Novel coronavirus introduced to humans in exotic animal meat market.

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
idk, it seems pretty reasonable the way he said it to me:


Aside from it turning out that we should have been warned harder at that point the world had about a week on us since Trump was busy distracting everyone by buzzing Nascar in his victory lap, it wasn't until he was on his way back from India that the CDC now has been shown to have jumped at the chance to declare 'Holy Shit this is bad' and the world jumped at the same time.

I know you hate it turning into a Trump thread, but he is POTUS and makes it impossible to see strait. But it is also useful in remembering the timeline. His State of the Union was Feb 5th, 14 days after that would have been Feb 19th, (jesus christ) the day Blagoavich was pardoned along with other deplorables and the 'Princess-something' with 600+ people with coronavirus got off in Japan and world deaths from it hit 2k.

Imagine how much better off we would have been if he would have used the power of the State of the Union address to detail a plan and mobilize our country then when it was getting bad.

I agree that people in a full lockdown are going home, sitting down, coughing and sneezing on their computer/phones/tv's countertops/remotes/doornobs etc and just multiplying the virus they shed everywhere that builds up for 17 days where it peaks and starts dying off maintaining a kind of level to what the person shedding it is at, then it should start decreasing as the person overcomes the virus until it completely (hopefully right) decreases to zero 17 days after the person is recovered fully.

So by sending them home, they are getting sicker and sicker until they get hospitalized and that is when they get tested in Michigan anyways.

The lockdown has basically forced people to be safe if they haven't gotten it yet, or if they had but not in a way to get sick. This starts to get into an area I don't feel like I know enough to understand the scientific differences between who/what/where/when and how of the tests.

And people who are asymptomatic who have been on lockdown stay really infective and not know it could re-infect everyone when they go back to work.

But that said, I think you are putting too much faith in the numbers meaning something here. And so far we are and haven't been on lockdown to know how it would have worked out if we did go on it when it actually mattered.
Click to expand...
It doesn't bother me so much when focus is on Trump, as long as it's not simply politicizing the crisis. There is an important distinction there and I want to get it straight right off the bat. That has always been what annoys me about it. Now it's coming off as though I'm somehow aligned with Trump. He's just not that important to me. He's inneffective and dumb and makes too good of a scapegoat for all of the problems. It's too convenient of a narrative for those making mistakes on the other side.

With that out of the way. My point bringing this up is that I was paying attention to this from the very beginning, taking it very seriously and almost begging people to take it seriously. Certain people have resisted that from the very start. Even if they seemed to sound sorta reasonable, there was just a slight amount of nay-saying that continually amplified in every subsequent nay-saying post for the next 3 months. Forget if it comes out later that I'm proven correct all along, fine. But then look at the other thread. I didn't insult anyone. I didn't make a partisan argument. I didn't dismiss anyone's arguments out of hand. In fact I was from the beginning patient and displayed intellectual honesty.

Budley Doright said:
Yes I thought it was a reasonable statement as well, thanks!!!
Click to expand...
It sounded like the kind of shit Trump was saying. It was annoying and stupid and displayed a complete lack of understanding of virology and for someone who knows so little, it's insulting to see that you're even commenting. "Yeah but the flu"...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The fatality rate of covid19, while the number of deaths are mounting, seems to be going down as more and more tests are conducted. Several studies have pointed to a vastly higher spread of the infection than has been confirmed, suggesting that the actual mortality rate may be a far smaller proportion. Even though some of the bigger outbreak epicenters have had to revise the death counts even by hundreds, the infection rate could be 50-85 times higher than what is confirmed.

corona24.news

This domain may be for sale!
www.corona24.news
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I mentioned studies:

This one is not yet peer reviewed:
www.nature.com

Antibody tests suggest that coronavirus infections vastly exceed official counts

Study estimates a more than 50-fold increase in coronavirus infections compared to official cases, but experts have raised concerns about the reliability of antibody kits.
www.nature.com www.nature.com

This one I have posted before is peer reviewed and concludes only 6% of cases are actually confirmed:

Currently, the "Case Fatality Rate" (CFR) of covid19 is over 5%. This is a vast overestimation as there are likely already tens of millions globally who have been infected and never experienced symptoms.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This is case stats. All of these numbers will come way down when seroprevalence is ascertained.
View attachment 4552280
The study did not report any deaths in children younger than 10, who represented less than 1% of the patients.
www.businessinsider.com

Coronavirus patients over age 80 have a death rate of 15%. Here's the death rate for every age bracket.

Coronavirus patients in their 50s are about three times more likely to die than patients in their 40s.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
MOO, they will say on the way to the GOP slaughterhouse! People from 60 to 80 vote in large numbers and with effective treatments many might be around to do so in november. Only around 5% of the US population has immunity at this point so the chart above represents over a million deaths until 70% immunity is achieved at a mortality rate of .5% (best data I've seen so far).

Effective treatments might soon cut the mortality rate to a fraction of its current value in developed countries and even in less developed ones too. Drug and convalescent plasma therapies might make a huge difference in the number of deaths, study results and deployment are just weeks away. Inadequate and timely testing in America and the lack of a coherent plan will lead to a disaster, how high the death toll will be depends on how good the treatments are and how fast they can be delivered.

There's no getting around a million plus deaths other than treatment options if America continues on its current course.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
MOO, they will say on the way to the GOP slaughterhouse! People from 60 to 80 vote in large numbers and with effective treatments many might be around to do so in november. Only around 5% of the US population has immunity at this point so the chart above represents over a million deaths until 70% immunity is achieved at a mortality rate of .5% (best data I've seen so far).

Effective treatments might soon cut the mortality rate to a fraction of its current value in developed countries and even in less developed ones too. Drug and convalescent plasma therapies might make a huge difference in the number of deaths, study results and deployment are just weeks away. Inadequate and timely testing in America and the lack of a coherent plan will lead to a disaster, how high the death toll will be depends on how good the treatments are and how fast they can be delivered.

There's no getting around a million plus deaths other than treatment options if America continues on its current course.
Click to expand...
I rarely agree with you but on this, I do.

Flattening the curve buys time for us to find ways to reduce the lethality of this disease. Saves lives. Maybe millions.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I rarely agree with you but on this, I do.

Flattening the curve buys time for us to find ways to reduce the lethality of this disease. Saves lives. Maybe millions.
Click to expand...
Right now there are about 280,000 (5 day treatment courses) of remdesivir available, but the supply of convalescent plasma is large and growing daily! All that is needed is a successful clinical trial to go big scale very quickly, it will also become more effective over time as methods of assaying it's potency evolve. Waiting for these things to be confirmed including more on remdesivir would be nice before reopening, but it won't be an option in America.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
It included no such claim that teh US has 5% seroprevalence. What the fuck are you even talking about?
Click to expand...
They are showing a detection rate of 6.6% in the USA nationally
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reason.com

Official COVID-19 Numbers Represent Just 6% of Total Infections, a New Analysis Suggests

The gap between confirmed COVID-19 cases and the actual number of infections, which is crucial in estimating the prevalence and lethality of the virus
reason.com reason.com

Update, April 14: Vollmer and Bommer have revised their estimates based on more recent data. According to the new calculations, the detection rate in the United States as of March 30 was 6.6 percent, up from 3.6 percent in the earlier analysis. The new estimates are also higher for other countries, including Italy (6.9 percent vs. 3.5 percent), France (3.6 percent vs. 2.6 percent), Spain (6 percent vs. 1.7 percent), and the U.K. (2.2 percent vs. 1.2 percent).

"The calculation for the number of infected people was done under the hypothetical assumption that detection rates had stayed constant between March 17th and 31st," Vollmer writes in an email. "We mentioned that in some countries, including the United States, the detection will likely improve. It turns out that it did improve, and therefore the estimated number of infections is much lower than under the assumption of a constant detection rate. The share of undetected cases is still quite sizeable, above 90 percent across these countries."

The new estimate for the number of infections in the United States at the end of March is 2.5 million, which is much lower than the original estimate of 11.9 million, although still 15 times the number of confirmed cases at the time and four times the current tally. Based on the "expected infection fatality rate" of 0.96 percent, that implies roughly the same number of deaths that have been reported so far. Since the calculation of the detection rate is based on the expected IFR combined with the death toll and the estimated time to death, that is what you would expect. Whether that IFR estimate will prove to be in the right ballpark is another question.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
They are showing a detection rate of 6.6% in the USA nationally
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reason.com

Official COVID-19 Numbers Represent Just 6% of Total Infections, a New Analysis Suggests

The gap between confirmed COVID-19 cases and the actual number of infections, which is crucial in estimating the prevalence and lethality of the virus
reason.com reason.com

Update, April 14: Vollmer and Bommer have revised their estimates based on more recent data. According to the new calculations, the detection rate in the United States as of March 30 was 6.6 percent, up from 3.6 percent in the earlier analysis. The new estimates are also higher for other countries, including Italy (6.9 percent vs. 3.5 percent), France (3.6 percent vs. 2.6 percent), Spain (6 percent vs. 1.7 percent), and the U.K. (2.2 percent vs. 1.2 percent).

"The calculation for the number of infected people was done under the hypothetical assumption that detection rates had stayed constant between March 17th and 31st," Vollmer writes in an email. "We mentioned that in some countries, including the United States, the detection will likely improve. It turns out that it did improve, and therefore the estimated number of infections is much lower than under the assumption of a constant detection rate. The share of undetected cases is still quite sizeable, above 90 percent across these countries."

The new estimate for the number of infections in the United States at the end of March is 2.5 million, which is much lower than the original estimate of 11.9 million, although still 15 times the number of confirmed cases at the time and four times the current tally. Based on the "expected infection fatality rate" of 0.96 percent, that implies roughly the same number of deaths that have been reported so far. Since the calculation of the detection rate is based on the expected IFR combined with the death toll and the estimated time to death, that is what you would expect. Whether that IFR estimate will prove to be in the right ballpark is another question.
Click to expand...
That's the Vollmer and Bommer study I have posted repeatedly. That's a solid model but it's calculated based on March 31. The article that you posted also reads the study incorrectly. That's what you get by posting from a right-wing rag about a study that wasn't the one you based your previous argument on. Dude, you have no fucking clue what you're doing.

That article you just posted is absolutely wrong. The original estimate for the US detection rate in the study, based on March 31 calculations was not 3.6%. It was 1.6% and it did not give an updated estimate singling out the US and refrained from giving an estimate of current rates altogether for global averages.

Aside from that, you went from saying that infection rates in the US were 5% based on a study that you had cited from Nature.

Dude.

Stop.

Here's the Vollmer Bommer study and the "update":

COVID-19 - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Webseiten der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Based on that model, you still cannot estimate global infections because you could multiply the infections in a country with a lot of infections and low detection rates and produce a number that is actually higher than if you were to multiply the average detection rate by the global number of confirmed cases.

The model doesn't work that way. Here's an example:

3.3m cases multiplied by 9% global detection rate = 36.7m infections.

1.13m cases multiplied by 3.6% US detection rate = 31.4m infections.

Both of these can not be simultaneously true and it's not because the study is flawed, it's because you'd be using it incorrectly. They refrained from updating detection rates by country.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That's the Vollmer and Bommer study I have posted repeatedly. That's a solid model but it's calculated based on March 31. The article that you posted also reads the study incorrectly. That's what you get by posting from a right-wing rag about a study that wasn't the one you based your previous argument on. Dude, you have no fucking clue what you're doing.

That article you just posted is absolutely wrong. The original estimate for the US detection rate in the study, based on March 31 calculations was not 3.6%. It was 1.6% and it did not give an updated estimate singling out the US and refrained from giving an estimate of current rates altogether for global averages.

Aside from that, you went from saying that infection rates in the US were 5% based on a study that you had cited from Nature.

Dude.

Stop.

Here's the Vollmer Bommer study and the "update":

COVID-19 - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Webseiten der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de
Click to expand...
Ok his numbers now show 9% up from 6% that means there's still 91% left to infect. The mortality rate estimates are still from .5 up to 1% or higher depending on the level of care. America has over 60.000 deaths in 60 days and the infection rate was low in the beginning, growing over time. Nationally I believe the US infection rate is still lower than 9%, I'll have a hunt around later for some data.

Bottom line is getting to herd immunity will cost a million or more lives with out effective treatments.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Ok his numbers now show 9% up from 6% that means there's still 91% left to infect.
Click to expand...
No, you're reading it wrong. And you're spamming the wrong thread and annoying the ever-living actual fuck out of me. That is global detection rate, not infection rate. You're completely lost. Just wait for the NIH study, you don't know what you're doing, you don't have enough to formulate.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No, you're reading it wrong. And you're spamming the wrong thread and annoying the ever-living actual fuck out of me. That is global detection rate, not infection rate. You're completely lost. Just wait for the NIH study, you don't know what you're doing, you don't have enough to formulate.
Click to expand...
His numbers show the detection rate? The estimate percentage of the population infected? Mortality rates have been reliably established at around .5% with proper care by data from a cruise ship and NY serological testing. NY has a very high infection rate compared to the rest of the country and by far the most deaths and the most extensive and reliable testing. We can wait for the NIH numbers, but we know how to estimate the number of deaths, without effective treatments. Overloading the healthcare system is one of the things to be avoided and that ain't gonna happen if they reopen without testing.

Merkle laid it out rather nicely with an Ro1.1 overloading their healthcare system by fall Ro1.2 by summer and and Ro1.3 by spring. All the states that have opened up have growing rates of infection and no testing worth a fuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top