I don’t want to know if that’s what sitting next/near to me. Yuck.
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
Many, many have been "saying it" but it's different when it's reportedly coming from a German intelligence source vs. speculation...
Going to be interesting to watch this one develop...
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/09-05-2020-who-statement-on-false-allegations-in-der-spiegel
Der Spiegel reports of a 21 January, 2020, telephone conversation between WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and President Xi Jingping of China are unfounded and untrue.
Dr Tedros and President Xi did not speak on 21 January and they have never spoken by telephone.
Such inaccurate reports distract and detract from WHO’s and the world’s efforts to end the COVID-19 pandemic.
To note: China confirmed human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus on 20 January.
As an aside, here's a very interesting article from Der Spiegel on US vs. China before, during, and after this pandemic. Some sobering stuff...
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...he-u-s-a-9b9ba65c-4148-4283-a1ca-fdb1a4a1fc4d
Do you ever think or research before you post? The chances that someone in NJ, so far, has died is 0.1% (9116 out of the whole population of 8.85MM). But that's a ridiculous way to put it.
Those are 9116 deaths out of 140K positive cases, which is a 6.5% chance of dying if you get a confirmed infection. But that's also a bit misleading - the best risk estimate is usually the infection fatality ratio, but one needs to know how many are infected and we don't know that in NJ yet, since we haven't done antibody screening of the population. The only state that has done that is NY, which has an IFR of about 0.7% (~23K deaths when the antibody tests were run, for people, vs. 12.3% infected out of 20MM).
No reason to think NJ's infection rate is markedly different from NY's and if that's the case, we'd also have about a 0.7% IFR or 9116 deaths in 1.3MM infected (vs. 140K cases). That's likely the real chance of someone dying. Of course those numbers are higher in the elderly and lower in the young, but even in people 19-44 fatality rates are much greater than for the flu.
I know a guy who works for the parkway, and he says people are just not going to the test center at the arts center.
But apparently, and I think It was Murphy who I heard say this, we were only allowing those who have symptoms get tested. Going fwd we are now opening that up to the asymptomatic, although you still need a doctors note.
Disclaimer: The above could be faulty info due to hearsay and poor memory.
Now we need Lone Ranger masks as well?
A recent study claims that the virus can enter through the eyes.
A recent study claims that the virus can enter through the eyes.
The last thing I saw from Murphy was he thought we had a plan together to double testing, with some help from the White House, as per this link from Tuesday, 5/5.
https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/05/testing-ramps-up-in-advance-of-new-jersey-reopening/
Testing dipped quite a bit on 5/6 for reasons I don't know, but tests per day per 1MM are now back where they were for a few weeks (graph below - awesome site, by the way, thanks - hadn't seen that one yet) and presumably are ready to double. It appears that the doubling has not quite started, but is ready to start soon, based on the quote below. Hope this is what you were looking for...
“We finally as of the end of (last) week, have the raw materials that we need to at least double our testing capacity,” Murphy said Monday, “and we are now going through the rankings of where we are going to deploy those resources. That’s being developed as we speak.”
Edit - sounds like the push is officially on as NJ is now opening up testing for asymptomatic people who suspect infection (still need doc's note).
https://abc7ny.com/health/testing-for-asymptomatic-residents-in-nj-gets-underway/6168624/
Last edited:
It's always been transmissible through the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose and mouth from day one, which is why the general guidance is not to touch one's face. In case you haven't caught on yet, the eyes, nose and mouth are located on the face.
Speaking of the countless deaths in LTC/Nursing Homes:
Cuomo reverses mandate linked to nursing-home deaths
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wi...s-dramatic-decline-in-deaths-hospitalizations
His original policy to ship corona+ patients back to their facilities killed a lot of people. He has finally changed it. Perhaps Murphy should focus on this instead of worrying about those dangerous wave parades?
Cuomo reverses mandate linked to nursing-home deaths
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wi...s-dramatic-decline-in-deaths-hospitalizations
His original policy to ship corona+ patients back to their facilities killed a lot of people. He has finally changed it. Perhaps Murphy should focus on this instead of worrying about those dangerous wave parades?
