Coronavirus General Discussion (no politics, no flamewars!)

Wilt wrote in post #19048886
I did NOT say that 50X - 85X was 'bad'...You inferred that assuming some subjective opinion on my part. I have NO SUBJECTIVE opinion one way or the other. I know, objectively, that

• The CON is that so many more infectious people unknowingly are spreading disease during their infectious period

The endpoint of significance is fixed and somewhat known: how many people are winding up in the hospital or dead. There isn't much hiding there, even if we can argue over how, exactly, to count COVID-19 deaths. With that as non-variable, information about greater spread is all pro, and no con.

Well, I just watched the author of that study (Prof. John Ionannidis) on Youtube, describing the results. He described it as all good news. If this translates to the whole population, then the death rate is 1/50 - 1/85 of the assumed death rate based on assumed rates of infection in that county.

The only huge difference would be that this SARS-2 spreads so fast that doing nothing to slow the rate of spread would overwhelm the health care system. Don't forget, influenza combined with existing health problems takes many people every year. When it is more spread out, and not "novel", it is less newsworthy. Think about it - why are 17 bodies in a nursing home dramatic news? Because it is 17 bodies at once, and some hints of irresponsible nursing home management involved in this horror story. Nursing homes have a much higher death rate than the general public every year - it usually happens more spread out over the year. You're not going to see an anchorperson give a heartbreaking story of one person dying in a nursing home as the news of the day. You won't see a widow saying "I want him back", because you won't see the widow or any story.

Yes, the news on herd immunity might be not as good as it can be, but at least it seems that the final death rate would be lower than first though, if these proportions carry over to the rest of the US and the world.

This clip was on Face The Nation. Russia had 1,000 new cases in one day.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=i8bmIgDt5KM

John Sheehy wrote in post #19049350
The endpoint of significance is fixed and somewhat known: how many people are winding up in the hospital or dead. There isn't much hiding there, even if we can argue over how, exactly, to count COVID-19 deaths. With that as non-variable, information about greater spread is all pro, and no con.

Well, I just watched the author of that study (Prof. John Ionannidis) on Youtube, describing the results. He described it as all good news. If this translates to the whole population, then the death rate is 1/50 - 1/85 of the assumed death rate based on assumed rates of infection in that county.

The only huge difference would be that this SARS-2 spreads so fast that doing nothing to slow the rate of spread would overwhelm the health care system. Don't forget, influenza combined with existing health problems takes many people every year. When it is more spread out, and not "novel", it is less newsworthy. Think about it - why are 17 bodies in a nursing home dramatic news? Because it is 17 bodies at once, and some hints of irresponsible nursing home management involved in this horror story. Nursing homes have a much higher death rate than the general public every year - it usually happens more spread out over the year. You're not going to see an anchorperson give a heartbreaking story of one person dying in a nursing home as the news of the day. You won't see a widow saying "I want him back", because you won't see the widow or any story.

Yes, the news on herd immunity might be not as good as it can be, but at least it seems that the final death rate would be lower than first though, if these proportions carry over to the rest of the US and the world.

Yes, saying that the death rate is 50X-85X slimmer than current statistics represent would indeed be a blessing. Statista currently shows the rate in the US to be 5.32%. Taking it 50X lower would be say it would achieve 351000 deaths, compared to the Spanish Flu 675000...that is somewhat comforting although still not good. Nevertheless, the Con of having a much larger population of asymptomatic carriers to deal with has the ramifications to civic leaders and medical experts on how to continue to mitigate the infection rate so our hospitals are not overwhelmed...to a greater degree than we previously might have assumed, when a tested population previously indicated 'only 50%' asymptomatic patients in the Positive test group.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19049350
The endpoint of significance is fixed and somewhat known: how many people are winding up in the hospital or dead. There isn't much hiding there, even if we can argue over how, exactly, to count COVID-19 deaths. With that as non-variable, information about greater spread is all pro, and no con.

Well, I just watched the author of that study (Prof. John Ionannidis) on Youtube, describing the results. He described it as all good news. If this translates to the whole population, then the death rate is 1/50 - 1/85 of the assumed death rate based on assumed rates of infection in that county.

