ADVERTISEMENT

COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

Status
Not open for further replies.
NJ average is not flat. We are starting to flatten but it is not flat yet. Data I get from work comes from a reputable reporting agency and is certainly not false so cut the crap. I deal with this situation daily in keeping us operating and our employees safe. Thankfully we have had only 2 positives across our 35 locations in the US. We ramped up production right before the shutdowns to increase inventory so we were able to continue to satisfy orders even though many of the plants were eventually shut down. About a third of the plants that were shut down are restarting this week. While March showed no decrease in sales we are seeing a 20% drop in demand for 2nd quarter now. Again, those things I've stated are not "blatantly false", those are real facts. I deal with this every day now.

I am not sure what your role at your job or your 2Q sales projection has to do with any of this. The numbers don't lie, there's no acceleration. How important you are doesn't change numbers. Last five days:
4/3- 4305
4/4- 4229
4/5- 3381
4/6- 3585
4/7- 3326
(source: Johns Hopkins)
Obviously not an acceleration of new cases, in fact there isn't even linear growth of new cases. In fact, there isn't even any growth at all. You really don't have to take my word for it though, you can filter by state and scale and enjoy the lack of a curve:
http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/

You can have the last word if you want, I'll just enjoy my cold hard factual numbers which require no interpretation- they speak for themselves.
 
@LETSGORU91 @RUfubar - just curious on your take on whether you'd rather be using convalescent plasma as an "emergency last resort treatment" or HCQ/HCQ-combo (or if you don't think we should be trying unproven treatments)? You know what I think, but I don't have the medical knowledge you guys have. Thanks. And any other docs feel free to weigh on (can't always tell who's an MD here).

I know you have been high on this, but I need to read up on it some more.
The practicality of mass treatment might hit some snags. One, the recovery times for these patients have been long and the sicker ones may not be able to have their blood removed as that reduces oxygen availability. I suppose they could remove the blood, spin it down, take the separated plasma and finally transfuse the RBCs back into the patient. A timely process indeed. Another thought is to find the asymptomatic ones and those with minor symptoms to get their plasma. Most of these people have not been tested though and would need antibody testing. I have heard the available antibody tests are problematic and unreliable, but I have not read anything myself as of yet.
 
I am not sure what your role at your job or your 2Q sales projection has to do with any of this. The numbers don't lie, there's no acceleration. How important you are doesn't change numbers. Last five days:
4/3- 4305
4/4- 4229
4/5- 3381
4/6- 3585
4/7- 3326
(source: Johns Hopkins)
Obviously not an acceleration of new cases, in fact there isn't even linear growth of new cases. In fact, there isn't even any growth at all. You really don't have to take my word for it though, you can filter by state and scale and enjoy the lack of a curve:
http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/

You can have the last word if you want, I'll just enjoy my cold hard factual numbers which require no interpretation- they speak for themselves.

Johnny -- The number of new positives reported in NJ is closely correlated to the number of new test results reported. If fewer test results are reported, then fewer positives are reported. The decline you are seeing may be nothing more than a decline in reported test results.

Here are the number Positive reported and (test results reported) for the dates you listed above. Note the numbers reported by the state below are slightly different than the Hopkins numbers you listed above.

4/3- 4372 (8460)
4/4- 4331 (7955)
4/5- 3482 (6911)
4/6- 3663 (6944)
4/7- 3361 (5977)
 
Not at all. You continue to not understand medical science and clinical trials. I would love to see a bunch of treatments, including HCQ, being shown to be safe and effective, which is why I support 100% the ongoing controlled clinical studies on HCQ and many other compounds. As I said in the post you quoted and apparently didn't read, I'd be very happy if HCQ was a cure and I'll never apologize for wanting to pursue the best medical science.

However, I absolutely can't stand people "hawking" clinically unproven drugs to the public as "cures" without any the appropriate clinical data to say that, as Raoult and Smith did on Fox. And I despise the POTUS weighing in on medical matters he is clueless about - it's completely inappropriate and if HCQ proves to be as ineffective as I expect it to be, he will have diverted attention away from focusing on other potential treatments.
Actually , I understand a great deal about medical and biological science. What purpose do you serve by copy and pasting reports on a message board site. The vast majority of us read these same articles and watch multiple news reports. For your information , I have personally worked in emergency rooms / clinics / medi- vac / operating rooms / administered vaccines and more. So don’t assume that someone doesn’t UNDERSTAND science... I don’t doubt your background in science but if you were this expert in bio medical you should offer your service to the US government... as some of us have... you mention too often in undertones the real reason you are against “ Hawking” ...his name Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through May 2020
Last updated April 5, 2020.

FAQ | Update Notes | Article
New Jersey
Government-mandated social distancing
March 21, 2020
Stay at home order
March 18, 2020
Educational facilities closed
March 21, 2020
Non-essential services closed
Not implemented
Travel severely limited
Hospital resource use
9days
until peak resource use on
April 15, 2020
Resources needed for COVID-19 patients on peak date
All beds needed
24,702beds
All beds available
7,815beds
Bed shortage
16,887beds
ICU beds needed
4,992beds
ICU beds available
465beds
ICU bed shortage
4,527beds
Invasive ventilators needed
4,242ventilators
All resourcesAll bedsICU bedsInvasive ventilators
05k10k15k20k25k30k35k40k45k50k55k60kResource countMar 01Apr 01May 01Jun 01Jul 01Aug 01Date

All beds available

All beds needed (projected)

ICU beds available

ICU beds needed (projected)

Invasive ventilators needed (projected)
Shaded areas indicate uncertainty
Deaths per day
10days
until projected peak in daily deaths
584COVID-19 deaths
projected on April 16, 2020
02004006008001k1.2k1.4k1.6k1.8k2k2.2k2.4k2.6k2.8kDeaths per dayMar 01Apr 01May 01Jun 01Jul 01Aug 01Date

Deaths per day

Deaths per day (projected)
Shaded area indicates uncertainty
Total deaths
9,690COVID-19 deaths
projected by August 4, 2020
02k4k6k8k10k12k14k16kTotal deathsMar 01Apr 01May 01Jun 01Jul 01Aug 01Date

Total deaths

Total deaths (projected)
Shaded area indicates uncertainty
Download the results (version 2020_04_05.05.us).

I am hoping that this model is overly pessimistic due to a possible data anomaly on Apr 4. The Apr 1 version of this model predicted a total of 2117 deaths in NJ, and that number increased more than four-fold to 9690 on the Apr 5 version of the model.

I am hoping that that increase is due to what I hope is a data anomaly of 200 deaths reported on Apr 4 in NJ. When reporting the 200 number, Gov Murphy noted that the number does not represent 200 people who passed away in the previous 24 hours, but it represents 200 Covid deaths reported in the previous 24 hours. Because of the time delay in getting testing results, earlier deaths are counted as Covid deaths when postmortem positive results are received.

On Apr 5, NJ reported only 71 Covid deaths. Over the past 7 days, NJ reported 37, 69, 88, 182, 109, 200, and 71 deaths. Those numbers are swinging wildly up and down, and that variation is probably more likely due to the timing of receipt of test results.

Also note that on Fri, Apr 3, the state reported that there were about 3000 hospitalized patients with confirmed Covid test results and another 3000 hospitalized patients under investigation, suspected of having Covid and awaiting test results. On Sat, Apr 4, the state reported that the confirmed hospitalizations were over 4000, and under investigation were over 2000. The drop in the under investigation number suggests that Sat, Apr 4, saw a significant number of test results reported.


The UW Model seems to have scaled back a bit on the number of deaths for NJ, as I had projected.

On April 1, the model for NJ projected peak resource use on Apr 8 and a peak death rate of 104 on Apr 9, with a total of 2117 deaths by May 8.

On April 5, the model projected peak resource use on Apr 15 and a peak death rate of 584 on Apr 16, with a total of 9690 deaths by May 11.

On April 8, the model projected peak resource use on Apr 11 and a peak death rate of 288 on Apr 12, with a total of 5277 deaths by May 8.


With NJ reporting an average of over 135 deaths per day over the past 5 days, and total deaths reported of 1232 (with another 1540 patients on ventilators), it seems that NJ will exceed the April 1 projection. I am hoping the state does as well or better than the April 8 projection, because that is a hell of a lot better than the April 5 projection.
 
Actually , I understand a great deal about medical and biological science. What purpose do you serve by copy and pasting reports on a message board site. The vast majority of us read these same articles and watch multiple news reports.
The vast majority on this board are not doing that, which is why we have this pinned thread for people to be able to catch up on the latest. Please stop the bickering or I will ban you from this thread.
 
I am not sure what your role at your job or your 2Q sales projection has to do with any of this. The numbers don't lie, there's no acceleration. How important you are doesn't change numbers. Last five days:
4/3- 4305
4/4- 4229
4/5- 3381
4/6- 3585
4/7- 3326
(source: Johns Hopkins)
Obviously not an acceleration of new cases, in fact there isn't even linear growth of new cases. In fact, there isn't even any growth at all. You really don't have to take my word for it though, you can filter by state and scale and enjoy the lack of a curve:
http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/

You can have the last word if you want, I'll just enjoy my cold hard factual numbers which require no interpretation- they speak for themselves.
Never said I was important, certainly not an important cog in this whole virus crisis. I'm comfortable with my station in life.
 
We're all rooting for this to end by May. However, this is the most important info in that website:

".........assuming full social distancing through May 2020"
I know it's been asked...but I wonder what these models think happens on June 1st in that scenario. What mechanisms keep this from reflaring? I don't think it's
Johnny -- The number of new positives reported in NJ is closely correlated to the number of new test results reported. If fewer test results are reported, then fewer positives are reported. The decline you are seeing may be nothing more than a decline in reported test results.

Here are the number Positive reported and (test results reported) for the dates you listed above. Note the numbers reported by the state below are slightly different than the Hopkins numbers you listed above.

4/3- 4372 (8460)
4/4- 4331 (7955)
4/5- 3482 (6911)
4/6- 3663 (6944)
4/7- 3361 (5977)
OK well that's an interesting wrinkle. I assumed with a proliferation of testing sites that testing had been increasing. Since testing is more readily available, the next question is why aren't more tests being performed?
 
The vast majority on this board are not doing that, which is why we have this pinned thread for people to be able to catch up on the latest. Please stop the bickering or I will ban you from this thread.
Please don’t as we do need to hear the professional opinion on this too.

And he’s not wrong. Maybe @RUBOB72 can say it in a different way but again he’s not wrong.
 
I know it's been asked...but I wonder what these models think happens on June 1st in that scenario. What mechanisms keep this from reflaring? I don't think it's

OK well that's an interesting wrinkle. I assumed with a proliferation of testing sites that testing had been increasing. Since testing is more readily available, the next question is why aren't more tests being performed?
As more tests are performed, more are backlogged. Prioritization of test results, hospital tests vs. lab clinical tests is different by state causing more of an analytical issue.
 
OK well that's an interesting wrinkle. I assumed with a proliferation of testing sites that testing had been increasing. Since testing is more readily available, the next question is why aren't more tests being performed?

There appear to be 3 constraints to increased testing:

1) There is a backlog in the commercial and public labs processing the tests. They cannot process the tests fast enough to keep up with the current testing rate. The state is reporting that test results being reported now are from samples collected 7-10 days ago.

2) There is not enough PPE for the workers administering the tests. The state is balancing allocating PPE to more testing vs allocating PPE to healthcare workers in the hospitals who are treating patients. That is why testing in NJ is mostly limited to hospitalized patients and those exhibiting significant symptoms.

3) There is still a shortage of test kits. It seems the most significant shortage is for the swabs used to collect samples.
 
There appear to be 3 constraints to increased testing:

1) There is a backlog in the commercial and public labs processing the tests. They cannot process the tests fast enough to keep up with the current testing rate. The state is reporting that test results being reported now are from samples collected 7-10 days ago.

2) There is not enough PPE for the workers administering the tests. The state is balancing allocating PPE to more testing vs allocating PPE to healthcare workers in the hospitals who are treating patients. That is why testing in NJ is mostly limited to hospitalized patients and those exhibiting significant symptoms.

3) There is still a shortage of test kits. It seems the most significant shortage is for the swabs used to collect samples.
So new cases reported today are from people who were tested seven days ago, might have been symptomatic a few days before that, and might have contracted the disease a week before that. How useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wolv RU
There appear to be 3 constraints to increased testing:

1) There is a backlog in the commercial and public labs processing the tests. They cannot process the tests fast enough to keep up with the current testing rate. The state is reporting that test results being reported now are from samples collected 7-10 days ago.

2) There is not enough PPE for the workers administering the tests. The state is balancing allocating PPE to more testing vs allocating PPE to healthcare workers in the hospitals who are treating patients. That is why testing in NJ is mostly limited to hospitalized patients and those exhibiting significant symptoms.

3) There is still a shortage of test kits. It seems the most significant shortage is for the swabs used to collect samples.

Going by the data available on the Kinsa heat maps, atypical fevers (and fevers overall) have been declining, so if that means fewer people are having symptoms, then perhaps less people are seeking tests. Just a thought.
 
That site is from the U of Washington, the same folks I've posted models from for the past few weeks, as they've seemed to have more realistic modeling scenarios. They keep saying they're going to update their models, but they've delayed it all weekend.

My guess is they're digesting all the new data, especially the observation that we might already be into the peak number of cases in NY and possibly NJ, meaning the peak deaths will come sooner and likely be at a lower peak than modeled so far, and that they're going to come out with lower estimated deaths for the US/NY/NJ than the ones below, which were from 4/1. Maybe down 20-30%, to perhaps 70K for the US vs. the current 93K (I was guessing maybe 50K). Or maybe there will be minimal change, since they're seeing more than I am, I'm sure.

We'll see - this is not too different from when I try to guess where the NWS is going to go based on new data that we all have access to, but I can be nimbler with the analysis than they can. Of course a huge difference is this is predicting deaths, which matter far more than the weather, so if they need some more time, they should take it.

Edit: turns out the first three graphs, below, from last night, were a mix of projections. The NY and US graphs were from the model run on 4/1, while the NJ graph is from the model run on 4/5 and the 9600 deaths shown are much higher than the ~2200 deaths from the model run on 4/1 (not shown). I added the 4/5 model projections for US/NY after these three. You can tell when the model was run from where the orange solid line ends and becomes dotted, also.

tJxaGMY.png


GX1ofit.png


FkDs0j8.png


Edit: adding in the 4/5 model runs for the US and NY, below. The US projected deaths dropped from 96K to 82K, which is good (not the 70K I thought it might drop to) and the NY deaths projected dropped from 16.3K to 15.6K.

8pxEK8Y.png


t6x3V95.png

Great to see the UW projected deaths continue to go down, based on the updated data, as social distancing is really working. The latest shows a decrease in projected US deaths from 93K on 4/1 to 82K on 4/5 to 60K on 4/7 and also shows reductions in NY deaths from 16.2K to 13.3K from 4/5 to 4/7 and in NJ deaths from 9.6K to 5.2K. Very happy to see this reduction, especially for the US and this reduction is now much closer to my 40-50K prediction from the other day on US deaths, based on my comparison of the US death rates vs. Italy's death rates (link below).

Even 60K would be fantastic vs. the ~100K or so most were predicting a few weeks ago and even lower would be better obviously. This really shows the power of social distancing - and starting social distancing early enough to prevent an Italy/Spain style catastrophe, although starting it 1-2 weeks earlier would've likely put us into South Korea neighborhood, which would have translated to only a few thousand deaths (they're at 200 deaths now, which translates to ~1200 on a US population basis).

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-55#post-4491470

The NJ drop is so large because the 4/5 model placed a disproportionate amount of mathematical emphasis on the one big data point of high deaths. As a result they've altered their model projections to average in the last three runs, rather than just doing the run based on current data, since that averaging should "smooth" large fluctuations based on single day large fluctuations that may actually reflect reporting anomalies and not "real" data - their notes explain this below.

One more tidbit: chatter from NYC hospitals is that the true number of infected people may be 20-30% in densely populated areas like NYC Metro based on preliminary health care worker antibody testing (discussed the theorized high numbers a couple of days ago, based on ILI, or influenza-like-illnesses being way high in Feb/March, implying "flu" cases were COVID; the Kinsa internet fever data also implied very high infection rates at this time). Let's wait for the actual data before celebrating, but that would be huge if true (would mean 20-30% with immunity, so any future outbreaks should be much smaller).

Based on the now multiple iterations of our COVID-19 death model, we have noticed that, for at least some US states, there are massive fluctuations in the number of COVID-19 deaths reported each day. These substantial day-to-day vacillations are more likely due to an artefact in how statewide deaths are being compiled and then reported each day than actual fluctuations in COVID-19 deaths. As a result, our reported predictions – that you can view and download from the online visualization tool – are now based on averaging the last three rounds of predictions. In other words, what is shown today (April 7) is the average of model predictions from reported COVID-19 death data up to April 4 (model 1), data up to April 5 (model 2), and data up to April 7 (model 3). We view this as an important refinement that helps to strengthen model stability and buffer predictions from data fluctuations less related to observed epidemic patterns and more driven by variable data collection or reporting practices.

Projected US Deaths
QjkfpPZ.png


Projected NY Deaths

9JbmNiE.png


Projected NJ Deaths

kVvzGBx.png
 
The vast majority on this board are not doing that, which is why we have this pinned thread for people to be able to catch up on the latest. Please stop the bickering or I will ban you from this thread.
Feel free to ban me. I've been banned before for lesser offenses. It amazes me when this happens given some of the inflamatory posts I see from a number of people.
 
So new cases reported today are from people who were tested seven days ago, might have been symptomatic a few days before that, and might have contracted the disease a week before that. How useful.
This has definitely been an issue. Our county health department has started reporting cases as of the day the test was administered (swabbed), not the date the test result is received...which is sometimes 7 days later. They were initially reporting them as of the day the test result was received.
 
Feel free to ban me. I've been banned before for lesser offenses. It amazes me when this happens given some of the inflamatory posts I see from a number of people.
?????

I wasn't even referring to you.

I am trying to keep this thread free of political bickering: we have a whole board for that on the CE Forum. I've talked to a number of people on this thread about that; once we start down that rabbit hole this thread will end up being booted to that board, where it will die a quick death. IMO the information in here is too valuable to be derailed by someone's political opinion.
 
Please don’t as we do need to hear the professional opinion on this too.

And he’s not wrong. Maybe RUBOB72 can say it in a different way but again he’s not wrong.
The professional opinion is fine, but bringing politics into it is not. Because we both know how that ends up. I am trying to ride herd on everyone, both sides of the political spectrum, so that this thread doesn't end up locked, deleted or moved.

FOLKS, LET'S NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD BY QUOTING ME AND GIVING YOUR OPINION. I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED BOTH PARTIES ON THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THEIR POSTS. IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER WITH ME OR WITH RICHIE OUTSIDE OF THIS THREAD, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PM ME OR RICHIE, OR SEND AN EMAIL DIRECTLY TO RICHIE. PLEASE DO THE SAME IF YOU FEEL A POST IS OVERLY POLITICAL, OR REPORT THE POST IN QUESTION WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
 
The vast majority on this board are not doing that, which is why we have this pinned thread for people to be able to catch up on the latest. Please stop the bickering or I will ban you from this thread.
Hey DJ Spanky like someone else said earlier there have been far worse . You blatantly defend your ( friends on this free board) you have done so many times. My reply to #’s is simple and in no way demeaning . You know exactly what he refers to ...he says, “ you don’t understand the science” and I gave him an update of why he should not make assumptions about anyone’s actual knowledge. My background in the actual line of fire is worth more than his list of pablum fed degrees. And btw I never criticized him. I asked if he would apologize on here if somethings actually proved helpful. He said no ... that tells me all I need to know from him and you . I guess I went to Rutgers at a time of initial change when the new liberal thought process began . If one doesn’t agree with you or yours then they are blocked out by the one in charge of a FREE site. Seems a bit of a left attitude.
 
The professional opinion is fine, but bringing politics into it is not. Because we both know how that ends up. I am trying to ride herd on everyone, both sides of the political spectrum, so that this thread doesn't end up locked, deleted or moved.

FOLKS, LET'S NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD BY QUOTING ME AND GIVING YOUR OPINION. I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED BOTH PARTIES ON THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THEIR POSTS. IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER WITH ME OR WITH RICHIE OUTSIDE OF THIS THREAD, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PM ME OR RICHIE, OR SEND AN EMAIL DIRECTLY TO RICHIE. PLEASE DO THE SAME IF YOU FEEL A POST IS OVERLY POLITICAL, OR REPORT THE POST IN QUESTION WITH YOUR COMMENTS.

I can confirm that (a)DJ Spanky is indeed riding herd on both sides of the political spectrum. *Please*do as he asks.
 

No, this is new, so thanks. I posted something similar on the antibody thread a little while ago and then added in your new link.

Thanks for the additional info - that's what I figured. Very familiar with the engineered antibody approach, which I posted on weeks ago - my buddy is a VP at Regeneron (was in my group at one time at Merck, lol - smart guy, advanced pretty quickly), who has that amazing genetically engineered mouse platform which mimics the human immune system, making discovery of targeted antibodies faster and hopefully better and cell culture scale-up is fairly straightforward as you probably know. The approach worked for Ebola and is my bet for our best hope of a faster, easier treatment (vs. plasma) that doesn't require donors - could be ready by late summer.

https://investor.regeneron.com/inde...es-important-advances-novel-covid-19-antibody

Edit: more on the Regeneron approach/timeline...

Let's turn now to the other coronavirus program and drug that you're working on. This cocktail, how would that work?

When you give a vaccine, you are giving something that induces what is known as an immune response. Unfortunately, it takes time to perfect the way to get the body to do it itself. Luckily, we and others have technologies that allow us to make these exact same antibodies outside of the body, and then purify them and give them back to people, and it's as if these people have been vaccinated

When could this therapeutic drug be available?

Well, the first potential treatment, we should be able to know as a scientific community within the next few weeks to a month or two, whether they are really working in a controlled fashion.

And what about the antibody cocktail that could be a pre-vaccine?

By June we could be testing it and, once again, within a month or two, we might know, at least for certain patients, if it's safe and effective. So, by the end of the summer, we could be treating hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biotec...ulos-talks-timeline-for-possible-coronavirus/
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArminRU
Clearly explains the failure of testing and the failure to implement testing which is the single biggest failure in the response to this virus. Until the testing , both hospital testing, private labs, rapid testing and antibody testing is ramped up or scaled up , we cannot get back to work. But let’s say that happens in the next 30 days as they have implied and let’s give another 15-30 days , then a plausible scenario exists of a return to work , with masks, no large gatherings by June 1. But things will not be normal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: satnom and Wolv RU

Here's the part I don't quite get:

"The emergency declaration gave drugmakers more flexibility to develop vaccines and antiviral treatments for COVID-19. But it also put new restrictions on diagnostic tests developed by individual labs. Those tests now required FDA approval for even slight deviations from the CDC protocol."

Why did the declaration give leeway on drugs and vaccines but tighten restrictions on test development? That's crazy and definitely impeded our ability to get testing going. I remember Cuomo practically begging for the FDA to approve tests developed in NY state labs. Precious time was lost.
 
SIAP -- news account of success with plasma antibody treatment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/plasma-treatment-being-tested-york-213100838.html
Very interested to see how those 20 patients at Mt. Sinai are doing? Plus how many more people have donated their plasma with rich antibodies in the last week as the recovery rate swells into the thousands both in NYC and In NJ. You can still save hundreds or thousands of people in this area and obviously more around the country where they have not peaked or at full blown height of crisis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jreinsdorf
The COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease May Be Twice As Contagious As We Thought


A single person with COVID-19 may be more likely to infect up to 5 or 6 other people, rather than 2 or 3, suggests a new study of Chinese data from the CDC. It’s not clear if this higher number applies only to the cases in China or if it will be similar in other countries.

If the higher number does remain true elsewhere, it means that more people in a population need to be immune from the disease—either from having already had it or from a vaccine—to stop it from circulating...

With an R0 of 5.7, approximately 82% of the population needs to be immune to reach herd immunity and stop the disease from spreading easily through the population, the researchers concluded.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/taraha...ice-as-contagious-as-we-thought/#b62230d29a6a
 
What do we think happens once we stop social distancing? Is there any reason to think it will not just start to spread again once we start interacting with each other?
 
  • Like
Reactions: albanyknight
There appear to be 3 constraints to increased testing:

1) There is a backlog in the commercial and public labs processing the tests. They cannot process the tests fast enough to keep up with the current testing rate. The state is reporting that test results being reported now are from samples collected 7-10 days ago.

2) There is not enough PPE for the workers administering the tests. The state is balancing allocating PPE to more testing vs allocating PPE to healthcare workers in the hospitals who are treating patients. That is why testing in NJ is mostly limited to hospitalized patients and those exhibiting significant symptoms.

3) There is still a shortage of test kits. It seems the most significant shortage is for the swabs used to collect samples.

Crazy to see we're still running short on test kits/PPE and that there is such a reporting lag. By the time some of these folks are notified, they could already be in the ICU or dead, let alone infecting others.

Found this interesting bit of news on testing equipment that can get results in 45 minutes, along with another model that can get results in 5 minutes:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from...0yearold-technology-already-in-many-hospitals
 
What do we think happens once we stop social distancing? Is there any reason to think it will not just start to spread again once we start interacting with each other?
Of course it will. That's why we'll need very high testing capacity as well as the ability to contact trace/isolate people who get sick and those they expose. The current measures aren't extreme enough to completely eliminate the virus, it will be a long battle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT