ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2673 of 3903
« First < 1673217325732623266326692670267126722673 267426752676267726832723277331733673 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
Marcellus 01:00 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
The number of people who have had Covid-19 was much greater than the official case count, according to data and a new analysis released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the country is far from a level that would give the population herd immunity.

Depending on the region, the number of people infected was sometimes six to 24 times the number of reported cases, the CDC team said.

“For most sites, it is likely that greater than 10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred than the number of reported COVID-19 cases,” the team concluded.

These numbers are likely conservative, according to the study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The data used in the analysis was published on the CDC website Tuesday.

CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said earlier this month that testing had likely missed 90% or so of cases.

The CDC wanted to see if the official test tally showed the actual numbers of infections. They analyzed test results from 16,000 people in 10 geographically diverse cities and states done between March and early May. These people were tested, not because they had coronavirus symptoms but for other reasons – for instance, if they were having surgery and the hospital did the test as a matter of course.

These tests would give a broader sense of who has been infected by the novel coronavirus than just the number of people who have sought tests because they didn’t feel well and suspected they had Covid-19.

There is a limit to this methodology. These people tested may not have been representative of the general population, nor does it take into account the disease exposure risk. It’s also possible that there could be some overlap, and people may have been tested more than once, the CDC said. The infections may not be evenly distributed even in these regions.

The results do show that the majority of people in these 10 sites have not had Covid-19. It also shows that people who are asymptomatic are still contributing to the spread of the disease, so the authors argue that the public should continue to take steps to prevent the spread by wearing masks, staying physically distant and staying home as much as possible.
In other words the mortality rate is about 10% of advertised, almost like.......
[Reply]
Donger 01:30 PM 07-21-2020
"If we all wore face coverings for the next four, six, eight, twelve weeks, across the nation, this virus transmission would stop," Dr. Robert Redfield said.

Admiral Brett Giroir, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, said at a briefing from the US Health and Human Services Department Thursday that masks and physical distancing could quickly stop the spread of the pandemic.

"If we have that degree of compliance with these simple measures, our models say that's really as good as shutting it down," Giroir said. "These simple facts can really shut down the outbreak without completely shutting down your local area."
[Reply]
Donger 01:34 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
In other words the mortality rate is about 10% of advertised, almost like.......
CDC best estimate IFR is still .65%

If the number of cases is 18 x the confirmed number, that's 72,000,000 or 21.8% of the population.

That would make the IFR ~.2%
[Reply]
TLO 01:35 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
The number of people who have had Covid-19 was much greater than the official case count, according to data and a new analysis released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the country is far from a level that would give the population herd immunity.

Depending on the region, the number of people infected was sometimes six to 24 times the number of reported cases, the CDC team said.

“For most sites, it is likely that greater than 10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred than the number of reported COVID-19 cases,” the team concluded.

These numbers are likely conservative, according to the study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The data used in the analysis was published on the CDC website Tuesday.

CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said earlier this month that testing had likely missed 90% or so of cases.

The CDC wanted to see if the official test tally showed the actual numbers of infections. They analyzed test results from 16,000 people in 10 geographically diverse cities and states done between March and early May. These people were tested, not because they had coronavirus symptoms but for other reasons – for instance, if they were having surgery and the hospital did the test as a matter of course.

These tests would give a broader sense of who has been infected by the novel coronavirus than just the number of people who have sought tests because they didn’t feel well and suspected they had Covid-19.

There is a limit to this methodology. These people tested may not have been representative of the general population, nor does it take into account the disease exposure risk. It’s also possible that there could be some overlap, and people may have been tested more than once, the CDC said. The infections may not be evenly distributed even in these regions.

The results do show that the majority of people in these 10 sites have not had Covid-19. It also shows that people who are asymptomatic are still contributing to the spread of the disease, so the authors argue that the public should continue to take steps to prevent the spread by wearing masks, staying physically distant and staying home as much as possible.
Was reading into this, and found this nugget.

Originally Posted by :
The study likely detected infections in people who may have had no symptoms or only mild illness, and who never got coronavirus tests. Infection rates were from six times higher than reported cases in Connecticut to 24 times higher in Missouri.

[Reply]
TLO 02:00 PM 07-21-2020
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2768834

If you'd like to read for yourself.
[Reply]
TLO 02:04 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
CDC best estimate IFR is still .65%

If the number of cases is 18 x the confirmed number, that's 72,000,000 or 21.8% of the population.

That would make the IFR ~.2%
Looking at an overall IFR is silly. It varies so much between age ranges that the number .65% the CDC gives out is useless.

Break it down by age ranges to get a more accurate picture.
[Reply]
Marcellus 02:05 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Looking at an overall IFR is silly. It varies so much between age ranges that the number .65% the CDC gives out is useless.

Break it down by age ranges to get a more accurate picture.
Under 65 its probably around .00001%.
[Reply]
O.city 02:08 PM 07-21-2020
They found that a while back. That was in late april early may.

So if you extrap that out to now, well, we're actually doing pretty good in MO.
[Reply]
TLO 02:09 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
They found that a while back. That was in late april early may.

So if you extrap that out to now, well, we're actually doing pretty good in MO.
I remember this now. I think they're just confirming their findings now.

24x the number of cases... Wow
[Reply]
TLO 02:12 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Under 65 its probably around .00001%.
That seems incredibly unlikely. But maybe .02%?

Again just lumping everyone under 65 into ah group makes it difficult.
[Reply]
dirk digler 02:12 PM 07-21-2020
Here is the link to the CDC serology. Am I reading this right, in MO they are saying 2.8% of the population has been infected based on their estimate?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...dashboard.html
[Reply]
Marcellus 02:14 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
That seems incredibly unlikely. But maybe .02%?

Again just lumping everyone under 65 into ah group makes it difficult.
.02 would be 10% of the deaths being 65 and older and its not remotely close to that, its more like 80%.
[Reply]
Donger 02:15 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Looking at an overall IFR is silly. It varies so much between age ranges that the number .65% the CDC gives out is useless.

Break it down by age ranges to get a more accurate picture.
Eh, not really. This virus isn't affecting just one demographic or age group.
[Reply]
Marcellus 02:16 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Eh, not really. This virus isn't affecting just one demographic or age group.
Yea, there isn't a pattern at all that shows the vast majority of people dying are over a specific age or anything.

Good grief.
[Reply]
Donger 02:23 PM 07-21-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Yea, there isn't a pattern at all that shows the vast majority of people dying are over a specific age or anything.

Good grief.
Of course there is. It's vastly more deadly to those over 65. I'd imagine that the IFR for elderly folks exceeds 2%

That doesn't change the fact that it's infected and killed people from every age group. Therefore, looking at the overall IFR isn't silly.
[Reply]
Page 2673 of 3903
« First < 1673217325732623266326692670267126722673 267426752676267726832723277331733673 > Last »
Up