It's very well known in some areas of Europe, from Wikipedia:
"Keeping Up Appearances was a great success in the UK, and also captured large audiences in the US, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, and the Netherlands. By February 2016, it had been sold nearly 1,000 times to overseas broadcasters, making it BBC Worldwide's most exported television programme."
It's good to keep things in perspective. Our grandparents lived through worse than the upper limit of what is projected for this virus. The virus is a terrible thing, and we need to fight, but at least it's not Spanish Flu/The Great Depression/World War II/The Cultural Revolution/...
Actually it is worse than Spanish flu.
Mortality rate for the Spanish flu is estimated at 2-3% according to the WHO. COVID-19 currently stands at 3.4-3.6%.
We do have the advantage maybe that the world today is better prepared at handling this kind of events, but we're only just 50 days in, the Spanish flu ended up lasting 2 years.
It's complicated. First of all countries with a relatively young population like South Korea are going to be hit less hard overall than countries with relatively old populations like Italy.
Second, there's going to be a big difference in mortality depending on how the medical system is holding up. In South Korea they got it contained, everybody who needed it got an ICU, and the case fatality rate is less than 1%. In Wuhan they were almost overwhelmed but built some extra hospitals then the they'd been in lockdown longer than the incubation period and they ended up with a bit over a 3% case fatality ratio. In Italy right now the worst hit hospitals are very overwhelmed and performing desperate triage with many infected medical workers and they've got a case fatality ratio over 8%.
Of course, case fatality ratio only covers diagnosed cases. If people with a light fever stay home and don't get tested they won't show up in the denominator and the case fatality ratio will be an exaggeration of the actual fatality ratio. How much of the difference between South Korea and Italy right now is due to which of those factors? I honestly don't know but I am worried. I think mortality rates similar to the Spanish flu could certainly occur if we respond badly enough.
I've not heard any health officials suggest that age is a factor in South Korea's response to the virus. They're only about 3 years younger than Italians [1] -- but have 4x as many hospital beds per capita [2].
It's less about the median age than the numbers in the categories at highest risk. If you compare the population pyramids of the two Italy has many more people over 65. Number of hospital beds per capita is also a big deal.
Note that diagnosis of the Spanish flu would also not have been complete. Actually, it was almost certainly worse; I don't believe they then had much of a test beyond "do they have the classic symptoms".
Even if the mortality rates are similar, it looks probable that fewer people will end up being infected by this virus before we get a handle on it. Also don't forget the Spanish flu was concurrent with WW1. Holy double whammy.
Note that I'm not trying to minimize the current situation. However comparing existing situations to worse ones is a stoic coping strategy.
Wars tend to give economic growth and technological advancement as consolation prizes, though. I don't see that happening here. I hope we can get at least an improved public health system out of it, but I fear we won't get even that.
While WWII gave economic advantage to united states, places where it happened were destroyed and in loss. Wars are economic advantage also if you get to get colony you can exploit - but colony looses a lot.
Syria gained no growth. Places that got destabilized by war and became great playground for local warlords got no growth.
Wars are pretty much catastrophy for most involved.
Given how simple[1] coronavirus would be to solve if people took it seriously and opted to socially distance as much as possible, it's rather sad that we're bounding how terrible it will be by the some of worst catastrophes ever to be suffered by humanity rather than by something like a recession.
Deprive the fire of it's fuel and it goes out. In this case the fuel is people and the virus is the fire. If nearly everyone isolated themselves in their homes for a 2 or 3 weeks the virus would run out of people to infect. Essentially what they had to do in Wuhan. We aren't taking it seriously enough in the West to do this.
The problem is, though, that we live in a very connected world. If absolutely everyone, worldwide, isolated themselves, then yes, the virus would die out. But if everyone does so except Iran, say, or Oklahoma, then Iran or Oklahoma reinfect the world and everyone has to do it again.
Oklahoma would be very hard. Iran would be easier for us... but not for Iraq. You probably couldn't prohibit travel from Iraq into Syria. And so it goes...
People often harp on this point, but plagues travelled the globe long before globalization. They just moved a bit slower from area to area. But they were quite devastating in less connected ages.
Why are people freaking out about this? The upper end of the mortality rate is 3% imho that's simply not nearly high enough to garner this kind of reaction. Polio had a 30% mortality rate for adults, let's keep some perspective here.
Yes, perspective matters, so here's another: 3% x number of infections. What fraction of the population were exposed to polio vs what fraction are going to be exposed to coronavirus?
It is the product of these factors which is causing the "freaking out" as you call it.
When the German chancellor is declaring 60% of the population will become infected, you start to get a sense of the scale.
If you look at just first world nations[0], you're talking a total population of 1.04 billion people. 60% of that is 630 million people. 3% of that 60% is 18 million people that could die just in the first world nations.
technically it is not wrong, after all it is backed by actual, true science. That being said, this estimation assumes that nothing will change, so no working counter measures of any kind.
In reality, you have China. They are nowhere near these numbers. In Germany trade show get cancelled, events get cancelled, soccer games take place without spectators, schools close. Quarantine measures will certainly be put in place as well when needed. All this helps to keep infections down and slow the spreading. It worked in China after all.
