COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

Status
Not open for further replies.

bac2therac

Legend
Jul 30, 2001
147,027
48,871
113
50
Belle Mead NJ
Remember the toilet paper shortage?

Also remember a large segment of the population did not, and still do not want to wear masks. Some are pointing to those initial comments, (where he says masks are effective, but at that time not necessary), as reason to not wear masks right now, and it's childish.

its simple, they dont trust him, when you screw up like that and give up strong counter statements that masks dont really do anything then you reap what you sow
 

RobertG

All American
Jul 25, 2001
7,451
2,240
113
https://www.wsj.com/articles/masks-...ll-controversial-11593336601?mod=hp_lead_pos6

Apparently this is a western (Europe and the US) thing.

When Covid-19 spread to the West in February, key health-care institutions, such as the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General argued against widespread use of face masks outside hospitals. Some experts dismissed simple masks that don’t stop viruses as dangerous, because they could induce a false sense of security in wearers.

U.S. Surgeon General Jerome M. Adams tweeted on Feb. 29: “Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!” He has since apologized and now supports wearing them.

White House adviser Dr. Anthony Faucisaid this month that he initially dismissed masks because medical workers were facing a shortage in supplies. He, too, is now an advocate.

“Naturally there is a lack of trust in health-care experts now, especially about masks,” said Jeremy Howard, a medical data scientist at the University of San Francisco who runs a pro-mask campaign.

...

Hong Kong, with 7.5 million residents, is one of the most densely populated places on earth, but recorded only six deaths from Covid-19 despite having no lockdown and receiving nearly three million travelers a day from abroad, around half of them from mainland China, where the virus originated.

The key secret of Hong Kong’s success, Prof. Yuen said, is that the mask compliance rate during morning rush hour is 97%. The 3% who don’t comply are mainly Americans and Europeans, he said.

“The only thing you can do is universal masking, that’s what stopped it,” Prof. Yuen said.

 

bac2therac

Legend
Jul 30, 2001
147,027
48,871
113
50
Belle Mead NJ
and as a Trump supporter, he is the last person I would take my cues from about health and I do not and people should not take any health related cues from any elected official because politics is woven into it all. Thats why we pay the experts at the CDC and the task force.

its another reason that Murphy is a fraud as he has refused to release any information of the scientific data he is using....so transparent right, and thats why people are questiioning him even elected Dems. People need information, not a politician dictating what they can and cannot do.
 

RUBOB72

All American
Aug 5, 2004
8,607
2,338
113
I feel this is more a top down issue.

Who should have a better handle on how a virus is progressing in a foreign country, the President or a city Mayor?
The governor of a state without question should be the one who oversees the amount of protective measures within his or her state.Then when he or she has the exact amount of needed items should they then go to the Fed... here is where the language becomes skewed... the President is the one who oversees and administers help if necessary... The President is NOT obligated responsible to check on these governors and their appointed and elected administrations...There is a matter of separation... both sides state and Fed were complacent and at fault.
 

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
The problem here is one of communications, once trust is lost it's hard to get it back and Fauci and Trump lost this message early by Fauci's comments on masks not being needed by the general public and Trump's refusal to wear a mask later on.
I think it does highlight how tricky it is in communicating with the public.

If he says, yes everyone should wear a mask, people then hoard masks, and hospitals which already had a shortage have an even more sever shortage.

Or if he hedges his comments, which he did, then people now act like he has no idea what he's talking about and nothing he says can be taken seriously.

I find that latter result to be more a criticism of the general public then of Fauci himself, but that is the reality. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 

wisr01

All American
Apr 13, 2006
7,491
2,325
113
Watch this from 1:54:30 on for about a half hour. Pretty sobering to hear to someone with his background speak openly...

BTW he is no right wing loon, in fact he is quite the opposite.
 

RUBOB72

All American
Aug 5, 2004
8,607
2,338
113
Fine, I think it is fair to say he was unaware how infected the country was at that time, I think it may also be fair to say he was unaware about the level of asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission.

But he is also flat out saying masks are important and we need to make sure health care workers have enough.

I think people forget there was (and still is for gods sake) a shortage of masks.

People also forget that people were hoarding toilet paper.

I think the criticisms of Fauci regarding those comments are super flimsy. The fact that people are using those comments to now act like masks are not useful? Ridiculous.
Fauci gave some bad and conflicting advice and should have really thought hard and long .If his reasoning for saying “ you don’t need to wear a mask” was to protect frontline care workers then yes he screwed the pooch as the saying goes... All the accolades mean nothing to those who became ill and died... Another smart and educated person with a big ego.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LETSGORU91

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
its simple, they dont trust him, when you screw up like that and give up strong counter statements that masks dont really do anything then you reap what you sow
I think all things considered he played it right. Maybe that is because I know nurses who were forced to use dirty masks. Maybe it's because I work in a hardware store and I saw people hoarding masks. Guys sanding sheet rock and fiberglass, guys working with harsh chemical still can not get masks or respirators.

Those criticizing him don't want to look the big picture. They only want to look through the critical lens. It's unfortunate.
 

RobertG

All American
Jul 25, 2001
7,451
2,240
113
I think it does highlight how tricky it is in communicating with the public.

If he says, yes everyone should wear a mask, people then hoard masks, and hospitals which already had a shortage have an even more sever shortage.

Or if he hedges his comments, which he did, then people now act like he has no idea what he's talking about and nothing he says can be taken seriously.

I find that latter result to be more a criticism of the general public then of Fauci himself, but that is the reality. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But this is the point of communications, you cannot hedge your comments, messages have to be clear and concise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LETSGORU91

rutgersguy1

Hall of Famer
Dec 17, 2008
23,338
5,596
113
Comments from former CDC director Tom Frieden.

From CNN:

Former US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Tom Frieden said on Fox News that although the US is doing more testing and hospitals are better prepared, “this virus still has the upper hand.”

The increase in cases in Southern states is the result of reopening too fast and it “is going to continue to get worse for weeks,” Frieden said.

Frieden said the deaths will lag cases of infections by about a month. And while the increase in cases appears to be in younger populations, Frieden said “what starts in young adults doesn’t stay in young adults.”

Frieden estimated that in the next month, the US will see at least 15,000 more deaths from Covid-19. He also said cases will continue to rise.

“As a doctor, a scientist, an epidemiologist, I can tell you with 100% certainty that in most states where you're seeing an increase, it is a real increase. It is not more tests, it is more spread of the virus," Frieden said. "And the one number to look at that's very important is the percent of tests that’s positive. The number of cases, that can vary some because we are only diagnosing 10, 20% of all cases. So the numbers you're seeing are just a reflection, a tip of the iceberg of even more spread.”
 

RUBOB72

All American
Aug 5, 2004
8,607
2,338
113
I think all things considered he played it right. Maybe that is because I know nurses who were forced to use dirty masks. Maybe it's because I work in a hardware store and I saw people hoarding masks. Guys sanding sheet rock and fiberglass, guys working with harsh chemical still can not get masks or respirators.

Those criticizing him don't want to look the big picture. They only want to look through the critical lens. It's unfortunate.
No I believe by questioning and not necessarily agreeing is ok.... Now why does he get a pass ? He made an error and waited to correct it.... he had numerous opportunities well before he changed and then changed again...Debra Birx and Jerome also made the “ you don’t need a mask “ comments and somebody needed to step up...
 

ashokan

Heisman Winner
May 3, 2011
15,841
12,801
113
Watch this from 1:54:30 on for about a half hour. Pretty sobering to hear to someone with his background speak openly...

BTW he is no right wing loon, in fact he is quite the opposite.

Amazing stuff that I never would have expected from someone at Evergreen.

