ADVERTISEMENT

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I kind of expected, now that kids haven't been as sequestered in the south and west, cases among children are becoming much more prevalent...
Our county puts out a list of new cases by age group every day. Over the past month or two there has been a strong shift to lower age groups. People in their 20s now make up the majority of new cases but there are also quite a few in their teens. Not so many under 10 but averaging one or two per day.

Total new cases per day averaging 30-40. Definitely up a bit from the low point but hospitalizations (including ICU) remain very low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2Kplus10
I doubt you recall correctly at all, since one can find many, many sources saying just the opposite. Below is the most recent one from the Italian National Institute of Health, clearly showing (for a very large population sample) that "COVID-19 is the cause directly leading to death, i.e. the underlying cause, in 89% of deaths of people with a positive test to SARS-CoV-2." You really should be more careful throwing out unsourced information like that. Also, maybe invest in a dictionary - the word you were looking for is "exacerbated" not "exasperated."

https://www.istat.it/it/files//2020/07/Report_ISS_Istat_Inglese.pdf
  • Causes of death reported on 4,942 death records of patients with a positive test to SARS-CoV2 were analyzed (15.6% of total deaths reported to the COVID-19 Surveillance System of the ISS until May 25th). The records include, besides COVID-19, all conditions and diseases that, according to the certifying physician, contributed in determining the death.
  • COVID-19 is the cause directly leading to death, i.e. the underlying cause, in 89% of deaths of people with a positive test to SARS-CoV-2. The main causes in the remaining 11% of cases are diseases of the circulatory system (4.6% of total deaths analyzed), neoplasms (2.4%), diseases of the respiratory system (1%), diabetes (0.6%), dementia (0.6%) and diseases of the digestive system (0.5%).
I was wrong, 92% of all of Italy's "corona" deaths were via another cause, not 90%. Awful job by them and us. Once again, until we have the following data, we don't know the real story:

1. Deaths due to COVID (where COVID directly caused the reason of death)
2. Deaths where COVID was a contributing factor (where COVID exasperated a pre-existing condition)
3. Deaths while having COVID, but not caused or contributed via COVID

Right now, everything is being lumped together. Not good science.
 
I was wrong, 92% of all of Italy's "corona" deaths were via another cause, not 90%. Awful job by them and us. Once again, until we have the following data, we don't know the real story:

1. Deaths due to COVID (where COVID directly caused the reason of death)
2. Deaths where COVID was a contributing factor (where COVID exasperated a pre-existing condition)
3. Deaths while having COVID, but not caused or contributed via COVID

Right now, everything is being lumped together. Not good science.

I provided a fairly unassailable source and you provided...you as the source. You, who have been wrong on almost everything throughout this pandemic. I'm sure that's going to convince quite a few people.
 
Has there been 100 deaths of minors?

Doesn't sound like a lot but that is with schools being closed. What would that number be over a full year with schools open? Also wonder what level of child fatalities would be considered acceptable?
There probably is around there. NY state has 16 alone. Although NJ has only 2. Florida has at least 3. A number of other states have a couple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegock
I provided a fairly unassailable source and you provided...you as the source. You, who have been wrong on almost everything throughout this pandemic. I'm sure that's going to convince quite a few people.
Hopefully this data will come out soon. I assume the CDC is working on a standard process and definition for corona deaths. We shall see! I remember Dr. Birx talking about the need for this a month or so ago.
 
What are the latest findings related to asymptomatic spread of the virus.

Is there clear evidence that shows mask wearing stops the spread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joey Bags
Cool breathalyzer idea for nearly instant COVID testing, although it's difficult to judge, since they haven't published their method or any results yet. The story says they're analyzing breath gases (presumably O2, COW and maybe trace levels of H2S or NH3) and presumably have noticed differences in these gases in infected vs. uninfected people, but they're clearly not measuring viral RNA, which is what the viral PCR test does. Unless they're actually doing some measure of organic matter in the breath, since virus particles in one's breath certainly contain proteins and RNA, which are organic molecules (maybe a flame ionization detector?) and uninfected people likely just don't have that much organic matter in their breath.

Nano sensors inside the breathalyzer detect different gases that people’s lungs produce. The company says that it identifies the virus, like an instant blood test.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/coronavirus/labs-race-to-find-more-efficient-covid-19-tests/2327743/


Would be cool if this actually works though, as we need a nearly instant test that's pretty accurate in order to truly open things like entertainment/sports/food/bar venues (could do these at entrances or maybe require one to be run that day and have proof of it) - I was hoping for an instant antigen test in a finger-prick of blood, which would be more specific for the virus than this test, but the accuracy and speed just aren't there yet and PCR testing will likely never be fast enough for close to real time "clearance" for an event.

One also has to worry a bit about the accuracy of any such test (breathalyzer, antigen, etc.) as it will likely be a function of stage of the infection, since that affects number of viral particles in one's breath (and sneezes/coughs) and is part of why we see so many false negatives (>20%) in the viral PCR test, since viral load is often low at that time. As an aside, the dose received is known to significantly influence the seriousness of one's infection, based on animal testing and indirect evaluations with human viruses (we can't ethically do such tests with COVID).


Pretty cool and informative article in Nature about a host of new assays to detect the presence of coronavirus infections (preferably early in the infection cycle and at low virus levels), which are under development/being deployed soon and will hopefully greatly improve testing speed and accuracy.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02140-8

Generally speaking, virus detection tests either detect genetic material (RNA) from the virus, like the current reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, or one of the structural proteins associated with the virus (via reaction with a test protein that is specific for one of the viral proteins; this is often called an antigen test).

As mentioned in yesterday's post on the possible new breathalyzer style test (which isn't one of the two types above), getting something close to an instant, highly accurate test for the active virus, when people are infectious would be a gamechanger. Not there yet, but making progress.

Also thought I'd throw in a very recent example of the antigen test approach, which I really think is the way to go, as these are analogous to pregnancy tests, i.e., it's far less complicated to have an antibody recognizing a viral protein (antigen) than it is to try to improve replication of RNA in a PCR style test. This MIT/3M collaboration looks promising...

http://news.mit.edu/2020/mit-collaborates-with-3m-develop-rapid-covid-19-test-0714
 
In your post, You're telling us that 15k people under 20 recently tested positive for CV?

It's 11% of the total of 141K being people under 20 - the math's not hard and the percentage of young people out of the total has been steadily rising for the reasons I outlined in my post yesterday and confirmed in today's article in Bloomberg, which Dr. Gottleib tweeted. Here it is again.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...infections-mount-with-schools-eyeing-openings

Also, this recent report shows that about 200,000 children have had a positive viral test in the US over the entire pandemic. This is about 7.6% of all positive cases, which is well below the ~20% of the population that are children, but that number is rising, as more and more children are interacting than before, especially in states currently spiking in cases.

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2...hildren-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/
 
Last edited:
What are the latest findings related to asymptomatic spread of the virus.

Is there clear evidence that shows mask wearing stops the spread?
Is this a trick question? There's overwhelming evidence that mask wearing stops the spread of the virus, which is why CDC's head, Dr. Redfield just said, "If every American started wearing masks outside of their homes right now, the United States could have the coronavirus pandemic under control in four to eight weeks." I could repost about 5 other posts with links to scientific studies on masks if you like, but I'll just post the CDC position paper, JAMA editorial and the new paper on how effective masks were in preventing COVID infections in health care workers in Boston hospitals, below.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/07...rs-surgical-coronavirus-mass-general-brigham/
 
Has there been 100 deaths of minors?

Doesn't sound like a lot but that is with schools being closed. What would that number be over a full year with schools open? Also wonder what level of child fatalities would be considered acceptable?

Hard to say, exactly. The CDC shows 31 from 0-14 and 157 from 15-24, so if one assumed 30% of the 15-24 were 15-17, that would be 47 more for a total of 78, but the CDC is only showing 121K deaths vs. the current total of 143K deaths, so if those 78 are multiplied by 143/121, that's 92 total, which is why I estimated 90-100. There's some "hand-waving" there, but it's not a crazy guess. The latest AAP report, which came out a week ago, but I hadn't seen yet, shows that there have been 63 deaths in people 0-17/0-19 (it's a mix), so far, but that report only has 43 states in it, so it's likely a bit higher. The "real" number is likely somewhere in the 75-100 range, but it's certainly a bit less than the ~120 per year from the flu (from actual death reports), although we're not done yet.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/A...d COVID-19 State Data Report 7.9.20 FINAL.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020
Another story on the long term effects of COVID patients in Europe. Study over 1 year being done in the UK to follow some of the ones (10000 participants) who had to be hospitalized. Also rehab centers popping up to treat these long term patients both who were sick enough to go to hospital and those who weren’t. Hope we do something like that here both with the study and the rehabs.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/19/health/long-covid-italy-uk-gbr-intl/index.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020
Down to 800 in NJ hospitals with Covid. Under 150 in ICU. Just 16 deaths reported yesterday. I expect the daily deaths will wane further now, we should a couple days in the single digits in the next week.
Of the 20 NJ deaths reported on Friday, 16 were from nursing homes.

Coronavirus deadly toll
Nursing home average deaths per 1,000 residents

NJ 120.3
MA 114.8
CT 98.5
RI 80.4
DE 69.8
DC 65.5
PA 51.3
MD 50.7
LA 49.7
NY 48.1
MI 46.2
IL 41.1
NH 38.9
MS 38.0

For full chart:
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020...tors-are-ignoring-the-shocking-nightmare.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegock
Well then by golly let's shut schools forever. I'm sure lots will not take the vaccine especially fast tracked.

I think vaccine availability will be more of an issue early on, if and when we get one that works.

Those that are wary will have plenty of time to wait and watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020
Of the 20 NJ deaths reported on Friday, 16 were from nursing homes.

Coronavirus deadly toll
Nursing home average deaths per 1,000 residents

NJ 120.3
MA 114.8
CT 98.5
RI 80.4
DE 69.8
DC 65.5
PA 51.3
MD 50.7
LA 49.7
NY 48.1
MI 46.2
IL 41.1
NH 38.9
MS 38.0

For full chart:
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020...tors-are-ignoring-the-shocking-nightmare.html
800 in NJ hospitals- half from LTC - that’s leaves 400 out of 9,000,000 NJ residents- odds are 1 in 20,000 if you catch Covid19 you end up in the hospital. Open up the schools and move forward.
 
gym will never open again, I am convinced of that., maybe 2022..there is no science behind it. Supposedly masks work...thats work Numbers is saying and Redfeld is saying if we wear masks we can beat this down to nothing...well...most gyms around the country now requiring masks, why does Murphy refuse to open them...he is killing every gym and every business owner while fear mongering with statements like this that are not based on science...

Believe me, I want to get to gyms, I want to get to indoor dining, I want to get to theaters,” Murphy said. “But we can’t do it if we think we’re gonna have a likelihood of killing people.”

of course the nursing home issues..ahem
 
Of the 20 NJ deaths reported on Friday, 16 were from nursing homes.

Coronavirus deadly toll
Nursing home average deaths per 1,000 residents

NJ 120.3
MA 114.8
CT 98.5
RI 80.4
DE 69.8
DC 65.5
PA 51.3
MD 50.7
LA 49.7
NY 48.1
MI 46.2
IL 41.1
NH 38.9
MS 38.0

For full chart:
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020...tors-are-ignoring-the-shocking-nightmare.html


its very telling what is going on here and pay attention to how the govenor deflects to fear mongering when we know exactly what the problem was in the state
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2Kplus10
gym will never open again, I am convinced of that., maybe 2022..there is no science behind it. Supposedly masks work...thats work Numbers is saying and Redfeld is saying if we wear masks we can beat this down to nothing...well...most gyms around the country now requiring masks, why does Murphy refuse to open them...he is killing every gym and every business owner while fear mongering with statements like this that are not based on science...

Believe me, I want to get to gyms, I want to get to indoor dining, I want to get to theaters,” Murphy said. “But we can’t do it if we think we’re gonna have a likelihood of killing people.”

of course the nursing home issues..ahem
And Connecticut and Pa. have gyms open for six weeks with no issues. Wake up Murph!
 
Pretty cool and informative article in Nature about a host of new assays to detect the presence of coronavirus infections (preferably early in the infection cycle and at low virus levels), which are under development/being deployed soon and will hopefully greatly improve testing speed and accuracy.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02140-8

Generally speaking, virus detection tests either detect genetic material (RNA) from the virus, like the current reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, or one of the structural proteins associated with the virus (via reaction with a test protein that is specific for one of the viral proteins; this is often called an antigen test).

As mentioned in yesterday's post on the possible new breathalyzer style test (which isn't one of the two types above), getting something close to an instant, highly accurate test for the active virus, when people are infectious would be a gamechanger. Not there yet, but making progress.

Also thought I'd throw in a very recent example of the antigen test approach, which I really think is the way to go, as these are analogous to pregnancy tests, i.e., it's far less complicated to have an antibody recognizing a viral protein (antigen) than it is to try to improve replication of RNA in a PCR style test. This MIT/3M collaboration looks promising...

http://news.mit.edu/2020/mit-collaborates-with-3m-develop-rapid-covid-19-test-0714
Interesting stuff, but we don't seem to care about testing, as we can't even broadly deploy the saliva test in NJ, let alone the surrounding states and beyond.
 

Whenever anyone mentions how the US should have followed the lead of other countries - this is what they are referencing.

Other countries (such as the oft mentioned South Korea) imposed significant and draconian quarantine measures.

In France you literally were not allowed to leave your house without carrying a letter saying why you were leaving.
England you were allowed 1 hour outside for exercise/walk/run.

Meanwhile, Gov. Murphy won't even enforce the Out-of-State quarantine rules he is making a big show of promoting each day.
Or strictly enforce masks on packed beaches every weekend.
 
so where is any data on all the daycares that have been open across the country for a awhile now

I see increases in Texas but where else and are these kids just basically asymptomatic
 
Whenever anyone mentions how the US should have followed the lead of other countries - this is what they are referencing.

Other countries (such as the oft mentioned South Korea) imposed significant and draconian quarantine measures.

In France you literally were not allowed to leave your house without carrying a letter saying why you were leaving.
England you were allowed 1 hour outside for exercise/walk/run.

Meanwhile, Gov. Murphy won't even enforce the Out-of-State quarantine rules he is making a big show of promoting each day.
Or strictly enforce masks on packed beaches every weekend.

You’re not wrong, but do you see how COVID is now the single biggest population control tool available? China has weaponized it internally to prevent dissidents from having access to society by handing them red health passes without any explanation.

Telling someone who is asymptomatic to adhere to an ankle bracelet or “papers please” treatment is never going to work here.
 
Without the timing of the cases, when, the point he's making is useless
You are correct that the point of "there are more now then there were before" was not backed up by Gottlieb's tweet.

But Gottlieb's tweet does show that young people can get it in large numbers.

Now the important follow up questions imo are:
How sick are the kids getting?

&

Do kids transmit it to adults?
 
Last edited:
Whenever anyone mentions how the US should have followed the lead of other countries - this is what they are referencing.

Other countries (such as the oft mentioned South Korea) imposed significant and draconian quarantine measures.

In France you literally were not allowed to leave your house without carrying a letter saying why you were leaving.
England you were allowed 1 hour outside for exercise/walk/run.

Meanwhile, Gov. Murphy won't even enforce the Out-of-State quarantine rules he is making a big show of promoting each day.
Or strictly enforce masks on packed beaches every weekend.
Do you think Murphy should be less or more strict?
 
The hospitalization rates #s posted among children is a bit concerning. Averaging 10% across those states for a subset that is supposed to fight the virus off easily and not be affected by it is troubling.

Either is possible.. take your pick. But the motorcycle thing?... C'mon now. Did CoVid cause a stroke while riding?

It's a stretch, but there is a possibility. Blood clots forming in the legs and heart have been causing havoc. These clots can move to the lungs, brain and coronary arteries which have resulted in damage to those organs. It's not rare for these blood clots to form.

What are the latest findings related to asymptomatic spread of the virus.

Is there clear evidence that shows mask wearing stops the spread?

Are you serious?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT