Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Hefaistos

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 08:05:06 AM »
...
Now - of course - humanity may fail to extirpate this virus. In that case, we will lose 4-12% of the population over the next year or two, ...
Sam

Sam, I'd appreciate if you could please tell us how you came to that very high figure, and range!

In Northern Italy, the highest lethality is 1% of population, and that is in municipalities that have a very old population on average (around 45 years iirc), and with many lifestyle diseases. I would say that 1% lethality is proven under such circumstances of old people and many comorbidities, but cannot see what can contribute to an even higher figure than that?

So why should we expect even higher lethality on a global scale?

Sam will give a better explanation but here is my take on why 10% is possible.

1 - it isn't going anywhere. There are too many carriers without symptoms, it is global and it spreads easily. Even lockdown don't truly stop it. As soon as a lockdown is removed it reappears.

However, eventually herd immunity will be reached. We haven't seen much research on that. In this thread it was reported about one Italian municipality where 70% of tested in Castiglioni d'Adda, ie 40 out of 60 had antibodies. The town has 4600 population and lost 62 people.
62 is the total number of deaths for ca 2 months, that is an anomaly of ca 52 deaths, ie. slightly above 1% of total population. That seems to be enough to create herd immunity as based on these blood tests 2/3 of them have antibodies.
So we have a 1.0 % lethality of C19 but in a place where immunity was checked for. That is the price of herd immunity.
This was reported upthread, with links to La Stampa.
No support here or from other Italian places for anything above 1% lethality of population.

Quote
2 - there is a growing body of work that is beginning to suggest that immunity either doesn't happen or disappears quickly.

We have seen very few reports on immunity and one of them shows weak immunity in young people. But some immunity is also immunity. Where are the reports that "immunity disappears quickly"?

Quote
3 - Without decent medical treatment, a lot more people die. It appears that about 1% of people die when treated well but it leaps up quickly when hospitals are overwhelmed. And soon, it will hit countries with inadequate medical services to begin with.

Italy is the benchmark here, and we got 1% population lethality there in the OVERWHELMED parts of Northern Italy. We supposedly won't get much more lethality than that anywhere.

Quote
4 - give the above, the virus can potentially do the rounds over and over again in the same people until they die.

Herd immunity was reached, and 1% of people died in overwhelmed parts of Italy. Your claim assumes that there will be no herd immunity, but that is just empty speculation.

Quote
5 - with a mutation rate similar to flu, there is a chance that it will mutate every two years. If that happens, it becomes a flip of the coin as to what it does next.
To me, it is not unreasonable to see a significant ongoing event that will cause many problems for a long time.
I am not saying this will happen..... but it isn't out of the realms of possibility. And if it does happen, 10% will be on the low end of victims.

The virus will have to mutate to survive and thrive. But why should we assume that a mutated virus will be more contagious, or more deadly? The null hypothesis should be that future mutations will be just like other corona virus seasonal flu mutations, with similar lethalities below 0.1%.

Overall, the forecast of 4 - 12 % population lethality is unfounded. It's actually nothing but speculation and fearmongering.

2
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 07:35:37 AM »
In the Diamond Princess, we know the IFR is at least 1.54%. We also know the population of the Diamond Princess was skewed towards older people.

Let's take this german study at face value. Germany has consistently shown an extraordinarily low fatality rate. Fatality reporting is iffy. But at the same time, I haven't seen any reports of overwhelmed medical systems in Germany.

So with the apparent best available healthcare available on Earth, the IFR is somewhere in the range of:

0.38%-1.54%

In places with inferior healthcare systems, that are overwhelmed or the population has different distribution we can expect a much higher IFR.

Let me point out that this is the IFR, an estimation of the true number of infected people, not just the people that were tested.

The CFR of influenza is about .1% in the US. The midpoint of the IFR with ideal health care is around an order of magnitude worse than influenza. With an overwhelmed system or no healthcare, the IFR will be close to the hospitalization rate.


There is no iceberg under the tip. Multiyear sea ice at most.

Indeed!
For Diamond Princess we have a current lethality of 12 deaths related to 3700 people on board, i.e. 0.32%
Expect a few more deaths from those who are still in ICU, and we could reach 0.5%.
That is a very far cry from Sam's proposed 4 -12 % lethality range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

3
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 02:24:46 AM »
...
Now - of course - humanity may fail to extirpate this virus. In that case, we will lose 4-12% of the population over the next year or two, ...
Sam

Sam, I'd appreciate if you could please tell us how you came to that very high figure, and range!

In Nothern Italy, the highest lethality is 1% of population, and that is in municipalities that have a very old population on average (around 45 years iirc), and with many lifestyle diseases. I would say that 1% lethality is proven under such circumstances of old people and many comorbidities, but cannot see what can contribute to an even higher figure than that?

So why should we expect even higher lethality on a global scale?

4
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 04, 2020, 03:04:19 PM »
I would like to come back to a link that was given here a few days ago, which I found had some really important information on the lethality of C19 on population level. This is what the mayor of Nembro writes:

"Nembro, one of the municipalities most affected by Covid-19, should have had - under normal conditions - about 35 deaths. 158 people were registered dead this year by the municipal offices. But the number of deaths officially attributed to Covid-19 is 31 (...)"

As we all know, Italy has had a lot of deaths in C19, but overall Italian mortality figures indicate a factor of at least 4 of underreporting C19 deaths, depending on which city you look at.

"The difference is enormous and cannot be a simple statistical deviation. Demographic statistics have their «constancies» and annual averages change only when completely «new» phenomena arrive. In this case, the number of abnormal deaths compared to the average that Nembro recorded in the period of time in consideration is equal to 4 times those officially attributed to Covid-19."

I think this is the real end-game story, after all cases are closed, all recoveries and all deaths are checked out of the system, we see that there were very many people who perished from C19.

Why are the data so unreliable? Simply because very many of those who died were never swabbed, never tested, etc. So they never entered the system as C19 cases - they just died.

Please note that the lethality rate in C19 is 1% of the population. The figure is for the whole population of 11,500 people in Nembro. Assumedly they were all exposed to the virus, and those who could get infected got infected and herd immunity has now been reached, as the number of deaths have come down to their normal levels again. If Northern Italy is representative for other developed countries, we should expect to see the same lethality rate in other countries as well.

For the USA this indicates a number of deaths in the millions. Especially as the US population to a very large degree is affected by lifestyle diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension. This will not happen during the current first wave of infections, but that will be the end result, when we have reached herd immunity.

https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-toll-for-covid-19-is-at-least-4-times-the-official-numbers-b5af0edc-6eeb-11ea-925b-a0c3cdbe1130.shtml

5
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 06:49:59 AM »
...
I follow the statistics, projections and reports published daily by Swedish health authorities. As of today some new advice and recommendations regarding distancing on public transport and in supermarkets were published. It is now forbidden to visit care homes for the elderly.
...

