Coronavirus

[Cigarbutt]

Sometimes the strategy is to steer the conversation away from the real issues.

In my area, schools will re-open soon and public health authorities along the political people on top imply (they are careful with the words) that community spread is an established fact and aim to slowly reach some kind of herd immunity. People in general seem to agree to go along with that.

People also talk about reforming the way chronic care homes are organized and run but i've heard that before.

[StubbleJumper]

weird that some want to misquote the president to paint his words as irresponsible.  he was clearly just suggesting we fill the lungs with chlorine gas.

 

 

Yeah, that was already tried out at the 2nd Battle of Ypres.  It didn't work out so well...

[Investor20]

Sometimes the strategy is to steer the conversation away from the real issues.

In my area, schools will re-open soon and public health authorities along the political people on top imply (they are careful with the words) that community spread is an established fact and aim to slowly reach some kind of herd immunity. People in general seem to agree to go along with that.

People also talk about reforming the way chronic care homes are organized and run but i've heard that before.

 

Absolutely correct.  The real interesting part of the presentation of task force on April 23rd is effect of temperature, humidity and UV from sun.  Yet almost no discussion on that.

 

The scientist actually suggested "move activities outside".  Below is the most interesting part of the presentation, IMO:

 

Q    Obviously, at the moment, the advice is stay at home.  By the summer, could we be flipping that and saying you’d be much better off being outside with UV rays or the humidity that Washington brings in August?

 

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN:  I would not go contrary to the guidance that have been issued right now. 

 

I think, though, to tell you that if — if I’m having an event with my family, I’m doing it in the driveway or in the backyard, not inside the house with my children.

 

See below attachments.  See the best practices for every american given in the presentation slide.  This is what we and media should be focussing on.

https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/04/23/white-house-reveals-solar-light-humidity-hugely-detrimental-to-coronavirus/

[TwoCitiesCapital]

WHO confirms that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest getting COVID-19 once prevents you from getting it again.

 

This is one of the major risks I outlined in a prior post and could mean COVID-19 is comparable to the flu/cold on that it comes back every year.

 

Seems to me that unless if we FIND this evidence, the only options for us going forward are

 

1) Societal level precautions which include mass testing, masks, and excessive handwashing

 

And

 

2) a vaccine to guard against the more lethal variations/mutations or step 1 has to be far more disruptive and include distancing measures and varying forms of isolation and contact tracing.

[Dalal.Holdings]

WHO confirms that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest getting COVID-19 once prevents you from getting it again.

 

This is one of the major risks I outlined in a prior post and could mean COVID-19 is comparable to the flu/cold on that it comes back every year.

 

Seems to me that unless if we FIND this evidence, the only options for us going forward are

 

1) Societal level precautions which include mass testing, masks, and excessive handwashing

 

And

 

2) a vaccine to guard against the more lethal variations/mutations or step 1 has to be far more disruptive and include distancing measures and varying forms of isolation and contact tracing.

 

WHO is a science led org. When there are a lot of unknowns, scientists like to use the phrase “there is no evidence that...” but it is important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

On the flipside, there also isn’t a whole lot of evidence that you can get this twice if your immune system is functional. So really, we know nothing. But they are erring on the side of caution.

 

These scientific statements confuse a lot of lay people. That’s why you see a lot of brilliant minds in places like here jump on the “see! WHO said no evidence of human to human transmission in mid january so this proves they did not think it was a big deal!” That’s nonsense due to misinterpretation of the “no evidence” statement by scientifically illiterate lay people.

 

For a long time, there was “no evidence” that smoking led to lung cancer because doing a study that proves such an association is very very hard. Same thing with this outbreak which is only like 4-5 months old, so we have a lot of absence of evidence and the only thing that makes sense is to invoke the precautionary principle in such a situation.

[Guest cherzeca]

"WHO confirms that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest getting COVID-19 once prevents you from getting it again."

 

no evidence of x is not evidence of not-x.

 

antibodies show that the body's immunity system successfully produced proteins to bind against the virus.  certainly it will take study to see how effective the response is...and it is my understanding that antibodies are not a singe uniform reaction, but usually present in the form of bands.

 

so obviously, WHO should be endorsing studies, including using its substantial resources, on an expedited basis. 

 

[Ronchong]

Don't worry about investor20. He was just being sacarstic.

[DooDiligence]

You ought to be ashamed.

 

(Actually, it's even worse than that, because by lying about what he said, you're missing the main point.  Look what he said--even with his correction. That's the guy you're supporting so passionately, the guy who said that stuff. And keeps saying that sort of stuff.)

 

Richard.  My quote of transcript "It wouldn’t be through injection. " was from original briefing on April 23.  Its not a correction.

 

The statement you are using to say he suggested injecting is "It wouldn’t be through injection".

 

Transcript from April 23 when he supposedly suggested injecting bleach.  Check for yourself.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

 

This was clearly an inline correction by someone who blurted out an idiotic statement, realized it sounded idiotic, and then did an autocorrect.

[dwy000]

You ought to be ashamed.

 

(Actually, it's even worse than that, because by lying about what he said, you're missing the main point.  Look what he said--even with his correction. That's the guy you're supporting so passionately, the guy who said that stuff. And keeps saying that sort of stuff.)

 

Richard.  My quote of transcript "It wouldn’t be through injection. " was from original briefing on April 23.  Its not a correction.

 

The statement you are using to say he suggested injecting is "It wouldn’t be through injection".

 

Transcript from April 23 when he supposedly suggested injecting bleach.  Check for yourself.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

 

This was clearly an inline correction by someone who blurted out an idiotic statement, realized it sounded idiotic, and then did an autocorrect.

 

The fact that we are even having this conversation (and its only this week's conversation in a stream of similar conversations) shows how unfit this President is for any type of leadership. It's the President for crissakes!!  It's the one person we shouldn't have to worry about telling their citizens to poison themselves and then backtracking.  I used to tell my kids they could grow up to be President because it was so respected and esteemed. Now it's become a joke and reflects on America.

[Spekulatius]

NYC:  11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%.  just like the flu.

 

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they?

 

This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/

 

So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu!

 

I love the stupidity!  the 21% positive antibody test results on NYCers (3000 person sample) is the best DATUM we have on creating the correct denominator of the mortality per infection rate.  what is your problem, Larkin?

 

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

 

I agree that this is a meaningful study. It’s large enough and reasonably random. There might be a bias in just choosing people outside vs at home but it is likely not a strong one.

0.67% morbidity is ~7x deadlier than the flu though. The flu kills between 10-50k annually and infects ~30M (roughly ) so thats in the 0.1% ballpark. In addition, it’s much more infective.

 

On thing I overlooked when looking at the IFR rate is that death cases have a long tail. They typically occur many weeks after the infection and display of symptoms Example of this was the Diamond Princess when only 6 death were reported first, but subsequently ended up with 14 dead. While that is a small sample size, I think the likely conclusion is that the IFR rate is higher than the ~0.7% rate calculated probably by as much than a factor 2

 

It’s all highly uncertain at this point and ballpark estimates, but better than nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

[patience_and_focus]

NYC:  11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%.  just like the flu.

 

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they?

 

This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/

 

So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu!

 

I love the stupidity!  the 21% positive antibody test results on NYCers (3000 person sample) is the best DATUM we have on creating the correct denominator of the mortality per infection rate.  what is your problem, Larkin?

 

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

 

I agree that this is a meaningful study. It’s large enough and reasonably random. There might be a bias in just choosing people outside vs at home but it is likely not a strong one.

0.67% morbidity is ~7x deadlier than the flu though. The flu kills between 10-50k annually and infects ~30M (roughly ) so thats in the 0.1% ballpark. In addition, it’s much more infective.

 

Why do we keep quoting an article from Sept 2018 with initial estimates when we have better numbers now on CDC website.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

 

The 2017-2018 season was 61000 deaths with 45 million infections (NOT counting asymptomatic subjects) which puts the death rate at 61000 / 45000000 = 0.13%. Again, estimates suggest that # of asymptomatic flu patients are ~ 2.5-3 times that number which means the death rate is more close to 0.033 to 0.05%.

 

 

 

[cwericb]

“The fact that we are even having this conversation (and its only this week's conversation in a stream of similar conversations) shows how unfit this President is for any type of leadership. It's the President for crissakes!!  It's the one person we shouldn't have to worry about telling their citizens to poison themselves and then backtracking.  I used to tell my kids they could grow up to be President because it was so respected and esteemed. Now it's become a joke and reflects on America.”

 

Yes! That is the point.

 

Do Trump supporters not realize that he has made the USA the laughing stock of the whole world? He is an embarrassment to the country and its reached the point that other world leaders just try to humour him while laughing behind his back.

 

Is there anyone out there that doesn't realize that the man clearly has mental issues? That certainly does not reflect well on those who continue to make excuses for him. Wake up before it is too late.

[arcube]

Another fkup (possibly knowingly) by the Chinese! Still possibly under reported.

 

New study casts more doubt on true scale of China’s coronavirus outbreak

 

https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data-real-lancet-study/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=ceo-daily&utm_content=2020042410am

 

Effect of changing case definitions for COVID-19 on the epidemic curve and transmission parameters in mainland China: a modelling study

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30089-X/fulltext

 

[clutch]

NYC:  11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%.  just like the flu.

 

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they?

 

This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/

 

So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu!

 

I love the stupidity!  the 21% positive antibody test results on NYCers (3000 person sample) is the best DATUM we have on creating the correct denominator of the mortality per infection rate.  what is your problem, Larkin?

 

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

 

I agree that this is a meaningful study. It’s large enough and reasonably random. There might be a bias in just choosing people outside vs at home but it is likely not a strong one.

0.67% morbidity is ~7x deadlier than the flu though. The flu kills between 10-50k annually and infects ~30M (roughly ) so thats in the 0.1% ballpark. In addition, it’s much more infective.

 

On thing I overlooked when looking at the IFR rate is that death cases have a long tail. They typically occur many weeks after the infection and display of symptoms Example of this was the Diamond Princess when only 6 death were reported first, but subsequently ended up with 14 dead. While that is a small sample size, I think the likely conclusion is that the IFR rate is higher than the ~0.7% rate calculated probably by as much than a factor 2

 

It’s all highly uncertain at this point and ballpark estimates, but better than nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

 

...and normalize with respect to the age. The median age of the passengers was 69. I believe all of the deaths were passengers.

 

So, if you assume IFR of ~1.4% for that old-age population group, the IFR for the entire population would be much, much lower.

[Spekulatius]

NYC:  11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%.  just like the flu.

 

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they?

 

This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/

 

So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu!

 

I love the stupidity!  the 21% positive antibody test results on NYCers (3000 person sample) is the best DATUM we have on creating the correct denominator of the mortality per infection rate.  what is your problem, Larkin?

 

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

 

I agree that this is a meaningful study. It’s large enough and reasonably random. There might be a bias in just choosing people outside vs at home but it is likely not a strong one.

0.67% morbidity is ~7x deadlier than the flu though. The flu kills between 10-50k annually and infects ~30M (roughly ) so thats in the 0.1% ballpark. In addition, it’s much more infective.

 

On thing I overlooked when looking at the IFR rate is that death cases have a long tail. They typically occur many weeks after the infection and display of symptoms Example of this was the Diamond Princess when only 6 death were reported first, but subsequently ended up with 14 dead. While that is a small sample size, I think the likely conclusion is that the IFR rate is higher than the ~0.7% rate calculated probably by as much than a factor 2

 

It’s all highly uncertain at this point and ballpark estimates, but better than nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

 

...and normalize with respect to the age. The median age of the passengers was 69. I believe all of the deaths were passengers.

 

So, if you assume IFR of ~1.4% for that old-age population group, the IFR for the entire population would be much, much lower.

 

Yes, but the crew is substantial ( think it’s roughly 1 crew member for 2  passengers) and the crews median age is 36. Also, the older folks on a cruise are probably healthier than average for their age. So count it all in and it biased old but not that old. It still doesn’t matter, the point I was trying to make is that many death occurred  way later.

[RichardGibbons]

Yes, but the crew is substantial ( think it’s roughly 1 crew member for 2  passengers) and the crews median age is 36. Also, the older folks on a cruise are probably healthier than average for their age. So count it all in and it biased old but not that old. It still doesn’t matter, the point I was trying to make is that many death occurred  way later.

 

This is a noteworthy data point that I didn't keep up on--I thought it was always 6, not 14. Thanks for the update, Spekulatius .

[Spekulatius]

Yes, but the crew is substantial ( think it’s roughly 1 crew member for 2  passengers) and the crews median age is 36. Also, the older folks on a cruise are probably healthier than average for their age. So count it all in and it biased old but not that old. It still doesn’t matter, the point I was trying to make is that many death occurred  way later.

 

This is a noteworthy data point that I didn't keep up on--I thought it was always 6, not 14. Thanks for the update, Spekulatius .

 

Well it’s a small dataset and shouldn’t be taken for face value it rather as a ballpark idea one what the distribution may look like. Once we get more data coming in, we might revise. Softly the ~1% IFR rate is a reasonable ballpark I tighten 0.5% or 15-, but it’s unlikely to be 0.1% or 5% at this point.

 

None of this is set in stone. Doctors will get better at fighting this as we get a better understanding of how the disease works and how to prevent the downward spiral that seems to affect some patients.

[clutch]

Yes, but the crew is substantial ( think it’s roughly 1 crew member for 2  passengers) and the crews median age is 36. Also, the older folks on a cruise are probably healthier than average for their age. So count it all in and it biased old but not that old. It still doesn’t matter, the point I was trying to make is that many death occurred  way later.

 

This is a noteworthy data point that I didn't keep up on--I thought it was always 6, not 14. Thanks for the update, Spekulatius .

 

Well it’s a small dataset and shouldn’t be taken for face value it rather as a ballpark idea one what the distribution may look like. Once we get more data coming in, we might revise. Softly the ~1% IFR rate is a reasonable ballpark I tighten 0.5% or 15-, but it’s unlikely to be 0.1% or 5% at this point.

 

None of this is set in stone. Doctors will get better at fighting this as we get a better understanding of how the disease works and how to prevent the downward spiral that seems to affect some patients.

 

The crew was substantial and none of them died.

 

Regardless, you can estimate the IFR by the age groups in the ship, and if you just consider the passenger population (which would reflect the sub-population the median age of 69) -- you get an IFR of 2.5% (14/567 infected).

 

If it's 2.5% IFR for the median age of 69 in the general population, that's really good news, considering the ratio of deaths between such a population group vs. its complement.

 

Based on the data so far, it seems the death rate for 50 years or older is about 25-30x higher than the 49 or younger on average. (source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/)

 

So if you assume 2.5% IFR for the 50 years or order, the IFR for younger would be about 0.083-0.1%!

 

That is a very, very low number.

 

More of these data indicate that we should focus on protecting the elderly.

 

(I know this wasn't your original point; just thought it was useful exercise)

[Gregmal]

Isn't it clear by now that theres so much speculative information out there that folks can literally draw whatever conclusion they want by piecing together all these conflicting sources and "expert" opinions? Pick a side, any side, and regardless, theres enough out there to equally support the exact opposite stance. Face masks are good. Face masks are bad. Virus only hits old people. 50% of patients in country XZY are young people. This will be the Spanish Flu. This will be the flu. Gilead's drug works. Gilead's drug doesnt work. China did a horrible job. China did a great job. Its kind of silly.

 

 

The more pressing question of the day....how many of you moral higher ground folks who are repulsed by Trump plan on voting for Biden the rapist? Just when you thought the DNC couldn't come up with a worse candidate than Hillary....At least Hillary had the semi cool Robin Wright House of Cards thing and the "I'm a strong women who whipped my rapist husband into shape" thing going for her. Turns out Biden is basically just a pussy version of Trump.

[DooDiligence]

Isn't it clear by now that theres so much speculative information out there that folks can literally draw whatever conclusion they want by piecing together all these conflicting sources and "expert" opinions? Pick a side, any side, and regardless, theres enough out there to equally support the exact opposite stance. Face masks are good. Face masks are bad. Virus only hits old people. 50% of patients in country XZY are young people. This will be the Spanish Flu. This will be the flu. Gilead's drug works. Gilead's drug doesnt work. China did a horrible job. China did a great job. Its kind of silly.

 

 

The more pressing question of the day....how many of you moral higher ground folks who are repulsed by Trump plan on voting for Biden the rapist? Just when you thought the DNC couldn't come up with a worse candidate than Hillary....At least Hillary had the semi cool Robin Wright House of Cards thing and the "I'm a strong women who whipped my rapist husband into shape" thing going for her. Turns out Biden is basically just a pussy version of Trump.

 

You've officially become the house troll here.

[Castanza]

Isn't it clear by now that theres so much speculative information out there that folks can literally draw whatever conclusion they want by piecing together all these conflicting sources and "expert" opinions? Pick a side, any side, and regardless, theres enough out there to equally support the exact opposite stance. Face masks are good. Face masks are bad. Virus only hits old people. 50% of patients in country XZY are young people. This will be the Spanish Flu. This will be the flu. Gilead's drug works. Gilead's drug doesnt work. China did a horrible job. China did a great job. Its kind of silly.

 

 

The more pressing question of the day....how many of you moral higher ground folks who are repulsed by Trump plan on voting for Biden the rapist? Just when you thought the DNC couldn't come up with a worse candidate than Hillary....At least Hillary had the semi cool Robin Wright House of Cards thing and the "I'm a strong women who whipped my rapist husband into shape" thing going for her. Turns out Biden is basically just a pussy version of Trump.

 

You've officially become the house troll here.

 

Greg’s not wrong. Dalala already said “I’d rather vote for a guy who stutters.” I’m waiting for the Biden voters to say “we’re voting for the lesser of two evils.”

 

It’s time Americans take a look at the two party system. The last 40 candidates have been complete and utter shit. Not a single person in the last and current election cycle have been “leaders”. All a bunch of hacks with shady pasts and motives. If you’re voting for Biden, I don’t want to hear a single negative thing about Trump from here on out. They are literally two versions of the same individual.

[cwericb]

“Biden the rapist”

 

Yup, here we go again...

 

Do you want to share the proof that Biden raped someone? I haven't seen any.

Or are you taking a page out of DJT’s book and slinging any mud you can at someone who might be a threat to the guy you have been defending for at least the past 3 years?

Since you appear to be referring to something (not rape) that MAY happened 30 years ago, where were you and what were you doing 30 years ago?

 

" They are literally two versions of the same individual."

 

Biden vs Trump?  You have got to be kidding.

[cwericb]

It’s time Americans take a look at the two party system.

 

Absolutely.

[Spekulatius]

If credible evidence is presented that Biden is indeed a rapist, he is done as a Candidate.

 

FWIW, this topic doesn’t belong in this Thread as it is OT.

[Spekulatius]

This is a excellent post I another board on how South Korea was able to control the Virus . Key was to put the hammer doesn’t early.

https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4143&mn=447499&pt=msg&mid=20614502