441–450 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm looking for this in the article and not seeing mention of a specific window. Can you help me find what you're referring to?
Do not know if it is in the article or not but I guess the reasoning from GP goes like this: huge percentage of people are pre-symptomatic. The median time for symptoms to appear is 4-5 days from infection time, so they were probably infected in a very short period of time recently.
96% asymptomatic FOR NOW. We’ll see later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a cruise
I don't see them advertising it like that.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/B5D6CE/breakfast-buffet-served-onb...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But those discussions happen all the time. If there is a drug that can extend the life of this person for 5 years but it costs X - should it be covered by society ? At what X does it become unacceptable ? The highest numbers I've seen argued are in the 200k/year but realistically it's much lower depending on the country.
Well, there are two kinds of choices that are generally considered radically different. One choice is providing some opportunity for further life beyond what's expected. That's generally considered something society likes but isn't obligated to provide. Society doesn't obligate it's member to spend money developing some miracle-extend that gives someone five more years. The other choice is taking life that would norm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the nuance of US state prison care quality. "Without symptoms" could just mean "not obviously gasping for air" .
Amnesty International campaign against this and are currently calling for the release of ICE detainees. Judging by a skim of their releases even those obviously gasping for air don’t necessarily get the care they need. It’s a truely massive system which in itself is part of the problem, though the exceptionally low bar for the care of prisoners is Amnesty’s primary angle. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/0…
Virus aside, when are they not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you can't, then perhaps it might be a good idea to reconsider advocating for reopening the economy. Can you prove that coronavirus didn't give me protection from some other more severe illness a la cowpox and smallpox? No? We can both come up with creative scenarios. We are severely impacting the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people. We should have a reason to do so grounded in fact and educated gue…
The main reason why we are severely impacting the quality of life for millions of people is because our government is not willing to act to either provide some sort of basic income, supplies or guarantee survival for small businesses. As I've mentioned in other posts here, we're remarkably lucky that COVID-19 isn't something currently far more threatening. Considering attitudes such as yours would easily lead to mass…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be right that that statistical estimate from a month ago was the source of the 20% number. I also can’t find any good follow-up sources. I probably saw that factoid hyped up in multiple media stories which misconstrued the original paper. If anyone knows of more reliable recent sources about this, it would be great to clear it up.
It says around 40% in this tweet: https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1252356183077208082 Also lots of information in the comments.
I'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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it isn't proof. It is evidence, though. And in two weeks, we will have a lot more evidence. A lot of this is like Russian Roulette -- there's a huge amount about this virus which we don't know, and it could be super-bad or not-that-bad. It could also be there are bad and not-so-bad strains. Or it could be bad down-the-line. Until we do have proof, I'm advocating being conservative. In 2 weeks, we'll know if peo…
> A lot of this is like Russian Roulette -- there's a huge amount about this virus which we don't know, and it could be super-bad or not-that-bad. I think at this point we know enough to say: 1) For most of the population, the virus is not that serious 2) For a subset of the population the virus is seriously deadly. For example, ~20% of NY state coronavirus deaths were from nursing homes, ~37% are 80 or older. By con…
The estimate of 1% mortality is with medical intervention. The estimate of hospitalization rates ranges from 5% to 15% (sometimes higher). If you get a disease serious enough to require hospitalization, and there are no hospital beds/nurses/ventilators etc. available, then it is very likely you will die.
But of course it's worse then that: because hospital resources are generally somewhat fungible - at least for ICU/surgical treatment. So not only does your mortality shoot up to ~5% at least, literally every other treatable but potentially life endangering condition (say appendicitis - which occurs at a rate 1.1 per 1000 people per year, or an estimate of 300,000ish cases yearly in the US) has now become, quite likely, untreatable - and thus lethal (appendicitis will definitely kill you, untreated).
Lots of people seem really latched onto that 1% number or whatever they imagine it to be, without any actual consideration of the context of what that figure is actually all about, or you know, an explanation things are "not that bad" yet hospitals can't get PPE, and ventilator triage is in progress, and local morgue capacity has been overwhelmed.