The last thing I saw from Murphy was he thought we had a plan together to double testing, with some help from the White House, as per this link from Tuesday, 5/5.
https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/05/testing-ramps-up-in-advance-of-new-jersey-reopening/
Testing dipped quite a bit on 5/6 for reasons I don't know, but tests per day per 1MM are now back where they were for a few weeks (graph below - awesome site, by the way, thanks - hadn't seen that one yet) and presumably are ready to double. It appears that the doubling has not quite started, but is ready to start soon, based on the quote below. Hope this is what you were looking for...
“We finally as of the end of (last) week, have the raw materials that we need to at least double our testing capacity,” Murphy said Monday, “and we are now going through the rankings of where we are going to deploy those resources. That’s being developed as we speak.”
Edit - sounds like the push is officially on as NJ is now opening up testing for asymptomatic people who suspect infection (still need doc's note).
https://abc7ny.com/health/testing-for-asymptomatic-residents-in-nj-gets-underway/6168624/
Thanks for this breakdown. I guess I assumed there would be a gradual ramp up of capacity but it seems it's going to be one big jump. I can't wait until we start getting results of non symptomatic tests into the data.
I heed the disclaimer, but this has been my suspicion. With positive cases down under 2k/day for the last 5 days or so, and Murphy reminding everyone that Bergen and Holmdel were open for testing...I suspected that people may not have been getting tested because our transmission rate is slowing faster than we think.
well this sounds awful 40% mortality rate for diabetics
https://www.healthline.com/health-n...fzldskiNxbTCbuIOI#Looking-closely-at-the-data
https://www.healthline.com/health-n...fzldskiNxbTCbuIOI#Looking-closely-at-the-data
Wow. Obesity and diabetes have been cited as the 2 biggest risk factors for a while, but that # is stunning.
I know a diabetic who died early on in the pandemic and as far as I know they did not attribute it to Covid. So I wonder about that one.
I also have a 70ish year old step dad, and 50ish year old neighbor who are both really bad diabetics. I think my neighbor is doing a better job of hiding out then my step father.
Some interesting notes here. This study did not focus on mortality as primary outcome. It used intubations or deaths combined. Weeks ago Cuomo was being asked about this study and why not released. I wondered why they sat on it. Looking at the Appendix and the fact they combined deaths and intubations (questionable use of composite endpoint), I have come to a conclusion. They went with the combined intubations and death to get the result they wanted. It happens all the time in politically biased garbage. Here is Table S1 from Appendix:
First off they admitted HCQ was given to patients that were worse off. So take that fact and combine that with the analysis using mortality rate as the primary outcome.
HCQ roughly 60% died
No HCQ 90% died
Hmmm sounds like HCQ saved lives even if they had to spend time on ventilator.
Point two: It has been well established in NY that 80% of people who go on ventilators die and is somewhat confirmed by the 17 of 26 (65%) dead in the No HCQ group. But wait, the HCQ had 49 of 154 die after intubation which is a little under 32% and less than half of the no HCQ. Combine that result with the fact that they OPENLY ADMITTED GIVING HCQ TO WORSE OFF PATIENTS and you know what the conclusion is????? HCQ saved lives. So they fudged the endpoint to be a composite one where intubation was equivalent to death. Does anyone think they are the same?
This same study could have been written to say HCQ saves lives without changing anything but using the typical endpoint: mortality. In fact, the conclusion could have been this severe patients 3.75 times more likely to survive when given HCQ. 40.1% -vs- 10.7%.
What they did has to be one of the most corrupt representations of data I have ever seen. NEJM should be ashamed of itself.
Last edited:
yw as the kids would say - yep, looks like a jump and I also can't wait to see the results from asymptomatics, although I'd also like to see NJ catch up to NY on the antibody testing - I'd guess we're somewhere between NYS and NYC, purely based on density.
On the 2nd post, I agree actual infections should be way down vs. weeks ago due to most folks staying at home, combined with social distancing and mask-wearing (by most) when they're in public, leading to reduced transmission. In hindsight, my guess is we'll likely have enough testing capacity to effectively double testing rates without increasing actual testing rates at all, due to falling infection rates. But it's still good to have increased capacity (and improved turnaround time, which is critical in a flare-up) should there be flare-ups and there likely will be. Will be great to see positives finally go below 10% of tests.
