So how deadly is it? - Page 24 - 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 QatzelOk
#15082077
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:You can voice your concerns without pretending that there isn't a major threat to the life of millions of people.

Billions of people, Kaiser. Billions.

And the problem isn't the virus. It's that capitalism has left most of the world broken, scared, and dumb, and without enough of a developed community structure to re-build.

This has many people hoping we can "all go back to normal" and get back to destroying all the ecosystems that keep us alive.
#15082094
Also @Sivad, from the previously mentioned UK report.

First who gets admitted to ICUs, page 4, Table 1 Characteristics of patients admitted to critical care with confirmed COVID-19 (left column = covid patients, right column = patients with viral pneumonia for comparison):

Image
* Very severe comorbidities are defined as: Cardiovascular: symptoms at rest; Respiratory: shortness of breath with light activity or home ventilation; Renal: RRT for end-stage renal disease; Liver: biopsy-proven cirrhosis, portal hypertension or hepatic encephalopathy; Metastatic disease: distant metastases; Haematological malignancy: acute or chronic leukaemia, multiple myeloma or lymphoma; Immunocompromise: chemotherapy, radiotherapy or daily high dose steroid treatment in previous 6 months, HIV/AIDS or congenital immune deficiency


Second, page 9, and with the caveat that the absolute numbers are still quite small, characteristics of those who survived and died:

Image

Look at that data, especially regarding severe comorbitities and requiring help with daily activities, and tell us with a straight face that only, or even predominantly, people who could be knocked over by a feather need critical care or succumb to this virus.

Edit: Since a more recent report is available now, here's the second table again, with a larger number of patients (percentages are not very different):

Image
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15082155
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Edit: Since a more recent report is available now, here's the second table again, with a larger number of patients (percentages are not very different)


Thank you for this,
It's very interesting and some of the information is unexpected.

The BMI chart in particular showing cases matching general population and those with viral pneumonia having a lower BMI in particular .

Also answering a question I couldn't answer previously with the period mechanically ventilated being 4-9 days.

This table must surely bring home the nature of this disease and that it isnt just the old and infirm that are dying.
Image
By Sivad
#15082900
Acute respiratory infections (ARIs), a disease group that includes pneumonia, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), are responsible for 4.25 million deaths each year, according to the first-ever Acute Respiratory Infections Atlas (ARIAtlas.org), published today by World Lung Foundation.

Pneumonia alone accounts for 20 percent of all paediatric deaths around the world, 1.6 million deaths in 2008.

estimated 880,000 deaths from pneumonia in children under the age of five in 2016

2.56 million people died from pneumonia in 2017. Almost a third of all victims were children younger than 5 years, it is the leading cause of death for children under 5.

https://ourworldindata.org/pneumonia
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15082905
Sivad wrote:Acute respiratory infections (ARIs), a disease group that includes pneumonia, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), are responsible for 4.25 million deaths each year, according to the first-ever Acute Respiratory Infections Atlas (ARIAtlas.org), published today by World Lung Foundation.

Pneumonia alone accounts for 20 percent of all paediatric deaths around the world, 1.6 million deaths in 2008.

estimated 880,000 deaths from pneumonia in children under the age of five in 2016

2.56 million people died from pneumonia in 2017. Almost a third of all victims were children younger than 5 years, it is the leading cause of death for children under 5.

https://ourworldindata.org/pneumonia


Just copy/paste numbers that you don't understand the context.
Pneumonia is a very broad term that includes many pathogens and given the sometimes difficult to interpret clinical data, even non-pathogens. You are grouping dozens or even hundreds of different pathogens and circumstances as if they are all the same.
It's like saying "there are only 400k murders every year, thats no big deal, there are 57million total deaths every year, clearly 400k is not that high" except it misses the point completely.
By Sivad
#15082916
XogGyux wrote:Just copy/paste numbers that you don't understand the context.
Pneumonia is a very broad term that includes many pathogens and given the sometimes difficult to interpret clinical data, even non-pathogens. You are grouping dozens or even hundreds of different pathogens and circumstances as if they are all the same.


No I'm not, the World Lung Foundation is "grouping dozens or even hundreds of different pathogens and circumstances as if they are all the same". Why is the World Lung Foundation wrong?



It's like saying "there are only 400k murders every year, thats no big deal, there are 57million total deaths every year, clearly 400k is not that high" except it misses the point completely.


It doesn't miss the point at all. What the establishment is doing over C-19 would be like permanently abolishing all civil liberties and implementing universal pre-crime just to prevent those 400k deaths. We don't do that because that would be completely fucking insane.
By foxdemon
#15082919
Sivad wrote:No I'm not, the World Lung Foundation is "grouping dozens or even hundreds of different pathogens and circumstances as if they are all the same". Why is the World Lung Foundation wrong?


