Coronavirus Thread

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Koreans are saying that infection and recovery does confer immunity. What they can't say (obviously) is for how long.

Today's scare story is about Covid-19 causing strokes in healthy people. It is based on a report from the New England Journal of Medicine which details the cases of five people, ages 33 to 49, in New York City who had strokes and subsequently tested positive for Covid-19. All of them had large-vessel strokes outside of the hospital before experiencing other severe symptoms of the virus; one of them has since died.

What is a healthy person? There was a recent article in the UK about a 'healthy' 37 year old man succumbing to the virus. That was the headline. I bothered to read the article. His wife said he was healthy, but he suffered from Type 2 Diabetes and had a heart attack four years earlier. Healthy? Public Health England classifies Type 2 Diabetes as 'a serious medical condition' and it is a known factor increasing the chances of serious symptoms and death to the current virus. As for the heart attack we don't have any other information, but the death of any portion of your heart muscle hardly contributes to better health.

Try and fine a statistic for the average age of those dying in the UK. If you find the number put it in this thread.
I have seen articles giving statistics on the numbers of confirmed cases requiring hospitalisation, requiring intensive care, and of the latter the numbers dying. I have found statistics based on gender and race. I have found all sorts of statistics and analysis. There is an acknowledgement that older people are more likely to die, but that average? The last statistics giving an average age for fatalities which I have found were those published by the Italians weeks ago. Why?

There is a 'project fear' being run to help the authorities maintain lock downs and particularly cajole younger people into compliance. In the UK that is frankly insulting. The vast majority of people here appreciate the severity of the disease and how easily it is transmitted. Failing to publish all information, and publishing idiotic headlines about 'healthy' people, who clearly are not, in the assumption that many won't actually read the entire article, is not helpful and makes people suspicious and cynical of the press.

No medical journal is part of a scare tactic or anything. They are scientific journals that are peer reviewed presenting data for discussion.

The problem is that news media does not understand what they are reading, and they cherry pick data.

There is no scare campaign going on to control people. That can be chocked up in tin foil hat category.

 

[stona]

The press and other media in the UK is absolutely complicit, knowingly or otherwise, in reporting in a way that scares people into compliance. My point is that this is unnecessary as people are not stupid (here at least) and most will comply anyway.

I think reporting, a couple of examples of which I gave, is irresponsible. It's like the 'eating bacon increases the chances of developing cancer by X or Y percent' reporting seen a couple of years ago. Most journalists do not have a background in the natural sciences or mathematics and they do not understand the issues or the statistics. Unfortunately nor do most of their readers. Editorial control is now weak or non-existent. For example, the Guardian would never have published that disgusting article about David Cameron's 'privilege' when he lost a disabled child had there been competent editorial oversight.

I'll call it for what it is. That 37 year old Welshman was NOT healthy by any normal measure, so why put that word in the headline.

Five people who suffered strokes before developing more serious symptoms of a virus which has infected millions, the connection to which is not proven, should not be trumpeted as a headline in mainstream media. This sort of reporting (remember hydroxychloroquine?) is ignorant at best and irresponsible at worst. I'd be interested to know how you would characterise it?

Have you found an average age for UK Covid-19 deaths published anywhere in the mainstream media? I thought not.

You don't need a tin foil hat to call BS when you see it. You just need a background which equips you to form an educated opinion of the statistics.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes its called sensationalism to increase ratings and profit.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets also not insult each other and insinuate someone is not educated. Got it?

 

[stona]

Yes its called sensationalism to increase ratings and profit.

And the campaign has been so effective in scaring the sh*t out of people at low risk that, as we look to try to slowly open up the country towards the end of this month, we see things like this.

"Prof David Spiegelhalter, a leading statistician who chairs the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, said: "I think we do need to have some sort of campaign to encourage people who are very low risk to get out and start living again, when we are able to."

Very low risk means just about all healthy people under 50, you know, the ones who keep the economy moving.

In other news, the children of 'key workers' were supposed to be able to attend school, nursery, kindergarten, etc. Less than 10% have done so far.

Millions more workers have availed themselves of the Treasury's furlough scheme, because they can and because they too have had the crap scared out of them and choose not to work, but to stay at home (often looking after the kids).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And the campaign has been so effective in scaring the sh*t out of people at low risk that, as we look to try to slowly open up the country towards the end of this month, we see things like this.

"Prof David Spiegelhalter, a leading statistician who chairs the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, said: "I think we do need to have some sort of campaign to encourage people who are very low risk to get out and start living again, when we are able to."

Very low risk means just about all healthy people under 50, you know, the ones who keep the economy moving.

In other news, the children of 'key workers' were supposed to be able to attend school, nursery, kindergarten, etc. Less than 10% have done so far.

Millions more workers have availed themselves of the Treasury's furlough scheme, because they can and because they too have had the crap scared out of them and choose not to work, but to stay at home (often looking after the kids).

And you have an equal amount of people who think this is a joke, don't take this seriously and putting everyone at risk. Even low risk people can carry it, and pass it on to others. Others that might be high risk. Look at the meat plant near St. Louis where I live. 300 just tested positive. 900 out of the 2200 at the plant in Iowa. Yeah it's just a scare campaign though. Hmmm...

SMFH...

 

[Shortround6]

somehow people just take out what they want from certain sentences. I may be guilty myself.

"who are very low risk to get out and start living again, when we are able to "

The quoted statement by Stona makes no mention of how or what constitutes being able to.

