COVID-19 Thread
- Thread starter Kwoodhawk
- Start date
Disingenuous? Really? Are you serious?
You think all the kids going to the beaches for Spring Break and all the bar hopping, etc. they were doing wasn't from info that came out that only old people die from the virus. They even interviewed them and that is what they said.
Not sure what you thought I meant by "done in confinement", but I think you might have mis-interpreted what I was saying by your response. Maybe not. I was wrong once last year too.
Certainly some young people will die and covid19 will probably get the blame. By the way, the baby who died has not been confirmed as Covid19 being the cause. Easy to get caught up in the hysteria. That being said, the numbers for yesterdays virus deaths took an uptick. So not exactly what we were hoping for.
YESTERDAY’S WUHAN CORONAVIRUS NUMBERS
Yesterday (March 28), new reported deaths in the U.S. from the Wuhan coronavirus exceeded 500 for the first day ever, according to Worldometer. On March 26, the daily death count was half of what it was yesterday.
The New York City pandemic is driving the increase. The pandemic there shows no sign of abating, and the high number of new reported cases from New York might well drive the dailynational death count higher for weeks to come.
A key question for me is whether other big metropolitan areas will experience New York-like pandemics. New York, of course, is larger and more compact than other major cities, and, as I understand it, had more contact with Chinese nationals during January and February.
Thus, there’s reason to hope that no metropolitan area will be hammered by the virus to the extent New York has been. But there’s also reason to fear that we will see several mini New Yorks before long.
In Western Europe, meanwhile, the daily death figures (as reported by Worldometer) are inching towards 1,000 in Italy and Spain, and new reported cases in both countries are also rising. The number of daily reported deaths have held steady the past few days in France (at around 300) and Germany (at around 80). Great Britain reported 181 deaths on March 27 and 260 yesterday.
I have been to Delhi and I have never seen a blue sky. I may have to call fake news on that.
Yes I think your claim that the message was the virus only kills old people is an exaggeration. Where was this claim made? I think the message was that older people were far more likely to die from the virus, and the young recover, which I believe remains true.
I don’t know what you meant by “confinement” exactly but the notion it doesn’t take a considerable number of people to get food from farm to plate is ignorant. Again, not claiming you were one of them.
Last edited:
Yeah, I've been to Delhi, too. Fishing, beer drinking on the pontoon boat. Was fun until the dam broke.I have been to Delhi and I have never seen a blue sky. I may have to call fake news on that.
Occasionally made a beer and snacks run over to Waubeek.
https://www.delhiia.com/
Unfortunately, there are many more metro areas that are going to suffer steep rises in hospitalizations and deaths in April and May - New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago are all headed in that direction. Seattle and LA will also suffer.
Here in Santa Clara County (San Jose, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Santa Clara), we've gone from our first recorded case of covid-19 on Feb 29 to 591 cases in 1 month. In the past 24 hours we've had 17 new cases and 5 deaths. This area started their shelter in place on Mar 17th.
I posted this site before, but anyone interested in any particular state can click on it and see the projected deaths and estimated dates of hospital overload. It was created by a team of experts in various fields, including health care and epidemiology.
https://covidactnow.org/
Just read today that the US has at least 12 large Metro cities that each city currently has more confirmed cases right now than Wuhan had when it went on lockdown.
And of course the Wuhan lockdown was pretty hardcore. Not so much here in the US.
FWIW, I had heard the same as kwood that only the elderly and sickly were at risk. Of course they are still the most vulnerable, but that story has shifted over the past week where more and more younger people are being hospitalized.
Agree. I've heard it with my own ears from 2 different people as recently as 2 weeks ago. My own niece thought that way. It was not uncommon for younger people to say serious illness from coronavirus only affected older people. The tone has definitely shifted.
As far as people giving projections of widespread illness and death, it isn't "crying chicken little" or "hyping" if the threat is real.
Folks should be listening to experts, and of course that would include Dr Fauci. Dr Fauci today:
<<Dr. Anthony Fauci said based on modeling of the current pace of the coronavirus' spread in the U.S., "between 100,000 and 200,000" people may die from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
Fauci's comments on CNN's State of the Union underscore just how far away the U.S. is from the peak of the outbreak based on predictions from top federal officials. As of early Sunday afternoon, there were 125,000 cases in the U.S. and nearly 2,200 deaths, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.>>
https://www.wclk.com/post/fauci-estimates-100000-200000-americans-could-die-coronavirus
It originally broke out in 1917 in the US in far western Kansas and the East coast about the same time. The US was ramping up from about 150,000 soldiers to 4 million for WW1. It took off in many of these training camps and spread via the railroads as the troops were moved out and over towards Europe. It did not come from Spain even though called the Spanish Flu. Recently the latest thinking is that it came from migrant workers who came to the US from..................CHINA.
Yea, we talked about this in a Pathophys class I took once. (eons ago). Came from an Army camp in Kansas, and spread to Europe as American soldiers were deployed for WWI. At the time, most countries were too involved in the war, and didn't want to "depress local homefolks morale" so they didn't report on it at all. Except for Spain, who was neutral at the time. And then they get stuck with the name!
(another note about suppressing data and information lesson....)
I’m not debating what the narrative became. Below is the post I questioned:
My questioned is more centered around what info and released by whom? I think this became a false narrative by the masses.
I came across this modeling tool this morning and found it quite helpful in trying to understand the current situation in each state. This model shows all of the US with a drop down menu for each state. Provides a summary and a graph of projected cases vs critical resources (hospital beds, ICU beds, Invasive Ventilators) over time. Also, shows estimated total deaths and date of "peak deaths" (hard to type that).
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Published by a research group at the University of Washington
Stay Well!
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Published by a research group at the University of Washington
Stay Well!
If you are not debating the narrative, then what are you debating. It is hard to follow what you are saying. Looks like you are splitting hairs or changing your narrative to buttress whatever point you were trying to make. Not clear to me at all what you are saying.
What does it matter who released that information? What matters is that young people took that information and acted upon it. They took it to be true and thought they would be invulnerable.
Of course it is a false narrative. That doesn't make it any less dangerous to those people who believe it and act upon it.
I think this concept started when the information started coming out of Italy and how many of those dying were mostly old. Reported by numerous outlets and was way too early to be accurate but seems to be a belief that the younger people gravitated to and acted upon. Those actions will have repercussions down the road that will not be beneficial for them and the rest of society.
And as to your first response to me with these posts. I looked up the definition of disingenuous just to make sure. And No, I was not being disingenuous. Perhaps that word was not the precise meaning that you meant, but that particular word was far from accurate.
can we agree that we will never know if China was truthful about there numbers? (I am in no way claiming they have been).
although this is a little dated, it is from the WHO. I am sure you could find something a little more recent.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...00227-sitrep-38-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=47fdaf7_2
Don't, I claim nothing but a distrust for China....not trying to push any politics, but how can you believe the entire world could not stop the spread but china contained it to the province of Wuhon? Maybe, but sounds ridiculous....its a VIRUS during the chinese new year. slow it, yes, stop it completely???
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...carriers-lose-15-million-users-as-virus-bites
https://www.ibtimes.sg/china-hiding-covid-19-death-toll-21-million-cell-phones-disappeared-why-41580
https://www.breitbart.com/national-...-users-disappear-in-three-months-of-pandemic/
I think the citizens of Iran, Italy, France, England, New York, etc might disagree with this statement.
Exactly. And we’re expected to believe it only spread internationally?
china may have stopped it from spreading significantly within China because they literally welded doors shut. I am in no way whatsoever suggesting that anyone else should do that. Just some of the unsubstantiated reporting I have seen online outside of the state run media in China.
i agree 100% that it is fishy. 65,000 in Hubei and 400 in Beijing. They either literally locked people in houses or fabricated data to pull that off. The reality is they probably did both. And the other sad thing is we will probably never know they truth.
and one of the early strains in Washington State was a close match to one of the Wuhan strains.
good point, I don't know the validity of this video but DAMN it punches you in the gut if it is not Fake news....Tienanmen Square moment?
I've seen a longer version that actually is even more impactful
Chart from The Lancet for hospitalized patients in Wuhan Hospitals which as the study stated median time from infection to death was around 18.5 days and for survivors was 22 days.
So the numbers for people currently dying were infected about 2 1/2 weeks ago. With the growth in numbers of infection in the US the past several days we will see a tremendous groth in deaths from this time frame 2 1/2 weeks from now.
Chart I previously posted which shows IF current trends persist we wil hit 10,000 deaths on April 6th and around 50,000 near Easter which is April 12th.
Included below is link to article that talks about the chart projections a bit.
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/econ...avirus-crest-on-easter-syzs4EIM6E2dIIiRJ5xIww
Here is another outlook.
For years, progressives have told us that the United States should adopt a health care system similar to that of Sweden. At present, the most celebrated advocate of this approach is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Oddly, he has been silent about the Swedish approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike most of their EU counterparts, Sweden’s government officials have refused to overreact. Other than closing high schools and colleges, they haven’t imposed the kind of Draconian measures that most European countries have adopted. Sweden’s borders remain open, as do its preschools, grade schools and restaurants. Even its ski slopes are still open. In other words, life in Sweden continues essentially unchanged.
Why hasn’t Sanders recommended that the United States emulate Sweden’s approach to the pandemic? There is a small but growing cadre of serious epidemiologists that might endorse that position. They aren’t in denial about the seriousness of the COVID-19 epidemic. Yet they are dubious about the assumptions upon which government officials, particularly at the state and local level, have based their extreme countermeasures. Our officials have, according to these “pandemic skeptics,” shut down schools, restaurants and businesses based on woefully incomplete data. How incomplete? Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis answered that question in no uncertain terms two weeks ago:
The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to [COVID-19] are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.
The testing to which Ioannidis refers involves large scale serological surveys. In order to accurately assess how widespread the infection really is, these tests must be carefully monitored and randomly administered. The latter feature is essential in order to ensure that the resultant data are truly representative of the population. Selection bias is so pervasive in the statistics now available that Ioannidis has correctly labeled them an “evidence fiasco.” He goes on thus: “Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror—and are meaningless.” Yet this is the information reported in the media and used by government officials to wreck our economy.
Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, seems to grasp the reality that Ioannidis is getting at—unlike most of his counterparts in neighboring countries. The fatality rate used by the World Health Organization is arrived at by dividing the number of deaths caused by COVID-19 by the number of confirmed cases. As of 6:15 p.m. Sunday, confirmed cases worldwide stood at 719,414 and deaths stood at 33,901. Dividing the latter by the former produces a 4.7% death rate. This death rate is, however, too high by many orders of magnitude because the denominator (719,414) only accounts for confirmed cases. Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford’s Center for Population Health Sciences explain:
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 … 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.
The only way to arrive at a reliable infection figure is by conducting the serological surveys noted above. The tests required to conduct these surveys will not merely need to detect active infections, however. They will have to detect antibodies remaining in the systems of people who have been infected in the past, perhaps without knowing it, and recovered. Deborah Birx, response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said last week that the Food and Drug Administration is already evaluating several serologic tests and hopes to approve at least one within a few weeks. Managing the logistics of conducting the surveys and ensuring that they are statistically valid will be a daunting task.
Meanwhile, Sweden is developing herd immunity by refusing to panic. Its population is about 10.2 million, and its first coronavirus case was confirmed on January 30. Since then, Sweden’s number of coronavirus deaths has totaled 110 of 3,700 confirmed cases. During the interim, due to its refusal to impose a lockdown, its actual COVID-19 infections have probably exceeded confirmed cases by several orders of magnitude. This does not, however, mean Sweden’s health officials have failed to encourage common sense measures like hand washing, social distancing, etc. The New York Times quotes Tegnell as follows: “We are trying to slow the spread enough so that we can deal with the patients coming in.”
But where is Bernie Sanders? Why isn’t he praising the Swedish response to the COVID-19 pandemic? Perhaps it is because the country’s officials have approached the pandemic in a way that maximizes individual choice. As Tegnell puts it, “That’s the way we work in Sweden. Our whole system for communicable disease control is based on voluntary action.” And there’s the rub. Bernie Sanders is a statist. The Swedes have been there and done that. They prefer liberty. Maybe we should try that once again in the U.S.
For years, progressives have told us that the United States should adopt a health care system similar to that of Sweden. At present, the most celebrated advocate of this approach is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Oddly, he has been silent about the Swedish approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike most of their EU counterparts, Sweden’s government officials have refused to overreact. Other than closing high schools and colleges, they haven’t imposed the kind of Draconian measures that most European countries have adopted. Sweden’s borders remain open, as do its preschools, grade schools and restaurants. Even its ski slopes are still open. In other words, life in Sweden continues essentially unchanged.
Why hasn’t Sanders recommended that the United States emulate Sweden’s approach to the pandemic? There is a small but growing cadre of serious epidemiologists that might endorse that position. They aren’t in denial about the seriousness of the COVID-19 epidemic. Yet they are dubious about the assumptions upon which government officials, particularly at the state and local level, have based their extreme countermeasures. Our officials have, according to these “pandemic skeptics,” shut down schools, restaurants and businesses based on woefully incomplete data. How incomplete? Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis answered that question in no uncertain terms two weeks ago:
The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to [COVID-19] are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.
The testing to which Ioannidis refers involves large scale serological surveys. In order to accurately assess how widespread the infection really is, these tests must be carefully monitored and randomly administered. The latter feature is essential in order to ensure that the resultant data are truly representative of the population. Selection bias is so pervasive in the statistics now available that Ioannidis has correctly labeled them an “evidence fiasco.” He goes on thus: “Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror—and are meaningless.” Yet this is the information reported in the media and used by government officials to wreck our economy.
Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, seems to grasp the reality that Ioannidis is getting at—unlike most of his counterparts in neighboring countries. The fatality rate used by the World Health Organization is arrived at by dividing the number of deaths caused by COVID-19 by the number of confirmed cases. As of 6:15 p.m. Sunday, confirmed cases worldwide stood at 719,414 and deaths stood at 33,901. Dividing the latter by the former produces a 4.7% death rate. This death rate is, however, too high by many orders of magnitude because the denominator (719,414) only accounts for confirmed cases. Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford’s Center for Population Health Sciences explain:
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 … 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.
The only way to arrive at a reliable infection figure is by conducting the serological surveys noted above. The tests required to conduct these surveys will not merely need to detect active infections, however. They will have to detect antibodies remaining in the systems of people who have been infected in the past, perhaps without knowing it, and recovered. Deborah Birx, response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said last week that the Food and Drug Administration is already evaluating several serologic tests and hopes to approve at least one within a few weeks. Managing the logistics of conducting the surveys and ensuring that they are statistically valid will be a daunting task.
Meanwhile, Sweden is developing herd immunity by refusing to panic. Its population is about 10.2 million, and its first coronavirus case was confirmed on January 30. Since then, Sweden’s number of coronavirus deaths has totaled 110 of 3,700 confirmed cases. During the interim, due to its refusal to impose a lockdown, its actual COVID-19 infections have probably exceeded confirmed cases by several orders of magnitude. This does not, however, mean Sweden’s health officials have failed to encourage common sense measures like hand washing, social distancing, etc. The New York Times quotes Tegnell as follows: “We are trying to slow the spread enough so that we can deal with the patients coming in.”
But where is Bernie Sanders? Why isn’t he praising the Swedish response to the COVID-19 pandemic? Perhaps it is because the country’s officials have approached the pandemic in a way that maximizes individual choice. As Tegnell puts it, “That’s the way we work in Sweden. Our whole system for communicable disease control is based on voluntary action.” And there’s the rub. Bernie Sanders is a statist. The Swedes have been there and done that. They prefer liberty. Maybe we should try that once again in the U.S.
Kwood, are you sure there was a baby in Missouri? I don’t see anything about that online so if true I’m sure it’d get more press (since the IL one has and it’s not even confirmed due to Covid-19). Here’s an article from StL today talking about the baby in Illinois, so maybe the St. Louis news was talking about the one in Illinois?
https://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles...cle_0c6931bc-54ac-5b64-a9fb-28dbbd84ec48.html
In terms of the “it only kills old people” argument, maybe it’s splitting hairs but I’m pretty sure some college kids still would’ve been partying even if they heard “it’s a lot more likely to kill old people” instead of “it only kills old people.” And it still seems to be true that it’s a lot more likely to kill old people. Are there any stats about the ages of the US deaths? I know I’ve seen quite a few stories of under-40 deaths, but not sure if it’s just that we’re basically seeing stories about ALL younger deaths.
According to this, there have been 2,650 US deaths (speaking of, did new deaths decline yesterday vs 3/28?). Even if 50 (just making up a number) of those were under 40, that’s only 2% of deaths for a virus with a ~2% (seemingly on the higher side) death rate, which I think still qualifies as low-risk for young people.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles...cle_0c6931bc-54ac-5b64-a9fb-28dbbd84ec48.html
In terms of the “it only kills old people” argument, maybe it’s splitting hairs but I’m pretty sure some college kids still would’ve been partying even if they heard “it’s a lot more likely to kill old people” instead of “it only kills old people.” And it still seems to be true that it’s a lot more likely to kill old people. Are there any stats about the ages of the US deaths? I know I’ve seen quite a few stories of under-40 deaths, but not sure if it’s just that we’re basically seeing stories about ALL younger deaths.
According to this, there have been 2,650 US deaths (speaking of, did new deaths decline yesterday vs 3/28?). Even if 50 (just making up a number) of those were under 40, that’s only 2% of deaths for a virus with a ~2% (seemingly on the higher side) death rate, which I think still qualifies as low-risk for young people.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Last edited:
Speaking of politics...
You do realize that Shitheel admitted the reason he wants this pandemic swept under the rug is to help his re-election?
If the US remotely had their sh$t together, this is what we should be doing and could get back to normal again.
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-germany-covid-19-immunity-certificates-testing-social-distancing-lockdown-2020-3%3famp
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-germany-covid-19-immunity-certificates-testing-social-distancing-lockdown-2020-3%3famp
Similar threads