LTC and nursing homes (residents and workers) account for 11 percent of all cases but 1/3 of all deaths. Breakdown state by state in this article.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/09/us/coronavirus-cases-nursing-homes-us.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/09/us/coronavirus-cases-nursing-homes-us.html
His way of expressing it is ridiculous, but so is yours. The relevant chance is the chance that you die from it, period, not the chance that you die from it given that you have an infection.
The IFR could be 100% and it would still be stupid to worry about it if the chance of infection was 0.001%.
Our guys have too.
SoS Pompeo said something similar a while back. Pretty sure he has access to some pretty good info too. Maybe he speaks German? Smart guy from what I have heard.
Last edited:
Mine is not ridiculous in any way and it's not "mine" anyway, as it's the way the experts express it, so if you don't like infection fatality ratio or case fatality ratio (used much more frequently so far, since we had no idea how many were truly infected, but not tested, until very recently with NY's antibody testing), you can complain to the CDC and other experts.
You also don't seem to understand how the math works either, since the chance that you die from it is impossible to know right now, since we truly don't know how many people will be infected out of the total population. If we take an educated guess of that number being 60% of the population being infected in the end (herd immunity), then one can simply multiply the fatalities per infection times the estimated number infected, eventually to get an estimate of the overall risk that a person dies from it, period - and for each age group and eventually for sub-populations within each age group. I wrote very lengthy post late last night detailing all of this for each age group in the US.
Since there has been a lot of mask discussion recently, thought folks would find this preprint epidemiology article of interest. Tons of math in it, but much simply hinges on the assumption that masks significantly reduce transmission rates, which has been shown in hospital settings with COVID (especially in the NYC antibody study, where health care workers actually had less infections than the general population). If one buys that concept, the math at least works directionally, and outbreaks can be controlled and/or prevented with 80-90% mask wearing.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13553.pdf
Our SEIR and ABM models suggests a substantial impact of timely universal masking. Without masking, but even with continued social distancing in place once the lockdown is lifted, the infection rate will increase and almost half of the population will become affected. This scenario would potentially lead to over a million deaths in a population the size of the UK.
Social distancing and masking at both 50% and 80-90% of the population but no lockdown beyond the end of May result in substantial reduction of infection, with 80-90% masking eventually eliminating the disease. Moreover, for a significant chance of mitigating infection growth rates, universal masking must be adopted early by day 50 from the onset of COVID-19 outbreaks. Without masking, lifting lockdown after nine weeks while keeping social distancing measures will risk a major second wave of the epidemic in 4-5 months’ time.
However, if four out of five citizens start wearing cloth masks in public before the lockdown is lifted, the number of new COVID-19 cases could decline enough to exit lockdown and still avoid a second wave of the epidemic. If only every second person starts wearing a mask, infection rates would also decline substantially, but likely not by enough to prevent the second wave.
This second link details the very encouraging results seen in a host of nations that have instituted strong mask-wearing provisions/guidances - and not just the Asian countries, but countries like Austria, Germany, Czech Republic and Turkey have all done much better than their European neighbors who largely eschewed mask wearing until recently and had much worse outbreaks.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200504-coronavirus-what-is-the-best-kind-of-face-mask
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13553.pdf
Our SEIR and ABM models suggests a substantial impact of timely universal masking. Without masking, but even with continued social distancing in place once the lockdown is lifted, the infection rate will increase and almost half of the population will become affected. This scenario would potentially lead to over a million deaths in a population the size of the UK.
Social distancing and masking at both 50% and 80-90% of the population but no lockdown beyond the end of May result in substantial reduction of infection, with 80-90% masking eventually eliminating the disease. Moreover, for a significant chance of mitigating infection growth rates, universal masking must be adopted early by day 50 from the onset of COVID-19 outbreaks. Without masking, lifting lockdown after nine weeks while keeping social distancing measures will risk a major second wave of the epidemic in 4-5 months’ time.
However, if four out of five citizens start wearing cloth masks in public before the lockdown is lifted, the number of new COVID-19 cases could decline enough to exit lockdown and still avoid a second wave of the epidemic. If only every second person starts wearing a mask, infection rates would also decline substantially, but likely not by enough to prevent the second wave.
