Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011 
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Mar 3, 2020 15:37:52 GMT
Simple facts stay at home and send the teenagers out to shop. They would shrug it off like a weekend hangover. Sorted 
Big Business oppertunity here, Set up company of teenagers to do Dog walking and or shopping for the Self Isolated.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 3, 2020 16:28:23 GMT
Diamond Princess cohort update 634 cases of whom 328 were asymptomatic cases Deaths - 7 (of whom we know at least 5 were elderly: 70s/80s. Not all details of the others available when I looked). So I would extrapolate: - There are many asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases out there - This means the death rates are probably significantly lower than previous estimates - even in a high risk cohort (with many elderly people on a cruise) the rate is around 1% (unless there are some people yet to die - could be some still very unwell) - in a less skewed population the death rate will be less than 1% (as the earlier link I posted suggests) - like 'flu it is overwhelmingly the elderly and already ill that are at risk (plus healthcare workers it seems - good luck with the emergency plan of getting elderly retired doctors back into the health service) The problem here is one's definition of death rate. Using your looser definition, a 1% guess might well be correct, but we'll never know because the official bodies like WHO that record these things aren't interested in asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases. Their definition of death rate has always been based on deaths over known and recorded cases, once the virus has died out. COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be 'Considerably Less than 1%' "...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." www.medscape.com/viewarticle/926089It's wrong for these authors to conflate a 1% guess based on a very loose definition with the SARS and MERS metric based on a very different definition. No scientist worth listening to would make such a basic error. For all anyone knows, there were probably thousands of SARS mild, asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases too. Are they being considered? No. It's a fundamental imperative of any researcher to compare like-for-like, if they expect to be taken seriously. The Diamond Princess is one case which supports a (minimum of) 1% rate, but it's pretty meaningless in isolation. I could equally choose USA which supports a 6% rate (6 deaths in 103 cases). Meanwhile, sticking with WHO's definition, Italy, Iran, Hong Kong, France, Japan, USA and China all individually exhibit a death rate far exceeding 1%... and that's if all their remaining known and recorded cases survive (unlikely). One oddity is South Korea whose fatality rate is well below these others. And certain countries like Germany and Spain have a cracking record so far - dozens of cases but no fatalities to date. In most countries the numbers are too low for any statistical analysis yet, one hot spot may have a lot of older people involved, and a high death rate, and another only young people, and a low death rate. The Diamond Princess was probably weighted to older people. Edit: South Korea is also reporting very few recoveries as well as very few deaths...
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 3, 2020 16:58:06 GMT
Well whatever else you want to say about it, its bringing out "the best" from the religious zealots/nut cases. To add to South Korea's followers of the second messiah or whatever he is, and the Iranian clerics wanting to keep places of mass worship open as "centres of healing", we can add the following contributions to the annual Darwin awards.
Brazil investigates church's 'immunisation' gathering
Authorities in Brazil have opened an investigation into an evangelical church - known as the Global Cathedral of the Holy Spirit - in the city of Porto Alegre.
The church had promoted one of its gatherings as a way of "immunising" its followers against coronavirus, Efe news agency reports.
A reporter for Spanish newspaper El Pais tweeted about the police investigation and included a poster image for the gathering that reads: "The power of God against the coronavirus." -----------
Iran holy-shrine-lickers face prison
Two men in Iran who defied coronavirus health warnings could be jailed and flogged after videos circulated of them licking holy shrines.
..a man is filmed saying he is there to lick the shrine, "so the disease can go inside my body and others can visit it with no anxiety".
