So how deadly is it? - Page 15 - 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.
By Sivad
#15080177
BeesKnee5 wrote:Published today
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lani ... 73-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

'Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33)'

So for every death there are 150 infected, or in other words its 7 times more deadly than seasonal flu.


That's gonna come down when they start wide scale serological testing. I'll bet the actual mortality rate is <.5%, any takers?
#15080178
BeesKnee5 wrote:
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."


As of March 30, 2020, the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy has hit mostly people over 50 years of age. In fact, as the chart shows, about 74 percent of individuals infected with the virus was over 50 years old. Only one in four individuals who contracted the virus were between 19 and 50 years old.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... oup-italy/


Old and young

The vast majority of cases in China — 87% — were in people ages 30 to 79, the China Center for Disease Control reported last month based on data from all 72,314 of those diagnosed with Covid-19 as of Feb. 11. That probably reflects something about biology more than lifestyle, such as being in frequent contact with other people. Teens and people in their 20s also encounter many others, at school and work and on public transit, yet they don’t seem to be contracting the disease at significant rates: Only 8.1% of cases were 20-somethings, 1.2% were teens, and 0.9% were 9 or younger. The World Health Organization mission to China found that 78% of the cases reported as of Feb. 20 were in people ages 30 to 69.

[...]

Youth, in contrast, seems to be protective. The WHO mission reported a relatively low incidence in people under 18, who made up only 2.4% of all reported cases. In fact, through mid-January, zero children in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, had contracted Covid-19. It’s not clear whether that’s because children do not show signs of illness even if infected.

Even cases among children and teens aged 10 to 19 are rare. As of Feb. 11 there were 549 cases in that age group, 1.2% of the total, China CDC found. Only one had died.

One intriguing explanation for the apparent resilience of youth: in regions near Hubei province, young children seem especially likely to be exposed to other coronaviruses, scientists in China reported in 2018. That might have given them at least partial immunity to this one.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03/who ... c-factors/



Remarkable Age Distribution of OC43 vs. SARS-CoV-2 in China

In their preliminary analysis of the clinical parameters of COVID-19, from the first 425 patients, Li et al noted that there were no pediatric cases, and that the median age was 59 years old. While there are sure to be pediatric cases now that the total number of confirmed cases has topped 70,000, the impression has been that the pediatric age group has been very much spared a major impact from SARS-CoV-2.

Li et al surmised that perhaps the pediatric age group had some inherent resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection via the non-specific immune response. While there is precedent for such clinical resistance in other viral infections, such as Hepatitis A and Epstein Barr virus, another explanation may lie in the annual exposure of this age group to other coronaviruses causing upper respiratory disease.

http://virological.org/t/remarkable-age ... -china/399
By Patrickov
#15080185
QatzelOk wrote:This line of thought - that evil for'ners are behind all of your problems - is how the First Nations were killed, "witches" were burned, and it's why the USA and its allies have been in permanent kill-mode for centuries.

Rather than offering empathy and help, you guys are only able to spit out the same poisons you were spitting out before "everything changed," only now, your poison is much more visible to the naked eye.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/03/27 ... his-virus/


I did not even blame anybody in my previous post.

Frankly what's wrong for some other members accusing China of lying when it's a well-established fact that they had such a bad track record? I strongly recommend anybody holding the above thought come to Hong Kong and feel all the Chinese propaganda before accusing us of being Imperialist.

And seriously I sometimes think these kind of people actually deserve everything bad that Imperialism has thrown at them, because they are so stubborn.
#15080212
Sivad wrote:
As of March 30, 2020, the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy has hit mostly people over 50 years of age. In fact, as the chart shows, about 74 percent of individuals infected with the virus was over 50 years old. Only one in four individuals who contracted the virus were between 19 and 50 years old.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... oup-italy/


Old and young

The vast majority of cases in China — 87% — were in people ages 30 to 79, the China Center for Disease Control reported last month based on data from all 72,314 of those diagnosed with Covid-19 as of Feb. 11. That probably reflects something about biology more than lifestyle, such as being in frequent contact with other people. Teens and people in their 20s also encounter many others, at school and work and on public transit, yet they don’t seem to be contracting the disease at significant rates: Only 8.1% of cases were 20-somethings, 1.2% were teens, and 0.9% were 9 or younger. The World Health Organization mission to China found that 78% of the cases reported as of Feb. 20 were in people ages 30 to 69.

