Wow, it’s getting really scary in Texas - and everywhere else!

[Montecfo]

Getting there rapidly. Texas had over 8000(!) new covid hospital admissions yesterday.

No.

And deaths unlikely to reach the rate of first wave with this younger cohort.

 

[eytonxav]

DFW, you are beginning to sound like one of the dangerous radicals who infest this site.

"Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous." - Shakespeare

You can't go wrong when you go right, but not too far

 

[brewer12345]

No.

And deaths unlikely to reach the rate of first wave with this younger cohort.

I imagine that physicians learning how to treat the disease after the experiences in NY and NJ will help reduce mortality as well. With the sub 60 crowd, the question is morbidity rather than mortality.

 

[grasshopper]

Morning coffee brew works just fine for this purpose. No special spray needed.

Coffee brewing in the morning test, glass of Pinot Noir for testing purposes in the afternoon soon to be lunchtime test.

 

[audreyh1]

No.

And deaths unlikely to reach the rate of first wave with this younger cohort.

Different parts of the country are in different “waves” so we don’t know how bad it will get in the new epicenter states. Will they see a lower death rate than NY/NJ did? - yes, for several reasons. But unless they can slow the spread and reduce the number of cases, deaths will ultimately accumulate, especially if hospitals can’t handle the continued surge in patients. None of us knows how this will turn out.

 

[Montecfo]

I imagine that physicians learning how to treat the disease after the experiences in NY and NJ will help reduce mortality as well. With the sub 60 crowd, the question is morbidity rather than mortality.

Brewer, good realistic assessment. Also more using steroid based treatments such as Math+.

 

[Montecfo]

Different parts of the country are in different “waves” so we don’t know how bad it will get in the new epicenter states. Will they see a lower death rate than NY/NJ did? - yes, for several reasons. But unless they can slow the spread and reduce the number of cases, deaths will ultimately accumulate, especially if hospitals can’t handle the continue surge in patients. None of us knows how this will turn out.

Scientifically speaking, we know younger folks have dramatically lower mortality. NY/NJ death counts were driven by older folks in nursing homes.

More cases will result in more deaths, yes. But hospitalization and death rates are far lower.

More widespread testing is resulting in more asymptomatic positives. These are still "cases" but they are not the same as first wave cases administered to folks who were sick or very sick. Nor do they have the same duration.

You see the bed capacity expanding and it can expand more. 24/7 cataclysmic Covid news has a way of scaring people "straight". Perhaps it will bring Texas and particularly Houston to the place the northeast has been for a long time as far as prioritizing health.

That will be a huge positive.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

Yesterday i read in local news that you will notice the total number of staffed beds went down bc it was discovered that they had been including NICU and mental health beds as beds available for covid. Not quite the same, folks.

https://www.tpr.org/post/san-antoni...Vd1q06f2gLC_a2SGvKp8m2dMJI#Echobox=1593975629

 

[brewer12345]

Scientifically speaking, we know younger folks have dramatically lower mortality. NY/NJ death counts were driven by older folks in nursing homes.

More cases will result in more deaths, yes. But hospitalization and death rates are far lower.

More widespread testing is resulting in more asymptomatic positives. These are still "cases" but they are not the same as first wave cases administered to folks who were sick or very sick. Nor do they have the same duration.

You see the bed capacity expanding and it can expand more. 24/7 cataclysmic Covid news has a way of scaring people "straight". Perhaps it will bring Texas and particularly Houston to the place the northeast has been for a long time as far as prioritizing health.

That will be a huge positive.

Hmmm, more beds isn't that hard. More doctors and nurses has limits.

 

[Montecfo]

Hmmm, more beds isn't that hard. More doctors and nurses has limits.

Sure. But doctors and nurses migrate from nearby areas to where need is greatest. This happened in NY/NJ and it is already happening in the Texas hotspots.

 

[gerntz]

There are media reports that the hospitals are being overrun here in north Texas, mostly Dallas and Tarrant counties. When I look at Tarrant counties health department stats this morning, that does not appear to be the case. Total bed capacity is 5683 with 3874 occupied beds, but only 533 of the occupied beds are Covid cases. While social distancing and mask wearing takes personal responsibility, I do not know why the media wants to hold the government responsible for folks that refuse to be individually responsible. From my perspective opening the economy and controlling the pandemic are not mutually exclusive.

Good informative & thoughtful post. Thanks.

 

[audreyh1]

Scientifically speaking, we know younger folks have dramatically lower mortality. NY/NJ death counts were driven by older folks in nursing homes.

More cases will result in more deaths, yes. But hospitalization and death rates are far lower.

More widespread testing is resulting in more asymptomatic positives. These are still "cases" but they are not the same as first wave cases administered to folks who were sick or very sick. Nor do they have the same duration.

You see the bed capacity expanding and it can expand more. 24/7 cataclysmic Covid news has a way of scaring people "straight". Perhaps it will bring Texas and particularly Houston to the place the northeast has been for a long time as far as prioritizing health.

That will be a huge positive.

Well, I just see what is happening with the hospitals in Houston, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley right now, while daily CV cases and hospitalizations continue to climb. It will continue to get worse for a while, for how long, who knows. But there is no reason to be sanguine.

 

[gerntz]

Scientifically speaking, we know younger folks have dramatically lower mortality. NY/NJ death counts were driven by older folks in nursing homes.

More cases will result in more deaths, yes. But hospitalization and death rates are far lower.

More widespread testing is resulting in more asymptomatic positives. These are still "cases" but they are not the same as first wave cases administered to folks who were sick or very sick. Nor do they have the same duration.

You see the bed capacity expanding and it can expand more. 24/7 cataclysmic Covid news has a way of scaring people "straight". Perhaps it will bring Texas and particularly Houston to the place the northeast has been for a long time as far as prioritizing health.

That will be a huge positive.

You're good.

 

[Montecfo]

Well, I just see what is happening with the hospitals in Houston, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley right now, while daily CV cases and hospitalizations continue to climb. It will continue to get worse for a while, for how long, who knows. But there is no reason to be sanguine.

Well two things:

1. We have been through this and learned and
2. Case counts do not mean the same thing they did during the first wave. So fixation on case counts, with little to no reporting of much lower hospitalization and death rates, is misleading IMHO.

And it is a very serious situation, without doubt. I certainly do not question that.

 

[gerntz]

2. Case counts do not mean the same thing they did during the first wave. So fixation on case counts, with little to no reporting of much lower hospitalization and death rates, is misleading IMHO.

Believe it comes largely down to a much younger infections demographic now - for whatever reasons.

 

[MichaelB]

We have a focus on the fatality rate because we have no other way to measure the danger in a comparative way. More understanding of harmful but non-fatal outcomes is needed if we are to really understand the impact of this virus.

There is not enough data to draw any meaningful conclusion about hospital availability or use. There is still no uniform protocol for treatment, so it’s not clear (at least to me) how to assess hospital availability or performance.

In the meantime, IMHO it is better to prepare for the worst than assume the best.

 

[Aerides]

Well two things:

1. We have been through this and learned and
2. Case counts do not mean the same thing they did during the first wave. So fixation on case counts, with little to no reporting of much lower hospitalization and death rates, is misleading IMHO.

And it is a very serious situation, without doubt. I certainly do not question that.

Well yes and no. Definitely true that "for society" this wave is different, and there will likely be lower numbers of severe cases if the current age numbers hold. (and none of this takes into account the long-haul cases, which skew young)

But "for me" - for any individual the risk of catching it from another person has gone up, because the likelihood of any other person having it is now higher. (not accounting for social distancing and mutual mask-wearing). And if I catch it now my prognosis isn't markedly different than it was 2 months ago. Treatment protocols have improved but not leaps and bounds.

 

[Chuckanut]

No.

And deaths unlikely to reach the rate of first wave with this younger cohort.

FWIW, a while back I read an article that adjusted the death rates for each age group - 20s, 30's, 40's.... 80's. It looked at remaining years lost to death or serious complications. While the young folk still came out better than the 60+ crowd, it was not nearly as overwhelming as the raw death numbers would indicate.

