Coronavirus

[Singuy]

Yes indeed. I will not be surprised one iota if at the end of the year, we end up with less deaths overall than a normal year due to the reduced economic activity. I will also not be surprised if the press never reports on things like your hospital having to lay off people since it doesn't fit the narrative.

The U.S handles 7000 deaths from old age related disease per day. The same population Covid kills. So are we at 7000+500 deaths per day with Covid or the same 500 people would have died anyways in that 7000?

I'm with you, I think our total death will most likely be less this year due to the economic slow down and lower pollution.

 

[LN1_Casey]

I assume that was a typo. 33 sailors.

I'd expect about 5-15 sailors to die if they let it rip through the ship.

Did the article read 33? I thought I had read 3. If not from this one, from another source when the TR first announced. My mistake if it was mentioned 33.

But I’d be surprised if that many die, if they’re in port during the sweep through. Too much outside intervention, and undoubtedly the crew is on a constant cleaning stations routine now. Underway they’d be unable to do so, and no outside help.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Did the article read 33?

It's at least 33.

From the captain's letter:

"As an illustration, of the first 33 TR Sailors diagnosed with COVID-19, 21% (7 of those
33) infected Sailors were negative on a test, then subsequently presented with
of COVID-19 infection within 1-3 days post-test."

I don't have any doubt that that many (more than 5) would die. There's no magic bullet for this disease. I'm assuming "let it rip through the ship" means that everyone on board gets it, with that number. Young people die, quite commonly, and as far as I can tell it is not always limited to co-morbitities. And of course there are older sailors on the ship as well (35 and up).

 

[1208]

Can the virus be carried/travel on smoke from someones cigarette?

Smoke travels a lot further than someones normal breath making it harder to avoid.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The U.S handles 7000 deaths from old age related disease per day. The same population Covid kills. So are we at 7000+500 deaths per day with Covid or the same 500 people would have died anyways in that 7000?

I'm with you, I think our total death will most likely be less this year due to the economic slow down and lower pollution.

Speaking of hot takes:

Like how the U.S is not really in a lock down and there are how many today after finding the first case a month ago? 1 --> 53....oooo..scary and super infectious unlike the flu...

It's crazy how many people only look at where we are right now with no concept of where we'll be in month and how our actions can change what happens in the future.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So are we at 7000+500 deaths per day with Covid or the same 500 people would have died anyways in that 7000?

There are plots around showing these deathrates vs. baseline, at least for other countries. Pretty sure in general it is an additional 500 people.

But I think the bigger concern is in a couple weeks, when it could be as high as 5000 extra deaths per day (but hopefully it will be closer to only 2-3k), for a good several weeks. Presumably at that point, most of those deaths are people who would not otherwise have died anytime soon.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It's crazy how many people only look at where we are right now with no concept of where we'll be in month and how our actions can change what happens in the future.

Man, reading some of those old hot takes is really something else. Especially considering that those takes were from mid-February, and it was super obvious that coronavirus was going to be a huge disaster, even in early February - or even January!

 

[TheTalkingMule]

6 of 33 infected healthy young Navy sailors will die? What leads you to believe that? The statistically most likely outcome is 0.

In a couple weeks 2-3k people are going to die every day of CV19 in the US and most of those will be "people who would otherwise not die anytime soon"? What leads you to believe that? Statistically the vast vast majority of CV19 deaths should continue to be the elderly and/or those extremely compromised with underlying conditions.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

6 of 33 infected healthy young Navy sailors will die? What leads you to believe that? The statistically most likely outcome is 0.

I'm assuming "let it rip through the ship" means that everyone on board gets it, with that number.

I should add, the captain himself said "there will be losses" and "sailors do not need to die." Read the letter. Clearly a very competent captain. He understands the danger.

not die anytime soon"?

First, a significant number of people who are between 40 and 60 will die. Second, by "not die anytime soon," I mean, like, within the next year or so, at least. Frankly, I think it is reasonable to extend people's lives by a year if it is possible to do so. These are human beings with families and loved ones. Many are perfectly well, before dying. The idea that this only affects those with co-morbidities I believe is far overstated.

No question about the 2-3k per day dying, though.


Trump at his presser just said "all the other states other than NY and NJ are really low, and that is because they have been so firm." Paraphrasing very slightly, but that is essentially what he said. Very perceptive.

Sounds like he's on top of it. All is well.

 

[Daniel in SD]

6 of 33 infected healthy young Navy sailors will die? What leads you to believe that? The statistically most likely outcome is 0.

Seriously?

It's crazy how many people only look at where we are right now

No one else on the ship is going to get infected?

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm sorry but the takes keep getting hotter.
"What if the COVID-19 response reduces health care demand?" is a scorcher. Let's revisit the Florida hospital situation in a couple weeks.

Well we are already many millions under what was budgeted for and we are only a few weeks in. And there is really no way to make-up the missed revenue. (COVID-19 treatment doesn't have same profit level that cosmetic procedures have.) Hospitals runs at near capacity most of them time so any delayed procedures just causes a bull-dozer effect. And some people that had elective procedures scheduled that have been cancelled/delayed will decided to never have them done now.

Even though all our FTEs that can are working from home they have already started cost-containment measures like terminating all contractors because we won't have the money to pay them. (And putting a freeze on hiring even a replacement for a, non-direct healthcare, position that is vacated.) But the amount of work isn't reducing, in fact it has created a lot more work.

So yeah, weak hospitals may end up failing as a result of COVID-19. (Some were already on the brink of failure.)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Well we are already millions under what was budgeted and we are only a few weeks in

Those millions (of deaths) were with no intervention, you realize? How many million cases do you think were budgeted? Are you talking deaths or cases? We're at ~1-3 million cumulative cases currently in the US, most likely. What was your cumulative case expectation and cumulative death expectation?

So yeah, weak hospitals may end up failing as a result of COVID-19. (Some were already on the brink of failure.)

Seems like it might be worthwhile to have robust hospital systems in future. It will be nice if we can make smart choices after this in regards to our healthcare (and disease control/department of health systems) system, to avoid a catastrophe like this in the future. Hopefully it won't turn into a partisan sh**show and we'll actually listen to the experts this time.

Inherently, due to localization of outbreaks, it is best to deal with situations on a case-by-case basis. That's sort of what the federal gov't has been doing, but very weakly - they have not provided any guidance or system for deciding on exactly what measures to take. And frankly, as far as I can tell, with a virus as wildly contagious as this one, it may well be best to lock down everywhere. Period.

This thing is not over yet.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Well we are already many millions under what was budgeted for and we are only a few weeks in. And there is really no way to make-up the missed revenue. (COVID-19 treatment doesn't have same profit level that cosmetic procedures have.) Hospitals runs at near capacity most of them time so any delayed procedures just causes a bull-dozer effect. And some people that had elective procedures scheduled that have been cancelled/delayed will decided to never have them done now.

Even though all our FTEs that can are working from home they have already started cost-containment measures like terminating all contractors because we won't have the money to pay them. (And putting a freeze on hiring even a replacement for a, non-direct healthcare, position that is vacated.) But the amount of work isn't reducing, in fact it has created a lot more work.

So yeah, weak hospitals may end up failing as a result of COVID-19. (Some were already on the brink of failure.)

I was only commenting on the absurdity of trying to optimize our COVID-19 response to have as minimal a disruption on hospital revenues as possible. I'm not making any predictions about whether COVID-19 and our response will reduce or increase hospital revenues.

 

[MP3Mike]

Those millions were with no intervention, you realize? How many million cases do you think were budgeted? Are you talking deaths or cases? We're at ~3 million cases currently, most likely. What was your cumulative case expectation and cumulative death expectation?

I'm not talking deaths or cases, I'm talking dollars of revenue. We have very few COVID-19 cases, but as a result of the "interventions" we aren't preforming anywhere near the number of services necessary to maintain profitable operations. As a result some clinics/programs may end up being shuttered permanently.

I was only commenting on the absurdity of trying to optimize our COVID-19 response to have as minimal a disruption on hospital revenues as possible. I'm not making any predictions about whether COVID-19 and our response will reduce or increase hospital revenues.

I'm not saying we should change the response either... We have to do what we have to do, but there are going to be long term consequences that some people don't see coming...

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I should add, the captain himself said "there will be losses" and "sailors do not need to die." Read the letter. Clearly a very competent captain. He understands the danger.

I see. I didn't know the captain told you.

The real world statistical probably is nearly 0%. Something on the order of 0-.1% for each individual.

I feel like we've already gone over this about 20 times?

Frankly, I think it is reasonable to extend people's lives by a year if it is possible to do so. These are human beings with families and loved ones. Many are perfectly well, before dying. The idea that this only affects those with co-morbidities I believe is far overstated.

I believe so as well. What's your plan to make sure these at-risk people don't get infected in the next few months? We have none because we're sheltering at home purely to flatten the curve, aren't doing a great job of it, and are simply putting off total infection rates that are nearly set in stone in most densely populated areas.

There's a pretty clear trend developing. People who otherwise might be somewhat rational, BUT are watching all these Trump press conferences, are absolutely losing their minds.

Healthy sailors aren't gonna die at an 18% rate. They're not gonna die at 1.8%. And they're not gonna die at .18%. That's the math based on actual observation.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Healthy sailors aren't gonna die at an 18% rate. They're not gonna die at 1.8%. And they're not gonna die at .18%. That's the math based on actual observation.

I expect they would die at a rate of about 0.05% if they are under 30. So that would be ~2 deaths. And they are not all under 30. So I would expect at least 5 deaths. I'll stand by that number - again, it was very clear with that number that I was assuming everyone on the ship is infected. If it's just a portion of the ship, scale the number appropriately.

Note that we are not accounting for permanent health consequences for a larger % of the sailors on the ship.

I see. I didn't know the captain told you.

What are you talking about? I just posted his letter to his superiors. You can read it as well as I can. It is posted above. He didn't tell me.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

What are you talking about? I just posted his letter to his superiors. You can read it as well as I can. It is posted above. He didn't tell me.

I was just pointing out he's not an acceptable source of statistical probability.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I proposed that, lol. They don't want to go that route.

I would feel guilty about the carbon footprint, but I could social distance in a private jet. I've never been on one, but I hear you don't go through standard airport lines, etc.

No, you don’t. Often you don’t even take off and land at a major airport. Just whichever airport that has a 6,000 foot runway that’s close to you and your destination. If it is a major airport, then you’ll go to the general aviation section at a private FBO. You literally can drive to the airplane on the tarmac, and when getting off the plane, hop into your rental car waiting for you on the tarmac. Are you going to take them up on the private plane offer? I’m presuming it’s a business jet.

 

[MXLRplus]

Geek Tip: If you are a Newegg Customer, and order something, they will include 5 surgical masks for free, and also allow you to buy 50 for $35 during Checkout. (for normal humans, NewEgg is a mainly a computer components online store)

 

[bkp_duke]

No, you don’t. Often you don’t even take off and land at a major airport. Just whichever airport that has a 6,000 foot runway that’s close to you and your destination. If it is a major airport, then you’ll go to the general aviation section at a private FBO. You literally can drive to the airplane on the tarmac, and when getting off the plane, hop into your rental car waiting for you on the tarmac. Are you going to take them up on the private plane offer? I’m presuming it’s a business jet.

It's up to them. My company doesn't get paid till the work is done, so that's a consideration given that we don't want to lay anyone off in all this economic mess, but I would need to be on-site for 3 days and stay in a hotel. This isn't something I could comfortably ask an employee to undertake, and being in a hotel for 3 days and to/for travel to the datacenter could be a considerable exposure, even if datacenters are pretty much always single digits in terms of occupancy.

Client is still deciding what they want to do as well, they are wishy washy like that.