Swedish bureaucracy at its worst. On Tuesday March 31 they finally decided that our elderly need to be protected. WOW!

For how long did they already know that C19 kills first of all the sick and elderly? First reports about this came in the beginning of February afaik. Statistics and scientifical evidence from Wuhan. More than 6 weeks were lost doing nothing to protect our most vulnerable groups.

Due to their negligence to react and to act in due time on evidence they had, those Swedish politicians and bureaucrats are actively killing our elderly.
Murderers they are.

Ridiculous inflammatory language.

As long as there was no community spread, it did not make any difference, right?

If you want to protect the sick and elderly you have to enforce the protection before there is community spread, not after the virus is already on the loose! Incubation time up to 3 weeks was established very early on in China. Also the age profile of the fatalities, as well as comorbidities were established in the first week of February, if not earlier. THAT was the time to react!

Quote
Then there was an advice, which many people listened to.
Now there is an order not to visit relatives in care homes (but I doubt whether it is legally enforceable).
And in the end, it won't make much of a difference. Staff will still go in and out, and have closer contact with the old than what visitors have.

Now is too late anyway. Too many of the nurses and doctors and staff and visitors carry the virus with them. There is no testing at all of the healthcare staff, no-one knows who's infected and who's not.

Politicians and bureaucrats only enforce this no visitors rule in a desperate attempt to show that they are doing something. As a results 1000's of people will unnecessarily die. I call it murder due to negligience.

Pietkuip, You display exactly the perverted attitude that Swedish authorities have had all along.
No, nothing makes much of a difference for those irresponsible people, as long as they continue to get their salaries for doing nothing.

I suppose you would agree about the same argumentation of what's been going on in the USA with Trumpadmin delaying action for 6 weeks or so?! - Murder by negligience it is.

6
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 01:31:49 AM »
...
I follow the statistics, projections and reports published daily by Swedish health authorities. As of today some new advice and recommendations regarding distancing on public transport and in supermarkets were published. It is now forbidden to visit care homes for the elderly.
...

Swedish bureaucracy at its worst. On Tuesday March 31 they finally decided that our elderly need to be protected. WOW!

For how long did they already know that C19 kills first of all the sick and elderly? First reports about this came in the beginning of February afaik. Statistics and scientifical evidence from Wuhan. More than 6 weeks were lost doing nothing to protect our most vulnerable groups.

Due to their negligence to react and to act in due time on evidence they had, those Swedish politicians and bureaucrats are actively killing our elderly.
Murderers they are.

7
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 01, 2020, 01:05:30 PM »
Yes.
This is a horrible pandemic.
We must look back to the 1918 influenza to grasp its severity. 


For some perspective, there were about 50 million dead from that flu in 1918, and the global population was about 1.7 billion people.
So a death rate of close to 3%.

The C19 will kill a few million people out of a global population of about 7.7 billion people. A death rate of maybe 0.3%.
C19 is roughly about 1/10 as deadly.
And it will not even dent the incredible population growth going on at the same time as this pandemia: "The current average population increase is estimated at 81 million people per year."
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate

Please stop trying to minimize the danger of this virus. It is vastly more lethal than you want to believe. And a whole lot of people are going to get sick over the next two months with an immense number dying. Cut it out.

We get that you do not want to believe the facts in front of you. That is just plain stupid.

Sam

The numbers are what they are.
I'm talking facts, not emotions. Can you please also try to keep those two apart, Sam?
I'm just saying that this pandemia will not even make a dent in population growth.

8
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 01, 2020, 09:41:54 AM »
Yes.
This is a horrible pandemic.
We must look back to the 1918 influenza to grasp its severity. 


For some perspective, there were about 50 million dead from that flu in 1918, and the global population was about 1.7 billion people.
So a death rate of close to 3%.

The C19 will kill a few million people out of a global population of about 7.7 billion people. A death rate of maybe 0.3%.
C19 is roughly about 1/10 as deadly.
And it will not even dent the incredible population growth going on at the same time as this pandemia: "The current average population increase is estimated at 81 million people per year."
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate

9
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 29, 2020, 01:17:10 PM »
A well-thought out post Grubbbengrabben. I was wondering about the rationale behind the Swedish situation.
I believe 1 and 2 are wrong. Experience in Italy has shown that young asymptomatic people were major drivers of spreading the disease. In addition, not only old people are at risk, and hospitalization rates are high even for young people, which could lead to health system overwhelm.
I hope for your sake that I am wrong.

Thanks.

The quote below is the main assumption made by the Swedish ministry of health and the basis of all their calculations regarding number of hospital beds and ventilators (intensive care). Google translate.

Apparently many other countries use a significantly higher CAR number in their forecasts, and as a consequence they think stricter regulations are needed. As for the hospitalisation rates - I don't know. Do they look wrong? Emphasis added by me.

Quote
For all outbreaks, both regional and national, we have adopted a Clinical Attack Rate (CAR) of 1%. A CAR of 1% means that 1% of the entire population has been clinically infected after completion of the outbreak. We only include reported cases. Based on analysis of external data, especially from China, we believe that 1% CAR is a realistic worst-case scenario. To estimate probable CAR in China and Italy we have doubled today's accumulated number of infected, as if we were at the top today, and divided by population. In this way we take heed that the outbreak may not be over yet. Given today's situation, that would mean less than 1% of the population of Wuhan city gets a clinical infection, in the Hubei region about 0.2% and throughout China 0.01%. When we do the same for Italy, we get a CAR in Lombardy of 0.7%

Severity distribution among infected per age group given target value of
severity among infected and size of the risk groups.

Severity0-1920-6465+
Mild93%83%67%
Severe6%13%26%
Critical1%4%7%

All mild cases are assumed to be self treated. Severe and Critical admitted in hospital. Critical cases are assumed to need intensive care for an average time period of 14 days.
I must admit I was quite in shock reading this.  The severity/hospitalization rates seem reasonable. But a CAR of 1% sounds like something from fantasyland. China and Italy have implemented lockdowns. If Sweden lets this outbreak run wild in (younger) schools and restaurants, I believe asymptomatic transmission will achieve a CAR of tens of percent. Even assuming that for each clinically diagnosed person there are two that were never diagnosed, and assuming that some of the population somehow is remote and escapes, I can't see how the CAR can be less than 10%.
Again, I really hope I am wrong.

