How long will this last?

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,572
730
113
Ok like this is getting annoying! I'm reading lockdown till summer and this virus will be problem here for 18 to 24 months.

I think it's not going to be gone for a few years. How long do the people on this board think it'll be going on?
In a few years people will begin to come out from hiding under their beds ;
 

Malibuk

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2017
1,132
274
83
Regardless of what the confirmed cases pool represents in a percentage.
This is the whole problem with your way of thinking.
There is no percentage that is being extrapolated here.
It is not like the dead are only coming out of the sample pool.

Right now in Ontario, there are 423 dead out of 8967 cases for a death rate of 4.7%.
So far Ontario has tested close to 1% of the population.
Thinking theoretically, if you could instantly test the other 99% right now, the number of dead would still be what it is but the number of infections would be many times higher, thus the death rate would be many times lower.

The reason I think this is important is because if 4.7% was even remotely accurate, it would be way too risky to open up the economy.
Without accurate infection and death rates, opening up the economy is going to be a shot in the dark.
 

Gibbons#1

Active member
Apr 19, 2013
506
32
28
This is getting hard, how badly do you all wanna feel a girls naked body pressed up against yours right now.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,900
1,210
113
This is the whole problem with your way of thinking.
There is no percentage that is being extrapolated here.
It is not like the dead are only coming out of the sample pool.

Right now in Ontario, there are 423 dead out of 8967 cases for a death rate of 4.7%.
So far Ontario has tested close to 1% of the population.
Thinking theoretically, if you could instantly test the other 99% right now, the number of dead would still be what it is but the number of infections would be many times higher, thus the death rate would be many times lower.

The reason I think this is important is because if 4.7% was even remotely accurate, it would be way too risky to open up the economy.
Without accurate infection and death rates, opening up the economy is going to be a shot in the dark.
The methodology used in calculating the death rate for Covid19 is no different than how it's used for the flu, SARS, MERS and so on. It's always the numbers of death divided by the confirmed cases.
Again you are assuming that we have to test the other 99% and with that test there will be "many more infections" making the death rate lower. We don't test the general population on mass for other viruses and we shouldn't for the Coronavirus. With what you are saying are you also claiming that the SARS, MERS, H1N1 and all other viruses numbers are not representative of the virus because we didn't test the masses?

What we can say without a doubt is as of right now there are more than 2 165 000 confirmed cases of Coronavirus around the world and that's increasing with more than 144 000 deaths attributed to the virus and that is increasing, which gives us a death rate of 6.65% at the current moment. where that death rate will end up is anyones guess. All professional estimates point to a minimum 1% death rate attributed to the Coronavirus and some say up to 2.5%. Comparing that to the death rate of the flu which is 0.1% it's safe to say you are at least 10X more likely to die from Coronavirus than you are from the flu.

Again your opinion is highly assumptive on your part and fully non factual, that you think if we could instantly test the other 99% of the population the number of infections will see a drastic spike as you put it "many times higher" but yet we will not see significant new cases of critical care or the number of deaths actually increasing in the future.
Facts are the Coronavirus so far has about 3% of it's cases ending up in critical care, from those 3% of cases ending in critical care roughly 40% will not survive. So if you can figure out what your "many times higher" number of infections is as a number you can actually figure out a death rate.
But the problem becomes when a community and their healthcare system is over burdened with the number of confirmed cases as that 3% of critical care needed can not be handled by the healthcare system and in affect drastically increasing the death rate, exactly what transpired throughout Italy, Spain and is transpiring in New York.

Like I've pointed out numerous times there is a direct correlation from the death rate to the measures each country takes to fight the Coronavirus. The countries who social distance or quarantine the masses specially at a very early stage or the ones who takes drastic health check measures will have a far lower death rate than those who do not.
 

fall

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2010
2,740
679
113
The methodology used in calculating the death rate for Covid19 is no different than how it's used for the flu, SARS, MERS and so on. It's always the numbers of death divided by the confirmed cases.
Again you are assuming that we have to test the other 99% and with that test there will be "many more infections" making the death rate lower. We don't test the general population on mass for other viruses and we shouldn't for the Coronavirus. With what you are saying are you also claiming that the SARS, MERS, H1N1 and all other viruses numbers are not representative of the virus because we didn't test the masses?