This second link details the very encouraging results seen in a host of nations that have instituted strong mask-wearing provisions/guidances - and not just the Asian countries, but countries like Austria, Germany, Czech Republic and Turkey have all done much better than their European neighbors who largely eschewed mask wearing until recently and had much worse outbreaks.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200504-coronavirus-what-is-the-best-kind-of-face-mask
I don't dislike them, I just recognize that those numbers alone do not properly specify the risk the disease presents.
No, I do understand this. My response was to your specific post that said the "IFR is the real chance of someone dying". You need to do the next step of also multiplying by the chance you get it. I can see by this response that you understand that but it wasn't in the post I replied to.
I heard this morning on the news that more than 80 cases in South Korea have been linked to those night clubs connected to that 29 year old man who didn't wear a mask.
Some interesting notes here. This study did not focus on mortality as primary outcome. It used intubations or deaths combined. Weeks ago Cuomo was being asked about this study and why not released. I wondered why they sat on it. Looking at the Appendix and the fact they combined deaths and intubations (questionable use of composite endpoint), I have come to a conclusion. They went with the combined intubations and death to get the result they wanted. It happens all the time in politically biased garbage. Here is Table S1 from Appendix:
First off they admitted HCQ was given to patients that were worse off. So take that fact and combine that with the analysis using mortality rate as the primary outcome.
HCQ roughly 60% died
No HCQ 90% died
Hmmm sounds like HCQ saved lives even if they had to spend time on ventilator.
Point two: It has been well established in NY that 80% of people who go on ventilators die and is somewhat confirmed by the 17 of 26 (65%) dead in the No HCQ group. But wait, the HCQ had 49 of 154 die after intubation which is a little under 32% and less than half of the no HCQ. Combine that result with the fact that they OPENLY ADMITTED GIVING HCQ TO WORSE OFF PATIENTS and you know what the conclusion is????? HCQ saved lives. So they fudged the endpoint to be a composite one where intubation was equivalent to death. Does anyone think they are the same?
This same study could have been written to say HCQ saves lives without changing anything but using the typical endpoint: mortality. In fact, the conclusion could have been this severe patients 3.75 times more likely to survive when given HCQ. 40.1% -vs- 10.7%.
What they did has to be one of the most corrupt representations of data I have ever seen. NEJM should be ashamed of itself.
Here's my HCQ story. I caught Covid 19, had a fever for 4 days and it seemed to be going away but a day later came back strong. I had the cough, lost taste and the fever continued for another 4 days. I called my doctor (video conference) who told me there's no cure for the virus, ride it out at home with OTC medicine and call back if I started to have respiratory issues. I asked about HCQ and was told it's only being given to patients in hospitals who are in serious condition. A physician relative told me about an infectious disease doctor who is giving it to high risk patients early on in the disease and they're avoiding hospitalization. He gave me a supply of HCQ with Zinc tablets. The first day of taking it, I also began to have some breathing issues. 2nd day not better or worse. Day 3 my breathing improved and the fever was gone.
I can't prove the HCQ helped because maybe the virus just ran it's course but I honestly felt I was getting worse when I started taking it. It will be interesting to see what the Univ. of Minnesota study says.
I understand all sides of the equations and think there's a rationale when I hear the right-wing radio station espousing that we have to accept a certain amount of deaths in the old and the compromised so that we can get on with our financial and psychological and physical lives. I get it. adults need to make adult decisions about themselves. we also need to accept that not everybody's bulletproof and we don't know a lot about this virus and how it interacts with any particular person's immune system. I see very smart people talking about herd immunity and frankly they're just making stuff up and wishful thinking. this is not like when we used to have play dates to get the chickenpox on purpose or the mumps which is super contagious but not lethal. The virus does not play by your rules. comparing New York and New Jersey to Scandinavian countries -that's a good one. here's a must-read that offers simple virology for a dummy
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/th...te=1&user_id=4d8144c2efd0b72313efefae51ff2c1a
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/th...te=1&user_id=4d8144c2efd0b72313efefae51ff2c1a
Giving HCQ only to patients in serious condition is borderline criminal. It has no affect at that point.
- Status
Similar threads
