So how deadly is it? - Page 16 - 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.
#15080302
Sivad wrote:
There actually is very good reason to think that. People who are most susceptible to falling seriously ill are the people who were already being protected with isolation and distancing. These are people in nursing homes and hospitals and the elderly who everybody knows not to go around when you're sick. Those people would be the ones most likely to be hit last.

The WHO says mild cases only take two weeks or less to recover, so there have gotta be a whole lot more recovered cases than are being reported.


Seriously?
Look at the numbers of hospital admissions from people who aren't in hospital or care homes. Particularly the 40% who are under 55.
Or the numbers of doctors and healthcare staff who are suffering severe symptoms as a result of exposure. How do you explain the deaths of 60 doctors in Italy? Have they magically been isolating and lost their ability to overcome this virus?

You think staff at these homes are not bringing the virus in? If anything their reliance on close contact with others increases their chance of catching this virus.

This is now in the realms of fantasy.


Absolutely there are more recovered cases than are being reported, we don't disagree on this.
#15080304
Donna wrote:Meanwhile in the real world.


How is that relevant to anything I said? Nobody's claiming old people in nursing homes didn't get it, just that they were more insulated from it than most. Are you denying that nursing homes have strict protocols in place to prevent sick people from coming in?
By Patrickov
#15080312
Sivad wrote:Just that they were more insulated from it than most. Are you denying that nursing homes have strict protocols in place to prevent sick people from coming in?


Ehhh, sorry, I have visited a few nursing homes before, they can be as cramped as hospitals, and caretakers in some of them take less precautions than paramedics in hospitals.

And don't forget COVID-19 has a rather long incubation period that many probably have spread the virus before they actually got sick.
#15080318
BeesKnee5 wrote:Seriously?
Look at the numbers of hospital admissions from people who aren't in hospital or care homes. Particularly the 40% who are under 55.


Those people are mostly going to be diabetics, people with pulmonary and cardiovascular issues, etc, these are people who are already aware of how their preexisting conditions make them more vulnerable to serious complications from common illnesses so they'll already be taking routine precautions.

Or the numbers of doctors and healthcare staff who are suffering severe symptoms as a result of exposure. How do you explain the deaths of 60 doctors in Italy? Have they magically been isolating and lost their ability to overcome this virus?


How is any of that relevant? I never said doctors didn't get sick, all I said is that people with serious health conditions are more insulated because they're already taking precautions. It does stand to reason that in the event of an outbreak of contagious disease, as a group, these would be among the last to be hit. If you can tell me why that's not a sound line of reasoning then go right ahead.

You think staff at these homes are not bringing the virus in? If anything their reliance on close contact with others increases their chance of catching this virus.


They obviously have brought in the virus, the point here is that there are strict rules for staff, visitors, and anyone else who goes into those facilities prohibiting them from coming in sick. Those rules eliminate many potential vectors which serves to insulate the patients and residents.

This is now in the realms of fantasy.


No, it's squarely in the realm of common fucking sense.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15080320
Sivad wrote:No, it's squarely in the realm of common fucking sense.


Only if you are desperately trying to invent a narrative to save your pet project from the mauling it's getting.
By Sivad
#15080323
Patrickov wrote:Ehhh, sorry, I have visited a few nursing homes before, they can be as cramped as hospitals, and caretakers in some of them take less precautions than paramedics in hospitals.

And don't forget COVID-19 has a rather long incubation period that many probably have spread the virus before they actually got sick.


I'm not saying it's a 100% perfect system, just that it provides a measure of protections most people don't have.
By Sivad
#15080324
BeesKnee5 wrote:Only if you are desperately trying to invent a narrative to save your pet project from the mauling it's getting.


Well since you can't come up with even a halfway decent rebuttal I guess the point stands.
#15080407
Sivad wrote:No, it's squarely in the realm of common fucking sense.

This is what modern, media-addled common sense looks like:

Australia burns down: not a problem

A flu virus: a huge problem

Cuts to healthcare over the last 12 years: not a problem

Presidents not locking down fast enough- or too fast: a huge problem depending if you're a red or a blue

...

Next up: How common sense is a product of the communities we no longer have
Stay tuned!
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15080411
Some further research on asymptomatic cases.

In Nanjing 24 asymptomatic individuals who tested positive to Covid-19 and who had no underlying health concerns were followed. 17 went on to develop symptoms and the average age of those who remained asymptomatic was 14, suggesting the possibility of a viral reservoir among asymptomatic children. They remained RT-PCR positive for 9.5-21 days.

On the Diamond Princess 17.9% of the people who tested positive were asymptomatically infected, although these individuals were not clearly followed long enough to see whether they should be more appropriately described as presymptomatic.

A patient who travelled home from wuhan and tested positive 19 days after contact with someone who was asymptomatic, all the other travellers on the bus who subsequently tested positive went on to develop symptoms.
Image

55 people in Shenzen who were asymptomatic and identified as family members of patients with covid-19 that tested positive for the virus. 29% had abnormal CT scans despite no symptoms, all developed symptoms within 7 days of testing positive with the youngest more likely to have mild symptoms.