The only huge difference would be that this SARS-2 spreads so fast that doing nothing to slow the rate of spread would overwhelm the health care system. Don't forget, influenza combined with existing health problems takes many people every year. When it is more spread out, and not "novel", it is less newsworthy. Think about it - why are 17 bodies in a nursing home dramatic news? Because it is 17 bodies at once, and some hints of irresponsible nursing home management involved in this horror story. Nursing homes have a much higher death rate than the general public every year - it usually happens more spread out over the year. You're not going to see an anchorperson give a heartbreaking story of one person dying in a nursing home as the news of the day. You won't see a widow saying "I want him back", because you won't see the widow or any story.

Yes, the news on herd immunity might be not as good as it can be, but at least it seems that the final death rate would be lower than first though, if these proportions carry over to the rest of the US and the world.

It became news worthy because a country shut down it's whole economy, the equivalent of Christmas and Thanksgiving, because of this virus. It certainly spread enough, sickened enough, and killed enough, to the the Chinese government's attention.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19049240
Odd- it works for me. I still quoted the pertinent part- that HDL/triglyceride are correlated to diabetes, not causal.

As you said, the information is incomplete, so the correlation of age for this virus still holds, albeitly, less precisely. The Chinese noticed the correlation with age, but few of them have the issues from diet that you mentioned.

To echo what John found, the link intercepts and diverts you to a Log In page, needing you to have Registered in order to log in.

Wilt wrote in post #19049429
To echo what John found, the link intercepts and diverts you to a Log In page, needing you to have Registered in order to log in.

Sorry, I can't help that. I don't own the page. It worked for me. That's why we provide a summary of the link; in my case I quoted the pertinent part for that particular conversation.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19049212
The point is that people should not base their risk on age. Yes, a certain stage of diabetes or a certain blood pressure level or poor HDL/trigliceride ratio is more associated with risk at higher ages, but for any individual, separated from the abstract histogram, their risk, especially in terms of what they can actually control, is heavily related to metabolic syndrome, which can be reversed by diet (what you eat and when you eat it) and to a smaller degree by high-intensity exercise. Don't expect your age to damn you, or to save you. There are already multiple people in their 90s who have recovered.

This is the problem about statistics. It works to describe large populations, but not for single cases. I - as a single case - don't have the same probability to die from Covid-19 as the average population. I am not the average person - as in 1 Million of me don't represent the people the statistics is based on. I have specific conditions (diabetes, smoking, ....) the increase or decrease my personal probability. Conditional probabilities are hard and in diseases very very difficult to figure out.

In the small community of Bolinas, CA (Marin Co.), the Univ. of California San Francisco (UCSF), an advanced medical/research oriented medical center, will be conducting a study using both COVID-19 infection detection tests and also antibody detection tests on all subjects, virtually the entire population of that small somewhat rural community.
UCSF will also conduct the same study of an equal number of subjects from a more urban setting, using both infection detection tests and antibody detection tests on all subjects, so the contrast between rural vs urban population can be determined. The total subject count for the UCSF study will be about the same number of subjects (about 3300) as were included in the recent Stanford University medical center sponsored study, using subjects from Santa Clara Co.

It will be interesting to learn of both similarities and differences in results between the three groups. The Bolinas study will be especially interesting since it will allow the composite of both Infection test results along with the Antibody test results in a single population, with 100% inclusion of subjects in both tests.

Over here bloodbanks checked donors' blood for Covid-19 antibodies and found only 3% of donors had them. If that is representative for the populace at large then it seems herd immunity is not going to happen any time soon. Especially since it's still not sure if antibodies in the blood equals immunity.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19050001
Over here bloodbanks checked donors' blood for Covid-10 antibodies and found only 3% of donors had them. If that is representative for the populace at large then it seems herd immunity is not going to happen any time soon. Especially since it's still not sure if antibodies in the blood equals immunity.

The recent Stanford study in Santa Clara Co. CA showed between 2.5% - 4-2% of subjects had antibodies present, similar to findings there (in Netherlands?).

As I expressed with the past day, the good news is 50X - 85X as many folks have antibodies as indicated by case counts, but that simply is an indication of the real need for Social Distancing to continue....indeed there is little value relative to developing herd immunity

Wilt wrote in post #19049981
In the small community of Bolinas, CA (Marin Co.), the Univ. of California San Francisco (UCSF), an advanced medical/research oriented medical center, will be conducting a study using both COVID-19 infection detection tests and also antibody detection tests on all subjects, virtually the entire population of that small somewhat rural community.
UCSF will also conduct the same study of an equal number of subjects from a more urban setting, using both infection detection tests and antibody detection tests on all subjects, so the contrast between rural vs urban population can be determined. The total subject count for the UCSF study will be about the same number of subjects (about 3300) as were included in the recent Stanford University medical center sponsored study, using subjects from Santa Clara Co.

It will be interesting to learn of both similarities and differences in results between the three groups. The Bolinas study will be especially interesting since it will allow the composite of both Infection test results along with the Antibody test results in a single population, with 100% inclusion of subjects in both tests.

the bolinas inclusion of this study is so dumb, and such an elitist move...in marin we've had 195 cases total...140 have recovered, and 10 deaths...in total we've done 2,600 tests...tests that haven't been easy to come by in most places, and they are going to test 1,700 people, most of which aren't showing any symptoms...all because some tech millionaires are paying the bill...the study was originally intended for the mission district of SF

DreDaze wrote in post #19050017
the bolinas inclusion of this study is so dumb, and such an elitist move...in marin we've had 195 cases total...140 have recovered, and 10 deaths...in total we've done 2,600 tests...tests that haven't been easy to come by in most places, and they are going to test 1,700 people, most of which aren't showing any symptoms...all because some tech millionaires are paying the bill...the study was originally intended for the mission district of SF

The study in the Mission will be conducted at the same time as the Bolinas study. Check the SF Chronicle for details.

-js

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19050001
Over here bloodbanks checked donors' blood for Covid-10 antibodies and found only 3% of donors had them. If that is representative for the populace at large then it seems herd immunity is not going to happen any time soon.

I'd guess it to be a skewed sample because blood donors are more conscientious and altrustic than average–the kind of people who would be careful about social distancing and would consequently avoid infection.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19050001
Over here bloodbanks checked donors' blood for Covid-10 antibodies and found only 3% of donors had them. If that is representative for the populace at large then it seems herd immunity is not going to happen any time soon. Especially since it's still not sure if antibodies in the blood equals immunity.

So the result in the Netherlands seems to be fairly consistent with results obtained so far from two different California populations, one from Northern California, Santa Clara Co., and one from Southern California, Los Angeles Co.

The study in NorCal is being conducted by Stanford University medical center, while the study in SoCal is being conducted by USC.
Santa Clara county shows 2.5% - 4.2% have antibodies, while Los Angeles county shows a nominal 4.1% have antibodies, with a range of 2.8% - 5.6%.

It will be interesting to see how the two substudies being done by UCSF, with the pupulation with low infection in Bolinas, CA, and a selected section of San Francisco in an area of high infection, compare to the other two studies in the California.

Wilt wrote in post #19050287
So the result in the Netherlands seems to be fairly consistent with results obtained so far from two different California populations, one from Northern California, Santa Clara Co., and one from Southern California, Los Angeles Co.

The study in NorCal is being conducted by Stanford University medical center, while the study in SoCal is being conducted by USC.
Santa Clara county shows 2.5% - 4.2% have antibodies, while Los Angeles county shows a nominal 4.1% have antibodies, with a range of 2.8% - 5.6%.

It will be interesting to see how the two substudies being done by UCSF, with the pupulation with low infection in Bolinas, CA, and a selected section of San Francisco in an area of high infection, compare to the other two studies in the California.

as far as i know there are no cases in bolinas at all...seems like such a waste of testing...especially when you hear that healthcare workers can't get tested