Peregrine Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm citing CDC's latest "best estimate". Maybe it's best we leave it there. Then please cite the actual CDC best estimate and leave the other extrapolations out of it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Scroll down to: Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate
Liberty Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/dr-anthony-fauci-says-staying-closed-for-too-long-could-cause-irreparable-damage.html Stay-at-home orders intended to curb the spread of the coronavirus could end up causing “irreparable damage” if imposed for too long, White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said. “I don’t want people to think that any of us feel that staying locked down for a prolonged period of time is the way to go,” he told CNBC. Indeed. Exactly why managing the situation well is so important, and mismanaging it is so costly and has strong non-linear effects (as expected from an exponential process).
physdude Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 For those that think governments should require masks in order to "save lives," do you also think the government should ban abortions to "save lives?" If not, why do you believe in "my body, my choice" for for one and not the other? The death rate on abortion (for the aborted humans) is far, far higher than the death rate from covid19. LOL. How about ban cars? Why abortions? The ultimate political hijacking thwarted (I hope). Covid 19 has killed more than cars. Abortion has killed more than covid19. Keep in mind, my argument isn't just saving lives, it's also about what the government say we can (or cannot do) to our bodies. Why is it okay to use the slogan only when it benefits your political ideology? Are you seriously comparing the cost (human, not financial though that also probably applies) of having an abortion and not wearing a mask??? Further, the mask is probably going to save the health of many people at very little cost and inconvenience to the wearer. I am also curious about what you think of the modesty laws which are more stringent in the US than Europe? Why are those laws okay when it concerns your body and why haven't there been many protests encouraged by the president on that incredible violation of freedom compared to the simple requirement to wear a mask? I would argue the human cost is far, far higher with abortion than covid19 (so far anyway). financially? I don't know. I haven't thought much about modesty laws. I don't see how what to wear (or not) is violating "speech" though. I am talking about the cost incurred of wearing a mask vs that incurred by an abortion. The former is almost costless and has a significant benefit while the latter has a very high cost. The only reason not to wear the mask given the low cost of the effort seems to be the disrespect of the health of others. It is really very similar to the wearing of a seatbelt - very low cost and increases your and other's safety tremendously (especially if everyone is involved in not wearing the mask as that reduces R0 tremendously and stops the pandemic in the tracks). Also, how is required wearing of a mask violating free speech any more than the modesty laws? The banning of hijabs etc is a much more direct violation of free speech but I usually see little objection to that, especially among the right wing (though this is only an issue in Europe). Wouldn't you say that abortion is very disrespectful to the health of the one being aborted? I would think that banning abortion would be far less expensive than using masks. You could ban them for free. Masks aren't free. I also don't see why wearing seat belts is required if people want "choice." I just find it funny that people want government to control others when it suits their interests/wants but not in areas that they don't want to be told what to do. It doesn't make much sense. That depends on whether you consider there to be a person involved at all in the case of abortion. Does using a condom become disrespectful to the potential persons? Strawman much?? :) But more importantly, the mask concretely reduces the infection of potentially hundreds of actual human beings, not just one, with many super spreader events having infected at least hundreds of people. The economic benefit of a single disposable mask in terms of human has been estimated to be at least several thousand dollars. Looking at your responses, it is no wonder the ultra right wing has been urging its people to actively spread covid among minorities and to stop people wearing masks (survival of the fittest?).
KCLarkin Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm citing CDC's latest "best estimate". Maybe it's best we leave it there. Then please cite the actual CDC best estimate and leave the other extrapolations out of it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Scroll down to: Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate Thanks!
Liberty Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 From a doc I follow (his background: "ICU doc with expertise in biothreats preparedness, translational research, and drug/vaccine development."): Big drop in MA cases today - 16 days after universal mask-wearing became law.
Jurgis Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 From a doc I follow (his background: "ICU doc with expertise in biothreats preparedness, translational research, and drug/vaccine development."): Big drop in MA cases today - 16 days after universal mask-wearing became law. Daily stats from states are unreliable and I hope people don't make conclusions based on them. There were zero cases in MA one of the days: https://covidtracking.com/data/state/massachusetts#historical
Liberty Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Double-counting tests in UK... so much lying with data going on: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/tens-thousands-coronavirus-tests-have-double-counted-officials/
Liberty Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 From a doc I follow (his background: "ICU doc with expertise in biothreats preparedness, translational research, and drug/vaccine development."): Big drop in MA cases today - 16 days after universal mask-wearing became law. Daily stats from states are unreliable and I hope people don't make conclusions based on them. There were zero cases in MA one of the days: https://covidtracking.com/data/state/massachusetts#historical Of course. It's still a better sign to see it down than up, it's just a small update to priors that should be tracked over time to get a significant sample. I mostly didn't know that MA had done this about masks, that was the most interesting part of it, so it'll be interesting to track
Jurgis Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 From a doc I follow (his background: "ICU doc with expertise in biothreats preparedness, translational research, and drug/vaccine development."): Big drop in MA cases today - 16 days after universal mask-wearing became law. Daily stats from states are unreliable and I hope people don't make conclusions based on them. There were zero cases in MA one of the days: https://covidtracking.com/data/state/massachusetts#historical Of course. It's still a better sign to see it down than up, it's just a small update to priors that should be tracked over time to get a significant sample. I mostly didn't know that MA had done this about masks, that was the most interesting part of it, so it'll be interesting to track It's not as restrictive as you probably think. It just pretty much means that you have to wear mask inside a business. You can go maskless outside. Edit: Here is the official ref: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/frequently-asked-questions-about-covid-19#should-i-wear-a-mask-when-i-go-out-in-public?
Read the Footnotes Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/dr-anthony-fauci-says-staying-closed-for-too-long-could-cause-irreparable-damage.html Stay-at-home orders intended to curb the spread of the coronavirus could end up causing “irreparable damage” if imposed for too long, White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said. “I don’t want people to think that any of us feel that staying locked down for a prolonged period of time is the way to go,” he told CNBC. Indeed. Exactly why managing the situation well is so important, and mismanaging it is so costly and has strong non-linear effects (as expected from an exponential process). And the cheapest way to achieve that well managed situation is with clear consistent messaging based on the latest and best science. That really comes at a low cost which means that the cost benefit analysis is off the charts in the positive direction. Unfortunately, that is that part Trump can be most directly blamed for. It is low cost and high payoff and it was completely botched with no one else to blame.
Read the Footnotes Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm citing CDC's latest "best estimate". Maybe it's best we leave it there. Then please cite the actual CDC best estimate and leave the other extrapolations out of it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Scroll down to: Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate It would be great news if this doesn't turn out to be overly optimistic propaganda that was produced due to political pressure from the Trump administration, but I don't plan on holding my breath. The US CDC's reputation has probably been more tarnished than the other US agencies involved and this might just turn out to be another blow to the CDC's reputation, which may be a reflection of current leadership and not the vast majority of those at the CDC. These estimates don't seem to match other current research and at best it is on the extreme optimistic end of the spectrum and that apparent bias is already being criticized as such by some experts.
Viking Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 There is so much we do not understand about the virus. Chinese and Trump approaches to managing the pandemic are almost exact opposites so with each month that passes we will also get more information as to how effective each approach is from both health and economic perspectives. We all better hope we do not get a second serious wave before a vaccine is ready... China’s New Outbreak Shows Signs the Virus Could Be Changing - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-20/china-sees-signs-new-cluster-carries-virus-longer-than-in-wuhan Chinese doctors are seeing the coronavirus manifest differently among patients in its new cluster of cases in the northeast region compared to the original outbreak in Wuhan, suggesting that the pathogen may be changing in unknown ways and complicating efforts to stamp it out. Patients found in the northern provinces of Jilin and Heilongjiang appear to carry the virus for a longer period of time and take longer to test negative, Qiu Haibo, one of China’s top critical care doctors, told state television on Tuesday. Patients in the northeast also appear to be taking longer than the one to two weeks observed in Wuhan to develop symptoms after infection, and this delayed onset is making it harder for authorities to catch cases before they spread, said Qiu, who is now in the northern region treating patients. “The longer period during which infected patients show no symptoms has created clusters of family infections,” said Qiu, who was earlier sent to Wuhan to help in the original outbreak. Some 46 cases have been reported over the past two weeks spread across three cities -- Shulan, Jilin city and Shengyang -- in two provinces, a resurgence of infection that sparked renewed lockdown measures over a region of 100 million people. Scientists still do not fully understand if the virus is changing in significant ways and the differences Chinese doctors are seeing could be due to the fact that they’re able to observe patients more thoroughly and from an earlier stage than in Wuhan. When the outbreak first exploded in the central Chinese city, the local health-care system was so overwhelmed that only the most serious cases were being treated. The northeast cluster is also far smaller than Hubei’s outbreak, which ultimately sickened over 68,000 people. ...The northeast provinces have ordered a return of lockdown measures, halting train services, closing schools and sealing off residential compounds, dismaying residents who had thought the worst was over. “People should not assume the peak has passed or let down their guard,” Wu Anhua, a senior infectious disease doctor, said on state television on Tuesday. “It’s totally possible that the epidemic will last for a long time.”
Spekulatius Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/adding-zinc-to-malaria-drug-mix-may-help-covid-19-patients-heal Adding zinc to a cocktail of medicines touted by President Donald Trump may help Covid-19 patients survive and recover enough to be sent home from the hospital, according to researchers in New York City. A group of 411 patients given zinc along with the malaria medicine hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin for five days were 44% less likely to die and 50% more likely to be discharged home than a comparison group of 521 patients who didn’t get the supplement. What would the numbers be for taking zinc by itself, or for the cocktail without adding the hydroxychloroquine? The study says patients treated with hydrochloroquine benefit from zinc, but perhaps a more important question is whether patients treated with zinc benefit from the potentially deadly hydrochloroquine? Eric, the study is between Zinc, HCQ +Azithromycin vs HCQ+Azithromycin. The authors believe that HCQ helps zinc absorb and Zinc has antiviral properties. https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25658/20200512/hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-zinc-triple-combo-proved-effective-coronavirus-patients-study.htm In the study, half of 900 COVID-19 patients were given the triple-drug combo of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. The other half were given only hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic, azithromycin. I just take zinc and save myself the rest. Great benefit cost ratio. The rest I am not sure about.
Peregrine Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. I'm citing CDC's latest "best estimate". Maybe it's best we leave it there. Then please cite the actual CDC best estimate and leave the other extrapolations out of it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Scroll down to: Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate It would be great news if this doesn't turn out to be overly optimistic propaganda that was produced due to political pressure from the Trump administration, but I don't plan on holding my breath. The US CDC's reputation has probably been more tarnished than the other US agencies involved and this might just turn out to be another blow to the CDC's reputation, which may be a reflection of current leadership and not the vast majority of those at the CDC. These estimates don't seem to match other current research and at best it is on the extreme optimistic end of the spectrum and that apparent bias is already being criticized as such by some experts. I think they’re basing the IFRs off the serology tests which have estimated IFRs anywhere from 0.05% to 0.5% (in NYC). There’s been a very wide range of CFRs between countries. So I’m not sure why we should weight the experience in NYC more than that of a place like Singapore where CFR has been 0.1%.
Guest Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 For those that think governments should require masks in order to "save lives," do you also think the government should ban abortions to "save lives?" If not, why do you believe in "my body, my choice" for for one and not the other? The death rate on abortion (for the aborted humans) is far, far higher than the death rate from covid19. LOL. How about ban cars? Why abortions? The ultimate political hijacking thwarted (I hope). Covid 19 has killed more than cars. Abortion has killed more than covid19. Keep in mind, my argument isn't just saving lives, it's also about what the government say we can (or cannot do) to our bodies. Why is it okay to use the slogan only when it benefits your political ideology? Are you seriously comparing the cost (human, not financial though that also probably applies) of having an abortion and not wearing a mask??? Further, the mask is probably going to save the health of many people at very little cost and inconvenience to the wearer. I am also curious about what you think of the modesty laws which are more stringent in the US than Europe? Why are those laws okay when it concerns your body and why haven't there been many protests encouraged by the president on that incredible violation of freedom compared to the simple requirement to wear a mask? I would argue the human cost is far, far higher with abortion than covid19 (so far anyway). financially? I don't know. I haven't thought much about modesty laws. I don't see how what to wear (or not) is violating "speech" though. I am talking about the cost incurred of wearing a mask vs that incurred by an abortion. The former is almost costless and has a significant benefit while the latter has a very high cost. The only reason not to wear the mask given the low cost of the effort seems to be the disrespect of the health of others. It is really very similar to the wearing of a seatbelt - very low cost and increases your and other's safety tremendously (especially if everyone is involved in not wearing the mask as that reduces R0 tremendously and stops the pandemic in the tracks). Also, how is required wearing of a mask violating free speech any more than the modesty laws? The banning of hijabs etc is a much more direct violation of free speech but I usually see little objection to that, especially among the right wing (though this is only an issue in Europe). Wouldn't you say that abortion is very disrespectful to the health of the one being aborted? I would think that banning abortion would be far less expensive than using masks. You could ban them for free. Masks aren't free. I also don't see why wearing seat belts is required if people want "choice." I just find it funny that people want government to control others when it suits their interests/wants but not in areas that they don't want to be told what to do. It doesn't make much sense. That depends on whether you consider there to be a person involved at all in the case of abortion. Does using a condom become disrespectful to the potential persons? Strawman much?? :) But more importantly, the mask concretely reduces the infection of potentially hundreds of actual human beings, not just one, with many super spreader events having infected at least hundreds of people. The economic benefit of a single disposable mask in terms of human has been estimated to be at least several thousand dollars. Looking at your responses, it is no wonder the ultra right wing has been urging its people to actively spread covid among minorities and to stop people wearing masks (survival of the fittest?). Abortion kills more minorities than covid does. In fact, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a big into eugenics. I see no evidence that an aborted baby isn't a human. It even has human dna - that is unique from the mother. In what other situation doesn't that happen expect in separate humans? I don't see how this is a strawman. Semen isn't a person (it has the say dna as the male).
ERICOPOLY Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 In fact, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a big into eugenics. In fact, George Washington was a slavemaster. This isn't coronavirus though. Can abortion be discussed elsewhere?
Guest Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 In fact, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a big into eugenics. In fact, George Washington was a slavemaster. This isn't coronavirus though. Can abortion be discussed elsewhere? okay, okay! ;) Just trying to understand the logic of it (or lack thereof).
Investor20 Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/adding-zinc-to-malaria-drug-mix-may-help-covid-19-patients-heal Adding zinc to a cocktail of medicines touted by President Donald Trump may help Covid-19 patients survive and recover enough to be sent home from the hospital, according to researchers in New York City. A group of 411 patients given zinc along with the malaria medicine hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin for five days were 44% less likely to die and 50% more likely to be discharged home than a comparison group of 521 patients who didn’t get the supplement. What would the numbers be for taking zinc by itself, or for the cocktail without adding the hydroxychloroquine? The study says patients treated with hydrochloroquine benefit from zinc, but perhaps a more important question is whether patients treated with zinc benefit from the potentially deadly hydrochloroquine? Eric, the study is between Zinc, HCQ +Azithromycin vs HCQ+Azithromycin. The authors believe that HCQ helps zinc absorb and Zinc has antiviral properties. https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25658/20200512/hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-zinc-triple-combo-proved-effective-coronavirus-patients-study.htm In the study, half of 900 COVID-19 patients were given the triple-drug combo of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. The other half were given only hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic, azithromycin. I just take zinc and save myself the rest. Great benefit cost ratio. The rest I am not sure about. Does Zinc alone work as a prophylactic? I dont know but the authors of this article don't believe so. Unlike what Eric said, their theory is just not an hypothesis. They gave two citations. From the article: Zinc inhibits RNA dependent RNA polymerase, and has been shown to do this in vitro against SARS-CoV[13]. However, it is difficult to generate substantial intracellular concentrations of zinc, therefore prophylactic administration of zinc alone may not play a role against SarCoV-2[14]. When combined with a zinc ionophore, such as chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine), cellular uptake is increased making it more likely to achieve suitably elevated intracellular concentrations[15]. The Citation 13: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/ Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture; Published online 2010 Nov 4. The Citation 15: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/ Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore; Published online 2014 Oct 1 The article also says "However, our findings do not suggest a prophylactic benefit of zinc sulfate in the absence of a zinc ionophore, despite interest in this therapy for prevention. A prophylactic strategy of zinc sulfate should be evaluated to help answer this question." Its upto you whether you want to take Zinc alone as supplement. Just stating whats in the article.
mattee2264 Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-21211/v1 Ensuring adequate vitamin D levels also seems to be helpful. A vitamin D deficiency would also help to explain why the elderly and those in care homes and nursing homes are suffering so much. And more anecdotally in the UK where I'm from we've had a massive heatwave and true to form Brits have ignored lockdown regulations and flocked to the parks and beaches and getting as much sun as they can and cases have continued to drop.
orthopa Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread? Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? Hey! With the CDCs latest best estimate we maybe getting close to that. Keep in mind that the flu has that IFR with a widely available cheap vaccine and now 2 approved medications to treat it. Corona of course has neither a vaccine or approved widely available meds. So looking at it this way if there was not a flu shot available, and no meds to treat it, how high would its IFR be?
Cigarbutt Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-21211/v1 Ensuring adequate vitamin D levels also seems to be helpful. A vitamin D deficiency would also help to explain why the elderly and those in care homes and nursing homes are suffering so much. And more anecdotally in the UK where I'm from we've had a massive heatwave and true to form Brits have ignored lockdown regulations and flocked to the parks and beaches and getting as much sun as they can and cases have continued to drop. i'm presently involved (on a personal and otherwise level) in the circumstances described in the above bolded part and reading your post induced a cardiac pause. If you read this, could you elaborate (bcoz there must be something i'm missing)?
Peregrine Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread? Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? Hey! With the CDCs latest best estimate we maybe getting close to that. Keep in mind that the flu has that IFR with a widely available cheap vaccine and now 2 approved medications to treat it. Corona of course has neither a vaccine or approved widely available meds. So looking at it this way if there was not a flu shot available, and no meds to treat it, how high would its IFR be? There's also the matter of counting. It isn't at all clear what deaths are caused by the flu, so the numerator and denominator are all guesses. While standard practice (likely for expediency) for counting COVID deaths is to count all deaths for which the deceased tested positive for it. So the stated IFRs may not be as comparable as one might think.
KCLarkin Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 Hey! With the CDCs latest best estimate we maybe getting close to that. 4x isn't close**. It is a dangerous, BS narrative. CDC "best estimate" of Covid IFR-S = 0.4 CDC estimate of flu IFR-S last year (my calculations)* = 0.095 * 2018/2019 Estimated deaths / est. symptomatic illness = 34,000 / 35,000,000 = 0.095 Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html ** And the CDC estimate is low compared to other experts. For example, Dr. Fauci estimates 10x. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/top-federal-health-official-says-coronavirus-outbreak-is-going-to-get-worse-in-the-us.html
ERICOPOLY Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 Hey! With the CDCs latest best estimate we maybe getting close to that. 4x isn't close**. It is a dangerous, BS narrative. CDC "best estimate" of Covid IFR-S = 0.4 CDC estimate of flu IFR-S last year (my calculations)* = 0.095 * 2018/2019 Estimated deaths / est. symptomatic illness = 34,000 / 35,000,000 = 0.095 Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html ** And the CDC estimate is low compared to other experts. For example, Dr. Fauci estimates 10x. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/top-federal-health-official-says-coronavirus-outbreak-is-going-to-get-worse-in-the-us.html Is the CDC calculation of these numbers going to be affected by their admissions of reporting overcounted testing data? Scientists Warn CDC Testing Data Could Create Misleading Picture Of Pandemic https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/21/860480756/scientists-warn-cdc-testing-data-could-create-misleading-picture-of-pandemic
Spekulatius Posted May 23, 2020 Posted May 23, 2020 Hey! With the CDCs latest best estimate we maybe getting close to that. 4x isn't close**. It is a dangerous, BS narrative. CDC "best estimate" of Covid IFR-S = 0.4 CDC estimate of flu IFR-S last year (my calculations)* = 0.095 * 2018/2019 Estimated deaths / est. symptomatic illness = 34,000 / 35,000,000 = 0.095 Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html ** And the CDC estimate is low compared to other experts. For example, Dr. Fauci estimates 10x. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/top-federal-health-official-says-coronavirus-outbreak-is-going-to-get-worse-in-the-us.html I do not know where the CDC’s IFR rate comes from, it I think it is possible to get the IFR rate to 0.4% (my current ballpark numbers are roughly 2x that). other countries have shown IFR rates of 0.4% and Less than that, it might be as simple as protecting the elderly better. Still, if you go herd immunity - 0.4% with 200M infections are 800k death. That needs to be seem relative to the 2.5M people dying in the US naturally, but even though. In addition to the just binary dead or alive after infection discussion, I have some concerns about those that survive severe episodes as far as quality of life and LT morbidity is concerned.
Recommended Posts