joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
This ^ is a remarkably sober-minded assessment of the situation, one which I feel is very much NOT shared by the society at large!
The society seems to be in full-blown catastrophe mode...
The fatality rate of Covid19
- Thread starter joe_infinity
- Start date
This ^ is a remarkably sober-minded assessment of the situation, one which I feel is very much NOT shared by the society at large!
The society seems to be in full-blown catastrophe mode...
Why do you think this is?
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
Even if this ^ is true (which it might not be, given the problem of immuno-suppression caused by the other condition), many cases are going to be far less clear-cut than that.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
Top marks for reckless pedantry
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
By your reasoning, if someone on death row has cancer, but is executed before they succumb to the cancer, they still died from cancer?
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
I have wondered about this, it doesn't seem to be 'top-down' in the sense of authoritarian, martial law state control sort of thing.
Rather, the panic seems to be very widely distributed, even rebels are wearing hygeinic facemasks.
but it is definitely being fuelled by the news-media, who are presenting the whole thing in a 'deadly panic catastrophe right NOW!' kind of way
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
What do you actually hope to gain from arguing this point joe_infinity?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
If you let run its course you exceed your critical care capacity.
once you do that than every person who cant get critical care will most likely die - not just those who have C-19, but people coming in with heart attacks, strokes, meningitis and umpteen other conditions.
So you end up with hundreds of thousands of additional - and preventable - deaths.
once you do that than every person who cant get critical care will most likely die - not just those who have C-19, but people coming in with heart attacks, strokes, meningitis and umpteen other conditions.
So you end up with hundreds of thousands of additional - and preventable - deaths.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
But the point is that if the whole country came down with seasonal flu in the same fortnight, way more people would die from it than if it were spread over seven or eight months as normal because the health service would be overwhelmed. That's the bit you're downplaying.
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
Incorrect, because you can say with a fairly massive degree of accuracy that being executed is a sufficiently reasonable explanation/account/cause of the person dying at that particular moment in time.
However, there is a broader and more serious issue, that to accurately assess the precise * cause * of a person's death, you would need to do an autopsy, and these covid19 deaths that are being reported are certainly not being autopsied to determine cause of death.
It seems that there is some quite sloppy thinking behind this covid19 rhetoric.
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
Again regarding the comparison with normal flu, I don't understand the difference, the seasonal duration of covid19 seems to be moreorless exactly the same.
Covid 19 has been around since at least November 2019, not just the past fortnight.
You seem to be suggesting that Covid19 transmits quicker than flu does, but I see no evidence of this, and the comments from the WHO guy seem to directly contradict that, flu actually spreads through communities much quicker and more efficiently than Covid19 has been seen to.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
Thanks for finding that out.Checks to see who this muppet is....
Some anti-vax fool who sees infowars as a reliable source
It's just so tiring
Like you even needed to check.Checks to see who this muppet is....
Some anti-vax fool who sees infowars as a reliable source
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ok, I'll leave you there, I think. As news that UK deaths continue to rise steeply comes in, whereas countries that have got this right are seeing much better outcomes.
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
I don't think im arguing any particular point? Im seeking some clarity about this issue.
rekil
to menny cranks
Loon bingo. I see from his file that he posted a vid from neonazi site Red Ice (on a thread about Icke started by scumbag jazz)Checks to see who this muppet is....
Some anti-vax fool who sees infowars as a reliable source
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Take more ketamine. I think it would aid your cognative functioning
nogojones said:Checks to see who this muppet is....
Some anti-vax fool who sees infowars as a reliable source
Thanks for finding that out.
It's just so tiring
So you did find that out nogojones ?? Glad you checked
I can well believe it
, but joe_infinity wasn't a name I remembered from conspiraloonery/anti-vax nonsense on here really.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
I don't think you are Joe, you seem pretty convinced of your position.
Can you at least accept, though, that Covid19 is overwhelming the health and social care systems of developed countries to the point that they are unable to cope and decisions are having to be made which involve leaving people to die? Seasonal flu doesn't do that.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Doesn't post often, but when they do it's drivelSo you did find that out nogojones ?? Glad you checked
I can well believe it
elbows
Well-Known Member
There are good reasons not to believe in fatality rate estimates. Because the actual number of cases is unknown.
This study uses a model to estimate things. Whether they are right depends on the quality of the data and the model. The report itself says 'Our results are not free from the limitations' and includes other caveats.
Other models also exist which suggest the true number of mild or asymptomatic cases could be much higher. Those too are not proof of anything, we need actual testing to see how many milder cases there have really been (if such tests prove accurate).
If any of this stuff turns out to be true then it can have a radical affect on how quickly we get out of this shit. What it does not really affect that much is the initial intensive care burden and deaths. So the worlds response to this virus will still not be 'an overreaction' if that is the reality, we still have to face health systems beong temporarily overwhelmed.
This is very similar to the conversation that arose earlier this week in regards the Oxford study. And it strongly relates to the need for antibody tests. Its a picture the world hoped to see signs of a month ago, when the WHO issued its China report, but they didnt have any evidence of widespread mild cases so their conclusion was not what people wanted to hear. I did not take their conclusion as if it were the absolute and conclusive truth, I am still waiting for humanity to discover the reality.
If it did turn out to be true then yeah, I would think it would make all the difference in the world to the medium-long term picture. But like I said, I still couldnt call the initial response and assumptions a terrible mistake, because we have already seen the terrible struggle of hospitals to deal with the sheer number of cases who need oxygen or ventilation.
I will finish by trying to find a few questions to illustrate the point, in case it helps make sense of this:
Would we initially be able to tell the difference between a new disease that only kills a very low proportion of people it infects, but spreads very far very quickly, and one that kills a higher percentage of people but doesnt infect as many people as quickly? The initial results, in terms of health care burden and deaths, might look rather similar, and its only later, via the situation improving or another big wave never arriving or actual effective antibody testing enough of the population to build the true picture, that we may be able to spot the different.
I dont know if there are any obvious errors in my thinking on this but thats currently how I think about these issues. And like I said, such outcomes would be a great thing but humanity still had to act in order to try to cope with the initial arrival of this disease in the masses.
It is not possible for me to estimate how likely this possibility is, as opposed to the other view which assumed early data from China about low numbers of asymptomatic/exceedingly mild cases was accurate. Both are plausible. Time will tell.
This study uses a model to estimate things. Whether they are right depends on the quality of the data and the model. The report itself says 'Our results are not free from the limitations' and includes other caveats.
Other models also exist which suggest the true number of mild or asymptomatic cases could be much higher. Those too are not proof of anything, we need actual testing to see how many milder cases there have really been (if such tests prove accurate).
If any of this stuff turns out to be true then it can have a radical affect on how quickly we get out of this shit. What it does not really affect that much is the initial intensive care burden and deaths. So the worlds response to this virus will still not be 'an overreaction' if that is the reality, we still have to face health systems beong temporarily overwhelmed.
This is very similar to the conversation that arose earlier this week in regards the Oxford study. And it strongly relates to the need for antibody tests. Its a picture the world hoped to see signs of a month ago, when the WHO issued its China report, but they didnt have any evidence of widespread mild cases so their conclusion was not what people wanted to hear. I did not take their conclusion as if it were the absolute and conclusive truth, I am still waiting for humanity to discover the reality.
If it did turn out to be true then yeah, I would think it would make all the difference in the world to the medium-long term picture. But like I said, I still couldnt call the initial response and assumptions a terrible mistake, because we have already seen the terrible struggle of hospitals to deal with the sheer number of cases who need oxygen or ventilation.
I will finish by trying to find a few questions to illustrate the point, in case it helps make sense of this:
Would we initially be able to tell the difference between a new disease that only kills a very low proportion of people it infects, but spreads very far very quickly, and one that kills a higher percentage of people but doesnt infect as many people as quickly? The initial results, in terms of health care burden and deaths, might look rather similar, and its only later, via the situation improving or another big wave never arriving or actual effective antibody testing enough of the population to build the true picture, that we may be able to spot the different.
I dont know if there are any obvious errors in my thinking on this but thats currently how I think about these issues. And like I said, such outcomes would be a great thing but humanity still had to act in order to try to cope with the initial arrival of this disease in the masses.
It is not possible for me to estimate how likely this possibility is, as opposed to the other view which assumed early data from China about low numbers of asymptomatic/exceedingly mild cases was accurate. Both are plausible. Time will tell.
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
Another good example of a country with little-to-no lockdown measures is Japan.
The Japan Times asks: Japan was expecting a coronavirus explosion, where is it? (see here: Japan was expecting a coronavirus explosion. Where is it? | The Japan Times)
Despite being one of the first countries getting positive test results and having imposed no lockdown, Japan is one of the least-affected nations. Quote: „Even if Japan may not be counting all those infected, hospitals aren’t being stretched thin and there has been no spike in pneumonia cases.“
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
To what end though? I mean really what is the point at this stage in the game?
I really, really, really hope the disease is a far less contagious than a lot of us believe. That would be a great outcome.
But for now, I am going to assume it is and follow all the advice.
And then when it's all over and it turns out it was all a big fuss about nothing after all, you can pat yourself on the back and tell everyone how wrong they were.
How's that?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Japan is interesting but a number of possibilities exist, and explanations are then required as to why Europe is seeing so many deaths.
One possible explanation is actually touched on in the paper you linked to, and is one I have mentioned lots before. If one country has much better control of disease spread within hospitals and other institutions, and another doesnt, I would expect the number of deaths they would experience could easily turn out very different.
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
This ^ is the part I have some trouble believing, it depends on what are the actual benefits/relief to intensive care as a result of the lockdown measures, compared to the negative effects of the lockdown measures.
But yes, time will tell.
that article is - again - a week old. I wonder where we are now?
oh
Japan and Hong Kong fear coronavirus 'explosion' as Tokyo reports over 40 new cases for second consecutive day
Officials are considering measures to contain spread of disease
www.independent.co.uk
joe_infinity
Well-Known Member
This ^ is precisely the kind of attitude I alluded to earlier when I said that it seems as if people actually * want * covid19 to be more deadly serious than it actually is, by a wide margin.
Something isn't adding up right.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Regarding Japan, I have repeatedly cautioned that the picture seen in some countries like that is not guaranteed to last.
Indeed Tokyo is being spoken of as entering a critical moment, although for whatever reason they've decided to announce a lockdown for a weekend rather than a longer period (although I wouldnt be surprised to see that change).
www.japantimes.co.jp
Indeed Tokyo is being spoken of as entering a critical moment, although for whatever reason they've decided to announce a lockdown for a weekend rather than a longer period (although I wouldnt be surprised to see that change).
Tokyo heads into critical weekend facing risk of coronavirus lockdown
Tokyo stands at a critical juncture this weekend as a request for residents to isolate themselves aims to prevent a major spike in cases of the novel coronavirus and help avoid a citywide lockdown.
