So how deadly is it? - Page 13 - 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.
#15079758
BeesKnee5 wrote:One last go and then I quit.


you should have quit like 10 goes back, but I'm happy that you didn't have the sense to. :)

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


What's your point? That's just the methodology, how does that save your dunning kruger blunder? I think it only serves to illustrate your incompetence, you didn't even know that was at question and you were making total death projections. :knife:


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


Well if it's kids with no symptoms then your Imperial model is garbage. You don't even understand the basic implications of your bullshit, you're just hoping most people are too stupid to notice the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions.

Strange you are choosing to ignore the research I shared.


I haven't ignored anything, post it and I'll comment.
#15079759
Sivad wrote:Well if it's kids with no symptoms then your Imperial model is garbage .


Since when was it my model?

Sivad wrote: you were making total death projections. :knife:


Using the data you had provided

Sivad wrote:I haven't ignored anything, post it and I'll comment.


I posted it hours ago and have referenced it several times
Last edited by BeesKnee5 on 29 Mar 2020 22:27, edited 1 time in total.
#15079762
BeesKnee5 wrote:I posted it hours ago and have referenced it several times


You're gonna have to point me to it because I don't what "research" I'm allegedly ignoring here?
#15079764
BeesKnee5 wrote:I'm sure you will find it if you open your eyes.


so it's a retarded game of coy then? :lol: Just post your shit or at least hint at what you're talking about? :lol:
#15079767
BeesKnee5 wrote:Using the data you had provided


I didn't give you data for a total deaths projection. :lol: you are profoundly confused.
#15079769
Sivad wrote:
I didn't give you data for a total deaths projection. you are profoundly confused.
No, you gave me research claiming 86% are not identified, based on the current totals only representing the 14% I showed how that could be used to extrapolate a figure

I swear you are so busy with the emojis you miss half of what is posted.
#15079771
BeesKnee5 wrote:No, you gave me research claiming 86% are not identified, based on the current totals only representing the 14% I showed how that could be used to extrapolate a figure


No it can't, that's your dunning kruger blunder I'm laughing at. and you still don't get it. :lol:

I swear you are so busy with the emojis you miss half of what is posted.


So you're still not posting the big research I was forced to ignore? :lol: I can't find an emoji that adequately conveys the retardedness of this conversation. I don't think such an emoji is even possible. :lol:
#15079773
Sivad wrote:You can say that but it's not accurate. That's not how a doctor would explain it in a medical report. I just read an article about how a lot of doctors were complaining about the cause of death forms they have to fill out because the forms require them to oversimplify. "the virus killed them" is what we say in everyday speech but it's medically incorrect.

In their medical reports they discuss immediate and intermediate(or underlying) causes of death. It's not straightforward and there's a big problem with doctors filling out the forms incorrectly.

Immediate cause of death:The final disease or injury causing the death.
Intermediate cause of death: A disease or condition that preceded and caused the immediate cause of death.
Underlying cause of death: A disease or condition present before, and leading to, the intermediate or immediate cause of death. It can be present for years before the death.

It's certainly much more medically correct than your description. And after telling me that these people die of oldness you are now lecturing that the issue is complicated. Make your mind up, please.

Viruses like that, if unrestricted, sweep through at risk populations and kill a lot of people who would otherwise have lived for years. Often this includes older people, sometimes the very young and rarer people in their prime. These are preventable deaths and hence should be counted. As far as the counting goes, it's really that simple. And it's not like the other conditions aren't recorded. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the information you're using to downplay the situation.

Note also that in the case of Northern Italy you are already seeing the result of triaging, so that the picture is even more skewed towards older and sick people than it would be anyway, yet here you are using this "artificial" bias caused by limited capacity to argue that this is nothing serious.

Of course, you are also ignoring the issue of possible under-counting, since we can only make an attribution for those who have been tested.

The UK has preliminary statistics about how many people in critical care die compared with influenza. While the percentages for Covid may well change in the future, keep in mind that the UK healthcare system is still coping with the number of patients:

Image
At this point, roughly 50% of critical care patients die in the UK.

fokker wrote:The eastern EU is taking a more careful approach as it doesn't want to end up in blind alley. But it's been communicated here already that the government won't attempt to stop the pandemic. This buys them time to better prepare for rise of cases. It's expected eventually most people will get it, but without overloading the healthcare system. The number of new cases is slowly accelerating despite all restrictions.

That's my impression as well, although what's next isn't really communicated clearly. To some extent this is because of uncertainty, but my main question is how this is going to be accomplished without us going collectively bankrupt. It will take years for enough people to get infected to develop herd immunity and even if we're counting on a vaccine this is at least 12 months away. Not to be alarmist, but I've already seen news that countries have started to hoard staples.

