So how deadly is it? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15079690
Sivad wrote:and blackjack is now MAGAing for the flulag. :knife:

Sivad wrote:don't MAGA for the flulag, blackjack, that's gay as fuck.

Can you explain? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

annatar1914 wrote:Oh sure, I think you're probably right about that. However I don't think it serves them well to exaggerate too much, that could bite them in the ass later as well.

I heard another comment that said the 20M phones that went offline are due to their social credit system. People complaining about the quarantine, etc. have their phones shut off.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15079692
blackjack21 wrote:I heard another comment that said the 20M phones that went offline are due to their social credit system. People complaining about the quarantine, etc. have their phones shut off.


Do you have a source? I'm very curious about this. I also thought their citizen rating system wasn't fully online yet?
#15079694
blackjack21 wrote:

I heard another comment that said the 20M phones that went offline are due to their social credit system. People complaining about the quarantine, etc. have their phones shut off.


That would make kind of sense too. What a world we live in!
#15079715
BeesKnee5 wrote:Oh yes they are,
There is no existing immunity to this and so no reason to expect some demographics are less susceptible to the infection.


Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown a markedly low proportion of cases among children. Age disparities in observed cases could be explained by assortative mixing patterns and reactive school closures which decrease mixing between children, or by children exhibiting lower susceptibility to infection, or by children having a lower propensity to show clinical symptoms. We formally test these hypotheses by fitting an age-structured mathematical model to epidemic data from six countries, finding strong age dependence in the probability of developing clinical symptoms, rising from around 20% in under 10s to over 70% in older adults. We find that interventions aimed at halting transmission in children may have minimal effects on preventing cases depending on the relative transmissibility of subclinical infections. Our estimated age-specific clinical fraction has implications for the expected global burden of clinical cases because of demographic differences across settings. In younger populations, the expected clinical attack rate would be lower, although it is likely that comorbidities in low-income countries will affect disease severity. Without effective control measures, regions with older populations may see disproportionally more clinical cases, particularly in the later stages of the pandemic.

The role of age in transmission is critical to designing interventions aiming to decrease transmission in the population as a whole, and to projecting the expected global burden. Early evidence, including presented here, suggests that there is age dependence in the risk of clinical symptoms following infection. Understanding if and by how much subclinical infections contribute to transmission has implications for predicted global burden and the impact of control interventions. This question must be resolved to effectively forecast and control COVID-19 epidemics.
https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/ ... heses.html
#15079719
Sivad wrote:
Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown a markedly low proportion of cases among children. Age disparities in observed cases could be explained by assortative mixing patterns and reactive school closures which decrease mixing between children, or by children exhibiting lower susceptibility to infection, or by children having a lower propensity to show clinical symptoms. We formally test these hypotheses by fitting an age-structured mathematical model to epidemic data from six countries, finding strong age dependence in the probability of developing clinical symptoms, rising from around 20% in under 10s to over 70% in older adults. We find that interventions aimed at halting transmission in children may have minimal effects on preventing cases depending on the relative transmissibility of subclinical infections. Our estimated age-specific clinical fraction has implications for the expected global burden of clinical cases because of demographic differences across settings. In younger populations, the expected clinical attack rate would be lower, although it is likely that comorbidities in low-income countries will affect disease severity. Without effective control measures, regions with older populations may see disproportionally more clinical cases, particularly in the later stages of the pandemic.

The role of age in transmission is critical to designing interventions aiming to decrease transmission in the population as a whole, and to projecting the expected global burden. Early evidence, including presented here, suggests that there is age dependence in the risk of clinical symptoms following infection. Understanding if and by how much subclinical infections contribute to transmission has implications for predicted global burden and the impact of control interventions. This question must be resolved to effectively forecast and control COVID-19 epidemics.
https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/ ... heses.html


"Age disparities in observed cases COULD be explained"

As in they don't know.

"finding strong age dependence in the probability of developing clinical symptoms"

They confirm children show fewer symptoms, which is no surprise.

Look what happened when research looked at infected and those in close contact with them.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20028423v3

Household contacts and those travelling with a case where at higher risk of infection (ORs 6 and 7) than other close contacts. The household secondary attack rate was 15%, and children were as likely to be infected as adults.

We further show that children are at similar risk of infection as the general population, though less likely to have severe symptoms; hence should be considered in analyses of transmission and control.
#15079726
Sivad wrote:
lol
Your article is called age hypotheses for a reason. It is conjecture based on the lower rate of symptoms in children.

It's a pity that you are so desperate to meet a confirmation bias that you are unable to see this.

As shown by direct analysis of cases there is no reduced infection rate in children, only a reduced level of symptoms.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15079727
A lot of posters are using bad science to create a scare. That a lot of people are unable or uninterested in a cold, statistical analysis of COVID-19 before reacting to it, is very important.

See, you hysterical people are reacting to bad science in order to panic.