[...]

Youth, in contrast, seems to be protective. The WHO mission reported a relatively low incidence in people under 18, who made up only 2.4% of all reported cases. In fact, through mid-January, zero children in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, had contracted Covid-19. It’s not clear whether that’s because children do not show signs of illness even if infected.

Even cases among children and teens aged 10 to 19 are rare. As of Feb. 11 there were 549 cases in that age group, 1.2% of the total, China CDC found. Only one had died.

One intriguing explanation for the apparent resilience of youth: in regions near Hubei province, young children seem especially likely to be exposed to other coronaviruses, scientists in China reported in 2018. That might have given them at least partial immunity to this one.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03/who ... c-factors/



Remarkable Age Distribution of OC43 vs. SARS-CoV-2 in China

In their preliminary analysis of the clinical parameters of COVID-19, from the first 425 patients, Li et al noted that there were no pediatric cases, and that the median age was 59 years old. While there are sure to be pediatric cases now that the total number of confirmed cases has topped 70,000, the impression has been that the pediatric age group has been very much spared a major impact from SARS-CoV-2.

Li et al surmised that perhaps the pediatric age group had some inherent resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection via the non-specific immune response. While there is precedent for such clinical resistance in other viral infections, such as Hepatitis A and Epstein Barr virus, another explanation may lie in the annual exposure of this age group to other coronaviruses causing upper respiratory disease.

http://virological.org/t/remarkable-age ... -china/399

Lol!!
Your evidence is "surmised that perhaps".

Here is your problem,
You and I both beleive the number of cases reported are the tip of the iceberg. Yet you accept summation and assumption based on statistical analysis of just cases identified.

Statista is clearly only identified cases and just like the point that it over represents deaths, it also under represents children because they are less likely to get ill. Please stop falling into this trap, unless the people tested represent a genuine subset of society, rather than those who are ill and most likely to fall ill then they do not tell us anything other than the point that the older you are, the more likely you are to appear in the figures because you became ill

Your second opinion piece based on the same research using reported cases. Yes there are very few children falling ill and so they are spared becoming patients, but surmising based on this is not evidence. It is a call for more research, which does not appear in the article.

Do you have a link to the research that supports this assumption?
"That probably reflects something about biology more than lifestyle, such as being in frequent contact with other people."

Or the research that tests the theory that children have immunity to covid-19 due to prior viruses?
Until there is tests showing children previously exposed to the common cold provided immunity in Italy and Wuhan then I will remain skeptical.

Neither of these are in the article written by a reporter who has since changed her tune in the month since the article was written.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/cor ... nvincible/

"In an alarming development, however, scientists in China are now reporting that the new coronavirus does not spare the very young. In the first retrospective study of Covid-19 among children in the country where the pandemic began, they count 2,143 cases in children. Of those, they report in the journal Pediatrics, more than 90% were mild or moderate, confirming earlier observations that children are at lower risk of severe disease. (That may be because the molecule that allows the virus to enter human cells seems to be less developed in children.)"

The third article is most worrying as it quotes Li who was providing analysis of the first 425 patients when the test was available
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316

He did not know at that time why children were not part of those 425 patients and his analysis was there could be two reasons for it.
Firstly these 425 are:
"our case definition specified severe enough illness to require medical attention,"

As we now know children with the virus rarely show symptoms requiring medical attention.

And the two possible reasons given
"children might be less likely to become infected or, if infected, may show milder symptoms, and either of these situations would account for underrepresentation "

Which makes the use of Li's work in January to support this argument invalid as he is arguing neither for or against.

