the world is doomed
Printable View
the world is doomed
I did some digging early on because there was a lot of sophistry about mortality rates for covid compared to flu. The mortality rate of influenza A often cited is .1% but it was difficult to find whether it was a case fatality rate or an infection fatality rate. On CDC's website, one can see that the statistic is calculated by deaths from flu divided by positive tests for flu. This is a case fatality rate and does not take into account mildly symptomatic cases or asymptomatic flu cases which also exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
While there is greater testing sufficiency for flu than covid, people are also less motivated to test for it because it's rightly considered less of an epidemiological threat. I eventually found a stat for flu that cited its IFR or infection fatality rate as .025% which is one quarter of its listed CFR. This makes sense but I can't verify it. But it would put the IFR of flu at about 1/28 that of the commonly estimated IFR for Covid.
Anyhow, CFRs for covid depend on how good the testing program is in a country. We've seen the CFR as high as 10% when only very sick people are tested or less than 2% when a testing regime is good. The IFR, which is estimated from serological surveys and sometimes from cruise ships in which everyone was tested, is believed to be about .7%. But if someone has tested positive already, the CFR will give a better idea of their mortality risk because they've crossed the threshold required to get a test. Also, there is not chance that IFR for covid is anywhere near as low as .25%, which one might infer from Torris' post above.
People try to make covid look similar to flu by comparing IFR of Covid to CFR of Flu. Even doing that covid is 7 times more deadly but that underestimates the difference.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...contagiousness
Anyhow, I found an article that said the same thing. They have an epidemiologist who estimates flu ifr at .02-.05%. This would make the mortality difference between flu and covid anywhere between 14 and 35x.
She should've stayed on the island:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/30/enter...bit/index.html
:(
Interestingly, an Australian project to produce a Covid vaccine was abandoned because it was producing false HIV positive results. I wonder if there's a connection? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-...sults/12975048Quote:
Originally Posted by Torris
This seems to have been overshadowed by recent events, but global deaths from this pandemic have just passed 2 million. https://virusncov.com/
Deaths in the USA have also just passed 400,000, which is over 1,200 per million population. That is a higher death rate than all but a handful of European countries. In other words, the USA under Trump has done worse than all of those shithole countries he has derided.
Well done all you Covid deniers and minimisers.
How Covid-19 unlocked the era of messenger RNA vaccines
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00019-w
Two trends that people need to be aware of-
a) younger people are not immune to infection, in fact rates are rising;
and b) being vaccinated is not a 'get of gaol' card, you may still become a carrier and a threat to others.
Yes, the rate of infections and fatalities may slow this year, but the public health impact I believe will demand the retention of lockdown procedures probably for most of this year, if responsible Governments adhere to the science. This is unwelcome news for everyone, and I am alarmed at the thought that the UK Government may relax lockdown restrictions as early as next month. Basically, we are not close to defeating this pandemic, and can only hope to have it under control by Christmas, if we ever do. The best we can hope for is that Covid 19 be reduced to a constant, but not extensive threat, and as we have 'flu jabs every year, so there may need to be annual Covid jabs too, even if limited to those over 75 and those with vulnerable health conditions.
"At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, reports indicated that the disease was mostly affecting older adults, and that young people were more likely to have milder cases of the disease.
But according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over the summer, in the United States, people under age 30 accounted for more than 20% of COVID-19 cases and were seen as more likely to transmit the virus than others. This trend has continued into the fall.
Coronavirus infections requiring hospitalization are not only possible in younger adults, but the rate of these cases is increasing as the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus continues to spread. Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention at Johns Hopkins, sheds light on the new data."
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heal...re-at-risk-too
"After I get a COVID-19 vaccine, is it safe to visit in person with friends and family?
Answer From Daniel C. DeSimone, M.D.
After getting a COVID-19 vaccine, it's still important to take safety precautions, such as avoiding close contact with others, to prevent the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 <abbr title="coronavirus disease 2019">(COVID-19)</abbr>. Further research is needed to understand the immunity that a <abbr title="coronavirus disease 2019">COVID-19</abbr> vaccine provides and how long protection lasts before experts will consider changing current safety recommendations."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...n/faq-20506463
Why on earth would President Biden announce there is nothing we can do to stop the trajectory of virus this past Friday? Are we just supposed to give up?
What he actually said was that it would take some time to turn things around, which is a completely different point. When you inherit a virus that is spreading rapidly (nearly 200,000 new cases per day), and the incubation period is up to 2 weeks, it isn't possible to stop it quickly, especially when the federal government does not have the power to order lockdowns. Even countries that have been much more successful have taken weeks to get on top of more limited outbreaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
Or would you prefer that he just told you it would vanish by magic?
