Corona virus numbers 5/5/2020

[Ridgerunner]

The diocese of Arkansas is opening up too, with similar precautions.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Mass is now open with 2 dozen restrictions.

 

[QContinuum]

While it is true she is in the vulnerable age range, she still doesn’t see this as the equal of polio.

Not for nothing, Zz, but it’s a novel virus. We haven’t had it around long enough to know the extent of long-term injury. It drives me crazy how focused the narrative is on mortality but little discussion on the morbidity of Covid-19.

I’ve been collecting articles and summaries of studies here and there that talk about it. The initial results are up to a third of Covid-19 positive individuals sustain lung damage, even the asymptomatic and mild cases. They’re not sure how many of those will end up with fibrosis, but those that do will have a permanent reduction in lung function. Then there are the ones with kidney damage, with a number of them ending up on dialysis!

And lately, researchers and doctors have realized that Covid-19 causes arterial endothelial damage, which leads to clotting, and that in turn causes strokes, heart attacks and pulmonary embolisms. For those who survive these events, there are frequently long term disabilities. Not to mention a clot in a limb can cause gangrene and require amputation.

I am not downplaying polio at all, it is a terrible disease. But my understanding is that “only” 1 to 2 % of those infected experienced paralysis of any sort.

What is freaky about the SARS-COV-2 is not just that it can spread quickly and kill larger numbers of old and infirm, but the varied ways it can apparently cripple and maim significantly larger numbers of people. This really bothers me, because this will not just hurt us now but will impact economic activity and growth for years to come.

I try not to think too much about it, the implications are staggering and depressing.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Not for nothing, Zz, but it’s a novel virus. We haven’t had it around long enough to know the extent of long-term injury. It drives me crazy how focused the narrative is on mortality but little discussion on the morbidity of Covid-19.

Polio often left people partially if not wholly paralyzed. That’s not nothing.

Yes there are side issues with Covid-19 infections, but I’m still not seeing big numbers outside of those with underlying conditions. A few weeks back, a listing of deaths in NYC showed just 18 out of 1046 deaths listed on that report as having no underlying conditions. We already knew long before Covid-19 that people with underlying conditions were already at risk. All Covid-19 did was accelerate that risk before we were ready to protect against it.

Polio, on the other hand, struck anybody at any time; comorbidities did not figure into who was severely affected by that disease. That’s what made it so scary.

With Covid-19, I’m not seeing much in the way of reporting actual numbers of cases of persons with no underlying conditions being severely affected. The most I have seen is “several”, sometimes “numerous”, but we’re not presented with any context for those words. Further, I’m not seeing this reported in my state nor am I seeing this reported for southern California, where I came from. So at this point, while I acknowledge these cases exist, I think the reporting on them so far is biased, deficient and based on scaring the rest of us.

What do I want to see? How many hospitalizations for those with no underlying conditions? How many hospitalizations in total? Then how many of those hospitalizations for those with no underlying conditions revealed the new conditions that you speak of?

 

[QContinuum]

That’s not nothing

It’s certainly not. I clearly said I don’t mean to downplay the risks of polio at all. I know it can and does paralyze. I think its ability to disable people is highly relevant to the investigation into Covid-19.

I am confused though by your confidence that the numbers are small and that the evidence shows it’s only in high risk individuals. But then dismiss studies as “biased, deficient” just meant to scare people. How can you reach the former conclusion without resorting to studies? For myself, I know this virus has been abominably politicized by both sides, but I have never read a data table from a study that was created merely as a ploy to scare people.

I’m a network engineer who has an undergrad in health science. I don’t just read other people’s opinions on a study; I read the study and look at the methodology and the data tables for myself.

With that in mind, the initial information I have seen indicates we should be concerned about the long term morbidity in for a significant number of people. Not only Americans who have diabetes, heart disease, kidney lung disease, clotting disorders, or are obsese. But even if you only concerned yourself with those, consider that most Americans currently have one or more of these conditions. We’re not a super healthy populace.

To be absolutely clear, I don’t expect that the majority of Covid-19 positive will have permanent injuries. However, if even 20% end up with a permanent reduction in lung function, or complications from stroke, heart attack, or loss of kidney function - that is a threat to our nation’s integrity and a significant economic burden.

There are no simple solutions to this problem. The left would endanger us by starving out the economy and wielding greater and greater powers over the citizenry, and threatening our livelihoods. The right would endanger us by ignoring or downplaying the threat of this virus to the lives of many.

I don’t see either side looking to the long-term costs. Everybody is only focused on the short-term. We can’t just borrow our way out of this mess, or just bluster our way through with pugnacious disregard of germ theory either.

We gotta figure out how to save our way of life for the future.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

But then dismiss studies as “biased, deficient” just meant to scare people.

I said that because no numbers are presented to give us any context to this. At the moment, it’s handwaving. Get some real numbers out there and then I will be happy to withdraw that characterization.

For an example of numbers presented in an understandable context showing us a problem, look at MA’s daily update report that runs 30 pages now. Among many other data points, it will give numbers about the effects of long term care residents. So we know for sure there is a problem with long term care facilities. But I don’t know this about the conditions you’re speaking of.

So “deficient” is accurate until there are numbers. I’ll admit “biased” was an add-on, but that was based on the degree of fear-based reporting we’ve been subjected to from day one. If you can link to complete numbers for these cases with their age ranges, I’ll withdraw my complaints.