Jump to content

Coronavirus

spartansaver

By spartansaver
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

LongHaul Contributor

LongHaul

Posted
Posted

Liberty - any thoughts on the risk of getting infected outside if you are at least 15 feet away?

 

I did hear of a cases in Japan where kids were wearing N95 masks and exercising hard and got hypoxia (low oxygen) and ended up dead.

 

I think wearing a mask inside is a signal of virtue.

 

Liberty Contributor

Liberty

Posted
Posted

Liberty - any thoughts on the risk of getting infected outside if you are at least 15 feet away?

 

Probably very very low, though not impossible, as it depends what you're doing outside (touching surfaces touched by many others?).

 

I did hear of a cases in Japan where kids were wearing N95 masks and exercising hard and got hypoxia (low oxygen) and ended up dead.

 

Source?

 

I think wearing a mask inside is a signal of virtue.

 

I think wearing a mask inside can be a very good idea in certain situations, and not do much in others. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Cigarbutt Community Regular

Cigarbutt

Posted
Posted

So (after a relatively acute phase because of genetic novelty), it seems that the new CV is about to enter a lingering phase, perhaps similar to other CVs and influenza (seasonal etc).

The COVID-19 episode has renewed impetus for the anti-vaxxer movement.

http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/Expectations-for-a-COVID-19-Vaccine.aspx

 

A vaccine for new CV is clearly not a slam dunk but may become a useful long-term and evolving tool. It appears (and this is detrimental to the premises underlying the efficacy of vaccines) that a significant portion of the population will actively or passively not have it (them). The determinants behind the anti-vaxxer movement are fascinating. The movement attracts different flavors: environmental, anti-BigPharma, celebrity cult followers. More recently the wide availability of poor and false information spread on the internet or social media has been a great enhancer of individuals who think they know better and who have deep antipathy to 'experts'. It seems that the common sense crowd (at least a significant portion of them) who felt that the first phase would be like the flu and that opening up should be done indiscriminately also believe the anti-vaxxer message.

 

In 1776, when Thomas Paine disseminated Common Sense, he underlined the importance of keeping a healthy dose of skepticism against government and authority but encouraged people to use science and reason over beliefs. The development of Internet has been great but it is only a tool.

 

 

 

DocSnowball Newbie

DocSnowball

Posted
Posted

One important factor to consider is beliefs of the burden of disease versus beliefs of harm from the vaccine. This NEJM perspective article sheds light. IMHO cities and communities that have seen significant disease impact will have more successful vaccine rollouts.

 

Go big and go fast - vaccine refusal and eradication

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300765

 

Many factors contribute to the development of clusters of people who refuse vaccines, including changes over time in attitudes toward vaccines. If aggressive control efforts have substantially reduced a disease's incidence, few people in a given community may have direct (or indirect) experience with that disease. Therefore, successive age cohorts have only a vague collective memory of the disease's dangers, whereas people may frequently hear about real and perceived adverse effects of vaccination. Parental perception of risks and benefits associated with vaccines is thus altered, and vaccine refusals often increase.1 North American and European countries, for example, have seen substantial reductions in the rates of vaccine-preventable diseases. Since vaccines against measles, mumps, rubella, and diphtheria were introduced in the United States, their incidence has been reduced by more than 99%, and the incidence of tetanus has fallen by 94% since routine tetanus vaccination began.2,3 These decreases have coincided with increases in vaccine refusal in the United States and Europe.

The notion that vaccine acceptance is influenced by rates of vaccine-preventable diseases is supported by theories from behavioral sciences. For example, a useful framework for understanding vaccine acceptance is the health-belief model, according to which the uptake of a health intervention is associated with perceived susceptibility to and severity of the relevant disease and the intervention's safety and efficacy. Empirical studies have validated this model as a predictor of vaccine refusal. In the context of eradication, reduction in disease incidence reduces the perceptions of susceptibility to disease and its complications, diminishing an important motivation for accepting a vaccine.

Castanza Veteran

Castanza

Posted
Posted

On the psychology behind the man, which helps explain a lot of the COVID reaction (and the rest of his life, frankly):

 

https://medium.com/@tony_schwartz/the-psychopath-in-chief-aa10ab2165d9

 

This is written by the man who wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump and spent hundreds of hours with him over 18 month, so he's got plenty of first-hand experience.

 

You should spend less time thinking about Trump. Tony Schwartz isn't even a psychologist.

Liberty Contributor

Liberty

Posted
Posted

On the psychology behind the man, which helps explain a lot of the COVID reaction (and the rest of his life, frankly):

 

https://medium.com/@tony_schwartz/the-psychopath-in-chief-aa10ab2165d9

 

This is written by the man who wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump and spent hundreds of hours with him over 18 month, so he's got plenty of first-hand experience.

 

You should spend less time thinking about Trump. Tony Schwartz isn't even a psychologist.

 

I'll think about whatever I want, thank you very much.

 

I guess I can't know anything about investing, I've never studied it and don't have a degree.

 

I suggest you watch this documentary, it's very interesting:

 

[Part 1]

 

[Part 2]

 

[Part 3]

 

[Part 4]

 

[Part 5]

 

[Part 6]

 

[Part 7]

 

[Part 8]

 

[Part 9]
Cigarbutt Community Regular

Cigarbutt

Posted
Posted

We talk about thr VOVID-19 in the US a lot, but what is going on in Canada? It seems they the quebecois have a high affinity to the virus or is this a NE thing?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107066/covid19-confirmed-cases-by-province-territory-canada/

Canada's market cap is less than 3% of global market cap and Quebec is largely irrelevant but since you ask.

Looking at standardized reported numbers, mortality rates in Canada without the two central (and most populous) provinces (Ontario and Quebec) are comparable to Germany. Ontario has been reporting number showing slightly lower mortality versus average US. In my province (Quebec) mortality numbers compare to Spain, Italy etc. Reasons for relatively higher numbers are many and include slight differences in policy choices and application. However, the main reason for higher mortality in my province is a slightly older age demographic profile and, especially, at much higher rate of chronic care institutionalization for elderlies (about 3x the rate versus the rest of Canada). 80% of deaths occur in people living in large chronic care institutions (Petri dish scenario).

With more data coming in, it looks like the overall mortality rate (global) will be relatively low (tip of the iceberg versus the whole iceberg). The following is an interesting study dealing with some kind of natural experiment. However, i can tell you that, for population at risk, including older, sicker and clustered, this CV thing can be decimating and is nothing like the flu (at least this first wave).

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-2020-215091.full

 

Maybe i'm taking too much space here but here's an embarrassing situation. Last Thursday, i participated in an international symposium (virtual) and one of the speakers was Dr. Heidi Stensmyren (relevant clinician and policy advocate in Stockholm) and while she explained their rationale, it appeared clear that they were playing this for the long run, keeping an eye for overall costs and showing better numbers than my province when it was pretty much in full lockdown..Canada's "stimulus" program (both federal and provincial) is running at about 20% of GDP and still counting..

Spekulatius Grand Master

Spekulatius

Posted
Posted

"New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported"

 

https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b

 

Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means.

 

0.4% is lower than the estimates I have seen (~0.75%), but it still would mean 800k death if we go all the way to herd immunity and get 200M Americans infected Ted. This would mean that we are about 1/8 through with this epidemic.

 

Just saying.

 

The numbers from Quebec vs. other Canadian provinces looks interesting, due to the huge difference in outcome compared to other provinces.

It’s clear that relatively small differences in starting points lead to vastly different results in outcome. Perhaps not so surprising, considering the math behind epidemics and the nature of logistics function.

Investor20 Rookie

Investor20

Posted
Posted

https://news.yahoo.com/declining-infection-rate-provides-challenge-143700638.html

Declining infection rate provides challenge for Oxford coronavirus vaccine

Professor Adrian Hill, director of the University's Jenner Institute, said what was formerly an 80 percent chance of developing an effective vaccine by September — possibly in time for a potential second wave of infections — has dwindled to 50 percent. That's not because the team no longer believes in its work, which is reportedly still going well. Instead, the U.K.'s infection rate decline may make it tough to gauge the vaccine's efficacy. "It's a race against the virus disappearing, and against time," Hill said.

 

Hill only expects fewer than 50 of the 10,000 trial volunteers to catch the virus, which has faded since the U.K. and other countries implemented strict lockdowns, and if it turns out that fewer than 20 test positive, the study's results may be useless.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-06/infecting-subjects-may-speed-covid-19-vaccine-studies-who-says

Infecting Subjects May Speed Covid Vaccine Studies, WHO Says

 

Deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with the virus that causes Covid-19 may speed studies of vaccines against the deadly pathogen, the World Health Organization said.

 

Such studies, which pose significant potential dangers to subjects, may be considered in dire situations and with certain disclosures and protections, a working group of the United Nations health agency said in a report posted Wednesday on its website.

 

 

In the traditional approach, the potential vaccine or placebo will be given to healthy volunteers, who will then be assessed for safety and efficacy through natural or community infection. This takes a lot of time. History suggests the fastest time taken to develop a vaccine has been five years, but it usually takes double that time to bring vaccine from the lab to the market. In a human challenge trial since volunteers are exposed to the virus, it is possible to quickly find out the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and weed out disappointing vaccine candidates.

.........................................................................

Can anyone explain the logic here? 

 

"It's a race against the virus disappearing, and against time,"

 

"Deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with the virus that causes Covid-19 may speed studies of vaccines "

 

 

LC Mentor

LC

Posted
Posted

Per euromomo, Europe appears out of the woods as excess mortality has reached baseline levels and in some cases below.

clutch Apprentice

clutch

Posted
Posted

"New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported"

 

https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b

 

Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means.

 

It's not just this source. This news have been reported by multiple sources. After all, these estimates are from CDC:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Investor20 Rookie

Investor20

Posted
Posted

"New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported"

 

https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b

 

Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means.

 

0.4% is lower than the estimates I have seen (~0.75x), but it still would mean 800k death if we go all the way to herd immunity and get 200M Americans infected Ted. This would mean that we are about 1/8 through with this epidemic.

 

Just saying.

 

The numbers from Quebec vs. other Canadian provinces looks interesting, due to the huge difference in outcome compared to other provinces.

It’s clear that relatively small differences in starting points lead to vastly different results in outcome. Perhaps not so surprising, considering the math behind epidemics and the nature of logistics function.

 

The CDC website link given in article says

 

"Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio," in Column Scenario 5:Current Best Estimate 0.004.

Percent of infections that are asymptomatic 35%

That gives 0.4%*0.65 = 0.26% Infection fatality rate.

clutch Apprentice

clutch

Posted
Posted

"New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported"

 

https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b

 

Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means.

 

It's not just this source. This news have been reported by multiple sources. After all, these estimates are from CDC:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

 

Under "Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate", Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, overall (of all age groups) is given as 0.004.

ERICOPOLY Mentor

ERICOPOLY

Posted
Posted

Boy, oh, boy - if you believe that bullshit - you must really hate Cuomo and DeBlasio - considering they are responsible for so many deaths with

their catastrophic decisions to jam the elderly sick into nursing homes....

 

On Fox News Sunday this was discussed.  It was pointed out that the CDC guidelines said a nursing home facility could not discriminate against a COVID patient.  Cuomo followed that guideline.  We know in hindsight it was a mistake.  At the time, there was pressure to empty the hospitals to make room for a surge that never came. 

KCLarkin Collaborator

KCLarkin

Posted
Posted

"New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported"

 

https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b

 

Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means.

 

It's not just this source. This news have been reported by multiple sources. After all, these estimates are from CDC:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

 

I am aware. This was already discussed upthread.

 

My point is the complete lack of "data" to support these estimates. Presumably, the CDC used published research to arrive at these estimates. But they didn't share the sources. Are they relying on deeply flawed serology studies?

 

Edit: Here the National Review asks a similar question:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-does-the-cdc-think-the-covid-19-fatality-rate-is-so-low-and-why-wont-it-tell-anyone/

 

---

P.s. I choose not to go down this particular rabbit hole, but there is some indication of political interference. Like many Trump appointees, the CDC director is controversial:

 

"His nomination was considered controversial, and was opposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which cited Redfield's lack of experience administering a public health agency, his history of scientific misconduct, and his religious advocacy in response to a public health crisis." -- Wikipedia

 

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...