I'm sure you've spent plenty of time trawling the internet to support your belief, but so far you appear to be repeating the same mistake again and again. Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing.

So when fieldwork is showing no difference, both in a Chinese study of patients contacts and an Italian town where the whole population was tested, then I will believe these studies over statistical analysis of patients.
By foxdemon
#15080220
I think the common misperception here is that CFR is the only statistic worthy of consideration. The attack rate of infection and transmission rate also matter. So death rate times number of people infected considered within a period of time. Even if the CFR is between 0.5 and 1%, that is still a lot of people in a short period of time with this virus.

What would really get that death rate down is a vaccine. If only we had a vaccine then the attack rate and transmission would be effectively suppressed, thus saving many vulnerable lives.


Image
User avatar
By Godstud
#15080232
Right now, in the USA, the COVID deathrate is pretty near the 2% that doctors have said it was. 2% is about 20 to 40 times the death rate of the flu.

USA
Coronavirus Cases: 164,359

Deaths: 3,173
By late
#15080233
Godstud wrote:
Right now, in the USA, the COVID deathrate is pretty near the 2% that doctors have said it was. 2% is about 20 to 40 times the death rate of the flu.

USA
Coronavirus Cases: 164,359

Deaths: 3,173




They knew they were lying, and they haven't made a secret of their desire for more death.

That's an integral part of what they are.
#15080239
BeesKnee5 wrote:Lol!!
Your evidence is "surmised that perhaps".


My evidence is that only a tiny fraction of confirmed cases are children. Now there are competing hypotheses to explain that data but all of them are just a "perhaps". The whole point here is that we don't have enough information to make total death predictions and even a layman with a very basic understanding of epidemiology can see that. Your grand projections are ridiculous and the fact that you don't get just how ridiculous they are makes it even more ridiculous.

Here is your problem,
You and I both beleive the number of cases reported are the tip of the iceberg. Yet you accept summation and assumption based on statistical analysis of just cases identified.


No I don't. I think the reason that there are so few confirmed pediatric cases is likely going to be partly due to children exhibiting mild or no symptoms and partly because fewer are catching the bug. Your problem is that you made a stupid blunder and now you're desperately trying to save it by piling bulshit on top of bullshit.
#15080244
Sivad wrote:
My evidence is that only a tiny fraction of confirmed cases are children. Now there are competing hypotheses to explain that data but all of them are just a "perhaps". The whole point here is that we don't have enough information to make total death predictions and even a layman with a very basic understanding of epidemiology can see that. Your grand projections are ridiculous and the fact that you don't get just how ridiculous they are makes it even more ridiculous.


Again you repeat the fallacy that lower number of childhood cases is evidence of lower infection rates when I have provided two studies that show this not to be the case if tests are made across the whole demographic and not just those reporting symptoms and at higher risk. You are wedded to it and can't see past it.

I have no grand projections, I merely highlight what some of your evidence represents if extrapolated. It's no surprise you don't like it, because it stubbornly does not fit your narrative.

No I don't. I think the reason that there are so few confirmed pediatric cases is likely going to be partly due to children exhibiting mild or no symptoms and partly because fewer are catching the bug. Your problem is that you made a stupid blunder and now you're desperately trying to save it by piling bulshit on top of bullshit.


There is no blunder here from me and I think you know it. It's why you have repeatedly attempted to make things personal rather than comment on the research I have posted.

You have nothing to show fewer children are catching the virus and despite your best efforts still do not. I will wait to see something tangible from the actual research rather than you offering up a couple of opinion pieces that a. Have no supporting research or b. Quote research that does not confirm or deny their opinion.

One more thing for you to ponder.
The UK have tested 140,000 people and 22,000 have been positive. Virtually all of that testing has taken place in the last 2 weeks.

This represents a hit rate of 15%.

If the percentage of infected cases in the general population is much higher than this, why would testing those likely to be infected give a lower percentage?

