D&D and the rising pandemic

[Zardnaar]

This is generally correct. However, what I originally started by pointing out, is that most of that demand is business travel. You seem to have it in your head that most air travel is for vacations, or by rich people. It isn't. If you want to understand what demand there will be for airfare in the future, you need to look at the business needs for it, and what businesses are willing to pay. Furthermore, businesses are not rich, and travel costs are not a tax deduction.



While I don't necessarily disagree with these statements per se, they have as much context to me as your infatuation with 1970s prices, the cost of fuel, and how many engines are on your brother's plane.

Perspective. You've ready got people lining up for food and 30 million unemployed.

If you can afford an airfare in a depression you're "rich" even if you're not literally a 1% and rolling around in cash.

It's also easy to say lockdown when you can stock up on food, work from home and/or take 2-3 months off work.

Some countries didn't make that choice. Some countries can't make that choice.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is a reason why the recommendation for distance in public places is six feet.

Yep!

Coronavirus: Risk of spread 'up to 30 times higher' at one metre away from infected person rather than two

Sir Patrick Vallance emphasised the importance of abiding by the distancing guidelines set out by supermarkets and other essential shops during lockdown.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Look for the helpers!

This comedian started buying lunch for her sister's ICU unit — now she's feeding thousands on the frontlines

Comedian Katie Finn wanted to buy lunch for her sister, an ICU nurse in NYC treating coronavirus patients. Now she's feeding thousands on the frontlines.

www.yahoo.com

 

[NotAYakk]

Realistic.

I got called doom and gloom when I predicted 9/11 casualties every 1-3 days for a month or two. And yet here we are.

I can give you some doom and gloom possibilities if you want.

Oh me oh me!

So let's play with herd immunity. 0.5% of USA with, say, half of the deaths happening in one month (a peak).

330/200 is 1.6 million, so 800k dead in a month, 200k per week, or 30,000 dead per day.

Now it could get worse.

Pull back social distancing, and every city becomes NYC 2x. (NYC hit 20%; we are talking 50%-80%+ infection for herd immunity).

On the plus side, only 20k of those 30k will be diagnosed as covid-19 deaths; the rest will die before being diagnosed.

Now the USA has 3 million deaths/year, or about 10,000 per day. So in the height of the slaughter, 4x the typical deaths will ocdur, and half of all deaths will be attributed to Covid-19.

Yes, that is a 9/11 every morning, another at lunch, another every afternoon, another at dusk, another after dinner, another at bedtime, another at midnight, another when you roll over in bed and half awake up, another when you stumble into the bathroom to pee, another when you wake up.

Then a couple more, or heck a half dozen, for good measure.

Every day for a month.

Gloomy enough yet?

If we assume they still don't lock down in response to that, you hit herd immunity around 90% infection. That is about 3 million dead in the USA, give or take.

And this happens everywhere that doesn't do NZ or SK style extinguishing.

25-70 million dead worldwide.

And all of this assumes recovered people are (a) fine, (b) immune.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh me oh me!

So let's play with herd immunity. 0.5% of USA with, say, half of the deaths happening in one month (a peak).

330/200 is 1.6 million, so 800k dead in a month, 200k per week, or 30,000 dead per day.

Now it could get worse.

Pull back social distancing, and every city becomes NYC 2x. (NYC hit 20%; we are talking 50%-80%+ infection for herd immunity).

On the plus side, only 20k of those 30k will be diagnosed as covid-19 deaths; the rest will die before being diagnosed.

Now the USA has 3 million deaths/year, or about 10,000 per day. So in the height of the slaughter, 4x the typical deaths will ocdur, and half of all deaths will be attributed to Covid-19.

Yes, that is a 9/11 every morning, another at lunch, another every afternoon, another at dusk, another after dinner, another at bedtime, another at midnight, another when you roll over in bed and half awake up, another when you stumble into the bathroom to pee, another when you wake up.

Then a couple more, or heck a half dozen, for good measure.

Every day for a month.

Gloomy enough yet?

If we assume they still don't lock down in response to that, you hit herd immunity around 90% infection. That is about 3 million dead in the USA, give or take.

And this happens everywhere that doesn't do NZ or SK style extinguishing.

25-70 million dead worldwide.

And all of this assumes recovered people are (a) fine, (b) immune.

8 billion people almost on the planet.

That numbers still less than the amount starving to death just in the next year or so.

A 5-10 year depression will probably kill more than that.

In effect a lockdown that saves lives in the west kills more people elsewhere. Everything breaks, aid stops flowing, food rots in the ground. We're already seeing this now.

We're playing with numbers but no matter how bad Covid ends up being the disruption will likely kill more people.

 

[tomBitonti]

There is a reason why the recommendation for distance in public places is six feet.

The suspension duration seems very under-emphasized. A six foot separation hardly matters if we are walking through recently vacated locations before a cloud has dissipated. And, do the droplets ever drop out of the air, or are they merely attenuated?

Also, even a very slow air movement would seem to have huge effects. Distance travelled and dispersion would both be hugely effected.

Plus, do we have a good model yet of the effectiveness of dispersion? That is, a measure of whether a person gets infected (plus how seriously they are infected, if that matters), based on the concentration of the virus bearing droplets?

This is all sounding like the danger of radiation, for which there is no non-harmful minimum. There might be no effective prevention of transmission (outside of highly rated masks). There may be only incrementally better reductions of risk. One would want to reduce interaction distance and spread factors (masks, gloves), as well as the number of interactions, and would want early detection of infectious individuals.

Be safe, be well,
Tom Bitonti

 

[NotAYakk]

No known superspreader event involved anything except ballistic droplets.

This doesn't mean that suspended droplets or surface contact cannot spread it. But when someone infects dozens or hundreds of people, it was because they spoke/sung/yelled and the target was in front of them and there wasn't an opposing wind (or they where directly downwind).

This is a probability game. It is likely large balistic droplets are the main source of transmission. Most spread is from the asymptomatic. Even crappy masks massively reduce ballistic droplets.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Masks definitely help the infected to not spread it. They are slightly less effective in protecting a victim, but still better than nothing. When both the infected and the not wear masks, it absolutely helps. Don't believe the very strange anti-mask propaganda and think about it: Would doctors and nurses wear masks if they didn't help? No, of course they wouldn't. It's not 100%, but what in life is?

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Even crappy masks massively reduce ballistic droplets.

Not all crappy masks...

Spoiler

 

[abirdcall]

This article presents a compelling argument for using homemade cloth masks.

It is true that there isn't enough data to know their effectiveness (or lack thereof) but there is very little cost to wearing them.

This isn't like taking a medication with potentially severe side effects.

Even if cloth masks worn on a societal level were to cause as little as a 10% drop in infection rate that would be huge.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1435.full.pdf