Statistical data vs emotion -

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I asked that question in the COVID-19 thread and was eviscerated. I would also like to know the answer.

 

 

Can't even put any blame on hospitals for wanting the higher reimbursement rates.  But if we're getting faulty data because of that, then we won't come out of this crisis as smoothly as we could with good data.

 

BUT, IF patients that don't need to be going on ventilators are going on them, then somebody needs to go to jail for blatant malpractice.  They cause issues of their own for patients, but if you need to be on 1, the issue they solve is more acutely deadly than the issues they cause; so they are beneficial for some.

[Tiberius]

4,500 deaths in one day. That's about 1/10 the number of suicides per year. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

We lose 240,000 Americans per month in a typical year. That means 720,000 die over the three months since this all started....that’s in a TYPICAL year!  This virus has taken 45,000 over that same period. You can judge whether that’s a lot or a little. I’ve said it before....it doesn’t sound like all that many to me. This has gone on long enough.

[CarpetCrawler]

On 4/16/2020 at 10:02 AM, Foxx said:

is there a tl dr; version?

 

TYIA

We're all going to die, nobody ever died of nothing.

[CarpetCrawler]

On 4/16/2020 at 6:23 PM, Taro T said:

 

Can't even put any blame on hospitals for wanting the higher reimbursement rates.  But if we're getting faulty data because of that, then we won't come out of this crisis as smoothly as we could with good data.

 

BUT, IF patients that don't need to be going on ventilators are going on them, then somebody needs to go to jail for blatant malpractice.  They cause issues of their own for patients, but if you need to be on 1, the issue they solve is more acutely deadly than the issues they cause; so they are beneficial for some.

Let's just say that anyone that comes into the ER showing any sign of needing a ventilator is intubated because it's easier to to it then as opposed to when the patient is in full respiratory distress.....and there is less chance of transmission of the disease too.  ?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Pa. removes 200 deaths from state coronavirus count as questions mount about reporting process, accuracy
 

Pennsylvania has corrected its coronavirus data multiple times over the past week to account for irregularities, according to new reports.
 

Earlier this week, Pennsylvania started to include “probable deaths” in its fatalities. As a result, the total number of coronavirus deaths grew by 276, then 360, in successive nights, almost doubling the number of deaths in the state in two days. The Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) subsequently removed 200 deaths from its count after facing mounting questions about the accuracy of the count.
 

</snip>
 

“There’s a discrepancy in the numbers,” Charles E. Kiessling Jr., president of the Pennsylvania Coroners Association and coroner in Lycoming County, told the Inquirer. “I’m not saying there’s something going on... I’m not a conspiracy theory guy. But accuracy is important.”
 

“This is why I’m so upset,” Kiessling added. “Our job is to investigate... We do this every day.”

Kiessling said it was a matter of public safety that the DOH clarify the discrepancy. Coroners have complained over the past month regarding discrepancies in the death figures.
 

</snip>

[SoCal Deek]

The NY death count is down to HALF of what it was at the peak....just as it had to be when the admittance figures dropped like a stone. This story has been played out to the point of sheer boredom!

[Magox]

This is pretty important.

 

—————

Emergency rooms have about half the normal number of patients, and heart and stroke units are nearly empty, according to doctors at many urban medical centers. Some medical experts fear more people are dying from untreated emergencies than from the coronavirus.

A recent paper by cardiologists at nine large medical centers estimated a 38 percent reduction since March 1 in the number patients with serious heart attacks coming in to have urgently needed procedures to open their arteries.

——

Researchers in Austria estimated that in March 110 citizens died from untreated heart attacks, compared with 86 who died of Covid-19. They based their calculations on a precipitous decline in patients going to hospitals, the expected number of heart attacks in Austria, and the mortality rates of untreated heart attacks.

“I am very very worried that we are creating a problem that will have long-term consequences for the health of the community,” said Dr. Richard A. Chazal, medical director of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Lee Health in Fort Myers, Fla., and a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

——

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

OP makes a good point.   Data is needed on all fronts and then should be used to guide responsible decision making.  That should be the role of each state health department which should then be collated by the CDC.  Having good reliable numbers in not only medical but economic issues is critical. 

