Off topic “coronavirus”

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=svelte]The interesting part is the majority of the people getting sick and turning up in the ICU aren’t the older seniors. It’s mostly people younger than 60 and overwhelmingly men.[/quote]

I don’t feel our system is transparent at all. “Under 60” is useless information. If the government and media think that will incentivize young people to self isolate, they couldn’t be more wrong. 60 is way old for someone who’s 22.

Just be fully transparent and give us the age of the people infected and dying. Why hide the information?

There is a huge population of uninsured who don’t care. They are serving us at restaurants, hair salons, etc…

[The-Shoveler]

Most coronavirus cases are concentrated in places where public transportation is the main from of transportation.

Not saying we are doing these drastic mesures for nothing or anything like that.

Or that it could have been handled in SoCal with a lot less drastic measures.

[svelte]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=svelte]The interesting part is the majority of the people getting sick and turning up in the ICU aren’t the older seniors. It’s mostly people younger than 60 and overwhelmingly men.[/quote]

I don’t feel our system is transparent at all. “Under 60” is useless information. If the government and media think that will incentivize young people to self isolate, they couldn’t be more wrong. 60 is way old for someone who’s 22.

Just be fully transparent and give us the age of the people infected and dying. Why hide the information?

There is a huge population of uninsured who don’t care. They are serving us at restaurants, hair salons, etc…[/quote]

You mis-attributed that quote. I didn’t say that, flu (coronita) did.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=svelte]
You mis-attributed that quote. I didn’t say that, flu (coronita) did.[/quote]

Opps….. sorry about that.

[FlyerInHi]

In other news, Chinese expats, even foreigners are flying to China to take refuge over there. I guess it’s very useful to be a citizen of the world (Chinese citizens who take foreign passports, give up their Chinese citizenship. In contrast, the USA allows multiple nationalities).

In a matter of weeks, China has gone from being the epicenter of the virus to almost the only refuge from it, prompting hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens abroad to flock home. About 20,000 people a day are arriving on flights into China, while five times as many arrive by land or sea, state media reported.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-citizens-abroad-seek-refuge-from-the-coronavirus-epidemic–at-home/2020/03/17/836140f8-67f2-11ea-b199-3a9799c54512_story.html

[FlyerInHi]

Wow, a manager of a biotech in Boston was denied testing, so she flew to China.
Edit: It turns out that she was denied testing 3 times, so in desperation, she flew to China. I guess only celebrities get tested here, lol.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/coronavirus/woman-who-hid-coronavirus-symptoms-to-fly-to-china-faces-criminal-charges/2093876/

According to the L.A. Times, Jie Li, a Chinese citizen living in Massachusetts, became ill with coronavirus symptoms was denied testing when she went to a local hospital. The newspaper said she decided to fly to China through Los Angeles, took fever-reducing medications before boarding the plane and lied to flight attendants.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-testing-denied-us-china-covid-19-massachusetts-a9404366.html

[ucodegen]

[quote=outtamojo]Tucker Carlson of all people was actually fair and balanced about this but of the 5 senators who sold stock my always trumper coworker could only name Feinstein![/quote]
I came up with more;

[FlyerInHi]

This is Anthony Fauci’s interview with science magazine

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/i-m-going-keep-pushing-anthony-fauci-tries-make-white-house-listen-facts-pandemic

[svelte]

[quote=Coronita][quote=svelte][quote=The-Shoveler]

Or just decide it is not worth it like England.

[/quote]

With England choosing one route and most other countries chosing a shutdown, we should be able to tell whether the shutdown did any good.

If England doesn’t get hit any worse than other countries, then maybe we’ve all overreacted.[/quote]

There comes a time when public health matters more than the economy, even if it is an overreaction. I’m glad we are erring on the side of precaution. UK’s argument isn’t that they aren’t going to go into lockdown. It’s that they aren’t going to do it yet. Same thing with Mexico.[/quote]

UK implements a very stringent lockdown.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/uk/uk-coronavirus-lockdown-gbr-intl/index.html

[ucodegen]

Finally got some more useful info than what has been posted on various news sites. The important info is %tests shows infection and % infections resulting in death.. instead of highlighting deaths only.

