☣️🦠☣️🦠 Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information Thread 🦠☣️🦠☣️

[Farley1324]

absolutely agree about the testing, this is very fluid

But god forbid we question a study, as if questioning it makes this virus less destructive or severe.
It’s like you have to be on one extreme side or the other, can deviate closer to the middle

you sure did, in fact, you called for an article (not political bow) to be taken down because it didn’t agree with the model

Stop lying. I did not call for any article to be taken down, what I did was explain how I understood why a site might have chosen to take down an article. Big difference. Don't be intellectually dishonest, it's not a good look.

And it was not about "didn't agree with the model", it was about the author intentionally misleading and misrepsenting.

Look, I get that you're bias and you put a spin on everything, but you gotta stop lying about **** constantly. It's just dumb

Edit: But again, thank you for showing us the misinformation was an elaborate democrat ploy to make trump look bad.

[chalup]

Stop lying. I did not call for any article to be taken down, what I did was explain how I understood why a site might have chosen to take down an article. Big difference. Don't be intellectually dishonest, it's not a good look.

And it was not about "didn't agree with the model", it was about the author intentionally misleading and misrepsenting.

Look, I get that you're bias and you put a spin on everything, but you gotta stop lying about **** constantly. It's just dumb

Your literally the only one with a bias and refuse to even think about this not being as bad as we have been led to believe. For whatever reason you want people to die and the country to sink into a depression, when given legitimate reasons why you could be wrong you instantly attack the person. Nobody posting here now is a just the flu bro, but this isn't something the entire nation needs to be shut down for months upon months. The suicide hotlines have now went up 300%! We have close to 70,000 people commit suicide a year.

[5x10]

Stop lying. I did not call for any article to be taken down, what I did was explain how I understood why a site might have chosen to take down an article. Big difference. Don't be intellectually dishonest, it's not a good look.

And it was not about "didn't agree with the model", it was about the author intentionally misleading and misrepsenting.

Look, I get that you're bias and you put a spin on everything, but you gotta stop lying about **** constantly. It's just dumb

Edit: But again, thank you for showing us the misinformation was an elaborate democrat ploy to make trump look bad.

you didn’t call for it to be taken down, but you sure thought is deserved to be taken down

It deserved to get taken down, and you know it
]

All the article did is question the imperial college study, he gave his opinion , siting studies, on why he thought the gospel was wrong.
You call that misleading, because you embrace the gospel


And I post a single article also rebutting the imperial study , which included some politics, and now your labeling me as some political hack
Never was about politics to me, still isn’t (although the the bill being passed is)

Just consider for one second that the model MIGHT have been agreesive?
Possible?

[Farley1324]

Your literally the only one with a bias and refuse to even think about this not being as bad as we have been led to believe. For whatever reason you want people to die and the country to sink into a depression, when given legitimate reasons why you could be wrong you instantly attack the person. Nobody posting here now is a just the flu bro, but this isn't something the entire nation needs to be shut down for months upon months. The suicide hotlines have now went up 300%! We have close to 70,000 people commit suicide a year.

I want you to take it seriously and do your social distancing and due diligence to save lives.

You can pretend that going out and infecting people and causing more deaths is somehow good, but, guess what...it's not.

Months upon months? lol, keep lyin' bro. It suits you.

[TrinnieBuu]

New model coming from London Imperial College.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...26-03-2020.pdf

They used more updated numbers coming from the studies that were published after their initial model. R0 actually got bumped from 2.5 to 3.0. Model used an incubation period of 4.6 days (in line with most studies out there for incubation), 8 days for hospital stay (actually below what has been published in China, there it was 11 days), etc. They also took into account the reduction rate that most countries have since implemented. New numbers is if we take both a suppression (contact tracing and quarantining potential cases), and social distancing of general population (up to 60% reduction in social interactions for those over 70).

If nothing is done (no country is in this category right now), estimated 40m global fatalities this year. With suppression and social distancing it’s reduced to 2m fatalities.

I know a lot of people were critical of their original model. But if you look at their method section for the old study, they used the information we knew at the time, whatever estimated value we didn’t know there was a huge disclaimer that this is an estimated value. Once they have more info... they wasted no time in publishing a new study.

[Johnez]

How TF did the R0 go up....after quarantines and "social distancing"?

[Farley1324]

New model coming from London Imperial College.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...26-03-2020.pdf

They used more updated numbers coming from the studies that were published after their initial model. R0 actually got bumped from 2.5 to 3.0. Model used an incubation period of 4.6 days (in line with most studies out there for incubation), 8 days for hospital stay (actually below what has been published in China, there it was 11 days), etc. They also took into account the reduction rate that most countries have since implemented. New numbers is if we take both a suppression (contact tracing and quarantining potential cases), and social distancing of general population (up to 60% reduction in social interactions for those over 70).

If nothing is done (no country is in this category right now), estimated 40m global fatalities this year. With suppression and social distancing it’s reduced to 2m fatalities.

I know a lot of people were critical of their original model. But if you look at their method section for the old study, they used the information we knew at the time, whatever estimated value we didn’t know there was a huge disclaimer that this is an estimated value. Once they have more info... they wasted no time in publishing a new study.