He is suggesting that you don’t know what the data means. But you do have that 6 year medical degree, right?





It doesn't miss the point at all. What the establishment is doing over C-19 would be like permanently abolishing all civil liberties and implementing universal pre-crime just to prevent those 400k deaths. We don't do that because that would be completely fucking insane.


So, umm,...do you think those 400k deaths from murder will grow exponentially if we don’t throw everyone in jail for pre-crime?
By Sivad
#15082925
foxdemon wrote:He is suggesting that you don’t know what the data means.


No, he's suggesting that the World Lung Foundation doesn't know what the data means.


Anyway, my point was that the vast majority of those deaths could be averted if we resorted to ludicrous extremes and consequences be damned. So why aren't we doing that? Maybe because it would be completely irrational?


So, umm,...do you think those 400k deaths from murder will grow exponentially if we don’t throw everyone in jail for pre-crime?


What are you talking about, coronavirus isn't gonna kill exponentially more than 400,000. The midrange estimates even under a mitigation approach are in the low millions.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15082926
Sivad wrote:No, he's suggesting that the World Lung Foundation doesn't know what the data means.


Anyway, my point was that the vast majority of those deaths could be averted if we resorted to ludicrous extremes and consequences be damned. So why aren't we doing that? Maybe because it would be completely irrational?

No. I'm not suggesting that they don't know what the data means, I am asserting that you have no clue what it means or how to interpret it.
By Sivad
#15082928
XogGyux wrote:No. I'm not suggesting that they don't know what the data means, I am asserting that you have no clue what it means or how to interpret it.


Yeah whatever, you just can't answer the question because you're gonna have to admit it that what's happening here is completely fucking insane.
By foxdemon
#15082929
Sivad wrote:No, he's suggesting that the World Lung Foundation doesn't know what the data means.


I’m pretty sure he means you. Now, that question about your qualifications.....


Anyway, my point was that the vast majority of those deaths could be averted if we resorted to ludicrous extremes and consequences be damned. So why aren't we doing that? Maybe because it would be completely irrational?


That would be because most of those deaths are in places like sub Saharan Africa. I’m sure people in wealth countries would behave differently if they thought it would affect them. But you have a good point. We could wipe out a few more diseases if the political will was there.



What are you talking about, coronavirus isn't gonna kill exponentially more than 400,000. The midrange estimates even under a mitigation approach are in the low millions.



Huh? You didn’t understand the point. Murders won’t see exponential growth if left uncontained. So your analogy was flawed.
By Sivad
#15082932
foxdemon wrote:That would be because most of those deaths are in places like sub Saharan Africa. I’m sure people in wealth countries would behave differently if they thought it would affect them.


Hundreds and hundreds of thousands in the developed world die every year from pneumonia and we could prevent most of those deaths if went totally fucking insane and just threw every resource we had into preventing them. But we don't do that because that would be total idiocy.


But you have a good point. We could wipe out a few more diseases if the political will was there.


Exactly, if boomers actually gave a shit about anyone but themselves a lot of death and suffering could be eliminated with only minimal resource expenditure. That just makes this farce all the more epic.


Murders won’t see exponential growth if left uncontained.


:knife: I'm pretty sure they would. If we did absolutely nothing to contain murder there would be 40 million murders a year.
User avatar
By Donna
#15082933
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Also @Sivad, from the previously mentioned UK report.

First who gets admitted to ICUs, page 4, Table 1 Characteristics of patients admitted to critical care with confirmed COVID-19 (left column = covid patients, right column = patients with viral pneumonia for comparison):

Image


Second, page 9, and with the caveat that the absolute numbers are still quite small, characteristics of those who survived and died:

Image

Look at that data, especially regarding severe comorbitities and requiring help with daily activities, and tell us with a straight face that only, or even predominantly, people who could be knocked over by a feather need critical care or succumb to this virus.

Edit: Since a more recent report is available now, here's the second table again, with a larger number of patients (percentages are not very different):

Image


Just gonna quote this to make sure Slippery Sivad doesn't slither out of it.
#15082935
Sivad wrote:Yeah whatever, you just can't answer the question because you're gonna have to admit it that what's happening here is completely fucking insane.

Sorry I figured the answer was quite obvious. Other causes of deaths are not growing rapidly and exponentially like this one is.
For instance, we did not learn about a disease called "pneumonia" on December that on January had ~10k death world wide and on march has 80k+ (likely well over 100k, cannot trust the Chinese and Iranians.)