I recommend to look up his exact quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
You made a characterization about what Biden said. Someone contested it. Now you're telling him to look up the quote. Why don't you look it up and post it since you're the one who initially claimed he said something?Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
I assume this is what you are referring to. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/bide...al-months.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
I haven't been able to find the original words in full, but here's what he said on the same issue yesterday. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...d-19-pandemic/
"And our plan will take time. Progress from our plan will take time to measure, as people getting infected today don’t show up in case counts for weeks, and those who perish from those — from the disease die weeks after that exposure. You know, despite the best — our best intentions, we’re going to face setbacks, which I will always explain to you and acknowledge.
And let me be clear: Things are going to continue to get worse before they get better. The death toll, experts tell us, is likely to top 500,000 by the end of next month — February — and cases will continue to mount. We didn’t get into this mess overnight, and it’s going to take months for us to turn things around. But let me be equally clear: We’re going to get through this. We will defeat this pandemic."
Does that sound like what you described or what I described?
It's interesting that you made only one post on this topic over the previous year that Trump was in charge, which was to complain that the cure was worse than the disease. Yet now after only a few days you are complaining that Biden isn't doing enough to offer hope. What exactly do you want him to do?
Please, I was not trying to steer how someone thinks, I just wanted ideas or thoughts on why he would say what he said after he said he had a plan to end Covid. But his exact qoute is as follows: 'If we fail to act, there will be a wave of evictions and foreclosures in the coming months as this pandemic rages on because there's nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months." I'm not looking for a fight, just wondering agter he said he has a plan to stop or control the pandemic, he is now saying there is nothing that can be done.
Is he saying that in a discussion of the stimulus bill? It sounds to me like he's saying that we need to pass a stimulus bill so that people don't get evicted from their homes while a pandemic is still raging. We are vaccinating about 1.5 million people (1 dose) per day and it takes about 14 days for people to develop antibodies that provide partial protection from the first dose.
Yes there is a strategy to reduce transmission of the virus but every strategy takes time to work if you've been paying attention at all. The R0 of the virus is 2.3 without public health measures and public health measures reduce it to just below 1, which is what is required to prevent increases in the number of cases that carry forward. As a simple matter of math, that takes a decent amount of time.
The single sentence you quote is a clunky if/then statement but it sounds like the focal point is that he doesn't want people to be evicted from their homes in the coming months. I can only imagine that you saw this quote by itself on an outlet that intended to misrepresent it because it's pretty much similar in sentiment to everything else he's said but is not phrased perfectly.
It's entirely consistent with what filghy2 claims he said and what he has said a half dozen times. We have immediate control over the measures we take but it takes time for them to have an effect. He doesn't want people to think you go from 4,000 deaths a day to nothing overnight or that 200,000 cases can become a much smaller number within a few weeks because it's simply not possible.
The incubation period of the virus can be as long as 2 weeks and death tolls trail at least 3 weeks from transmission so even when measures are instituted you can have initial increases in both metrics.
Vaccination takes place in two doses and people develop some protection two weeks after the first dose and a couple weeks after the second. He already has the fda trying to work with moderna and pfizer on approving booster shots in the event that there isn't sufficient immunity to the South African and UK variants of the virus. He has also set benchmarks for distribution of the vaccine. If you don't mind me asking, where did you encounter the quotation?
The key part of the quote is the beginning: "If we fail to act...." If we act, we can mitigate the negative consequences. It's not really that perplexing of a conditional statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
Your whole point relies on taking a single phrase out of the context of everything else he has said. And you've deliberately ignored the other words I quoted, which make clear what he really means. After all the bullshit Trump has spoken on this virus, do you seriously want to engage in hair-splitting about one sentence by Biden?Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
If you genuinely wanted other peoples' thoughts why do you ignore their responses and just repeat the same dubious point? And why do you refuse to say what you think they should be doing?
I had initially thought that and was going to argue it but I think "fail to act" refers to failing to provide economic assistance while we're waiting for health measures to take effect. The negative consequences would be people getting evicted, which can't be avoided in the short-term with health measures alone bc of the time lag so we need to provide some financial assistance (or eviction moratorium) right now. In essence, health measures alone won't prevent some financial difficulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
After "because" he states what he's stated about a half dozen times but much more strongly. This is the problem with taking extemporaneous comments in isolation because nobody is a perfect speaker. I'd be curious if this guy knows when he said it and what else he said because he clearly wasn't calling for fatalism. It is all highly lame. He's arguing about the urgency of helping people financially...
I also read today that he has now helped secure enough pfizer and moderna to cover 300 million people (600 million doses) by late Summer.
