This just means that testing was limiting factor before but thats not a surprise based on the papers coming out. We even see this is data like cases/per test. We get far less case per the test we have now because we've tested all the obvious people.
In all actuality way more people were infected before, the deaths per infections is much higher and virus is much less deadly than the 3.4% the WHO quoted or the .5% we thought it was in NYC.
Epidemiologists note that successful viruses don't kill their host. Covid-19 has all the hallmarks of a virus that will evolve into a strain (or strains) that will be part of the regular flu season - marked by severe symptoms. Of course the elderly and immunocompromised people will always be at greater risk of death due to any form of the flu.
When hospitals and first responders began using PPE to handle all virus patients it isolated the most lethal strains of the virus and significantly reduced the spread in the general population.
In addition, critical care units now have the ventilators and protocols needed to more effectively deal with the virus.
Just means healthcare providers have used the time to ramp up.
If the acceleration of the infection rate continues at a pace that would eventually surpass the scalability of healthcare provisioning, we're back in the pits. A lot of local and state governments are trying to balance these two in order to keep some semblance of normality while enabling healthcare providers to manage caseloads and keep deaths down.
Ramp up what exactly? There is no cure or treatment available to this day. This is how it looked in Italy 3 months ago during the peak, Two hospitals, not a single patient survived ventilation/ecmo at the time of recording:
No, no. The virus is over. The pandemic was multiple news cycles ago. Say the death rate doubles 2-3 times a week, but deaths right now are very low. In that case we're fine. Forget about exponential growth, that's so March 2020.
EDIT: Folks have already raised the following objections:
(a) My sarcasm above is lame and pointless, because we all know some people take the position that the virus is much less dangerous now.
(b) My sarcastic comment above is an unfair straw man argument. (I.e. nobody really takes that position.)
(c) The virus really is less dangerous than it was believed to be in March (though nobody has so far questioned the fact that death rates were doubling every 2-3 days back then).
(d) The virus has changed. It is actually different and less dangerous than it was in March.
Someone saw fit to downvote, which is part of the process.
But I'm curious. Does that mean you see that I intended heavy sarcasm, but you disagree with my actual position (i.e. that we're still in danger)? Or that you disapprove of sarcasm on HN or w/r/t COVID-19? Or the sarcasm didn't come through in what I wrote? Something else?
Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.
It means that your sarcastic comment didn't add anything to the discussion. We know people behave like that, however, jokingly imitating them doesn't add anything to the thread and is just a lame joke.
Thanks. Since HN is overrun right now with people who are more or less denying that the virus is dangerous, I have to disagree with you. But it's nice to know what you're thinking.
I am probably the archetype of the straw man you invented in your comment regarding people saying the virus is not dangerous. Let me make a few things clear to you and the others who see this as a binary proposition.
This virus is _very_ dangerous to specific groups of people. We know this not only through observation but also through a more complete understanding on its spread, mechanism of action and cross-reactivity. We also know, with a good deal of certainty, that there are also groups who are at a very, very low level of risk from this virus.
What the people you so easily disparage are arguing is not that the virus is not dangerous, but that we are not responding to the actual threat, but rather the perceived threat based on data that is now 5 months old. And that by making this mistake, we are increasing danger to not only those at risk to the virus but also those who are at low risk through our obtuse response.
There are facts which can't be denied. The IFR is NOT anywhere near as high as we once feared. This is good news! We have two treatments that seem to help. This is good news! We understand that a majority of those infected will exhibit minor or no symptoms. This is good news! But we are still _acting_ as if this has a 2% IFR and no treatment.
We have less certainty, but are still researching the following. There is evidence that cross-reactivity in T-Cells with other coronaviruses is helping reduce the impact on a large portion of the population. We see evidence that _something_ has changed in the virus in the past 6 months. Genome sequencing hasn't revealed if this is true or not, but the research is ongoing. We see that outdoor spread is very unlikely. We believe nosocomial spread is a primary means. We see that super-spreaders may account for more of the spread than asymptomatic incidental contact. We have contradicting evidence of lockdown efficacy. And most importantly, we have not seen a TRUE 2nd wave. What is going on in the USA is not a 2nd wave at the community level, no community that had a large first wave is currently seeing a second wave.
Finally, there is debate around whether the herd immunity level is far lower than once thought. Michael Levitt and others are postulating that around 20-25% of the population needs to be infected to see a sharp decline in infections. This has played out in a lot of continental Europe, NYC and the UK.
So it isn't as simple as your snide sarcasm would have us believe. This is why actual debate is needed, not dismissive arrogance as displayed by your comments.
Three months ago deaths were doubling every 2 to 3 days. That's some of the little data we really have. Same virus (although there are speculations that perhaps now there are multiple forms). We're being more careful about transmission ... except when we're not. We seem to be better at treatment. Vulnerable population is unchanged.
In all actuality way more people were infected before, the deaths per infections is much higher and virus is much less deadly than the 3.4% the WHO quoted or the .5% we thought it was in NYC.