Corona Virus

[Ken]

Sorry if my post was a bit snarky. But I really get tired of language that makes things seem worse than they really are. Republicans have been using the tactic of fearmongering for years in regards to things like terrorism, drugs, crime, etc. Now Democrats are starting to use it. This is very sad and disappointing.

Here's a hint, no one is making "things seem worse than they really are". We're all just looking at the data. Stop with the political bullshit please.

Sorry to be blunt, but I have family in the hospital with COVID right now and I get really tired of looking at bullshit like this.

[The Feral Slasher]

Yes, we can expect a corresponding increase in deaths but not until about 3 weeks from now. That's because it takes about 3 weeks for a death to be reported from a case. That's according to the CDC. Over the last 3 weeks, the increases in case rates over those from the prior week have been 11.0%, 27.0% and 16.9% respectively. So, if we get death rate increases corresponding to these, then the average deaths per day in the next 3 weeks will be 1039*1.11=1153 for the 1st week, 1.27*1153=1464 for the 2nd week and 1.169*1464=1711 for the 3rd week, which is less than 2000. Now, if you go to the 4th week, using the increase in case rates we've seen so far this week (65.6% by my calculations), you get 1.656*1711=2833. So not too much more than 3 weeks. But I think my assertion was correct.

As part of the comparison to the study I quoted you might want to check results at the 1 2 and 3 week intervals for your predictions as well as the analysis I referred to. That would be a great starting point for discussion and understanding

EDIT- sneak preview, the predicted deaths and actual deaths from Bedford's analysis tracked almost exactly for over 4 months, but may diverge significantly as of this week following Thanksgiving.

[Kevin Seitzer]

It's not my claim. The figures I cited are from COVID Tracking Project, but other sources would give similar figures. The data is what it is. There is some underreporting from Thanksgiving and the weekend but there is not going to be nearly enough from this week to push the 7-day average anywhere near 2000. The figures are virtually always higher on Tuesdays and Wednesdays so you're overestimating the significance of the numbers from those days last week. I would expect that today's figures will be high also, but that will not push the 7-day average anywhere near 2000 either. The death totals from the last 5 days are 5851. The deaths from today and tomorrow would have to be 4075 each in order to push the average to 2000. That wont happen. And there are many other things that indicate that the fall surge is levelling off. Not going down yet but levelling off.

Sorry if my post was a bit snarky. But I really get tired of language that makes things seem worse than they really are. Republicans have been using the tactic of fearmongering for years in regards to things like terrorism, drugs, crime, etc. Now Democrats are starting to use it. This is very sad and disappointing.

Things were tracking consistent with hitting a pace of 2000 deaths per 7 days some time this week, until the numbers took a sharp dip over the Thanksgiving weekend. Which is more believable: that deaths took a sudden drop while hospitalizations continue to climb, or that reporting was significantly disrupted by the holiday weekend?

[Kevin Seitzer]

I also don't really understand the substance of the disagreement here. It seems like you're claiming that we should hit the 2000 deaths per week mark a week later than Feral claimed? If so, I don't understand how what Feral is saying would count as fearmongering, as opposed to a mild miscalculation, or something?

[Ken]

I also don't really understand the substance of the disagreement here. It seems like you're claiming that we should hit the 2000 deaths per week mark a week later than Feral claimed? If so, I don't understand how what Feral is saying would count as fearmongering, as opposed to a mild miscalculation, or something?

But what about if you compare it to terrorism, drugs, crime, etc? Then does it make sense?

[rhd]

Here's another very good video from Dr. John Campbell. Its title, "The current state of COVID knowledge", indicates what it's about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C2KH3Xt3W0&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell

There are several items in it that I didnt know before. It is long as usual (28 mins) but most of the info I refer to is in the 1st half of it.
- An estimated 50% of persons become infected from 10-1000 CV-19 viruses. The figure that I saw before was 1000 and another source said several hundred but this is the 1st time I've seen a number as low as 10. But it also said that people w poor immune systems are much more easily infected so the figure of 10 viruses probably applies to them. So if you already know you have immune system problems it becomes much more important to be super vigilant against exposure.
- Trials of human exposure to CV-19 are set to begin in the UK in January. That strikes me as extremely unethical and I dont know how such trials would be carried out. But I guess we'll get some good data from them.
- Infected persons thru exhalation emit an estimated 100,000-10,000,000 viruses per hour. That would be about 28-2800 per second which is way higher than what my understanding was before. That would seem to mean that even a person w a healthy immune system could become infected w/i a few seconds or so if an infected person breathed rt in their face. I would ask what % of someone else's breath is a nearby person likely to inhale themselves?
- "Close contact" is defined as being w/i 6 feet of an infected person for 15 minutes w/i a 24-hour period. This seems to contravene the above info about viruses exhaled. So it takes an exposure of not just a few seconds but 15 minutes typically to become infected? This is unclear. My concept is that it would take some intermediate amount of time between these 2 - like maybe 2-5 minutes for a person w a healthy immune system and maybe 30 seconds for those w compromised immunity.
- Persons are infectious for 1-3 days prior to onset of symptoms and remain infectious for about 5 days. If this is true, why is the quarantine period 14 days instead of 8 days?
- Asymptomatic people (those who never experience symptoms) comprise about 12% of infected persons. The figure I saw previously for this was 20%.
- In the US, 53% of household members become infected if living w an infected person. Seems like a low figure in light of the info above on exhaled viruses and close contact.

Also, towards the end of the video, it showed a supermarket in Thailand that has a monitor device that scans a person to take their temperature and ensure that they have a mask covering both mouth and nose and doesnt allow them entry unless they pass. I dont know how much this system costs but this would help greatly in the rest of world if these things were mandated in places of work, restaurants, bars, gyms, churches, etc.

[rhd]

Here's a hint, no one is making "things seem worse than they really are". We're all just looking at the data. Stop with the political bullshit please.

Sorry to be blunt, but I have family in the hospital with COVID right now and I get really tired of looking at bullshit like this.

Again, I hope for a speedy and full recovery for your family. The political stuff is coming from other people in this thread, not me. I'm just trying to present the data and other useful and educational info. Hopefully that will keep more people from getting sick.

[Kevin Seitzer]

- Persons are infectious for 1-3 days prior to onset of symptoms and remain infectious for about 5 days. If this is true, why is the quarantine period 14 days instead of 8 days?

I have heard that the CDC is considering cutting the quarantine period from 14 days to 7 days in order to encourage compliance. I think it was originally set to 14 days because (a) we didn't know as much about transmission of the virus several months ago as we do now, and (b) to err on the side of safety.

They probably haven't changed it yet because they get a lot of criticism when they make these changes in recommendations (e.g., see mask wearing by the general public) and there isn't any going back once they do it.

[The Feral Slasher]

I also don't really understand the substance of the disagreement here. It seems like you're claiming that we should hit the 2000 deaths per week mark a week later than Feral claimed? If so, I don't understand how what Feral is saying would count as fearmongering, as opposed to a mild miscalculation, or something?

I have pointed this out several times before. Very minor differences in predictions and essentially same process.

[heyelander]

Sorry to be blunt, but I have family in the hospital with COVID right now and I get really tired of looking at bullshit like this.

sending my near useless thoughts and prayers.

Cripes, I half assumed I would be the first on the site since I was running around door dashing this whole time.

Get well quick everyone dealing with this right now.

[rhd]

Things were tracking consistent with hitting a pace of 2000 deaths per 7 days some time this week, until the numbers took a sharp dip over the Thanksgiving weekend. Which is more believable: that deaths took a sudden drop while hospitalizations continue to climb, or that reporting was significantly disrupted by the holiday weekend?

You quoted my post but you acted like you didnt read it. Yes, there was underreporting but when the reporting catches up (if it hasnt already) it still wont be nearly a 2000 death average because the deaths on the "catchup days" would have to be around 4000 each and there's nothing indicating that that will happen. The figures from the "catchup days" of Tuesday and Wednesday last week were only 2284 and 2029. The figures from the "underreporting days" of Thursday and Friday were 1319 and 1374. Even if you assume the same rate of increase in the death average that was seen on Thursday and Friday of the previous week (10.2% and 6.0%), the figures for Thanksgiving Thurs and Fri would be "only" 1454 and 1456, so the underreported deaths would be only about 227. That's assuming that no "catchup" already took place before today, which most probably is wrong. But assuming that the entire "catchup" takes place today and assuming that today's rate increases by a figure similar to the increase from last Tuesday (which would be 36.2%), also unlikely because of other factors, you would expect that today's death figure would be about 2990, far short of the number necessary to push the average to 2000/day. I think you are overestimating the Thanksgiving underreporting and assuming that it hasnt caught up any yet. And there are other indications that we're levelling off. The R0 has improved over the last week and so has the positivity rate. So I dont think the daily death rate will continue going up at the rate it was a week ago. It appears to be levelling off. In my post that Feral replied to above, I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the premise that there would be an increase in deaths corresponding to the increases in cases 3 weeks prior. That premise, for whatever reason, proved to be incorrect. The increase in deaths was only about half of the increase in cases.

[nullnor]

you guys are debating stupid obvious shit.

1) we wouldn't have had to really shut down the economy if everyone wore masks and we perfectly careful when it started.
2) we couldn't so it had to be shut down
3) so then the debate moves to should we have just killed all the old people sucking off the government with Medicare. and who voted to put us in this situation. while complaining that no-one visits them enough while complaining we need to go out and get a job even if that means we might infect them while visiting them.
4) it's a no win situation, whatever everyone wants is counterproductive.
5) and I say history will say we overreacted. but only because history will never actually see how many people would've died if precautions weren't taken.

[The Feral Slasher]

I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the premise that there would be an increase in deaths corresponding to the increases in cases 3 weeks prior. That premise, for whatever reason, proved to be incorrect. The increase in deaths was only about half of the increase in cases.

This is the foundation of Bedford's analysis (and was the basis of yours as well until post thanksgiving). So basically that is the difference between our outlooks. I believe this is not a change in death rate, but a short term reporting anomaly, while I believe you think that is not the case. I see data that was consistent for over 4 months and then something changed significantly in one week. So the question is, why did it change ?

Here is a good reference post with data back to July with both 21 and 22 day lags ( u will need to scroll thru posts)

https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1331780099490807808

https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1331780099490807808

[nullnor]

sending my near useless thoughts and prayers.

Cripes, I half assumed I would be the first on the site since I was running around door dashing this whole time.

Get well quick everyone dealing with this right now.

do you door dash at night? in the near future you'll run across a bunch of kittens and mother trying to cross the street. one of the cats will meow on top of a stone wall. you'll go back and try to catch it and fail. the next day you'll knock on the door of the house it happened at and ask to look under the porch for it. and then later you'll notice the owners of the house had a barricade built to prevent door dash guys from going back and looking for stray cats.

[Teenwolf]

We got our results yesterday. We both tested positive. We are pretty sick. Sleeping a lot. Doing the smallest thing is a great chore. Smell and taste are pretty much gone.

You and your wife have been in my thoughts, hoping you both get well soon.

In terms of treating the disease, there's a lot of misinformation going on right now, and its difficult to stay up to date on current best medical treatments for Covid. From what I'm hearing, blood thinners and steroids, 2 things that were initially viewed as potentially dangerous to Covid patients are now viewed as life savers, but there haven't been enough tests that follow scientific standards, the vast majority of data is from people being treated and viewing the varying outcomes, but apparently the science community has been trained to believe that type of data isn't good enough. They require double blind studies with placebos and all control measures, but those kinds of studies are unrealistic in the present circumstance.