Jump to content
Ham_

Corona Virus vs WotLabs Community Megathread

Recommended Posts

To all Germans here - damn you, bloody bastards. 100k tests in a week? It's much more more than my country did so far till the veru beginning of the pandemic - right now it's 35k. 

Gov is focused on incoming election. Who would care about pandemic? 

I tell you this in case of you ever wonder where the second wave of Covid came from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kariverson said:

Those 919 are not extra, not added on the people that die each day. But they are included. Everyone that dies that has a trace of the virus in their blood is counted towards coronas deaths. But they would had died from any other season flu as well.

And there's some data, refuting your claim (in Italian, which I don't speak, so some finer points might have escaped me due to use of Google Translate):
 

"From an average of 45 deaths per week in the past ten years, there has been a surge to 313 per week, almost seven times as much in the seven days from 15 to 21 March. From March 1 to 21, however, the ratio is four times the average for the past ten years."
https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/bergamo-citta/a-bergamo-decessi-4-volte-oltre-la-medialeco-lancia-unindagine-nei-comuni_1346651_11/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8160759/Cell-phone-data-reveals-Spring-Break-covidiots-traveled-flooding-beaches.html

Mass data gathering and tracking are there and companies like Tectonix has been around for some time. To this date some people are still thinking they can act as they were not tracked. Scary when the data are being put together but everybody should have known. I could only wonder why nobody has done something good with these data beforehand, instead they were staring at their data heatmaps for...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to pitch a question in response to the "Covid-19 didn't kill them, they were going to die regardless" argument.

If a blind man crosses the road un-aided and is killed by a truck, what is his listed cause of death?

- Being blind

- Crossing the road

- Hit by a truck

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ezz said:

What if he's then eaten by a shark. Is it blood loss? Or still being blind?

I think it was his wife's fault, we should charge her with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PityFool said:

I would like to pitch a question in response to the "Covid-19 didn't kill them, they were going to die regardless" argument.

If a blind man crosses the road un-aided and is killed by a truck, what is his listed cause of death?

- Being blind

- Crossing the road

- Hit by a truck

 

All life ends in death. If people always die at the end, why not abort them before they are born?

:doge:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PityFool said:

I would like to pitch a question in response to the "Covid-19 didn't kill them, they were going to die regardless" argument.

If a blind man crosses the road un-aided and is killed by a truck, what is his listed cause of death?

- Being blind

- Crossing the road

- Hit by a truck

 

Logically all three are the cause of death, of course.  Any two out of those three wouldn't be sufficient to get his ass killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, a little statistical discussion here, because I'm starting to get interested in statistical questions revolving around this virus.

As of today, the U.S. has 105,116 cases and 1,590 deaths.  That's roughly a 1.5% death rate.

However, of course, the "cases" figure is inherently constrained by the availability of testing.  Early on testing was reserved for the worst cases, obviously, but presumably there are still a lot of undiagnosed cases out there - both those who are infected but entirely asymptomatic, and those who have mild symptoms and who attribute their condition to the flu and never get tested.

So, if the real number of cases, including the undiagnosed, is 150,000, that reduces the death rate to more like 1%.  On the other hand, if we have significantly higher numbers of undiagnosed infected people, that reduces the death rate accordingly.  If we have say 500,000 infected, that's a death rate of 0.3% - roughly triple that of the seasonal flu, if what I've heard is right. If we have 1.5 million infected, and don't know it because of limited availability of testing, we're looking at 0.1% - a death rate around that of the seasonal flu.  15 million infected at this point would mean 0.01% death rate, and so on.

Of course, such increasing numbers of infected-but-not-yet-tested-or-diagnosed people imply increasing rates of virulence.  Going off what we know about other such virulent, airborne respiratory viruses, what's a feasible roughly-estimated upper bound on the number of total infected at this point?  What number would be unreasonably high and unlikely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best data so far comes from Iceland, which has screened 3% of their population so far and plan to screen up to 1/3. They showed that 50% of those who tested positive were asymptomatic, and that the prevalence in their general population was about 1%, and about 20% in higher risk populations. 
 

It is difficult to extrapolate some of this data to the more diverse, mobile and poorly tested US population. It is undoubtedly true that the prevalence of Covid-19 is higher in the US than reported, and the overall case mortality rate is probably lower - for now. The issue that we are seeing from Spain and Italy is that the mortality rate spikes when the healthcare system gets slammed, because resources get stretched thin, people who show up for routine issues (heart attacks, strokes, etc) don’t get the care they normally would have, and as the healthcare workers who have front line experience get sick, exhausted and depleted less experienced workers get pulled from other services to cover. I am on standby to be pulled in case our hospital sees a surge, but you don’t want me running your vent- that’s not my specialty, and the last time I ran a vent was in my residency. Hence the whole flattening the curve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sr360 said:

The best data so far comes from Iceland, which has screened 3% of their population so far and plan to screen up to 1/3. They showed that 50% of those who tested positive were asymptomatic, and that the prevalence in their general population was about 1%, and about 20% in higher risk populations. 

Okay, so it seems as though overall they have a 1% infection rate.  If we've reached that percentage, that would be roughly 3.3 million infected, bringing us to a mortality rate of 0.045% - how does that compare to the estimated total fatality rate for the seasonal flu, not just the number based on confirmed cases?  Or is that something that can 't even be estimated, really?

Quote

It is difficult to extrapolate some of this data to the more diverse, mobile and poorly tested US population. It is undoubtedly true that the prevalence of Covid-19 is higher in the US than reported, and the overall case mortality rate is probably lower - for now. The issue that we are seeing from Spain and Italy is that the mortality rate spikes when the healthcare system gets slammed, because resources get stretched thin, people who show up for routine issues (heart attacks, strokes, etc) don’t get the care they normally would have, and as the healthcare workers who have front line experience get sick, exhausted and depleted less experienced workers get pulled from other services to cover. I am on standby to be pulled in case our hospital sees a surge, but you don’t want me running your vent- that’s not my specialty, and the last time I ran a vent was in my residency. Hence the whole flattening the curve...

Right.  That's a logistical question: getting sufficient reserve doctors and nurses and respirators to the places suffering near-capacity serious cases.

My first overall point is about the possibility that this disease is significantly more virulent and less lethal than we have thought.  Firstly, what's a sensible upper bound on the possible virulence?  At what point do we say "it's unlikely that more than X people are infected because that would require a virulence significantly higher than anything we've ever seen"?

Secondly, what does it mean in terms of a prognosis nationally for how this will play out, if it is significantly more virulent and less lethal than we've been thinking?  Googling a basic question, I see an estimate that 60% of the population would need to have been exposed to the virus before herd immunity starts being a significant factor in terms of damping down the spread.  For the US, that's 198 million.  We have 105,116 cases right now; if only 1 in 10 infected is diagnosed, that would mean we have 1 million infected right now; if 1 in 100 infected is diagnosed, we have 10 million infected, and are getting a good start on that 198 million infected and recovered figure we need to see in order to gain herd immunity.

I guess I'm looking at what's some upper limit of optimism in this respect.  If we have a gazillion undiagnosed infected, say the full 198 million, we'd be looking at a leveling off of serious cases pretty soon.  I'm assuming that's unreasonably optimistic right now though, and would require an infeasible rate of virulence.

But how feasible is it that we have say 20 million infected but undiagnosed, putting us 10% of the way towards herd immunity?  Or would that require an unrealistically virulent but un-lethal virus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FlorbFnarb said:

Okay, so it seems as though overall they have a 1% infection rate.  If we've reached that percentage, that would be roughly 3.3 million infected, bringing us to a mortality rate of 0.045% - how does that compare to the estimated total fatality rate for the seasonal flu, not just the number based on confirmed cases?  Or is that something that can 't even be estimated, really?

Right.  That's a logistical question: getting sufficient reserve doctors and nurses and respirators to the places suffering near-capacity serious cases.

My first overall point is about the possibility that this disease is significantly more virulent and less lethal than we have thought.  Firstly, what's a sensible upper bound on the possible virulence?  At what point do we say "it's unlikely that more than X people are infected because that would require a virulence significantly higher than anything we've ever seen"?

Secondly, what does it mean in terms of a prognosis nationally for how this will play out, if it is significantly more virulent and less lethal than we've been thinking?  Googling a basic question, I see an estimate that 60% of the population would need to have been exposed to the virus before herd immunity starts being a significant factor in terms of damping down the spread.  For the US, that's 198 million.  We have 105,116 cases right now; if only 1 in 10 infected is diagnosed, that would mean we have 1 million infected right now; if 1 in 100 infected is diagnosed, we have 10 million infected, and are getting a good start on that 198 million infected and recovered figure we need to see in order to gain herd immunity.

I guess I'm looking at what's some upper limit of optimism in this respect.  If we have a gazillion undiagnosed infected, say the full 198 million, we'd be looking at a leveling off of serious cases pretty soon.  I'm assuming that's unreasonably optimistic right now though, and would require an infeasible rate of virulence.

But how feasible is it that we have say 20 million infected but undiagnosed, putting us 10% of the way towards herd immunity?  Or would that require an unrealistically virulent but un-lethal virus?

1. They had 1% prevalence in their ASYMPTOMATIC LOW RISK population, not overall. 

2. Comparison to seasonal flu is hard, because we have immunization for the flu, which depending on age, year, and medical condition, is between 30 and 80% effective. 

3. I don't have a good answer for the question about upper bounds of virulence, but I'll keep looking. My reading on COVID-19 has been focused on other areas, at present.

4. It has yet to be established that antibodies to COVID-19 are protective, so the premise of herd immunity is premature until we know that infection and convalescence confers even temporary immunity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, FlorbFnarb said:

Okay, so it seems as though overall they have a 1% infection rate.  If we've reached that percentage, that would be roughly 3.3 million infected, bringing us to a mortality rate of 0.045% - how does that compare to the estimated total fatality rate for the seasonal flu, not just the number based on confirmed cases?  Or is that something that can 't even be estimated, really?

Note one thing - a regular flu is something we may deal ourselves in home. Few need a medical attention. Meanwhile covid is spreading and killing despite extreme actions including total lockdown. Image what it would do without any restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MacusFlash said:

Note one thing - a regular flu is something we may deal ourselves in home. Few need a medical attention. Meanwhile covid is spreading and killing despite extreme actions including total lockdown. Image what it would do without any restrictions.

Right.  I guess I was questioning if it were mathematically possible that that's due to an excessively high rate of virulence, rather than a high fatality rate.  Like, take the regular seasonal flu and make it 100x as virulent and you'd see much higher death numbers as well, even with the same mortality rate as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viral Myocarditis is being observed in patients, leads to impaired hearth function/ possible heart transplant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ham_ said:

Viral Myocarditis is being observed in patients, leads to impaired hearth function/ possible heart transplant

I heard something about that.  Related to the virus's general ability to cause inflammation by immune system response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, FlorbFnarb said:

I heard something about that.  Related to the virus's general ability to cause inflammation by immune system response?

Myocarditis is by definition inflammation of the heart tissues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ham_ said:

Myocarditis is by definition inflammation of the heart tissues

To be precise, inflammation of the heart muscle (myo=muscle, cardia=heart). Inflammation of other parts of the heart leads to endocarditis or pericarditis.

Viral myocarditis is a known entity, commonly due to coxsackievirus (named, incidentally, after the town of Coxsackie, NY). I haven’t seen a detail of how common viral myocarditis is in COVID-19, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FlorbFnarb said:

Okay, a little statistical discussion here, because I'm starting to get interested in statistical questions revolving around this virus.

As of today, the U.S. has 105,116 cases and 1,590 deaths.  That's roughly a 1.5% death rate.

Death rate is calculated on closed cases, not open ones. USA currently 5458 closed cases, with 2227 of those being deaths. That gives the USA a 40.8% death rate as of right now.

G8xChaA.png 

 

Now I would imagine that would drop down to a number more aligned with the world average, which is currently 18%.

SKhZRX0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...