He's like Chris Martensen describing the virus "gain of function" situation (studies the US was helping to fund in Wuhan). But I didn't expect him to so amazingly illustrate the corruption of "science" (so bad people will ignore deadly stuff even when proven). I also never heard about CV perhaps being weaker in sunlight because its a bat virus, and that it could evolve from spending time outdoors.
 

RU848789

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2001
45,737
19,269
113
Metuchen, NJ
If the fatality rate is 1% and we've had 125,000 deaths already, wouldn't that suggest 12,500,000 actual cases? Would have to have a lot of cases where folks didn't realize it for that to be true. Also, have read recently that more young people are being infected, and more seriously, than before. You got any info on that, Numb3rs?
That's about right. The only state in the US with statewide population antibody testing is New York and their current infection fatality rate is 1.15% (post below and all the other details in this post have been discussed, but I know you don't frequent this thread, so I included a bunch of stuff below). This is based on data as of 6/13, with 30,700 deaths vs. 13.4% of 20MM or 2.68MM with antibodies. Note that the 30,700 dead, includes about 5900 presumptives w/o actual positive viral tests, mostly from hospitals where they were known COVID patients but they skipped the test to reduce exposures; if those were subtracted out the IFR is 0.93%.

However, NY only had 404K positive cases by viral PCR test, meaning the ratio of actual infections to positive cases is about 6.6:1. The recent CDC statement was that there are about 10X as many infections as positive cases, which I'm sure was drawn partly on that number (plus a few other countries have similar infection to case ratios, like Spain), but is a bit higher for reasons I'm not sure of. So yeah, most infections have been either mild to moderate (since only serious cases were being tested for months) or asymptomatic.

The reason I've been saying the eventual IFR will be 0.5-1.0% is assuming it's possible that a greater % of vulnerable people died in the first wave, plus perhaps NY has a greater % of vulnerable people than the US average. Several recent papers have also posited that the eventual IFR will be 0.5-1.0%. Not that even at 0.5% (no guarantee it won't stay at ~1%), that's 6.3X greater than influenza's IFR of 0.08% (when accounting for asymptomatics in the flu IFR), plus COVID could infect 55-80% of the US/world (herd immunity estimate range, depending on true R0 transmission rate), while flu typically infects about 10% of the US annually (including asymptomatics).

The 0.5-1.0% IFR and 55-80% infected numbers give the potential 900K-2.6MM US deaths, eventually, if we did no interventions and had no cure/vaccine. I'm sure the actual IFR is starting to drop with some marginally to moderately effective treatments now available, which is good and I think it'll drop significantly once we have antibody cocktail drugs available by about September and will clearly drop much further with a successful vaccine (by the end of the year IMO). But public health professionals and the government shouldn't "count" on any of those as they're not guaranteed. The two other "wild cards" are the possibility of "cross-reactivity" meaning some people might have some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 based on exposure to other coronaviruses (posted about this 2 days ago) and the potential for the virus to mutate into a weaker form (mutations are slow and no proof of this yet) - if either of these occur, it could obviously greatly reduce deaths.

I haven't followed the rate of infections for young people much, so I'd simply direct you to the NPR link below, which does a nice job of discussing that observation, with the most likely explanation being a combo of much more testing being done now vs. early in the outbreak and young people likely engaging in more riskier behavior socially, leading to relatively higher percentages of them now testing positive. I haven't seen much to say that infections in the young are more serious than they were before, however. Young people are still much less prone to hospitalizations (~4% of positive cases for those in their 20s vs. 20% for those over 60) and deaths, which is very well known. The one recent finding has been the MIS-C (multi-inflammation syndrome in children) observation in children, but that's still only a tiny percentage.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...increasingly-testing-positive-for-coronavirus


Cuomo announced that NY repeated their seroprevalence antibody survey and, overall, the percentage of people in NY with antibodies went from 12.3% (on 5/1) to 13.4% (on 6/13). Below is the breakdown for the regions in the state and for NYC, showing that the Bronx is up to 32%, while SI/Manhattan are only around 15-16%, with Brooklyn/Queens in the low 20s.

With 30,700 dead as of 6/13 that's an infection fatality ratio of 1.15% (vs. 2.68MM infected), which is up a bit from the 1.0% it was back on 5/1. Just to repeat the hard facts: at an eventual IFR of 0.5-1.0% (assuming it comes down a bit) and assuming 55-80% get infected in the US, that's 900K - 2.6MM US deaths, eventually, assuming no interventions and no cure/vaccine. It's really simple math, but somehow people just don't seem to be getting it.

I've said I think we'll have a near cure by early fall in the engineered antibodies and a vaccine by the end of the year, plus treatments are improving now, as we saw today, but the preceding numbers show the worst case, plus it's possible the cure doesn't pan out and the vaccine is delayed by 6+ months, which is why people should practice mask-wearing and distancing until we have a cure/vaccine. The probability of luck with the virus weakening or more widespread native immunity than we realized (which would also greatly reduce deaths) is not zero, but it's unlikely.



 
Last edited:

RU848789

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2001
45,737
19,269
113
Metuchen, NJ
Comments from former CDC director Tom Frieden.

From CNN:

Former US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Tom Frieden said on Fox News that although the US is doing more testing and hospitals are better prepared, “this virus still has the upper hand.”

The increase in cases in Southern states is the result of reopening too fast and it “is going to continue to get worse for weeks,” Frieden said.

Frieden said the deaths will lag cases of infections by about a month. And while the increase in cases appears to be in younger populations, Frieden said “what starts in young adults doesn’t stay in young adults.”

Frieden estimated that in the next month, the US will see at least 15,000 more deaths from Covid-19. He also said cases will continue to rise.

“As a doctor, a scientist, an epidemiologist, I can tell you with 100% certainty that in most states where you're seeing an increase, it is a real increase. It is not more tests, it is more spread of the virus," Frieden said. "And the one number to look at that's very important is the percent of tests that’s positive. The number of cases, that can vary some because we are only diagnosing 10, 20% of all cases. So the numbers you're seeing are just a reflection, a tip of the iceberg of even more spread.”
Yep, he's right. It's sad that so many don't see it, especially governors in most of those states and obviously the Administration, too, based on Pence's comments from the other day, which are essentially the equivalent of Kevin Bacon's character in Animal House screaming "all is well" just before being trampled.

The one thing Frieden doesn't talk about is that we now have better medical procedures and some drug treatments and plasma, which I believe are at least moderately decreasing death rates vs. early in the outbreak, although we haven't seen data, yet, to prove that assertion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

wisr01

All American
Apr 13, 2006
7,491
2,325
113
If the fatality rate is 1% and we've had 125,000 deaths already, wouldn't that suggest 12,500,000 actual cases? Would have to have a lot of cases where folks didn't realize it for that to be true. Also, have read recently that more young people are being infected, and more seriously, than before. You got any info on that, Numb3rs?
More like 24 million cases with a IFR of 0.5%.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/25/coronavirus-cases-10-times-larger/
 
  • Like
Reactions: biker7766

LETSGORU91

All Conference
Jan 29, 2017
2,599
2,655
113
Fine, I think it is fair to say he was unaware how infected the country was at that time, I think it may also be fair to say he was unaware about the level of asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission.

But he is also flat out saying masks are important and we need to make sure health care workers have enough.

I think people forget there was (and still is for gods sake) a shortage of masks.

People also forget that people were hoarding toilet paper.

I think the criticisms of Fauci regarding those comments are super flimsy. The fact that people are using those comments to now act like masks are not useful? Ridiculous.
At that time, asymptomatic transmission and the ease of communicability (spreading) was well known by the medical community. If he didnt know that, he shouldn't be where he is right now. Some of his comments in that interview are mind boggling.
 

RU848789

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2001
45,737
19,269
113
Metuchen, NJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/masks-...ll-controversial-11593336601?mod=hp_lead_pos6

Apparently this is a western (Europe and the US) thing.

