shoshin Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 43 minutes ago, Magox said: No, because COVID 19 and Influenza don't run on parallel tracks. This goes by the aggregate total of "influenza seasons", which is a more complete data subset. And when you take this into consideration along with the higher mortality rates with the flu for those under the age of 65, especially so for those under 50, then it's clear that COVID produces not only less hospitalizations, ICU's but deaths as well than COVID for that age group. Even if you think this data is not fully representative of what you believe it to be, the data is clear enough to show that at a very minimum it's not that much more dangerous than the flu for the aforementioned age groups. Mortality data as you and I both agree is still up in the air. It's definitely way less than the early reports out of Italy. I can't let slide your proposal that the flu causes more hospitalizations than Covid. It clearly does not. Your data AND my data support how much worse Covid is. I found data that compared a 6-week snip of time to compare them and Covid has more cases. You picked an entire flu season to compare to Covid's current season, and found Covid to be only slightly behind the flu. But Covid started from a single domestic case sometime in December 2019! Imagine what it will do given its contagiousness with tens of thousands of seed cases starting in September and so little of the population without any immunity. That's why hospitalization should be the driving metric to watch for all reopening decisions (unless it becomes more fatal or starts to leap in case counts to younger people). Pretty sure you see the error here. Again, none of us analyzes CDC data for a living. If we can get the vaccine out quickly and drive this to zero, not allowing it to hang around and mutate in non-vaccinated folk, we can put it behind us maybe by summer 2021. This next flu season will be something different than we've ever had before. We will see it coming so hopefully we don't have to close, but we will have to be social distancing like MoFos. 1
snafu Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Magox said: Secondly, it is not more dangerous than the flu for people under age 65. I think I'm changing the topic a bit. It certainly isn't as fatal, but i am in wait and see mode on "dangerous" with regard to blood clotting, and permanent, or long lasting, or degenerative damage to younger population. This seems to do different things to people than the flu. There's still a lot we don't know about this virus and its effects. Also -- if you take into consideration that hospitals were actively turning people away during the COVID-19 height of the outbreak, can you safely use the hospitalization numbers that are being reported? Comparing them to flu numbers -- when hospitals have traditionally been able to handle all cases that come to their doors -- is maybe not the best comparison. Keep in mind that I don't know what comparison would be better... Edited May 18, 2020 by snafu 1
spartacus Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 1 hour ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: I am confused, I heard from a CDC "expert" last week that there has never been an effective vaccine ever developed for a coronavirus... that would be correct so don't hold your breathe for a viable vaccine However, shots of "the cure" will be forced on the public in record time
shoshin Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 1 hour ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: I am confused, I heard from a CDC "expert" last week that there has never been an effective vaccine ever developed for a coronavirus... Why do you think that is? a) it's impossible b) none of the previous coronaviruses were a big deal
Magox Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 (edited) 45 minutes ago, snafu said: I think I'm changing the topic a bit. It certainly isn't as fatal, but i am in wait and see mode on "dangerous" with regard to blood clotting, and permanent, or long lasting, or degenerative damage to younger population. This seems to do different things to people than the flu. There's still a lot we don't know about this virus and its effects. Also -- if you take into consideration that hospitals were actively turning people away during the COVID-19 height of the outbreak, can you safely use the hospitalization numbers that are being reported? Comparing them to flu numbers -- when hospitals have traditionally been able to handle all cases that come to their doors -- is maybe not the best comparison. Keep in mind that I don't know what comparison would be better... That for me is the big unknown. What are the secondary effects and how prevalent are they? Are they statistically noteworthy? In regards to hospitalization numbers, no, I can't safely say that as I am not privy to that sort of granular data. With that said, even if the numbers are not very accurately reflected from what the CDC is reporting, and there was about a 50% variance from what they are showing, it's still low enough to support my views within the context that I was making them, which is that for people under 65, the risk of COVID 19 are similar in terms of health outcomes to that of seasonal influenza. That's based off of the available data and it is supported by hospitalization data throughout the world, not just CDC. Edited May 18, 2020 by Magox 1
spartacus Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, shoshin said: Why do you think that is? a) it's impossible b) none of the previous coronaviruses were a big deal they were a big deal at the time just not hyped enough to shut down the world 1
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, shoshin said: Why do you think that is? a) it's impossible b) none of the previous coronaviruses were a big deal I would put $60 on B Alex! 1
shoshin Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 9 minutes ago, spartacus said: they were a big deal at the time just not hyped enough to shut down the world SARS and its 774 total deaths worldwide Total at its height almost matched NY State’s total on a few individual days. None of the other coronaviruses got this kind of attention deservedly so.
