places should be supported in their efforts to get things moving again, not blasted for alleged recklessness.

Chris- I’d like to say it’s because people stayed home, but only because they were made to. In other words, the shutdown was such that there aren’t many places to go. I stay home for the most part- I can count the number of outings I’ve made in a month on one and a half hands. And when I do go I always have my mask with me. I’m also shocked at the number of people out there along side me that don’t have one and who seem unaware of different practices that we should all follow. Which leads me to believe that if the bars, restaurants, gyms, and theaters were open that they’d be full. Do people just not get it? Maybe they’re just very secure in their belief that it’s no big deal aside from a huge inconvenience.
Carrie- I’m sorry for your friend’s dad. And his story isn’t the only one like it that I’ve heard. It’s weird how this virus seems to be ineffective for some and instantly dangerous for others. This is where information seems scarce- it’s clear we don’t know everything there is to know about this illness yet, and for that reason I’m taking no chances.
And information certainly varies from source to source. This thread kind of proves that- there are members here who are steadfastly holding to their beliefs because whatever information source they trust told them so. Not because they know.
There’s data that shows every side of what we should do and what we can expect. Every single day I see conflicting information about health and the economy, and its boggles my mind.
So I’ve decided to stick with the one and only thing that I know for sure. There’s only one of me. Just one, and I don’t feel like dying any time soon. I’m willing to do whatever I need to do and will listen to anyone with advice about how to stay safe. I promise not to grieve over haircuts, drinking with friends, or riding roller coasters, and I won’t protest because someone is trying to look out for the health of our nation. If this comes to get me anyway, it won’t be for lack of trying to be safe. And if my worry turns out to be foolish and for nothing (pretty sure it won’t) I’ll sit at Broad and High, eat my shoe, and bray like the jackass that I am.
For now I’ll continue to err on the side of caution.

sirloindude said:

Some places can probably withstand a degree of spread without spiraling out of control...

Sort of, but that degree is probably pretty small. Looking strictly at per capita infection rates by county in the US, most places are sub-200, and everything about that (generally) is 400 or higher.

TheMillenniumRider said:
The denominator is what will determine whether this is "just a bad flu"

I just wanted to (yet again, this should definitely be on the bingo card if it isn't) reiterate that there is no universe in which this is just a bad flu. The flu kills ~30 - 40 thousand Americans every year. The very worst years kill around 60,000 over the ~4 months (that's about 400 deaths per day). In a month and a half, 60,000 Americans have died, we're continuing to lose ~2,000 per day with no end in sight, AND this was all *during* shelter in place.

I don't know why you keep insisting on the comparison to the flu, but it really isn't accurate. (Unless we open everything today and see 0 additional fatalities. Then I will concede the point.)

I'd like to add "...there's no universe/world where..." to the bingo card.

Can I just have one thing that's mine, please?

ApolloAndy said:

I just wanted to (yet again, this should definitely be on the bingo card if it isn't) reiterate that there is no universe in which this is just a bad flu. The flu kills ~30 - 40 thousand Americans every year. The very worst years kill around 60,000 over the ~4 months (that's about 400 deaths per day). In a month and a half, 60,000 Americans have died, we're continuing to lose ~2,000 per day with no end in sight, AND this was all *during* shelter in place.

I don't know why you keep insisting on the comparison to the flu, but it really isn't accurate. (Unless we open everything today and see 0 additional fatalities. Then I will concede the point.)

Well, I think you're arguing two different things in this case - the actual number of people that die and the mortality rate.

Referring to a point Jeff made earlier, COVID-19 is (or seems to be?) far more contagious than the flu, so even with a similar mortality rate, you'll see a much higher number of deaths based on spread alone.

I found more proof that I don't know what I'm talking about and am focused only what I'm looking for. Perhaps we are all doing the same. Here's a fun experiment to watch if you haven't seen this before. And no its not a Rick Roll.

My relationship with coronavirus is interesting, to say the least. I know one person who has COVID. He is a male in his late 60s, recently had a bowel operation, and lives in a nursing home that has experienced 40 or more COVID related deaths the last time I checked. This man has Lupus and has been taking plaquenell (hydroxycloriquine) for decades, for what that is worth. He has shown NO (known) SYMPTOMS whatsoever of COVID. I believe he has passed 14 days of isolation and I’m not sure if he has had a second test or antibody test. I’ll have to find out.