The argument that the majority of the population is already infected simply doesn't stand up to these realities. I admire your rearguard action on this but I'm afraid as more data comes in then the more your claims are falling apart.
#15080258
BeesKnee5 wrote:One more thing for you to ponder.
The UK have tested 140,000 people and 22,000 have been positive. Virtually all of that testing has taken place in the last 2 weeks.

This represents a hit rate of 15%.

If the percentage of infected cases in the general population is much higher than this, why would testing those likely to be infected give a lower percentage?

The argument that the majority of the population is already infected simply doesn't stand up to these realities. I admire your rearguard action on this but I'm afraid as more data comes in then the more your claims are falling apart.

The idea that 50 or 70% of the population was already infected sounded like wishful thinking to me and not really a credible hypothesis. However even 15% would be a massive, massive blow to the Covid Rouge and their Year Zero police state. UK is currently showing a 0.03% known infection rate.
#15080262
BeesKnee5 wrote:Again you repeat the fallacy that lower number of childhood cases is evidence of lower infection rates


It absolutely is evidence for lower infection rates. That's the obvious and simplest explanation for the extremely low number of children within confirmed cases. And that explanation is even more compelling given that the same thing is found with other viruses, age disparities in infection rates is well established in clinical and epidemiological viralogy. I'm not saying it's definitely the case or that there aren't other plausible explanations, just that it's likely a significant factor, which it is.


when I have provided two studies that show this not to be the case


No you haven't, you provided two studies based on extremely limited evidence that show it's possibly not solely attributable to lower infection rates. Two preliminary studies don't prove shit, talk to me when you got the results from tens of millions of serological tests.


if tests are made across the whole demographic and not just those reporting symptoms and at higher risk. You are wedded to it and can't see past it.


I can see that it's a question mark, I think you're the one who can't see past your desperate need for this to be the perfect crisis at the perfect time.

I have no grand projections, I merely highlight what some of your evidence represents if extrapolated.


You still don't get it: you can't make that extrapolation from that evidence. You can't make that extrapolation at all because you don't know enough about epidemiology or viralogy to even begin to know how to approach it. That's dunning kruger in a nutshell: people who have no idea about just how complex a subject is thinking they're competent to make big extrapolations.


It's no surprise you don't like it, because it stubbornly does not fit your narrative.


I don't really care what it is, the only issue right now is what has been established and the reality is there are no grounds for any firm conclusion at this point.


There is no blunder here from me and I think you know it.


No, there definitely is and I think everyone with a brain knows it.

It's why you have repeatedly attempted to make things personal rather than comment on the research I have posted.


I didn't make this personal, I'm dealing with someone who initiated this exchange by making an idiotic accusation and then refused to come off it even after I repeatedly showed why it was bullshit.

You have nothing to show fewer children are catching the virus


I have far fewer confirmed cases in children, that definitely points in that direction. All you have is a competing hypothesis and some weak evidence to support it.


I will wait to see something tangible from the actual research


I'm doing the same, the difference is I know enough about it to know that I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion on it.



One more thing for you to ponder.
The UK have tested 140,000 people and 22,000 have been positive. Virtually all of that testing has taken place in the last 2 weeks.

This represents a hit rate of 15%.

If the percentage of infected cases in the general population is much higher than this, why would testing those likely to be infected give a lower percentage?


post the link and I'll take a look.
#15080264
Sivad wrote:
It absolutely is evidence for lower infection rates. That's the obvious and simplest explanation for the extremely low number of children within confirmed cases. And that explanation is even more compelling given that the same thing is found with other viruses, age disparities in infection rates is well established in clinical and epidemiological viralogy. I'm not saying it's definitely the case or that there aren't other plausible explanations, just that it's likely a significant factor, which it is.




No you haven't, you provided two studies based on extremely limited evidence that show it's possibly not solely attributable to lower infection rates. Two preliminary studies don't prove shit, talk to me when you got the results from tens of millions of serological tests.




