Coronavirus Impact

Status
Not open for further replies.
OldCorpse said:
Hope you are wrong on that.
Click to expand...

So do I. Many countries in Africa learned a lot from Ebola, but they simply don't have the infrastructure or wealth needed to combat this thing if it does take hold. I see the virus has claimed its first victim in Dharavi, Mumbai, the biggest slum in Asia. I've shot in that slum a few times and have fingers toes and everything else crossed coronavirus doesn't sweep through the area.

ahalpert said:
One advantage that they have in Africa: the median age in Ghana is 20 while the median age in Italy is 45
Click to expand...
I'd say a 45-year-old in Italy is just as healthy as a 20-year-old in some parts of Africa. I wonder if they factor that into the virus modelling? Remember, those models make huge assumptions and are based on imperfect data. Their projections have been proved wildly inaccurate already.

Run&Gun said:
Not trying to be an @sshole, but I wonder what the anti-vax crowd will say and do when/if a vaccine is released.
Click to expand...

I was discussing this with my wife yesterday after watching a TV evangelist 'kill' the virus with prayer. I feel sorry for the people lied to and conned by these charlatans.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I personally have a lot of trouble agreeing with the slide presented by the Coronavirus Task Force:

WS4YVZDAE5HO7CDKCHKTWPYIAU.png


Mitigation stretches out infection over time, it does not prevent it unless we would stay locked down forever. There may be seasonal effects, the virus could go dormant for periods of time, but eventually, it will be back.
Death rates obviously do go up if people cannot be treated if hospitals are overloaded but by a factor of 10?
I think not.

The sad truth is that there currently is not much to treat when someone has COVID-19.
Patients can be put on ventilators but the chances of survival after being put on a ventilator are only 20% based on New York city data.

We can't stay "hiding in our caves" forever, I believe that eventually, we have to face the virus and move on living.
Click to expand...

If you don't agree with this slide, could you present yours to the forum?
 
I bought Peter Popoff's Miracle Water for everyone in my extended family. We are safe and no longer concerned. I have a feeling that I will soon get a check in the mail as I've seen testimonial from other Miracle Water users about getting checks.
 
HKB said:
If you don't agree with this slide, could you present yours to the forum?
Click to expand...
First of all, we don't have the correct data to make those charts. We are tracking the number of cases, which is very much related to how many tests are performed, if you don't test a lot you don't record many cases, as we have seen in the USA when the CDC handled the handful of tests it could manage each day.
What we should use for those charts are random samplings to determine the percentage of people infected in a given area. We don't do that! Even Fauci claimed yesterday that "it's not a priority". I strongly disagree with that. If the infection rate in a community is very high already then lockdowns won't do anything.

We also track the number of deaths and hospitalizations which is useful but again if we don't know the infection rate we can't do much with those numbers. We can't determine an accurate death rate if we don't know the infection rate.

Estimated death rates keep going down. The latest Lancet study, published yesterday, estimates a death rate of 0.66%.
That implies that the infection numbers are far higher than we initially thought and it means that there is actually less to mitigate.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
 
Last edited:
HKB said:
If you don't agree with this slide, could you present yours to the forum?
Click to expand...

One of the problem with those flattening the curve models is that one of the primary considerations is a lack of ventilators. Current reports are showing that the majority of patients being put on ventilators are not recovering so the lack of ventilators should not have a significant impact on the recovery rate. Second, almost all of those single spike graphs give people the impression all that is needed is a limited period of time of social isolation and the virus will disappear. That is not how this works. Any graph that does not show actual dates or lengths of time is just a form of propaganda.
 
cpreston said:
One of the problem with those flattening the curve models is that one of the primary considerations is a lack of ventilators. Current reports are showing that the majority of patients being put on ventilators are not recovering so the lack of ventilators should not have a significant impact on the recovery rate.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I think that a 10 to 1 decrease in deaths due to mitigation as is presented in the slide is an overestimation.

By the way, when you go out wear a mask, scarf, etc, it's a no-brainer, despite what the CDC and other "experts" are (or have been) claiming!
 
Last edited:
Cary Knoop said:
First of all, we don't have the correct data to make those charts. We are tracking the number of cases, which is very much related to how many tests are performed, if you don't test a lot you don't record many cases, as we have seen in the USA when the CDC handled the handful of tests it could manage each day.
What we should use for those charts are random samplings to determine the percentage of people infected in a given area. We don't do that! Even Fauci claimed yesterday that "it's not a priority". I strongly disagree with that. If the infection rate in a community is very high already then lockdowns won't do anything.

We also track the number of deaths and hospitalizations which is useful but again if we don't know the infection rate we can't do much with those numbers. We can't determine an accurate death rate if we don't know the infection rate.

Estimated death rates keep going down. The latest Lancet study, published yesterday, estimates a death rate of 0.66%.
That implies that the infection numbers are far higher than we initially thought and it means that there is actually less to mitigate.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I forgot to mention that a similar estimate/slide was projected about a week before the Task Force presented this slide.
Also, during the briefing when this slide was presented, it was referred to as the worst-case scenario.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I am not against a shelter-in-place but I don't think that as much as 10 times as many people would die if we would not do that.

There is currently no treatment, there are very limited options to actually save lives. Ventilators help but unfortunately only 20% of the patients on a ventilator survive, and the longer they are on it the direr the forecast of survival.
Given those facts I think that saying that treatment makes a 10 to 1 decrease in death rates is, in my opinion, an overstatement.
Click to expand...

Glad to know that you have an advanced medical degree and experience in statistical probabilities and actuarials in exponential pandemic situations. Me, I tend to listen to those with specific experience in the field.
 
cpreston said:
One of the problem with those flattening the curve models is that one of the primary considerations is a lack of ventilators. Current reports are showing that the majority of patients being put on ventilators are not recovering so the lack of ventilators should not have a significant impact on the recovery rate. Second, almost all of those single spike graphs give people the impression all that is needed is a limited period of time of social isolation and the virus will disappear. That is not how this works. Any graph that does not show actual dates or lengths of time is just a form of propaganda.
Click to expand...

Current scsarcity of ventilators as well as hospital facilities has led to people getting delayed treatment. By flattening the curve people with lesser levels of symptoms could be treated earlier, and those at greater risk could be put on ventilators earlier as well. This would greatly increase recovery rate.
 
Cary Knoop said:
By the way, when you go out wear a mask, scarf, etc, it's a no-brainer, despite what the CDC and other "experts" are (or have been) claiming!
Click to expand...

The guidance for people not to wear masks was never about masks not helping to suppress the spread coronavirus. It was always about convincing people not to hoard N95 masks since there is a lack of them for hospital use. The media and CDC, however, don't trust the public to do the right thing and therefore started to tell the public that masks wouldn't help. It is a bit like showing the "flattening the curve" graphs. They are overstating the case in order to convince the public to do what they think is best for the greater good and not what is best for the individual.
 
cpreston said:
The media and CDC, however, don't trust the public to do the right thing and therefore started to tell the public that masks wouldn't help.
Click to expand...
And that, as I hope you would agree, is wrong!

Being untruthful is always wrong, all you gain is mistrust!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top