Coronavirus

[sahlensguy]

I think around 40% of Covid deaths in the US have been from nursing homes. Obviously more in, say, New York where nursing homes were forced to take Covid patients. How Cuomo gets a pass for that, btw, is ridiculous.

We've also seen Stanford, and a few other places, including in Europe, have antibody testing that indicates the the spread was far more, and earlier, than we realized. Spreading all the tests around, seems like the rate is assumed to be around 15-30x higher than reported, obviously most of these are asymptomatic.

Now if you're 24 or under, looks like you have around a one in a million chance of dying from Corona. That's with current testing, with the new studies, probably less than that. 54 and under and it's 46 in a million, or, 0.0046% chance. As you get older, especially 70 to 80's, dramatically increases.

So based on the data, why don't we shut down hard on the nursing homes, have stay at homes for the elderly, and carry on with life? Still wear masks, still practice good hygiene, but, I mean...we're shutting down for this?

I think we have enough data that opening up is okay. My state has 459 cases, total, and 16 deaths. We shut down for that?!

Opening up means putting those who make the least with the worst access to healthcare on the front lines, risking their lives for your convenience.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Opening up means putting those who make the least with the worst access to healthcare on the front lines, risking their lives for your convenience.

Look. If you're 24 and under, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from Covid.

54 and under, 0.004% chance.

85+ the chance of dying, so far, is 0.175%, and that's more than double any other age group.

There will always be a risk, with anything we do. Having an entire nation at home, having kids miss school, I don't see where the risks detailed above make up for that.

And I disagree with your premise. We can open up, continue wearing masks, practice good hygiene, and be fine. Especially if the rate of infection is 15-30x greater than what's been reported like the blood tests are showing.

 

[sahlensguy]

Look. If you're 24 and under, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from Covid.

54 and under, 0.004% chance.

85+ the chance of dying, so far, is 0.175%, and that's more than double any other age group.

There will always be a risk, with anything we do. Having an entire nation at home, having kids miss school, I don't see where the risks detailed above make up for that.

And I disagree with your premise. We can open up, continue wearing masks, practice good hygiene, and be fine. Especially if the rate of infection is 15-30x greater than what's been reported like the blood tests are showing.

I don't like the economy crumbling as we sit at home, waiting this out either. But people are not fine. More than 1/3 of the Tyson employees at the their largest meat packing plant have tested positive. Ordering them back on the job is absurdly unjust.

Same goes for every other frontline worker.

We just can't expect them go back to work when they make the least amount of money with the worst access to healthcare.

This isn't all about the death rate.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I think around 40% of Covid deaths in the US have been from nursing homes. Obviously more in, say, New York where nursing homes were forced to take Covid patients. How Cuomo gets a pass for that, btw, is ridiculous.

We've also seen Stanford, and a few other places, including in Europe, have antibody testing that indicates the the spread was far more, and earlier, than we realized. Spreading all the tests around, seems like the rate is assumed to be around 15-30x higher than reported, obviously most of these are asymptomatic.

Now if you're 24 or under, looks like you have around a one in a million chance of dying from Corona. That's with current testing, with the new studies, probably less than that. 54 and under and it's 46 in a million, or, 0.0046% chance. As you get older, especially 70 to 80's, dramatically increases.

So based on the data, why don't we shut down hard on the nursing homes, have stay at homes for the elderly, and carry on with life? Still wear masks, still practice good hygiene, but, I mean...we're shutting down for this?

I think we have enough data that opening up is okay. My state has 459 cases, total, and 16 deaths. We shut down for that?!

I'm all for opening things up if it's done right and groups that need more protection get that.

This is more a side note because I haven't seen much about it recently. Is the antibody tests accurate? I've read some reports that they are not.

 

[Ron Mexico]

China had a new small outbreak in Wuhan. They shut things down again there and are going to test every person. I hope they test for who has had it in the past and release that information. But I would be shocked if they released that because it probably will show it was spread a lot more. They will probably release how many currently have it. That's harder to lie about and the Chinese people would be mad if they didn't say that.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I don't like the economy crumbling as we sit at home, waiting this out either. But people are not fine. More than 1/3 of the Tyson employees at the their largest meat packing plant have tested positive. Ordering them back on the job is absurdly unjust.

Same goes for every other frontline worker.

We just can't expect them go back to work when they make the least amount of money with the worst access to healthcare.

This isn't all about the death rate.

I don't think you're quite understanding what I'm saying.

