SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
What do you mean -- it is great news for 'Merika.The Lancet study is a real eye-opener.
Now trumpers can take their bleach without the hassle of those pesky pills.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What do you mean -- it is great news for 'Merika.The Lancet study is a real eye-opener.
CDC made some good calculations, but their quality seems to vary wildly, their recent death count was around 60,000 when everyone else was counting around 90,000.
Now that the "task force" is picking on them, it'll surely get worse. I'm glad we still have people like Bergstrom who don't give up "Calling Bullshit" from a scientific point of view.
Stress, alcoholism, suicides, domestic abuse, untreated illness, traumatized impoverished children. All these clearly far far outpace the barely any people we've save with the lockdown, they would outpace those saved even if that figure were magically 200k+. There's no way to prove it or even any stats to point to yet, so whats the point in getting these people all fired up?You are ignoring the fact that the number of deaths by exogenous factors are absolutely nothing compared to untreated diseases. And some the exogenous factors are increasing ( suicides ) not all of them are decreasing.
But you have time to assume the IFR for influenza from the same source ( CDC ) ? Lets be consistent.
Making CFR calculations from Worldometers is ridiculous to say the least.
Curious. NY state is up to 1485 deaths per million. If 0.27% IFR were in effect here, that would imply more than 55% of the state population have already been infected. But there are 18,832 confirmed cases per million. So this would imply that only 3.4% of infected cases have been confirmed. 23.5% of tests are positive, which is seems pretty low if 55% have actually been infected and most of the testing is with symptomatic and at-risk persons. So yeah, this does not seem to jibe.The 0.27% IFR from the new CDC report doesn’t jibe with NYC, or Diamond Princess.
I sure wish they had published their calculations, so we could dig deeper.
So we stop assuming the 0,1% sIFR from CDC? Maybe their quality varied wildly there
trump and his coterie of morons aside, a conservative take on the paper is that HCQ does not reduce Covid-19 related mortality in the hospitalized. I would not be quick to say it is worse, mostly because it is likely that sicker patients were treated with the drug.Looks like it's a "game changer" in the reverse direction, although again with a modest odds ratio.
And for New York City, it would mean that 72% would have to be infected even if you accept only "confirmed deaths".Curious. NY state is up to 1485 deaths per million. If 0.27% IFR were in effect here, that would imply more than 55% of the state population have already been infected.
trump and his coterie of morons aside, a conservative take on the paper is that HCQ does not reduce Covid-19 related mortality in the hospitalized. I would not be quick to say it is worse, mostly because it is likely that sicker patients were treated with the drug.
An analysis that corrected for Covid-19 severity when the drug was started would lead to stronger conclusions.
Does that leave an opening for HCQ ? Very likely not since the less sick patients would have less reason to accept the risk of HCQ induced dysrythmias.
---
It is tempting to speculate why HCQ is not panning out despite promising pharmacology and in-vitro studies. The most obvious is that side effects have more than offset any Covid benefit. This is the part that physicians know all too well, and trumpers are blind to. The second part that I suspect is the underlying pharmacokinetics: either the drug does not have enough time to build up to a level to make a difference in vivo, or high doses lead to unacceptable adverse effects. This is another way of saying that the Lupus safety profile cannot be extended to Covid.
What sIFR and who is the "we" that were assuming that? (No need to answer that.)
When considering time to death lag, I am assuming an IFR of around 1% or slightly below or slightly higher for confirmed deaths, an IFR of around 1.3% when including probable deaths, and an IFR of 1.4% to 1.6% when including excess deaths. As you might know, I am basing that on the NYC numbers which currently are the only ones I know that I think can be considered actually informative because of their scale and supporting information.
Curious. NY state is up to 1485 deaths per million. If 0.27% IFR were in effect here, that would imply more than 55% of the state population have already been infected. But there are 18,832 confirmed cases per million. So this would imply that only 3.4% of infected cases have been confirmed. 23.5% of tests are positive, which is seems pretty low if 55% have actually been infected and most of the testing is with symptomatic and at-risk persons. So yeah, this does not seem to jibe.
By comparison if you assume say 0.50% IFR, the same calculations yield that 30% of the population has been infected. This is closer to the 23.5% test positive rate. So this is still a bit of a stretch (How do you explain test positive rate lower than the infection rate? You have to argue you're testing the wrong people at the wrong time.), but not as much of a stretch as 0.27 IFR would imply.
Honestly the NY does not look good for the herd enthusiasts. It pretty much comes down to infect everyone in the shortest amount of time and hope that IFR is mercifully low.
So you choose base your % from a city, instead of a whole country estimate that comprises all areas of the country. Isn't it normal that there are zones with higher % and lower % and that we should look at the average when comparing to, say, influenza? When we talk about influenza we talk about global averages, no?
My error -- the Lancet article does correct for disease severity.An analysis that corrected for Covid-19 severity when the drug was started would lead to stronger conclusions.
You are confusing two different questions. How deadly is COVID-19 is if someone is infected and how many people will be infected.So you choose base your % from a city, instead of a whole country estimate that comprises all areas of the country. Isn't it normal that there are zones with higher % and lower % and that we should look at the average when comparing to, say, influenza? When we talk about influenza we talk about global averages, no?
Obviously you didn't look at the Car Bergstrom thread that Alan referenced.
This graph likely uses "confirmed deaths" only, since "probable deaths" are usually not available.
As you can see, most fall in the 0.9% to 1.0% IFR range, and would be higher if other deaths were included.
View attachment 543861
By significant numbers? Are cancer deaths suddenly shooting up?You are ignoring the fact that the number of deaths by exogenous factors are absolutely nothing compared to untreated diseases. And some the exogenous factors are increasing ( suicides ) not all of them are decreasing.
Stress, alcoholism, suicides, domestic abuse, untreated illness, traumatized impoverished children. All these clearly far far outpace the barely any people we've save with the lockdown, they would outpace those saved even if that figure were magically 200k+. There's no way to prove it or even any stats to point to yet, so whats the point in getting these people all fired up?
By significant numbers? Are cancer deaths suddenly shooting up?
Have any of those deaths suddenly shot up over the 2 months of "lockdown", which was not really a lockdown?
There's clearly a problem with the CDC:Looks like we may have a problem with the CDC.
I think it's this guy: The new CDC director was once accused of research misconductIt raises a lot of questions about who at the CDC has their thumb on the scale so to speak. This would need to be somebody in an administrative or executive position who believes that it is expedient to indulge President Trump's proclivities. Any ideas on that?