Yeah they seem to be on the ball overall (despite the political angle the above linked article takes in attempting to "blame" democrats for, I'm not sure what exactly lol)

A lot of countries took major steps to 'flatten the curve' and it already shows so they have a new 'model' that accounts for countries taking it seriously.

Of course, some people will just say this is proof we didn't need to take it seriously and didn't need to take the steps that directly resulted in lowering the estimates...but such is life. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

[TrinnieBuu]

How TF did the R0 go up....after quarantines and "social distancing"?

R0 went up based on doubling rate in Europe the last few weeks, 3 days to double, which is faster than the previous model estimated.

[chalup]

I want you to take it seriously and do your social distancing and due diligence to save lives.

You can pretend that going out and infecting people and causing more deaths is somehow good, but, guess what...it's not.

Months upon months? lol, keep lyin' bro. It suits you.

I have done my part and will continue until the second I'm allowed to go back to work, which all signs point to mid April. I'm praying to god the economy is somehow still intact by then.

[TrinnieBuu]

Yeah they seem to be on the ball overall (despite the political angle the above linked article takes in attempting to "blame" democrats for, I'm not sure what exactly lol)

A lot of countries took major steps to 'flatten the curve' and it already shows so they have a new 'model' that accounts for countries taking it seriously.

Of course, some people will just say this is proof we didn't need to take it seriously and didn't need to take the steps that directly resulted in lowering the estimates...but such is life. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Yea I think the reaction of the internet scared them a little. They literally put in this model that they did not take into account economic impact in, like 5 times. Which I don’t know why they’d ever need to state that since it’s not an economic model.

But internet gonna internet.

[Farley1324]

I have done my part

Yes you have cried and cried and cried about how you don't want to do it but your boss said so

[chalup]

Cuomo: I didn't even know what a ventilator was a couple of weeks ago.

Sounds like someone with a plan.

On another note, today is looking to be a good day for the US. Numbers were 3 times higher at this same point yesterday.

[AltarOfPlagues]

How TF did the R0 go up....after quarantines and "social distancing"?

they use some data based on family transmission too. better data.

[chalup]

Yes you have cried and cried and cried about how you don't want to do it but your boss said so

Pointing out idiots like you who think 2 million people are going to die this year isn't crying, its just showing how stupid you are.

[Farley1324]

Pointing out idiots like you who think 2 million people are going to die this year isn't crying, its just showing how stupid you are.

You have no shortage of lies I see ^ lol some things just won't change

[HtotheOV]

I want you to take it seriously and do your social distancing and due diligence to save lives.

You can pretend that going out and infecting people and causing more deaths is somehow good, but, guess what...it's not.

Months upon months? lol, keep lyin' bro. It suits you.

do you have money on the over/under of confirmed cases in US or something?

[AltarOfPlagues]

do you have money on the over/under of confirmed cases in US or something?

i have 20 on under 650k

[Farley1324]

do you have money on the over/under of confirmed cases in US or something?

You guys and your money over lives outlook, do you really only see $ in everything at all times?

No, I promise, I don't have money on lower deaths as the reason I want people to take measures to lower deaths.

Believe it or not, lower deaths is its own reward

[ANumber1]

You guys and your money over lives outlook, do you really only see $ in everything at all times?

No, I promise, I don't have money on lower deaths as the reason I want people to take measures to lower deaths.

Believe it or not, lower deaths is its own reward

In all seriousness, governments and businesses do cost/benefit analysis placing a monetary value on human life all the time. I've seen $10 million thrown around as a figure based on human behavior, the statistical risks people are willing to take and how much they're willing to pay to avoid them.

There is absolutely a tipping point, and there are questions around issues like how we should value the number of years of life someone has remaining if they've already lived a long time or the quality of those years. Yet even if we're talking about 30% of Americans becoming confirmed cases with a 1% mortality rate, we're talking about a million lives, not to mention the costs of treating the survivors. The value of controlling this can easily be pegged in the trillions, although I'd say the possible ranges are so large that trying to break it down right now is more for chits and giggles.

[Shortfuze]

Does anyone have any info or link where they mention if the people who died had the flu vaccine or not? I'm curious to see if there is a correlation between people who received/or did not receive the flu vaccine and deaths.

[saltypits]

New model coming from London Imperial College.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...26-03-2020.pdf

They used more updated numbers coming from the studies that were published after their initial model. R0 actually got bumped from 2.5 to 3.0. Model used an incubation period of 4.6 days (in line with most studies out there for incubation), 8 days for hospital stay (actually below what has been published in China, there it was 11 days), etc. They also took into account the reduction rate that most countries have since implemented. New numbers is if we take both a suppression (contact tracing and quarantining potential cases), and social distancing of general population (up to 60% reduction in social interactions for those over 70).

If nothing is done (no country is in this category right now), estimated 40m global fatalities this year. With suppression and social distancing it’s reduced to 2m fatalities.

I know a lot of people were critical of their original model. But if you look at their method section for the old study, they used the information we knew at the time, whatever estimated value we didn’t know there was a huge disclaimer that this is an estimated value. Once they have more info... they wasted no time in publishing a new study.