When Covid-19 spread to the West in February, key health-care institutions, such as the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General argued against widespread use of face masks outside hospitals. Some experts dismissed simple masks that don’t stop viruses as dangerous, because they could induce a false sense of security in wearers.

U.S. Surgeon General Jerome M. Adams tweeted on Feb. 29: “Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!” He has since apologized and now supports wearing them.

White House adviser Dr. Anthony Faucisaid this month that he initially dismissed masks because medical workers were facing a shortage in supplies. He, too, is now an advocate.

“Naturally there is a lack of trust in health-care experts now, especially about masks,” said Jeremy Howard, a medical data scientist at the University of San Francisco who runs a pro-mask campaign.

...

Hong Kong, with 7.5 million residents, is one of the most densely populated places on earth, but recorded only six deaths from Covid-19 despite having no lockdown and receiving nearly three million travelers a day from abroad, around half of them from mainland China, where the virus originated.

The key secret of Hong Kong’s success, Prof. Yuen said, is that the mask compliance rate during morning rush hour is 97%. The 3% who don’t comply are mainly Americans and Europeans, he said.

“The only thing you can do is universal masking, that’s what stopped it,” Prof. Yuen said.
Good post. It seemed so obvious back in early/mid-March, when I became a mask champion, because the mask analysis, fundamentally, is very much a mass transfer phenomenon and that's chem eng'g 101 stuff - maybe they needed engineers running the CV task force, lol. No doubt the communications from our scientific and political leaders on masks have largely sucked - at least the scientific leaders have been on board with masks, though, in the US since April - the fact that they're still not required here is mind boggling. The cultural/behavioral elements in East vs. West terms were discussed in detail in the link below.

https://time.com/5799964/coronavirus-face-mask-asia-us/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
Yep, he's right. It's sad that so many don't see it, especially governors in most of those states and obviously the Administration, too, based on Pence's comments from the other day, which are essentially the equivalent of Kevin Bacon's character in Animal House screaming "all is well" just before being trampled.

The one thing Frieden doesn't talk about is that we now have better medical procedures and some drug treatments and plasma, which I believe are at least moderately decreasing death rates vs. early in the outbreak, although we haven't seen data, yet, to prove that assertion.
I just watched the interview and he did mention that medical procedures will lessen fatalities.
 

RU848789

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2001
45,737
19,269
113
Metuchen, NJ
At that time, asymptomatic transmission and the ease of communicability (spreading) was well known by the medical community. If he didnt know that, he shouldn't be where he is right now. Some of his comments in that interview are mind boggling.
Fauci knew about asymptomatic transmission and talked about it in early February. He's a very, very smart guy and I've always assumed he downplayed public masking, like he said, due to the concerns over them not being available in hospitals for health care workers (which was a truly serious concern - and public masking is far less needed when most areas are shut down), since the US didn't stock up on medical supplies, like it should have. We may have to wait for his book to be sure, but I think there was a lot of politics that went into him taking that position.
 

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
Only a pretty specific segment of the population are still fighting against the idea that we should be wearing masks. Another pretty specific segment of the population understands the importance of masks.

Those that don't would do better to wear the mask then continue to point to a Fauci comment from months ago as the reason why they will not wear them.
 

wisr01

All American
Apr 13, 2006
7,491
2,325
113
BTW, I hope Friston is right because if he is, then the number of potential infections is much lower than everyone. For those unaware of Friston I have a link below discussing his model findings. He said modelling for the spread of this virus is best explained by the reality that it is very communicable but only 20-50% are "in the game" meaning can be infected. If you look at what his generative model suggests, that once a population hits about 20-25% of people infected the spread slows drastically because it is running out of susceptible people kind of like NY/NJ. Place like FL, CA, etc have a ways to go. He recently said we would know if he is correct within a month or so if these new areas of spread follow the same pattern.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/p...covid-19-because-of-immunological-dark-matter
 

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
The governor of a state without question should be the one who oversees the amount of protective measures within his or her state.Then when he or she has the exact amount of needed items should they then go to the Fed... here is where the language becomes skewed... the President is the one who oversees and administers help if necessary... The President is NOT obligated responsible to check on these governors and their appointed and elected administrations...There is a matter of separation... both sides state and Fed were complacent and at fault.
It turned into not having stuff. It started out as a lack of knowledge of what was going on in China. I'm not laying that on a Mayor. Up top.
 