What we can say without a doubt is as of right now there are more than 2 165 000 confirmed cases of Coronavirus around the world and that's increasing with more than 144 000 deaths attributed to the virus and that is increasing, which gives us a death rate of 6.65% at the current moment. where that death rate will end up is anyones guess. All professional estimates point to a minimum 1% death rate attributed to the Coronavirus and some say up to 2.5%. Comparing that to the death rate of the flu which is 0.1% it's safe to say you are at least 10X more likely to die from Coronavirus than you are from the flu.

Again your opinion is highly assumptive on your part and fully non factual, that you think if we could instantly test the other 99% of the population the number of infections will see a drastic spike as you put it "many times higher" but yet we will not see significant new cases of critical care or the number of deaths actually increasing in the future.
Facts are the Coronavirus so far has about 3% of it's cases ending up in critical care, from those 3% of cases ending in critical care roughly 40% will not survive. So if you can figure out what your "many times higher" number of infections is as a number you can actually figure out a death rate.
But the problem becomes when a community and their healthcare system is over burdened with the number of confirmed cases as that 3% of critical care needed can not be handled by the healthcare system and in affect drastically increasing the death rate, exactly what transpired throughout Italy, Spain and is transpiring in New York.

Like I've pointed out numerous times there is a direct correlation from the death rate to the measures each country takes to fight the Coronavirus. The countries who social distance or quarantine the masses specially at a very early stage or the ones who takes drastic health check measures will have a far lower death rate than those who do not.
The issue is that the dependence of the number of new cases on the proportion of currently and past infected people is arched-shaped (first increase, then decrease as less unaffected people remain). If we do not know what percentage of truly infected get diagnosed, we cannot credibly estimate future infection rates, trues mortality rates, and, what is most important, the number of deaths (i.e., the human life benefit of the lock down).
 

Malibuk

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2017
1,132
274
83
Again you are assuming that we have to test the other 99% and with that test there will be "many more infections" making the death rate lower.

Again your opinion is highly assumptive on your part and fully non factual, that you think if we could instantly test the other 99% of the population the number of infections will see a drastic spike as you put it "many times higher" but yet we will not see significant new cases of critical care or the number of deaths actually increasing in the future.
Once again, I did not say we need to test everybody.
Do you not understand what it means to think theoretically?
I was speaking hypothetically for now or any given point in time.

I also didn`t say that the number of cases would not go up.
The situation is fluid and obviously both the number of cases and deaths will go up, not necessarily proportionally.
 

Malibuk

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2017
1,132
274
83
The issue is that the dependence of the number of new cases on the proportion of currently and past infected people is arched-shaped (first increase, then decrease as less unaffected people remain). If we do not know what percentage of truly infected get diagnosed, we cannot credibly estimate future infection rates, trues mortality rates, and, what is most important, the number of deaths (i.e., the human life benefit of the lock down).
Well said.

Especially given the fact that the current sample size in Ontario is only 1% and there is no official anti-body testing.
 

Malibuk

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2017
1,132
274
83
With what you are saying are you also claiming that the SARS, MERS, H1N1 and all other viruses numbers are not representative of the virus because we didn't test the masses?
The accuracy of those stats are debatable but they are mature numbers where the statistics had time to catch up to reality.

You are using extremely premature and incomplete data which is totally irrelevant at this point.

You are comparing apples to oranges.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,900
1,210
113
This is the whole problem with your way of thinking.
There is no percentage that is being extrapolated here.
It is not like the dead are only coming out of the sample pool.

Right now in Ontario, there are 423 dead out of 8967 cases for a death rate of 4.7%.
So far Ontario has tested close to 1% of the population.
Thinking theoretically, if you could instantly test the other 99% right now, the number of dead would still be what it is but the number of infections would be many times higher, thus the death rate would be many times lower.

The reason I think this is important is because if 4.7% was even remotely accurate, it would be way too risky to open up the economy.
Without accurate infection and death rates, opening up the economy is going to be a shot in the dark.
Once again, I did not say we need to test everybody.
Do you not understand what it means to think theoretically?
I was speaking hypothetically for now or any given point in time.

I also didn`t say that the number of cases would not go up.
The situation is fluid and obviously both the number of cases and deaths will go up, not necessarily proportionally.
Well said.

Especially given the fact that the current sample size in Ontario is only 1% and there is no official anti-body testing.
When you spoke theoretically you also spoke hypothetically about the facts and that is the problem you can't assume that the death rate will not stay the same when confirmed cases will increase and you keep saying the death rate will change to be significantly lower than what it is now solely based on your opinion.
What I am saying is that can not be true as we know roughly 3% of confirmed cases end up in critical care and 40% of those will not survive. And the main problem becomes when the healthcare system gets overburdened by confirmed cases the numbers of death sharply rises and that ultimately raises the death rate, just like Italy, Spain, and New York.
Hence why it's so important to social distance.

You can say all you want that only 1% of the population is tested but that doesn't change the fact about the current death rate as it is numbers of death divided by confirmed cases. And those who are sick will eventually be accounted for in the confirmed cases and that will either increase, decrease or keep the death rate the same as it is currently.
But what I am basing my opinion on is a combination of the current numbers (confirmed cases vs deaths) as well what all the professional health agencies (provincial, federal, international) have told us on the matter, as well as what has transpired in different countries.

So now the question is do you believe the Coronavirus to have at least 10X higher fatality rate (0.1% VS 1%) than the flu worldwide?
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,900
1,210
113
The issue is that the dependence of the number of new cases on the proportion of currently and past infected people is arched-shaped (first increase, then decrease as less unaffected people remain). If we do not know what percentage of truly infected get diagnosed, we cannot credibly estimate future infection rates, trues mortality rates, and, what is most important, the number of deaths (i.e., the human life benefit of the lock down).
I think some people are using the confirmed cases and death numbers as an attempt to try to minimize the effects of the Coronavirus for their own selfish gains.
What I am saying is that just like SARS, MERS, the flu, H1N1 we are using the same method to calculate the death rate, and there is a range these numbers for the Coronavirus will fall in, just like there was for the other ones, and that range for the Coronavirus by many estimations by professional healthcare agenceis is on the low end 1%-2.5% on the high end, that makes the Coronavirus have at least 10X more death rate than the flu.
This notion that the numbers of confirmed cases will keep on going higher exponentially yet without the same percentage of growth in critical care cases needed is just simply not true since all the evidence has already proved otherwise in a few different countries.
 

Malibuk

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2017
1,132
274
83
When you spoke theoretically you also spoke hypothetically about the facts and that is the problem you can't assume that the death rate will not stay the same when confirmed cases will increase and you keep saying the death rate will change to be significantly lower than what it is now solely based on your opinion.
What I am saying is that can not be true as we know roughly 3% of confirmed cases end up in critical care and 40% of those will not survive. And the main problem becomes when the healthcare system gets overburdened by confirmed cases the numbers of death sharply rises and that ultimately raises the death rate, just like Italy, Spain, and New York.
Hence why it's so important to social distance.

You can say all you want that only 1% of the population is tested but that doesn't change the fact about the current death rate as it is numbers of death divided by confirmed cases. And those who are sick will eventually be accounted for in the confirmed cases and that will either increase, decrease or keep the death rate the same as it is currently.
But what I am basing my opinion on is a combination of the current numbers (confirmed cases vs deaths) as well what all the professional health agencies (provincial, federal, international) have told us on the matter, as well as what has transpired in different countries.

So now the question is do you believe the Coronavirus to have at least 10X higher fatality rate (0.1% VS 1%) than the flu worldwide?
My point is that the current stats are virtually meaningless, to which you seem to agree.

I think the death rate will essentially stay the same, but not the same as is currently stated by you and others.
At least until new treatments are developed.

I agree with your points and I think we are basically on the same page so I am not even sure what we are debating.
I guess I feel that the current death rate is so premature and inaccurate that there is no point in even referencing it at this time.
Especially if one is to use them as a comparison to other countries, many who are at different points in the curve and testing.