Do a control f search in this link for "fail to act" and you'll see the context. Highly lame. He's saying we have to provide financial assistance to people because the virus won't disappear. In the next paragraph he even says not providing assistance would make the pandemic worse. So he's obviously not saying it doesn't matter what we do.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/01/22/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-american-rescue-plan-and-signing-of-executive-orders/
Edit: If you enter the phrase into google, you find the intentional distortion being amplified by fox news and ny post so we know where whatshisface encountered it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=if+w...w=1366&bih=657
In fairness I asked him where he heard the quote and he couldn't well admit he heard it belched out of Sean Hannity's bloated face. Or saw it in the Washington Times, a paper known to peddle "conspiracy theories about Barack Obama" and "neo-confederate historical revisionism". And the official remarks from Biden's speech provide the context so how to answer...Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
For those who are interested in how the U.S' response to Covid has been in the past year here is a ranking system from a non-partisan thinktank in Sydney, Australia. Out of 98 countries with publicly available data, the U.S. ranked 94th based on their criteria. They state their methodology in the link I provide but it seems reasonable enough though some may disagree on emphasis.
https://interactives.lowyinstitute.o...ance/#overview
How did we get there? No testing all through February. No federal contact tracing program throughout the pandemic. A President who did not encourage people to wear masks after April 3, 2020 when all health agencies were certain there was presymptomatic viral spread. A President who told people the virus would disappear, that it was "a flu", that a vaccine would be available in three months, that doctors were paid to list deaths as covid deaths, that hydroxychloroquine was a cure when it was no better than placebo, and who encouraged people to violate their state health orders.
Imagine watching all of that without a complaint and then being upset that Biden thinks it may take a few months for the trajectory of the pandemic to change. For those curious about Biden's plans, read about them here https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...d-19-pandemic/
I have just posted some comments on Covid in the Politics thread in which I lamented the absence of co-ordination across the UK, the EU, and, as is evident, in the US. If the US is in a worse state (but in terms of death per capita the UK is riight up there), it is not just the failure of leadership by Trump, personally ignorant and indifferent to the illness, but surrounded by some of the world's most brilliant virologists, epidemiologists and policy makers -but across the US where Governors such as Ron DeSantis and Kristi Noem seem to be staking a claim as the most stupid, lethal and incompetent politicians in American history. If I were to be inflammatory, I would accuse them of being accessories to murder and expect them to be so arrested and charged.
Unless, and until the people in charge of policy making stop pretending to be clever, as in 'Everyone their own Einstein' the dismal state of Covid in the US will continue to waste lives and resources, even though I suspect most Americans are actually behaving sensibly. Biden has a mountain to climb before the US can see the Summit, but its not a natural mountain, but one consisting of man-made lies, sloppy procedures, a lack of preparedness, etc. The US will get there in time, but on key stats like hospital admissions I see no horizons. The damage caused by Trump and his Disciples is going to linger for years.
Here's an interesting article on whether we can expect the virus to evolve in a less deadly direction over time. That used to be the accepted wisdom, on the basis that killing too many hosts is not optimal for a virus's replication. However, it seems that may no longer be the case: depending on various factors it can go the other way. The key factor for this virus may be the long time period between infection and death.
https://theconversation.com/will-cor...-deadly-153817
That is a good article. It's easy to understand why there would be selective pressure for transmissibility to increase as people try to avoid getting infected. And while generally one might expect decreasing virulence their reasoning about why we don't see it makes sense too: if it takes about 23 days between infection and death someone who dies has nearly the same chance to transmit the variants that got them so sick.
But did it say why virulence would increase? Maybe sicker people are shedding more virus. Maybe they have a more contagious presymptomatic period.
For the sake of us developing herd immunity it is also important whether it is evolving quickly enough to evade neutralization by our antibodies and t-cell response to previous variants. The UK variant has some more ominous characteristics but seems to be neutralized by vaccines and the antibody response of people who have gotten sick. The South African variant is neutralized less effectively by antibodies developed both through vaccination and natural infection. It's possible people who have been vaccinated or infected don't have as much protection against infection but still good protection against serious disease but we'll see.
Another question I have that I've seen discussed elsewhere: while there will be antigenic drift based on the number of infections do some of our attempts to eradicate the virus drive mutation? Treatments such as monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, and even vaccines put selective pressure on viruses that create escape mutations. The argument is that if you have a treatment that doesn't have 100% efficacy the genetic makeup of the virus that is transmitted is resistant to treatment. Anyhow that's how the argument goes but I still think the more significant risk is based on how many hosts the virus sees. It's probably no coincidence we're not seeing variants emerge in places that have only minor outbreaks. Besides, even if a treatment drives mutation it would still be worth pursuing if it's very effective.