Common sense would say at a certain level of infection and with monitoring by testing. Unfortunately testing seems to be so rare and performed in such a haphazard fashion that valid conclusions are hard to come by. Doctors/scientists are making educated guesses. At some point we may have to go with a best guess rather than wait for 100% certainty. But is that time now?

Unfortunately many of the naysayers think that because they themselves are not sick it means they can start "living" again. Going to bars. restaurants, beaches, not wearing masks, etc.
going to mega church services and then going to the Grocery store?

We may be over doing precautions in some areas and not doing enough in others, but nobody knows for sure and things like Florida (where I live) deciding to no longer release death statistics (in accurate as they may have been) sure doesn't help the general public assess the danger. Maybe Florida didn't need to shut down the whole state (some counties had next to no cases) but unless you could restrict travel to and from the worst the counties how do you stop it from spreading?
As the meat packing plants show, even rural areas for from big cities can get a large outbreak and the stories about the meat plants only tell about the numbers of workers at plants. not family members or workers in local businesses, etc.

We are operating in a knowledge vacuum, hopefully we can gain the needed knowledge to handle this thing soon without too much more disruption.

 

[Vincenzo]

Italy report, 5 pm CEST 2nd May
cases 209,328, +1,900, deaths 28,710, +474, recovered 79,914, +1,665, active cases 100,704, -239, tests 2,108,837, +55,412
fatality rate 13.7%
mortality rate 476 per million
test rate 35 per thousand
positive rate 9.9%
test rate today 919 per million
positive rate today 3.4%

 

[fubar57]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/droplet-transmission-1.5549547

 

[Crimea_River]

Golf courses reopened here as of today. Tee time Wednesday morning. Pro Shops and Clubhouses remain closed. Physical distancing rules in effect. Flags can not be removed. 1 person per cart (we walk anyway). No lunch over a beer afterwards though. Baby steps.

 

[fubar57]

They opened two in Vancouver yesterday; booked solid for the next three weeks. Mine still has a foot of snow on it in most places

 

[fubar57]

 

[fubar57]

Never mind, too political....have this instead

​

 

[Shortround6]

US government trying to get supplies to the states??????

 

[pgeno71]

No medical journal is part of a scare tactic or anything. They are scientific journals that are peer reviewed presenting data for discussion.

The problem is that news media does not understand what they are reading, and they cherry pick data.

There is no scare campaign going on to control people. That can be chocked up in tin foil hat category.

Agree. Also, these types of journals are really intended for the professionals they serve and not for mass audiences.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey stona,

re: "Have you found an average age for UK Covid-19 deaths published anywhere in the mainstream media? I thought not."

I do not know where you live? Possibly the actual news programs are very different where you are.

Here in Minnesota the actual news programs are Channels 4 (WCCO/CBS), 5 (KSTP/ABC), 9 (KMSP/Fox), 11 (KARE/NBC) and 2 (PBS/TPT), along with some affiliates. I usually watch the news in the early afternoon and evening. All of these stations routinely mention and refer viewers to the following website:

"Situation Update for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Minnesota Dept. of Health"

I know that many (most? all?) of the other states have the same type of website available because I am in routine contact with relatives/friends and we compare notes sometimes.

All of the actual news programs in Minnesota also routinely give a general overview of the numbers on a fairly regular basis, including the median (not average/mean) ages for various items of interest. The MDH, CDC, etc, websites also provide actual numbers of deaths among the different age groups. The numbers of deaths amongst the different age groups are also reported semi-regularly by the actual news programs, albeit in a rather general sense.

The Minnesota Star-Tribune newspaper, our largest paper in terms of subscribers, also publishes the same information.

The MDH, CDC, etc, use the median age because they feel it more correctly provides the at-risk situation value better than an average age would.

Using a median age value in a normal aging population, with a wide age range and with many of the numbers in the set having the same value, will let you predict that the greatest risk of death is at or around the median number and greater.

To use an average age in the same situation would imply the greatest risk is the average value, and gradually decreases as the number moves farther away in either the plus or minus direction.

 

[fubar57]

The median age of 114 deaths due to the virus in B.C. is 86 as of April 23
COVID-19: B.C.'s epidemic by the numbers

 

[ThomasP]

Minnesota report, May 2
cases 6,228***, recovered 2,397, hospitalized 1,159, deaths 395**/***, tested 79,007*/***
fatality rate 6.3%
mortality rate 69.3 per million
test rate 13.9 per thousand*
*Test kits and reagents are becoming more available, there are currently more available than needed to meet the demands of testing for suspected COVID-19 cases and first responder/healthcare/medical personnel. Testing of the general population is beginning in small numbers.
**Approximately 80% of Minnesota COVID-19 deaths have been from cases originating in nursing homes and assisted care facilities. As of today, the youngest to die was 30 years old, the oldest was 109. 98% of deaths have occurred among patients with underlying health conditions (including general frailty due to age). In Minnesota the median age of death due to COVID-19 is 83.
***Although the measures used by Minnesota have reduced the rate of spread significantly, our rate of spread (reflected by the 'curve') is still increasing. Currently this is true regardless of whether the controlling factor used is confirmed cases, test rate, or death rate.

 

[rochie]

Steve

I'm pretty sure they said in the briefing here in the UK a few days ago the average age for deaths was 80.
though i dont remember if it was for the total or just the daily figure.

 

[nuuumannn]

We are operating in a knowledge vacuum, hopefully we can gain the needed knowledge to handle this thing soon without too much more disruption.

Here, let your buddies down south help you out...

Unite Against COVID-19 | New Zealand Government

Thi is updated everyday and is on TV, social media and newspaper sites, so you can't miss it.