36 children (average age 8.3) in Zhejiang whose parents or close contacts had been admitted to hospital for covid-19 were tested and followed up
All where found to be infected.
19 developed moderate pnemonia
10 where asymptomatic,
7 developed actute upper respiratory symptoms.

Conclusion:
Although all paediatric patients in our cohort had mild or moderate type of COVID-19, the large proportion of asymptomatic children indicates the difficulty in identifying paediatric patients who do not have clear epidemiological information, leading to a dangerous situation in community-acquired infections.

News article in UK.
A women died of covid-19 and all 17 members of the family who attended the funeral on 13th March have symptoms within 7 days. One further member of the family has died and another is not expected to survive. They are aged 21 to 88.

Overall the key reason I'm posting this is to show why social distancing is so important and that the evidence is you are capable of infecting others days before you are aware you have the virus and even if you never develop symptoms. I'm also highlighting the paucity of evidence to support huge numbers being asymptomatic. In the UK I am very glad that the lockdown came just before mothering sunday and not afterwards as I generally believe it would've been carnage if families had all gone to visit their elderly relatives at this time.
Last edited by BeesKnee5 on 31 Mar 2020 21:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15080419
Just seen the latest Imperial estimates for percentage of population infected in some European countries.

Table 1: Posterior model estimates of percentage of total population infected as of 28th March 2020.

Country      % of total population infected (mean [95% credible interval])
Austria        1.1% [0.36%-3.1%]
Belgium        3.7% [1.3%-9.7%]
Denmark        1.1% [0.40%-3.1%]
France         3.0% [1.1%-7.4%]
Germany       0.72% [0.28%-1.8%]
Italy          9.8% [3.2%-26%]
Norway        0.41% [0.09%-1.2%]
Spain           15% [3.7%-41%]
Sweden         3.1% [0.85%-8.4%]
Switzerland    3.2% [1.3%-7.6%]
United Kingdom 2.7% [1.2%-5.4]

Interesting that they now think up to 41% Spanish infected. It's clear they still have a lot of uncertainty in their figures.
#15080486
Comparison with Swine Flu

The overall case fatality rate as of 16 July 2009 (10 weeks after the first international alert) with pandemic H1N1 influenza varied from 0.1% to 5.1% depending on the country. The WHO reported that swine flu ended up with a fatality rate of 0.02%.

[...]

We could make a simple estimation of the IFR as 0.26%, based on halving the lowest boundary of the CFR prediction interval. However, the considerable uncertainty over how many people have the disease means an IFR of 0.26 is likely an overestimate. In Swine flu, the IFR ended up as 0.02%, fivefold less than the lowest estimate during the outbreak (the lowest estimate was 0.1% in the 1st ten weeks of the outbreak). In Iceland, where the most testing per capita has occurred, the IFR lies between. 0.01% and 0.19%.

Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at large, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR between 0.1% and 0.26%.*

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-co ... ity-rates/
By Sivad
#15080487
BeesKnee5 wrote: Imperial


Is the Imperial model peer reviewed? Is the code available to the research community?
#15080489
BeesKnee5 wrote:Lol!!!
What point?
You have nothing to support your claims and it's total invention.


I love when these types can't think of anything to say. They just start ejaculating obtuse denials. :lol:
#15080491
@QatzelOk Stop posting asshole comments. The fires in Australia were a HUGE problem, but maybe you, under your bridge, in Quebec, simply wasn't paying attention.
#15080493
Godstud wrote:@Sivad is simply cherry-picking, AGAIN. He ignored the rest of the article in its entirety.


I encourage everyone to go read the rest of the article in its entirety, nothing in there is gonna help the alarmists.
#15080495
colliric wrote:I am allowed to agree with you, and also believe the current measures helped keep it low.


Questioning Conventional Wisdom in the COVID-19 Crisis, with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya



Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at both the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. His March 24, 2020, article in the Wall Street Journal questions the premise that “coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines.” In the article he suggests that “there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.” In this edition of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson we asked Dr. Bhattacharya to defend that statement and describe to us how he arrived at this conclusion. We get into the details of his research, which used data collected from hotspots around the world and his background as a doctor, a medical researcher, and an economist. It’s not popular right now to question conventional wisdom on sheltering in place, but Dr. Bhattacharya makes a strong case for challenging it, based in economics and science.
#15080506
Wouldn't be surprised if Oxford was jealous that Imperial has been getting all the Covid coverage. Need to get some headlines too.

Sivad wrote:I encourage everyone to go read the rest of the article in its entirety, nothing in there is gonna help the alarmists.

Well, if we exclude the at risk population from the case count, which Oxford seem to be arguing for, the statistics will look a lot better. No surprise there.

Still, an IFR of 0.1% means around 200,000 deaths in America which is actually what the US seems to be hoping for at the moment. Now if that's right we should clearly do everything to keep up with the infection spreading in terms of hospital capacity. Otherwise, the Oxford Covid Evidence Service and others might end up with egg on their face.

Also, as a mod comment, I've moved your post on IFR and responses to this thread which you specifically made to discuss mortality.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 32

so he threw in a "fucking pigs" No, […]

Do you think this is the beginnings of a permanent[…]

The ghost of George Floyd

What do you guys think suggest I do? I'm particip[…]

It is possible that in an act of extreme courage,[…]