Starker on 25/3/2020 at 13:31
Quote Posted by zombe
kor = South Korea (has been pointing down for quite some time already)
Hmm... I wonder what they are doing differently. Might be worth testing.
zombe on 25/3/2020 at 13:37
Quote Posted by Starker
Hmm... I wonder what they are doing differently. Might be worth testing.
Early panic + taking it immediately seriously + massive rapid testing.
demagogue on 25/3/2020 at 13:43
Quote Posted by Starker
New cases, sure (though that also depends on testing), but you would not necessarily expect the number of deaths to start going down after two weeks?
The number of deaths was a third curve with its peak even further in front of the lockdown date, I forget how far but I think another two weeks or more in front of the new cases. So that's right, the number of deaths wouldn't start going down until maybe 4 weeks after the lockdown. I guess this is what you were trying to say before. I was talking about the stat for new cases from the beginning; the stat for deaths is the same principle just pushed even further out.
But the number of deaths is going to already be coming from the number of known cases in a known way (if the fatality rate stands), so that's why I thought the number of new cases is the one to pay attention to, because before the person is tested & counted it's unclear where the number exactly stands. You just have an extrapolation, but different factors might surprise people with the reality being higher or lower than the expectation.
catbarf on 25/3/2020 at 13:50
Quote Posted by Starker
New cases, sure (though that also depends on testing), but you would not necessarily expect the number of deaths to start going down after two weeks?
Someone correct me if I'm massively off-base, but my understanding was that the typical progression seems to be infection, two weeks asymptomatic, then (in the case of vulnerable individuals) illness, declining health, and then death over the next several weeks.
So deaths should be occurring 3-5 weeks after infection, meaning if it's been two weeks since quarantine was enacted, the death rate should continue to rise for at least another two weeks before it starts to drop again.
Edit: Oops, demagogue beat me to it.
Gryzemuis on 25/3/2020 at 14:01
My understanding, but I have no numbers to back it up:
1) infection
2) 4-7 days of no symptoms
3a) symptoms for 1 week, light illness, then recovery, or
3b) symptoms for 1 week, getting worse
4) hospitalization
5a) get pneumonia, die within 1 week, or
5b) get severely ill (could be pneumonia too), stay in hospital 3 weeks, slowly recover
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong/incomplete.
lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 14:38
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
My understanding, but I have no numbers to back it up:
1) infection
2) 4-7 days of no symptoms
3a) symptoms for 1 week, light illness, then recovery, or
3b) symptoms for 1 week, getting worse
4) hospitalization
5a) get pneumonia, die within 1 week, or
5b) get severely ill (could be pneumonia too), stay in hospital 3 weeks, slowly recover
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong/incomplete.
Good enough.
For old people 4->4->critical state (ICU if not already in ICU)
Starker on 25/3/2020 at 14:46
Quote Posted by demagogue
The number of deaths was a third curve with its peak even further in front of the lockdown date, I forget how far but I think another two weeks or more in front of the new cases. So that's right, the number of deaths wouldn't start going down until maybe 4 weeks after the lockdown. I guess this is what you were trying to say before. I was talking about the stat for new cases from the beginning; the stat for deaths is the same principle just pushed even further out.
Yeah, I was responding more to icemann who was wondering why the number of deaths is still going up after (in Italy's case 2) weeks of lockdown, but I was away from the computer for 15 minutes and you managed to post before I hit send.
lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 14:57
Now here in Lombardy there's the spike of YOUNG (? 40/50 yo) people after 2 weeks of fever at home.
Maybe not in "critical condition" but lungs are damaged nonetheless and they totally need hospitalization in sub ICU and sometimes ICU too.
Every man over 40 can develop a critical condition.
Still ~0 under 30 yo (maybe young men with already a critical condition, tipically in dialysis)
heywood on 25/3/2020 at 15:37
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.
Did you forget about China already?
South Korea, Taiwan, Estonia, Qatar also appear to be over the hump. And quite a few countries seem to be past the exponential growth phase and are seeing more linear growth. Italy and Iran are among them.
China showed us how to beat this thing. We didn't pick up the playbook because we were in denial.
Starker on 25/3/2020 at 15:39
I don't think I really trust the numbers from Iran and China not being massaged at least a little bit. And Russia seems to have a suspiciously low number of cases too.