My gut feeling is that the death rate will be around 1 - 2% of known cases in Canada.
Speculating on total infections, I would think less than 0.5%.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,900
1,210
113
My point is that the current stats are virtually meaningless, to which you seem to agree.

I think the death rate will essentially stay the same, but not the same as is currently stated by you and others.
At least until new treatments are developed.

I agree with your points and I think we are basically on the same page so I am not even sure what we are debating.
I guess I feel that the current death rate is so premature and inaccurate that there is no point in even referencing it at this time.
Especially if one is to use them as a comparison to other countries, many who are at different points in the curve and testing.

My gut feeling is that the death rate will be around 1 - 2% of known cases in Canada.
Speculating on total infections, I would think less than 0.5%.
Yeah I agree with 99% of what you are saying, I just don't agree that the numbers are not important.
Although the death rate is changing going up and down every day I think it's very important to note the death rate and the actual number as there are many people who keep posting misinformation:

1) The Coronavirus is only a mild flu
2) The death rate is not what is being reported and it's not as deadly as people claim to be
3) We should all be let out so that we can catch the virus and have heard immunity
4) The number of deaths decreased for 1 day so we should go back to work soon
All this nonsense is being posted by the rather few misinformed and the irrational in an attempt to ease restrictions on self isolation, some are for personal gains and some are just out of sheer obliviousness to the facts regarding the Coronavirus, and that is extremely dangerous since there will be more waves of the virus and that in affect will keep all of us in isolation for a longer period. Which both are something I do not want and I am sure 99.99% of other people do not either. It's going to be the rather careless and the selfish few who will keep the majority of us in isolation for a long period of time.
 

Malibuk

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2017
1,132
274
83
Could a simple blood test for COVID-19 antibodies help reopen the economy?

Much of the discussion around coronavirus testing concerns the type of test that requires a long swab to go deep in your nose so you can find out, eventually, if you have the virus. These tests are helpful at diagnosing patients but less helpful at assessing the spread of the virus. For that, experts have called for antibody tests and last week, the FDA granted its first emergency authorization to one such test. What is an antibody test and why would it help? Here’s what we know:
What is an antibody test?
Antibody tests, also known as serological tests, look for antibodies in a patient’s blood. People who have gotten sick and recovered from COVID-19 have these antibodies, as do those who had the virus without ever experiencing symptoms. Some antibody tests, which require a quick finger prick, can return results in as soon as 15 minutes.
Why are antibody tests helpful?
As Dr. Anthony Fauci said on CNN Friday, these tests will help health officials better understand how many people have been infected with COVID-19.
“As we look forward, as we get to the point of at least considering opening up the country as it were, it’s very important to appreciate and to understand how much that virus has penetrated this society,” Fauci said. “It’s very likely that there are a large number of people out there that have been infected, have been asymptomatic, and did not know they were infected.”
The tests would reveal those with immunity to COVID-19. In theory, this would allow them to reenter the workforce without concern that they’ll get sick or infect anyone else. Results of these tests could also change, or confirm, what is known about the virus’s spread. Currently, there have been 475,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. If antibody tests reveal that, say, 4 million people have actually had the virus, it would “suggest that we are much further along the timeline of the pandemic and much closer to its conclusion.”
 

Frontstreet

Senior Member
May 16, 2016
829
788
93
Toronto, Vancouver
The other day I listened to one of the statements and I was under the impression that commerce will open up after this first wave which is predicted to end late spring/early summer. By then they are hoping to have established very quick and accessible testing as well as intensive tracing protocols. In South Korea, apparently they had an app where you can log in and see where all the sick people are, live, at any time and if they are close to you. I wonder what kind of tracing we will have.. I think once those protocols are in place we can have more normalcy.
This won’t tell where the COVID sick are but will give you some indication of how many are tested or have symptoms, it’s by postal code:

https://covidnearyou.org/#!/
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
7,524
2,253
113
It's premature to debate the statistics surrounding COVID-19. I believe it is a very serious virus. Flattening the curve is necessary. Why would the Chinese take the draconian actions to arrest the virus if it wasn't very dangerous and lethal?

Having said that, this is not even close to the Spanish Flu modern medical treatments or not. The Spanish Flu killed millions of children and young adults. The average life expectancy in the U.S. quickly dropped twelve years between 1918/1919.

We have to be honest here. The COVID-19 virus is particularly lethal precisely because in the last 100 years society has gotten very good at keeping alive the sick and elderly. Perhaps there are a better, more genteel choice of words, but that is exactly what gives the virus most of its lethality. That is not to say let the virus run its course.

As far as statistics, we haven't even discussed comorbidities. A few days ago, New York reclassified 4,000 previous deaths as deaths caused by COVID-19. Now if someone is so sick and/or old that you can't with certainty classify the cause at the time of death, that raises questions about the virus' lethality. I don't know if doctors and hospitals still use the classification death from complications, but is not unusual for an elderly patient to pass away from an infection of many sorts that trigger other failures with the body.
 

escortsxxx

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2004
3,448
913
113
Tdot
My point is that the current stats are virtually meaningless, to which you seem to agree.

I think the death rate will essentially stay the same, but not the same as is currently stated by you and others.
At least until new treatments are developed.

I agree with your points and I think we are basically on the same page so I am not even sure what we are debating.
I guess I feel that the current death rate is so premature and inaccurate that there is no point in even referencing it at this time.
Especially if one is to use them as a comparison to other countries, many who are at different points in the curve and testing.

My gut feeling is that the death rate will be around 1 - 2% of known cases in Canada.
Speculating on total infections, I would think less than 0.5%.
If the virus was only 5 times more deadly than a flu we should see about the same rate of medical professional die (close to zero from flu) but
"The novel coronavirus has killed over 100 doctors and nurses around the world, nearly half of whom are reported to be in Italy. The U.S. saw its first emergency physician die after showing COVID-19 symptoms this week. Several other healthcare workers have died since the wake of the outbreak across the globe, including in China, the U.K., France, Spain and Iran."
It is true that in Janaury USA doctors were talkign about the 10 k deaths and it was worse"


"In the U.S., we've probably had 10,000 people who've died from the flu (this season) and millions of cases," he said.


however in samples of millions , doctors deaths?

Italy with about 50 doctors deaths and 172,434 total cases - that's a very high ratio for a healthy population to be hit.
The actually true numbers don't really matter as only how much exposure a doctor gets it key, and with quarantine the doctors are getting less than they would get with flu . ..
However, I be wiling to look at home many medical processionals get killed by flu each year and compare. It is uncertain for sure - but the numbers are prima facie alarming.
 

escortsxxx

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2004
3,448
913
113
Tdot
how is this a pandemic? unless millions of people are dieing, and we have a 90%+ mortality if we catch this, why are we on lockdown? dosnt make sense.
What epidemic have had that rate? I can only think of three in al of history that are on the scale. The black death, considered a game changer only had 33 % kill rate and it feel all the goverements of the time.
 

KTDoy

Active member
Oct 29, 2006
110
85
28
What epidemic have had that rate? I can only think of three in al of history that are on the scale. The black death, considered a game changer only had 33 % kill rate and it feel all the goverements of the time.
It is not the kill rate, it is how fast it kills if the silent transmission is not under control. The number of deaths per million due to covid-19 is way higher any seasonal or past epidemic flu . Number of deaths in the US has surpassed 40000. Wait until India explodes.
 

bebe

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
5,207
454
83
India’s number will be low for a few reasons.

Far too many are poor. Very little testing can or will be done. Interesting fact, a huge percentage of the population is less than 40 years old. Seniors in India make up a very small percentage.
 

nomos

Active member
Feb 18, 2004
462
71
28
IDK man but, I do think Trudeau will run out of money how much can you print before we experience inflation like Germany experinced?
This is not a Canada or Trudeau issue. This is a world issue. Every single country on the same boat. Every country has had to pump money in their economy to alleviate people's suffering. It's what every responsible government would and should be doing under the circumstances.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts