COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
- Status
Need to see positivity rates or total test #'s here but I think it's fair to say this is currently 1/10th the issue it was in the first wave. If you exclude Russia, Europe had 300 deaths yesterday. Spain alone had 961 deaths on April 2nd.As per the linked article, folks across Europe are becoming pretty concerned with the rise in cases over the past few weeks, especially in Spain and France, where the number of cases is almost equal to the first wave. Germany, the UK, Italy and others are also seeing slow, but steady rises. Of course, just like in the US's 2nd wave in many states, given much higher testing rates, the number of mild/asymptomatic cases are much greater and the age of the infected is younger, so those factors should lead to less hospitalizations and then, with better medical procedures/treatments, deaths will likely be about half what they were per hospitalization (which is what the US has seen).
Also, the cases in Europe in the worst countries, so far, are still only about half what was seen in the US 2nd wave vs. the US first wave (where there were 2X as many cases in wave 2). Will be interesting to see if some countries will have similar outcomes to states like FL/TX or more like CA (which had about half the deaths per capita in wave 2 vs. FL/TX). My guess is more like CA, since most of these countries have less discord (but not zero) on interventions like masks/distancing and carrying out tracing/isolating. Overall, fwiw, the EU is seeing around 25K cases per day right now, which is probably not a peak yet, but is still only about 1/4 the US wave 2 peak of ~66K cases (per capita; EU+UK is about 510MM vs. 330MM in the US). We'll see.
Science | AAAS
www.sciencemag.org
Is it over? Of course not. Do they need to stay on their toes as the cases creep up? Absolutely. But I think as a whole Europe is in pretty good shape. (and just looking at your graphs Germany continues to look like a model for their handling of the pandemic)
Now if there were a couple countries that I would point out to watch for that would be Ukraine and Romania. They were able to stay clear during the first wave but lately have seen their cases and deaths on a sharp incline since early July. Romania was 2nd behind Russia in reported Euro deaths yesterday, while Ukraine was 4th. As we've seen in the US, some states can get pretty lax if they have yet to experience the virus in a heavy dose. Still, there were only 100 deaths between the 2 countries yesterday.
See my post above, Europe is really not doing that bad.
Sweden still in the top 10 worldwide for deaths per million, but the US is hot on it's heels.
If you woke someone up from a coma, showed them a graph of deaths in America over each of the last 20 years, they’d look at 2020, and say ‘what happened?’
I have a strong suspicion that COVID-19 is the driver of the disjunction that begins in March; open to hearing your theories though.
That is not a logical conclusion. Let's try again. If there are less than 200 true positive tests a day, less than 40 people a day go to the hospital, almost everyone who dies from Covid now came from a LTC facility, and the number of deaths in the month of July was completely normal, we are better than doing "pretty well."
You yourself have floated the idea of cross-reactivity...we have no idea how many people may be naturally immune, right? Cross reactive protection + antibodies from corona exposure = herd immunity at some point, but where? To me it looks like right about here.
What part of NJ are you talking about? You might be able to make that argument in NNJ where antibodies In some parts are 10-20%, but the rest of the state is at like 5%. Unless you are assuming cross reactive protection is in 50%+ (which is pretty unlikely).
I'm talking statewide. If test positivity is 1%, and a fair portion of those tests are false positive because they're too sensitive (I've seen informed opinions ranging from 60-90% false) then why are only a couple hundred people a day getting mildly sick as the number of people interacting within six feet without masks is increasing?
Risk increasing, cases decreasing. It's pretty black and white.
Sweden is doing very well and protected against a second wave/surge. They wisely played the long game.
60-90% false positives? Where are you getting that? “Sensitive tests” do not equal false positives.
You answered your own question though, things have been going pretty well due to social distancing and masks. We just opened gyms and indoor dining, so hopefully we don’t see any increases. I don’t think we will because of the precautions put in place. Now, if we drop all social distancing, things would spike back up of course because we are still not close enough to some form of herd immunity imo.
I think whatever % of "herd immunity" we are at is playing a role. But certainly the mitigation measures are playing a role as well.
Could we open up more? Probably. But I'm pretty sure those that are yelling the most to reopen will also be the ones who will again be blaming Murphy when the deaths inevitably begin to track upwards.
Again, they are top 10 in the world in terms of deaths per million. So at this point I wouldn't hold them up as an example of wise Covid mgmt.
I'm also not so sure they are protected against a second wave, but I do think that is definitely something worth watching.
What is a "positive" PCR test? If I need to take a test to go back to work, a "positive" should mean I have the virus active in me, right now, and I'm potentially contagious to my co-workers and loved ones and should isolate for a week or two. The NY Times piece quotes several informed doctors who say the PCR tests are orders of magnitude too sensitive, and are detecting fragments of virus from infections that happened months ago. To me that should be recognized as a false positive. Otherwise what is the point of taking it? A PCR test should reveal your current state of being.
Amazing thread by Gummibear that counters Numbers claim. Hey guess what you dont own science
threadreaderapp.com
Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads
threadreaderapp.com
It would def be nice to discern between an active positive and a positive that is caused by virus remnants, but I think calling the latter a false positive would not be accurate.
Amazing thread by Gummibear that counters Numbers claim. Hey guess what you dont own science
Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads
But you don't even rent science by the hour.
Amazing thread by Gummibear that counters Numbers claim. Hey guess what you dont own science
Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads
He's misleading, or at least contradicting his own logic, right off the bat in saying herd immunity is possible at 10-20%.Amazing thread by Gummibear that counters Numbers claim. Hey guess what you dont own science
Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads
I think his argument that inaccurate testing has led to poor policy decisions is also pretty flimsy. See the recent rise in deaths in states like AZ and Florida for examples. Unless he is saying that lifting restrictions were the poor decisions.
Why are we discussing a tweet from someone named Gummibear 😂
Duly noted.
But that sort of stuff wouldn‘t happen here. We‘re all friends. If anything, it would be more like a Marvin situation. Oops.
Because he brings up great points. We need more viewpoints not less
We definitely need less of your slanted fake Twitter news .
Simple question to you. Should business restrictions and school policies be based on PCR test results that can be as misleading as represented by the NYT? Let's pretend we had no way to test for Covid. 4-5 people a day were dying, almost all of them are 70+ years old, and ~35 people a day were going to the hospital for Covid. Those were the only numbers we had, and they've been at that level for two months. What policies would you put in place in light of this information?
Berenson on fire here
How many deaths because of lockdowns vs actual coronavirus deaths
threadreaderapp.com
How many deaths because of lockdowns vs actual coronavirus deaths
Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads
threadreaderapp.com
We disagree to some extent. I don't think we're anywhere near herd immunity in most locations, if we assume herd immunity is ~50% for argument's sake (some areas are at 20-25% and some are likely up to 40%, but many are also only 10%, but those numbers are based on antibody tests and "cross reactivity" would be due to T-cells and we really have no idea how many might have some immunity based on T-cells), but we could be close to herd immunity in many locations if herd immunity is at ~25%. However, the current low rates can also be easily explained by a large majority of people continuing to wear masks (especially where the risk is greatest, indoors) and not having had schools open or large events or indoor dining.
It's theoretically possible that the ~25% herd immunity number is correct and we could just open everything up and not have more than a small number of cases and deaths. However, it's more likely that a ~50% (or more) number is correct (if the large majority of epidemiologists are correct) and that there are plenty of susceptible people still out there and that reopening fully will lead to large numbers of cases, hospitalizations and deaths again (but certainly not as many as before, since maybe 15-20% overall have been infected).
To me it's far more prudent to continue reopening slowly and safely, with close monitoring of results, especially since we're now embarking on opening some schools in person (some are full open with distancing, some are full virtual and most are some hybrid of the two) at the same time that we're starting to reopen indoor dining, gyms, and entertainment venues (at low levels). Let's see how we do with these steps over several weeks and then become more aggressive in stages if we continue doing ok.
Berenson on fire here
How many deaths because of lockdowns vs actual coronavirus deaths
Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads
Your narrative here is terrible.
What's up with NJ's Rt and it jumping up suddenly? The gym openings? 😉
Fair enough. It seems that we agree that the T-cell X-reactivity is the wildcard, and where we disagree is how quickly we should reopen based on that unknown.
I'll make you a bet. We're on the cusp of the most significant reopening. I bet that our 7DMA never goes above 500 again. Football season 2021- loser buys a six pack and we share it.
What's up with NJ's Rt and it jumping up suddenly? The gym openings? 😉
I think it's due to cases leveling off. If you started the week at 200 cases and ended the following week at 210, your Rt would have to be above 1. At least that's how I understand it, I don't know what their assumptions are for a how long it takes for one person to transmit to another (i.e. if you have 300 cases one day and 400 the next, the 300 people obviously didn't infect an additional 400 overnight)
The fear mongers on here will blast your valid theory and facts. For some this thread has consumed their lives and they can never admit that they wasted the last 6 months of their lives on this. So they fight and call out anyone who doesn't tow their biased opinions.
I think the tests can be used but they have to used with the understanding of what they are finding.
I again point to Florida. Cases, ie positive tests, were rising fast, hospitalizations soon followed, then deaths followed after that. Cases were the leading indicator.
But should we all be aware that 60K positive tests comes with something along the lines of 55K asymptomatic cases? Absolutely.
So when Texas called in the Navy to help them deal with Covid last month they actually did this because of lockdown deaths?Berenson on fire here
How many deaths because of lockdowns vs actual coronavirus deaths
Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads
I won't bet against Rutgers and I won't bet "for" bad CV outcomes, but I'll gladly split a 6-pack at any time - maybe even this winter/spring season if it happens - don't recall if you have tickets, but we often have spares and enjoy having guests and by then maybe we can talk more about weather than COVID! For us, I'll be good to go once we have a vaccine; until then, with very high at-risk people in our house, we're going to stick to very conservative practices, which isn't an issue for us.
My guess is we won't go above 500 cases in the 7DMA with the modest reopening we're embarking on now (assuming we stick with testing as-is - I'd love to see us go to the cheap/fast antigen screening tests ASAP, which will change the results at least somewhat vs. what we've been doing - hard to say how, exactly, if we run a lot more tests, but have less sensitive tests), but I truly believe we'll go well above 500 if we relax on masking/distancing at any moderate to large indoor gatherings in particular, as I don't think we're close enough to herd immunity yet. I'd also love to be wrong on that - people who say anyone is rooting for the virus are clinically insane. I'd take being wrong in exchange for getting everyone's lives back in a heartbeat - maybe it's because one is often wrong as a scientist (and internet weather guy), so one gets used to it.
OK, no bet, but I will poke you in the ribs after the third beer if we continue to loosen restrictions (and I think that could include masks at some point) and nothing "bad" happens.
- Status