B-Man Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 Epidemiologist who opposes COVID-19 lockdowns gets censored on YouTube. ENDORSED: A century after Prohibition, will the coronavirus finally end it? We’ll drink to that. “Alcohol should be regulated more like prescriptions and other products. Delivery and to-go restrictions are remnants of a Prohibition mentality.”
Magox Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 The more data that comes out the more we are learning about it. Here is a serological study commissioned by the city of Los Angeles. It has been peer -reviewed. The mortality rate: .2% 6
snafu Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 33 minutes ago, Magox said: That for me is the big unknown. What are the secondary effects and how prevalent are they? Are they statistically noteworthy? In regards to hospitalization numbers, no, I can't safely say that as I am not privy to that sort of granular data. With that said, even if the numbers are not very accurately reflected from what the CDC is reporting, and there was about a 50% variance from what they are showing, it's still low enough to support my views within the context that I was making them, which is that for people under 65, the risk of COVID 19 are similar in terms of health outcomes to that of seasonal influenza. That's based off of the available data and it is supported by hospitalization data throughout the world, not just CDC. Understood about your second paragraph. My point was more of a question. Thanks for answering. I’ve always thought one of the best side benefits of the lockdown is to get to know as many unknowns as possible before reopening. Or at least identify what should be investigated. That’s the only way to be prepared for the inevitable increase in numbers, especially with the next flu season being folded into a new Covid spike. There’s a lot of minds focused on this virus. One or two days makes a big difference. 1
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, Magox said: The more data that comes out the more we are learning about it. Here is a serological study commissioned by the city of Los Angeles. It has been peer -reviewed. The mortality rate: .2% It was peer reviewed and nobody caught 'aroung' 0.2%? I suppose maybe the quick chart wasn't reviewed... 1
Koko78 Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 On 5/17/2020 at 2:17 PM, B-Man said: Coronavirus in Boston: 10% of Bostonians have COVID-19 antibodies. WELL, YES. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR MONTHS, AND TRIALS THAT DON’T INCLUDE ZINC ARE LIKELY WORTHLESS: Zinc might boost effectiveness of malaria drug against COVID-19, experts say. Wait, you mean the data collected from trials where they gave HCQ, with nothing else, to people who were on death's door in order to skew the results may not be valid?!? 1
Nanker Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 The Vaccine Everyone Wanted Jonas Salk first tested it on himself, his family, and former polio patients in 1953. He announced his invention on March 26, 1953 Field Trials for the Salk vaccine began on April 26, 1954 and involved inoculating 1.8 million children.
Magox Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 (edited) More excellent news, on the R rate. The number is going lower and below one. Why is a number above one dangerous? If the reproduction number is higher than one, then the number of cases increases exponentially - it snowballs. But if the number is lower, the disease will eventually peter out, as not enough new people are being infected to sustain the outbreak. Edited May 18, 2020 by Magox 3
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 Trump just announced he's been on HCQ for weeks now. 5
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Trump just announced he's been on HCQ for weeks now. But why? Was he infected but asymptomatic?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 Just now, MILFHUNTER#518 said: But why? Was he infected but asymptomatic? It's a preventative. 5
Recommended Posts