391–400 of 544 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're going to compare the deaths you need to count them in the same way, and you haven't done so here.
Well it’s fair to say that neither has the government, if anyone dies in possession of COVID they’re automatically a COVID death, pretty much even if they get hit by a truck. That’s not true of the flu is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's spreading so very fast, and nobody has any pre-existing immunity to this new disease. The flu kills 60,000 Americans every year and so far COVID has killed about 10,000 -- over roughly the same flu season time period. The difference is that the flu is spread out over time and is fighting some pre-existing immunity and flu shots. It also has a lot to do with excess capacity. If there suddenly appeared a n…
So far Covid has killed 34,000 not 10,000 in the States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far Covid has killed 34,000 not 10,000 in the States.
Thanks, I grabbed the wrong column from my data. Either way that’s half the flu total over the same season. My point is that it isn’t unprecedented load, it’s just all at once — and additive.
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…
If 0.37% is true, why are the hospitals in this shape?
Infection Fatality Rate is certainly coupled to the number of people that develop severe symptoms, but it's not this number that you need to look at as to why people end up in hospitals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Netherlands has 3.3k deaths vs 29k confirmed cases, which would give a CFR of ~10% I.e. the Netherlands aren't testing much. A 10x reduction there brings it back to the CFR range we see in countries with bigger testing programs. I'm not a specialist but have been following this for a while, and have yet to see evidence the IFR for this isnt around 0.5-1% (assuming decent healthcare). That's what we saw in the Dia…
Dutch testing policy is acknowledged by national bodies to not be representative at all. Moreover, so is our death rate. We have a lot of hidden deaths of elderly people who decide not to go through the trauma of an ICU stint and instead decide to die at home. I don't recall exact numbers but think it was estimated the true death toll is about 50 to 100 percent higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be realistic though. Given the way that this virus promiscuously spreads, if a relatively large portion of individuals weren't generally asymptomatic, by now we would have approximately zero healthcare workers.
I think you underestimate how effective proper sterile technique is. If all the equipment is available, and the staff appropiately trained, there should be a very small chance of becoming infected. In some countries this is not the case, but some places have demonstrated that they can keep their frontline workers from getting infected.
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…
Though that study has been criticized for the use of antibodies with cross-reaction with other Coronaviruses, so the numbers aren‘t necessarily to be trusted.
But back-of-the-envelope calculation gives this: Even if that test was only 95% specific, there would still be a 10% spread of actual positive cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Washington Post managed to get the original letter: https://twitter.com/DanLamothe/status/1250840016806445056 It's pretty clear he was canned by a political appointee for political reasons.
Yes and no. He was relieved because he went around the chain of command, which is a universal career-ending move in the military even if you do it for all the right reasons—which he did. Also, although he was relieved of command, he wasn’t “fired” or “canned” or discharged from the Navy. He will undoubtedly go into an early retirement with a full pension at his current rank of Captain. That doesn’t change the fundame…
Or was he discharged on evidence or assumption he leaked to the press himself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humanity's understanding of this disease is much more sophisticated than the two comments above this would imply. Researchers are not stupidly looking at Diamond Princess and getting confused because the population is old. Rather it's a powerful dataset because it enables us to quantify the asymptomatic people of all ages, because people were tested fairly exhaustively before being allowed leave, regardless of sympto…
"Humanity's understanding of this disease is much more sophisticated than the two comments above this would imply." I think we can generalize this to pretty much every comment made in this thread, and others like it, regardless of how certain some of them sound.
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…
If 0.37% is true, why are the hospitals in this shape?