Original garbage study should never have been released then.

Rule #1 for predictions: Don't offer predictions if you don't have enough data to form a reasonable prediction.

Ferguson is a twit:



Just LOL at his asinine quote.

[Farley1324]

Does anyone have any info or link where they mention if the people who died had the flu vaccine or not? I'm curious to see if there is a correlation between people who received/or did not receive the flu vaccine and deaths.

Have seen nothing of that, seems extremely unlikely to have a causal relationship

[io31]

Original garbage study should never have been released then.

Rule #1 for predictions: Don't offer predictions if you don't have enough data to form a reasonable prediction.

Define reasonable. 30% accuracy ? 10% , 2% ? Having an imperfect estimate is still better than having none. There isn't enough time to wait for perfect models, decisions will have to be made based on incomplete data and analysis.

[Farley1324]

Original garbage study should never have been released then.

Rule #1 for predictions: Don't offer predictions if you don't have enough data to form a reasonable prediction.

Ferguson is a twit:

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUCnmRwWAAEshIz?format=jpg&name=small[/ig]

Just LOL at his asinine quote.

So, to be clear...is your opinion that nobody should have tried to project or predict anything, everybody should have said "we're just going to wait and see what happens and then decide what we should have done"?

lol

Some people are just never happy with anything that is done or not done. Coincidentally, those people never seem to be in a position where decisions have to be made lol

[ANumber1]

Ferguson is a twit:

Just LOL at his asinine quote.

What are you basing that on? The WHO has contended from the beginning that asymptomatic infections are being exaggerated and that most asymptomatic cases they observed eventually become symptomatic.

The single most thoroughly-tested group of people in the world were on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and only 45% were asymptomatic when they tested positive.

There's no doubt that there are a large majority of cases who are not very ill, but they know they are ill. The idea that it's already swept through half the population of Britain, on the other hand, can't be supported. The author admits that there's no way to support it without serological testing.

https://www.livescience.com/half-the...s-covid19.html

In one hypothetical scenario, the authors estimated that viral transmission began 38 days before the first recorded death in the U.K., which took place March 5. They found that, given this start date, 68% of the population would have been infected by March 19. This statistic made headlines in the Financial Times, and later, outlets like the Evening Standard, Daily Mail and The Sun, according to Wired U.K.

But this mathematical narrative rests on several key assumptions that are not backed by real-world data, experts told Wired.

To begin, the authors write that their overall approach "rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitabitable illness." In their most extreme model, the authors estimate that just 0.1% of the population, or one in every 1,000 people, will require hospitalization.

"We can already see just by looking at Italy ... that that figure has already been exceeded," Tim Colbourn, an epidemiologist at University College London’s Institute for Global Health, told Wired U.K. In the region of Lombardy alone, more than one in 1,000 people have been hospitalized, and that number continues to grow every day, Wired U.K. reported.

"The work models one of the most important questions — how far has the infection really spread — in the total absence of any direct data," wrote James Wood, head of the Department of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Cambridge, who researches infection dynamics and disease control.

"As far as I can tell, the model ... assumes that all those infected, whether they are asymptomatic, mildly ill or severely ill are equally infectious to others," Paul Hunter, a professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, wrote on the Science Media Centre site. "This is almost certainly false."

In addition, the model assumes that the U.K. population would become "completely mixed" over time, meaning any given individual has an equal chance of running into another within the region, Hunter wrote. "We do not all have an equal random chance of meeting every other person in the U.K., infected or otherwise," he said. Without some acknowledgement of the structure of social networks within the U.K.; the relative risk of running into a mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic person; and the risk of severe infection tied to different demographics, the simplified model "should not be given much credibility," Hunter said.

If we're going to call studies "garbage" for using assumptions that were empirically supported at the time the model was created, what do we call the studies that were making them up out of whole cloth?

[saltypits]

So, to be clear...is your opinion that nobody should have tried to project or predict anything, everybody should have said "we're just going to wait and see what happens and then decide what we should have done"?

lol

Some people are just never happy with anything that is done or not done. Coincidentally, those people never seem to be in a position where decisions have to be made lol

LOL I make decisions all the time.

You know, there were OTHER MODELS that didn't even come close to Imperial's numbers. Why did those suddenly get ignored?

[Farley1324]

LOL I make decisions all the time.

You know, there were OTHER MODELS that didn't even come close to Imperial's numbers. Why did those suddenly get ignored?

Can you quote where you supported those other models?

[io31]

LOL I make decisions all the time.

You know, there were OTHER MODELS that didn't even come close to Imperial's numbers. Why did those suddenly get ignored?

Which models? What are the authors track records? You need to expand.

[saltypits]

Define reasonable. 30% accuracy ? 10% , 2% ? Having an imperfect estimate is still better than having none. There isn't enough time to wait for perfect models, decisions will have to be made based on incomplete data and analysis.

No, that is wrong, and you are extremely naive for believing that.

[Farley1324]

No, that is wrong, and you are extremely naive for believing that.

Having an imperfect estimate is still better than having none at all

Can you quote where you supported or introduced the better models you believe should have been followed instead?