• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DevilsAdvocate said:
I'm not sure that defeats Doghouse Riley's claim that the reactions are overblown. Are the covid numbers in Michigan any worse than a bad flu season? I don;t know. I can't find the numbers.

In the US, covid has not so far been any worse than a bad flu season, and it looks like it won't be. Plants don't close when they have a bunch of workers sick with the flu (although Michigan did close some schools due to a bad flu season a few years ago).

Is it really more sick workers, or plants closing because they have a few workers with covid and close down when they wouldn't if it was regular flu? Or workers not coming to work if there are reports of someone with covid when they would still show up for work if it was flu?

I'm not sure that plants closing is actually because of more sick people rather than a reaction to sick people that would not occur if this was regular flu.
Click to expand...
(my hilite)

I haven’t yet seen any reliable data to support that; can you point to any please?

And in NY+NJ+CT Covid-19 has, so far, been far worse than any recent flu season, over January-April, in terms of deaths (I’ll see if I can find easily quotable sources).
 
JeanTate said:
It is that issue, April 4th 2020. In the Briefing section, “Hard choices”. Here are some extracts:

“Counter-intuitive as it may be, the economic evidence indicates that mortality is procyclical: it rises in periods of economic growth and declines during downturns. [...] found that in America a 1% rise in unemployment was associated with a 1.3% increase in suicides, but a decline in cardiovascular deaths of 0.5%, in road deaths of 3.0%, and in deaths from all causes of 0.5%.”
Click to expand...

So we really do work ourselves to death? Though these statistics only include those whose deaths actually occurred during downturns and not those whose life spans were shortened due to being pushed into poverty, most of whom would die during a period of economic growth since those periods occupy the majority of time. Admittedly, I have no idea of what the number of such people is; I don't even know the order of magnitude.
 
JeanTate said:
(my hilite)

I haven’t yet seen any reliable data to support that; can you point to any please?

And in NY+NJ+CT Covid-19 has, so far, been far worse than any recent flu season, over January-April, in terms of deaths (I’ll see if I can find easily quotable sources).
Click to expand...

According to the CDC flu seasons usually have between 12,000 and 56,000 deaths, with the 80,000 in 2017-189 being extraordinarily high. The difference, of course, is that "flu season" is between October and April (6 months), whereas the US's first confirmed case of covid-19 was 2 1/2 months ago. That and the fact that nobody goes in to lockdown for the flu.

So we won't know for a while how it actually compares to the flu in terms of numbers dead, and when we do it'll be more of a measure of how well the preventative measures have worked than a direct comparison between the diseases.
 
JeanTate said:
Thanks for posting this.


Interesting Xmas/New Year effect.

Of the years plotted, which was the worst for the flu?
Click to expand...

The graph is when the deaths were registered, so there is always some reporting lag over the holiday period.
And not sure.
 
Thanks.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
According to the CDC flu seasons usually have between 12,000 and 56,000 deaths, with the 80,000 in 2017-189 being extraordinarily high. The difference, of course, is that "flu season" is between October and April (6 months), whereas the US's first confirmed case of covid-19 was 2 1/2 months ago. That and the fact that nobody goes in to lockdown for the flu.

So we won't know for a while how it actually compares to the flu in terms of numbers dead, and when we do it'll be more of a measure of how well the preventative measures have worked than a direct comparison between the diseases.
Click to expand...
Also: I doubt (but do not know) that the numbers of "flu deaths" during flu season in the US, per month, has ever varied as much as have covid-19 deaths, from February to March say (zero to 2850, per WHO situation reports).
 
Getting back to you on this ...

Doghouse Reilly said:
Today is the 12th of April and we're not even close to being on pace with your forecast. Looks like we're waiting longer than you thought. Or was your "supposing" not meant to be taken seriously, as it was simply "supposing"? It certainly felt as though your intention was to show me, through "supposing" in simple exponential fashion (since apparently you, as so many others,
thought I was too simpleminded to comprehend the premise) just how foolish I was to doubt the claims of massive impending doom and death.
Click to expand...
Here's the post of mine you are quoting, in full:

JeanTate said:
Doghouse Reilly said:
JeanTate said:
(my hilite).

OK, will do. Will you still be reading this thread?

May I take it that you think it exceedingly unlikely that the total number of deaths from covid-19 will exceed 200k, in 2020?
Click to expand...
I think it's possible, but unlikely and it would be around that time that I would begin to think it might be more of a concern than I thought. Yes, I will still be reading the thread.
Click to expand...
Doghouse Reilly said:
The source is all over the news today, give me a break. I didn't tell tall tales, I used existing government figures and projections.

Let me know when the global death toll exceeds 200k. Until then you are the ones saying the sky is falling with no evidence.
Click to expand...
Suppose the global death toll, today (31 March 2020) is 40k.

Suppose it's doubling every four days*.

On 4 April, it will be 80k.

8 April, 160k.

12 April, 320k.

Looks like we won't have to wait for long.

*From the WHO situation reports, Grand Total :
19 March: 8,778
23 March: 14,509
27 March: 23,335
Click to expand...
Turns out the WHO situation report gives a Grand Total of 36,405 for 31 March 2020.

Also:
14509/8778 = 1.65 (not 2.00)
23335/14509 = 1.61 (not 2.00)
36405/23335 = 1.56 (not 2.00)

So what?

For one, my "supposes" were wrong* even as I wrote them.

For another, anyone who read my post could have easily discovered at least these inconsistencies.

Here are the relevant numbers for three dates in April:
4 April: 56,986 (/36405 = 1.56)
8 April: 79,235 (/56986 = 1.39)
12 April: 105,592 (/79235 = 1.33)

The data suggest that the doubling time has gone from ~five days in late March to ~eight days ~two weeks later. This is a very welcome trend, if it indeed reflects accurately how the death toll from covid-19 is changing.

*In the sense that they were obviously inconsistent with what was in the WHO situation reports, although the 36405 value was not known at the time of my post.
 
High percentage of COVID-19 infections and extremely high asymptomatic population amongst women at delivery in NY.

All the women were screened on admission for symptoms of Covid-19. Four women (1.9%) had fever or other symptoms of Covid-19 on admission, and all 4 women tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of the 211 women without symptoms, all were afebrile on admission. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 210 of the 211 women (99.5%) who did not have symptoms of Covid-19; of these women, 29 (13.7%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of Covid-19 at presentation.
Click to expand...


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316
 
marting said:
High percentage of COVID-19 infections and extremely high asymptomatic population amongst women at delivery in NY.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316
Click to expand...

13% in heavily hit area is on par with 15% people with antibodies from Germany, also from heavily hit area. That's good, that's starting to have some effect on crowd immunity. But that area in Germany had 2% of all population as confirmed case. It won't be as high everywhere. It will be 100x less.
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
Getting back to you on this ...


Here's the post of mine you are quoting, in full:


Turns out the WHO situation report gives a Grand Total of 36,405 for 31 March 2020.

Also:
14509/8778 = 1.65 (not 2.00)
23335/14509 = 1.61 (not 2.00)
36405/23335 = 1.56 (not 2.00)

So what?

For one, my "supposes" were wrong* even as I wrote them.

For another, anyone who read my post could have easily discovered at least these inconsistencies.

Here are the relevant numbers for three dates in April:
4 April: 56,986 (/36405 = 1.56)
8 April: 79,235 (/56986 = 1.39)
12 April: 105,592 (/79235 = 1.33)

The data suggest that the doubling time has gone from ~five days in late March to ~eight days ~two weeks later. This is a very welcome trend, if it indeed reflects accurately how the death toll from covid-19 is changing.

*In the sense that they were obviously inconsistent with what was in the WHO situation reports, although the 36405 value was not known at the time of my post.
Click to expand...

[utl=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-by-country.html]This New York Times graph[/url] still has it as doubling every 5 days.
 
Dr.Sid said:
13% in heavily hit area is on par with 15% people with antibodies from Germany, also from heavily hit area. That's good, that's starting to have some effect on crowd immunity. But that area in Germany had 2% of all population as confirmed case. It won't be as high everywhere. It will be 100x less.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that 2% number? I've been looking for it, as mentioned earlier! I assume it's for Gangelt (where the sample was), not Kreis Heinsberg as a whole.

If you've got the number from the 2 page summary of Streeck's study in Gangelt, then I think you are reading it wrong. That's how many active cases he found, not how many had previously been identified. So it's not useful for trying to guess the ratio total cases/reported cases elsewhere.
 
JeanTate said:
Found it!

“The fact that some of the people now arguing that the exorbitant costs of decisive action against Covid-19 will lead to poorer public health in the future were, after the financial crisis, supporters of an austerity which had the same effect is not without its irony.”
Click to expand...

Outstanding point by that person.

marting said:
High percentage of COVID-19 infections and extremely high asymptomatic population amongst women at delivery in NY.
Click to expand...

Nice find. Surely that's enough proof now that 90% of cases are being missed?

It's also going to make it very hard to kill the virus off entirely.
_______________________

Meanwhile, Russia is on the verge of becoming the world's Covid-19 hot spot. Growth curve out of control, very weak health systems and poorly-nourished population.
 
Meridian said:
Do you have a source for that 2% number? I've been looking for it, as mentioned earlier! I assume it's for Gangelt (where the sample was), not Kreis Heinsberg as a whole.

If you've got the number from the 2 page summary of Streeck's study in Gangelt, then I think you are reading it wrong. That's how many active cases he found, not how many had previously been identified. So it's not useful for trying to guess the ratio total cases/reported cases elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Can't find it anymore anyway I remember it being vague, what you say is quite possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom