Jump to content
Gordo

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
      14
    • Partially vaccinated
      0
    • Not Vaccinated
      5
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
      14
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
      3
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
      3
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
      3
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
      4
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
      0
    • Fear of needles
      0
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
      0
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
      0
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
      2
    • Vaccine not available where I live
      0
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      2


Recommended Posts

PA has been doing the mandatory mask thing for a while, I don't think its that big of a deal.  But it is hard talking to people when you can't see lips moving sometimes 😉

If the choice is between an annoying but perhaps "can live with it" plague that never goes away, vs. all out China style war to stamp it out completely so we have severe short term pain but wipe it out and never have to deal with it again, which do you choose?  But is the later really a choice?  I mean it would pretty much have to be done worldwide, simultaneously, and with everyone on board and in agreement about it - seems kind of impossible to me.  I remember seeing some video clip of Bill Gates talking about having everyone just buy 30 days worth of food, and do total and complete shutdown/isolation for 30 days which in theory would wipe out almost any pandemic plague (I don't remember if he said that as a hypothetical, before SARS-CoV-2 even arrived, or if it was recent).  If you really thought it could be done and would work, 30 days doesn't seem all that bad.  But there are probably too many people that either wouldn't or couldn't do it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TomBAvoider said:

But if there is no herd immunity to be had, then there are three main takeaways - huddle at home waiting for a vaccine

This might depend on the definition of immunity.  Someone might not gain adaptive immunity as measured by an antibody test if their innate immune system shuts the virus down so efficiently that an adaptive immune response is unneeded in which case the person is still effectively immune and unlikely to spread the virus.

On the other hand if immunity is weak or short lived due to rapid viral mutation vaccines may not help as much as hoped.

I think the best alternative is to eat healthy foods in moderation, manage stress, adopt good sleep habits, get active, get sunshine and address whatever other issues are contributing to poor health.  Other than staff in hospitals with inadequate PPE people in good health seem to rarely develop severe disease from Covid-19.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gordo said:

Lots of unpleasant coronavirus updates today:

It seems like the most dramatic increases in new cases are in hot places.  Kind of the opposite of expectations for typical flu seasonality.  I wonder though if people escaping the heat staying inside in air conditioned spaces are spreading Covid-19 as effectively as those staying inside to avoid the coldness of winter spread flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Characteristics Associated With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests and Resuscitations During the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in New York City
Pamela H. Lai, MD, PhD, MSc1; Elizabeth A. Lancet, DrPH, MPH1; Michael D. Weiden, MS, MD2,3; et alMayris P. Webber, DrPH, MPH2,4; Rachel Zeig-Owens, DrPH, MPH2,4,5; Charles B. Hall, PhD6; David J. Prezant, MD1,2,5
JAMA Cardiol. Published online June 19, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2488
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2767649?guestAccessKey=dcbff6ac-bc56-4eec-95b0-d8000e0e10a9&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=061920
editorial comment icon Editorial
Key Points
Question  What characteristics are associated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and death during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City?
Findings  In this population-based cross-sectional study of 5325 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, the number undergoing resuscitation was 3-fold higher during the 2020 COVID-19 period compared with during the comparison period in 2019. Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during 2020 were older, less likely to be white, and more likely to have specific comorbidities and substantial reductions in return and sustained return of spontaneous circulation.
Meaning  Identifying patients at risk for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and death during the COVID-19 pandemic should lead to interventions in the outpatient setting to help reduce out-of-hospital deaths.
Abstract
Importance  Risk factors for out-of-hospital death due to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are poorly defined. From March 1 to April 25, 2020, New York City, New York (NYC), reported 17 118 COVID-19–related deaths. On April 6, 2020, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests peaked at 305 cases, nearly a 10-fold increase from the prior year.
Objective  To describe the characteristics (race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and emergency medical services [EMS] response) associated with outpatient cardiac arrests and death during the COVID-19 pandemic in NYC.
Design, Setting, and Participants  This population-based, cross-sectional study compared patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving resuscitation by the NYC 911 EMS system from March 1 to April 25, 2020, compared with March 1 to April 25, 2019. The NYC 911 EMS system serves more than 8.4 million people.
Exposures  The COVID-19 pandemic.
Main Outcomes and Measures  Characteristics associated with out-of-hospital arrests and the outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
Results  A total of 5325 patients were included in the main analysis (2935 men [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [18] years), 3989 in the COVID-19 period and 1336 in the comparison period. The incidence of nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in those who underwent EMS resuscitation in 2020 was 3 times the incidence in 2019 (47.5/100 000 vs 15.9/100 000). Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during 2020 were older (mean [SD] age, 72 [18] vs 68 [19] years), less likely to be white (611 of 2992 [20.4%] vs 382 of 1161 [32.9%]), and more likely to have hypertension (2134 of 3989 [53.5%] vs 611 of 1336 [45.7%]), diabetes (1424 of 3989 [35.7%] vs 348 of 1336 [26.0%]), and physical limitations (2259 of 3989 [56.6%] vs 634 of 1336 [47.5%]). Compared with 2019, the odds of asystole increased in the COVID-19 period (odds ratio [OR], 3.50; 95% CI, 2.53-4.84; P < .001), as did the odds of pulseless electrical activity (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.02; P = .001). Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (727 of 3989 patients [18.2%] vs 463 of 1336 patients [34.7%], P < .001) and sustained ROSC (423 of 3989 patients [10.6%] vs 337 of 1336 patients [25.2%], P < .001), with fatality rates exceeding 90%. These associations remained statistically significant after adjustment for potential confounders (OR for ROSC, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.50-0.70; P < .001]; OR for sustained ROSC, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.43-0.64; P < .001]).
Conclusions and Relevance  In this population-based, cross-sectional study, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased compared with the same period the previous year and were associated with older age, nonwhite race/ethnicity, hypertension, diabetes, physical limitations, and nonshockable presenting rhythms. Identifying patients with the greatest risk for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and death during the COVID-19 pandemic should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Editor's Note
Heroism in the Face of the Pandemic
Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, SM; Roxana Mehran, MD; Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD; Robert O. Bonow, MD, MS
JAMA Cardiol. Published online June 19, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2493
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2767648
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, firefighter-certified first responders, emergency medical technicians, and paramedics have been the tip of the spear fighting coronavirus. First responders have triaged, resuscitated, and transported thousands of people affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The American people owe a debt of gratitude for the heroic work they have done.
In this issue of JAMA Cardiology, the report of Lai and colleagues1 highlights the dramatic burden that COVID-19 has placed on first response systems. At the height of the pandemic, New York City (NYC) emergency medical systems (EMS) responders attended to nearly 6 times the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests compared with the same period in 2019. This represents the tip of a massive iceberg; at the same time, the cumulative incidence of EMS calls for respiratory symptoms and fever skyrocketed. Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the “City that Never Sleeps” was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night.
Despite this surge, Lai et al1 report that quality of care delivered by NYC EMS responders remained remarkably stable, with response times for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the first 911 call only rising from 5:05 to 5:56 minutes. The observed excess in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests probably represents a combination of severe COVID-19 infection and deterioration from other illnesses. The rate of successful resuscitations declined in the COVID-19 period compared with the control period, partially reflecting changing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest demographics in the pandemic (eg, older patients and a greater proportion presenting with asystole or pulseless electrical activity). Although the relative success of resuscitations fell, NYC first responders achieved a return of sustained spontaneous circulation in 423 adults between March 1 and April 25, 2020.
First responders to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation measures dramatically increase the risk of exposure, particularly when they occur emergently and outside the hospital. Sadly, many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection. Like the first responders who rushed into the World Trade Center towers on September 11, first responders in NYC and across the nation have and continue to put their lives at risk to save lives.
On behalf of the editors of JAMA Cardiology, we commend the courage and dedication of first responders in NYC and across the nation, and we thank them for all they do. As of June 1, 29 United States EMS workers and volunteers have died of COVID-19.2 We honor the memory of James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina. We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago, Gordo wrote:

On 6/15/2020 at 8:58 PM, Gordo said:

Or maybe not. Looks like there is widespread calls for a retraction of the PNAS paper on which this headline and story are based. From this story in the NY Times:

A group of leading scientists is calling on a journal to retract a paper on the effectiveness of masks, saying the study has “egregious errors” and contains numerous “verifiably false” statements.

The scientists wrote a letter to the journal editors on Thursday, asking them to retract the study immediately “given the scope and severity of the issues we present, and the paper’s outsized and immediate public impact.”

The study claimed that mask-wearing “significantly reduces the number of infections” with the coronavirus and that “other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public.” It also said that airborne transmission was the primary way the virus spreads.

Experts said the paper’s conclusions were similar to those from others — masks do work — but they objected to the methodology as deeply flawed. The researchers assumed that behaviors changed immediately after policy changes, for example, and the study failed to take into account the seismic changes occurring across societies that may have affected the reported incidence of infection.

“There is evidence from other studies that masks help reduce transmission of Covid-19, but this paper does not add to that evidence,” said Linsey Marr, an expert on airborne transmission of viruses at Virginia Tech. (Dr. Molina was Dr. Marr’s postdoctoral adviser.)

I was dubious of the paper when Gordo posted the link. It looked like a pretty naive example of curve fitting to me. In this graph from the paper:

20200619_141853.jpg

the facts that the cases start coming down before face masks were mandated in NY and that there is a delay between an intervention and a decrease in new cases on the order of several weeks, suggests it was interventions that occurred before the mask mandate that were made the difference. Masks wearing (often voluntary) was probably part of the reason for the decrease, but the paper itself and especially the Forbes article Gordo posted seem to suggest mask wearing was the primary beneficial intervention, and the social distancing and stay-at-home orders were either ineffective or minor players in slowing the spread. This doesn't seem to be at all supported by the available data, as the scientists calling for retraction seem to be arguing.

--Dean

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-explains-why-new-study-in-new-england-journal-of-medicine-may-point-to-nitric-oxide-as-successful-treatment-for-covid-19-301071666.html

 

nitric oxide? Yes it appears to be a major factor in covid death and studies are being conducted. This could explain the connections to high blood pressure, CAD, and diabetes. People with those diseases often have compromised nitric oxide production. Nitric oxide Production is also strongly Correlated with aging.

so eat your greens and add a bit of vinegar while your at it!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973479/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29263222/

Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMF Forecasts Deeper Global Recession From Growing Virus Threat

 

  • Fund projects 4.9% contraction in 2020 versus 3% previously
  • Financial markets seen as ‘disconnected’ from economic outlook

The International Monetary Fund downgraded its outlook for the coronavirus-ravaged world economy, projecting a significantly deeper recession and slower recovery than it anticipated just two months ago. The fund said Wednesday it now expected global gross domestic product to shrink 4.9% this year, more than the 3% predicted in April. For 2021, the fund forecast growth of 5.4%, down from 5.8%.

Having already warned of the biggest slump since the Great Depression, the IMF said its increased pessimism reflected scarring from a larger-than-anticipated supply shock during the earlier lockdown, in addition to the continued hit to demand from social distancing and other safety measures. For nations struggling to control the virus spread, a longer lockdown also will take a toll on growth, the IMF said.

“With the relentless spread of the pandemic, prospects of long-lasting negative consequences for livelihoods, job security and inequality have grown more daunting,” the lender said in its update to the World Economic Outlook.

The IMF warned that the rebound in global financial-market sentiment “appears disconnected from shifts in underlying economic prospects,” raising the possibility that financial conditions will tighten more than forecast in its core scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Gregor's latest has a couple of interesting charts:

The first reports that BMI >= 28 increases risk nearly 6 fold.

image.png.9f1a5119ad1339bafcda37be2b910085.png

The second notes that the average BMI is over that threshold

image.png.4a5950357f42ad580b6438bf458f8e11.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 2:51 PM, corybroo said:

The first reports that BMI >= 28 increases risk nearly 6 fold.

And since BMI >= 28 includes includes healthy heavily muscled people the risk for men who are obese could be worse...  

Edited by Todd Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 11:31 AM, Mike41 said:

nitric oxide? Yes it appears to be a major factor in covid death and studies are being conducted. This could explain the connections to high blood pressure, CAD, and diabetes.

 

It is a factor in both bacterial and viral infections and resulting inflammation and this has been known for a long time (since the early 20th century, if I recall). I've read wide applications, from lowering blood pressure to helping asthma, and under certain circumstances being beneficial in viral and bacterial infections, but detrimental in others.  It hasn't come to much in the past, and it's unlikely to be different with respect to Covid-19.

Nitric oxide and virus infection

Biological consequences of NO generation and implications for pathogenesis of virus infections are discussed by illustrating NO‐modulated non‐specific and virus‐specific immune responses of the hosts. Free radicals are produced primarily as effector molecules of the host defence response. Their biological effects, however, are not necessarily beneficial to the infected host. Understanding of the pathophysiological functions of NO and oxygen radicals will provide profound insights into many aspects of infectious diseases.

Influenza and Asthma: A Review

Viral replication triggers both an innate and adaptive immune response.  Viral particles activate toll-like receptors (TLRs), including TLR-3 and TLR-4, which trigger an innate immune response through production of interferons.  An adaptive immune response is also generated through TLR signaling resulting in activation of both T and B cells.  Production of double stranded RNA during viral replication activates RIG-1 (retinoic acid inducible gene 1) and MDA-5 (melanoma differentiation associated gene 5) which increases production of both nitric oxide and interferons.  Interferons promote a Th1 response through increased mononuclear cell (macrophages and monocytes) activity.  These cells secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines as well as additional interferon leading to the recruitment of neutrophils and eosinophils.  This host immune response limits viral replication and ultimately infection by decreasing protein synthesis, inhibiting translation of viral messenger RNA, degrading viral proteins, and inducing cellular apoptosis.

 

3 hours ago, Gordo said:

Optimistic view on the recent surge to new all time high infections:

From today's WSJ email:

The Fed said that the largest U.S. banks are likely strong enough to survive the coronavirus crisis but warned that, in a worst-case scenario, the 33 largest U.S. banks could be hit with as much as $700 billion in loan losses.

As a result, the Fed ordered the banks to cap shareholder dividend payouts and suspend share buybacks to preserve capital. Banks, which will announce their dividend plans for next quarter as soon as Monday, won’t be able to make payouts that are greater than their average quarterly profit from the four most recent quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

“In New York, for example, the researchers’ model suggested that at least 9% of the state’s entire population was infected by the end of March. After the state conducted antibody testing on 3,000 residents, they found a 13.9% infection rate, or 2.7 million New Yorkers.

Excess ILI appears to have peaked in mid-March as, the researchers suggest, fewer patients with mild symptoms sought care and states implemented interventions which led to lower transmission rates. Nearly half of the states in the country were under stay-at-home orders by March 28.

Our results suggest that the overwhelming effects of COVID-19 may have less to do with the virus’ lethality and more to do with how quickly it was able to spread through communities initially,” Silverman explained. “A lower fatality rate coupled with a higher prevalence of disease and rapid growth of regional epidemics provides an alternative explanation to the large number of deaths and overcrowding of hospitals we have seen in certain areas of the world.”

So, cases peaked in mid-March. Add 4-14 days for the incubation period, and it means that the spread had peaked well before the lockdowns.  And we didn't even know it...  Ooops. 

Damned bad data and the economic and social disaster "great leaders" built on it.

 

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDA9147B-854F-4AA3-ACEA-EBAA0413EFC4.thumb.jpeg.1ac3ee34164dda731276907e02b2656a.jpegF8133581-FA80-498E-AF2A-565EA917CD20.jpeg.765e880f973babb26c2a598870a1f396.jpeg
It will be interesting to see what happens in these states with the spiking infections over the next month. So far we don’t see a spike in deaths, and the infections are in younger people, maybe the vulnerable and older populations are now pretty well protected vs. earlier in the pandemic... herd immunity would require a big spike in cases among the healthy under 65 cohort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

“In New York, for example, the researchers’ model suggested that at least 9% of the state’s entire population was infected by the end of March. After the state conducted antibody testing on 3,000 residents, they found a 13.9% infection rate, or 2.7 million New Yorkers.

Excess ILI appears to have peaked in mid-March as, the researchers suggest, fewer patients with mild symptoms sought care and states implemented interventions which led to lower transmission rates. Nearly half of the states in the country were under stay-at-home orders by March 28.

Our results suggest that the overwhelming effects of COVID-19 may have less to do with the virus’ lethality and more to do with how quickly it was able to spread through communities initially,” Silverman explained. “A lower fatality rate coupled with a higher prevalence of disease and rapid growth of regional epidemics provides an alternative explanation to the large number of deaths and overcrowding of hospitals we have seen in certain areas of the world.”

So, cases peaked in mid-March. Add 4-14 days for the incubation period, and it means that the spread had peaked well before the lockdowns.  And we didn't even know it...  Ooops. 

Damned bad data and the economic and social disaster "great leaders" built on it.

 

And so the death rate when factored with this would indicate  case fatality rate of about .5%
 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

this recent analysis predicts 0.6% CFR. That goes up to 5.6% for over 65. 
That’s a CFR FOR THIS AGE GROUP ABOUT 7 TIMES HIGHER THAN SEASONAL INFLUENZA! 
SO MUCH FOR THOSE WHO DOWNPLAYED THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS PANDEMIC!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gordo said:

It will be interesting to see what happens in these states with the spiking infections over the next month.

Well, the CDC now says the mortality rate is 0.26%, which is likely to drop even further, as evidence from models such as the one I posted above trickles in.  But while nobody bothers to track flu infections, because the flu is too easily transmissible for anyone to do anything about it, as stated by WHO, headlines about the spread and deaths from COvid-19 are still great clickbait and serve to define political "enemies" and as a club to publically beat them into submission.

To illustrate the absurd extent opposition forces are politicizing the pandemic, here are two headlines:

Protests against police brutality and systemic racism most likely did not spark coronavirus uptick: study

And, from the same publication:

Tulsa health official warns against Trump #MAGA rally as coronavirus cases spike

---

In other Covid-19 news:

Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows

Spanish virologists have found traces of the novel coronavirus in a sample of Barcelona waste water collected in March 2019, nine months before the COVID-19 disease was identified in China, the University of Barcelona said on Friday.

It's not peer-reviewed, but it sort of jives with reports that people in the Chinese countryside have been carriers of similar viruses for years, and some of them travel. It's also likely more reliable than the crazy and similarly not peer-reviewed Imperial Colledge models which contributed to this madness.

---


And here is something for the bold guys, although I'd take it with a large grain of salt:

Bald men might be at greater risk of dying from COVID-19, studies say

 

The good news is that a new model suggests that less than half of the population needs to be infected for herd immunity, which would make sense as this is the case with most flu epidemics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mike41 said:

this recent analysis predicts .06 CFR. That goes up to 5.6% for over 65. 
That’s a CFR FOR THIS AGE GROUP ABOUT 7 TIMES HIGHER THAN SEASONAL INFLUENZA! 
SO MUCH FOR THOSE WHO DOWNPLAYED THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS PANDEMIC!

Hm, do you even stop and look at actual stats for the deaths from influenza among the elderly?  It's much higher than 1%, which is what the claim above is, and it pushes into double digits for the very elderly.

Flu Deaths Rising for Americans Over 65

"The flu accounts for about 5 percent of all winter deaths among older Americans..."

