Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 8345 times)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #450 on: March 26, 2020, 05:06:00 PM »
.3% of total UK population infected or previously infected - not 'infection rate' sorry for the sloppy typing.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #451 on: March 26, 2020, 08:30:29 PM »
LR, I don't have anything resembling a clinical background or experience interpreting epidemiologic statistics. That's why I'm trying to get as much info from as many sources as possible and being skeptical in general.

How would you interpret Fauci's paper released today in the New England Journal of Medicine? In which he states:

"This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2"

How does his statement square with the more dire predictions? Is Fauci playing down the meaning of "overall clinical consequences"?  I'm stuck on that.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #452 on: March 26, 2020, 08:37:13 PM »
I should add, I'm seeing a lot of people highly invested in being "right", which is sickening with such high stakes. Obviously we all want to think we're rationally interpreting incredibly fluid events correctly, but bias is a bitch and I'm always on hyper-alert for that whenever humans are inputting variables into models (of which, while not an expert, I have experience using certain probabilistic models like Bayesian and b-tree).

It also feels as if we're massively lacking uniformity as to how deaths are attributable to the virus in various countries like Italy and Spain and making assumptions despite those gaps.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 08:42:43 PM by ScottF »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #453 on: March 26, 2020, 08:49:11 PM »
I should add, I'm seeing a lot of people highly invested in being "right", which is sickening with such high stakes. Obviously we all want to think we're rationally interpreting incredibly fluid events correctly, but bias is a bitch and I'm always on hyper-alert for that whenever humans are inputting variables into models (of which, while not an expert, I have experience using certain probabilistic models like Bayesian and b-tree).

Models can be incredibly predictive but also run exactly what they're fed.

It also feels as if we're massively lacking uniformity as to how deaths are attributable to the virus in various countries like Italy and Spain and making assumptions despite those gaps.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #454 on: March 26, 2020, 09:29:07 PM »
...Models can be incredibly predictive but also run exactly what they're fed.

Yes. Statistics is like a bikini. What they show is interesting, but what they conceal is absolutely vital.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #455 on: March 26, 2020, 09:44:12 PM »
LR, I don't have anything resembling a clinical background or experience interpreting epidemiologic statistics. That's why I'm trying to get as much info from as many sources as possible and being skeptical in general.

How would you interpret Fauci's paper released today in the New England Journal of Medicine? In which he states:

"This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2"

How does his statement square with the more dire predictions? Is Fauci playing down the meaning of "overall clinical consequences"?  I'm stuck on that.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

It is a bit misleading because he doesn't include the numbers for the 1957 and 1968 Influenzas.  Pandemic Influenza of 1957 had 1-4 million global deaths (global population 3 billion then; 7.8 billion now would give 2.6-10.4 million global deaths today if we had similar rural percentage) and a case fatality rate of .7%.  Pandemic Influenza of 1968 had 1-4 million global deaths (3.5 billion population; so equivalent today 2.2-8.8 million) and a case fatality rate of .5%.  Both of those time periods had drastically less international travel and drastically smaller cities and larger rural populations, and of course smaller world population.  Using case fataility rates, todays population, and a 50% penetration (some mitigation efforts; and lucky small towns that don't get infected) those would be 27.3 million for 1957 flu if it happened today; and 19.5 million for 1968 flu.

Covid-19 is expected to have an ultimate case fatality rate in the 1-4% (.5% with extreme measures) range depending on whether the hospitals get overloaded and how badly, again a 50% penetration seems likely.  So including the seasonal influenza in there is a bit misleading, because Covid-19 is far worse than seasonal influenza, but reasonable case scenario of Covid-19 with strong mitigation efforts is reasonably close to what 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics would be if they happended today with basic mitigation efforts.  However, they really don't compare if hospitals get overloaded with Covid-19.

Of course the problem is that Covid-19 has asymptomatic carriers.  So you have to use much stronger mitigation efforts.  'Avoid people that look sick, and use PPE when near them' works fine for influenza, but is much less effective for Covid-19.  Hand washing and don't touch your face is always effective (80% of respiratory virus infections are from self face touching, not others sneezing).

Of course really extreme global measures like purportedly occurred in China could potentially extinguish Covid-19 with a far lower number of fatalities.  We might end up with some countries it infects much of the population and then they develop herd immunity; and other countries take extreme measures and manage to prevent significant infections until a vaccine is found.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #456 on: March 27, 2020, 02:25:18 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/italian-scientists-investigate-possible-earlier-151108674.html

"Italian researchers are looking at whether a higher than usual number of cases of severe pneumonia and flu in Lombardy in the last quarter of 2019 may be a signal that the new coronavirus might have spread beyond China earlier than previously thought...

"He added that, given what we know about how infectious the virus is, and the ratio of patients showing no symptoms compared with those that get sick, "it is inconceivable that we would not have had a pretty major epidemic in Europe much earlier if these cases had in fact been COVID-19".

Insert Princess Bride reference here.

As the saying goes, you don't always get what you expect, but you always get what you inspect. It should be easy enough to find out for sure one way or the other with old stored samples or exhumation.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #457 on: March 27, 2020, 04:28:49 AM »
That theory has a problem, phylogenetics already makes a very strong and compelling case that it is NOT that old.

https://twitter.com/nextstrain

https://nextstrain.org/ncov

You don't get groupings like they're tracking if its ancestor is appearing in China in January/February before appearing in Europe in December(or earlier). The odds of it being "a different strain" which happened to independently mutate into nearly the exact same form are astronomical.

But I guess that's where people can break out their tinfoil hats and start saying that proves this outbreak is intentional and some secret government agency or secret society is behind its release.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #458 on: March 27, 2020, 04:33:56 AM »
Well the good thing about that theory is it's testable. It either is or it isn't true and the tests will tell one way or the other in short order. If they exhume a body of someone who died of the flu a couple of months ago and the new test determines they died of corona then that is that. I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other. I just want the testing done and let's see what we see.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #459 on: March 27, 2020, 05:49:01 AM »
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #460 on: March 27, 2020, 08:52:46 AM »
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #461 on: March 27, 2020, 09:32:50 AM »
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.

Make me change my mind? Nothing. I believe it is serious, and worth the efforts currently in place and the ones to come. Even if cases flatten a week from now, I'll believe it was because the extraordinary measures worked. I also think deaths is the wrong measure. I think we should be looking at serious and critical cases. This better reflects the ICU beds and other medical capacity.

Meanwhile, the people who said it was no big deal will likely take a quick stop as proof they were right all along, and a spike as proof that the measures were ineffective anyway so we might as well not have tanked the economy.

In other words, the vast majority of people will continue to believe they were right all along.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #462 on: March 27, 2020, 09:39:03 AM »
...
In other words, the vast majority of people will continue to believe they were right all along.

Appropriate conclusion to any post in the segregated media and social media age.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #463 on: March 27, 2020, 09:43:12 AM »
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.

Make me change my mind? Nothing. I believe it is serious, and worth the efforts currently in place and the ones to come. Even if cases flatten a week from now, I'll believe it was because the extraordinary measures worked. I also think deaths is the wrong measure. I think we should be looking at serious and critical cases. This better reflects the ICU beds and other medical capacity.

Also serious viral infections can sometimes have other long term consequences. There haven't been any reports of any so far but China is the only place with enough people recovered to see any patterns and they can be an information black box when they want to be.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #464 on: March 27, 2020, 09:50:20 AM »
If we find out that a much higher percentage of the population was infected without any serious issue, and this is already the 'peak' of critical cases, then yeah, that would be cause to reevaluate.  But that doesn't correspond with reality.

New York hospitals are in the throes of dealing with the pandemic right now, and what they are seeing is far worse than any seasonal flu in recent history - and that is even with the drastic suppression actions already taken by the city.

As the Drake mentioned - half of the USA is self isolating already, and this should have a medium term effect on the number of critical cases.  As well, the final numbers will be so dependent on not just the virus itself but on the effectiveness of the suppression efforts that assessing one without reference to the other will be meaningless, and most people (who generally are prone to selection bias) will ignore one or the other as is their wont.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #465 on: March 27, 2020, 09:57:23 AM »
I just wonder at what numbers will one side say "You know, we were wrong?"  The US is now at 1,000 deaths from what I have heard. Is it at 10,000?  30,000? If it stops at 2,000 can we say, yep it was over hyped?   Over what time frame is the total supposed to be accruing?  I mean originally the argument was that flu killed tens of thousands a year, so what was a few hundred? But that ignored that the flu amount was for a whole year and this Covid19 was just getting started?

