Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#64,926
#64,926
MontyPython said:
"On Tuesday, Thomas File, Jr., president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, released a statement on behalf of his colleagues throwing their support behind Fauci. “The only way out of this pandemic is by following the science, and developing evidence-based prevention practices and treatment protocols as new scientifically rigorous data become available. Knowledge changes over time. That is to be expected. If we have any hope of ending this crisis, all of America must support public health experts, including Dr. Fauci, and stand with science.”

“As 12,000 medical doctors, research scientists and public-health experts on the front lines of COVID-19, the infectious diseases community will not be silenced nor sidelined amidst a global pandemic,” he said. “Reports of a campaign to discredit and diminish the role of Dr. Fauci at this perilous moment are disturbing. Despite the nation’s vast resources and abilities, more than 135,000 people in America have died from COVID-19, more than any other country,” he said, adding, “This is a full-blown crisis unlike any America has ever faced and it needs to be treated as such.”

# # #

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Donald.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
#64,934
#64,934
McDad said:
Are you as unable to abide when a looter enters a business sans mask even when the business is closed? Is your issue only with the MAGA mob?
Click to expand...


Classic trolling with bait... I expect better from you (whether you deserve such expectation or not). When I'm talking apples, don't challenge me with suppositions about oil palms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#64,936
#64,936
For the record @McDad, I do not condone or excuse recent looting or arson in the US.

Now, refrain from posting suppositions about acts of resistance in occupied territories during times of war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#64,937
#64,937
newarkvol said:
Quoted from a trusted source that I have followed since early March:

"As I predicted 6 weeks ago and again last week, the CDC finally realized their infection fatality rate estimate of 0.4% (for symptomatic infections) and 0.25% for all infections including asymptomatic, which is the one everyone uses was too low and they've adjusted their "best guess" estimated overall IFR (including asymptomatic) to 0.65%, with an estimated range of 0.5-0.8%, which is very close to the 0.5-1.0% I've been predicting for months (since the NY antibody testing was done in early April, at least, revealing their IFR of about 1.1%, and this was before most epidemiologists were saying it - they're mostly estimating 0.5-1.0% now, as per the 2nd linked post below). I'd rather they were right, but they simply weren't factoring in the antibody testing data properly, IMO.

This is likely the last "inherent" IFR estimate, as we're now starting to see (I think) the impact of improved medical procedures and treatments on the IFR and we should expect the effective IFR to come down from here on out and especially once we have engineered antibodies and, of course, vaccines. But the 0.5-1.0% IFR range provides a good "worst case" planning tool for death estimates should we not practice interventions (like masking/distancing and testing, tracing and isolating) or if treatments/vaccines don't pan out as planned. And that is what gives us the crazy high potential of 0.9MM-2.6MM US deaths eventually, if 55-80% become infected with an IFR of 0.5-1.0%."

This dude has been prescient on all things Covid throughout....

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Scientists Say New, Lower CDC Estimates For Severity Of COVID-19 Are Optimistic
Click to expand...

That's interesting that he took away the 1.1% estimate from the NY study. It is possible, depending on what you consider your lag between infection and death to be and also how long you want to assume that it takes to build up IgG ABs, to get quite different numbers. But, I hadn't seen the 1.1% conclusion. Because of the complexities, it makes it tough to take data from April and calculate an iFR. But I've seen estimates as low as 0.3% for it from that study. I think something along the lines of 0.6% is quite reasonable from that study. The 0.65% he mentions is very close to the Lancet-published value from March (not based on AB studies) that I used up until late May when I finally started using 0.4%.

I was just on this page a few days ago (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ) and missed the fact that they had revised up the iFR to 0.65%. It's funny because that is what we were using all the way back in April in discussions on this site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol
#64,939
#64,939
allvol123 said:
If there is no cure or treatment advances, and it runs thru a population at different rates depending on things like density, transportation modes, etc I still dont see why you would have vastly different deaths per million numbers.

I get IFR can be a bad comparison because the first site wasnt as geared up for testing as opposed to the second site which is able to do massive testing. So you get massive misses on infected at the first site.
Click to expand...

IFR is technically independent of testing, but difficult to measure.

CFR will wildly depend on case-capture rate in testing.

As for just plain old deaths / MM people of total population (not population infected), is that what you are referring to? In that instance, the % of total pop infected would obviously influence the deaths / MM total pop.

If you referring to deaths / MM people infected, then that becomes a question of how you measure the total infected.
 
#64,940
#64,940
TennTradition said:
IFR is technically independent of testing, but difficult to measure.

CFR will wildly depend on case-capture rate in testing.

As for just plain old deaths / MM people of total population (not population infected), is that what you are referring to? In that instance, the % of total pop infected would obviously influence the deaths / MM total pop.

If you referring to deaths / MM people infected, then that becomes a question of how you measure the total infected.
Click to expand...

You're right I meant CFR.
 
#64,942
#64,942
TennTradition said:
IFR is technically independent of testing, but difficult to measure.

CFR will wildly depend on case-capture rate in testing.

As for just plain old deaths / MM people of total population (not population infected), is that what you are referring to? In that instance, the % of total pop infected would obviously influence the deaths / MM total pop.

If you referring to deaths / MM people infected, then that becomes a question of how you measure the total infected.
Click to expand...

Deaths / MM people. The % of total infected should be much different if we dont create a vaccine. It might take different amounts of time to get 2 places to a similar number, but they should eventually reach that similar number.
 
#64,943
#64,943
allvol123 said:
Deaths / MM people. The % of total infected should be much different if we dont create a vaccine. It might take different amounts of time to get 2 places to a similar number, but they should eventually reach that similar number.
Click to expand...

Yes - I agree with that. Though if other places don't stress medical systems (including hospitals having to send positive patients out of hospitals to clear beds for more critical patients) and can see their cases spread out over longer periods of time that delay the infections to allow for better treatments (which we are doing now with the drug cocktails and steroids), then they benefit from not having a large, early wave like NY did.

So, that becomes difficult to gauge. But, you can ask did New York see a fundamentally different iFR in March/April than MA, CT, NJ, MI, LA, etc? My guess is no, not fundamentally different. They just had a lot more infections.

The two weeks to flatten the curve wasn't about take two weeks to flatten the curve and then we can all get back to normal. It was if we don't stop this wave in the next two weeks, all hell is going to break loose (mainly in NY it turns out). Point being, they had soooo many more cases than most other parts of the countries. In that respect, the deaths should be expected.
 
#64,945
#64,945
MontyPython said:
"On Tuesday, Thomas File, Jr., president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, released a statement on behalf of his colleagues throwing their support behind Fauci. “The only way out of this pandemic is by following the science, and developing evidence-based prevention practices and treatment protocols as new scientifically rigorous data become available. Knowledge changes over time. That is to be expected. If we have any hope of ending this crisis, all of America must support public health experts, including Dr. Fauci, and stand with science.”

“As 12,000 medical doctors, research scientists and public-health experts on the front lines of COVID-19, the infectious diseases community will not be silenced nor sidelined amidst a global pandemic,” he said. “Reports of a campaign to discredit and diminish the role of Dr. Fauci at this perilous moment are disturbing. Despite the nation’s vast resources and abilities, more than 135,000 people in America have died from COVID-19, more than any other country,” he said, adding, “This is a full-blown crisis unlike any America has ever faced and it needs to be treated as such.”

# # #

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Donald.
Click to expand...

Trump has listened to Dr Flipflop throughout this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#64,946
#64,946
TennTradition said:
That's interesting that he took away the 1.1% estimate from the NY study. It is possible, depending on what you consider your lag between infection and death to be and also how long you want to assume that it takes to build up IgG ABs, to get quite different numbers. But, I hadn't seen the 1.1% conclusion. Because of the complexities, it makes it tough to take data from April and calculate an iFR. But I've seen estimates as low as 0.3% for it from that study. I think something along the lines of 0.6% is quite reasonable from that study. The 0.65% he mentions is very close to the Lancet-published value from March (not based on AB studies) that I used up until late May when I finally started using 0.4%.

I was just on this page a few days ago (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ) and missed the fact that they had revised up the iFR to 0.65%. It's funny because that is what we were using all the way back in April in discussions on this site.
Click to expand...
To the .65% We arent all as dumb as @McDad seems

I think there are a number of us at least as intelligent and informed as the policy makers. Which is why a bunch hold pretty irreverent opinions of them all.

We hear "oh we couldnt have known X", and in fact you can go back and look at various threads on various subjects where "x" was being pushed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and McDad
#64,948
#64,948
evillawyer said:
Three states in U.S. South report record rises in COVID-19 deaths
Click to expand...

Florida coronavirus: State tallies 9k new cases, record-high daily death count | WFLA

“With more than 135,000 deaths, the United States ranks seventh in fatalities per capita among the 20 countries with the most cases.”

“Of the total tests received on Monday, 18.31% were positive. The state says it received 54,862 negative results and 12,298 positive cases. The positive results include people who have tested positive more than once – for example, those who tested positive initially and were tested again to see if they still have the virus.”

So if you test positive, you are tested again just to see if you still have it. That’s 2 positive tests for the same person.

Man we all better lockdown and get out the biohazard suits

“Floridians in the 25 to 34 age group account for the largest percentage of cases throughout the state. There are 59,310 confirmed cases in that age group, which is 21% of the state’s total. Of those cases, only 6% are hospitalized and 1% have died.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol, allvol123 and volfanjustin
#64,949
#64,949
Ok that makes me think of something, is there some statistical way to cut the numbers?

We have to do multiple tests if positive. First one you find out you are positive and then assumidely you have to get a second to prove you arent positive.
That one person could easily count as 2, with some counting as 3, 4, 5 etc if they keep testing positive.

Seems like there is an argument that we are pretty heavily double dipping our numbers. Granted not everyone's second test comes back positive, but it seems like we should be able to calculate a "law of increasing (vs diminishing) returns" based on recovery rates, right?

I dont think we are full on double counting, but I could easily believe some math if it showed that the increasing returns accounts for ~25% of the total cases.

It helps with the total infected but would hurt us on mortality rate.

Has anyone seen some numbers on this? @TennTradition

Maybe not specifically for Covid, but some type of rule of thumb to adjust for double/triple counting?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top