My mother and I live together and are both high risk. She works as a mobile x-ray tech where she drives a van to nursing homes and correctional facilities all over the state. She returned to work against advice from her doctors after taking three weeks to stay at home, has not been tested. The reason being needing the paycheck, but refusing to consider taking social security early, apply for unemployment, or make radical lifestyle adjustments in the short term to cut back on spending.

I have a younger cousin who is working in an icu unit in Chicago, directly with COVID patients. Her roommate who is also a nurse, contracted COVID, and my cousin had to quarantine for only seven days before going back to work. She was tested for COVID for the first time only a week ago. They did antibody testing at the same time.

ApolloAndy said:

I don't know why you keep insisting on the comparison to the flu, but it really isn't accurate. (Unless we open everything today and see 0 additional fatalities. Then I will concede the point.)

I wasn't attempting to make claims of comparing it to the flu hence why I used the quotes. It's just something I hear being tossed around. Just read it as either being not a huge deal versus this is actually something that could be life altering. That's how I meant it to be.

Also, Please add per capita to the bingo card Gonch.

I’m exhausted from the “it wasn’t as bad as they said it would be” arguments. It wasn’t as bad because we shut this **** down and prepared.

Maybe the one size fits all approach was wrong. Carrie gave a good reason why it it’s not but I think that can be argued. That it wasn’t as bad as they said cannot without ignoring the giga coaster in the room.

eightdotthree said:

I’m exhausted from the “it wasn’t as bad as they said it would be” arguments. It wasn’t as bad because we shut this **** down and prepared.

Maybe the one size fits all approach was wrong. Carrie gave a good reason why it it’s not but I think that can be argued. That it wasn’t as bad as they said cannot without ignoring the giga coaster in the room.

Devils advocate here...

Sure, that makes logical sense. However, it is not factual. We can't confirm that yet. If reports in a few months come out that a huge portion of the population have had it (unknowingly), did we really do much by shutting everything down? Or is it more herd immunity than anything else? Perhaps it helped a teeny tiny bit, or potentially was the sole reason, the point is we can't assume or state that as fact until we have more information. Otherwise, it's speculation.

Not in the same industry... But an example:

At my job, my primary project is working acoustics for the inside of a future spacecraft. On our team, we have one of the top guys in the industry (acoustician phd) leading our analysis efforts, along with the rest of us guppies... Including a few masters degrees in physics, various engineering disciplines, etc... Not including our partner we work directly with, comprised of a team of additional phd's and fun stuff. That being said, it's safe to say we have 'experts' working this engineering challenge.

We have made assumptions based on glaring "data" relative to designs and theory only to test and have to throw out it all because of the results of our testing and real world data as we learn more. Things that made sense in theory/analysis, go out the window as we test and gather more data. It's always a moving target. Until you know enough, you simply just don't know enough. We have had many "what the hell just happened?" moments. Things that didn't make sense, until they did.

At times, even our 'experts' are running blind and don't have a clue why things are happening the way they are. Just because you have the top industry people working on something, doesn't always mean they know what the hell is going on. They will figure it out more quickly than anyone else most likely, but until then...

I personally avoid telling our customer ANYTHING that isn't tested/proven/vetted in the exact conditions/requirements we have to deal with in terms of mechanical design, which I'm responsible for. Our requirements are beyond anything done prior, there are too many unknowns. I make assumptions and make decisions for design based on discussions with industry experts, data sheets and tests/studies done prior. At the end of the day though, because our requirements are unlike anything done prior, until we test...

COVID is similar, in which there is not quite enough data yet. Sure, it's a different field, different problem, different outcome based on failure, same issue at it's core. Data.

People want answers, so the medical experts try to do the best they can and make statements to the best of their ability to what they know at that time. That's all they can do to try to maintain safety and try to keep people safe.

Long story short, claims about cause and effect is just speculation. Again, it's very likely that stay-at-home orders did help the bottom line, but there is a chance (slight or not) that we find out it had little effect based on data not yet known.