Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[marting]

Surely we can put an end to this "its just like the flu" idea, as it has completely different observed R0 numbers.

Seasonal flu, around 1.3.
Covid-19, between 2.2. to 2.5.

That's a huge difference in practice:

Seasonal flu, after 10 generations of infection has reached around 14 people.

Covid-19, after 10 generations of infection assuming R0=2.2 has reached 2,655 people.
Covid-19, after 10 generations of infection assuming R0=2.5 has reached 9,536 people.

Covid-19 is way more contagious. It is nothing like flu, anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves.

Yeah. I've never seen so much wishful thinking extant.

 

[JeanTate]

You snipped out the fact that he edits science papers "for grammar and clarity". Unless you can point to a grammatical error he's committed, I'm not sure of the relevance.

You're right.

Here's the whole phrase: "(I edit science papers, much to your horror, I'm sure...it's for grammar and clarity, not content)."

One name for such a job is "copy editing". Perhaps that's what DG is paid for?

In a different world, many years' ago now, I had just such a job. It certainly included editing "for grammar and clarity". It also included things like:

- making sure that if the text said "Table 1", then a) there was a Table 1, b) the text about Table 1 matched what was is in Table 1 (and not Table 2, say)
- likewise if the text had a number from Table 1, then that number was, in fact, in Table 1

Of course, standards at the journal(s) where DG works may be different from those at other places; however, those copy editors who consistently missed screamingly obvious inconsistencies - but still did a good job of "polishing" - likely won't keep their jobs for long at most scientific journals I have familarity with.

 

[JeanTate]

Might as well quote this one as any other "skeptical of the numbers from China" post ...

Any reason to believe these chinese numbers? I find it hard to believe they are doing far better than western nations who by all accounts have much better healthcare and facilities.

Based on the stats provided if I'm in Belgium I should head over to Wuhan and save myself!


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Let's say I'm skeptical the numbers from China are accurate

Up until 15 March, the WHO's daily situation report had a "Table 1. Confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 acute respiratory disease reported by provinces, regions and cities in China".

The last column is "Cumulative Deaths". Ranked these are (for "Data as of 15 March 2020")*:
Hubei 3085
Henan 22
Heilongjiang 13
Guangdong, Beijing 8 (each)
Shandong 7
Anhui, Chongqing, Hebei, Hainan 6 (each)
Hunan, Hong Kong 4 (each)
Sichuan, Shanghai, Tianjin, Xinjiang 3 (each)
Guangxi, Shaanxi, Yunnan, Guizhou, Gansu 2 (each)
Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Fujian, Liaoning, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan 1 (each)
Jiangsu, Shanxi, Ningxia, Qinghai, Macau, Tibet 0 (each)

There certainly are good reasons for doubting the accuracy of the number for Hubei; the SCMP, for example, has articles/anecdotes about people dying and being cremated without any testing being done, especially in the early days.

But the fact that the numbers for three independent places (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau) are consistent with those for most provinces (other than Hubei) suggests that it's only Hubei where the numbers might be wonky.

More: Henan borders on Hubei, leaving Heilongjiang as the only apparent possible outlier.

*I hope I didn't make any transcription errors

 

[JeanTate]

So Israeli hospitals are chronically inadequate.


"ICU" and "Ventilator" not found on the page.

Not one word about overflowing ICUs or a shortage of ventilators.


The difference is striking.

Maybe I didn't search carefully enough, but I didn't see a response to this from DG.

Did I miss it/them?

 

[JeanTate]

Yet you are claiming that it is same as normal flu and you are suspicious that normal flu cases fall while COVID-19 rises...



You seem to not understand what I am saying. Let's try that again.

I was comparing "normal flu" with COVID-19.

I said: if COVID-19 under current circumstances (social distancing etc) behaves similarly to "normal flu" under normal circumstances (business as usual), then it is already worse than "normal flu".

No wait for more deaths/infected needed.