This has to be a case of something lost in translation. Or they changed the definition of attack rate. Or they are COMPLETE idiots.
 Sounds more like they estimate the hospitalisation rate.

Where was that information from, Grubbegrabben? I tried to search for it, can't find it.

10
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 29, 2020, 03:22:03 AM »
Still growing...
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Hypothesis: C19 won't be able to halt the population growth even during Covid year of 2020. Pandemia?

11
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 29, 2020, 03:12:51 AM »
Correlation between universal BCG vaccination policy and reduced morbidity and mortality for COVID-19: an epidemiological study

Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042937v1

Quote
COVID-19 has spread to most countries in the world. Puzzlingly, the impact of the disease is different in different countries. These differences are attributed to differences in cultural norms, mitigation efforts, and health infrastructure. Here we propose that national differences in COVID-19 impact could be partially explained by the different national policies respect to Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) childhood vaccination. BCG vaccination has been reported to offer broad protection to respiratory infections. We compared large number of countries BCG vaccination policies with the morbidity and mortality for COVID-19. We found that countries without universal policies of BCG vaccination (Italy, Nederland, USA) have been more severely affected compared to countries with universal and long-standing BCG policies

Interesting.
Although Sweden stopped the general program of BCG vaccination (against Tuberculosis) already 1975. After that it has been done only for risk groups.

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/vaccinationer/vacciner-a-o/tuberkulos-tb/

12
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 27, 2020, 11:48:48 PM »


The current CFR in the U.S. is 1.5%.  That is based on the official number of deaths (1295) divided by those testing positive (85,435).  This is a straight forward number, and easily calculated.  The IFR, which is an estimate of the true fatality rate, attempts to determine the total incident of infection by including all those who were asymptomatic or undiagnosed.  The IFR is less than the CFR.  During the height of a disease (like now), the CFR can fluctuate widely as the numbers change on a daily basis.  The CFR was as high as 7% in the U.S. on Mar 3, but that was prior to large scale testing efforts.  The CFR did fall to as low as 1.25%, before rising to yesterday's level.  Tomorrow will likely be different.  Perhaps he is assuming that a larger fraction of the currently infected will die in the near future.  Possibly, he is using China as a reference.  After all, their CFR stands at 4.0.  However that number is higher skewed by the high CFR in the early cases, before the virus was well known.  The Chinese CFR for cases after Feb. 1 dropped to 0.7%.  The Center for Evidence Based Medicine estimates the IFR for Covid-19 at 0.29%.  By comparison, the IFR for the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which had an older population, was 1.1%. 

In summary, there is no compelling evidence to support a 4.5% CFR value for the U.S. with today's figures. 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

Thanks, Mr. Walrus.

That is a good reference you gave.
I found also some better data on comorbidities there from China:
The CFR was 2.3% (1023 deaths/44 672 confirmed cases).
Patients with comorbid conditions had much higher CFR rates:
Condition*               CFR
Cardiovascular disease    10.5%
Diabetes     7.3%
Chronic respiratory disease   6.3%
Hypertension   6.0%
Cancer   5.6%
No comorbidities   0.9%

*Critical cases had a  CFR of 49.0%

13
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 27, 2020, 10:03:24 AM »
...
Remember please that the percentages Oren cites are from reputable literature, BUT that study was based on a 2.3% CFR for the population. We know that the CFR for the hospitalized population is double that. So - double ALL of the numbers in the table.

...
For the US, I suspect that the most likely death toll will be about 5 million. I cannot see it being less than 1 million. The high end is likely 25 million.

The high end comes about from presuming that there is not some large unseen portion of the population that never shows anything other than mild symptoms and is never tested; plus presuming the 4.5% CFR is accurate and representative for the hospitalized portion (who then represent everyone); and that half of those requiring intensive care die as a result of the collapse of the hospital systems when they become over run. That last part adds about 7.5% to the CFR of 4.5%, hence a 12% death rate. Italy is already seeing close to that. And they aren't through the worst of it yet.
...
Sam

Sam, why do you assume that we have a 4.5% CFR in the USA? Would appreciate if you could explain that! Latest data show a much lower figure.

I believe that too many analyses are focused on the natural mortality rate with treatment, rather than on the number whose symptoms are severe enough to require hospitalization which is a far higher percentage than occurs with the flu. Even with the flu affecting a higher count each winter than COVID-19 has thus far, the impact on the hospital system is already far outpacing the flu.

The problem with many analyses and forecasts is that they don't take into consideration the issue of overwhelming of the intensive care units (ICU) in the healthcare system, as seen in Italy and Spain, and as will SURELY be seen in the USA, France and UK in the coming weeks. About 6% of the infected in C19 will need ICU, which is way more than for the regular flus.

In a way, the situation is on one hand that we wish for everything to happen quickly, get to herd immunity in the population (=more than 90% infected for this virus), and then C19 will be just like any other flu virus, as we will not have a vaccine or mass vaccination in the nearest 18 months or so. From this point of view, we want the infection to run freely so we can become immune.

On the other hand, we fear death, we don't want people to die. So we want to slow the infection down, and above all suppress it sufficiently so that the ICU units aren't overwhelmed. If 6% of your cases require intensive care and you can’t provide it, most of those people die. As simple as that. We don't want Italy or Spain.

Meanwhile, the disease continues to progress exponentially in many big countries, e.g. USA.  Inflexion point on the positive exponential growth has still not been established. Meanwhile, efforts to measure and contain it seem to be more linear.

Korea has been very actively testing and tracking infected people. Korea tracing/testing has shown that around 11% of positives proceeded to Serious (=supplemental oxygen) or Critical (=ventilator). About 1/3 of those infected in S/C state will eventually die. That is in a health care system that is NOT overwhelmed. We have much worse ratios in overwhelmed Italy.

I think it's not the best metric to use total cases, because ‘active’ cases have yet to be determined. Now that we know the disease course—5 day mean incubation, 9-10 days symptoms, then either recovery or serious/critical on day 11-12, the best CFR proxy is Fatalities/ recoveries. We have a 3.0% CFR ratio in S.Korea of resolved cases, and we have only 1 %  S/C out of active (unresolved) cases.

Moreover, of active unresolved cases, 6.0 % in Italy are S/C, implying that about 45% of those S/C die and 55% eventually recover in a medical system that is overwhelmed.

These data are all readily available on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/

About USA, we're already getting reports of overwhelmed hospitals/ICU units in some states. And we still have a couple of weeks of exponential growth left. There are 4 million admissions to the ICU in the US every year, and 500k (~13%) of them die. Without ICU beds, that share would likely go closer to 60-70%. Even if only 50% died, in a year-long epidemic you go from 500k deaths a year to 2M, so you’re adding 1.5M deaths, just with collateral damage.