I can see that it's a question mark, I think you're the one who can't see past your desperate need for this to be the perfect crisis at the perfect time.



You still don't get it: you can't make that extrapolation from that evidence. You can't make that extrapolation at all because you don't know enough about epidemiology or viralogy to even begin to know how to approach it. That's dunning kruger in a nutshell: people who have no idea about just how complex a subject is thinking they're competent to make big extrapolations.




I don't really care what it is, the only issue right now is what has been established and the reality is there are no grounds for any firm conclusion at this point.




No, there definitely is and I think everyone with a brain knows it.



I didn't make this personal, I'm dealing with someone who initiated this exchange by making an idiotic accusation and then refused to come off it even after I repeatedly showed why it was bullshit.



I have far fewer confirmed cases in children, that definitely points in that direction. All you have is a competing hypothesis and some weak evidence to support it.




I'm doing the same, the difference is I know enough about it to know that I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion on it.





post the link and I'll take a look.
Didn't read.

If you have supporting research then post it and I will read the link, otherwise we are done.
#15080268
BeesKnee5 wrote:
One more thing for you to ponder.
The UK have tested 140,000 people and 22,000 have been positive. Virtually all of that testing has taken place in the last 2 weeks.

This represents a hit rate of 15%.

If the percentage of infected cases in the general population is much higher than this, why would testing those likely to be infected give a lower percentage?



Well if they weren't testing for antibobies then they probably missed a lot of recovered cases who would test negative for the virus. So it depends on the kind of testing they're doing.

post the link.
#15080271
Sivad wrote:
Well if they weren't testing for antibobies then they probably missed a lot of recovered cases who would test negative for the virus. So it depends on the kind of testing they're doing.

post the link.
Hilarious,
So now the majority have recovered and virtually none of them appeared in hospital statistics until a week ago.

You are seriously grasping.

The source is yesterday's UK government covid-19 briefing.
#15080273
BeesKnee5 wrote:Hilarious,
So now the majority have recovered and virtually none of them appeared in hospital statistics until a week ago.

You are seriously grasping.


That's not grasping, it's an absolute certainty that if they're not testing for antibodies then they are definitely missing a fuckload of recovered cases. And you're the one claiming there are all these unreported cases in children, so you're arguing against yourself and you don't even realize it. :knife:
#15080274
Sivad wrote:
That's not grasping, it's an absolute certainty that if they're not testing for antibodies then they are definitely missing a fuckload of recovered cases. And you're the one claiming there are all these unreported cases in children, so you're arguing against yourself and you don't even realize it. :knife:


I'm arguing that governments are only testing those who are ill or at high risk.

Your now arguing that the majority of the public have had the virus and recovered whilst now they have recovered we are seeing more cases of high severity and causing death.

Your logic just does not match the pattern observed.
#15080278
BeesKnee5 wrote:I'm arguing that governments are only testing those who are ill or at high risk.


So then you don't have enough information to make any big claims. You know very little and you can prove even less.

Your now arguing that the majority of the public have had the virus and recovered


:knife: No I'm not, the only thing I'm arguing is that there are a lot of unreported cases and the recovered unreported won't test positive for the virus.
#15080281
Sivad wrote:
So then you don't have enough information to make any big claims. You know very little and you can prove even less.



:knife: No I'm not, the only thing I'm arguing is that there are a lot of unreported cases and the recovered unreported won't test positive for the virus.


This is the point, we agree that there are a lot of unreported cases.
You cannot however show there is a large percentage of people who have recovered unreported whilst the number of hospital admissions and deaths was low. There is no reason to think that those who are susceptible to falling ill were protected during this period,
#15080282
BeesKnee5 wrote:There is no reason to think that those who are susceptible to falling ill were protected during this period,


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.
#15080300
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.


Meanwhile in the real world.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 34
Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

@JohnRawls If you were a policemen investigat[…]

I have been thinking about this for quite a few ye[…]

Unfortunately, the above quote does not explain w[…]

Qutb was horrified by the extreme materialism an[…]