I think that eradication should have been at least attempted much more seriously and forcefully, but this seems to have never been regarded as a realistic option in western countries. There's been a weird kind of fatalism all the way through this as well as a lot of misinformation and outright lies by official sources. Thinking especially about masks here but also other stuff.

On a small upside, the open border enthusiasts will go into a long hibernation and possibly the idea is going to be killed stone dead.
#15079775
Sivad wrote:
No it can't, that's your dunning kruger blunder I'm laughing at. and you still don't get it.



So you're still not posting the big research I was forced to ignore? I can't find an emoji that adequately conveys the retardedness of this conversation. I don't think such an emoji is even possible.


The arrogance is strong in this one.

Is it really so hard to look back a dozen or so posts ?

Here's the big take away from actually testing those infected and the people they've been in contact with in a controlled manner.

"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."
#15079782
For those with a weak memory, here's @BeesKnee5's research again to which he posted a link just one page ago.
Abstract

Background Rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan prompted heightened surveillance in Shenzhen and elsewhere in China. The resulting data provide a rare opportunity to measure key metrics of disease course, transmission, and the impact of control. Methods The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 SARS-CoV-2 cases from January 14 to February 12, 2020 and 1286 close contacts. We compare cases identified through symptomatic surveillance and contact tracing, and estimate the time from symptom onset to confirmation, isolation, and hospitalization. We estimate metrics of disease transmission and analyze factors influencing transmission risk. Findings Cases were older than the general population (mean age 45) and balanced between males (187) and females (204). Ninety-one percent had mild or moderate clinical severity at initial assessment. Three have died, 225 have recovered (median time to recovery is 21 days). Cases were isolated on average 4.6 days after developing symptoms; contact tracing reduced this by 1.9 days. 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. The observed reproductive number was 0.4, with a mean serial interval of 6.3 days. Interpretation Our data on cases as well as their infected and uninfected close contacts provide key insights into SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. This work shows that heightened surveillance and isolation, particularly contact tracing, reduces the time cases are infectious in the community, thereby reducing R. Its overall impact, however, is uncertain and highly dependent on the number of asymptomatic cases. 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.
By Sivad
#15079786
I'm pofoed out for now but I'll come back and laugh at you later.
#15079791
Kaiserschmarrn's link wrote:We further show that children are at similar risk of infection as the general population, though less likely to have severe symptoms;

Infection isn't a bad thing at all if you don't get symptoms. In fact, it's a good thing because you build up anti-bodies to this and similar strains.

Mind you, there are no anti-bodies to climate change, so for all your science illiterates, let's stay on panic mode.
#15079797
QatzelOk wrote:Infection isn't a bad thing at all if you don't get symptoms. In fact, it's a good thing because you build up anti-bodies to this and similar strains.

Mind you, there are no anti-bodies to climate change, so for all your science illiterates, let's stay on panic mode.


Absolutely it's a good thing.
I think there have been a few under 5 deaths but generally kids are coming through this unscathed.

It's when they kiss granny the problem comes.
#15079800
BeesKnee5 wrote:Absolutely it's a good thing.
I think there have been a few under 5 deaths but generally kids are coming through this unscathed.

It's when they kiss granny the problem comes.

Once Granny gets off that cruiseship, she needs to drive her giant SUV back to her waterfront McMansion, and stay indoors plotting her next trip abroad. That way, she'll be safe (but her grandkids will not).
#15079822
QatzelOk wrote:Infection isn't a bad thing at all if you don't get symptoms. In fact, it's a good thing because you build up anti-bodies to this and similar strains.

The problem is that they may be spreading the virus and thereby getting a lot of people hospitalised. And it's not only the people who end up in hospital and die because of the virus, but at that point, all other people who need hospital care are affected as well. Additionally, hospitals will be considered a danger themselves and many people, especially the ones at higher risk, who would have otherwise sought help might not go there in order to prevent infection.
By B0ycey
#15079891
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I think that eradication should have been at least attempted much more seriously and forcefully, but this seems to have never been regarded as a realistic option in western countries.


I think you and Atlantis know your stuff. It is a shame others don't. The only problem I have with the Wests language is at some point they are going to have to communicate it better to explain that deaths will rise once restrictions are lifted because infections will occur. Slowing the spread is fine at giving you time to prepare and easing pressure on your health service at any given time. But whilst you haven't eradicated the virus your still endangering people with potential infection whilst extending the length of time we will have to go through with this. That isn't to say the advice is wrong. Only that perhaps if you want to get this thing over with, it simply isn't strong enough.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15079908
This is the response by leading scientists to the Oxford report

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... -covid-19/

Dr Simon Gubbins, Group Leader – Transmission Biology, The Pirbright Institute, said:
Is this good quality research?
“Yes."
Does it show that over half the UK population has been infected with COVID-19?
“No.
What does this paper tell us about asymptomatic infection and mortality rate?
“Nothing much about either."

Prof James Naismith, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, University of Oxford, said:
“This theoretical simulation rests on a key assumption which may be or may not be correct. "

Prof James Wood, Head of Department of Veterinary Medicine, and researcher in Infection dynamics and control of diseases, said:
“This work is some simple modelling that tries to infer infection rates by fitting models to observed mortality."
"The authors acknowledge that their results are very sensitive to the assumptions that they have made, "

Prof Paul Hunter, Professor in Medicine, University of East Anglia, said:
“However, in my view the model presented by Lourenço and colleagues suffers from a number of key failings which make me doubt its utility."
" I accept that this model might well generate matches with the observed epidemic trajectories to date, but in my view it should not be given much credibility"

Prof Mark Woolhouse, Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, said:
"This is a legitimate idea but is very hard to prove by fitting models to early-stage epidemic data, which is what Laurenco et al. attempt. It therefore remains a hypothesis rather than fact. "

Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor in Cellular Microbiology, University of Reading,
"We need to know much more about the immunology of this virus before we make such confident predictions."

Prof Rowland Kao, Sir Timothy O’Shea Professor of Veterinary Epidemiology and Data Science, University of Edinburgh, said:
"the exact figures must be viewed with caution. The analysis is based on an abstract model which does not account for spatial distribution of infection, and neither the countries in this analysis (Italy or Great Britain) has presented an even geographic distribution of infection. This unevenness of exposure must be taken into account before the figures being presented here can be considered to be broadly applicable."

Prof Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology, University of Nottingham, said:
“This is interesting work, but is hampered by the same issues that impacts on all epidemiological models – they rely on assumptions that at the moment are based on only a paucity of scientific fact about how thus virus transmits."



Far better to look at research based on the actual data than models until they are able to match existing spread accurately and start coming to a common agreement.

Like this:
A town of three thousand inhabitants where all tested for the covid-19 virus.
https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medici ... P3-S2.4-T1

50-75% of those infected were asymptomatic.

In Vo '- Romagnani points out - with the isolation of infected subjects, the total number of patients fell from 88 to 7 (at least 10 times less) within 7-10 days. The isolation of the infected (symptomatic or non-symptomatic) was not only able to protect other people from contagion, but also appeared to protect against the serious evolution of the disease in infected subjects because the cure rate in infected patients, if isolated, was in 60% of cases equal to just 8 days.

This is why infection rates are so low in South Korea etc, they are catching asymptomatic cases and therefore cutting the chain of infection.

There is another aspect that is becoming clear, the bigger the viral load you are initially infected with then the less time your body has to fight it and therefore the more likely it is to kill you. It's why doctors and nurses are being affected more than those of a similar age in the population.
By Rich
#15079912
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I think that eradication should have been at least attempted much more seriously and forcefully, but this seems to have never been regarded as a realistic option in western countries.

The Chinese Communist party, the WHO and their vast army of Cultural Marxist allies who have infested every institution in the West were absolutely determined to not contain this within China. The CCP has enormous reach within the West, it has enormous power to threaten and reward. Once they were sure that this had spread and was uncontainable, the WHO turned on a sixpence and started to attack the West for not following the CCP's noble example.

The demented, crazed ideology of Globalist Cultural Marxism has been exposed. Lock down China, oh no we couldn't do that, that would be racist and t wouldn't be worth the cost. Lock down every White person in the world, oh that's different. Cultural Marxists can't get enough of lock down now. Don't think that these Liberals care about saving lives though, any-more than the Russian Communist party care about ordinary Ukrainians in the Holdomor. Sadik Kahn in London has been deliberately trying to spread the virus, by continually restricting transport more and more forcing the many people still working into tighter and tighter spaces.

That's Britain, where we haven't got an election due for nearly five years. Is anyone on this forum really so stupid as to believe that Cultural Marxists in the US, number one priority is the preservation of life? Never mind the old, a lot of these people would sacrifice their first born son if would get rid of Trump. A lot of people's grasp of even basic economics is pretty hazy that is true. A lot of people will tend to go along with what ever the fashionable "expert opinion" on economics is at the time. But the hard core of the Cultural Marxists are not oblivious to the economic risks, oh no, they are hoping to crash the economy, they're hoping to ruin businesses. They are hoping to see food shortages. They are hoping to see economic and societal break down. Everyone of the potential victims of this lock down is not a tragedy for them, its a potential voter for Biden in November.
Last edited by Rich on 30 Mar 2020 15:33, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 34

@XogGyux There was enough of them to get Trump […]

This is a bit rushed and like a lot of my posts yo[…]

Swedish death rate plunges by 51%

There are so many issues when it comes to country[…]

Trump/Twitter insanity

Trump goes nuts, tells people he's taking hydroxyc[…]