A reality check on the corona virus reactions.

Earl said:
The Chinese are not adverse to killing millions of their own citizens, are they, Legion?
Click to expand...

They are not, Earl. Anyone who studied the Korean War can tell stories about human waves who died in huge heaps along the Yalu.


Then there is the common Chinese cultural practice of infanticide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_China
 
Legion said:
I can, Fowl-follower. And in fact, I already have. Here's more proof that the data models that COVID Act Now spread all over the USA via their DEMOCRAT-founded website were flawed and alarmist, gramps.

Ask your feathered sister to help you with the big words, old timer.

If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.

Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.

The latter rate is misleading because of selection bias in testing. The degree of bias is uncertain because available data are limited. But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills two million. If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far.

Population samples from China, Italy, Iceland and the U.S. provide relevant evidence. On or around Jan. 31, countries sent planes to evacuate citizens from Wuhan, China. When those planes landed, the passengers were tested for Covid-19 and quarantined. After 14 days, the percentage who tested positive was 0.9%. If this was the prevalence in the greater Wuhan area on Jan. 31, then, with a population of about 20 million, greater Wuhan had 178,000 infections, about 30-fold more than the number of reported cases. The fatality rate, then, would be at least 10-fold lower than estimates based on reported cases.

Next, the northeastern Italian town of Vò, near the provincial capital of Padua. On March 6, all 3,300 people of Vò were tested, and 90 were positive, a prevalence of 2.7%. Applying that prevalence to the whole province (population 955,000), which had 198 reported cases, suggests there were actually 26,000 infections at that time. That’s more than 130-fold the number of actual reported cases. Since Italy’s case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06%.

In Iceland, deCode Genetics is working with the government to perform widespread testing. In a sample of nearly 2,000 entirely asymptomatic people, researchers estimated disease prevalence of just over 1%. Iceland’s first case was reported on Feb. 28, weeks behind the U.S. It’s plausible that the proportion of the U.S. population that has been infected is double, triple or even 10 times as high as the estimates from Iceland. That also implies a dramatically lower fatality rate.

The best (albeit very weak) evidence in the U.S. comes from the National Basketball Association. Between March 11 and 19, a substantial number of NBA players and teams received testing. By March 19, 10 out of 450 rostered players were positive. Since not everyone was tested, that represents a lower bound on the prevalence of 2.2%. The NBA isn’t a representative population, and contact among players might have facilitated transmission. But if we extend that lower-bound assumption to cities with NBA teams (population 45 million), we get at least 990,000 infections in the U.S. The number of cases reported on March 19 in the U.S. was 13,677, more than 72-fold lower. These numbers imply a fatality rate from Covid-19 orders of magnitude smaller than it appears.

How can we reconcile these estimates with the epidemiological models? First, the test used to identify cases doesn’t catch people who were infected and recovered. Second, testing rates were woefully low for a long time and typically reserved for the severely ill. Together, these facts imply that the confirmed cases are likely orders of magnitude less than the true number of infections. Epidemiological modelers haven’t adequately adapted their estimates to account for these factors.

The epidemic started in China sometime in November or December. The first confirmed U.S. cases included a person who traveled from Wuhan on Jan. 15, and it is likely that the virus entered before that: Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December. Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days. An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.

This does not make Covid-19 a nonissue. The daily reports from Italy and across the U.S. show real struggles and overwhelmed health systems. But a 20,000- or 40,000-death epidemic is a far less severe problem than one that kills two million. Given the enormous consequences of decisions around Covid-19 response, getting clear data to guide decisions now is critical. We don’t know the true infection rate in the U.S. Antibody testing of representative samples to measure disease prevalence (including the recovered) is crucial. Nearly every day a new lab gets approval for antibody testing, so population testing using this technology is now feasible.

If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measures focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible. Elective procedures will need to be rescheduled. Hospital resources will need to be reallocated to care for critically ill patients. Triage will need to improve. And policy makers will need to focus on reducing risks for older adults and people with underlying medical conditions.

A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health. We should undertake immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lockdowns.

Dr. Bendavid and Dr. Bhattacharya are professors of medicine at Stanford.

https://tinyurl.com/EE-follows-Fowl
Click to expand...

OMG another OP ED piece that basically says the virus isn't as deadly as the WHO and CDC say. Ok dick head are more people getting the virus every day? Are people with immune system problems and the elderly at greater risk of dying from the virus? Ok let's assume that your OP ED is right and the death rate isn't as great does that really matter? The problem with your fucking POS OP ED is it doesn't take into consideration that the majority of those infected are in the low risk category so if you factor the death rate of those in the higher risk categories your death rate will be higher.

How deadly is the new coronavirus?
By Stephanie Pappas - Live Science Contributor 11 days ago
The numbers are in flux, but appear worse than the seasonal flu.


Editor's note: Updated March 25 with the latest information on COVID-19.
Most people who catch the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 recover at home, and some need hospitalization to fight the virus. But in a number of patients, the disease called COVID-19 is deadly.


Scientists can't yet say for sure what the fatality rate of the coronavirus is, because they're not certain how many people have become infected with the disease. But they do have some estimates, and there is a widespread consensus that COVID-19 is most dangerous for elderly patients and those with preexisting health burdens.
On March 5, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, said during a news conference that about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 patients around the world have died. In a Chinese analysis of more than 72,000 case records, 2.3% of those confirmed or suspected (based on symptoms and exposure) to have the virus died. Patients above 80 years of age had an alarmingly high fatality rate of 14.8%. Patients ages 70 to 79 years had a fatality rate of 8%. In Italy, which has a high proportion of residents over age 65, the fatality rate is strikingly high, around 10% as of March 25.
Coronavirus news and science
—Live updates on the coronavirus
—What are the symptoms?
—How deadly is the new coronavirus?
—How does it compare with seasonal flu?
—How does the coronavirus spread?
—Can people spread the coronavirus after they recover?

These numbers shouldn't be taken as the inevitable toll of the virus, however. The case-fatality rate is determined by dividing the number of deaths by the total number of cases. Epidemiologists believe the total number of infections with SARS-CoV-2 is underestimated because people with few or mild symptoms may never see a doctor. As testing expands and scientists begin using retrospective methods to study who has antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 circulating in their bloodstreams, the total number of confirmed cases will go up and the ratio of deaths to infections will likely drop.
For example, in South Korea, which conducted more than 140,000 tests for COVID-19, officials found a fatality rate of 0.6%.
However, complicating the matter, mortality numbers lag behind infection numbers simply because it takes days to weeks for severely ill people to die of COVID-19. Thus, current death rates should properly be divided by the number of known infections from the previous week or two, researchers wrote in February in Swiss Medical Weekly.
A report published March 13 in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases adjusted for this "time delay" between hospitalization and death. The authors estimated that, as of Feb. 11, the death rate from COVID-19 was as high as 12% in Wuhan, 4% in Hubei Province and 0.9% in the rest of China.
Another factor affecting the deadliness of the new coronavirus is the quality of medical care. Already, there is evidence that the overwhelmed medical system in Wuhan, where the outbreak began, led to more deaths. The World Health Organization's joint mission report from Feb. 28 found that among 56,000 laboratory-confirmed coronavirus cases, the case-fatality ratio was 3.8%. However, the case-fatality ratio in Wuhan was 5.8%, while the rest of the country — spared the overwhelming bulk of sick patients — saw a rate of 0.7%.
This means fewer people are likely to die if the medical system is prepared to face an influx of coronavirus patients.
Indeed, in the Emerging Infectious Diseases report, the authors said that the high death rate estimates for Wuhan "are probably associated with a breakdown of the healthcare system," which was overwhelmed with cases. The findings indicate that "enhanced public health interventions, including social distancing and movement restrictions, should be implemented to bring the COVID-19 epidemic under control," the authors said.
As the virus has spread into different parts of the world, new data has emerged. The Diamond Princess cruise ship provided a look at an isolated, well-observed population exposed to the new coronavirus. On that cruise ship, 707 people caught the virus and six died, for a case-fatality ratio of 0.8. It takes about six weeks to determine whether someone with COVID-19 will recover or succumb, so the number of deaths from the cruise ship outbreak could still rise. The current ratio tops the seasonal flu case-fatality ratio in the United States of 0.1%, but it is dwarfed by the 10% case-fatality ratio of SARS, another coronavirus that emerged in China in 2002.
However, the Diamond Princess numbers may not be representative of what happens in the rest of the world. Cruise ship passengers skew older than the general population, putting them at risk of more serious complications. On the other hand, because the outbreak on the ship was closely watched, patients had access to quick medical care.
Coronavirus basics
The novel coronavirus, now called SARS-CoV-2, causes the disease COVID-19. The virus was first identified in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31, 2019. Since then, it has spread to every continent except Antarctica. The death rate appears to be higher than that of the seasonal flu, but it also varies by location as well as a person's age, underlying health conditions, among other factors.
Scientists aren't certain where the virus originated, though they know that coronaviruses (which also include SARS and MERS) are passed between animals and humans. Research comparing the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 with a viral database suggests it originated in bats. Since no bats were sold at the seafood market in Wuhan at the disease’s epicenter, researchers suggest an intermediate animal, possibly the pangolin (an endangered mammal) is responsible for the transmission to humans. There are currently no treatments for the disease, but labs are working on various types of treatments, including a vaccine.
Editor's note: This article was updated on March 16 to include information from a study in Emerging Infectious Diseases that adjusted for this "time delay" between hospitalization and death.
Originally published in Live Science. https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html
Click to expand...
 
Eagle-Eye said:
OMG another OP ED piece that basically says the virus isn't as deadly as the WHO and CDC say. Ok dick head are more people getting the virus every day? Are people with immune system problems and the elderly at greater risk of dying from the virus? Ok let's assume that your OP ED is right and the death rate isn't as great does that really matter? The problem with your fucking POS OP ED is it doesn't take into consideration that the majority of those infected are in the low risk category so if you factor the death rate of those in the higher risk categories your death rate will be higher.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you could follow the reasoning of two Stanford University medical professors, old man, and it seems I was correct.

If you want to stay scared, go ahead. It's what your sister Fowl wants, and you must obey.
 
Corona is no problem at all, Alex Jones has a toothpaste and deodorants that kill it. Why do we waste time on doctors and scientists?
 
Legion said:
I didn't think you could follow the reasoning of two Stanford University medical professors, old man, and it seems I was correct.

If you want to stay scared, go ahead. It's what your sister Fowl wants, and you must obey.
Click to expand...

No, it seems you think an opinion is the same as facts. I give you facts you give me opinions. In any college classes (which I doubt you have ever had) and you cited opinions you would be laughed off campus.
BTW if you think calling me old man or grandpa is insulting think again scrotum breath.
 
Havana Moon said:
Yes you are exactly right, this has been hyped beyond all rhyme or reason. The proper way to have approached the problem was to ensure the vulnerable and at risk were isolated, test those showing symptoms like high temperature and dry cough, as well as essential staff like nurse, doctors. That's exactly what they've done in Korea and Japan.
Click to expand...

Move to Korea(north),Japan asshole
 
Eagle-Eye said:
No, it seems you think an opinion is the same as facts. I give you facts you give me opinions. In any college classes (which I doubt you have ever had) and you cited opinions you would be laughed off campus. BTW if you think calling me old man or grandpa is insulting think again scrotum breath.
Click to expand...

Your incoherent rage and abject fear are driving you to committing numerous logical fallacies, grandpa.

Have you asked your gerontologist about testosterone supplements?
 
Legion said:
Your incoherent rage and abject fear are driving you to committing numerous logical fallacies, grandpa.

Have you asked your gerontologist about testosterone supplements?
Click to expand...


VoQ1O04.jpg


Now Now Lesion don't cry TD will let you sleep in his bed and give you a pacifier to suck on.
 
Legion said:
I won't, Fowl-follower, and there isn't a thing you can do about it, grandpa.
Click to expand...

By Jove you're making progress, in another 20 years you might not pee your pants. LOL

OOPs typo. and a wet behind the ears snot nosed kid caught it. :(
 
Last edited:
Eagle-Eye said:
By Jove your making progress, in another 20 years you might not pee your pants. LOL
Click to expand...

20 years ago you might not have been pissing your pants, grandpa.

You sure are butthurt, Boomer. Quit spreading DEMOCRAT guano like a feminized Fowl follower and I won't have to kick your superannuated ass.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
By Jove your making progress, in another 20 years you might not pee your pants. LOL
Click to expand...

LOL. He "might not pee" his pants but I think he still will. Nobody can stop being such a loser like him without some outside intervention.

Legion said:
20 years ago you might not have been pissing your pants, grandpa.

You sure are butthurt, Boomer. Quit spreading DEMOCRAT guano like a feminized Fowl follower and I won't have to kick your superannuated ass.
Click to expand...

2jbu9r.jpg
 
Legion said:
20 years ago you might not have been pissing your pants, grandpa.

You sure are butthurt, Boomer. Quit spreading DEMOCRAT guano like a feminized Fowl follower and I won't have to kick your superannuated ass.
Click to expand...

Is that is the best you can come up with? Damn boy you need this book. self-analysis-paperback_en.jpg
 
Legion said:
20 years ago you might not have been pissing your pants, grandpa.

You sure are butthurt, Boomer. Quit spreading DEMOCRAT guano like a feminized Fowl follower and I won't have to kick your superannuated ass.
Click to expand...

Thanks for catching my typo/misspelling I corrected it. I'm so ashamed boo hoo hoo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top