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
BTW, I hope Friston is right because if he is, then the number of potential infections is much lower than everyone. For those unaware of Friston I have a link below discussing his model findings. He said modelling for the spread of this virus is best explained by the reality that it is very communicable but only 20-50% are "in the game" meaning can be infected. If you look at what his generative model suggests, that once a population hits about 20-25% of people infected the spread slows drastically because it is running out of susceptible people kind of like NY/NJ. Place like FL, CA, etc have a ways to go. He recently said we would know if he is correct within a month or so if these new areas of spread follow the same pattern.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/p...covid-19-because-of-immunological-dark-matter
Does he say why only 20-50% of the population can be infected?
 

wisr01

All American
Apr 13, 2006
7,491
2,325
113
Does he say why only 20-50% of the population can be infected?
He is a statistician and not an epidemiologist, so he does not seek to explain why some might have some form of immunity, etc. He only speaks to his expertise in modelling the data and it suggests that not everyone is susceptible.

All I will say is I hope he is correct because that would mean we would no longer see huge spikes in areas that have used up much of their susceptible portion.

For those interested, when I read it my first thought was sounds great but who is this dingbat?
Look at #1.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...-most-influential-brain-scientists-modern-era
 
Last edited:

RU848789

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2001
45,737
19,269
113
Metuchen, NJ
The NY data is much more complete than the US data, since NY actually has a true IFR of 1.1% (30,700 deaths/2.68MM infected, as of 6/13), since it's the only state with antibody testing of the population. However, NY's ratio of infections to positive cases is only 6.6:1, so I really don't know where the CDC gets their 10:1 ratio of infections to positive cases by the viral PCR test, unless they're adjusting for NY having much higher testing rates per capita than the US overall (meaning there should be more positive viral tests in the US if testing rates were equal).

If one took the NY ratio of 6.6:1, then that would mean the US's 2.6MM positive viral cases would translate to 17.1MM actual infections in the US (not 26MM) and the IFR would be 128K/17.1MM or 0.75%, not 0.5%. Maybe the CDC has antibody testing data they're not sharing, but until they do I have no idea why they wouldn't use the 6.6:1 NY ratio.

Note that the NY CFR is also higher than the US's, as NY's CFR as of 6/13 was 30,700 deaths/404K cases or 7.6% (vs. their 1.15% IFR), while the US's is about 5% (128K deaths in 2.6MM), but calculating anything based on highly variable positive case rates is dubious. Lower death rates in the US vs. NY could be real, but maybe not - the possibility it is is why I've been saying the eventual IFR would likely be 0.5-1.0%. Bottom line is NY has a very real IFR of 1.1% and no other state in the US even has antibody testing, so calculating an IFR isn't even possible elsewhere.
 

wisr01

All American
Apr 13, 2006
7,491
2,325
113
The NY data is much more complete than the US data, since NY actually has a true IFR of 1.1% (30,700 deaths/2.68MM infected, as of 6/13), since it's the only state with antibody testing of the population. However, NY's ratio of infections to positive cases is only 6.6:1, so I really don't know where the CDC gets their 10:1 ratio of infections to positive cases by the viral PCR test, unless they're adjusting for NY having much higher testing rates per capita than the US overall (meaning there should be more positive viral tests in the US if testing rates were equal).

If one took the NY ratio of 6.6:1, then that would mean the US's 2.6MM positive viral cases would translate to 17.1MM actual infections in the US (not 26MM) and the IFR would be 128K/17.1MM or 0.75%, not 0.5%. Maybe the CDC has antibody testing data they're not sharing, but until they do I have no idea why they wouldn't use the 6.6:1 NY ratio.

