Coronavirus

[OPRCE]

That’s in line with Stanford’s Santa Clara study, too.
Robin

This testing was organised by a local hotel chain which bought the quick-kits from Wuhan with an advertised 100% specificity (i.e. no false positives) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but do not explain how they validated that figure, thus they probably did not bother.

I would reserve judgement until the basic legwork is shown.

 

[MXLRplus]

Are You A Geek? Do you want to do a some work to fight C19 or aid other protein folding research?

Stanford is running their Folding @ Home distributed computing network to research the C19 proteins.

Covid19 – Folding@home

I retired my systems when SCE changed their power rates while at the same time F@H was morphing into pure GPU and CPU power wasn't effective. I had 6 customized 1U slices from the old Lawrence Livermore supercomputer @ 4 CPUs each, a 64 core 4 CPU AMD system, BIOS-hacked, overclocked, and running water using a Honda Civic radiator, and several other computers pulling over 7,000 watts from a dedicated circuit 24/7/365.

I'd have a whole lot of money from Bitcoin mining with them.

Basically, you let your computer's graphics card run a process in the background to solve a time-slice of a protein 'fold'. It used to be CPU intensive, but now your big graphics cards are the muscle they need the most.

For you overclocking fiends, please make sure your system is stable at 100% load sustained for 4 hrs. A GPU crash hurts more than it helps.

Unlike Bitcoin, you're not making CO2 for the purpose of greed. But you will suck down power if you are throwing some heavy muscle at it.

 

[dfwatt]

Some posts here used New York City as a sanity check for low IFR values, and when I took a closer look at that, I was a bit shocked to see that NYC's mortality is already within the order of magnitude of common IFR estimates, as the mortality is a lower limit for the IFR.

As of today, the mortality in New York City is 0.15%.
((8,448 + 4,264) / 8,400,000)

And to get a picture of what this means, I made this list:

If for 1 or 2 weeks ago,
you assume 50% or less were infected, that means the IFR can't be below 0.3%.
If you assume 20% or less were infected, that means the IFR can't be below 0.75%.
If you assume 15% or less were infected, that means the IFR can't be below 1.0%.
If you assume 10% or less were infected, that means the IFR can't be below 1.5%.

On the other end, I think nobody expects the IFR to be above 2.0%, probably mostly since South Korea's CFR is now ~2.2% and at the end of its curve. So I think we now have data that narrows down the possible range to one order of magnitude (for NYC).

That analysis is sensible. Ultimately I'm not sure that there's a single number for IFR because I suspect the true IFR in any cohort varies with the degree of demographic penetration by progressively older folks, by all the pre-existing conditions that we know about plus probably some less appreciated risk factors that are reversible conditions such as Vitamin D deficiencies, recent chemotherapy, other pro-inflammatory conditions, and perhaps who knows what kind of genotype vulnerabilities may be hidden in the data. What I think is highly likely is there is a range of IFR values, and of course all the well-documented difficulties with both the numerator and the denominator early in pandemics.

This is something people miss when the only look at deaths. The hospitalization rate for 45-64 years olds in NYC is 0.58% divide that by the percentage of 45-64 year olds you think have been infected to get the true hospitalization rate (probably greater than 3%). People shouldn't downplay the seriousness of infection for people who aren't "playing with house money" as @dqd88 puts it.

Yep. Part of the reason I posted the criteria from the Mayo Clinic for sociopathy is the level of callousness displayed by some people in relationship to the prospect of many thousands of people dying and many tens of thousands of people becoming desperately ill. It is part of the continuum to regard some people as more expendable than others. Anyone who's ever fought off a really serious infection and in that context has become at least somewhat septic knows that it is one of the worst experiences you can ever endure. A lot of the misery of course is created by your own immune system and its often considerable collateral damage. There is no guarantee of a full and complete recovery of function in that context, and we simply don't know how much long-term damage there is to the lung in the context of folks with serious levels of covid-19 pneumonia. So the suffering associated with any of the 20% of the population who do not have mild or minimal manifestations in covid-19 is really profound. Only people with empathy deficits of a serious kind would minimize that level of suffering or regard that as trivial.

 

[Daniel in SD]

people with little to no income or savings are running out of options

There should definitely be more help for people who are self employed.

Just a correction, self employed people do qualify for unemployment benefits right now.
I think it's small business owners of non essential businesses who are suffering the most.

 

[traxila]

Maybe I'm missing something but google translate says two thirds of the people who tested positive had symptoms?
"The nationwide tests started last Tuesday. In the meantime - as of Friday evening - 456 St. Ulricher were tested, and almost half have antibodies. More than 2 thirds of those tested are between 20 and 59 years old. And an important detail on the side: Almost a third said they had no symptoms."
Obviously if you test people who have symptoms in a COVID-19 hot spot you're going to get a lot of positive results. This doesn't sound like random sample at all.

Everyone is running with incomplete results and half assed information and shoving it into clickbait articles. Even the most elementary crap is not addressed. Has anyone been able to figure if the ‘reinfected’ in SK are actually symptomatic? You would think that would be a first line basic detail in any so called news article. Almost everything about this damn disease has turned into mis and dis information. What a f***ing mess.

 

[EVNow]

This is something people miss when they only look at deaths. The hospitalization rate for 45-64 years olds in NYC is 0.58% divide that by the percentage of 45-64 year olds you think have been infected to get the true hospitalization rate (probably greater than 3%). People shouldn't downplay the seriousness of infection for people who aren't "playing with house money" as @dqd88 puts it.

Richelle A. Resister on Twitter

My sons 25 year old friend survived Covid and was taken off the ventilator last week.

After being home for a couple of days he got sick again.

He was hospitalized with kidney failure and put on dialysis.

Last night his heart stopped.

This disease is monstrous.​

 

[OPRCE]

Maybe I'm missing something but google translate says two thirds of the people who tested positive had symptoms?
"The nationwide tests started last Tuesday. In the meantime - as of Friday evening - 456 St. Ulricher were tested, and almost half have antibodies. More than 2 thirds of those tested are between 20 and 59 years old. And an important detail on the side: Almost a third said they had no symptoms."
Obviously if you test people who have symptoms in a COVID-19 hot spot you're going to get a lot of positive results. This doesn't sound like a random sample at all.

"Mit den flächendeckenden Tests wurde am vergangenen Dienstag begonnen. Mittlerweile – Stand Freitagabend – wurden 456 St. Ulricher getestet, und fast die Hälfte weisen Antikörper auf. Über 2 Drittel der Getesteten sind zwischen 20 und 59 Jahre alt. Und wichtiges Detail am Rande: Fast ein Drittel gab an, keinerlei Symptome gehabt zu haben."

Flächendeckend =/= nationwide, it just means wide-area testing, in this case in one town.

The sample was entirely self-selected; the service was advertised, patients presented themselves at a clinic and paid €30 apiece for the 10-min thumb-prick test, presumably most of them because they suspected they'd already had it.

Almost a third = 30% asymptomatic amongst the confirmed infected, which sounds at upper end of ranges reported elsewhere (18..30%).

 

[dfwatt]

Richelle A. Resister on Twitter

My sons 25 year old friend survived Covid and was taken off the ventilator last week.

After being home for a couple of days he got sick again.

He was hospitalized with kidney failure and put on dialysis.

Last night his heart stopped.

This disease is monstrous.​

Yes these kinds of stories are horrifying. It does appear that the kidney may be the second most vulnerable organ after the lung, although the heart is right there with it so to speak (lots of MIs in folks with plaque and some degree of vascular diease - very common in Western societies, even if it is silent up to that point). Lots of ace2 receptors in the kidney. We have yet to lose a friend even though we are in a higher risk cohort. But we know that is probably going to happen at some point.

 

[NicoV]

This is not true. Almost every country now counts "probable" covid cases as well. Infact China made this change in Feb ! CDC in US did just this week. Most of the deaths in Italy have been at home.

ps : Changes in US Data following new CDC guidelines on "Case" and "Death" definition (April 14, 2020) - Worldometer

That’s a change that’s only a couple of days old. The USA may have changed their counts, but I doubt our neighbouring countries have changed their stats. Note that the CDC means nothing in Europe, we follow WHO guidelines.
This article explains the difference between our stats and the neighbouring countries: België vestigt een triest record covid-19-doden :
”
Maar niet alle landen tellen hun doden op dezelfde manier. België telt de doden in de ziekenhuizen, de rusthuizen en daarbuiten. Ook vermoedelijke gevallen worden meegeteld, zonder dat er een formele covid-19-test was.