Even more so the fact that more transmissibility is an advantage for the virus in every environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
It's not clear from the article. It must depend on the balance of different factors in the trade-off model, but the paper they linked to is not freely available.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I completely agree!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ls1290
"Evolving Threat" ,interesting article from the 20 August 2021 issue of "Science" magazine on how and why corona viruses mutate ,the various variants and what we can expect from Sars CoV-2
https://www.science.org/content/arti...-virus-do-next
Coronavirus: lies, lies and more lies
Excellent article…great share…Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
Great Article.Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
Your honesty is commendable. We are still waiting for the evidence from you or other morims that shows it is less deadly then common flu.Quote:
Originally Posted by morim
To anybody who is able to understand german... here is a video from a data analyst who actually beliefed in the mainstream corona story and tryed to find a simple graph to convince a friend!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCZgIJcqCAg
At min 22:35 you see the normalized death in Germany from 2012 till 2020 over different age groups (red highest / green lowest).
Long story short he couldn't find anything abnormal in 2020.
He did same analysis with the hospitalisation and infections... always same result.
For Germany the number tell us... there was nothing special in 2020 beside a new pcr test and media panic!
There's no need to understand German because these calculations are available on a number of sites, which show that excess mortality was significant in many countries.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/excess...ntries-in-2020
https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...deaths-tracker
There is also the obvious point that this is what happened after significant measures in most countries to limit the spread of the virus.
In german mainstream media they talking about 60k corona deaths in 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
(in your link its 68k)
They talking about mortality rate way above average... but there is nothing!
Even more it was a year with low rates!
Better check what i send befor... he explained why it's not possible to just compare raw death counts!
And in Germany the Average life expectancy is higher then ever before... why is that if so many people died on covid??
Quote:
Originally Posted by binneu
In Italy we have a number of above 130K deaths to coronavirus until now... and yes... there are people saying, like you are saying, that the death rate did not increase... well... they are plainly wrong misinterpreting data to force their point (and there are plenty of data to demonstrate it)... and even if we want to believe that the death rate is not so high like they are saying it seems that everyone is forgetting the main reason why the death rate did stop to increase from the summer of 2020: we are following (in Italy and in most of the world) a lot of special measures (lockdowns, face mask, isolation and, from the beginning of 2021, vaccines) that are helping to prevent too many deaths... that's all... if the world would have ignored the increased number of victims of the beginning of the 2020 without adopting all these measures the death rate would have been incredibly higher ...
Sorry... its not misinterpreting!
The main factor is that the population in gemany (also italy) is getting older.
So more will die (if you have more people who are 70+ you can expect more people will die just by natural)... its not misinterpreting its just a simple fact.
And again... the average age at death is in 2020 higher than in 2019!
People got older then ever before! How is this possible in the worst pandemic ever? In a dangerous pandemic the average life expectancy should be decreasing, not increasing!
And what about sweden? They had non of these "special measures" and same numbers as most other europe counties... better than italy, without any lockdowns and masks.
You also can compare north dakota and south dakota... same situation.
And in Isreal (the country with one of the highest vaccinated population) has more death then ever before (due to the JHU data).
That makes sense to you?
I know the mainstream media hammering these numbers in your brains every day, its hard to fight against this!
Im not saying i know the whole truth in any aspect... but you should take into acount what the citics say also! Your "death rate would have been incredibly higher" is not any proof.
How high they would by and why?
Do you have any argument why you think so? I have one... its still called sweden.
Thats a real example and we can see nothing really would happen.
Dont get me wrong im already lil pissed of talking always same and getting no real arguments.
But at the other hand its good we discuss this and try to understand each other.
It's hard to know where to start.
1. You missed the clear statement in the first link that the figures are adjusted for age structure of the population.
2. Covid mortality is much higher for older people, so an increase in the average age of death is not proof of your claim.
3. Nobody is claiming this is the worst pandemic ever; only the worst since the Spanish flu.
4. Death rates in Sweden have been many times higher than in the neighbouring Scandinavian countries which are the most directly comparable.
5. New cases in Israel are higher than ever. Deaths are not higher than ever. https://www.worldometers.info/corona...ountry/israel/
Ok lets keep the focus on "how dangerous is this virus"
1. Age is just ond factor (leap year, grouth of popolation in germany, age structur)
But i see we have a problem with our data/sources.
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Kei...html?seite=all
Here is an other one that confirms my statement...
2. No thats not a argument... coz any disease is more deadly for older people.
If the average age at death not changing it simple means the people would have died anyway?
3. I mean in the newer time... in the lifetime of the people who life today! But I thought that was clear...
Please don't make it even more complicated by having to discuss the Spanish flu!
4. But its ok to compare Germany to Italy/Bergamo? Alright... then tell me which country I can compare to which? Maybe NorthDakota and SouthDakota?
5. Yes sorry this was my fault... i watched the graph of "cases" not deaths.
But it makes no sense to talk about the effectiveness of vaccination coz my point is the
virus is not even deadly! (see 1 and 2)