21–30 of 34 posts
This article is junk, and I don't understand why we're accepting medical analysis from a random trader. A few of the more obvious flaws: * At this point in the epidemic you can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative). * It is well known that China i…
This article is junk, and I don't understand why we're accepting medical analysis from a random trader. A few of the more obvious flaws: * At this point in the epidemic you can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative). * It is well known that China i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative). There are limitations with this method, but I think it’s the best possible at the time. What method do you think is better?
Count deaths & recoveries a few weeks in for cohorts that showed first symptoms on the same days. But data collection for this is hard and it takes a while too.
This article is junk, and I don't understand why we're accepting medical analysis from a random trader. A few of the more obvious flaws: * At this point in the epidemic you can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative). * It is well known that China i…
> The virus has been in the wild in a number of countries outside China (Singapore, Japan, Thailand, etc), yet to date local transmission has petered out and there's no sign of massive outbreaks happening. This argues for a much lower R0... While I agree with your other points, the idea that transmission in Japan is petering out is wildly optimistic and not what epidemiologists in Japan are saying. Unfortunately, you…
Does that take the Diamond Princess cases into account, or just the others (66 last time I checked, and IMO the most important ones are the cases reported outside the group of people who were repatriated and quarantined)? IMO it is clear that keeping all those people in close quarters in the cruise ship wasn't the best idea after all (because interactions keep on occurring, and thus infections keep on spreading).
I also don't find the story of the health officer infected for "10 minutes contact" (or so the NHK says) very credible, or at best, it is a stochastic event.
A real problem is instead that, for outside infections, people kept on working and having contact with others despite being sick.
I don't want to downplay the issue at all, but as far as I can see the Japanese press (I can't say much about the actual people living there) going absolutely hysterical over this (but it was the same with H1N1 back in the days). The government then follows suit.
I'm curious about a rather immaterial point in the corona virus reporting: Why does everyone discuss 'mainland China'? What are they trying to clarify by putting that 'mainland' word in? It surely can't be Taiwan, since these are Western articles, whose audience probably won't confuse the two. So is it about Hong Kong? That doesn't make much sense either, since most of Hong Kong is on the mainland. And yet, while the…
I'm curious about a rather immaterial point in the corona virus reporting: Why does everyone discuss 'mainland China'? What are they trying to clarify by putting that 'mainland' word in? It surely can't be Taiwan, since these are Western articles, whose audience probably won't confuse the two. So is it about Hong Kong? That doesn't make much sense either, since most of Hong Kong is on the mainland. And yet, while the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why are you wondering why it is included? Mainland in this case is a geopolitical term.
Because it makes no sense? For all the uses of 'mainland China', it would be simpler to just say 'China', with no loss of clarity. Adding pointless words just for the sake of it, especially when it seems that the author(s) don't mean what the word says, is bad writing.
This article is junk, and I don't understand why we're accepting medical analysis from a random trader. A few of the more obvious flaws: * At this point in the epidemic you can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative). * It is well known that China i…
None of those objections seem right at all. The coronavirus deaths so far have been long, drawn-out affairs compared to the recoveries, so there's no particular reason to expact recoveries to lag deaths. We know China has been undercounting deaths as well as cases, and in any case thse estimates in this are based on non-Chinese numbers. Also, transmission outside of China hasn't just "petered" out - it was aggressive…
No, it took until several weeks into the epidemic until the number of recoveries exceeded the number of deaths.
> We know China has been undercounting deaths as well as cases
All deaths are counted, people don't just leave corpses lying around, although it is true that many coronavirus deaths were likely misclassified. By comparison, if someone gets a mild case (80%+ probability) and recovers at home, they'll never get recorded in any stats.
> it was aggressively stamped out via contact tracing
In some countries like Singapore, yes. But in countries like Thailand and Mexico, contact tracing was haphazard to nonexistent, and epidemics still failed to materialize.
This article is junk, and I don't understand why we're accepting medical analysis from a random trader. A few of the more obvious flaws: * At this point in the epidemic you can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative). * It is well known that China i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those objections seem right at all. The coronavirus deaths so far have been long, drawn-out affairs compared to the recoveries, so there's no particular reason to expact recoveries to lag deaths. We know China has been undercounting deaths as well as cases, and in any case thse estimates in this are based on non-Chinese numbers. Also, transmission outside of China hasn't just "petered" out - it was aggressive…
> The coronavirus deaths so far have been long, drawn-out affairs compared to the recoveries No, it took until several weeks into the epidemic until the number of recoveries exceeded the number of deaths. > We know China has been undercounting deaths as well as cases All deaths are counted, people don't just leave corpses lying around, although it is true that many coronavirus deaths were likely misclassified. By com…
So we don't have accurate numbers in either direction, and anybody pretending that all the mild cases not being recorded is enough to decide this virus isn't serious and doesn't warrant being careful about, is being an asshole.
SARS/MERS show that coronaviruses can be dangerous, and it's too early to decide "well, show's over, nbd".