If the number of deaths stays low (less than 10,000) can we say the social distancing worked?  Or will it be claimed that it was never that bad.  I think back to the Y2K issue. Companies spent billions fixing the problem and it mainly was not an issue.  Is that because it was not a real issue or that companies spent billions to make sure it was not an issue (the cure worked).

msquared

I don't think the virus will spare the country (or the world), so speculating a number low enough to change my mind about what to do about it doesn't seem answerable.  In some senses, we're overreacting with too draconian measures, but without adequate foreknowledge that we could only get through blanket testing, we don't know what we don't know and have to assume the worst. 

My brother scoffed when I pointed out to him that people are scared and panicking.  He said that couldn't be true because that is a prey response and we are predators.  I pointed out to him that in this situation the virus is the predator and we are the prey.  Not everyone believes that, apparently.

If I have to give a number that will make any sort of difference, it would be a near complete 100% respectful and semi-fearful response from everyone.  That would cause us collectively to have a better chance of minimizing the death and economic destruction from the disease.  But that won't happen, either.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #466 on: March 27, 2020, 11:26:40 AM »
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

The daily death rate seems to have stabilized at between 700 and 750 per day, and newly reported cases now seem to be dropping - so the number of cases continues to rise, but more slowly today than a couple of days ago.

Clearly, there is no way of telling exactly how many more people in Italy will die in the current wave of the virus, but there are at minimum several more thousand deaths baked into the current pool of infected people.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #467 on: March 27, 2020, 11:40:19 AM »
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population numbers between Italy and the US would do a good job of keeping panic levels up, but a horrible job of predicting real outcomes.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2020, 11:47:42 AM by ScottF »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #468 on: March 27, 2020, 11:59:42 AM »
...What numbers will make you change your minds?

There is nothing in my mind to change. What are you attempting to say? ...That I and others want deaths to occur at any numbers and ignore them so that Trump doesn't get blamed. That's a no-brainer. There is no such number because the anti-Trumpers will never stop pretending everything is his fault. It doesn't matter what facts or metrics show - they will never stop braying their hatred. It is sad, because Trump has done more for the country than any other president ever, yet they will never own up to it. What he's done to help the country in the light of the Wuhan flu is phenomenal, yet anything that happens is just an excuse for more blame.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #469 on: March 27, 2020, 12:12:05 PM »
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population numbers between Italy and the US would do a good job of keeping panic levels up, but a horrible job of predicting real outcomes.

Which is another good reason for Trump and his devoted minions to stop claiming that we do have it under control.  We simply don't have enough information to give anything beyond broad ranges and timeline estimates.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #470 on: March 27, 2020, 12:14:58 PM »
wmLambert, you sure read a lot into a simple question.  What I was trying to say is that I am disappointed that everyone has already made up their mind and that no amount of evidence would change any one on either side.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #471 on: March 27, 2020, 12:19:46 PM »
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.

Via The Atlantic ...

In 1937, during the Great Depression, at least 40,000 Americans took their own lives that year and again in 1938. That two-year span, suicide rates spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually. You want to do it again?

There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

Quote
In the modern era, for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about 1 percent in the number of suicides, according to Steve Stack, a professor at Wayne State University.

What numbers will make you change your mind?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #472 on: March 27, 2020, 12:22:51 PM »
wmLambert, you sure read a lot into a simple question.  What I was trying to say is that I am disappointed that everyone has already made up their mind and that no amount of evidence would change any one on either side.

The question wasn't really simple.  We've already seen enough deaths in the US and anticipate enough more (by rational and statistical means) that this is already bad and will only get much worse.  A better question might be, where do you draw the line on how many people die and how severely will the economy will be impacted such that the country will or won't be able to return to "normal"?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #473 on: March 27, 2020, 12:24:27 PM »
wmLambert, you sure read a lot into a simple question.  What I was trying to say is that I am disappointed that everyone has already made up their mind and that no amount of evidence would change any one on either side.

Bur no one has "made up their minds" about anything. You are projecting your own failure of flexibility. Regardless of any metrics, Trump has responded on point as the best medical minds have advised. No matter what he does, it just isn't good enough. ...And you see that as the fault of him and anyone who behaves normally and accepts that he is doing the best for the country.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #474 on: March 27, 2020, 12:26:34 PM »
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population numbers between Italy and the US would do a good job of keeping panic levels up, but a horrible job of predicting real outcomes.

Which is another good reason for Trump and his devoted minions to stop claiming that we do have it under control.  We simply don't have enough information to give anything beyond broad ranges and timeline estimates.

You're trapped in a vortex.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #475 on: March 27, 2020, 12:28:36 PM »
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.

Yes and no.

If you're looking at a specific sequence, yes.

If you're looking at the bigger picture no. That's like finding two people with matching sets of fingerprints. They're going to develop other, different mutations on other positions on other markers during that same intervening time period, and it is through those differences that you can start to differentiate "family lines" for specific strains.

It's how genetic genealogy works(and one of those groups is where I encountered that data), specifically in regards to mitochondrialDNA and Y-DNA on the 23rd chromosome.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #476 on: March 27, 2020, 12:41:52 PM »
Also serious viral infections can sometimes have other long term consequences. There haven't been any reports of any so far but China is the only place with enough people recovered to see any patterns and they can be an information black box when they want to be.

There are reports of decreased lung function and possible scarring of the lungs, but still a but early to tell. Some of that may also coincide with pre-existing (undiagnosed) conditions or genetic predispositions.

The thing I'm finding interesting as well are the news stories about specific family groups getting particularly hammered with unusually high mortality rates. At least the ones where it is just the biological relatives who died, not their spouses/in-laws, as that points to either a genetic factor or a years/decades-ago environmental factor. While the ones where the in-laws/spouses were dying too points to a more recent environmental factor possibly being in play. Or they simply had really, really bad luck.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #477 on: March 27, 2020, 12:47:38 PM »
My brother scoffed when I pointed out to him that people are scared and panicking.  He said that couldn't be true because that is a prey response and we are predators.  I pointed out to him that in this situation the virus is the predator and we are the prey.  Not everyone believes that, apparently.

Yes, humans are predators, but we weren't always the apex predator as that only came about when we developed tools to make it happen. Take away our tools, and we become quickly become prey for a number of wild animals. Just because something is a predator doesn't make it not-prey to other predators.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #478 on: March 27, 2020, 12:52:12 PM »
There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

Quote
In the modern era, for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about 1 percent in the number of suicides, according to Steve Stack, a professor at Wayne State University.

What numbers will make you change your mind?

Which isn't to mention that as economic conditions worsen, the rates for violent crime and domestic violence also tend to go up. So it isn't just the suicide rate that will go up, but the murder rate as well.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #479 on: March 27, 2020, 12:53:09 PM »
The thing I'm finding interesting as well are the news stories about specific family groups getting particularly hammered with unusually high mortality rates.

Not gonna lie, as I read this sentence I was interpreting "hammered" completely differently and telling myself I should probably lay off the sauce a bit during the week.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #480 on: March 27, 2020, 01:43:32 PM »
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.

Yes and no.

If you're looking at a specific sequence, yes.

If you're looking at the bigger picture no. That's like finding two people with matching sets of fingerprints. They're going to develop other, different mutations on other positions on other markers during that same intervening time period, and it is through those differences that you can start to differentiate "family lines" for specific strains.

It's how genetic genealogy works (and one of those groups is where I encountered that data), specifically in regards to mitochondrialDNA and Y-DNA on the 23rd chromosome.

I'm impressed. You sound like David Weber's Allison Harrington. very good explanation.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #481 on: March 27, 2020, 04:14:18 PM »
Quote
In 1937, during the Great Depression, at least 40,000 Americans took their own lives that year and again in 1938. That two-year span, suicide rates spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually. You want to do it again?

There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

That is a concern, but consider this: left unchecked, do suicide rates rise exponentially? ;)

The potential deaths from Covid-19 are greater than despair-related suicides.

And how many suicides would be expected from having a large number of loved-ones die?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #482 on: March 27, 2020, 04:36:23 PM »
Quote
In 1937, during the Great Depression, at least 40,000 Americans took their own lives that year and again in 1938. That two-year span, suicide rates spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually. You want to do it again?

There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

That is a concern, but consider this: left unchecked, do suicide rates rise exponentially? ;)

The potential deaths from Covid-19 are greater than despair-related suicides.

And how many suicides would be expected from having a large number of loved-ones die?

Back to POTENTIAL!  :o

If it wasn't for fear-mongering, I don't know what you'd post.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #483 on: March 27, 2020, 04:45:38 PM »
So you're saying casualty estimations are invalid? Potential casualties are a mainstay of military operations, are they fear mongering too?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #484 on: March 27, 2020, 04:52:16 PM »
If you think about it, the over-cautious, more panic-oriented reaction is a bit of a no-lose position.

If deaths end up at the high end of the pessimistic range, it's I told you so. If deaths end up being significantly lower (my current leaning) they can say it's only because so much caution and radical steps were taken.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #485 on: March 27, 2020, 05:59:23 PM »
If you think about it, the over-cautious, more panic-oriented reaction is a bit of a no-lose position.

If deaths end up at the high end of the pessimistic range, it's I told you so. If deaths end up being significantly lower (my current leaning) they can say it's only because so much caution and radical steps were taken.

If you want to be visual about this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

Check out the simulation graphics they provide.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #486 on: March 27, 2020, 06:20:22 PM »
And now I'm reading Washington Post articles since I'm over there.

Media bias at its finest. Trump speaks about how he liked the idea of churches being filled on Easter Sunday.

enter the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/small-town-battled-coronavirus-on-its-own-as-outbreak-spread-in-a-red-state/2020/03/27/55c727f6-6dde-11ea-a3ec-70d7479d83f0_story.html
Quote
Stitt's turnaround demonstrates the quandary that many loyalists to President Trump and red-state governors will face in the days ahead as the coronavirus spreads through the United States — the sobering messages from health experts on the ground pose a stark contrast to the president's vow to reopen the country and fill all the churches by Easter Sunday.

He said no such thing. Washington Post needs to award itself a Pinocchio for that.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #487 on: March 27, 2020, 06:27:13 PM »
Did Trump not say he wants to see “packed churches all over our country” on Easter Sunday?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #488 on: March 27, 2020, 06:32:28 PM »
Did Trump not say he wants to see “packed churches all over our country” on Easter Sunday?

Your interpretation of his statement does not have context.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-10/

Quote
I said earlier today that I hope we can do this by Easter.  I think that would be a great thing for our country, and we’re all working very hard to make that a reality.  We’ll be meeting with a lot of people to see if it can be done.  Easter is a very special day for many reasons.  For me, for a lot of — a lot of our friends, that’s a very special day.  And what a great timeline this would be.  Easter, as our timeline — what a great timeline that would be.

My first priority is always the health and safety of the American people, and we want everyone to understand that we are continuing to evaluate the data.  We’re working with the task force and making decisions based on what is best for the interests of our fantastic country.


Quote
But our decision will be based on hard facts and data as to the opening.  I’m also hopeful to have Americans working again by that Easter — that beautiful Easter day.  But rest assured, every decision we make is grounded solely on the health, safety, and wellbeing of our citizens.

Quote
Q    Mr. President, you just reiterated that you hope to have the country reopened by Easter and you said earlier you would like to see churches packed on that day.  My question is — you have two doctors onstage with you — have either of them told you that’s a realistic timeline?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think we’re looking at a timeline.  We’re discussing it.  We had a very good meeting today.  You know, if you add it all up, that’s probably nine days plus another two and a half weeks.  It’s a period of time that’s longer than the original two weeks.

So we’re going to look at it.  We’ll only do it if it’s good.  And maybe we do sections of the country; we do large sections of the country.  That could be, too.  But, no, we’re very much in Tony and with Deborah on everything we’re doing.

Q    Who suggested Easter?  Who suggested that day?

THE PRESIDENT:  I just thought it was a beautiful time.  It would be a beautiful time, a beautiful timeline.  It’s a great day.

Q    So that wasn’t based on any of the data?

THE PRESIDENT:  It was — it was based on a certain level of weeks from the time we started.  And it happened to arrive — actually, we were thinking in terms of sooner.  I’d love to see if come even sooner.  But I just think it would be a beautiful timeline.



This matches my recollection of his remarks. I don't see a "vow" to have it wrapped up by Easter. I see him expressing a hope that it could be accomplished by Easter, but that they're monitoring the situation and will respond accordingly.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2020, 06:35:27 PM by TheDeamon »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #489 on: March 27, 2020, 11:54:34 PM »
Quote
Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population
Since I wasn't projecting anything your post completely misses the boat.  I was trying to provide an illustration of the scope of the problem in Italy in a way that would resonate with many people posting here.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #490 on: March 28, 2020, 12:42:20 AM »
My mistake, I thought when you talked about deaths in Italy and then said it was  “roughly equivalent” to 50K deaths in the US you may have been suggesting a comparison of the problem instead of illustrating the, um, scope of the problem. In Italy.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #491 on: March 28, 2020, 04:42:24 AM »
Quote
This matches my recollection of his remarks. I don't see a "vow" to have it wrapped up by Easter. I see him expressing a hope that it could be accomplished by Easter, but that they're monitoring the situation and will respond accordingly.

And what I see was an initially absurd statement that required walking back repeatedly to erase the impression he gave from people's minds.  At this point nobody expects him to roll the shutdown back (which he can't do anyway) by Easter.  He appears to be heading in the direction of selectively asking states to ease the restrictions they imposed on a county-by-county basis.  FWIW, I have always thought that something like that was wiser than a massive all-inclusive shutdown.  I posted earlier this week an initial proposal for how I think the process could be approached.  Now I see Cuomo agreeing that the total shutdown in New York was a mistake.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #492 on: March 28, 2020, 05:43:31 AM »
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.

Yes and no.

If you're looking at a specific sequence, yes.

If you're looking at the bigger picture no. That's like finding two people with matching sets of fingerprints. They're going to develop other, different mutations on other positions on other markers during that same intervening time period, and it is through those differences that you can start to differentiate "family lines" for specific strains.

It's how genetic genealogy works(and one of those groups is where I encountered that data), specifically in regards to mitochondrialDNA and Y-DNA on the 23rd chromosome.

I only mentioned it as a marker, not necessarily (could be) a mutation that changes virality or other disease factors.  We can potentially use it to see how the virus progressed through populations.  That's valuable information for epidemiological study purposes.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #493 on: March 28, 2020, 08:37:51 AM »
Quote
Today, Prof. Didier Raoult and his team published results of their new study. The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection. Unlike the previous small study trial, the new observation study has a larger sample size of 80 COVID-19 patients. The objective of the study was to find an effective treatment to cure COVID-19 patients and to decrease the virus carriage duration.

In 80 in-patients receiving a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, the team found a clinical improvement in all but one 86 year-old patient who died, and one 74-year old patient still in intensive care unit. The team also found that, by administering hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, they were able to observe an improvement in all cases, except in one patient who arrived with an advanced form, who was over the age of 86, and in whom the evolution was irreversible, according to a new paper published today in IHU Méditerranée Infection.


Quote
“In conclusion, we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness. Given the urgent therapeutic need to manage this disease with effective and safe drugs and given the negligible cost of both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, we believe that other teams should urgently evaluate this therapeutic strategy both to avoid the spread of the disease and to treat patients before severe irreversible respiratory complications take hold,” the team concluded.

Good new for most people, bad new for some.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #494 on: March 28, 2020, 09:04:08 AM »
Quote
The daily death rate [in Italy] seems to have stabilized at between 700 and 750 per day, and newly reported cases now seem to be dropping - so the number of cases continues to rise, but more slowly today than a couple of days ago.
I spoke too soon - it looks like 50 fatalities went unreported from Thursday, and yesterday's death toll in Italy spiked to 919, not including those 50 deaths attributed to Thursday, the biggest daily increase to-date.

Italy's total death toll now stands at 9134 and the rate of increase is not yet slowing.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #495 on: March 28, 2020, 09:04:53 AM »
Quote
Good new for most people, bad new for some.
For whom would this be bad news?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #496 on: March 28, 2020, 09:28:02 AM »
Quote
Good new for most people, bad new for some.
For whom would this be bad news?

Asks the guy that tried to make out Trump told people to consume fish tank cleaner.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #497 on: March 28, 2020, 09:53:01 AM »
And who did that?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #498 on: March 28, 2020, 10:06:54 AM »
Quote
Quote
In conclusion, we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness. Given the urgent therapeutic need to manage this disease with effective and safe drugs and given the negligible cost of both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, we believe that other teams should urgently evaluate this therapeutic strategy both to avoid the spread of the disease and to treat patients before severe irreversible respiratory complications take hold,” the team concluded.

Good new for most people, bad new for some.

Good to hear that there is a positive result from a more extended clinical trial, bad news only for a tiny mentally unstable fringe who want to usher in the apocalypse, I suppose.  I remember when Michelle Bachmann, a Presidential candidate at one point, celebrated Obama's election because it meant the end times were near.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #499 on: March 28, 2020, 11:07:48 AM »
Abbott has an FDA approved test that will provide a positive result in 5 minutes and a negative in 13 minutes. Uses a small footprint (toaster-size) hardware platform. Will allow 50K tests per day starting next week. Estimates 5 million tests will be performed with it in April.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/27/a-new-fda-authorized-covid-19-test-doesnt-need-a-lab-and-can-produce-results-in-just-5-minutes/