Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)

[Statefan10]

If 7.5 million people have it and only 1,070 have died, we're doing very good.

A large percentage of people won't show symptoms or won't develop symptoms that are that critical. It's barely been two weeks that we've taken things very seriously. Two weeks ago today the conference tournaments were cancelled. A ton of bars were still open all last week in various places of the US. We're weeks behind Italy. Our deaths will continue to rise, and even though I doubt we'll be as bad as Italy, the numbers will still not be good.

 

[jdcyclone19]

We aren't "well aware"....that is an assumption based on some level of logic and reason. I certainly wouldn't call the 1 in 100 guess a stat......it's a guess with some hope attached.

The tiny percentage is also based on many assumptions.....which is fine, but don't treat them as facts.

Stop being so realistic.

 

[mywayorcyway]

We aren't "well aware"....that is an assumption based on some level of logic and reason. I certainly wouldn't call the 1 in 100 guess a stat......it's a guess with some hope attached.

The tiny percentage is also based on many assumptions.....which is fine, but don't treat them as facts.

I agree. The only thing I know for sure is the number of cases out there is significantly higher than the reported positive tests. I don't know what the number looks like, nor does anyone else. There is a sliver of good news to be taken from that, but it doesn't mean anyone should let up on their distancing efforts.

 

[cycloneman003]

Absolutely, at least that many.

I mean, you say this like it's an absolute fact. We don't know that however.

We do know that there are many more people infected than confirmed/reported via testing. What we don't know is if that this 5x, 10x, 100x, etc. If it's 100x or more, then great! Outlook would be much more positive than previously thought. If it's only 5-10x? Still a pretty grim prognosis if we don't start making improvements.

It's dangerous to make the assumption that we have already have millions of infected citizens because we could severely underestimate the number of citizens still at risk of infection. Also, as we know through this, PEOPLE ARE STUPID. If people begin to believe that vast portions of the population have already been infected and had no severe issues, then they are likely to get more lax on following social distancing and other lockdown measures.

 

[Al_4_State]

Disagree - it sure looks like an exponential curve. It's just that the numbers are small right now, so when you get a daily update you just think "oh, it's only a few more cases, it's fine." But it's increasing by a constant percentage, not a constant value, so it is indeed exponential. Once the numbers get bigger, it becomes more apparent. This is one of those things you really need a graph to see.

View attachment 70890

https://www.kimt.com/content/news/Coronavirus-A-timeline-in-Minnesota-and-Iowa-568898111.html

I guess I wouldn't call it fine, and I do think Iowa should move to shelter-in-place and get malls and other non-essential gathering places shut down.

I guess I misunderstood "exponential". I thought that meant you went from 20 new cases one day to 40 the next to 80 to 160, etc.

 

[NorthCyd]

I guess I have never understood the "It's good for the prices at the pump but is not good for the world economy overall." line of thought.
Cheaper energy costs help shipping companies, people going to jobs and everyone else, only person being hurt or the oil and gas companies. Most gas retailors make very little profit on each gallon sold. So how is this hurting the world economy?

No one ever said, that low prices for Corn and Soybeans hurts the World Economy, just the opposite, screw the farmer, but man, if Exxon, and Shell are hurt we are all in trouble. What a strange world we live in.

I'm not going to pretend to understand how the oil futures markets work and effect the other markets, but the start of the oil price wars was one of the big triggers that started the stock market tumbling a few weeks back. I do know there is fear that this will threaten oil production in the US. I guess if you have oil producers going out of business all over the world it's bad for everyone overall.

 

[besserheimerphat]

With increased testing, of course the # of positive results will go up. The real worry is the % of hospital capacity.

We're only testing people whose symptoms exceed some level of severity. Assuming a consistent percentage of total infected become severe enough to warrant testing, we can say that the infected population is increasing at the same rate as those with severe symptoms. For example, if 10% of cases require hospitalization then that will always be 10% of the total infected whether it's 100 people or 1 million people. If the number of hospitalizations increases exponentially, that's a good indication that the general spread is also exponential.

FYI, here's the data with both exponential and linear trendlines. Exponential fits MUCH better (Rsq or 98% vs. 80%). If it were linear, we should have had MORE cases last week. The exponent indicates this is growing at about 18% per day in Iowa. I haven't found any other state-level data for comparison.

 

[madguy30]

My sister and BIL were told this. After BIL's second trip to the doctor, he was tested yesterday. Obviously no need to test my sister.

That's pretty dumb...if they can both go in together and get tested does that really waste the resource much?

My rec was over the phone which was fine and my fever was gone in a day or two (which I'd actually think is unusual for the flu and I usually don't get fevers with colds), but at what point do I 'qualify'?

 

[DSMCy]

A large percentage of people won't show symptoms or won't develop symptoms that are that critical. It's barely been two weeks that we've taken things very seriously. Two weeks ago today the conference tournaments were cancelled. A ton of bars were still open all last week in various places of the US. We're weeks behind Italy. Our deaths will continue to rise, and even though I doubt we'll be as bad as Italy, the numbers will still not be good.

All the spring break travelers just returned home 4-5 days ago. Possibly another week before we see the impact of all that travel.

 

[besserheimerphat]

I guess I wouldn't call it fine, and I do think Iowa should move to shelter-in-place and get malls and other non-essential gathering places shut down.

I guess I misunderstood "exponential". I thought that meant you went from 20 new cases one day to 40 the next to 80 to 160, etc.

Exponential just means it grows at a constant percentage. That percentage doesn't have to be 100% (doubling every day). But it will double over a repeatable period. So it may double every 3 days, or 4 days, or 5 days. I think the US in general has been doubling about every 3 days.

 

[Statefan10]

All the spring break travelers just returned home 4-5 days ago. Possibly another week before we see the impact of all that travel.

Yup. Some of those are going back to jobs when the governor recommended they quarantine. They are now potentially spreading the virus in the workplaces that are still open.

 

[madguy30]

Yup. Some of those are going back to jobs when the governor recommended they quarantine. They are now potentially spreading the virus in the workplaces that are still open.

Saw the 'If I get corona, I get corona' dude has backtracked and apologized via social media or whatever.

I know he's young and we all do and say stupid stuff, but you have to wonder if employers think hiring him is a good idea.

 

[Acylum]

We're only testing people whose symptoms exceed some level of severity.
Agreed. And I doubt that's being applied consistently facility to facility, Dr. to Dr., etc.
Assuming a consistent percentage of total infected become severe enough to warrant testing, we can say that the infected population is increasing at the same rate as those with severe symptoms. For example, if 10% of cases require hospitalization then that will always be 10% of the total infected whether it's 100 people or 1 million people. If the number of hospitalizations increases exponentially, that's a good indication that the general spread is also exponential.
It really boils down to which age groups have had the most exposure to this point and how the measures taken thus far will affect those age groups. (Hopefully the recommendations put in place benefit the most at risk)

FYI, here's the data with both exponential and linear trendlines. Exponential fits MUCH better (Rsq or 98% vs. 80%). If it were linear, we should have had MORE cases last week. The exponent indicates this is growing at about 18% per day in Iowa. I haven't found any other state-level data for comparison.
I'm actually surprised the two are still that close. It'd be interesting to see similar data from other states. The current trend is concerning obviously.

View attachment 70891

 

[isutrevman]

Oh they are definitely in the thousands. Limited testing doesn't allow even close to the truth as far as what our true numbers are, or what numbers are in the entire United States.

If the # of cases in Iowa is truly in the thousands, then the fatality rate is likely less than 0.1%.

 

[Al_4_State]

If the # of cases in Iowa is truly in the thousands, then the fatality rate it likely less than 0.1%.

If you use Iowa's fatalities and discharged/never hospitalized rates, the death rate is at 1%.

But that's just using confirmed cases.

And this shouldn't be taken to say I think we need to relax restrictions. We're doing a decent job of keeping it in check, with very minimal loss of life. Let's keep it that way.

 

[madguy30]

If the # of cases in Iowa is truly in the thousands, then the fatality rate it likely less than 0.1%.

True but it's still in the danger of crippling the healthcare places.

If these current positive case numbers were taking place over like 6 months, I'd think this would be a very different deal.

 

[agcy68]

Lol farmers and the oil and gas lobby strutting over which side hurting causes the rest of us the most pain...both of these industries are leeches on all of us.

Is that a political statement? 'Cuz my response sure would be...

 

[Statefan10]

If the # of cases in Iowa is truly in the thousands, then the fatality rate is likely less than 0.1%.

Well yes, as of right now, but the death toll will continue to rise as more people at risk have to get hospitalized, which will then increase the percentage. We have to know that in other places in Europe, their death percentage wasn't that high right away either. It started getting bad as more people needed to be hospitalized, ventilators were minimal, and doctors got overwhelmed. The virus itself isn't exactly that deadly, it's the need for certain medical equipment that's the issue.

We cannot let ourselves get to the point where doctors are having to pick and choose who lives and who dies because they don't have what is needed. In some places in the US, that could be happening very soon.

 

[Clonefan32]

If you use Iowa's fatalities and discharged/never hospitalized rates, the death rate is at 1%.

But that's just using confirmed cases.

And this shouldn't be taken to say I think we need to relax restrictions. We're doing a decent job of keeping it in check, with very minimal loss of life. Let's keep it that way.

I'm not sure there is a place I'd rather be right now than Iowa. Plenty of room to keep to yourself, minimal public transit and other large gathering places and a population defined by their dedication to helping each other.

 

[Acylum]

That's pretty dumb...if they can both go in together and get tested does that really waste the resource much?

My rec was over the phone which was fine and my fever was gone in a day or two (which I'd actually think is unusual for the flu and I usually don't get fevers with colds), but at what point do I 'qualify'?

I guess the theory is if he has it she has it. He had worse symptoms and presented first. Of course that means she may never show up as a positive, but it's debatable how important that is right now. He's an AD at a good-sized HS, she's semi -retired and a part-time school nurse. He would've exposed many more people. I can understand the reasoning to assume if he's positive, she's positive, and let's save the test for a case that's more in doubt. Also they've been self-quarantined for about a week now.