I'm not saying, everybody back, just like before! I'm talking about a slow re-opening.

And yes, it is about the death rate. We were ordered, forced, to shut down to prevent people from dying. To prevent the overflow of hospitals. And now? Hospitals are practically empty. We've found out it's not as lethal as we thought. Almost every model has been exponentially wrong. And yet we sit, and wait. And wait. And wait.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm all for opening things up if it's done right and groups that need more protection get that.

This is more a side note because I haven't seen much about it recently. Is the antibody tests accurate? I've read some reports that they are not.

I would assume they are, but truthfully, I don't know.

 

[stitches]

I don't think you're quite understanding what I'm saying.

I'm not saying, everybody back, just like before! I'm talking about a slow re-opening.

And yes, it is about the death rate. We were ordered, forced, to shut down to prevent people from dying. To prevent the overflow of hospitals. And now? Hospitals are practically empty. We've found out it's not as lethal as we thought. Almost every model has been exponentially wrong. And yet we sit, and wait. And wait. And wait.

It is not any less lethal than we thought. Every model will by definition be 'wrong'. The question is whether they were useful and just how wrong they will be. For the most part IMO the models did their job and were predicting great general precision what will be happening if no measures are taken. THIS IS WHY YOU LOOK AT THE MODELS AND TAKE THE MEASURES!! To break the path that would have lead the world to situations like that in Italy. And the measures did their job to a large degree everywhere. Now the question is, can we relax some of them and still be able to handle a somewhat constant inflow of new patients without huge spikes? It's probably possible but you will need responsible behavior from the population and clear understanding that until we have a vaccine you cannot get back to how things used to be. You will have to still have some measure of social distancing, you will still have to have increased testing and contact tracing capacity, you will still need masks in the store or other public spaces, you will probably still need to limit huge congregations of people, etc.

I would assume they are, but truthfully, I don't know.

Depends on what they are trying to measure and what conclusions you want to come to. The problem with the blood tests is that they give about 4-5% false positive results and when the % of people who have had the virus in the population is relatively low that false positive number overwhelms the people who have really had it.

Example, if only 1% of the population has had the virus, the blood test will return that 6% have had it(the 1% that had it and 5% false positives that have not had it). This means it overestimates by 5-6 times how many people have had it.

It becomes more useful if more people have had it in the population but that's probably true only for NY and not as much for most other places.

 

[Beer]

It is not any less lethal than we thought. Every model will by definition be 'wrong'. The question is whether they were useful and just how wrong they will be. For the most part IMO the models did their job and were predicting great general precision what will be happening if no measures are taken. THIS IS WHY YOU LOOK AT THE MODELS AND TAKE THE MEASURES!! To break the path that would have lead the world to situations like that in Italy. And the measures did their job to a large degree everywhere. Now the question is, can we relax some of them and still be able to handle a somewhat constant inflow of new patients without huge spikes? It's probably possible but you will need responsible behavior from the population and clear understanding that until we have a vaccine you cannot get back to how things used to be. You will have to still have some measure of social distancing, you will still have to have increased testing and contact tracing capacity, you will still need masks in the store or other public spaces, you will probably still need to limit huge congregations of people, etc.



Depends on what they are trying to measure and what conclusions you want to come to. The problem with the blood tests is that they give about 4-5% false positive results and when the % of people who have had the virus in the population is relatively low that false positive number overwhelms the people who have really had it.

Example, if only 1% of the population has had the virus, the blood test will return that 6% have had it(the 1% that had it and 5% false positives that have not had it). This means it overestimates by 5-6 times how many people have had it.

It becomes more useful if more people have had it in the population but that's probably true only for NY and not as much for most other places.

The models were and are wrong because they are based off of complete bull **** data. They are borderline worthless.

 

[stitches]

The models were and are wrong because they are based off of complete bull **** data. They are borderline worthless.

What the hell are you talking about? No they were/are NOT! The very early data might have been unreliable(China) and outlier'ish(Italy), but pretty much the whole world that followed was following very similar curves until they took measures. How the **** can you call them worthless? This is preposterous. They had problems and the input was not great initially, because we had never gone through anything like this in modern history, but IMO a lot of the models were quite useful and instrumental in actually limiting the spread.

Now I would like to see the new models and analysis after this whole thing is over and all the data is in. I want to see some serious analysis on the measures.

What measure accounts for how large of a portion of the decrease in transmission? Were some of the measures an overkill? Were some of them underestimated? I want to see what strategies for combating future epidemics will arise from this.