Belz...
Fiend God
And what makes your arguments so special?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus diseases
- Status
And what makes your arguments so special?
If we look at South Korea I think it is. If countries after their lockdown act as SK has been doing I think fresh outbreaks can be minimised. But will we see such focus in countries like the UK and the USA, I sadly doubt it.
I’d rather for events like this we follow the adage, plan for the worse, hope for the best.
I’d rather the healthcare system not need the resources rather than need but not have the resources.
angrysoba
Philosophile
That's paywalled. Would you mind quoting or summarizing a key section?
I took to heart what Planigale told me before that many flu deaths are usually only worked out much later as "excess deaths" that often result from a hit to the immune system that then manifests itself weeks or months after the recovery as a heart attack or a stroke or something else.
A friend of my mother's died a couple of days ago. She was in a nursing home in the UK, and had tested positive for covid 19. Apparently the test results had been really slow to arrive (something like ten days after she had been tested, and all the while she had been looked after by agency staff with no protection). She apparently became very sick, but recovered. Then died about a week later. Her death would probably not be attributed to covid 19 but it almost certainly contributed.
Exactly! Complaining otherwise is like being bitterly disappointed that you didn’t die the past year and therefore “wasted” having life insurance.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
In other words, there's about a 9% chance that someone who has tested negative twice is actually still positive.
The centre for evidence based medicine at oxford university has short easy to read articles on a variety of issues concerning mortality figures fow covid-19.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/tracking-mortality-over-time/
This article shows excess deaths over expected over the last 5 years. In the last week of March there was an excess of deaths, but one can see this has happened previously particularly in association with winter flu deaths.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/is-the-uk-coronavirus-death-toll-70-80-higher/
Elsewhere they also discuss how daily increases in deaths do not represent deaths the previous day but in fact are deaths that occurred over several days that have been reported the previous day. If you allocate the deaths to the day they occurred rather than the day reported it looks like UK deaths have levelled i.e. we are at the top of the peak.
Yes we have seen patients who we are certain have covid-19 pneumonia whose nose & throat swabs were negative 2 or 3 times then we get a sputum sample that tests positive. A good sample of sticky white stuff coughed up from your lungs is more reliable than a nose / throat swab.
I'm trying to understand the implications of this German study, but basically it seems there is not nearly enough information.
They sampled 500 people in the town Gangelt, in the area Heinsberg. Heinsberg is the region in Germany with the highest per capita rate of confirmed cases. I believe that within Heinsberg, they chose Gangelt because it has a higher number of cases. But I can't find the offical number for Gangelt anywhere (i.e., how many cases were already on record *before* this study). That's not what the 2% figure is: that seems to be the number that during the study itself were found to be currently infected.
So the 14% is certainly not represntative for Germany, and there seems to be no publicly available data to say it's X times the rate of (previously) confirmed cases, i.e., to estimate the undercount.
Also, there's some doubt about how the study has been done. They haven't published any details, just this 2 page pdf. They claim that their antibody test shows very few false positives, but apparantly an earlier version of the test did cross react to other Coronaviruses. So it's not clear how reliable 14% is even for Gangelt.
Basically, it's just a press announcement with no detail, so essentially impossible to evaluate at the moment.
And the person doing the study certainly came into it with the belief that things aren't as bad as the government is saying, and restrictions should be relaxed. [I saw a TV interview with him where he said roughly speaking that there is a 14 day delay in knowing whether restrictions imposed are working, so when they were introduced, the restrictions shouldn't have been all at once, but rather first step, then wait 14 days, then next step, etc. That's completely ridiculous at a time when new cases and deaths were doubling every 3 days!]
Last edited:
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
Part of that is something that has been discussed earlier, which is that an overwhelmed healthcare system will have cascading problems that impact other patients. If there aren't any beds available, then when I go into emerg with my cancer symptoms, my wait time increases, my morbidity and mortality risk increases.
As far as I know, Sweden, like Denmark, has only been testing people who had symptoms and were admitted to hospital. Those who have mild symptoms have been advised to stay home, and have not been tested.
Of course this will result in high mortality per tested patient.
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,418
Your invented/fabricated quote said "used" not "needed." I said they weren't needed, not that they weren't being used at all. Because of anticipated need there were already 300 or so patients who'd been distributed at some of the accessory locations.
Last edited:
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,418
That's valid, but different than how the preparations were being used as evidence by others.
marting
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,315
https://www.wsj.com/articles/corona...cross-u-s-killing-2-000-residents-11586554096
The virus’s toll in long-term care facilities in the U.S. hasn’t been clear. The CDC, which regularly reports coronavirus infections and deaths in total, doesn’t do so for nursing-home cases.
The virus’s toll in long-term care facilities in the U.S. hasn’t been clear. The CDC, which regularly reports coronavirus infections and deaths in total, doesn’t do so for nursing-home cases.
If you had read the links I posted above you would know that these are deaths reported in the last 24 hours not that occurred in the last 24 hours. Some of them are deaths that have occurred in the last few days that are only now being reported. What you need to look at is deaths by the day they occurred not the day they are reported.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Official death tolls for covid-19 may exclude people who died before they could be tested. They also ignore people who succumbed to other causes, perhaps because hospitals had no room to treat them.
...
L’Eco di Bergamo, a newspaper, has obtained data from 82 localities in Italy’s Bergamo province. In March these places had 2,420 more deaths than in March 2019. Just 1,140, less than half of the increase, were attributed to covid-19.
Comparable figures can be found across Europe. In Spain El País, a newspaper, has published the results of a study by the government’s health research centre, showing that “excess” deaths in the Castile-La Mancha region were double the number attributed to covid-19.
And once again I'm very glad that it's Cuomo and de Blasio in charge (not you).
Second guessing (Monday morning quarterbacking) decisions made by managers (etc) in an emergency has got to be one of the easiest things for armchair critics. Even for all the information contained in Cuomo's daily TV briefings, for example.
I think I now know the answer to that.
It's not the deep understanding of any part of biology, medicine, or even mathematics (e.g. statistics).
Rather it's tendentiousness.
To inject a little basic science: the apparent correlation (which does not imply causation) with certain hard-core anti-science messages is pretty amazing.
Thanks.
It's a very good website, as you'd expect. However, it doesn't seem to have details of the planned study referenced in the OP of this micro-thread.
- Status