Coronavirus

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

View attachment 525127

So, Greta Thunberg and others are just hypothesizing with lack of data to support their hypothesis. Specifically, the below statement from her is 100% BS:
"I have therefore not been tested for COVID-19, but it’s extremely likely that I’ve had it, given the combined symptoms and circumstances."

Atta boy! you've completely missed the forest for the trees!!

The message wasn't that she likely had the virus, her message was that the healthy folks had a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable by NOT being vectors to spread the infection. That's been her MO, social responsibility.

 

[bkp_duke]

Atta boy! you've completely missed the forest for the trees!!

The message wasn't that she likely had the virus, her message was that the healthy folks had a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable by NOT being vectors to spread the infection. That's been her MO, social responsibility.

I take great issue with her ASSUMPTION that she had it. That is specifically what I was referring to.

 

[deonb]

Isnt NY at about 300k tested already? What is Korea?

348000

https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=&bid=0030

 

[JRP3]

Specifically, the below statement from her is 100% BS:
"I have therefore not been tested for COVID-19, but it’s extremely likely that I’ve had it, given the combined symptoms and circumstances."

Since she could have had it her statement can't be 100% BS.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I take great issue with her ASSUMPTION that she had it. That is specifically what I was referring to.

It's an assumption! You're equally wrong to assume that she did NOT have it.

Edit: she made the assumption based on conditions that would make it more likely than not. True she can't know for sure without testing, but she used that assumption as the basis for her self-isolation from her mom and sister.

 

[bkp_duke]

It's an assumption! You're equally wrong to assume that she did NOT have it.

Actually, by the statistics of the outbreak, I'm about only 5-10% chance of being wrong. Odds are 90+% that she didn't have it.

If you want to split hairs.

 

[Causalien]

Says I, and any other physician who is not an abject moron. You are simply misinformed.

IgG Antibody detection implies exposure. It says somewhere between little to nothing about disease status.
I'll highlight the problem for you with one example: close to 100% of patients in ICUs due to Covid-19 are antibody positive.

How expensive are these antibody test compared to what they are using now? I believed that the way out of this is to test everyone so that people know at least if they have antibody or not so they can get on with life. Right now, almost nobody knows so we are all locked at home.

 

[EVNow]

I KEEP seeing a significant number of posters (here, and more so elsewhere) that keep reposting the "I had similar symptoms X weeks ago, so I must have had it and gotten over it".

FOR THE RECORD - the constellation of symptoms for COVID-19 is NOT UNIQUE. The are generalized and similar to anything from the common cold, to the flu, to full blown ARDS.

UNLESS you had a positive test during your symptoms, and have since recovered, you CANNOT claim immunity status. The data do NOT support that leap in logic.

Yes - common cold is still common. In Seattle only 7% of symptomatic patients (and contacts) are testing positive.

So, Greta Thunberg and others are just hypothesizing with lack of data to support their hypothesis. Specifically, the below statement from her is 100% BS:
"I have therefore not been tested for COVID-19, but it’s extremely likely that I’ve had it, given the combined symptoms and circumstances."

I'd cut some slack to Greta. In her circumstance she should assume she has Covid-19 and isolate, which she is doing. I won't be surprised if she & her father actually do have Covid-19.

BTW, anyone has seen data on what % of travelers with symptoms tested positive for covid ?

 

[Doggydogworld]

Isnt NY at about 300k tested already? What is Korea?

NY has tested 91k. South Korea about 350k.

Almost 40% of NY tests the last 24 hours were positive. That's an insane ratio.

I understand part of NY's huge leap in positive results lately is partly due to a huge leap in testing. But can anyone explain NY's huge leap in deaths? A few days ago they went from ~50 total to ~50 every day. That doesn't fit any known epidemiological curve I've ever seen. Were they massively misclassifying deaths until late last week?

 

[MXLRplus]

Since she could have had it her statement can't be 100% BS.

Based on testing results of those who exhibit symptoms, she is not "extremely likely" to have it.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Madrid had a same kind event as the USA two weeks ago. A football match in Lombardia with a team from Madrid and a team from Italy, Lombardia. A lot of fans and players reported that they are infected. Prepare for a massive, really massive outbreak in London, the picture from the subway below will say enough (it's from this morning 24-03-2020). the USA will also have a massive outbreak because of springbreak, a hospital in orlando tested 3720 persons (yesterday) and 7.7% is infected. That doesn't sound much, but 50% of thos patiënts is between 18 and 54, so socially pretty active.

Another issue is that the wait time for results is almost 3 days, and not within 24 hours or shorter!

View attachment 524973

Wow, just wow. And people are worried about airline flights.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

On a log scale, any constant positive slope is out of control. Although California and Washington are not as bad as NYC, doubling deaths every week is not slow.

I’ve seen far too many posts downplay the deaths as small compared to the flu, which globally kills about 300 to 600k each year. CV is now killing at twice the rate at 1M / year globally.

Exponential growth means that even if CV deaths “only” double weekly, next week CV will kill at a rate of 2M per year, then 4M/year a week later, then 16M/year within a month if the curve doesn’t flatten on a logarithmic scale.