So, on one extreme we have countries like S.Korea, on the other extreme we have the overwhelmed countries. I think any forecast for USA has to take into consideration the issue of the forthcoming overwhelming of ICU units.


14
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 27, 2020, 06:32:33 AM »
Talks of COVID-19 between China and US (sarc version):

"Hi China, I heard you had this disease a while back."
"Yes, it was quite a bad one, Mr.Trump"
"You know Pingpong Xi, my doctors are saying we got this disease too, but I don't feel sick"
"Well, your doctors are right and you'd do good to listen to them"
"yeah yeah, I listen but you know, they're scaring my people if they are heard by the media. Bad Media. Can't have that."
"Oh, well it is a terrible disease, and people are scared of it here too."
"But my people should be working if they're not sick, that's what my grandpa always said. My doctors want to shut my everything down!"
"Your doctors are right, you should do what they say, Donnie"
"No one but family calls me that, take that back!"
"Sorry, I take that back, Mr. Trump, you should do what your doctors say."
"But I don't feel sick, why should I take a pill that tastes bad? My people not working tastes bad. Clever. I cleverer than you. Best clever. Thanks talking, China, let's do trade. Or trade war. Whatever."

Who are you not to believe in Trump?

He promised to resolve this by Easter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kenolin1/status/1242852430582341639

15
Policy and solutions / Re: Lessons from COVID-19
« on: March 26, 2020, 11:30:29 AM »

16
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 26, 2020, 08:05:50 AM »
...
 
You have to ask also how many prospects for dying in Covid19 there are in the population. How many old and sick in lifestyle diseases are there? ...

There are more than 50 million people 65 and older in the US. That's a rather large pool.

That is not the pool!
The pool consists of people with one or several lifestyle diseases, especially old people with such diseases. Practicallt no on dies from Covid19 without having such diseases.

Please check data and attached figure from Italy, I posted it before, but it's apparently worth repeating:
Italian co-morbidities with Covid-19.
From a report in Italian, I think it's a government report.
It's a sample of 355 dead in Covid19, but with other health issues.
Total sample of infected was 2003.
Average age of dead: 79 y.o.

Esp. hypertension is common. 76% of those who died also suffered from hypertension.
Most of the dead had several conditions. 48% of them had 3 or more lifestyle diseases.


https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_17_marzo-v2.pdf


17
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 26, 2020, 05:58:23 AM »
The United States has apparently decided to try the most egregious solution.

On the current course, expect in excess of 25 million American dead over the next five weeks, and a wrecked economy.

25 million?  Really?  Didn’t I just see you on a corner with a sign that read, “The end is near”?

...That would take us to 14-17 million dead. That is committed by 7-8 weeks from now, though the actual dying takes another week.

Then add the perversity we’ve seen in the governments response and 25 million dead is possible.


Sam, your forecasted numbers of deaths is an extreme right tail risk estimate based on the number of infections.
 
You have to ask also how many prospects for dying in Covid19 there are in the population. How many old and sick in lifestyle diseases are there? How many younger people are there that have multiple lifestyle diseases? Those are the ones actually dying. The others recover. The pool of prospects isn't unlimited, and it's unlikely that the virus will reach and kill all of them, given the counter-measures we're seeing.

18
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 25, 2020, 11:15:34 AM »
The rate of growth in confirmed infections has begun to slow in the United States. This slowing is a reflection of actions about 11-13 days ago. That is before the State wide stay home orders. It is about right in timing to see impacts from the first “level the curve” pronouncements.

Where the growth had been 1.323x/day. For the last four days it averages about 1.30x/day. This should continue to come down as the stay home orders begin to be apparent in about a week. Until then I suspect that the rate will drift down to about 1.25x/day.

The individual rates in different States are astoundingly different. New York has been running about 1.45x.day. New Orleans infection case count growth rate was running at eye popping early Wuhan rates of 1.67x/day. New York is now trying to cut their rate. But the next week will be brutal as the increase is likely to be 5 to 6 times today’s case total. So about 140k cases at the end of next Tuesday.

Louisiana is hard to project. It looks likely to explode at a rate of 1.65x/day in NOLA, and 1.35x/day in the rest of the State. If that comes to pass, by the end of next Tuesday they may have 25k-30k cases in the State.

The nation as a whole is slowing down the rate of increase. But it is very uneven. Some areas will see horrible increases not just in numbers, but in the rate of growth of the numbers. Others who started earlier will also have large numbers, but slower rates of growth.

Trying to smear all of those into one growth parameter is unworkable. They each now need to be assessed individually.

Collectively though, the condition in areas of the United States will begin to become catastrophic by a week from now. Large areas will be in saturation and catastrophic two weeks from now.


Here are a couple of diagrams for illustration of the overall situation, and various states.
A relevant statistic is the number of deaths. Here are some predictions with a graph of the number of deaths in some countries, as of March 25.

The other graph shows a breakdown on various states in USA and a prediction in how many days they will reach the death numbers of the ordinary flu in 2019. Concurs with what Sam says.

Many people want to downplay the significance of Covid19 by comparing with the ordinary flu. The deaths from ordinary flu are marked in the graph as a light blue area on the top, as per 10 million people (in the US).

As you see, Italy and Spain already reached that area, and will surpass it. USA and UK will certainly follow too, as well as France. USA has not yet reached the inflection point on the exponential growth rate.

The other group of countries is China and S Korea, where Covid19 has had less of an impact compared to the flu.

Data is from
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

19
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 25, 2020, 04:41:26 AM »
When thinking about it, wouldn't it be correct to classify the corona virus as a 'civilizational disease'? Insofar that it mainly culls those who have medical conditions, such as high blood pressure (specifically those that are on medication), or those with diabetes, and other typical Western maladies.


Interesting data from Italy about co-morbidities.
From a report in Italian, I think it's a government report.
It's a sample of 355 dead in Covid19, but with other health issues.
Total sample of infected was 2000.
Average age of dead: 79 y.o.

Esp. hypertension is common.
Many of the dead had several conditions. 48% of them had 3 or more lifestyle diseases.



https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_17_marzo-v2.pdf

20
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 24, 2020, 06:52:01 AM »
No way to know if you already had Covid:
"Covid-19 symptoms vary widely, and undertesting in many countries means that many people may have already had the coronavirus without having received a positive diagnosis. Is it possible to find out, and how should you behave if you think you may have been infected?
Is there any way to know whether someone has had Covid-19 in the past?