Note that the NY CFR is also higher than the US's, as NY's CFR as of 6/13 was 30,700 deaths/404K cases or 7.6% (vs. their 1.15% IFR), while the US's is about 5% (128K deaths in 2.6MM), but calculating anything based on highly variable positive case rates is dubious. Lower death rates in the US vs. NY could be real, but maybe not - the possibility it is is why I've been saying the eventual IFR would likely be 0.5-1.0%. Bottom line is NY has a very real IFR of 1.1% and no other state in the US even has antibody testing, so calculating an IFR isn't even possible elsewhere.
Redfield estimates that between 5% and 8% of the U.S. population has been exposed. He points to results from community wide antibody tests and other surveillance measures that point to this range.
 

RU848789

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2001
45,737
19,269
113
Metuchen, NJ
BTW, I hope Friston is right because if he is, then the number of potential infections is much lower than everyone. For those unaware of Friston I have a link below discussing his model findings. He said modelling for the spread of this virus is best explained by the reality that it is very communicable but only 20-50% are "in the game" meaning can be infected. If you look at what his generative model suggests, that once a population hits about 20-25% of people infected the spread slows drastically because it is running out of susceptible people kind of like NY/NJ. Place like FL, CA, etc have a ways to go. He recently said we would know if he is correct within a month or so if these new areas of spread follow the same pattern.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/p...covid-19-because-of-immunological-dark-matter
Not sure if you've read my posts over the last month or so on "cross-reactivity," but it's possible that 40% or more of the population have some level of built-in immunity to SARS-CoV-2 - it's not anywhere near proven yet and it's not clear if that might mean no infection or a mild infection, but if verified, that would obviously be a gamechanger. NYC could be the "test case" for this, since NYC already has ~22% infected (as per antibody tests) as opposed to maybe 5-8% in most of the rest of the US. We should watch NYC very closely. One potential argument against cross-reactivity is that areas of the Bronx had 40% or more infected as per antibody testing (but maybe the antibody testing isn't as discriminating as it needs to be). It's also possible cross-reactivity is responsible for the vast majority of cases being mild to asymptomatic, but that 55-80% will still become infected. IMO, this is one of the 2-3 most important scientific questions that needs to be answered ASAP.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...entions-and-more.191275/page-205#post-4619065
 

RU848789

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2001
45,737
19,269
113
Metuchen, NJ
Redfield estimates that between 5% and 8% of the U.S. population has been exposed. He points to results from community wide antibody tests and other surveillance measures that point to this range.
Yes, I saw that and found it very annoying. If they have more concrete data, they should share it. They're in the midst of testing dozens of US cities, supposedly.
 

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
.. We are a country or was a country who never really experienced this type of threat on our shores... from post WWII until Covid19 ...as people keep complaining about board politics the reality is the blame continues ....The real question is how can we turn it around .
Agree on this.

Let's figure this out and move fwd.
 

RUinFla

Heisman Winner
Aug 2, 2001
15,881
3,565
113
Stuart, Florida
There has been much hand wringing in Florida about the growth in the number of cases, and puzzlement about why that is not translating into increased deaths. Governor DeSantis attributes much of that to increased testing. The media and his political enemies screamed him down. But have been following the Hopkins Covid19 site, which is fairly exhaustive, and they include the number tested in the US. At first, you needed a doctor's referral, but not now. As of 1030 PM, 22 June, 28,065,065 Americans had been tested. As of 1030 PM on 27 June, 30,401,640 had been tested. Math is not my strong point, but that is close to 500,000 being tested per day, and suspect Florida testing is outsize because infection numbers are high here. Thus far, about 2 million cases out of a population of 300 million. One out of 150. If you use that proportion against the half mil tested per day--and that level of testing has been going on for a couple of weeks now--you get 3,000+ new cases per day revealed by this testing, most of them asymptomatic. Are we seriously going to do contact tracing on 3,000+ new cases every day? There is a piece earlier in the thread that says a test for antibodies is separate, so we have no idea how many of that half mil have already had it. Really hate to approach this terrifying subject logically. But there we are.
 

Barnaby&Neill

Senior
Dec 10, 2010
2,315
3,499
113
The governor of a state without question should be the one who oversees the amount of protective measures within his or her state.Then when he or she has the exact amount of needed items should they then go to the Fed... here is where the language becomes skewed... the President is the one who oversees and administers help if necessary... The President is NOT obligated responsible to check on these governors and their appointed and elected administrations...There is a matter of separation... both sides state and Fed were complacent and at fault.
The public health / economic risk presented by coronavirus is/was enormous...from January on, hundreds of thousands of lives known to be at stake / depression risk presented to the economy...I don’t think the public will be receptive to an Administration that wants to debate the scope of it ‘obligations’ in such a crisis.
 
Last edited:

wisr01

All American
Apr 13, 2006
7,491
2,325
113
Not sure if you've read my posts over the last month or so on "cross-reactivity," but it's possible that 40% or more of the population have some level of built-in immunity to SARS-CoV-2 - it's not anywhere near proven yet and it's not clear if that might mean no infection or a mild infection, but if verified, that would obviously be a gamechanger. NYC could be the "test case" for this, since NYC already has ~22% infected (as per antibody tests) as opposed to maybe 5-8% in most of the rest of the US. We should watch NYC very closely. One potential argument against cross-reactivity is that areas of the Bronx had 40% or more infected as per antibody testing (but maybe the antibody testing isn't as discriminating as it needs to be). It's also possible cross-reactivity is responsible for the vast majority of cases being mild to asymptomatic, but that 55-80% will still become infected. IMO, this is one of the 2-3 most important scientific questions that needs to be answered ASAP.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...entions-and-more.191275/page-205#post-4619065
According to Friston's model he suggests that number is 50-80% and that it varies for each population. His example is he believes his model suggests that Germans had a larger non-susceptible portion than the UK. So the two neighborhoods in the Bronx that were slammed with over 40% have a different population makeup than other locations that were not hit as hard so his theory still stands. BTW, the Bronx has recently been averaging about 60 cases a day with a population of 1.4M in a small geographic region. As things have slowly opened the cases have not increased over the last month or so. In fact they are going down. Would suggest not many susceptibles left.
 

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
BTW, I hope Friston is right because if he is, then the number of potential infections is much lower than everyone. For those unaware of Friston I have a link below discussing his model findings. He said modelling for the spread of this virus is best explained by the reality that it is very communicable but only 20-50% are "in the game" meaning can be infected. If you look at what his generative model suggests, that once a population hits about 20-25% of people infected the spread slows drastically because it is running out of susceptible people kind of like NY/NJ. Place like FL, CA, etc have a ways to go. He recently said we would know if he is correct within a month or so if these new areas of spread follow the same pattern.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/p...covid-19-because-of-immunological-dark-matter
I dunno about this theory. I'm putting Germany in the South Korean boat. They responded better.

Granted that is only one leg of the theory, but in general if you allow it to run unabated in a densely packed city, it will run wild. If you close it down, it will slow the spread, if you reopen it will speed back up. Lots of evidence supporting this idea.
 

CERU00

All Conference
Feb 10, 2005
2,828
882
113
I’m speaking several drinks deep, and with pain and sorrow in my heart, but I think we’re in for a painful recovery the likes of which most of us have never experienced. I’m in a State that is reopening, cases in good shape, but I think the consumer is scared / hurting.
Based on a visit to 2 bar in your town? My experience suggests the opposite. Bars would be the last place most sane people would visit.
 

RU-05

All American
Jun 25, 2015
5,184
3,943
113
Yes, I saw that and found it very annoying. If they have more concrete data, they should share it. They're in the midst of testing dozens of US cities, supposedly.
AZ lists serology results on their dashboard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.