Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t prisons disproportionately have poorer health than average for several reasons?
Is there data on that? Or is it an assumption?
In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
351–360 of 649 posts
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#352Whether a conspiracy or a fuck-up, the more weaknesses of democracy exposed by this virus, the more benefits the survivals will have in the long run. DT be like:"Kill all those intouchables, so I'll have another 4 years sitting on the bloody throne!"
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#353I've read that asymptomatic carriers are though to be less infectious than those with symptoms because of the lower concentration of virus in the saliva. Also, many virologists mentioned in recent texts that the initial concentration of the virus you receive can affect how sick you'll get - the more viruses you're exposed to, the faster they can invade the body and the more severe it will get. Can those two facts be…
It depends. If you're not going to develop symptoms for another 14 days then yeah, you're not infectious. But for a few days before symptom onset you become just as infectious as you will be after symptom onset - which is one of the things that makes this virus hard to stop.
A low initial dose doesn't seem to affect the course of the infection much, though. For a sufficiently low dose either none of the viruses find an ACE2 receptor or your innate immune system wipes up the virus without you noticing (as it does for you with other viruses every day).
There's some evidence that particularly high doses can cause particularly bad prognoses. We have pretty good evidence that this is the case with measles. There's very anecdotal evidence suggesting that maybe this is the case with SARS-CoV-2. But it looks like low doses lead to a chance of no infection, not a chance of an asymptomatic one.
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do those count as a comorbidity though? If coronavirus goes around again, that could raise the death rate
There's no evidence to date that people are being re-infected. They may in the future, but to date, no such evidence exists. There are some people who tested negative before who are testing positive now, but that is much more likely to be false negatives and/or false positives. It would be pretty novel for the human immune system to clear out the disease on it's own, then a few days later forget how to do that, and b…
And there's no evidence to date that people who test for antibodies are immune to future infections.
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it your thesis that the economy must never reopen until we know the long-term ramifications of the virus?
Generally speaking? it's probably a good idea to delay opening things back up until we know the full extent of the virus, yes. If the antibodies only confer short-term protection and people could get reinfected again (as some indications have shown), it MIGHT be a bad idea to reopen the economy and pave the way for a second wave of the virus, you know? Just throwing that out there. If you think things are bad now, do…
You say it's a conspiracy theory, but you agree we should stay at home until the "full extent of the virus" is known, and long-term effects by definition aren't going to be visible any time soon. Do you have a plan for how we could discover such things faster than a year or two?
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It’s a random sampling of people who are out during lockdown. It can’t being extrapolated to the whole population when large parts are not leaving their homes.
And if you go around to people's homes, you'll oversample people who aren't out during the lockdown. There's no silver bullet here.
It's almost like you need to do your random sample based on a list of all residents, and not just go out and try to find people at various locations.
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#35796% are without symptoms yet . There was a nursing home in Massachusetts which had 51 out of 98 residents testing positive but asymptomatic in early April. While this sounded encouraging in the sense no one was critically ill because of coronavirus, a few weeks later 19 had died and about 30 more had tested positive. Let’s wait a month until there is a clearer picture about the impact of the virus on a particular pop…
The virus affects young and healthy folks without co-morbidities dramatically less than it does old folks at a nursing home. Based on New York City data, people without co-morbidities account for something like 6% of hospitalizations [1]. Old folks on a cruise ship full of old people, about 20% showed no symptoms. Is it a big stretch to think that scales to prisoners as shown? They're pretty young (only 2.8% of priso…
If a virus is spreading in a community exponentially and the latency from exposure/infection to symptoms is greater in length than the doubling time then half of everyone who tests positive is going to be pre-symptomatic.
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
>On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"? Death rates, hospitalization rates, etc. As mentioned before, 20% of NY deaths are nursing home patients. 37% are 80 or older. I'm on mobile and a bit lazy, but check out death rates for the flu in younger populations and compare them to this virus. The virus has a higher mortality rate but not enough to be worth worrying about in younger populations. >Regarding the co…
So 13k deaths in NY (so far) are under 80 years old. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. Comparison to the flu could indicate that we underindex on all these other causes of death. It doesn't make those death numbers some magical line where now it's worth it, because Coronavirus deaths in 2 months equal annual flu deaths.
How many under 65? (I know the answer, I'm obviously asking very intentionally/rhetorically)
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#359Lets not get too excited about this. Whatever the numbers, that's interesting and worth recording for planning. But whatever they are, they result in "way too many deaths". This is still a very dangerous and rapidly-spreading virus.
Where is the cutoff between "way too many deaths" and not too many deaths? I don't mean to be glib, but it is an important question that needs to be weighed against destroying all of our economic institutions.
> that needs to be weighed against destroying all of our economic institutions.
No it doesn't. Like the statement alone doesn't even have any credence, let alone following through with it.
Incredibly daft.
Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you go around to people's homes, you'll oversample people who aren't out during the lockdown. There's no silver bullet here.
It's almost like you need to do your random sample based on a list of all residents, and not just go out and try to find people at various locations.
You say "almost like", but scientific studies rarely sample the population this way because researchers generally don't have access to a list of all residents.