With all the efforts to combat CV worldwide, the hope is to decrease the logarithmic slope of CV deaths. Far from that, the logarithmic slope has been increasing worldwide, and linear for the US.

So this is not ok.

Eight months to the election, ~32 weeks or doubles equals.......oops.

 

[Unpilot]

I take great issue with her ASSUMPTION that she had it. That is specifically what I was referring to.

Best practice IMHO is to assume one has it.
Then one would ...well .....use best practices and stay away from people.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

South Korea: 120 / 7513 is about 1.6 %.
Germany: 149 / 1545 is about 9.6 %.

Both are more than 1.5%. If you see a problem with this calculation, please tell me now.

It's a tricky calculation. There is a significant % of early mortality, and then there are the delayed deaths. For Germany I think you are being thrown by including early deaths from the massive ramp of cases, but then using a denominator from before the massive ramp.

Similarly, using today's numbers for Germany, as we know, will yield a LOW rate (149/31370 = 0.47%), just because those more prolonged and painful deaths have not yet occurred from the ramp.

The real answer is somewhere in between.

For SK, I was being deliberately conservative with my numbers so as not to overstate things. I take some issue with your number because you captured a small amount of the faster case ramp in your 7513 number (I think the true "roundoff" of cases occurred soon after they got to 8000 cases). So that makes a small error in the calculation.

However, it's true that only ~3500 of the 9000 cases in Korea have recovered as of now, so the current 1.3% mortality rate will likely go up somewhat as time goes by. Some people will struggle for a month to repair their lungs, but slowly suffocate and die, either due to the lung damage, or other co-morbidities, or organ damage that occurred.

So yes, I would not take issue with a true CFR of something like 1.5% in some populations. But the IFR is probably closer to 1% (similar to the cruise ship, but that has other confounding factors due to the population being sampled). So that would imply quite a few asymptomatic or mild cases. Perhaps 20-30% of the identified cases.

There's talk today about half of the people with the disease being asymptomatic, but I would suspect that is too high, just based on empirical results.

 

[JRP3]

Andrew Cuomo
@NYGovCuomo
We had projected a need for 110K hospital beds at the apex of this virus. The rate of infection is INCREASING and the curve has increased. New projections show we may need 140K beds. NYS is doing everything we can on every level to slow the spread. We need your cooperation.

Andrew Cuomo on Twitter

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

WHO decided yesterday that a more accurate estimate (!) of case fatality should take current-day deaths and compare it to the number of cases registered two weeks prior; that being the "typical" time delay between confirming a case and death. If you do that, you are working with relatively more deaths and fewer cases, and that raises the rate to more than 6%.
Some juggling of numbers is inevitable, I guess. Especially since the numbers of undiagnosed "dark" cases (mild to no symptoms) is unknown...especially when you do as piss poor a job of testing as we have.
Robin

As I mentioned in my prior post, I think to model it correctly you have to be a bit more sophisticated than that. As we know, anecdotally, some cases actually result in death quite rapidly after identification. So there's some rapid early mortality, followed by a long significant tail. So I disagree with the WHO that that is the best way to estimate it. That is not to say there is not validity to it.

I think it's easiest to just look at countries where 1) the health care system was not overwhelmed and 2) are done with the epidemic and have been for a few weeks, and 3) have reasonable sample size.

I definitely don't think 6% is anywhere near correct. Closer to 1% IFR based on the data we have.

 

[Open Interest]

Yes - common cold is still common. In Seattle only 7% of symptomatic patients (and contacts) are testing positive.


I'd cut some slack to Greta. In her circumstance she should assume she has Covid-19 and isolate, which she is doing. I won't be surprised if she & her father actually do have Covid-19.

BTW, anyone has seen data on what % of travelers with symptoms tested positive for covid ?

I agree with this, but more importantly, she is using her fame to speak to young people who follow and admire her. Since this demographic is more irresponsible and can unknowingly be disease vectors, Greta is doing a public service and acting as a role model should. Whether she had it or not is irrelevant.

 

[bluetrue]

This paper found that Taxifolin might be a good already available drug for treating covid-19. Why has everyone missed this? Inhibitors for Novel Coronavirus Protease Identified by Virtual Screening of 687 Million Compounds

 

[ReddyLeaf]

I agree with this, but more importantly, she is using her fame to speak to young people who follow and admire her. Since this demographic is more responsible and can unknowingly be disease vectors, Greta is doing a public service and acting as a role model should. Whether she had it or not is irrelevant.

Here, let me fix that for you.

 

[bkp_duke]

This paper found that Taxifolin might be a good already available drug for treating covid-19. Why has everyone missed this? Inhibitors for Novel Coronavirus Protease Identified by Virtual Screening of 687 Million Compounds

Because it's an in silicon study (i.e. computer modelling). It hasn't even started the in vitro study (i.e. test tube). I won't say it's "missed", but you do understand that only 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 compounds tested in vitro (i.e. a testtube) show the same activity in vivo (i.e. in a person)? The number that are viable starting from computer modelling is even lower.

It's a good start, but this is way way early to put any hope in. Once it gets past a Phase 1 clinical trial and shows efficacy, then we can have hope.