 

Accurate and more complete testing data is required right now both to determine the extent of the disease and through antibody testing knowing who has developed immunity.  One of my fears is that the presence of antibodies may not equate to immunity, such as what is seen with HIV.  If that is the case I’m concerned that could influence production of an effective vaccine.

[Magox]

43 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

OP makes a good point.   Data is needed on all fronts and then should be used to guide responsible decision making.  That should be the role of each state health department which should then be collated by the CDC.  Having good reliable numbers in not only medical but economic issues is critical. 

 

Accurate and more complete testing data is required right now both to determine the extent of the disease and through antibody testing knowing who has developed immunity.  One of my fears is that the presence of antibodies may not equate to immunity, such as what is seen with HIV.  If that is the case I’m concerned that could influence production of an effective vaccine.

 

From what I am reading is that there are different levels of antibodies and that the research that has been conducted indicates that in most cases it would protect you but in others that the antibodies may not.  The way I read it is that antibodies don’t appear and turn on like a light switch.   There is a process in the development of it and depending where in the process that it lies also helps determine the effectiveness of it.  
 

*Disclaimer*.  Don’t take what I say as fact.  That was my interpretation of it *

[oldmanfan]

9 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

From what I am reading is that there are different levels of antibodies and that the research that has been conducted indicates that in most cases it would protect you but in others that the antibodies may not.  The way I read it is that antibodies don’t appear and turn on like a light switch.   There is a process in the development of it and depending where in the process that it lies also helps determine the effectiveness of it.  
 

*Disclaimer*.  Don’t take what I say as fact.  That was my interpretation of it *

Hope you’re right.   There is some progress with convalescent serum from infected individuals but also some data on reinfection.  So it’s kind of murky right now.

[Magox]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Hope you’re right.   There is some progress with convalescent serum from infected individuals but also some data on reinfection.  So it’s kind of murky right now.

 

Here is a good article.  Have a look:

 

 

—————-

 

Detecting antibodies is the first step. Interpreting what they mean is harder.

Typically, a virus that causes an acute infection will prompt the body’s immune system to start churning out specific antibodies. Even after the virus is cleared, these “neutralizing” antibodies float around, ready to rally a response should that virus try to infect again. The virus might infect a few cells, but it can’t really gain a toehold before the immune system banishes it. (This is not the case for viruses that cause chronic infections, like HIV and, in many cases, hepatitis C.)

“The infection is basically stopped in its tracks before it can go anywhere,” said Stephen Goldstein, a University of Utah virologist. But, Goldstein added, “the durability of that protection varies depending on the virus.”

Scientists who have looked at antibodies to other coronaviruses — both the common-cold causing foursome and SARS and MERS — found they persisted for at least a few years, indicating people were protected from reinfection for at least that long. From then, protection might start to wane, not drop off completely.

The experience with other viruses, including the other coronaviruses, has encouraged what Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch summed up as the “educated guess” in a recent column in the New York Times: “After being infected with SARS-CoV-2, most individuals will have an immune response, some better than others. That response, it may be assumed, will offer some protection over the medium term — at least a year — and then its effectiveness might decline.”

But many serological tests aren’t like pregnancy tests, with a yes or no result. They will reveal the levels (or titer) of antibodies in a person’s blood. And that’s where things can get a bit trickier. At this point, scientists can’t say for sure what level of antibodies might be required for a person to be protected from a second Covid-19 case. They also can’t say how long people are safeguarded, though it’s thought that a higher initial titer will take longer to wane than low levels.

“Further investigation is needed to understand the duration of protective immunity for SARS-CoV-2,” a committee from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine wrote in a reportthis month.

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

Here is a good article.  Have a look:

 

 

—————-

 

Detecting antibodies is the first step. Interpreting what they mean is harder.

Typically, a virus that causes an acute infection will prompt the body’s immune system to start churning out specific antibodies. Even after the virus is cleared, these “neutralizing” antibodies float around, ready to rally a response should that virus try to infect again. The virus might infect a few cells, but it can’t really gain a toehold before the immune system banishes it. (This is not the case for viruses that cause chronic infections, like HIV and, in many cases, hepatitis C.)

“The infection is basically stopped in its tracks before it can go anywhere,” said Stephen Goldstein, a University of Utah virologist. But, Goldstein added, “the durability of that protection varies depending on the virus.”

Scientists who have looked at antibodies to other coronaviruses — both the common-cold causing foursome and SARS and MERS — found they persisted for at least a few years, indicating people were protected from reinfection for at least that long. From then, protection might start to wane, not drop off completely.

The experience with other viruses, including the other coronaviruses, has encouraged what Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch summed up as the “educated guess” in a recent column in the New York Times: “After being infected with SARS-CoV-2, most individuals will have an immune response, some better than others. That response, it may be assumed, will offer some protection over the medium term — at least a year — and then its effectiveness might decline.”

But many serological tests aren’t like pregnancy tests, with a yes or no result. They will reveal the levels (or titer) of antibodies in a person’s blood. And that’s where things can get a bit trickier. At this point, scientists can’t say for sure what level of antibodies might be required for a person to be protected from a second Covid-19 case. They also can’t say how long people are safeguarded, though it’s thought that a higher initial titer will take longer to wane than low levels.

“Further investigation is needed to understand the duration of protective immunity for SARS-CoV-2,” a committee from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine wrote in a reportthis month.

Thanks.  I teach physiology and anatomy but I’m far from an expert in immunology.  This helps.

[SoCal Deek]

You want facts and statistics: 

 

As of one week ago since the Covid 19 story exploded there have been 600,000 American deaths in the age group of 55 and over. Of those 600,000 deaths...roughly 25,000 had been from Covid 19.
 

In that same period there have been less than 1,000 deaths of anyone under 45 years old....out of over 50,000 nation wide deaths due to all causes.

 

Can we go back to our semi-normal lives now, and be more acutely aware of our senior population? (PS: I’m a young senior!)

[plenzmd1]

I don't know where to post this, but will do it here and maybe someone like @Hapless Bills Fan can help me interpret. Did not want to put on main board as some may think it political.

 

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/Weekly-Influenza-Activity-Report.pdf

 

Here is a report from VA on influenza and pneumonia deaths in 2019-2020 flu season for Virginia. As seen on page 6 of the report, 2695 deaths so far. Of that, 6 pediatric deaths . 

 

 

 

Interesting that that number was climbing from 100 in week 10, to 150 in week 13..to almost zero in week 16. Week 13 BTW was March 23rd. 

 

As of today, VA has 436 deaths from Covid, so about 1/5th. Certainly understand different time frame..but could some of those flu deaths now be included in the Covid deaths?

 

As well, just about 13K confirmed cases for both infections, and it seems readily apparent that many many more people are asymptomatic with Covid that regular influenza. Would that not indicate morbidity rates are way BELOW flu? What am i missing here? 

 

Also, have the news on in the background...VA has over 6K hospital beds available, and only 20% of available entilaters are being used.

 

BTW, i am not one who thinks the social distancing was wrong, just wondering when these types of numbers start to get factored into decsion making.

[B-Man]

Former Neuroradiology Chief at Stanford Medical Center Gives Us the Facts

On Monday morning, most of the country will begin the seventh week of the COVID-19 quarantine. Following advice from the experts, President Trump made the decision to shut down the U.S. economy for 15 days, at which time, he and his advisors would reassess. The strategy made sense at the time. A pandemic, made in China, was spreading across the world and the death toll was mounting by the day. All over the world, people were frightened. This was virgin territory for all of us.

 

Six weeks later, much has changed. Most importantly, the COVID curve is at or beyond its peak in every state, well beyond in some cases, which had been the goal of the shutdown. We’ve learned that the virus arrived in the U.S. much earlier than thought and that up to 33 percent of Americans have antibodies present in their blood, meaning they had the disease although some may not have realized it.

 

Dr. Scott Atlas, the former neuroradiology chief at Stanford University Medical Center, wrote an op-ed at The Hill on Friday that every American should read. He lays out five key facts that no one is paying attention to. He calls on policymakers “to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.” The bottom line is that the mortality rate for COVID is equivalent to the annual flu.

 

Atlas makes the case that total isolation no longer makes sense and that it’s time for Americans to go back to work.

