431–440 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s passengers where unusually healthy for their age range based on what?
Based on going on cruise. People who are bedridden or who can barely walk don't usually do that.
I will go out on a limb here (I'm hardly a domain expert) and make the following prediction: In retrospect this will be seen as the moment when peer perception of Ioannidis fell from major scientific figure to reckless (or worse!) fraud. The problems with what he writes seem to me to be so severe, I cannot fathom how it ever made peer-review. His original article assumed, with no measures taken, a peak infection rate…
I saw the videos from Wuhan hospitals 2 months ago and it was clear that the severity of this was off the charts. You can pretty much scale up the situation from a single hospital, because it tells you that it's impacting locally more than the hospital can respond. You don't need "evidence" of how many are actually infected or what is the correct R or CFR or which way it spreads. Just look how it's impacting the loca…
Ok, let's look. There are 1175 serious/critical cases in the US [0]. I assume all of them are hospitalized, and mild cases are asked to stay home. There are 900k plus total hospital beds in the US, and 132K ICU beds [1], resulting in the current COVID demand from hospitals to be between 0.1% to 1% depending on how many of them need ICU beds. What am I missing? Before I am accused of not understanding exponentiation, I am all for prepping, but much alarm is about how we are already running out of capacity.
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ [1] https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals
It’s much easier to quantify the harms of allowing business as usual and letting the infection spread (namely # of deaths) than it is quantifying the cascading repercussions of a massive global economic meltdown. Accordingly, world leaders are being judged based on their ability to contain the spread rather than prevent economic devastation. As a society we are faced with navigating the delicate balance between how m…
> Accordingly, world leaders are being judged based on their ability to contain the spread rather than prevent economic devastation. Actually I am judging countries by their ability to face facts, act proactively Over the last few months, act responsibly by making sensible decisions that are effective in controlling their outbreaks, while keeping their economy functioning. A++ for Taiwan (they started acting on Dec 3…
Imagine this. Your driving down the freeway at 60 mph, accelerating at 30%. The car in front of you puts on the breaks. Before you react, you first gather your speed gun, check the deceleration rate of the car in front, then calculate based on your speed when you should put your breaks on. I'm all for the scientific approach, but in this particular instance, our survival instincts need to take precedence. Please, we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on going on cruise. People who are bedridden or who can barely walk don't usually do that.
the average age on the ship was 62. In what world is the average 62 year old bedridden or too sick to go on a cruise?
Except those higher odds of death are strongly associated with major heath issues. So, simply excluding the sickest 5% of the population makes a huge difference in survival rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the fourth: there were claims that only 12% Italy's COVID-19 deaths can be directly attributed to COVID-19.
interesting. this sounds reasonable given its "deaths of people who tested +ve for cv19" and not "deaths of people from complications caused by cv19" Have you got a source?
I saw the videos from Wuhan hospitals 2 months ago and it was clear that the severity of this was off the charts. You can pretty much scale up the situation from a single hospital, because it tells you that it's impacting locally more than the hospital can respond. You don't need "evidence" of how many are actually infected or what is the correct R or CFR or which way it spreads. Just look how it's impacting the loca…
> Just look how it's impacting the local health care system. If it exceeds the capacity by X % that's how big a problem it is. Ok, let's look. There are 1175 serious/critical cases in the US [0]. I assume all of them are hospitalized, and mild cases are asked to stay home. There are 900k plus total hospital beds in the US, and 132K ICU beds [1], resulting in the current COVID demand from hospitals to be between 0.1%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? I can't see the slightest basis for such an assumption. This an extremely infectious, quickly spreading disease. 30% of the US population seem like a more likely estimate. SK has a 1.3% fatality rate at the end but that was with a functioning health case system. If even 1% of the US population get infect, the health syste…
Infected != Ill != death
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Korea have lost a magnitude of corpses somewhere. There is a third possibility. False positive tests: Germany and South Korea may have less cases than they think they do.
And the fourth: there were claims that only 12% Italy's COVID-19 deaths can be directly attributed to COVID-19.