-------
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 3, 2020 17:15:55 GMT
Diamond Princess cohort update 634 cases of whom 328 were asymptomatic cases Deaths - 7 (of whom we know at least 5 were elderly: 70s/80s. Not all details of the others available when I looked). So I would extrapolate: - There are many asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases out there - This means the death rates are probably significantly lower than previous estimates - even in a high risk cohort (with many elderly people on a cruise) the rate is around 1% (unless there are some people yet to die - could be some still very unwell) - in a less skewed population the death rate will be less than 1% (as the earlier link I posted suggests) - like 'flu it is overwhelmingly the elderly and already ill that are at risk (plus healthcare workers it seems - good luck with the emergency plan of getting elderly retired doctors back into the health service) The problem here is one's definition of death rate. Using your looser definition, a 1% guess might well be correct, but we'll never know because the official bodies like WHO that record these things aren't interested in asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases. Their definition of death rate has always been based on deaths over known and recorded cases, once the virus has died out. COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be 'Considerably Less than 1%' "...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." www.medscape.com/viewarticle/926089It's wrong for these authors to conflate a 1% guess based on a very loose definition with the SARS and MERS metric based on a very different definition. No scientist worth listening to would make such a basic error. For all anyone knows, there were probably thousands of SARS mild, asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases too. Are they being considered? No. It's a fundamental imperative of any researcher to compare like-for-like, if they expect to be taken seriously. The Diamond Princess is one case which supports a (minimum of) 1% rate, but it's pretty meaningless in isolation. I could equally choose USA which supports a 6% rate (6 deaths in 103 cases). Meanwhile, sticking with WHO's definition, Italy, Iran, Hong Kong, France, Japan, USA and China all individually exhibit a death rate far exceeding 1%... and that's if all their remaining known and recorded cases survive (unlikely). One oddity is South Korea whose fatality rate is well below these others. And certain countries like Germany and Spain have a cracking record so far - dozens of cases but no fatalities to date. No, that wouldn't be comparable - the thing about the Diamond Princess is that everyone on board was tested, so we have a definite infection rate. In the US, all the deaths will be recorded, but not all the cases: many will be asymptomatic and missed. And the Diamond Princess is likely to be skewed to the more at risk population (i.e. older than average). So I agree that you have to compare like with like. But the thing about SARS and MERS is that I think there were fewer mild cases - so the case ascertainment rate is likely to have been better (and hence also case-to-case transmission was slower/more difficult). It is because COVID-19 is milder that it is being spread more widely. We probably disagree on this, and I accept that there remain many uncertainties and that a conservative approach has some merits, but I remain of the view I have had from early on that this is medically a less severe condition than has been suggested by many people. There has at times been a rather sneering approach (as seems to be the zeitgeist) to experts, who have made estimates of relatively low mortality rates. It is also increasingly clear that the main economic (and indeed secondary adverse health) effects will be from the potentially draconian attempts to contain, psychological effects on populations, domino effects in supply chains, demands on healthcare facilities, etc. Finally, I would suggest that the oddity is not S Korea, nor Germany/Spain, but Wuhan - everywhere else has much lower mortality rates.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,619
Likes: 1,741
|
Post by benaj on Mar 3, 2020 17:19:43 GMT
Diamond Princess cohort update 634 cases of whom 328 were asymptomatic cases Deaths - 7 (of whom we know at least 5 were elderly: 70s/80s. Not all details of the others available when I looked). So I would extrapolate: - There are many asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases out there - This means the death rates are probably significantly lower than previous estimates - even in a high risk cohort (with many elderly people on a cruise) the rate is around 1% (unless there are some people yet to die - could be some still very unwell) - in a less skewed population the death rate will be less than 1% (as the earlier link I posted suggests) - like 'flu it is overwhelmingly the elderly and already ill that are at risk (plus healthcare workers it seems - good luck with the emergency plan of getting elderly retired doctors back into the health service) The problem here is one's definition of death rate. Using your looser definition, a 1% guess might well be correct, but we'll never know because the official bodies like WHO that record these things aren't interested in asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases. Their definition of death rate has always been based on deaths over known and recorded cases, once the virus has died out. COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be 'Considerably Less than 1%' "...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." www.medscape.com/viewarticle/926089It's wrong for these authors to conflate a 1% guess based on a very loose definition with the SARS and MERS metric based on a very different definition. No scientist worth listening to would make such a basic error. For all anyone knows, there were probably thousands of SARS mild, asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases too. Are they being considered? No. It's a fundamental imperative of any researcher to compare like-for-like, if they expect to be taken seriously. The Diamond Princess is one case which supports a (minimum of) 1% rate, but it's pretty meaningless in isolation. I could equally choose USA which supports a 6% rate (6 deaths in 103 cases). Meanwhile, sticking with WHO's definition, Italy, Iran, Hong Kong, France, Japan, USA and China all individually exhibit a death rate far exceeding 1%... and that's if all their remaining known and recorded cases survive (unlikely). One oddity is South Korea whose fatality rate is well below these others. And certain countries like Germany and Spain have a cracking record so far - dozens of cases but no fatalities to date. The oddity in South Korea could be explained with the demographics of the cult. I don't think the elders are actively spreading the virus. Meanwhile Iran has amazing recovery rate in such a short time, 435 patients recovered and no cases in critical condition, it has 3 x more recovery rates than Italy while Italy has only 300 fewer ”confirmed cases”.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 3, 2020 18:08:47 GMT
Breaking news from the BBC:
17:36
BreakingCovid-19 fatality rate is 3.4% - WHO
The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) says about 3.4% of those confirmed to have been infected with the new coronavirus have died - which is much higher than the fatality rate for seasonal flu, at less than 1%.
Also:
Health experts believe the evidence from China suggests that Covid-19 is not generally transmitted by people who have no symptoms (flu can be), and that in general the virus does not transmit as efficiently as flu.
However the proportion of people who become severely ill or die from Covid-19 is higher than with flu. The mortality rate at the moment from Covid-19 is around 3.4%, whereas with flu it is under 1%. This may change once results from serological studies come in.
I think that is a good news/bad news storyline.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 3, 2020 18:22:23 GMT
Breaking news from the BBC:
17:36
BreakingCovid-19 fatality rate is 3.4% - WHO
The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) says about 3.4% of those confirmed to have been infected with the new coronavirus have died - which is much higher than the fatality rate for seasonal flu, at less than 1%.
Also:
Health experts believe the evidence from China suggests that Covid-19 is not generally transmitted by people who have no symptoms (flu can be), and that in general the virus does not transmit as efficiently as flu.
However the proportion of people who become severely ill or die from Covid-19 is higher than with flu. The mortality rate at the moment from Covid-19 is around 3.4%, whereas with flu it is under 1%. This may change once results from serological studies come in.
I think that is a good news/bad news storyline.
If 3.4% holds out that is higher than previous estimates, but I wonder if it is skewed by the Wuhan data where the majority of deaths have occurred. The lack of asymptomatic transmission is good news for containment measures.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 3, 2020 18:26:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 3, 2020 18:30:35 GMT
Breaking news from the BBC:
17:36
BreakingCovid-19 fatality rate is 3.4% - WHO
The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) says about 3.4% of those confirmed to have been infected with the new coronavirus have died - which is much higher than the fatality rate for seasonal flu, at less than 1%.
Also:
Health experts believe the evidence from China suggests that Covid-19 is not generally transmitted by people who have no symptoms (flu can be), and that in general the virus does not transmit as efficiently as flu.
However the proportion of people who become severely ill or die from Covid-19 is higher than with flu. The mortality rate at the moment from Covid-19 is around 3.4%, whereas with flu it is under 1%. This may change once results from serological studies come in.
I think that is a good news/bad news storyline.
... The lack of asymptomatic transmission is good news for containment measures. Certainly is. Interesting that this statement regarding "does not transmit as efficiently as flu." seems to be in contradiction with the statement he made 24 hours previously (which I referenced further up thread) that they had never had a pathogen which transferred person to person so easily. Slightly odd, but I may be misinterpreting one or other of those statements.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Mar 3, 2020 18:49:36 GMT
I don't think you're misinterpreting anything. It's just an evolving situation. Let's just hope the virus isn't evolving!
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Mar 3, 2020 21:00:23 GMT
The problem here is one's definition of death rate. Using your looser definition, a 1% guess might well be correct, but we'll never know because the official bodies like WHO that record these things aren't interested in asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases. Their definition of death rate has always been based on deaths over known and recorded cases, once the virus has died out. It's wrong for these authors to conflate a 1% guess based on a very loose definition with the SARS and MERS metric based on a very different definition. No scientist worth listening to would make such a basic error. For all anyone knows, there were probably thousands of SARS mild, asymptomatic, undiagnosed cases too. Are they being considered? No. It's a fundamental imperative of any researcher to compare like-for-like, if they expect to be taken seriously. The Diamond Princess is one case which supports a (minimum of) 1% rate, but it's pretty meaningless in isolation. I could equally choose USA which supports a 6% rate (6 deaths in 103 cases). Meanwhile, sticking with WHO's definition, Italy, Iran, Hong Kong, France, Japan, USA and China all individually exhibit a death rate far exceeding 1%... and that's if all their remaining known and recorded cases survive (unlikely). One oddity is South Korea whose fatality rate is well below these others. And certain countries like Germany and Spain have a cracking record so far - dozens of cases but no fatalities to date. No, that wouldn't be comparable - the thing about the Diamond Princess is that everyone on board was tested, so we have a definite infection rate. In the US, all the deaths will be recorded, but not all the cases: many will be asymptomatic and missed. And the Diamond Princess is likely to be skewed to the more at risk population (i.e. older than average). So I agree that you have to compare like with like. But the thing about SARS and MERS is that I think there were fewer mild cases - so the case ascertainment rate is likely to have been better (and hence also case-to-case transmission was slower/more difficult). It is because COVID-19 is milder that it is being spread more widely. We probably disagree on this, and I accept that there remain many uncertainties and that a conservative approach has some merits, but I remain of the view I have had from early on that this is medically a less severe condition than has been suggested by many people. There has at times been a rather sneering approach (as seems to be the zeitgeist) to experts, who have made estimates of relatively low mortality rates. It is also increasingly clear that the main economic (and indeed secondary adverse health) effects will be from the potentially draconian attempts to contain, psychological effects on populations, domino effects in supply chains, demands on healthcare facilities, etc. Finally, I would suggest that the oddity is not S Korea, nor Germany/Spain, but Wuhan - everywhere else has much lower mortality rates. Some fair points, as ever, and I'm not sure we've ever disagreed to any extent that matters: we've each made some valid points in questioning/supporting what we're being fed by the experts. I would question, though, whether the severity of an infection is particularly linked to its spread? Spanish Flu seemed more deadly YET spread like wildfire (they say you could leave for work in the morning and be dead by evening  ). EDIT: I later realised that by "milder" you meant people didn't know they were carrying it. Fair enough. Yes, the experts have been criticised, but with a certain amount of justification I think. It's taken them two months to catch up with the reality the figures have been portraying for some time. Their latest figure is at least plausible, finally. It's hugely encouraging that they believe it's well below the SARS 9.6% rate, thankfully. With hindsight, they'll probably say they should not have been drawn at the outset to estimate a figure at all, until things became clearer.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Mar 3, 2020 21:07:07 GMT
Some fair points, as ever, and I'm not sure we've ever disagreed to any extent that matters: we've each made some valid points in questioning/supporting what we're being fed by the experts. Well said sir.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Mar 3, 2020 21:13:34 GMT
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 3, 2020 22:33:06 GMT
No, that wouldn't be comparable - the thing about the Diamond Princess is that everyone on board was tested, so we have a definite infection rate. In the US, all the deaths will be recorded, but not all the cases: many will be asymptomatic and missed. And the Diamond Princess is likely to be skewed to the more at risk population (i.e. older than average). So I agree that you have to compare like with like. But the thing about SARS and MERS is that I think there were fewer mild cases - so the case ascertainment rate is likely to have been better (and hence also case-to-case transmission was slower/more difficult). It is because COVID-19 is milder that it is being spread more widely. We probably disagree on this, and I accept that there remain many uncertainties and that a conservative approach has some merits, but I remain of the view I have had from early on that this is medically a less severe condition than has been suggested by many people. There has at times been a rather sneering approach (as seems to be the zeitgeist) to experts, who have made estimates of relatively low mortality rates. It is also increasingly clear that the main economic (and indeed secondary adverse health) effects will be from the potentially draconian attempts to contain, psychological effects on populations, domino effects in supply chains, demands on healthcare facilities, etc. Finally, I would suggest that the oddity is not S Korea, nor Germany/Spain, but Wuhan - everywhere else has much lower mortality rates. Some fair points, as ever, and I'm not sure we've ever disagreed to any extent that matters: we've each made some valid points in questioning/supporting what we're being fed by the experts. I would question, though, whether the severity of an infection is particularly linked to its spread? Spanish Flu seemed more deadly YET spread like wildfire (they say you could leave for work in the morning and be dead by evening ). EDIT: I later realised that by "milder" you meant people didn't know they were carrying it. Fair enough. Yes, the experts have been criticised, but with a certain amount of justification I think. It's taken them two months to catch up with the reality the figures have been portraying for some time. Their latest figure is at least plausible, finally. It's hugely encouraging that they believe it's well below the SARS 9.6% rate, thankfully. With hindsight, they'll probably say they should not have been drawn at the outset to estimate a figure at all, until things became clearer. Or were well enough to carry on and spread it around a bit before they were incapacitated and/or realised they had something serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 22:44:26 GMT
Finally, I would suggest that the oddity is not S Korea, nor Germany/Spain, but Wuhan - everywhere else has much lower mortality rates. Maybe thats because Wuhan is an example of what happens when medical facilities *DO* get overwhelmed...
|
|
). EDIT: I later realised that by "milder" you meant people didn't know they were carrying it. Fair enough.