I am no expert on diseaes, but I did my fair amount of number crunching. And that tell me that just taking the current average of deaths and infections, currently somewhere around 3.4%, extrapolate the number of infections worldwide and multiply the two doesn't fly. At the very least you have to brake down the world population by age groups based on the same groups we have specific mortality rates for. doing so already gives you a better picture and a more realistic number. Nobody who comes up with expected fatalities seems to bother to do so.
Obviously, that leaves the whole impact of counter-measures out of the equation. it doesn't account for time nor for any regionl clusters of people. Neither does it account for any local shortages due to an overwhelmed medical system for certain periods in certain regions. Or for any steps taken to counter these effects. To properly do so requires a full scale modelling of this thing. unfortunately the numbers are changing quite fast, so building these models is quite ifficult i suspect.
You would also have to account for margins of error and the fact that testing is a major influence in any parameter of this model. And testing varies highly between countries.
TLDR: The numbers a re a mess, calculation and modelling is difficult and everything is changing daily. Good luck with coming up with any reliable predictions.
I would love to see numbers for testing so. Especially how many tests have been conducted by region, how many where positive and how many negative. Ideally over time.
Agreed and when we find out that the actual mortality rate is only .1% after 50mil+ people have been infected then will people come back on hacker news and recant? Will they explain to everyone that their reaction was largely based on fear and apologize for attempting to spread that fear to as many people as they possible could?
I gave that some thought lately. Because I simply don't get it why people would do that. Virus or not, I simply don't get that kind of behaviour, I have a long history where this bites my ass scially.
My current theory is that people are just scared. The numbers seem scary (no baseline as things like the flu are not nearly as thoroughly reported by the press) and every new infection and fatality is extensovely covered, whle the bigger picture isn't. Then this whole thing is just one big unknown, and humans are programmed to fear the unknown. Then you have confirmation bias, people tend to seek information confirming their opinions. Social media is designed to reinforce this bias, media is ware of that an needs clicks.This further reinforces this effect.
Also people want confirmation, so they actally seek out these filter bubbles. Humans in general also tend to be bad at risk management and evaluation. So, psychlogically I suspect it is just fear, combined with a desire for confirmation. Because, as crazy it is in my eyes, sharing your fears makes it easier for you to bear. Others not being affraid and giving you pushback on that is the last thing these people want or need.
I have still no idea how tackle that, spreading fear is still just plain wrong. Pushback and facts don't seem to work, so no idea what would.
Even if this turns out to be VERY bad the fear response is nonsensical. If a Grizzly bear is charging you down panicking is not going to help. If you want to see what a measured response to something like this looks like, go speak to a therapist/physiologist and gauge their reaction. Hell, go speak with anyone who has seen real combat and ask them how they feel about the general public's reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak.
So, 8 days later. I think fear is useful if it changes people's behaviour, which appears to be the ONLY THING we have to fight this at the moment. If we can deal with hoarding through social pressure and law as a last resort, we might be okay.
But please compare/contrast the current state of play:
My point entirely! Fun fact, so. Wr traveled to what was declared today by the German Robert Koch Institute as a risk zone in France. Travel 10 days ago, so self quarantine until Sunday.
Death rate for those with comorbidities varies from 13.2-10.5% for cardiovascular disease to 7.6-5.6% for cancer.
People you know are going to die. If your parents are over 60 and otherwise healthy there’s a good chance they’ll die. If they are any way ill it’s even more likely.
Any children that are in utero while their mother is infected are likely to have
> lower educational attainment, increased rates of physical disability, lower income, lower socioeconomic status, and higher transfer payments compared with other birth cohorts
I think it might be because so much is still unknown and Italy's death % keeps going up due to their medical facilities being heavily overloaded.
In Long Island, NY 6 people were recently confirmed infected. All but one is hospitalized but the problem is 2 are in their 20s, 2 are in their 30s, 1 is in their 40s and 1 is in their 80s. The only one not hospitalized is an early 20s woman[0].
The reports don't explicitly say if they had prior health conditions or not but most reporting up until now always included if the patient had prior health conditions.
In any case, this doesn't seem to be limited to the old and sickly. Italian doctors are also saying they are seeing a large influx of younger healthy people needing critical care. This is folks having their lungs punctured and needing mechanical breathing machines to avoid drowning to death from liquid build up in their lungs.
Eventual exposure of something like 60-70% of the world's population is plausible (whereas it certainly never was for polio). That's a _lot_ of deaths.
Look at Italy. The hospitals and ICUs are completely overwhelmed. They're out of ventilators. Healthcare workers are being infected and having to quarantine. Italy has an advanced healthcare system. Italy is the US in 2 or 3 weeks. The US has fewer hospital beds per capita than Italy.
Look at Iran or any other country reporting a high rate of infection. Why are they not reporting the same tolls as Italy? Obviously, there is something going on there that other countries aren't having to deal with.
The US only had 15,000 polio cases in 1900. Right now there are only 1,000 known Covid-19 cases in the US but that number is doubling faster than once a week and without people freaking out about it it'll end up infecting more than 50% of the population in a few months.
"Assuming a 22% daily exponential progress in live cases (the current stable
rate in the past week which is way below the 27%-35% range in the past 4 days),
the projected need for extra critical care hospital beds due to the Covid-19 disease (5% of total cases) will outstrip the total ICU beds available in Europe in at the end of March"