Italië telt alleen de doden die eerst al een positieve covid-19-test afgelegd hadden, maar in rusthuizen werd lang niet systematisch getest. In Duitsland telt het Robert Koch-instituut enkel diegenen bij wie een test bevestigde dat ze covid-19 hadden. Ook in Nederland zijn er volgens de Vereniging van Specialisten voor Ouderengeneeskunde (Verenso) meer mensen aan covid-19 overleden dan in de officiële statistieken zichtbaar is. In Nederland is 35 procent van de overledenen 85-plusser, in België is dat 45 procent.”
It says that Italy and Germany only count positively tested deaths, and the same is assumed for The Netherlands based on the difference in mortality of 85+yo deaths. (A couple of days ago our national TV news stated as a fact that the Netherlands only count confirmed cases and that the death rate is basically identical in Belgium versus The Netherlands).
The article also states that the ‘oversterfte’ (‘over-deaths’, i.e. the additional number of deaths compared to the same period a year ago) in the last couple of weeks of march is the same in Belgium as in The Netherlands, but the number of reported covid deaths differs by 40%.

EDIT: This Zo komen de verborgen coronadoden aan het licht Dutch TV news link confirms that only confirmed cases are counted in the Dutch stats, and that the real mortality rate is suspected to be twice as high as the official stats. The article links to the youtube clip of their news, and that contains an astonishing graph of the weekly deaths.

 

[Daniel in SD]

"Mit den flächendeckenden Tests wurde am vergangenen Dienstag begonnen. Mittlerweile – Stand Freitagabend – wurden 456 St. Ulricher getestet, und fast die Hälfte weisen Antikörper auf. Über 2 Drittel der Getesteten sind zwischen 20 und 59 Jahre alt. Und wichtiges Detail am Rande: Fast ein Drittel gab an, keinerlei Symptome gehabt zu haben."

Flächendeckend =/= nationwide, it just means wide-area testing, in this case in one town.

The sample was entirely self-selected; the service was advertised, patients presented themselves at a clinic and paid €30 apiece for the 10-min thumb-prick test, presumably most of them because they suspected they'd already had it.

Almost a third = 30% asymptomatic amongst the confirmed infected, which sounds at upper end of ranges reported elsewhere (18..30%).

I wish @EinSV would make some attempt to understand the articles he's posting here instead of just quoting the most clickbait sections.

 

[ggr]

Some 80% of Sweden consists of uninhabitable mountain terrain covered by IKEA-trees. Most of the population is packed into a lowland coastal strip from Gothenburg to Stockholm, where the density is probably close to the Denmark figure.

Yeah, but you're forgetting Denmark's mountains... ;-)

 

[Alfred]

The density of the population will have something to do with it:

Not apparent from the data we have. There are no convincing correlations of this type to be seen. The site here shows graphs analising possible dependencies from population densities or age distribution (graph below).On the maps with incidences per inhabitants on the same site you can also see that e.g. the Canton Zurich has a very similar incidence as much of central Germany (data here), whereas the Canton VD, a French speaking Canton in western Switzerland, bordering France, together with the City State Geneva, are nearly as high as the Canton Ticino bordering Italy, where 70'000 Italian workers were crossing each day the borders for work in Switzerland.

 

[EinSV]

Two studies showing ridiculous amounts of antibodies in population in CA and Austria. Homeless study in Boston showing half with antibodies and all with no symptoms. Does anyone know what the hell is going on?

My two cents: RT-PCR testing -- the only testing available until recently -- was a very poor mechanism for measuring the number of infected individuals in a population, including due to very high false negatives, a short window when infection could be detected, and in most cases very selective testing regimes.

Antibody testing should give a much better picture. The initial tests are not perfect for many reasons that have been discussed in this thread but I think the evidence so far -- as spotty as it is -- points strongly toward the PCR testing conducted to date massively undercounting the number of infections.

We should have results from larger and better tests soon. Unfortunately, due to anchoring bias and confirmation bias, I expect opinions to lag the data that emerges, as people apply a much higher standard of proof to information that contradicts their opinions than to information that confirms them and to the very poor quality RT-PCR data that has formed their opinions so far. It's human nature.

 

[dqd88]

How about deaths per 1M populations so far?

Sweden 150
Norway 30

IMHE says it has been 12 since peak for Norway and 12 days til peak for Sweden.

Put in all the other countries.
They are doing about average for Europe.
I focus on cases as cases show the spread. Death rate is dependent on various things and happens after infection. I'm looking at spread.

 

[Doggydogworld]

Two studies showing ridiculous amounts of antibodies in population in CA and Austria. Homeless study in Boston showing half with antibodies and all with no symptoms. Does anyone know what the hell is going on?

50 of 3330 (1.5%) in Santa Clara county is a ridiculous amount of antibodies?

I read a few more articles about the sidewalk testing in Chelsea, MA. They handed flyers out to passers-by and didn't tell people their results, so there was no huge bias for those who think they had it to come and get tested (unlike the Santa Clara crapshow). The Chelsea researchers used the BioMedomics test, if you believe their claimed accuracy (88% sensitivity, 90% specificity) the 32% indicated positives map to about 28% true positives.