Dr William Hillmann: At this point, we don’t have a test to tell that. We are developing antibody tests to check for a prior infection, but those aren’t ready for clinical use yet. The only definitive way to know that you’ve had it is to get tested while you have it and to have that test be positive."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/23/have-i-already-had-covid19-coronavirus

21
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 24, 2020, 06:46:29 AM »
WTF?

Quote
Remuzzi says he is now hearing information about it from general practitioners. "They remember having seen very strange pneumonia, very severe, particularly in old people in December and even November," he says. "This means that the virus was circulating, at least in [the northern region of] Lombardy and before we were aware of this outbreak occurring in China."

Link >> https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/817974987/every-single-individual-must-stay-home-italy-s-coronavirus-deaths-pass-china-s

That's interesting. I was in Bergamo twice in November and December. I had reduced resistance because of little sleep and lots of driving. It caused me to be quite ill for three days in December, but mostly fever and aches. Was that COVID-19 or just a cold?

I wish I could do a rapid test that measures antibodies, but they're hard to find online and just for professionals.

Do you remember if you lost your sense of smelling before the onset of fever?
Then it was likely the covid, as that seems to be a leading indicator.

We are most certain we had it in our family in Sweden around Christmas/New year. All symptoms fit perfectly, at least one of us complained of not feeling smells before falling ill. For myself, i had fever for a few days, and then this awful dry coughing that just wouldn't go away for weeks.

This could also be one of at least three variants of adenovirus, especially 3, 4 and 14. These cause a truly horrible dry cough. I cracked ribs coughing from one of them, then ripped my lung away from my chest wall two years later with a second one. Common child hood bug. Nasty ass bug when you are older. Immunity fades over time.

Sam

Yes, could be, but according to Wikipedia, this seems less likely, as it affects kids more than grownups and more to the upper respiratory tract, whereas we and those people in Italy had in the lower tract (bronchi), and developed pneumonia: "Most infections with adenovirus result in infections of the upper respiratory tract. Adenovirus infections often show up as conjunctivitis, tonsillitis (which may look exactly like strep throat and cannot be distinguished from strep except by throat culture), an ear infection, or croup.
 A combination of conjunctivitis and tonsillitis is particularly common with adenovirus infections. Some children (especially small ones) can develop adenovirus bronchiolitis or pneumonia, both of which can be severe. In babies, adenoviruses can also cause coughing fits that look almost exactly like whooping cough."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenoviridae

22
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 24, 2020, 05:28:33 AM »
WTF?

Quote
Remuzzi says he is now hearing information about it from general practitioners. "They remember having seen very strange pneumonia, very severe, particularly in old people in December and even November," he says. "This means that the virus was circulating, at least in [the northern region of] Lombardy and before we were aware of this outbreak occurring in China."

Link >> https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/817974987/every-single-individual-must-stay-home-italy-s-coronavirus-deaths-pass-china-s

That's interesting. I was in Bergamo twice in November and December. I had reduced resistance because of little sleep and lots of driving. It caused me to be quite ill for three days in December, but mostly fever and aches. Was that COVID-19 or just a cold?

I wish I could do a rapid test that measures antibodies, but they're hard to find online and just for professionals.

Do you remember if you lost your sense of smelling before the onset of fever?
Then it was likely the covid, as that seems to be a leading indicator.

We are most certain we had it in our family in Sweden around Christmas/New year. All symptoms fit perfectly, at least one of us complained of not feeling smells before falling ill. For myself, i had fever for a few days, and then this awful dry coughing that just wouldn't go away for weeks.

23
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 23, 2020, 11:53:39 AM »
OK, thanks. In Swedish we call it välfärdssjukdom, translates word by word to welfare disease. Sorry for causing confusion!

I will edit my original post.

24
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 23, 2020, 11:31:29 AM »
.

25
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 23, 2020, 11:08:41 AM »
Also keep in mind, and this is something that is rarely mentioned, if at all: the general health of a population. It's clear that for decades now, western populations have been degenerating due to bad/addictive nutrition. I hardly know any people who feed their children well, and my heart cries when I stand in line at the supermarket and see what people have in their carts. It is also a fact that soils are being depleted by industrial agriculture, and thus fruits and vegetables contain less and less natural nutrients.

If younger people in the US are hit hard, it's because of things like high-fructose corn syrup, energy drinks and junk food. Not because of COVID-19.

The same, BTW, goes for old people. They are less degenerated because they were probably fed well when they were young, especially if they lived outside of cities. But most old people eat lots of sugary stuff, and then take pills to compensate. A lot of them smoke (my father was killed by Big Tobacco last year, after 60 years of loyal service).

This is why Italy is hit hard. Not because of COVID-19.

So, the big question is what will be learned from all this. Two options:

1) Develop a vaccine or medicine for COVID-19, so that the circus may continue.
2) Make populations more resilient by making them more healthy. To do that, you need to understand why populations have degenerated so much. If you think it all the way through, the answer is: To increase concentrated wealth.

Stop the limitless increase of concentrated wealth, and the population may become healthier and more resilient.

Stop the limitless increase of concentrated wealth, and you can reduce hyper-globalisation and put a stop to Coronavirus capitalism, and a host of other interconnected global crises.

Which lesson will be learned?

I think you're painting in black and white, where there are in fact many colours.
The healthy living, healthy food industry is a fast grower overall in the West.
It's more of a class issue, where e.g. the well informed middle class people try to live healthily.

When thinking about it, wouldn't it be correct to classify the corona virus as a 'civilizational disease'? Insofar that it mainly culls those who have medical conditions, such as high blood pressure (specifically those that are on medication), or those with diabetes, and other typical Western maladies.

But what is the primary effect of quarantines, of shutting down all kinds of social activities? I suppose we get even more of passivity, couch potatoing, binge TV looking, etc. And in the end even less resilient people.

What can we do to avoid civilizational diseases? Mainly live a healthy life style, with a lot of physical excercising. So, get out and train your pulmonary alveoli, get them up to shape to provide some good resistance! Or, as 'someone' said a long time ago: Your body is your temple. If you neglect it, and suffer as a result, you can blame only yourself.

On a more philosophical note, are we agents in charge of our destinies, or are we incapable of exercising autonomy? The modern society has undergone a profound change since I grew up in the 60's. The presumption of individual resilience and responsibility, has been replaced by defining individuals by their vulnerability. As in this thread...

Didn't we have a sense back then that we had a moral obligation to respond to threats in accordance with stoical virtues like wisdom and courage? Wasn't indvidual courage a form of behaviour that focused on taking responsibility not only for your own welfare, but also for the welfare of others?

EDIT: Changed to 'civilizational disease' (due to language error)

26
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 23, 2020, 11:01:24 AM »

Re 2: You can find the links yourself, but covid-19 is hitting young people very hard. 