 

Fact 1:

The recent Stanford University antibody study concluded the death rate to be between 0.1 to 0.2 percent, in other words, right in line with the seasonal flu.

 

(Edited: much more under each FACT given)

 

Fact 2:

Hospitalizations in New York City as of Friday, April 24: 34,600

Under 18 years old:  0.01 percent

18-44 years old:  0.10 percent

65 to 74 years old:  1.7 percent

 

 

Fact 3:

The quarantines have prevented us from achieving herd immunity. This, Dr. Atlas points out is just “prolonging the problem.” In the last week or so, we’ve seen several studies showing that 30 percent or more of groups tested are found to have developed antibodies.

 

Fact 4:

“People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.”

This is something that we’re starting to hear about more and more.

 

 

Fact 5:

We know that the elderly and those with underlying health issues are the most vulnerable members of the population. And those who fall into this category should absolutely remain in quarantine.

“Knowing that,” says Dr. Atlas, “it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.”

 

President Trump was right to call for a quarantine. With the information that was available at the time, he really had no other choice. If he had done nothing, and the coronavirus had turned out to be far more lethal than what had been expected by the experts, or even as lethal as they’d warned, inaction could have been catastrophic.

Knowing what we know now, however, it’s time for us to go back to work. Because America has another problem to deal with – its economy.

 

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/26/stanford-medical-center-neuroradiology-chief-gives-us-the-stats-tells-americans-to-go-back-to-work/.

Edited April 26, 2020 by B-Man

[GG]

3 hours ago, Magox said:

This is pretty important.

 

—————

Emergency rooms have about half the normal number of patients, and heart and stroke units are nearly empty, according to doctors at many urban medical centers. Some medical experts fear more people are dying from untreated emergencies than from the coronavirus.

A recent paper by cardiologists at nine large medical centers estimated a 38 percent reduction since March 1 in the number patients with serious heart attacks coming in to have urgently needed procedures to open their arteries.

——

Researchers in Austria estimated that in March 110 citizens died from untreated heart attacks, compared with 86 who died of Covid-19. They based their calculations on a precipitous decline in patients going to hospitals, the expected number of heart attacks in Austria, and the mortality rates of untreated heart attacks.

“I am very very worried that we are creating a problem that will have long-term consequences for the health of the community,” said Dr. Richard A. Chazal, medical director of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Lee Health in Fort Myers, Fla., and a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

——

 

 

 

The NYT being NYT.   Nowhere in the article do they mention that NY EMT were told not to bring in patients who can't be revived in the field.  That's the main reason why the cases are down in NYC. 

 

In other areas, people were scared off to go to the ER.  

 

There really needs to be a bifurcated approach between NYC metro and the rest of the country.  

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You want facts and statistics: 

 

As of one week ago since the Covid 19 story exploded there have been 600,000 American deaths in the age group of 55 and over. Of those 600,000 deaths...roughly 25,000 had been from Covid 19.
 

In that same period there have been less than 1,000 deaths of anyone under 45 years old....out of over 50,000 nation wide deaths due to all causes.

 

Can we go back to our semi-normal lives now, and be more acutely aware of our senior population? (PS: I’m a young senior!)

Nobody wants to comment? You all just want to blather in about nonsense?

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You want facts and statistics: 

 

As of one week ago since the Covid 19 story exploded there have been 600,000 American deaths in the age group of 55 and over. Of those 600,000 deaths...roughly 25,000 had been from Covid 19.
 

In that same period there have been less than 1,000 deaths of anyone under 45 years old....out of over 50,000 nation wide deaths due to all causes.

 

Can we go back to our semi-normal lives now, and be more acutely aware of our senior population? (PS: I’m a young senior!)

Makes sense to me. The shutdowns are far too extreme for the actual problem, creating a larger problem that is much worse. Some precautions and guidelines for those who will be around the most vulnerable should be the focus. Those who are somewhat more vulnerable than the healthy population should take personal precautions when indoors around larger groups of people. Flattening the curve appears to have been a success. It’s time to end the insanity ; the ridiculous notion that the government should trample individual rights to prevent anyone from contracting a virus.