And that's with a vaccine in place.

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Hm, do you even stop and look at actual stats for the deaths from influenza among the elderly? 

Do you? 

2 hours ago, Ron Put said:

It's much higher than 1%, which is what the claim above is, 

No, it's not. From the CDC website on the worst flu season in recently history (2017-2018), which I know you've seen since I've pointed you to it before, there were an estimated 51K deaths among 5.9M symptomatic infections among people older in 65, which equates to a CFR of 0.86% which is unequivocally not "much higher than 1%" as you claim.

In fact, Mike's estimate of "about 7 times higher than seasonal flu" which you objected to is almost exactly right (it is actually 6.5x higher).

--Dean

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a new paper demonstrating that the vast majority of the economic drop was not due to official government lockdowns, but rather individual people's decisions. So don't blame the government for most of the economic damage or turmoil, blame the virus, and blame anyone who doesn't want to participate with all known reasonable measures to reduce the viral activity such as mask wearing. Any "pro-business" leaders who are not vigorously promoting mask-wearing are shooting themselves and the economy in the foot.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 2:28 PM, Dean Pomerleau said:

No, it's not. From the CDC website on the worst flu season in recently history (2017-2018), which I know you've seen since I've pointed you to it before, there were an estimated 51K deaths among 5.9M symptomatic infections among people older in 65, which equates to a CFR of 0.86%

Hm, again.  Perhaps you should not be so quick on the draw and ignore the 5% number provided by the AARP and the virologist they cite, which is an estimate I've seen elsewhere, BTW.  

Neither the AARP, not the virologist nor the CDC, is wrong.  But you are, since you are comparing annualized (and adjusted) numbers, to essentially peak reported, raw numbers (including the likely inflated Tri-State area numbers).


If we are to compare ranges around the peak, here is an example of what CDC data will look like in 2018:

"Based on National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) mortality surveillance data available on February 8, 2018, 10.1% of the deaths occurring during the week ending January 20, 2018 (week 3) were due to P&I. This percentage is above the epidemic threshold of 7.3% for week 3

Mind you this 10.1% is part of overall mortality, across all age groups.  The CDC states that it takes three years to complete their modeling, which means that the final tally won't be available until 2023.  And remember that the initial mortality estimate for 2017-2018 started out as 90,000+ and was progressively revised down to the final 61,000 they announced this year. 

Real infection rate estimates continue to increase and the real mortality rate continues to decrease, currently estimated at 0.26%.  It is likely that when it's all said and done the Covid-19 rate will be not only significantly lower than the 1969 flu mortality rate but likely close to the 2018 flu mortality rate.  I'd pay particular attention to the less politicized worldwide death rate, which at about half a million is barely reaching half the 2018 flu rate estimate of 1-1.2 million.

 

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KHashmi317 said:

Financial Times: Coronavirus tracked: the latest figures as countries start to reopen

These scary peaks are often rather misleading, as we've discussed before.

Let's look at the select EU data on excess mortality which is used by FT.  Hover over the current week 25 for 2016 and the cumulative excess mortality is 31, 516.  Hover over the same week in 2018 and the excess mortality is 104, 002, showing an increase of 72,486.  Now hover over the same week in 2020 and the excess mortality is 194,745 (unadjusted), showing an increase of 90, 514.  So far, that's an increase difference of just over 18,000 compared to the 2018 increase.

Now, compare the above numbers to the aggregate number of annual deaths in the EU for 2016, which is 5,100,000.  Note that respiratory diseases accounted for 8% of these 5.1 million deaths, or 422,000 deaths.  This can be adjusted for the reporting countries above, as well as for population growth, but I hope that you get the point I am trying to make.  

Which is that the number of (unadjusted) Covid-19 deaths is within the range of normal death fluctuations and is not statistically significant.  Certainly not significant enough to cause the opposition- and media-driven panic and the lockdown which crashed the Western economies and likely caused an increase in deaths from untreated stroke, cancer, and heart attacks.

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×