Dow down 1900 in two days; Corona virus prediction?

[Manoli]

I say this non-humorously...if it turns out the mortality rate for the COVID-19 is 1% or less, and there's no chance of stopping it, why not just give up and get the factories and shipping going again, to minimize the economic impact?

Because it's a big 'IF'.
Before you get to your multi-million corpses, you risk paralysing whole countries.
So the first line of defence is 'containment'.

Mortality may be say 2%, but the contagion factor is much higher. (see #128)
Police forces, armed forces, medical and health facilities and personnel, productive output all incapacitated - hell, even half the Iranian government are already wiped out! (ok, only 23 so far but the number's increasing).

Even Her Majesty The Queen has taken to wearing gloves!



Of course, there's a good reason to take up your suggestion. Congregating and thus wiping out the 2 most vulnerable groups would reduce the population in one easy step, wipe out government pension obligations (and possibly even facilitate a solution to the ongoing ACA saga).  Back across the pond, analysis of the latest election results showed that eliminating the older age groups would not only have reversed the result but given the 'lefties' an equally large majority.

Genocide beckons.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Back across the pond, analysis of the latest election results showed that eliminating the older age groups would not only have reversed the result but given the 'lefties' an equally large majority...

Are you lamenting that Corona arrived to the UK four years too late?

[Rob C]

Are you lamenting that Corona arrived to the UK four years too late?

Good grief! is it only four years?

That downer seems to have plagued my family and me for what seems a decade!

I don't know how the generations voted - once I would have believed the statistics, but these days, where the civil service honchos walk away in disgust... those transatlantic concepts of selective, invented reality are spreading across this poor old globe.

Isn't it remarkable how much more rapidly all things rotten spread than do all things good.

Was a time used-car salesmen got a bad rap; today, it's property developers in politics. Which is hardly surprising when one comes to think about it. Yuk.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Yes...for some they are mild...thus much more dangerous for those that cannot handle the virus. It can spread like wildfire and slowly pick off the vulnerable, the one's with weakened immune systems.

This is no different from the seasonal flu outbreaks that take place every year.  While there is a vaccine, it's always a guessing game in terms of what antigens should be in it.  Some times such as in the case of H1N1, they don't get it quite right and there is more morbidity and mortality. 

[chez]

This is no different from the seasonal flu outbreaks that take place every year.  While there is a vaccine, it's always a guessing game in terms of what antigens should be in it.  Some times such as in the case of H1N1, they don't get it quite right and there is more morbidity and mortality.

The difference is we know very little about this new virus. Will it go away in April like the regular flu or will it thrive? Why does it appear not to affect the young? How is it transmitted...and for how long is it active once transmitted?

We are seeing a much higher rate of death from this virus than a normal flu...that with the unknowns definitely should cause people unease.

[degrub]

The WHO report, linked to above, offers some insight into the apparent transmission type. 
You are right, there is a lot to learn about this new version.

[Alan Klein]

This is no different from the seasonal flu outbreaks that take place every year.  While there is a vaccine, it's always a guessing game in terms of what antigens should be in it.  Some times such as in the case of H1N1, they don't get it quite right and there is more morbidity and mortality. 

Does that mean the vaccine cause more  morbidity and mortality or that there was more because the drug was not as efficacious?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Does that mean the vaccine cause more  morbidity and mortality or that there was more because the drug was not as efficacious?

Vaccines certainly do not use more morbidity or mortality. What happens is that vaccines are prepared for a particular season having in mind the most likely strains of viruses for that year. It is a prediction. Sometimes there is a new strain the vaccine is not planned for, which makes the vaccine less efficacious. Though it is usually said that even if you get the new strain, your recovery should be easier than if you are not vaccinated.

[John Camp]

How would you feel if you were in that 1%? Just collateral damage?

After all the rich need to keep making their money...who cares about some casualties.

I think you didn't understand my comment; or probably didn't think about it. If there's NO CHANCE of stopping it, why not get it over with and try to save the economy, not for rich people, but so everybody can eat? With our just-in-time economy, we no longer have vast stores of products sitting in warehouses -- we use them almost as soon as they are manufactured or grown. (See the situation with the anti-viral masks, and ventilators; too late to make enough ventilators to help much, if there is a genuine pandemic.) The same is true of a lot of other manufactures we need to keep people alive. As I said in a different post, there are two big impacts here: the health and the economic, and the economic could be just as devastating to ordinary people as the sickness. Some of the possibilities being discussed are "furloughs" for workers, especially factory workers, which means being sent home without pay for two weeks to a month to try to slow the spread of the virus. How many people would be financially devastated if forced to go a month without pay? What do we do if the virus shows up heavily among farm workers in California, handling our food? THE CDC says we already see more than a million people sickened every year by salmonella, and COVID-19 could spread the same way. Do we not harvest those crops? We're already starting to see runs on selected products -- hand sanitizers are mostly sold out everywhere, our local coop no longer has dried beans or uncooked pasta, and if you go stand in a parking lot, you will see elderly women pushing carts loaded with toilet paper. (And TP shortages are being reported on news broadcasts. I can't exactly explain that, but it's true; perhaps the old ladies are TP speculators.) And serious runs -- really panicked buying -- hasn't yet started. It may never start, but anyone who went through the gasoline shortages can tell you how panic buying can screw up life.

However, there would be some serious downsides to simply giving up. One of them would probably be a higher peak of infections, which would mean larger crowds of truly sick at hospitals. By lowering the peak -- spreading the time line -- there'd be a better chance of more people getting quality health care in critical situations.

(I would add that I am one of the more likely casualties -- I'm 76.)

[Rob C]

This is no different from the seasonal flu outbreaks that take place every year.  While there is a vaccine, it's always a guessing game in terms of what antigens should be in it.  Some times such as in the case of H1N1, they don't get it quite right and there is more morbidity and mortality.

Some years ago I had an appointment at the doctor's, and as I was sitting there, a nurse walked in holding a spike, and she thought I was there for an old duffer's influenza jab. I said no, no, I'm here about something entirely else. To no avail: she laughed at me and said roll up you sleeve! This is a macho country, and not wishing to burden myself with a permanent loss of masculine face, I did as I was told and took the needle. Heysoos! I ended up with the worst dose of 'flu that I can remember!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think you didn't understand my comment;...

John, I think that was a reasonable angle, stripped of the usual moralizing.

[Rob C]

I think you didn't understand my comment; or probably didn't think about it. If there's NO CHANCE of stopping it, why not get it over with and try to save the economy, not for rich people, but so everybody can eat? With our just-in-time economy, we no longer have vast stores of products sitting in warehouses -- we use them almost as soon as they are manufactured or grown. (See the situation with the anti-viral masks, and ventilators; too late to make enough ventilators to help much, if there is a genuine pandemic.) The same is true of a lot of other manufactures we need to keep people alive. As I said in a different post, there are two big impacts here: the health and the economic, and the economic could be just as devastating to ordinary people as the sickness. Some of the possibilities being discussed are "furloughs" for workers, especially factory workers, which means being sent home without pay for two weeks to a month to try to slow the spread of the virus. How many people would be financially devastated if forced to go a month without pay? What do we do if the virus shows up heavily among farm workers in California, handling our food? THE CDC says we already see more than a million people sickened every year by salmonella, and COVID-19 could spread the same way. Do we not harvest those crops? We're already starting to see runs on selected products -- hand sanitizers are mostly sold out everywhere, our local coop no longer has dried beans or uncooked pasta, and if you go stand in a parking lot, you will see elderly women pushing carts loaded with toilet paper. (And TP shortages are being reported on news broadcasts. I can't exactly explain that, but it's true; perhaps the old ladies are TP speculators.) And serious runs -- really panicked buying -- hasn't yet started. It may never start, but anyone who went through the gasoline shortages can tell you how panic buying can screw up life.

However, there would be some serious downsides to simply giving up. One of them would probably be a higher peak of infections, which would mean larger crowds of truly sick at hospitals. By lowering the peak -- spreading the time line -- there'd be a better chance of more people getting quality health care in critical situations.

(I would add that I am one of the more likely casualties -- I'm 76.)

Just-in-time production is what will doubly impact the UK once deep Brexit kicks in: much of the economy depends upon it, and I'm told that a lot of medical stuff is made and imported from China, itself a huge victim of this plague that's sent to visit us.

Not a time to buy Italian sports car exotica.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Does that mean the vaccine cause more  morbidity and mortality or that there was more because the drug was not as efficacious?

I don't know what your question is here.  Vaccines have very low rates of side effects, key one is Guillam-Barre syndrome.  Anti-viral drugs are hard to make.  The only ones that really work very well are the Hepatitis C drugs that can lead to a cure.  The anti-flu drugs are not very good.  Drugs against Ebola have not shown to work very well at all.  Best approach is the vaccine route but that takes time as you want to make sure that it's safe as possible.

[John Camp]

I don't know what your question is here.  Vaccines have very low rates of side effects, key one is Guillam-Barre syndrome.  Anti-viral drugs are hard to make.  The only ones that really work very well are the Hepatitis C drugs that can lead to a cure.  The anti-flu drugs are not very good.  Drugs against Ebola have not shown to work very well at all.  Best approach is the vaccine route but that takes time as you want to make sure that it's safe as possible.

The flu drugs are not as good as they should be, perhaps, but I haven't gotten the flu since I started getting them annually 20 some years ago. Other people have different experiences. What I don't understand about them is that based on early indications (in Australia, I understand, where the flu season starts during our spring) a concoction of vaccines is put together to protect against dominant strains that year -- the predicted mostly likely strains. Sometimes, they get it wrong. But why not do all of them, and make two or more flu shots available? I'd certainly get both. On the other hand, only about half of Americans actually get flu shot, so maybe there's a cost-benefit calculation in there somewhere.

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The flu drugs are not as good as they should be, perhaps, but I haven't gotten the flu since I started getting them annually 20 some years ago... 

I think we are talking here about different things. Vaccines you get before, so you don’t get the flu. The flu drugs are something you take after you get the flu, to alleviate the symptoms.

As they say, the flu would last the whole week without drugs. With drugs, it will be much shorter, only seven days.

[LesPalenik]

As they say, the flue would last the whole week without drugs. With drugs, it will be much shorter, only seven days.

Actually it's the flu which lasts about a week or two. Same for common cold.
Flue is something much more robust and longer lasting. Built from the right material, it can last over hundred years.

[Rob C]

Actually it's the flu which lasts about a week or two. Same for common cold.
Flue is something much more robust and longer lasting. Built from the right material, it can last over hundred years.

And help keep your bum warm in winter. And your lungs from killing you.

;-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I am sure Robert would love this one

[Jeremy Roussak]

Vaccines have very low rates of side effects, key one is Guillam-Barre syndrome.

Assuming you mean Guillain-Barré, the evidence that that post-infection autoimmune condition is related, other than temporally, to vaccination is slim to non-existent.

Jeremy

[Robert Roaldi]

The flu drugs are not as good as they should be, perhaps, but I haven't gotten the flu since I started getting them annually 20 some years ago. Other people have different experiences. What I don't understand about them is that based on early indications (in Australia, I understand, where the flu season starts during our spring) a concoction of vaccines is put together to protect against dominant strains that year -- the predicted mostly likely strains. Sometimes, they get it wrong. But why not do all of them, and make two or more flu shots available? I'd certainly get both. On the other hand, only about half of Americans actually get flu shot, so maybe there's a cost-benefit calculation in there somewhere.

Good question. Probably worth asking the CDC about. I'm sure it's partly a cost/benefit decision. There is probably limited capacity for vaccine testing,  production (and delivery) and producing vaccines against strains that are not expected to be active that season might be pointless and take away from production and distribution of others. From a practical point of view, if it's difficult to get everyone to take one shot, I imagine that trying to educate the public about 2 vaccine versions would be a public health headache. Many of the people I know, who I would have expected to be more informed, still complain when they get colds despite having had a flu vaccine shot. The cold vs flu difference must have been explained in a million different places by now.

I did look at some pages of the CDC site and vaccine shots traditionally protected against 3 strains but that 4-strain versions are also now popular. I'm left with the impression that combining them into into one shot is not a trivial matter.

On a personal note, and as an aside, I also know some people who resent being encouraged by their government to take vaccines, some kind of "rebellion" against the "man". It's difficult for me to take this seriously considering the large number of people who buy illegal drugs manufactured by criminals.