-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Exactly. Do you recall a nationwide lockdown in 2009?
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
There were only 19k confirmed deaths of Swine Flu WORLDWIDE, that's why Asia and some others are testing so widely now.
Hard to compare case counts when the official positive tests in 2009 were ~1.6M and a year later the medical community is all but certain there were actually more than 1B cases.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Swine flu was only EVER going to be at most a 1-year thing. We already had a vaccine system in place for influenza, we simply had to plug in the genetic changes and ramp up production of a new vaccine.
Your analogy is extremely flawed, incomplete, and short-sighted. I would expect nothing else from you.
Your analogy is extremely flawed, incomplete, and short-sighted. I would expect nothing else from you.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Am I not well documented in this thread? My assertion from the start was that we weren't going to test so we're "all getting it". Did I ever predict a figure over 100k? No.
My original March 15th guess was 122k combined flu and cv19 deaths, which is looking pretty strong though admittedly was a fairly random guess just based simply on an IFR <.2% on a large chunk of people. But I stand by that general concept of IFR range.
When NYC was plateauing I thought @jhm's modeling was logical and we'd fall somewhere between 37k and 6xk. But then we did.....absolutely nothing to mitigate spread since mid-March. That's not my fault!
The only reason I started posting in this thread was the clear early consensus of "1M+ and likely far worse" that was utter nonsense. That was never gonna happen and was based on an entirely flawed Imperial College report.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I saw this helpful graphic on Twitter and went ahead and plugged in Worldometer data into a spreadsheet. In these countries the CFR should be pretty much complete, and I wanted to see what the lower limit of CFR appeared to be in the presence of increased testing (related to a prior post I made over the weekend).
With the exception of Iceland (which kept the disease away from the elderly somehow, and is also a youngish population), it looks like the lower limit of CFR is about 1.4%. That may increase from there since there are probably a few lagging deaths still (the curves haven't been at zero for long enough...).
As far as translating to IFR...it seems like the more dense the testing (I sorted by tests per death), the closer it is to the real number. Seems to me that the IFR may well be above 1%, based on these calculations - in order for it to be lower, these countries that got control would have had to miss 25% of cases or more, in spite of very dense testing. Seems unlikely to be able to get control if that occurs (though other poorly tested countries getting control, like Greece, does make one wonder...). So maybe that approach to estimating IFR is flawed - maybe you only have to find 20% of the cases!
Trivia: To be as well-tested as New Zealand on a per death basis, the US would have had to conduct 534 million tests by now.
It does seem like in the US, as @Daniel in SD suggested, it might be a good idea to stop testing people who are clearly sick and assume they have coronavirus and mark it as such. In the absence of sufficient tests, we should be reserving those tests for close contacts of those sick people! If that's a positive, that confirms that the sick person has coronavirus, without testing them, and it also gets a potentially asymptomatic case out of the population!
With the exception of Iceland (which kept the disease away from the elderly somehow, and is also a youngish population), it looks like the lower limit of CFR is about 1.4%. That may increase from there since there are probably a few lagging deaths still (the curves haven't been at zero for long enough...).
As far as translating to IFR...it seems like the more dense the testing (I sorted by tests per death), the closer it is to the real number. Seems to me that the IFR may well be above 1%, based on these calculations - in order for it to be lower, these countries that got control would have had to miss 25% of cases or more, in spite of very dense testing. Seems unlikely to be able to get control if that occurs (though other poorly tested countries getting control, like Greece, does make one wonder...). So maybe that approach to estimating IFR is flawed - maybe you only have to find 20% of the cases!
Trivia: To be as well-tested as New Zealand on a per death basis, the US would have had to conduct 534 million tests by now.
It does seem like in the US, as @Daniel in SD suggested, it might be a good idea to stop testing people who are clearly sick and assume they have coronavirus and mark it as such. In the absence of sufficient tests, we should be reserving those tests for close contacts of those sick people! If that's a positive, that confirms that the sick person has coronavirus, without testing them, and it also gets a potentially asymptomatic case out of the population!
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Sure Swine Flu wasn't new, but it was also far more deadly. And killed predominately younger people. My point wasn't that these are in any way precisely the same threat, in many ways they're opposite. The point was that panic and math errors were remarkably similar.
I mean, you and I were arguing if 2.2M American deaths was a possible scenario. Here we are 6 or 7 weeks later, the entire nation is infected, and deaths stand at 69k almost exclusively elderly and/or immune-compromised Americans. Why exactly am I the one considered flawed or short-sighted? You took one misguided report and ran naked down the middle of the street yelling at anyone who would listen.
At some point we need to step back and look at the numbers rationally. Doesn't seem like that's gonna be any time before Christmas, perhaps next Memorial Day.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
And here's the problem with bias. You excluded the country that tested the largest(and more importantly most random) percentage of their population. Why? Because you wanted to.
Do you really think there are only 10,801 coronavirus infections in Korea? Or only 1.2M in the US? What's the point of calculating an IFR if we know for an absolute certainty the denominator is less accurate than a random number?
Where's Germany in this exercise?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Dude, the Imperial College report appears to have been spot on.
0.66*330e6*0.01 = 2.2e6.
Assumes 66% of the population gets infected. That seems completely plausible if it had been "let rip." (Currently we are at about 3%.)
Not sure why you keep bringing up how wrong you were about that.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No. I did NOT exclude it. Go look at their attack rate vs. age bracket on the Iceland website. They kept it out of their elderly population! That's obviously going to help.
My IFRs (which are obviously going to depend on demographics) assume a relatively uniform attack rate (generally below 20 years of age will have a lower attack rate, but that doesn't affect the numbers since they also don't typically die). I've made this very clear before. If you keep it out of your elderly population and lower the attack rate in the most vulnerable demographic, of course the IFR will be lower. And that's what happened in Iceland.
It seems pretty unlikely that countries will consistently be able to keep it out of the elderly population, though it is certainly an important thing to focus on!
As a counter example for you, Luxembourg tested nearly as much of the population as Iceland (only off by a factor of 2). And their CFR is 2.51%.
No, I've made very clear I think we have about 10 million cases in the US. I did not calculate an IFR. I was just looking at a way to figure out what it might be.
Last edited:
Did the coronavirus and flu couple tell you they are leaving this country after their 122k’th victim?
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Again. You keep talking IFR with no denominator. There's no way we're at 3% infection(10M) in the US. Have you walked around this place? I have! And even if we were, that's 100k deaths, not 69k.
We're likely far closer to 100M than 10M infections in the US, that's why I drew the parallel to Swine Flu. Everyone's doing the same faulty denominator math that was done back in 2009. If we know CV19 spreads more easily than Swine Flu(and it's novel!), why would we think the eventual case count would somehow be an order of magnitude lower?
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
So you are arguing after a "semi-successful" lock-down, why we don't have more deaths? This is the problem with any successful lock-down, you have morons like you that say we would have never gotten to the projected deaths and it was all for nothing.
Social "interactions" have been cut by about 95% in this country (that's a 20X reduction for the math challenged), and yet in 2 months we have had MORE deaths than from a bad influenza season (we all remember when you were claiming we would not even surpass that many). You want to tell all of us that it was just complete BS? You have no data that backs up that argument, and your pride won't let you admit that you were wrong. We've got your number.
I treated patients (in a pediatric hospital) during H1N1. You are incorrect that it killed predominately younger people. We had LOTS of cases, but relatively few deaths compared to the adult hospital next door. Kids got sick from it, but they didn't die. Just like most other respiratory diseases, it was older people with co-morbidities that took it on the chin.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Aren't we still just seeing the up-swing from carbon release from years past? IIRC we could stop 100% carbon usage today, and we would still see it trend further up for several more years.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
CA is currently, but the raw hard numbers from the piss-poor Stanford study, at ~2% (raw number, not their massaged data crap).
3-4% for a true prevalence throughout the USA is probably a very reasonable estimate. Hell, NYC is only 20%, based upon some good testing, and that's the worst hit of the US to date.
That level of geophysics is above my paygrade. I do know that there is a seasonal oscillation so that summer in a hemisphere pulls down CO2 measurably. So there is clearly is some way in which current levels reflect something about current consumption both in terms of fossil fuels and also current consumption of CO2 by plants. I suspect the slower oscillators implied in your post may reflect the operation of rocks and ocean absorption, with ocean absorption being a bit faster presumably.
Last edited:
Thought the NSW (AUS) school report was already in this thread but could not find it so here it is (again).
Overview
• This report provides an overview of investigation into all COVID-19 cases in New South Wales (NSW) schools.
• In NSW, from March to mid-April 2020, 18 individuals (9 students and 9 staff) from 15 schools were confirmed as COVID-19 cases; all of these individuals had an opportunity to transmit the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) to others in their schools.
• 735 students and 128 staff were close contacts of these initial 18 cases.
• No teacher or staff member contracted COVID-19 from any of the initial school cases.
• One child from a primary school and one child from a high school may have contracted COVID-19 from the initial cases at their schools.
Overview
• This report provides an overview of investigation into all COVID-19 cases in New South Wales (NSW) schools.
• In NSW, from March to mid-April 2020, 18 individuals (9 students and 9 staff) from 15 schools were confirmed as COVID-19 cases; all of these individuals had an opportunity to transmit the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) to others in their schools.
• 735 students and 128 staff were close contacts of these initial 18 cases.
• No teacher or staff member contracted COVID-19 from any of the initial school cases.
• One child from a primary school and one child from a high school may have contracted COVID-19 from the initial cases at their schools.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
In 4 one!
How is it hard for us to spend a month(Feb) developing this and then a herculean effort to make 150M+ of them? Seems like we should have been able to do all that within less than 3 months. How many Snuggies did we make in like 3 weeks?
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
What successful lockdown? It's spread everywhere. Every single corner of the entire country.
Glad you have my number. Flu killed 61k in 2018, so I'm currently off by 8k and you're off by what......2,131,000?
Anywho....saying Swine Flu didn't disproportionately affect younger people.....not sure what to tell an actual doctor here considering 80% of deaths were under 65 years of age. Shouldn't you just know that?
Similar threads