Re 3: Many deaths are now among people with no pre-existing conditions which were feared to exacerbate their illness.

This is not like the  'flu.  Its a fast-acting killer, and in places with next to no advanced medical care facilities, like the slums of big third-world cities, the impact will be devastating.

All info I've seen on how young people are affected, is that 'only' those with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure, will perish.

Please provide some valid, statistical proof of your claim in #3.

I don't see the young people being hit hard, they aren't dying, they are recovered.

27
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 23, 2020, 09:09:58 AM »

Re 2: You can find the links yourself, but covid-19 is hitting young people very hard. 

Re 3: Many deaths are now among people with no pre-existing conditions which were feared to exacerbate their illness.

This is not like the  'flu.  Its a fast-acting killer, and in places with next to no advanced medical care facilities, like the slums of big third-world cities, the impact will be devastating.

All info I've seen on how young people are affected, is that 'only' those with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure, will perish.

Please provide some valid, statistical proof of your claim in #3.

28
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 23, 2020, 07:45:27 AM »
My big worry right now is not the 1st but Africa and the Middle East (i know, i am a racist). They have no chance at all, their whole population will be infected (the only saving grace is their young population). And they almost unavoidably will reinfect the EU and the US eventually.

I beg to differ.
1. Large parts of Africa and the ME have hot or even tropical climates.
This virus doesn't survive long in heat.
Interestingly, countries with high malaria counts, have the inverse situation reg. corona. See attached figure.

2. Poor countries, i.e. all African, and most ME, have relatively young populations, on average. Population pyramids are highly skewed to the young, and with fewer of old age.

3. People in poor countries don't suffer from welfare diseases, that we know are conducive to getting the life threatening outcomes of the corona. Not too many people on blood pressure medication. Not too much of diabetes, etc.


29
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 11:06:44 PM »
"CONCLUSIONS: Children at all ages appeared susceptible to COVID-19, and there was no significant gender difference. Although clinical manifestations of children’s COVID-19 cases were generally less severe than those of adults’ patients, young children, particularly infants, were vulnerable to infection. The distribution of children’s COVID-19 cases varied with time and space, and most of the cases concentrated in Hubei province and surrounding areas. Furthermore, this study provides strong evidence for human-to-human transmission."

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2020/03/16/peds.2020-0702.full.pdf

In the Pediatrics study, researchers conducted the first retrospective epidemiologic analysis of disease spread and severity in 2,143 confirmed or possible pediatric COVID-19 infections reported to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) from Jan 16 to Feb 8.

Of the 2,143 cases, 731 (34.1%) were laboratory-confirmed, and 1,412 (65.9%) were suspected. Median patient age was 7 years (range, 1 day to 18 years); 1,213 (56.6%) were boys.

Using clinical signs, lab testing, and chest x-rays, the researchers classified 94 patients (4.4%) as asymptomatic, 1,091 (50.9%) having mild disease, and 831 (38.8%) having moderate illness.

Young children were more at risk of serious illness than older children were. The proportion of severe and critical cases was 10.6 % for children younger than 1 year, 7.3% for those 1 to 5, 4.2% for those 6 to 10, 4.1% for those 11 to 15, and 3.0% for those 16 to 18. "Only one child died, and most cases were mild, with much fewer severe and critical cases (5.9%) than adult patients (18.5%)," they wrote.

Despite that finding, investigators said that children of all ages and both sexes were clearly at risk due to the coronavirus. "Although clinical manifestations of children's COVID-19 cases were generally less severe than those of adult patients, young children, particularly infants, were vulnerable to infection," they wrote.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/childrens-covid-19-risks-unique-chinese-studies-find

30
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 12:44:51 PM »
...
 I bet most of them were as confident about Covid 19 as Hefaistos about not getting it.

Thanks, but I already had it. (Male, 65, without health issues.)

Quote
...Funny thing is that the maximum victory condition for me is that a month from now our quarantine was so effective that the problem is gone. At that point, those saying we overreacted will seem correct.


The problem won't go away in "a month from now", it will just be postponed by a couple of months or so.

31
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 12:39:26 PM »
"People with 'underlying conditions' are being treated as expendable. But our lives matter "

The UK government’s treatment of the coronavirus outbreak has in effect written off all of us with health issues ... They’ve had a coronavirus death at the local hospital – but they had underlying health conditions,” the Facebook thread ran, with group members piling in to offer a collective “phew”. It was hard to ignore the underlying sentiment being expressed: that those with underlying health conditions were going to die anyway, so what did it matter if Covid-19 took them now? ... The language used by officials describing the spiralling scenarios risks dehumanising us, and makes us feel we no longer matter."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/19/underlying-conditions-coronavirus-health

32
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 12:18:04 PM »
Hef wrote: "Of course you can quarantine those groups! [old and sick]"
Yes, these are the folks who need to be most physically isolated, and that is already what is happening.
But by their very nature, most of them need care even before they get this virus.
So people are going to be working with them from the general population where this thing is swirling around.

So they are going to be exposed, and the more widespread it is in the general population, the more likely it is that they will be exposed to it, even under quarantine.


Exactly!
Those groups aren't enough protected.

There are two approaches to managing the virus. One is mitigation, or "flattening the curve," which sees the novel coronavirus continue to spread, but at a slow rate so as not to overwhelm hospital systems. The other approach is suppression, which tries to reverse the pandemic through extreme social distancing measures and home quarantines of cases and their families, achieving an R0 of less than 1.

Mitigation "might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over."

The mitigation strategy that flattens the curve gives no real protection to the old and sick, it just postpones their exposure/infection with some probably rather short period of time (months)

To avoid that, a country would need to focus on suppression. But suppression requires social distancing measures far longer than the 14 to 30 days Americans have been told to prepare for. Instead, they would need to be in place for 18 months, or until a vaccine is made available"

18 months of quarantine etc. is not going to happen, anywhere. Thus we are left with mitigation, which will not protect those old and sick people anyway.
So why not focus all resources on REALLY protecting those old and sick, if needed for 18 months?

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/modeling-study-suggests-18-months-covid-19-social-distancing-much

33
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 11:37:17 AM »
without tests and contact tracing there is no choice. Your strategy leads to a shutdown of medical services and widespread death. This will lead to chaos. If you choose to keep working then 1 in 10 or your coworkers will eventually collapse and die in place, like it was happening in Iran. There will be no hospitals or medicine available.

We must also learn to live with whatever sequela this disease has, which will likely include permanent lung damage at the very least.

what you speak of, doing nothing, will lead to an uncontrolled shutdown instead of a controlled one.

I certainly didn't say "do nothing". I said: "I think the old and sick should be maximally protected and quarantined, but the rest of population should be let free to live their lifes."

There are several ways here. One is to quarantine whole towns/regions/countries, shut borders etc. etc. But this type of quarantine to some 96-97 percent affects people that don't need to be quarantined at all, as they will either get a rather ligth infection, or if more seriously infected, they will eventually recover.
The other is to quarantine only those who according to statistics have a high likelihood of dying if infected, i.e. the elderly with some underlying serious health conditions.
Of course you can quarantine those groups!
 
I find Your answer completely unsubstantial.

34
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 04:59:40 AM »
99% of all elderly who died from the virus in Italy (median age 80) had other serious illnesses – 50% had 3 serious conditions.
And 100% of all 50 who died aged below 40 had serious underlying conditions.
More evidence that deaths “from Coronavirus” is only to a limited extent actual incremental deaths – statistically.

"99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

Thoughts: Which means that we close down whole regions and countries, shutting borders, forcing numerous businesses into bankruptcy, and in essence now start a global recession just in order to save some sick, old people? Where is the cost benefit analysis of that?

Oh, we will all die, eventually. [/sarc]

Seriously, I think the current policies of quarantines and shut downs etc., are wrong.
I think the old and sick should be maximally protected and quarantined, but the rest of population should be let free to live their lifes.

Expect some serious discussions on this topic in the coming months, as the social costs of shut-downs will rise and rise and rise.
 

35
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 04:39:35 AM »
Just want to say a sincere thanks to Vox for your reporting.
And thanks to Sam for in depth analyses.
And to others who provide their professional medical knowledge.

ASIF is my one-stop source on the pandemia.

36
More on cooling trends in parts of the Ocean:
" Reduction in Ocean Heat Transport at 26°N since 2008 Cools the Eastern Subpolar Gyre of the North Atlantic Ocean" by Bryden et al, in American Meterological Society (AMS), january 2020

Abstract
"Northward ocean heat transport at 26°N in the Atlantic Ocean has been measured since 2004. The ocean heat transport is large—approximately 1.25 PW, and on interannual time scales it exhibits surprisingly large temporal variability. There has been a long-term reduction in ocean heat transport of 0.17 PW from 1.32 PW before 2009 to 1.15 PW after 2009 (2009–16) on an annual average basis associated with a 2.5-Sv (1 Sv ≡ 106 m3 s−1) drop in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). The reduction in the AMOC has cooled and freshened the upper ocean north of 26°N over an area following the offshore edge of the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Current from the Bahamas to Iceland. Cooling peaks south of Iceland where surface temperatures are as much as 2°C cooler in 2016 than they were in 2008. Heat uptake by the atmosphere appears to have been affected particularly along the path of the North Atlantic Current. For the reduction in ocean heat transport, changes in ocean heat content account for about one-quarter of the long-term reduction in ocean heat transport while reduced heat uptake by the atmosphere appears to account for the remainder of the change in ocean heat transport."

The paper reports a cooling of more than 2°C in just 8 years (2008-2016) for nearly the entire ocean region south of Iceland.
The cooling persists year-round and extends from the surface down to 800 m depth.
From 40°N to 70°N, and from 40°W to 0°W, average temperatures have plunged 0.6°C from 2008 to 2016 – also to depths of 800 m.

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0323.1
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0323.1

37
Antarctic bottom water is in a cooling trend for the last 5 years or so, not warming, according to this important paper:

"Stabilization of dense Antarctic water supply to the Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation"
by Abrahamsen et al, published recently in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0561-2

Abstract

The lower limb of the Atlantic overturning circulation is resupplied by the sinking of dense Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) that forms via intense air–sea–ice interactions next to Antarctica, especially in the Weddell Sea. In the last three decades, AABW has warmed, freshened and declined in volume across the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere, suggesting an ongoing major reorganization of oceanic overturning. However, the future contributions of AABW to the Atlantic overturning circulation are unclear. Here, using observations of AABW in the Scotia Sea, the most direct pathway from the Weddell Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, we show a recent cessation in the decline of the AABW supply to the Atlantic overturning circulation. The strongest decline was observed in the volume of the densest layers in the AABW throughflow from the early 1990s to 2014; since then, it has stabilized and partially recovered. We link these changes to variability in the densest classes of abyssal waters upstream. Our findings indicate that the previously observed decline in the supply of dense water to the Atlantic Ocean abyss may be stabilizing or reversing and thus call for a reassessment of Antarctic influences on overturning circulation, sea level, planetary-scale heat distribution and global climate.

Figure of researched area, and byline: "a, Map of the Scotia Sea, with the South and North Scotia Ridges marked by black lines. The SR1b section and the part of the A23 section in the Scotia Sea are marked in red. The parts of the A23 and SR4 sections in the Weddell Sea used here are marked in purple. Yellow arrows show schematic pathways of AABW from refs. 14,35,36. The bathymetry data are from the GEBCO_2014 Grid, v. 20150318.
b, Map showing the global extent (vertically integrated fraction) of AABW, based on the methods of Johnson10 using updated data from the World Ocean Atlas 201337,38,39,40, on a Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection. The area shown in a is outlined in blue."

38
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 17, 2020, 10:38:55 AM »
Rodius wrote:
Quote
I think the increase death toll as a percentage is a reflection of how many uncounted cases there are.
It isnt the death rate is worsening, it is likely the same, but the number of deaths compared to counted cases when not much counting is happening will increase the percentage.

Well, that makes sense in my head anyway

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

But I think these are raw numbers, not ratios

If I understand this correctly, epidemics in general follow a Gompertz curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function

There is an inflection point that is of importance, where increasing exp. growth is taken over by the second exp. function that defines the Gompertz, which has a decreasing exp. growth.
It seems that the US hasn't reached the inflection point yet. To little testing to tell. And the latest data show no inflection point reached:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Compare the time line with S korea, which is the case of a well managed situation. 60 days until maximum and inflection point:

https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/2019-ncov-korea-cases.png

Another helpful model is the SIR model

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR_model

39
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: March 02, 2020, 01:08:56 AM »
Thanks Stephan for your efforts with this noisy data!

My hypothesis, as expected, is that the small rise in atm. CO2 is due to the fact that we now have flat emissions of fossil fuels, and probably dropping in 2020 due to the corona virus. As it was China that drove the entire increase in emissions during 2019.
World excl. China is already on a negative FF emissions path.
Peak CO2 not later than 2030 is entirely possible.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emissions-up-zero-point-six-per-cent-in-2019-due-to-china

40
Consequences / Re: COVID-
« on: February 27, 2020, 12:09:54 PM »
Quote from: Sam link=topic=2996.msg251513#msg251513
Barring major other differences, and with comparable populations (age, gender, condition, cofactors, confounders) we would expect the disease to behave comparably. I.e. the progression should be comparable, the rates of involvement of heart, lungs, kidneys, liver etc... should be comparable. And the death and recovery rates should be reasonably comparable.

When there are differences as large as the difference for the subset of data you point to compared to the full Chinese data sets, it suggests that something or several somethings are NOT comparable.

It is possible to have different genetics - that is unlikely in China.
It might be different treatment - again that is unlikely
It could be viral strain differences - also unlikely
It might be statistics of small numbers - possible, though unlikely
It might be temporal differences in an exponential growth - that too is unlikely.
It might be that the hospitals in Hubei were saturated with sick people resulting in poor care and increased death rates. That is likely a small factor. Given what we have seen, it is undoubtedly only a small factor, and can not explain the differences.

It also could be a number of other factors.

I cannot confirm these, but my suspicion leans toward a couple of factors.

1) age. ...

2) gender. ...

3) incomplete data, or differences in data reporting. ...
4) willful omission of “adverse” data. ...


First of all, thanks a lot Sam for your interesting analyses.

"Populations comparable "  No, they aren't. Chinese men of age are all more or less heavy smokers (or previous heavy smokers). Plus to that they live in highly populated areas with known big issues with air pollution.
Conclusion: Lung function is likely not the same as for same cohort in other countries.
Ergo: Covid might not have as big effects in e.g. USA or Europe as in China.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: February 26, 2020, 10:43:15 PM »
Thanks for your input.
F.Tnioli made a pretty bold statement:
Quote
I foresee highly unusual melting season as a result. In particular, i expect great number of strong cyclones entering the Arctic and some, possibly, forming in it much earlier and stronger than ever before.

I don't see the link between a very gradual loss of albedo over land in the early months of the year when insolation is very weak, to the formation of a "great number of strong cyclones".

The Arctic sea ice has had a good year so far compared to the decadal average.
I hypothesize we will have an average melting season without much drama.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: February 26, 2020, 12:46:45 PM »

My bold. I said it a while ago about "no snow cover during late winter triggers massive albedo feedback", meaning by this significant insolation in February, March and April hitting dark Earth surface instead of white snow. Which brings in - as it stands right now - truly massive extra heat into the system ...

hi.
I live on 60N in Scandinavia and this has been the 'new normal'  winter for a decade at least. Our winters are getting much shorter as a result.

But there is no punch at all in the sun at these latitudes in Feb., and March. It's not gonna bring in "massive extra heat" as you write. In April insolation is strong, but by then snow is mostly gone anyway.

43
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2020, 10:04:10 PM »
Chinese researchers find that the virus existed much earlier than previously reported, and probably not originates in Wuhan.

"In this study, we used 93 complete genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from the GISAID EpiFluTM database to decode the evolution and human-to-human transmissions of SARS-CoV-2
...
Population size of SARS-CoV-2 were estimated to have a recent expansion on 6 January 2020, and an early expansion on 8 December 2019.
Interpretation. Genomic variations of SARS-CoV-2 are still low in comparisons with published genomes of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Phyloepidemiologic analyses indicated the SARS-CoV-2 source at the Hua Nan market should be imported from other places. The crowded market boosted SARS-CoV-2 rapid circulations in the market and spread it to the whole city in early December 2019."

http://www.chinaxiv.org/abs/202002.00033

44
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 19, 2020, 09:41:58 PM »
Hefaistos,
you cannot over-interprete a predicted lower increase value in the next week than in this week and speculate about a change in the overall growth pattern. The annual increase is depending on the actual value and the value last year. If - like in this case - there was a jump last year, then, of course, the annual increase is lower.
Please check out the Keeling curve at NOAA. Take a ruler to follow the increase of CO2. You will find that this increase is not linear, but slowly accelerating. And so is it in 2020.

We had a discussion in one of the other CO2 threads about the sign of the third derivative of the Keeling curve. For some months now I see signs that we are not on a exponential growth, but linear growth.
2020 will tell.

45
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 09:31:38 PM »
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

We may already be seeing the effects of more open water on the weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. There are some conference talks on YouTube by Jennifer Francis. More open water would mean that the surface temperature won't go down after the Arctic sunset. There would also be much more evaporation. I am afraid that this might throw weather out of whack even more.

I live on 60 N in Sweden, and we certainly see this effect each winter. The real winter weather  starts later, and generally speaking, winters are much milder nowadays. It's not so dramatic, just boring :)
As the Atlantic Ocean is warmer, it does evaporate more during the early winter period. Evaporation means that the warm ocean water cools down as it is brought north by the Amoc, and the dominating SW winds.
Only when the ocean water is cool enough, we get a persistent change in the jet stream that favours a stable winter weather.

46
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 09:22:17 PM »

Tealight's (aka Nico Sun) graph on potential max AWP vs Actual attached. Significant additional AWP certainly possible likely in the years to come.

I haven't got a spare super-computer(s) (or the science) available to evaluate the climatic impact.

Sure, you can calculate a AWPotential but if there is no sun anyway, it seems a bit theoretical, doesn't it?

47
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 19, 2020, 08:36:10 PM »
Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of 410.7 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values will result in a 2.3 ± 0.3 ppm increase. From mid January on the values generally rise much higher than in late autumn or December.

 an increase of "only" 2.16 ppm ...
Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 412 ppm with an extreme intra-day variability. This year it looks much smoother; I expect an annual increase around 1.75 ± 0.25 ppm.

We shouldn't over-interpret this, but these values indicate that we are on a linear patch of CO2 growth path. Not as expected, on an exponential growth path.
My long term forecast: Peak CO2 not later than 2030.

48
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 07:44:26 PM »
Thanks for those graphs, Geron.
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

If you take the 3 seas with the greatest AWP, they are Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort. But those 3 seas are already having a local summer 'BOE' in each sea, each summer. So no additional AWP from them if we get an overall BOE in the Arctic.

As for non-summer BOE, we have very little AWP due to the lack of insolation.

I find it hard to see that we will be, as you claim "greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP".

49
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 05:56:04 PM »
---
This would cause a steep rise in the Arctic's Albedo Warming Potential from its record high in 2019, greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP (and open water vs ice-cover).

The sea ice minimum is in mid September or so, thus the first BOE would also happen in September, most likely. Assuming that the first instances of the BOE will be 'light'.
But what about insolation in September? Already very low, thus not so much effect on Albedo.
Thus, I believe 'small' BOE's wll not have that big an effect on climate change as you postulate.

50
wdmn, can you give a reference to that figure, please!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11