To be fair to DG, it's quite unclear - to me at least - just what the claims being made are.

If you read DG's posts, you'll see lots of ambiguity, inconsistency, and moving of goalposts (calling it like I see it, DG). And lots of JAQing, written with rather few question marks.

 

[Trebuchet]

The US death toll increased by 25% just yesterday. Wow.

 

[JesseCuster]

Let's run with that low 0.01% mortality rate.

Italy has a population of 60 million. If every single person in Italy had COVID-19 and 0.01% of them died that would be a total of 6,000 deaths from COVID-19.

So far the total deaths from COVID-19 in Italy is 12,400 and rising.

The death rate can't possibly be that low. How can those numbers possibly make any sense?

Spain has a population of 46 million and has so far recorded 10,000 deaths from COVID-19. That would make a fatality rate of 0.02% if everyone in Spain had the infection.

New York City has a population of 8 million and has so far recorded 1300 deaths. That would make for a fatality rate of 0.016% if everyone in New York City had the infection.

Given the rate at which the death tolls are rising daily in Italy, Spain and New York, how can anyone suggest with a straight face that the fatality rate might be as low as 0.01% given that those places already have had more than 0.01% of their entire population die from COVID-19 so far and those numbers are growing all the time?

Am I missing something here?

 

[William Parcher]

clarity

This is adjusting what has been written so that it is perfectly understandable. Such as fixing a statement by a science author so that it clearly communicates that the scientific intelligentsia is full of crap.

 

[angrysoba]

The viruses and bacteria as well, are not thing you can vaporize. They are always carried in the air as water droplets. Think of it as a thin mist, tiny water droplets that are light enough that they flow with the air quite a distance horizontally before gravity takes them down. You can take one of them misters that people use on flowers to observe just how far a squirt can travel. Put a piece of paper in between and see how many go around the top of the paper to the other side.

Mythbusters videos

sneeze https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f4sUNWkq60

party video
https://kmox.radio.com/articles/radiocom/mythbusters-experiment-shows-social-distancing-importance

Yes, true, microdroplets.

Now, if someone were sneezing, and they happened to be asymptomatic (or even symptomatic), and they had COVID 19, would a mask keep more microdroplets from escaping into the air than a person sneezing without a mask?

 

[Arcade22]

With regards to the statistical data coming from China, they are almost certainly under reporting both fatalities and individuals who test positive.

It's already well known that they do not classify individuals who test positive, but who do not at the time of the testing display any significant symptoms, as actually being infected in the numbers they report to the WHO. They only classify them as being infected if they are subsequently hospitalized.

 

[JeanTate]

Currently my brother wifes grand father is being treated for Covid19, he is in critical condition. He is 80 years old and suffering from a quite bad diabetes.

Some updated numbers from ISS, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Italys healthministry:

As of march 30 and 10.026 deaths:
Median age:
Women 82 years
Men 78 years

97.7% had atleast one underlying health condition51.7% had atleast three.
24.5% had atleast two.

10.026 deaths which 30.8% are women. Average days from first symptom to death is 9 and hospitalized after average 4 days.

Out of 10.026 deaths, 112 (1.1%) where under 50 years old. Where 23 where under 40 years, in the age of 26-39.
15 of those 23 had underlying health conditions.

Reason of death:
"Insufficient breathing" 96.5%
Kidney damage 25.7%
Heart muscle damage 11.6%
Super infection 11.2%

Antibiotics where used in 86% of the cases, antivirals in 54% and steroids in 34%. In 19.3% of the cases all three as been used.

Do you know if there is a list of what these "underlying health conditions" were?

Just a list would be nice, but a distribution would be nicer!

 

[William Parcher]

Of course, standards at the journal(s) where DG works may be different from those at other places; however, those copy editors who consistently missed screamingly obvious inconsistencies - but still did a good job of "polishing" - likely won't keep their jobs for long at most scientific journals I have familarity with.

Here, let me edit that for you...

DR

You said that you are a pedant, but I don't believe you.

 

[lomiller]

This is nonsense.

If you realized that up-front why did you continue typing?

Let's use conservative numbers and say every Toronto hospital only has 10 critical cases, that's 250 ICU patients, which based on your hearsay means 165 people have died in Toronto alone, not even close to being true.

You can’t take the number of people in ICU and compare it to the number of deaths and estimate death rates among people that end up in ICU.

No I'm not, I have pretty accurate figures for my locale which are easily accessible and his post which was based on a simple anecdote was wrong at best and careless at worst.

The numbers ARE easily accessible, so why didn't you do so?

As of April 1 in the Province of Ontario there are 89 people on ventilators in ICU. (This represents 27% of those hospitalized for COVID.)

I said above, however, you can't just take those 89 people add in the 37 dead and use in to calculate the death rate because those 89 cases have yet to be decided one way or another. if 6 of these 89 people die per day over the next 10 days and the remainder recover the death rate is 67%.

 

[Matthew Best]

In a different world, many years' ago now, I had just such a job. It certainly included editing "for grammar and clarity".

You shouldn't have an apostrophe after "years" in that sentence.

Of course, standards at the journal(s) where DG works may be different from those at other places; however, those copy editors who consistently missed screamingly obvious inconsistencies - but still did a good job of "polishing" - likely won't keep their jobs for long at most scientific journals I have familarity with.

You spelled "familiarity" wrong.

 

[JeanTate]

If that's a reply to me, I don't see the relevance to a discussion of why Italy is experiencing a higher death rate than the rest of the world.

But I'll humor you anyways. Your argument in the form of a question is ridiculous, EVEN if this is the pandemic that everyone says it is. In this post I am not even arguing that it won't be, I'm presenting the case for why continuing to ask this stupid question is dumb and pointless. It's the equivalent of putting out thousands of sandbags and using that as proof that there are going to be big storms this year.

(my hilite)

I don't understand this part.

May I ask, can you explain it in more detail please?

 

[Matthew Best]

(my hilite)

I don't understand this part.

May I ask, can you explain it in more detail please?

It seems fairly simple to me:

Putting out thousands of sandbags would not prove that there will be big storms this year. Agreed?

Then building tent hospitals in Central Park does not prove that Covid-19 will be worse than [insert other disease here].

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

(my hilite)

I don't understand this part.

May I ask, can you explain it in more detail please?

I think he is saying that preparing for a disaster isn't evidence of a disaster.

For example, if we all took up arms for the zombie apocalypse that wouldn't be evidence that it was coming.

 

[William Parcher]

I edit science papers, much to your horror, I'm sure...it's for grammar and clarity, not content

Do you perform this service for Rush Limbaugh?

 

[JeanTate]

Yes, thank you, you make very good points and I can see how it is faulty reasoning. That's why I'm on this board. I am a big believer in good evidence and good reasoning. The reason I'm skeptical of this pandemic is because so far I haven't found the evidence persuasive that one exists. I think we will see total combined deaths between flu and coronavirus in the US for the 2019-2020 season of 65,000-80,000, clearly a heavy flu/respiratory illness season, but not the disaster predicted. And then, as I said before, all the people who were wrong will still say I was the one who was wrong because all of the lockdowns are what caused the low number of deaths. I don't see a way out of this conundrum.

(my hilite)

Perhaps start at the beginning, and take it step by step?

First, what - to you - is a "pandemic"?

Once we're on the same page with this, then we could move on to what - to you - constitutes evidence for the existence of a pandemic.

 

[JeanTate]

That's right, you did mention that. But is that 100k total (USA deaths) between flu and coronavirus, or 100k from just coronavirus? If it were, for example, 99k from just coronavirus, I would definitely consider that a very real and serious pandemic. If it were from flu/coronavirus combined I would say my suspicions were vindicated.

Huh?

99/100 is just as much "combined" as 50/50 or 1/100 is.

Can you clarify please?