Pneumonia is not a single entity but a lung manifestation of many different pathogens. The number of people affected and later dying as a result remains relatively stable (except for outbreaks such as COVID) and any one pathogen that is found to be spreading exponentially should certainly catch health professional's attention.
Ideally, we should strive for minimizing all deaths though there are practical limits in all situations.
By Sivad
#15082936
Donna wrote:Just gonna quote this to make sure Slippery Sivad doesn't slither out of it.



First off, slithering is your department, Donna. In fact you're slithering right now because you barely have an anecdote here(just go look at how many cases are in that report). I'll have to look at the report to see how they're defining terms like "severe comorbidity" but I'll bet the authors are being extremely conservative. Meanwhile I've posted the numbers from all of NYC and haven't seen your slippery slithering comments on that. Why are you trying to slither out of that, Donna?
By Sivad
#15082937
I love how it's not just severe comorbidities, it's "very severe comorbities". :lol:
#15082938
QatzelOk wrote:Billions of people, Kaiser. Billions.

And the problem isn't the virus. It's that capitalism has left most of the world broken, scared, and dumb, and without enough of a developed community structure to re-build.

This has many people hoping we can "all go back to normal" and get back to destroying all the ecosystems that keep us alive.


Q this is one of many phenomenon that will be disrupting 'normal' life. The damage is done. Now comes the Earth and all the events that a living and powerful organism has to do to restore balance. It will be storms and earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, antibiotic resistant bacteria, no effect medications that used to work fine, inferior nutritional crops, etc. Contaminated water, infertile or arid land, wars for clean water.

All of it will teach the human race to stop with the profit motive and cooperate and share information and do things as a group to solve problems that are beyond our single borders, our single lives, and our sense of selfish entitlements. If we rise to the challenge? We create much better circumstances for us all. If we don't? It will be like the great abandoned cities of the Mayans and the so on, it was once great. But it dies. Because the infrastructure is no longer there.

I am hopeful we can start building communities again Q.

Humans tend to do well with really bad circumstances if they mature and become realistic. ;)
Last edited by Tainari88 on 09 Apr 2020 05:37, edited 1 time in total.
By foxdemon
#15082939
Sivad wrote:
:knife: I'm pretty sure they would. If we did absolutely nothing to contain murder there would be 40 million murders a year.


Can you provide evidence to support that assertion?


Donna wrote:
Just gonna quote this to make sure Slippery Sivad doesn't slither out of it.



This is a particularly troubling set of data that @Sivad continues to avoid.


Table 1 shows cases involving co-morbidities are a smaller percentage overall of cases admitted to hospital than other viral pneumonia cases. It also shows a much higher rate of ventilation required for treatment of covid-19 cases.

So people without known co-morbidities are ending up in hospital and require specialist care. Healthy people, like Sivad. I hope Sivad doesn’t end up on a ventilator himself, in a bed next to a boomer. Imagine that!

Shame we don’t yet have a vaccine. One little pin prick.....


Image
By Sivad
#15082941
Sivad wrote:I love how it's not just severe comorbidities, it's "very severe comorbities". :lol:


The age ranges are hilarious too. "16-49" "50-69" :lol:


and how did 41.4% of cases with "very severe comorbidities" survive this super virulent super deadly virus? :lol:

what percentage of the 70+ with "very severe comorbidities" survived? I bet it's pretty high.

what was this report supposed to be showing again? :lol:
By Sivad
#15082947
foxdemon wrote:Can you provide evidence to support that assertion?


Well we can look at what happens to murder rates when law and order breaks down, they grow exponentially. But really it's just common sense, if there were no deterrents and no justice for the families of victims, murder rates would sky rocket right off the charts.

foxdemon wrote:This is a particularly troubling set of data


It is troubling but not for the reasons you think it is. It's troubling because of its ludicrous criteria and deliberate vagueness, it's propaganda masquerading as "research".

Sivad continues to avoid.


I was never avoiding it, I get pofoed from all directions so I do miss some pofo from time to time. But I'm glad that you all brought it to my attention because it gave me a good laugh.


Table 1 shows cases involving co-morbidities are a smaller percentage overall of cases admitted to hospital than other viral pneumonia cases.


No it does not. It shows cases involving "very severe comorbidities", it doesn't show anything on comorbidities in general.

It also shows a much higher rate of ventilation required for treatment of covid-19 cases.


Depends on how they're determining and defining covid-19 cases. You'd have to read the report and tell me how those cases are confirmed, I can't access it from this computer. All I can see is the tables.

So people without known co-morbidities are ending up in hospital and require specialist care. Healthy people, like Sivad.


Your data doesn't support that conclusion at all. You should go back and read it again.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 32

"POOR" PROTESTERS 99.6% HAVE A REF[…]

Election 2020

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be such a lar[…]

Maz hates black people. This is a one line post[…]

Biden prides himself on his history of working w[…]