Coronavirus

[AlanSubie4Life]

Sweden exposure/infection rate is supposedly somewhere between 20-30%.

This thread is going into full on hyperdrive. What's wrong, don't think we'll hit 6 digits?

Not to worry, we're doing as shitty a job as possible containing spread. We should still limp over the 100k death mark some time in June.

I fixed this for you (for which I did not receive a like from you, I might add):

We should still limp over the 100k death mark some time in MAY.

FTFY.

(Yes, it was, sadly, extremely obvious at the time you made the statement about limping over 100k deaths in June that we would easily blow through that number in May.)

People trying to peg down a nationwide CFR go down one peg in my mind

Hmmm...

There's clearly a problem with the CDC:
‘How Could the CDC Make That Mistake?’


I think it's this guy: The new CDC director was once accused of research misconduct

He has a history.

One of the researchers who first reported Redfield’s misuse of data has been speaking out publicly after news of Redfield’s appointment emerged, Kaiser Health News reported. “Either he was egregiously sloppy with data or it was fabricated,” said former Air Force Lt. Col. Craig Hendrix, who is now based at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “It was somewhere on that spectrum, both of which were serious and raised questions about his trustworthiness.”

Earlier, in the 1980s, Redfield called for mandatory HIV testing among military recruits and reporting of the results to health authorities, according to the science watchdog group CSPI.

He also called for segregating HIV-positive personnel in the military — policies that “most medical authorities at the time, including the CDC and the Surgeon General,” opposed, according to Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the health committee, who wrote a letter to President Donald Trump about the appointment. “This pattern of ethically and morally questionable behavior leads me to seriously question whether Dr. Redfield is qualified to be the federal government’s chief advocate and spokesperson for public health,” she wrote.

Yeah, that's why I'm discontinuing my participation in this thread. The reputable agencies have failed, checks and balances have failed, we've got choppers whipping around the White House lawn, and we'll just have to let this thing run its course and I will focus on protecting myself and my family and finances.

I will retreat to my happy places, if not physically all the time, at least in spirit. Good luck to all. The truth shall make you free.

 

[RandomJohnny]

Personally, I think it is time to sign off here...I guess we’ll all just see how things are going in a few months.

This is the most intelligent post I've seen on this thread.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Did we hit 100k yet? I'm seeing 94.6k and slowing(aka limping).

 

[Norbert]

The truth shall make you free.

+1

 

[defc0n]

CDC new best estimate for SYMPTOMATIC Case Fatality Ratio is 0,4%
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

And 35% asymptomatic meaning 0,26% IFR, as I've said many times, the world has seen influenza seasons as deadly as this one, except this time we introduced an exogenous factor called Lockdown+Fear, killing many others for lack of proper medical care.

It’s more than likely at least twice as deadly as .25%. Hard to say exactly given different age distributions of population and how healthy various populations are but I’m still seeing around .5-.6% fatality rate across all infections amongst the entire population. More than likely at least 5 times deadlier than influenza.

 

[dfwatt]

There's clearly a problem with the CDC:
‘How Could the CDC Make That Mistake?’


I think it's this guy: The new CDC director was once accused of research misconduct

He has a history.

One of the researchers who first reported Redfield’s misuse of data has been speaking out publicly after news of Redfield’s appointment emerged, Kaiser Health News reported. “Either he was egregiously sloppy with data or it was fabricated,” said former Air Force Lt. Col. Craig Hendrix, who is now based at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “It was somewhere on that spectrum, both of which were serious and raised questions about his trustworthiness.”

Earlier, in the 1980s, Redfield called for mandatory HIV testing among military recruits and reporting of the results to health authorities, according to the science watchdog group CSPI.

He also called for segregating HIV-positive personnel in the military — policies that “most medical authorities at the time, including the CDC and the Surgeon General,” opposed, according to Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the health committee, who wrote a letter to President Donald Trump about the appointment. “This pattern of ethically and morally questionable behavior leads me to seriously question whether Dr. Redfield is qualified to be the federal government’s chief advocate and spokesperson for public health,” she wrote.

Unfortunately, there's not much percentage in complaining to the Orange Moron about ethical lapses unless you're talking about somebody fire-bombing Breitbart. And then there's the argument about whether that's an ethical lapse or simply a fumigation.

 

[defc0n]

I didn't have time to delve into what those "pandemic planning scenarios" in that link are, but a straightforward calculation of the case fatality ratio is to take the actual worldometers numbers for the US for deaths and positive test cases:

As of right now: 96,432 deaths and 1,623,352 cases. That's a CFR (case fatality ratio) of 5.94% in the US.

More than 10 times your number, not even accounting for lag in time to death.

So many of you don’t understand why that 1.6 million number is absurdly low from actual cases and you shouldn’t be making such ridiculous claims.

 

[dfwatt]

So many of you don’t understand why that 1.6 million number is absurdly low from actual cases and you shouldn’t be making such ridiculous claims.

I think you're conflating case fatality rate and infection fatality rate. They're not the same thing.

 

[Daniel in SD]

So many of you don’t understand why that 1.6 million number is absurdly low from actual cases and you shouldn’t be making such ridiculous claims.

I challenge you to find a single person who has posted in this thread who doesn't understand that.

 

[defc0n]

I think you're conflating case fatality rate and infection fatality rate. They're not the same thing.

you’re correct that I mean IFR; primarily because it is actually a meaningful number whereas CFR doesn’t mean dick and shouldn’t even ever be uttered.

 

[dfwatt]

you’re correct that I mean IFR; primarily because it is actually a meaningful number whereas CFR doesn’t mean dick and shouldn’t even ever be uttered.

Well except that it has a long history in epidemiology and where people understand that there is a variable relationship between cases that enter the Health Care system and actual infections. So I'm not sure what the dismissal of case fatality rate buys you. Like Daniel already pointed out everyone understands there's a difference so you're knocking down a straw man.

And CFR most certainly doesn't just mean dick for the Healthcare System. That case fatality rate and the slightly higher Critical Care case rate determine what you can tolerate in terms of infection ramps in the general population. Once you exceed those capacities your case fatality actually goes up significantly because everyone that requires Critical Care dies and your health care system can no longer service any other issue so that adds also a significant bolus of unnecessary dying into the Society.

So for all those reasons your dismissal of the case fatality rate statistic is misinformed. I'm not entirely sure what motivates it in this case but I suspect it's because you are rebelling against any form of mitigation. If that's what you're protesting I would protest our testing failure because that determines our inability to open up safely. If we had testing at scale plus contact tracing and isolation capabilities commensurate with the level of infection, we could open up safely.

 

[Daniel in SD]

What in his post was not a fact? Sweden exposure/infection rate is supposedly somewhere between 20-30%.

They did an antibody survey about May 3rd and found 7.3% in the Stockholm region (From what I understand this is raw numbers from a test with 97.7% specificity and 98.3% sensitivity so the actual number was probably close to 5%). Your numbers don't make any sense. The numbers outside of Stockholm are even lower.
https://www.thelocal.se/20200520/heres-what-swedens-first-coronavirus-antibody-tests-tell-us
Första resultaten från pågående undersökning av antikroppar för covid-19-virus — Folkhälsomyndigheten

 

[dfwatt]

I fixed this for you (for which I did not receive a like from you, I might add):





(Yes, it was, sadly, extremely obvious at the time you made the statement about limping over 100k deaths in June that we would easily blow through that number in May.)



Hmmm...



Yeah, that's why I'm discontinuing my participation in this thread. The reputable agencies have failed, checks and balances have failed, we've got choppers whipping around the White House lawn, and we'll just have to let this thing run its course and I will focus on protecting myself and my family and finances.

I will retreat to my happy places, if not physically all the time, at least in spirit. Good luck to all. The truth shall make you free.

View attachment 543887

I for one Alan hope that you do not completely discontinue your participation in this thread as you have been a most valuable member.

 

[defc0n]

Well except that it has a long history in epidemiology and where people understand that there is a variable relationship between cases that enter the Health Care system and actual infections. So I'm not sure what the dismissal of case fatality rate buys you. Like Daniel already pointed out everyone understands there's a difference so you're knocking down a straw man. And CFR most certainly doesn't just mean dick for the Healthcare System.

The dismissal of CFR buys me the fact that it is a bullshit number that doesn’t accurately tell you how deadly a disease is and is causing more harm than good to even bother mentioning as it is so absurdly different than the actual meaningful IFR that people should actually care about and be focusing on.

 

[GFernandes]

It’s more than likely at least twice as deadly as .25%. Hard to say exactly given different age distributions of population and how healthy various populations are but I’m still seeing around .5-.6% fatality rate across all infections amongst the entire population. More than likely at least 5 times deadlier than influenza.

Why does everyone says the same? Deadlier than the *average* influenza, over many years and globally. The world has seen much stronger influenza seasons than 0,1% as I posted several times in this thread, backed up by data

 

[Norbert]

So many of you don’t understand why that 1.6 million number is absurdly low from actual cases and you shouldn’t be making such ridiculous claims.

As dfwatt pointed out, CFR is not IFR.

CFR refers to the fatality rate among those who have actually been diagnosed as positive. IFR is the fatality rate among those who have been infected, the difference being that it includes those who have not been diagnosed, but are expected to be infected, for example based on statistical calculations, such as with serological studies.

So IFR has a larger denominator and is a smaller number. Certainly we can assume that more than 1.6 million have been infected in the US, but a number which considers that is not a "CFR" anymore, but an IFR estimate. The IFR is surely smaller than 5%, but it can't be as small as 0.27%, since a general IFR number (or range) would have to do justice to the large scale situation in New York City, which 0.27 does not.

 

[SageBrush]

They did an antibody survey about May 3rd and found 7.3% in the Stockholm region (From what I understand this is raw numbers from a test with 97.7% specificity and 98.3% sensitivity so the actual number was probably close to 5%). Your numbers don't make any sense. The numbers outside of Stockholm are even lower.
https://www.thelocal.se/20200520/heres-what-swedens-first-coronavirus-antibody-tests-tell-us
Första resultaten från pågående undersökning av antikroppar för covid-19-virus — Folkhälsomyndigheten

I tend to be suspicious whether media gets the story and facts correct, and I am reading a Google translation instead of the original. Your link says

Laboratories collected around 1,200 samples per week over an eight week period, in nine of Sweden's regions: Jämtland, Jönköping, Kalmar, Skåne, Stockholm, Uppsala, Västerbotten, Västra Götaland and Örebro.

In the week ending May 3rd, 7.3 percent of the samples from people in Stockholm were positive in the study. That means antibodies were found in their blood, meaning that 7.3 percent of those tested in the capital city had previously been exposed to the coronavirus.

Do they mean that 7.3% of the Stockholm samples collected in late April - Early May were seropositive, OR

Do they mean that the study collected samples over 8 weeks ending May 3rd, and 7.3% of the Stockholm samples were positive ?

 

[madodel]

What do you mean -- it is great news for 'Merika.

Now trumpers can take their bleach without the hassle of those pesky pills.

Where's the Lancet study for injecting disinfectant directly into people? That should be the next study.

 

[defc0n]

Why does everyone says the same? Deadlier than the *average* influenza, over many years and globally. The world has seen much stronger influenza seasons than 0,1% as I posted several times in this thread, backed up by data

Influenza is one of the best seasonal diseases we have to compare to. Agree it varies year to year; on average over time it is somewhere around .1%. I think it is worth pointing out that covid-19 actually is meaningfully more deadly.

 

[defc0n]

As dfwatt pointed out, CFR is not IFR.

CFR refers to the fatality rate among those who have actually been diagnosed as positive. IFR is the fatality rate among those who have been infected, the difference being that it includes those who have not been diagnosed, but are expected to be infected, for example based on statistical calculations, such as with serological studies.

So IFR has a larger denominator and is a smaller number. Certainly we can assume that more than 1.6 million have been infected in the US, but a number which considers that is not a "CFR" anymore, but an IFR estimate. The IFR is surely smaller than 5%, but it can't be as small as 0.27%, since a general IFR number (or range) would have to do justice to the large scale situation in New York City, which 0.27 does not.

agree IFR is extremely unlikely to be as low as .27%.