So how deadly is it? - Page 23 - 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.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081947
BeesKnee5 wrote:I have no idea what you are on about regarding a white flag.


It's just a question I've been throwing around for the hell of it. Raising the white flag means to quit, to surrender. I'm just trying to get a raise out of people, similar to how I said "fuck'em" to cancer patients earlier. Which in reality, was sarcasm, if you didn't detect it.

Anyway, you can ignore it. So what about the lung damage stuff? Is there a source that provide conclusive data?
#15081949
Rancid wrote:
It's just a question I've been throwing around for the hell of it. Raising the white flag means to quit, to surrender. I'm just trying to get a raise out of people, similar to how I said "fuck'em" to cancer patients earlier. Which in reality, was sarcasm, if you didn't detect it.

Anyway, you can ignore it. So what about the lung damage stuff? Is there a source that provide conclusive data?


I got your sarcasm earlier and I know what raising the white flag means. As I'm not in control of what measures are being taken its irrelevant to me.

Those who end up on a ventilator do so because they have suffered ARDS. There is plenty of research on the long term recovery and reduced pulmonary function due to this conditon.

A quick google brings this up first
http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/61/5/689
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15081951
From the link
ARDS is a life-threatening organ failure due to several pulmonary and extrapulmonary injuries with an incidence between 5 and 60 cases/100,000 persons/y. Patients with ARDS have non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema and dyspnea often requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and intensive care admission. Although the short-term mortality rate has significantly decreased in the last decade, mainly due to the widespread application of lung-protective ventilation and better general support, long-term outcomes are still unsatisfactory.
By Sivad
#15081974
BeesKnee5 wrote:Actually this is a better one.

70% of people in Castiglioni d'Adda, had antibodies when tested, these where volunteer blood donors so had no idea they would be tested for Covid-19. The town has 4600 population and lost 62 people ( 1.5%).


:knife: how in the amateur hour fuck do you know if that population is representative? What if the population is much older on average? What if there are environmental problems in the region that have caused a lot of chronic health issues? ignorant epidemiology is ignorant.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081975
BeesKnee5 wrote:From the link
ARDS is a life-threatening organ failure due to several pulmonary and extrapulmonary injuries with an incidence between 5 and 60 cases/100,000 persons/y. Patients with ARDS have non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema and dyspnea often requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and intensive care admission. Although the short-term mortality rate has significantly decreased in the last decade, mainly due to the widespread application of lung-protective ventilation and better general support, long-term outcomes are still unsatisfactory.


What are the negative outcomes? Is it lung damage? Death? What?
#15081978
Sivad wrote:
:knife: how in the amateur hour fuck do you know if that population is representative? What if the population is much older on average? What if there are environmental problems in the region that have caused a lot of chronic health issues? ignorant epidemiology is ignorant.


Actually I never claimed it was representative finally and we know the population is older than average in this part of Italy.

There is no evidence of environmental problems and how do you think this would effect a, the percentage found to have antibodies and b. The number of deaths attributed to covid-19?

I'm not sure how many times you can repeat that the death rate will vary by region based on demographics and quality of healthcare available throughout the period the infection is circulating.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081982
@BeesKnee5,

So where's the data that say's ARDS due to Covid-19 cause permanent/unrecoverable lung damage? What is the length of time needed for ARDS to cause damage, if any, and how long is the typical COVID patient intubnated for?
#15081983
Rancid wrote:
What are the negative outcomes? Is it lung damage? Death? What?


Yes and yes .
11-60% die within five years depending on age and other illnesses.

Example of long term effect
"The 6-min walk test assessed global physical function. In particular, the distance covered depends on the lung and the cardiac function of patients as well as on the muscle strength. The distance increased quickly in the first year after ICU discharge from 49% to 66–75% of predicted, and then this value remained nearly constant, at a value that was below the lower limit of normality."
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081985
BeesKnee5 wrote:
Yes and yes .
11-60% die within five years depending on age and other illnesses.

Example of long term effect
"The 6-min walk test assessed global physical function. In particular, the distance covered depends on the lung and the cardiac function of patients as well as on the muscle strength. The distance increased quickly in the first year after ICU discharge from 49% to 66–75% of predicted, and then this value remained nearly constant, at a value that was below the lower limit of normality."


I don't doubt that, but is this true for people intubated due to COVID-19? That's the core of my question/point. Everything I've read, say's it's too early to tell and the data needs to be looked at.

I understand that it's better safe than sorry to just assume we should do what we can to minimize anyone that gets COVID19, and to minimize the number of people that need to get intubated, etc. etc., but the question itself, it still unanswered. That's my point.

Taking a global data set, and applying it to a micro-data set can be a very flawed approach as you will be filtering out of including all sorts of factors when you change the scope of a data analysis.
Last edited by Rancid on 05 Apr 2020 18:44, edited 1 time in total.
#15081986
Rancid wrote:
I don't doubt that, but is this true for people intubated due to COVID-19? That's the core of my question/point. Everything I've read, say's it's too early to tell and the data needs to be looked at.

I understand that it's better safe than sorry to just assume we should do what we can to minimize anyone that gets COVID19, and to minimize the number of people that need to get intubated, etc. etc., but the question itself, it still unanswered.


Yes.
https://www.health.com/condition/infect ... at-is-ards
#15081988
BeesKnee5 wrote:Actually I never claimed it was representative finally


Yeah you did. You said Iceland was a "good opportunity to get a genuine handle on death rates" and then you said north ginzoville was an even better one.

and we know the population is older than average in this part of Italy.


well then that might skew the numbers a bit, ya think?

There is no evidence of environmental problems


It's in Lombardy, not only are there major environmental problems but it's got the worst antibiotic resistant bacteria problem in all of Europe.

and how do you think this would effect a, the percentage found to have antibodies and b. The number of deaths attributed to covid-19?


Are you really asking how an older sicker population sample would skew the numbers? If you really don't know then don't quit your day job.

I'm not sure how many times you can repeat that the death rate will vary by region based on demographics and quality of healthcare available throughout the period the infection is circulating.


how many times does it need repeating, you tell me?
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081990
BeesKnee5 wrote:
Yes.
https://www.health.com/condition/infect ... at-is-ards


You're not looking at the nuance I'm getting at here. When it comes to science and data, it's critical to understand the nuance and caveats.

That article still doesn't answer the question. Because the question is unanswerable at this point in time.

The question was, does it cause permanent/non-recoverable lung damage. That means two things:

1 - We need to talk about the people that survive, not the people that die.
2 - When we look at the people the survive who do have lung scarring, we need to wait to see if they recover from the scarring. There simply hasn't been enough time since the start of the virus to even look at that. People have not had enough time to attempt to heal. Which is what I've read. That's why people have said it's inconclusive at the moment.
Last edited by Rancid on 05 Apr 2020 18:51, edited 1 time in total.
#15081991
Sivad wrote:
Yeah you did. You said Iceland was a "good opportunity to get a genuine handle on death rates" and then you said north ginzoville was an even better one.



well then that might skew the numbers a bit, ya think?



It's in Lombardy, not only are there major environmental problems but it's got the worst antibiotic resistant bacteria problem in all of Europe.



Are you really asking how an older sicker population sample would skew the numbers? If you really don't know then don't quit your day job.



how many times does it need repeating, you tell me?


This is nothing more than a rant.

I did not say Iceland will tell us the global death rate any more than I said northern Italy would.

The point I was making is that the Iceland data gives us an answer in 2-3 weeks while the Italian data provides an answer today.
#15081992
Rancid wrote:
You're not looking at the nuance I'm getting at here. When it comes to science and data, it's critical to understand the nuance and caveats.

That article still doesn't answer the question. Because the question is unanswerable at this point in time.

The question was, does it cause permanent/non-recoverable lung damage. That means two things:

1 - We need to talk about the people that survive, not the people that die.
2 - When we look at the people the survive who do have lung scarring, we need to wait to see if they recover from the scarring. There simply hasn't been enough time since the start of the virus to even look at that. People have not had enough time to attempt to heal. Which is what I've read. That's why people have said it's inconclusive at the moment.
So you think ARDS in covid-19 patients will be unique.

I don't agree, but that's fine.
By Sivad
#15081993
Italy top in EU in antibiotic-resistance
A third of such deaths across the union occur in Italy
https://www.ansa.it/english/news/scienc ... 9d27c.html

Italy's fatality rate

Italy's fatality rate is much higher than that of most other countries.

Italian health authorities attribute this mainly to an elderly population, with the majority of victims more than 80 years old with underlying health problems. However, other explanations have also been suggested.

Ilaria Capua, a virologist at Florida University, said this week that many patients may be dying due to separate infections from antibiotic-resistant bacteria in Italian hospitals.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200313-it ... gher-curbs
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081994
BeesKnee5 wrote:So you think ARDS in covid-19 patients will be unique.

No, but that is a speculative no. Which is the core of my point. It's speculative, it's an assumption. This is something we need to be mindful of.

Challenging assumptions is also important at times like this.

However, it's also not unreasonable to speculate that many of these people can fully recover from their lung damage, as many ARDS patients do (with exercise).

None the less, this is something that needs to be looked at years from now, to know for sure.

BeesKnee5 wrote:I don't agree, but that's fine.


I don't agree either. Which means, me and you actually agree. :)
By Sivad
#15082037
BeesKnee5 wrote:Let's hope Boris Johnson doesn't join these statistics now he's gone into hospital


Why not? Fuck that guy.
#15082040
Sivad wrote:Whatever. Bodies break down over time, they become weaker and weaker until they can't hold up under even the slightest stress. The straw that breaks the camel's back is just the proximate cause, it's not the explanation.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome is not "slight stress" and unless you can show that they would have died anyway at the time, it's the virus that drives them over the edge.

Sivad wrote:But a lot of them aren't dying as a consequence of the virus, they tested positive for the virus but they died of something else totally unrelated.

For god's sake, use your brain. Why do you suppose ventilators are in short supply? These people can't breathe because they are infected with a virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome - SARS. The hint is in the name.

Sivad wrote:Another issue is false positives where some percentage are testing positive when they don't actually have it. I can't find anything on it but as busy as the labs are there's guaranteed to be a lot of cross contamination and other issues.

Sure thing, Sivad. It's not like in the western countries with large outbreaks people are only tested if they show up at hospitals with severe symptoms. Doctors can combine tests with clinical features because there's something going around these days which causes people breathing difficulty. Have you heard of it by any chance? It's called severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS.

Sivad wrote:Those are anomalies in a few regions where demographics and environmental and social factors are converging to create freak storms. It's not the norm and wouldn't be the norm even if we went with the mitigation strategy.

These "freak storms" are just outbreaks which are a common feature of epidemics. There's nothing extraordinary about them.

Sivad wrote:I do care but I have rational priorities that don't permit plunging the world into authoritarianism and economic chaos just to protect me and mine [in the short term].

I guess it depends on how you define "worst case" because from where I'm sitting this world is heading straight into the worst case scenario at full speed. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to panic a civilization, create economic chaos, and then give governments broad sweeping powers of social control? It's sheer fucking mindless stupidity to be unleashing those kinds of forces, there's no telling what kind of horrors could come about as result of that.

You can voice your concerns without pretending that there isn't a major threat to the life of millions of people.

As for Ferguson, you quoted him, so his credibility or otherwise is not my concern. I just provided the context to your quote which is that the UK would remain shut down to varying degrees (see the Imperial College paper which I have linked in one of my replies to you in the other thread).
  • 1
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 32

We *don't have* to mimic nature. You've acknowled[…]

The Democratic Party has been "instrumental&[…]

Where are all the dog-fucking 2nd Amendment people[…]

Project Apollo was probably the greatest engineer[…]