People passing on the sidewalk are by definition not sheltering in place, so this test caught a higher percentage of exposed people (i.e. essential workers) than exists in the general population. 28% infected in a high exposure subgroup probably maps to 15-20% in the general population. I don't see any way to map to fatalities without age distribution.

Chelsea population density is similar to NYC and I read they've had 40 deaths in a population of 40k which is also similar to NYC. With the lag times from infection to death and the additional infections needed to reach herd immunity I would expect both places to be roughly 0.5% mortality in an "open it up while protecting the vulnerable" scenario.

0.5% mortality rate is 200 dead in Chelsea, 42k dead in NYC and 1.66m dead in the entire country.

 

[bkp_duke]

Two studies showing ridiculous amounts of antibodies in population in CA and Austria. Homeless study in Boston showing half with antibodies and all with no symptoms. Does anyone know what the hell is going on?

1.5% in the CA study is far from "ridiculous". It's also VERY far from herd immunity level.

These studies are using tests simply not powered to detect at the statistical level anything below about 2-3%.

The Boston data is probably valid, as that was the hardest-hit neighborhood in all of Boston, so 50% prevalence is probably pretty close.

The random study from Santa Clara, however, is woefully under powered. If you look at the 95% confidence interval (i.e. the error bars) on that 1.5% number, it's very high, like 1%. If you actually graphed and looked at those error bars you would be like "WTF, that looks meaningless".

 

[Daniel in SD]

the evidence so far -- as spotty as it is -- points strongly toward the current testing regime massively undercounting the number of infections.

There is no one that I'm aware of that disagrees with this.
You keep posting articles with glaring flaws and then complaining that people are looking for flaws because of "bias". Isn't it logical for rational people to be more skeptical of things you post when they so often turn out to be misleading?

 

[Norbert]

"Mit den flächendeckenden Tests wurde am vergangenen Dienstag begonnen. Mittlerweile – Stand Freitagabend – wurden 456 St. Ulricher getestet, und fast die Hälfte weisen Antikörper auf. Über 2 Drittel der Getesteten sind zwischen 20 und 59 Jahre alt. Und wichtiges Detail am Rande: Fast ein Drittel gab an, keinerlei Symptome gehabt zu haben."

Flächendeckend =/= nationwide, it just means wide-area testing, in this case in one town.

The sample was entirely self-selected; the service was advertised, patients presented themselves at a clinic and paid €30 apiece for the 10-min thumb-prick test, presumably most of them because they suspected they'd already had it.

Almost a third = 30% asymptomatic amongst the confirmed infected, which sounds at upper end of ranges reported elsewhere (18..30%).

Yes, we need another study to find out the effect of paid self-selection on a sample. It implies that the participants not only think it is worth the effort, but also that they are actively informing themselves.

In any case, the result would suggest more a severe under-testing, and less an extreme percentage of asymptomatic cases (which aren't tracked either, to distinguish asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases).

Severe under-testing is also likely in the US, we have started to expect that here on the forum several weeks ago. I think at that time, more by a factor of 10 or 20, without expecting that factor to be a constant. That was based on looking at the lag times in the graphs in the following way:

Current deaths in the US April 18 are 39,014. For example with a lag of 2 weeks, the number of total cases on April 4 was 313,379.
That's an adjusted CFR of 12%. Nobody expects an IFR that high. So even if you use a relatively high estimate of 1.2%, you would expect there to have been more than 3 million infections 2 weeks ago.

That is a factor above 10x. (With a lag time of 1 week, it would be above 7x.) That's the kind of calculation we were doing a few weeks ago. (Or is it just 2 weeks? It seems so long ago.) At that time, I think I came to the estimate that the factor might be higher than 20x (less than 5%).

So at least for some of us, a factor of 50x would not be as revolutionary or consequential as it may sound. It would almost be more like a confirmation. Of course, all this depends on how much testing has been done in a specific location/area. And on the relative point in time within the curve of the local spread, for example. Could self-selection account for the remaining difference? I don't know, but I can't say it couldn't.

 

[EinSV]

There is no one that I'm aware of that disagrees with this.
You keep posting articles with glaring flaws and then complaining that people are looking for flaws because of "bias". Isn't it logical for rational people to be more skeptical of things you post when they so often turn out to be misleading?

Nice personal attack. I post mostly scientific studies, the occasional news article and data that I find interesting. If you find any of that "misleading" because it contradicts your strongly held views, that's your problem, not mine.

You are free to continue pointing out why the emerging data doesn't change your mind.

 

[eevee-fan]