Random testing in Germany has also revealed higher than expected rates of people with antibodies. Their IFR (infected fatality rate) was 2% overall based on non-random testing. Random testing has yielded an IFR or 0.37%. This does not increase the risk. These tests only test people who had coronavirus. The larger this portion, the more herd immunity there is in the population. It implies that there were a larger than…
The lower rate was calculated based on only 7 or 8 fatalities.
Also the people in Gangelt, where that test was carried out, are significantly younger than the average German. Their share of people over 75 is 17% below the national average.
> but the trajectories don't lie Except for when they do. Easter just passed and the the trajectories are plotted up to and including today, when Sweden for example is adding deaths to dates two weeks back every day, and the last 5-7 days _ALWAYS_ looks like a downward trajectory. The last little spike there from before easter has grown by 35% since after easter and is still growing daily. You can't draw conclusions…
Sure, but in that chart Italy for example has had a declining graph for over two weeks, which means you can be reasonably sure it's not growing exponentially there. And in Sweden's case, if you also look at the number of ICU admissions, they've been flat for weeks, and those numbers have very little lag. I'm not saying everything is fine, I'm not saying we're over the peak, but I am saying that it's not the case that…
You have to ask what phenomenon causes an exponential increase in deaths/day and does not increase ICU utilization. The answer I’ve seen seems to be “yes, the disease is killing a steadily growing number of people but they’re older and aren’t going to the ICU before they die.” This is where Italy was at one point; they just got there much later.
This figure does not surprise me. It is in line with Iceland finding that 50% of people they tested were asymptomatic. However as https://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-need-to-understan... notes, in other samples about 75% of people who were asymptomatic at the time of the test went on to develop symptoms. So the fact that these sailors are currently asymptomatic does not mean that they will remain so. See https…
My question is, of these asymptomatic people that do go on to have symptoms...how many are so severe that they would have likely missed work or gone to a doctor? I think that is important too. How do we know if a bunch of people have had it, but had such minor symptoms that they just went on about their day? I had a spout of shortness of breath around late Feb - early March, I just chalked it up as allergies. Maybe it was? I have no idea, but how many people that get COVID19 have similar situations where symptoms are so mild they just think it's nothing. That seems important when we look back in time where people weren't on edge and on the look out for any type of symptom. Of course asymptomatic people are going to show symptoms, but does that mean they would have reported it were they not told by a doctor to report anything out of ordinary?
This figure does not surprise me. It is in line with Iceland finding that 50% of people they tested were asymptomatic. However as https://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-need-to-understan... notes, in other samples about 75% of people who were asymptomatic at the time of the test went on to develop symptoms. So the fact that these sailors are currently asymptomatic does not mean that they will remain so. See https…
This figure does not surprise me. It is in line with Iceland finding that 50% of people they tested were asymptomatic. However as https://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-need-to-understan... notes, in other samples about 75% of people who were asymptomatic at the time of the test went on to develop symptoms. So the fact that these sailors are currently asymptomatic does not mean that they will remain so. See https…
Yeah, I think we should be more careful with using the word "asymptomatic" as that is quite different from "presymptomatic". AFAIK COVID seems to have some case where people are purely "asymptomatic", but with this current hot topic of symptoms or not, lots of articles are writing about presymptomatic people they assume will be asymptomatic. Confusing.
It is, but I don't think the tests are able to tell how long a given person was infected. That two weeks incubation makes a lot of things harder. For example after implementing shelter at home or didn't look like it has much impact, but suddenly after two weeks it became very visible.
It makes things scary when we lift stay home, it will take again two weeks, and things can get bad quickly over that time.
This is so tiresome. Someone has cancer for six months, gets COVID and dies 17 days later and now Tucker Carlson is here telling me not to count that death. How often do you really think it happens that someone is hospitalized with COVID (otherwise, they'd not even be getting tested most places in the world) and dies of something else a week later? I'm sure it has happened a few times, but what has also been happenin…
> Someone has cancer for six months, gets COVID and dies 17 days later and now Tucker Carlson is here telling me not to count that death. If someone has cancer and then gets a bad cold and dies, what should the cause of death be? Or what if they fell, etc.?
If someone had AIDS and died of pneumocystis pneumonia, the latter is the cause of death, and the former is the cause of the latter.
How do we KNOW it's controlled? Asymptomatic people are not, as a rule, tested, so actual infection rates could be massive.
There's a hospital that was testing all women coming in for pregnancies regardless of symptoms and they found a huge number had it. We really need a cheap and easy test. Probably won't happen for many months. So far only endless promises and lies.
>> The majority of the positive cases so far are among sailors who are asymptomatic, officials say. I don't know much about this kind of thing, but isn't the most important word in that sentence "sailors"? I would think people living on an aircraft carrier are, on average, way different in many major ways than the average American. So it seems like making any kinds of assumptions based on this wouldn't be super relia…
I'd take issue at the use of the word 'sailor', when it's been an awfully long time since the navy used sails to get into battle...
The demonyms are "soldier, sailor, marine, airman" for the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, respectively.
If there’s a lot of uncounted asymptotic cases the IFR is correspondingly lower.
Only 25% of the positive-cases on the Diamond princess turned out to be asymptomatic after 4 weeks. The much-higher, 50% numbers that were being thrown around were obviously overestimated - precisely because it takes a week or two or three for some people to start showing symptoms. As such, it's incredibly unlikely that the # of real cases is some large multiplier of the number of confirmed cases in any areas that ar…
> As such, it's incredibly unlikely that the # of real cases is some large multiplier of the number of confirmed cases in any areas that are regularly testing people with flu-like symptoms.
This figure does not surprise me. It is in line with Iceland finding that 50% of people they tested were asymptomatic. However as https://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-need-to-understan... notes, in other samples about 75% of people who were asymptomatic at the time of the test went on to develop symptoms. So the fact that these sailors are currently asymptomatic does not mean that they will remain so. See https…
According to a paper published yesterday[1], the pre-symptomatic period is about 2.3 days[2]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 [2] "we inferred that infectiousness started from 2.3 days (95% CI, 0.8–3.0 days) before symptom onset and peaked at 0.7 days (95% CI, −0.2–2.0 days) before symptom onset "
That's the pre-symptomatic infectious period. Which is not the same as the pre-symptomatic period.