Nick Cordero just died at 41. He probably lost 30 to 40 years of being an active, healthy man. OTOH, if Patrick Stewart (79) dies today he would lose maybe 10 years max.

If one is young there is less chance of being harmed by the disease, but more years of life to lose if one is harmed.

 

[Montecfo]

Well yes and no. Definitely true that "for society" this wave is different, and there will likely be lower numbers of severe cases if the current age numbers hold. (and none of this takes into account the long-haul cases, which skew young)

But "for me" - for any individual the risk of catching it from another person has gone up, because the likelihood of any other person having it is now higher. (not accounting for social distancing and mutual mask-wearing). And if I catch it now my prognosis isn't markedly different than it was 2 months ago. Treatment protocols have improved but not leaps and bounds.

I certainly made no attempt to speak to individual circumstances.

My stated suggestion is for everyone to stay safe and take this seriously. In fact this wave was the result of people failing to do so.

 

[LOL!]

A few things about Texas since I live here: Many of the early first-reported deaths occurred in senior living centers. The elderly learned quickly that they had a target on their backs and changed their behaviors.

My millennial son is reporting what is going on with his friends and age cohort. I am happy to self-quarantine and socially distance myself while they all get tested positive and see what happens. If some of them die, then the behaviors of the living might change. We shall see.

So I don't see anybody who wants to avoid getting infected from being prevented from staying away from infected people except perhaps if they are forced to go to work. I know someone who quit their job and got re-hired at another place that would let him work from home.

I am cynical and people just have to figure things out for themselves. Sorry about that.

 

[Montecfo]

We have a focus on the fatality rate because we have no other way to measure the danger in a comparative way. More understanding of harmful but non-fatal outcomes is needed if we are to really understand the impact of this virus.

There is not enough data to draw any meaningful conclusion about hospital availability or use. There is still no uniform protocol for treatment, so it’s not clear (at least to me) how to assess hospital availability or performance.

In the meantime, IMHO it is better to prepare for the worst than assume the best.

My observation is there is LITTLE focus on the fatality rate. The reporting is mainly on cases, which in my view is misleading. We now have a great deal.of voluntary testing, testing of asymptomatic folks etc. This is just not similar to the cases in the first wave which were of sick people in hospitals and doctors' offices. In fact, in the first wave you did not just have to.be sick you had to have certain risk factors or they would not even test you.

I have not heard anyone argue to assume the best but I have not read every post in this thread.

 

[Montecfo]

If one is young there is less chance of being harmed by the disease, but more years of life to lose if one is harmed.

No disagreement there. People of all ages should take all prudent steps avoid infection.

 

[audreyh1]

My observation is there is LITTLE focus on the fatality rate. The reporting is mainly on cases, which in my view is misleading. We now have a great deal.of voluntary testing, testing of asymptomatic folks etc. This is just not similar to the cases in the first wave which were of sick people in hospitals and doctors' offices. In fact, in the first wave you did not just have to.be sick you had to have certain risk factors or they would not even test you.

I have not heard anyone argue to assume the best but I have not read every post in this thread.

I think many here wouldn’t be so concerned if it was just cases increasing so rapidly. It is the corresponding rapid increase in hospitalizations that is so concerning.

 

[travelover]

My observation is there is LITTLE focus on the fatality rate. ....

My post #513 didn't get much traction, but it basically says that based on autopsy data, the virus wreaks havoc with a number of your organs and even those that live may have more lasting damage than is initially realized. To me, it just reinforces the idea that the virus is more dangerous than it might seem otherwise.

 

[Montecfo]

I think many here wouldn’t be so concerned if it was just cases increasing so rapidly. It is the corresponding increase in hospitalizations that is so concerneing.

It is definitely better to focus on hospitalizations. Also the positivity rate spike in Houston is a large concern, going from 15 pct to 25 pct in a month.

Not sure I have heard a rate that high or one that grew that much. That is definitely not a good sign. They need to do a lot more testing. Texas near the bottom in testing.