ADVERTISEMENT

California ER Doctors Corona Virus Briefing is Jaw Dropping

Mortality rate is all that matters. The Univ Miami, USC, Stanford studies all suggest a mortality rate of .1-.15...

More reliable data indicate the mortality rate is 1-2%.
It will push 5% or more if we open up with 1M outstanding cases and overwhelm our health systems.

Mortality rate on the Diamond Princess is currently 1.8%, with 4 patients still listed as "critical" 3 months later. If those 4 also die, then the rate grows to 2.4%. Or 24x more deadly than seasonal flu.

Additionally, doctors are finding that COVID-19 dramatically raises stroke risks in young adults. This is consistent with the observations the virus causes clotting issues in other people. The more we learn about this disease, the more we figure out it is a bad bad idea to just allow it to spread unchecked.
 
Oh my god you’re right! The numbers are going up! Well call me dipped in shit.

50k deaths out of a population of 300 million. That’s 0.01%. That’s an annual flu death total. Maybe we need to shut down the economy from October to April every year......
Somebody doesn't understand that this virus is more contagious and mitigation has worked. The conservatives on here remain willfully ignorant about these 2 facts. You continue to be. Move onto something else, please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: damayason
yet all the hospitals are empty and nurses are getting laid off. What a sham.

Im sure if we keep adding positive covids that were never tested case numbers will go up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkeyerick
but $4T poorer
How long will Congress be willing to spend a $trillion every couple of weeks?

Pretty soon, someone will do analysis showing who's getting the money. Early reports suggest that it's going mostly to the usual suspects.

At some point there will rising clamor to send the money to the people who need it. Then Congress will suddenly decide to be concerned about the deficit (now approaching $4 trillion).

I think we're close to that point now. The rich and powerful have used this crisis to get richer and more powerful but they know they have entered a period of diminishing returns. So no reason to keep things shut down any longer if the free money is going to stop.
 
That's factually based. Look at the data, bro. We have 4% of the world's population; ~30% of the world's cases. And we were not the source of the outbreak. We were 4th or 5th in line - plenty of time for us to mount a timely response.

And nowhere near the death rate of the socialist countries you and your brood spooge over. Are there any accounts of elderly patients being left to die without treatment in the US? You were wrong like you were about the stock market and on and on and on. But you are like the NWS-you get paid no matter how often the graphs and articles you disseminate prove to be wrong. The comical thing is that it is the majority opinion of the marxists on the forum that Trump won the election because of a mis-information campaign orchestrated by Russia. Yet there are multiple bots on here (Karl is exhibit A) doing the same thing but they are good people because the misinformation they are spreading aligns with theIr world view. Confirmation bias, anyone?
 
How long will Congress be willing to spend a $trillion every couple of weeks?

Pretty soon, someone will do analysis showing who's getting the money. Early reports suggest that it's going mostly to the usual suspects.

At some point there will rising clamor to send the money to the people who need it. Then Congress will suddenly decide to be concerned about the deficit (now approaching $4 trillion).

I think we're close to that point now. The rich and powerful have used this crisis to get richer and more powerful but they know they have entered a period of diminishing returns. So no reason to keep things shut down any longer if the free money is going to stop.

First, mortality rate for the US is nowhere near as high as it is in Europe (other than Germany). Italy, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK have motrality rates 2-3 times that of the US.
Second, how many billionaires are collecting unemployment benefits that are more than their income when they were working? This is the biggest giveaway of borrowed money in the history of this country and is for one purpose only: to buy votes in November. It is the most disgusting chapter in the history of this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royhobbs2
'Artificially'?
No. Tests that are nonspecific and pick up RELATED antibodies which are NOT unique to COVID-19.

Whole lotta threads on here posting the info on the false positive rates of some of these tests. Some as bad as 16% false positive (84% specific).
Cool. Now tell us about the PCR test picking up RNA material from similar viruses leading to a higher % of false positives.
 
First, mortality rate for the US is nowhere near as high as it is in Europe (other than Germany). Italy, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK have motrality rates 2-3 times that of the US.
Second, how many billionaires are collecting unemployment benefits that are more than their income when they were working? This is the biggest giveaway of borrowed money in the history of this country and is for one purpose only: to buy votes in November. It is the most disgusting chapter in the history of this country.
We're catching up fast, but you are right to subject them to the same criticism. They, too, are advanced, wealthy nations with premium health care systems.

I'll cut them a little slack since they were faced with it on a large scale much sooner than we were, and they have a couple of other disadvantages (density, for example, and open borders), but they definitely screwed the pooch on lack of preparedness and failing to impose strict measures in a timely fashion.

We should have learned a lot better from their mistakes (and their successes).
 
Cool. Now tell us about the PCR test picking up RNA material from similar viruses leading to a higher % of false positives.

Did I ever state there were NOT false positives/negatives with other tests?

Other methods often have much higher accuracy rates than the serology/antibodies tests. Of course, if you learned a little science, you'd understand a few of these things.
 
We're catching up fast, but you are right to subject them to the same criticism. They, too, are advanced, wealthy nations with premium health care systems.

I'll cut them a little slack since they were faced with it on a large scale much sooner than we were, and they have a couple of other disadvantages (density, for example, and open borders), but they definitely screwed the pooch on lack of preparedness and failing to impose strict measures in a timely fashion.

We should have learned a lot better from their mistakes (and their successes).

If we look only at the Big 5 countries in Europe: Italy, Spain, France, Germany and UK, they have about 100k deaths so far and 313 million population. They are still hitting about 2k deaths per day.

The US has about 55k deaths and 330 million in population. We're hitting about 2.5k deaths per day.

I'd say it's going to take a while for the US to "catch up".
 
Who "verifies" the false-positive tendencies??? Surely not the same ones responsible for producing and administering the ineffective tests themselves, I hope. This country has botched the handling of this virus in just about every possible way.
The non-peer-reviewed, non-blind study that people were talking about a week or 2 ago relied on test manufacturer data to establish the accuracy of the tests.

Doesn't necessarily mean there was anything wrong with the results, but when the results are being used to push a non-medical agenda, you should be suspicious.
 
If we look only at the Big 5 countries in Europe: Italy, Spain, France, Germany and UK, they have about 100k deaths so far and 313 million population. They are still hitting about 2k deaths per day.

The US has about 55k deaths and 330 million in population. We're hitting about 2.5k deaths per day.

I'd say it's going to take a while for the US to "catch up".
We'll see. Let's check again around the middle of May. We'll still have the advantages of lower population density and greater wealth, but that will reduce the "time" advantage.

Or we could compare our numbers now with their numbers a couple of weeks ago, if anyone has those numbers.
 
Joe the only statistic I give a crap about are deaths. That’s all. I’ve said it a million times.

You can sit and spend all day jerking of to case numbers. Sure, every new case has spread potential, but if the actual numbers of deaths as a percentage of population aren’t high let’s open up and monitor deaths and then make adjustments. This idea that the rebound will be worse I just don’t subscribe to.

Why are you so invested in perpetuating the negativity? Are you old and scared to die? I’ve asked your age in the past and you’ve been suspiciously quiet.....boomer pussy. Youre a disgrace.

I have mentioned this before, but if you open things up and wait for a spike of deaths to see how you are doing, you will be behind the 8-ball and the damage will be done.

Also, there are certainly examples of past epidemics (1918 in particular) where cities loosened restrictions and noted a worse rebound than the initial wave. Not saying it happened everywhere (or will happen here), just saying it is certainly possible, especially as far as we are from 'herd immunity' at the moment.
 
If we look only at the Big 5 countries in Europe: Italy, Spain, France, Germany and UK, they have about 100k deaths so far and 313 million population. They are still hitting about 2k deaths per day.

The US has about 55k deaths and 330 million in population. We're hitting about 2.5k deaths per day.

I'd say it's going to take a while for the US to "catch up".

US was >10 days behind Italy and Spain from the get-go.

Considering we now have more cases than all of them combined, and are adding more per day then all of them, combined, I wouldn't be crowing about "having lower deaths" right now.
 
I wonder how people rationalize using total population as a factor rather than those confirmed to be infected to determine mortality rate. If I don't have the virus I am 100% certain not to die from it. It's when I contract it that I want to know what my chances for survival are. This is the way it works for other diseases (ie cancer), why not COVID?
 
  • Like
Reactions: steelhawkeye
How long will Congress be willing to spend a $trillion every couple of weeks?

Pretty soon, someone will do analysis showing who's getting the money. Early reports suggest that it's going mostly to the usual suspects.

At some point there will rising clamor to send the money to the people who need it. Then Congress will suddenly decide to be concerned about the deficit (now approaching $4 trillion).

I think we're close to that point now. The rich and powerful have used this crisis to get richer and more powerful but they know they have entered a period of diminishing returns. So no reason to keep things shut down any longer if the free money is going to stop.
Did anybody really doubt this?
 
The non-peer-reviewed, non-blind study that people were talking about a week or 2 ago relied on test manufacturer data to establish the accuracy of the tests.

Doesn't necessarily mean there was anything wrong with the results, but when the results are being used to push a non-medical agenda, you should be suspicious.
I am skeptical. There's nothing objective about any source! That's the problem.

@Joes Place is to climate change and coronavirus white Brian Nole was to Catholicism: they're not convincing or converting people to their way of thinking. If you're already on-board, fine... you don't need to be convinced otherwise. But, no one is changing their minds about the issues due to their participation.
 
I am skeptical. There's nothing objective about any source! That's the problem.

@Joes Place is to climate change and coronavirus white Brian Nole was to Catholicism: they're not convincing or converting people to their way of thinking. If you're already on-board, fine... you don't need to be convinced otherwise. But, no one is changing their minds about the issues due to their participation.
B3-GO648_202001_SOC_20200424090816.gif
 
I wonder how people rationalize using total population as a factor rather than those confirmed to be infected to determine mortality rate. If I don't have the virus I am 100% certain not to die from it. It's when I contract it that I want to know what my chances for survival are. This is the way it works for other diseases (ie cancer), why not COVID?

Because confirmed cases are not the only ones actually infected.

I agree, it is not appropriate to determine a death rate based on a percentage of total population. All we can go on now is the "confirmed infected" statistic. However, the recent surveys in Florida, California, and New York seem to show that infection is significantly more widespread than the confirmed cases.

Now, are there people also dying that have not been diagnosed? Certainly. But my guess (and it's only a guess), is that the ratio of undiagnosed deaths to undiagnosed cases is very low, as people will tend to seek hospital care when they feel sick enough. In doing so, they'll be tested and end up included in the "confirmed cases" category.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royhobbs2
Because confirmed cases are not the only ones actually infected.

I agree, it is not appropriate to determine a death rate based on a percentage of total population. All we can go on now is the "confirmed infected" statistic. However, the recent surveys in Florida, California, and New York seem to show that infection is significantly more widespread than the confirmed cases.

Now, are there people also dying that have not been diagnosed? Certainly. But my guess (and it's only a guess), is that the ratio of undiagnosed deaths to undiagnosed cases is very low, as people will tend to seek hospital care when they feel sick enough. In doing so, they'll be tested and end up included in the "confirmed cases" category.
So, again, widespread testing is the key to know what impact this virus is really having. Yet we are 3 months into this thing and the testing still lags far, far behind what it should.
 
So, again, widespread testing is the key to know what impact this virus is really having. Yet we are 3 months into this thing and the testing still lags far, far behind what it should.

Widespread testing will give us more answers, but until then, I think it's safe to say that the overall infection rate is not as high as it appears to be by looking at reported deaths divided by confirmed infections.
 
Widespread testing will give us more answers, but until then, I think it's safe to say that the overall infection rate is not as high as it appears to be by looking at reported deaths divided by confirmed infections.
If you want to open up the economy the public needs to be confident that they won't be in danger if they go out. Guessing at numbers won't do it.
 
If you want to open up the economy the public needs to be confident that they won't be in danger if they go out. Guessing at numbers won't do it.

I wouldn't lump the "public" into one monolithic entity.

By the same token, I could see some people not going out even if there was concrete data on overall infection rate.

But we weren't talking about opening up. We were discussing determination of the true infection rate.
 
I have mentioned this before, but if you open things up and wait for a spike of deaths to see how you are doing, you will be behind the 8-ball and the damage will be done.

Also, there are certainly examples of past epidemics (1918 in particular) where cities loosened restrictions and noted a worse rebound than the initial wave. Not saying it happened everywhere (or will happen here), just saying it is certainly possible, especially as far as we are from 'herd immunity' at the moment.
I wonder why we aren’t looking more at the 1957 H2N2 pandemic that killed a million world wide and about 116,000 in the US. I’ve barely heard it mentioned.
 
Oh my god you’re right! The numbers are going up! Well call me dipped in shit.

50k deaths out of a population of 300 million. That’s 0.01%. That’s an annual flu death total. Maybe we need to shut down the economy from October to April every year......

Did you just compare the annual death rate of the flu to 3 months of covid?
 
I've lost track of this thread and I don't know if this has been posted yet or not, but this is a pretty good explanation of these two Doctor's claims:

Jennifer L Kasten, MD, MSc, MSc

A response to the video circulating by Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi on COVID-19 prevalence and immunity.
The two doctors, who own a chain of urgent cares in central California together, held a press conference where they announced the results of the testing they'd conducted and their interpretation of the data. Their take included political and economic recommendations based on their personal convictions, which will not be discussed here.
They made two epidemiology/immunology claims:

1) 340 / 5213 (6.5%) diagnostic tests were positive at their urgent cares. They conclude, scaling up, that 6.5% of the entire Central Valley is therefore positive. For Bakersfield, CA: it would mean about 58,000 people had the virus, far more than the nearly 700 confirmed cases. We should calculate mortality and morbidity (hospitalization, ICU) rates accordingly, they argue.

2) Prolonged social distancing damages the immune system, and we are all becoming weaker for staying at home.
MORE PEOPLE HAVE HEART ATTACKS AND BROKEN LEGS IN ERs THAN IN A SHOPPING MALL
Their fatal, immediate, obvious, rookie mistake is that their 5213 people are in NO WAY REPRESENTATIVE of the population at large. Although we don't know how many (because the data was not that thorough)- we can assume a decent chunk of these people had symptoms of COVID, sought care, and were tested. Their urgent cares had the lion's share of COVID tests for the entire Central Valley (which is awesome). So ANYONE in Bakersfield who felt worried would go there. Presumably doctors referred patients there whom they felt needed testing.

Walk around an ER on a Friday night. If 4 out of 50 patients had broken legs, and another 10 had heart attacks, you can't assume 8% of the city fell off a ladder when drunk that night and a full quarter were clutching their chest in an armchair as we speak. In epidemiology terms, that's selection bias- bias introduced by a non-random sample.
So, essentially their calculations are entirely invalid. If they could somehow prove that the 5213 were an entirely random sample of people which was perfectly representative of the age, sex, pre-existing conditions, ethnic background and degree of symptomatology of the Central Valley, that would be different.

UNLESS YOU LIVE INSIDE AN AUTOCLAVE, YOUR HOME IS PLENTY PATHOGEN-RICH.

The world is absolutely teeming with microbes. You're coated in them, your house is coated in them, they enter your body with every breath you take and everything you eat. Your immune system is getting a perfectly adequate workout. You're just restricting your exposure to a handful of things (respiratory pathogens) for a very short period of time.

The doctors have every unalienable right to express their personal views, but the evidence they offered to back those views up is invalid (and immunologically laughable). The Denominator is larger than the official case count (evidence for that discussed repeatedly on this page, and is now accepted dogma). Of course that will downwardly adjust the relevant rates. There's no need to hand-wave.
 
I am skeptical. There's nothing objective about any source! That's the problem.

@Joes Place is to climate change and coronavirus white Brian Nole was to Catholicism: they're not convincing or converting people to their way of thinking. If you're already on-board, fine... you don't need to be convinced otherwise. But, no one is changing their minds about the issues due to their participation.
Horse. Water.

It's a service to provide the water, but its up to the horse to drink.

Doesn't make sense to me to criticize the water bearer.
 
We're catching up fast, but you are right to subject them to the same criticism. They, too, are advanced, wealthy nations with premium health care systems.

I'll cut them a little slack since they were faced with it on a large scale much sooner than we were, and they have a couple of other disadvantages (density, for example, and open borders), but they definitely screwed the pooch on lack of preparedness and failing to impose strict measures in a timely fashion.

We should have learned a lot better from their mistakes (and their successes).

They were faced with it sooner than us? Is there more or less travel between China and the US or China and Italy? It was in the US quite a while before anyone knew it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT