lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 11:16
Quote Posted by bob_doe_nz
New Zealand is officially in lockdown for at least 4 weeks.
And it's good.
demagogue on 25/3/2020 at 11:40
Remember the numbers you see now are about 2 weeks delayed from when people got it. When the lockdown starts means the cases starting from two weeks back will still be coming in. The peak and drop will actually start from then, but you'll see the largest increase in cases discovered in the two weeks after it starts, and then you see the peak and drop from that two weeks later over the next however many weeks. I've seen some graphs out there show how it looks. Basically you take the sharp parabola, copy it, and move it back in the grid 2 weeks, and then you can imagine how the overlap looks (the left one being case start dates, the right one case discovery dates).
Edit:
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Welp. Sounds like they're going to get hammered.
(They being Japan.)
Something doesn't add up. I'm ready to believe the government is fudging the numbers and even labeling corona deaths as pneumonia. I researched their response to Fukushima where they fudged numbers like the number of displaced with clever re-definitions, and the official government line is pneumonia deaths will be reported, as usual, in the government's triannual report on it three years from now, which is definitely a fishy reply. But, while my imagination may be failing me (it's happened before), I can't imagine they could hide overruns in hospitals, or masses of very sick people being turned away or taken in and the families wonder "What's happening to my granddad and great aunt Yumiko once they got into the hospital? They sure looked like they had it", or the burials, etc., not at the scale it's supposed to be at if it were following the pattern of other countries.
Starker on 25/3/2020 at 11:51
Hmm... don't the serious cases take a lot longer than 2 weeks, though? Not like the ICUs are just going to get unclogged just like that.
bob_doe_nz on 25/3/2020 at 11:52
Quote Posted by Starker
Hmm... don't the serious cases take a lot longer than 2 weeks, though?
That would depend on the person and the variables involved wouldn't it?
Starker on 25/3/2020 at 11:58
Sure, but it's the serious cases in combination with the lack of resources that cause the most deaths.
lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 12:11
Quote Posted by icemann
Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
In Bergamo/Lombardy deaths are NOT growing. Still they happen.
I hope to see 100/150 deaths per day this saturnday/sunday.
demagogue on 25/3/2020 at 12:21
Quote Posted by Starker
Hmm... don't the serious cases take a lot longer than 2 weeks, though? Not like the ICUs are just going to get unclogged just like that.
I mean the person goes to the hospital about 2 weeks after they've contracted the illness where it's actually counted. They could be in the hospital longer, but I'm talking about the number in the statistic of "new cases today". Put another way: the number you see in the statistic for "today" is actually the number of cases contracted about "two weeks ago". You won't see the actual number of cases contracted "today" until two weeks from now. It could be a little longer or shorter depending on the individual. But the point is, you should expect the number of "new cases" to jump significantly in the two weeks after a lockdown starts.
The duration "two weeks" comes from when they polled people testing positive the date their symptoms started, which (when you add the latency from contraction to symptoms) tended to be 2 weeks, or so the article I read on it claimed the data it was showing in the graph said.
Gryzemuis on 25/3/2020 at 12:31
That is just one (scientific) paper. And the title is "paper suggest that ... may increase risks".
I think SubJeff's point is that a lot of all the new-found information has not been checked yet. No real peer-reviews. No follow-up research yet. No other research that confirms the first research yet. In other words: these are all still just research-topics, nothing certain, no proof, just hunches, directions where to go next to find solutions.
I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else). And that taking these early clues as the full truth irritates him. I can understand that. So all we need to do is point at new clues and new research, and be aware it's not the truth yet. Just clues, hunches, directions, possibilities.
lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 12:31
Quote Posted by icemann
Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
And remember that in lockdown families are getting SICK.