Meanwhile, when it comes to Climate Change, the same manufactured bad science has lead most people to NOT REACT. NOT PANIC. NOT CHANGE.

Both the hysterics around this flu strain, and the lack of hysterics of the world burning down and flooding, are because of the fabricated ignorance of our sick culture.
#15079729
BeesKnee5 wrote:Your article is called age hypotheses for a reason. It is conjecture based on the lower rate of symptoms in children.



Stop, you're killing me.
By Sivad
#15079734
QatzelOk wrote:
Meanwhile, when it comes to Climate Change, the same manufactured bad science has lead most people to NOT REACT. NOT PANIC. NOT CHANGE.



Both the hysterics around this flu strain, and the lack of hysterics of the world burning down and flooding, are because of the fabricated ignorance of our sick culture.


public health babbitts bad, climate babbitts good. somebody's got a case of the doublethinks :lol:
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15079738
Sivad wrote:public health babbitts bad, climate babbitts good. somebody's got a case of the doublethinks :lol:

I've been watching the science of both Climate Change and COVID-19 since they both became issues. In the case of climate change, the destruction of our world was already on the radar when I was 10 years old, so I've had a lot of time to analyze and contemplate it.

Climate change is like a COVID-19 emergency that never ends until you die.

While 100,000 people dying worldwide from a particular flu strain is normal statistically, the changing pH of oceans, the increasing temperature of air and sea, and the disappearance of sea ice... are the end of the world. Or at least of humanity's time on it.

It's important to balance healthy cynicism with a real concern for others. We don't learn this in capitalist cultures.
Last edited by QatzelOk on 29 Mar 2020 20:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15079739
Sivad wrote:
Stop, you're killing me.


Seriously you are completely missing the point of the article you posted and now making a fool of yourself.

They are arguing that because children have fewer symptoms they are therefore less likely to transmit the disease.

It is nothing to do with whether they are less likely to be infected. Which is clearly disproved by the article I shared.

If you think it is showing children are less likely to be infected then I suggest you re-read the article rather than trying to be clever.
#15079740
I think it would be interesting to see how many lives were saved by all of this.

Not only the elderly and people with compromised immune systems, but also the sharp downturn in school shootings, deaths due to air pollution, traffic, and all the other negative impacts associated with our quotidian economic activities.
#15079742
BeesKnee5 wrote:Seriously you are completely missing the point of the article you posted and now making a fool of yourself.



No I'm not, you made a fool of yourself and now you're trying to save it.

If you think it is showing children are less likely to be infected then I suggest you re-read the article rather than trying to be clever.


The opening sentence is "The COVID-19 pandemic has shown a markedly low proportion of cases among children". :lol:
By Sivad
#15079743
He should just move on but he won't. :lol:
#15079744
Sivad wrote:
No I'm not, you made a fool of yourself and now you're trying to save it.



The opening sentence is "The COVID-19 pandemic has shown a markedly low proportion of cases among children.


You're going to need to read a bit further to understand why that is the case but the rest of the article makes it clear that it is due to fewer children presenting with symptoms.

You really don't want to understand do you?
#15079746
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it would be interesting to see how many lives were saved by all of this.

Not only the elderly and people with compromised immune systems, but also the sharp downturn in school shootings, deaths due to air pollution, traffic, and all the other negative impacts associated with our quotidian economic activities.
In the UK the death rate has been significantly lower since controls were introduced.
The instruction to wash hands has cut the cases of norovirus significantly.
#15079753
BeesKnee5 wrote:You're going to need to read a bit further to understand why that is the case but the rest of the article makes it clear that it is due to fewer children presenting with symptoms.


No it doesn't, the authors conclude that they don't really know if it's asymptomatic cases or fewer cases. But the whole point here is demographic incidence is crucial to any projection and you made your Dunning–Kruger projection without even considering that.
#15079754
Sivad wrote:
No it doesn't, the authors conclude that they don't really know if it's asymptomatic cases or fewer cases. But the whole point here is demographic incidence is crucial to any projection and you made your Dunning–Kruger projection without even considering that.



Don't worry, you'll see plenty of death.

Not as much as you want, but enough to tide you over, for a while, anyway.
#15079755
Sivad wrote:
No it doesn't, the authors conclude that they don't really know if it's asymptomatic cases or fewer cases. But the whole point here is demographic incidence is crucial to any projection and you made your Dunning–Kruger projection without even considering that.


One last go and then I quit.

'We formally test these hypotheses by fitting an age-structured mathematical model to epidemic data from six countries,'

The epidemic data is tests from these countries. Who do you think is being tested most?
Sick people or kids with no symptoms?

Strange you are choosing to ignore the research I shared.
Image
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 32

Great find @ingliz .

Antifa are anarchist loosers they can not start a […]

Donald in the Bunker

Looks like donald is reaping the hatred, anger an[…]

Democrats praise and fund the biggest killer of bl[…]