411–420 of 544 posts
It's the first time I see news about the aircraft carrier. Could someone summarize why the captain got fired for testing his whole crew in an environment where a lot of people have to live very closely together? My first assumption is that it was a really good decision.
For comparison, the french air carrier did not leak about the situation even though the same number of soldiers got it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who actually knows this stuff would never say that it’s a matter of “simple math”, that’s absurd. Those people have not been saying that they’re sure about anything at this point, because they’re not. There’s nothing to prove you wrong yet either, of course, but let’s see how your prediction does over the next few months: between 14,400 and 80,000 deaths in Ireland.
The simple math comment was about estimating IFR, given the sampling in the Netherlands, not about the whole domain. Maybe you are saying the implied model is too crude. Perhaps, but there's a value in it's simplicity - folks can get a convincing estimate of the rough scale of the IFR, that this disease is serious, not the flu etc. > let’s see how your prediction does over the next few months: between 14,400 and 80,0…
War-time level mitigating measures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia has highest per-capita testing in the world. New Zealand is doing well. A number of other developed nations have been testing people since the start, but Australia and NZ have some added benefits of distance and relatively small populations that are helping them counter the pandemic better than most.
I don't see those facts in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing#Virus_testing... https://ourworldindata.org/covid-testing#testing I'd be wary of handing out superlatives just yet in any case.
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…
There‘s bound to be a high number of Covid-19 deaths that will only be obvious by looking at excess mortalities. At least preliminary data from the Netherlands and Spain indicates that.
The numbers aren't looking pretty, though: https://www.euromomo.eu/index.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
To be fair, shelter at home not appearing impactful earlier on had as much to do with testing capacity ramping up + delayed results. If you’re massively undertesting, even if new infections are decreasing, you’ll likely see growing rate of confirmed positives as you scale daily tests. Similarly, if the results are taking 5-7 days to return, it is entirely possible for new confirmed positives to skyrocket just as actu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine all 65M people in the UK caught the virus then a 10,000 case fatality number would give a rate of 0.015%. The rate itself has no time element so it tells you nothing about the number of people in hospital right now and hence isn't very illustrative of how hospitals can be swamped by this disease. More interestingly (for me at least) is that the mortality rate is dependent on a patient's access to a ventilator…
Though my understanding is that the survival rate of a covid19 patient once he requires a ventilator is around 50%. If that's true, at worst, if we ran out of ventilators, the death rate would double. That's bad and we should avoid it but the doubling of a tiny number will still be a small number. Which is why I am still confused by the ratio of 1:10 that the White House has shown between the death toll under lockdow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the virus is not nearly as dangerous and lethal as people fear Whereas being still deadlier than the combination of all wolves, dogs, crocodiles, hippos, lions, tigers, elephants, sharks, spiders and all known venomous snakes in the planet... Any serial killer wannabee would kill for having the same results in just three months
it is not such a great analogy though, considering that we have killed and exterminated most of the wolves, crocs, lions, hippos etc
Most people that go to corona's infection parties would surely remain quiet at house if there was a Lion sitting at their door.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
absolutley: public schools remain open for example. rather than enforce mandatory rules the government is encouraging personal responsibility. wfh is at 50% as is transit usage. source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/sweden-coronav...
> public schools remain open for example. Universities and high schools have been closed for almost a month now, that's pretty much the same timeline as most other countries. Elementary schools are not closed, but they're very empty, most kids are staying home. The reasoning behind this is that elementary schools function as babysitters, and this frees up adults in essential occupations so that they can go to work no…
This is intriguing. Any source where I can dig up further?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine all 65M people in the UK caught the virus then a 10,000 case fatality number would give a rate of 0.015%. The rate itself has no time element so it tells you nothing about the number of people in hospital right now and hence isn't very illustrative of how hospitals can be swamped by this disease. More interestingly (for me at least) is that the mortality rate is dependent on a patient's access to a ventilator…
> This means if you caught the virus early in the spread of the pandemic your odds of surviving are substantially higher than if you caught it right at the peak of infection. I'd say your odds are best if you catch it some time after the peak. The hospital will be better prepared to prevent infections there and have more experience on how to treat patients best. There may even be some treatment that prevents the wors…
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's not a big suprise. If you are following news from most countries, once it spread out health authorities stopped testing if you do not have significant symptoms and instead told people to stay home and isolate.
I'm very cautious with these type of studies. Lot of them are not clear in regards to how precise the test is, does it catch other coronaviruses as well, whether they did a follow up study to see if people developed symptoms or even how and when they picked their sample. All of these factors could radically impact the results.