From CNN – https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-03-23-20-intl-hnk/index.html
313,000 tests completed, more than 41,000 tests positive.
That means current infection rate within population is about 13%. Estimate using S. Koreas numbers on death rates (so far theirs is the best survey – large sample) 0.8% death rate on positive tests.

313,000 / 41,000 * (0.8 / 100) * 300Mil = 314,376 deaths.

For reference, this years flu(H1N1) caused about 19,000 deaths and the previous flu(H3N1) season caused around 80,000 deaths.

NOTE: The 314,376 number is probably an upper bound. Most tests were performed on people who felt ill (the US has been even more selective with their samples – often only the very ill)

I tend to agree with the current California Governor Gavin Newsom that the tests should be less targeted to just the very ill and should be more general to get a handle on the number of people ill out of the population as well as percentage that are largely asymptomatic vs more severe or critical.

[zk]

[quote=ucodegen]
313,000 tests completed, more than 41,000 tests positive.
That means current infection rate within population is about 13%. [/quote]

That would only be a reasonable conclusion if those tests were all given to random people. I didn’t see anything in the article to indicate that that was the case. (Correct me if I missed it.)

If tests were given to at least some of those people because those people had symptoms, then the 13% number would be high.

That said, if it’s not 13% now, it sounds to me like it could be before too long.

[ucodegen]

[quote=zk][quote=ucodegen]
313,000 tests completed, more than 41,000 tests positive.
That means current infection rate within population is about 13%. [/quote]

That would only be a reasonable conclusion if those tests were all given to random people. I didn’t see anything in the article to indicate that that was the case. (Correct me if I missed it.)
[/quote]
Correct, you didn’t miss it.. and that is also why I was saying that this may be an upper limit. It doesn’t handle the asymptomatic.

[quote=zk]
If tests were given to at least some of those people because those people had symptoms, then the 13% number would be high.

That said, if it’s not 13% now, it sounds to me like it could be before too long.[/quote]
I have a feeling that some are because the person actually had the flu(H1N1) fairly bad and wanted to check if it was actually COVID-19. I figure there are things that could make the number larger (new infections) and smaller (extrapolation of existing death rates ignoring the asymptomatic and mild cases that get better). I figure it is an ‘ok’ shot in the dark, certainly better than some of the panic mongering I have been seeing.

I looked at another piece of data (not completely) buried on the CDC site.. It is under the “COVID-19 cases by date of illness onset”. I think this is not ‘presumptive’ data – but proved? I extracted the table and did the sum – it definitely differs from other data values (I don’t like discrepancies)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
Note that the section “COVID-19: US at a Glance” – includes confirmed AND presumptive positive cases. I am uncomfortable with the term ‘presumptive’ when it comes to data.

[svelte]

I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s all going to be guesswork when this is over. Not everyone is going to be tested for COVID-19, so they are going to base the resulting statistics based on guesstimates.

We’ll never get a firm answer on what percentage of those with COVID-19 were hospitalized or died. It will just be “of those who were tested”.

[ucodegen]

[quote=svelte]I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s all going to be guesswork when this is over. Not everyone is going to be tested for COVID-19, so they are going to base the resulting statistics based on guesstimates.

We’ll never get a firm answer on what percentage of those with COVID-19 were hospitalized or died. It will just be “of those who were tested”.[/quote]
I agree. That is also why I disagree with the CDC’s path of only testing the seriously ill. When they are seriously ill, there is already a good idea of what the problem is. I bet they are also not recording specifics of those with severe cases vs the people who seem to shrug if off. We currently don’t understand why the severity differs so much between different people. – not too happy with the CDC right now.

[FlyerInHi]

There are no resources to test more widely. CDC’s hands are tied.
I mean the Biogen employee in Boston had the virus and she was denied testing 3 separate times, so in desperation, she flew to China.

[Author]

Posts