Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Stario]

How about you go and tell the families of thousands of cancer patients that were set to live much longer?

Just told a client yesterday that they have weeks maybe months to live -not easy thing believe me- fortunately the covid swabs came in negative- but still wouldn't make much difference in the prognosis if they did come in +'ve

Yet you still choose to ignore the 'selection Bias' (that I've already talked about) & the fact that these fake statistics concerning covid19 infection fatality rate are ultimately all driven by a false denominator -in other words the covid19 case fatality rates reported are WRONG...incorrect...erroneous! etc..

I really feel sorry for all you still living under these 'draconian lock-down' laws that clearly do more damage than good- those that have lost your jobs, your business etc. Makes me realise how lucky I am to be living here where "those in power" have shown at least some common sense in past few days.

[Ludicus]

Just told a client yesterday that they have weeks maybe months to live -not easy thing believe me- fortunately the covid swabs came in negative- but still wouldn't make much difference in the prognosis if they did come in +'ve

I can foresee the possibility of an interesting dialogue between two doctors : "my client died yesterday". I don't know what is you job, or what are you selling, but it's pretty clear that you aren't a doctor.
Second: there is nothing nice about misleading people. In cancer patients, the covid pandemics has forced the delay of cancer treatments, the outbreak has had a direct and serious impact on cancer treatments (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, surgery and radiation) and consequently a direct impact on mortality. Covid infection increases overall risk of complications and death in patients with cancer.Simply put: the decline in the rate of cancer deaths per 100, 000 in civilized countries ( US, etc) of cancer patients over the last 2-3 decades has been steady.Due to the above reasons, now it's rising again.
---
Swedish experience, take 2. As we already know, there is a number of uniquely Swedish demographic factors
-Population density in Sweden is low, 25 per Km² .
- Sweden has a high proportion of single-occupancy householders
-A relatively low proportion of multigenerational house holders

And yet Sweden's death's rate is high: -as far as today: 314/1M pop, much worse than in Denmark, Norway, Finland, Austria, Germany, Portugal, etc. In fact, the infection has been 10 times more deadly in Sweden than in other Nordic countries.
-----
So, what about the economy? the end result is not brilliant,

Coronavirus Sweden: Economy to contract as severely as rest ...

Sweden had no lockdown but its economy is expected to suffer just as badly as its European neighbors.

Sweden’s central bank, the Riksbank, gave two possible scenarios for the economic outlook in 2020, both are bleak.
The growth projections are sobering for a country that looked to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus by not shutting down its economy like the rest of Europe. Lockdowns in Germany, Spain, Italy, France and the U.K., aimed at saving countless lives, have all hit their economies severely.
The International Monetary Fund predicted earlier in April that Germany and the U.K. will see their economies contract by 6.5% and 7% this year, respectively. France is expected to see a 7.2% contraction, Spain an 8% contraction and for Italy to see its economy shrink 9.1%.
Sweden’s neighbors Finland and Denmark, which also imposed lockdowns, are also expected to see their economies contract by 6% and 6.5%, respectively.
The grim data from Sweden’s central bank has been reinforced by a respected think tank this week. The National Institute for Economic Research (NIER) said in a statement Wednesday that it believed that Sweden’s economy is set to shrink 7% this year and unemployment to rise to 10.2%.

And there is no evidence - until now- that antibodies stop re-infection, providing a durable immunity.

[PointOfViewGun]

So, what about the economy? the end result is not brilliant,

That's one of the things Stario failed to substantiate the slightest even when asked do. Clearly, he was making it up on the spot.

[Coughdrop addict]

Second Pence staffer tests positive for coronavirus

Meanwhile Trump and Pence are going around without masks to be role models for jackasses everywhere.

[Infidel144]

'Shocking’: 66% of new coronavirus patients in N.Y. stayed home: Cuomo
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavi...tly-story.html

University of East Anglia analysed policies in 30 European countries and found only some measures effective
They wanted to see which were the best at controlling the pandemic as countries worldwide locked down
Banning mass gatherings and closing schools were the most effective ways of stopping virus spread
But stay-at-home orders and shutting non-essential businesses had little effect, the scientists claim

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-lockdown.html

[TheLeft]

Second Pence staffer tests positive for coronavirus

Meanwhile Trump and Pence are going around without masks to be role models for jackasses everywhere.

Speaking of which, Trumps quote regarding this was truly amazing...

TRUMP: “Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive ... this is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great ... today, I guess, for some reason, she tested positive."


That's also why pregnancy tests are no good. A woman can test negative all her life, then BOOM all of a sudden she tests positive. They're not great.

And don't talk to me about smoke alarms...

[Love Mountain]

Speaking of which, Trumps quote regarding this was truly amazing...

TRUMP: “Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive ... this is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great ... today, I guess, for some reason, she tested positive."


That's also why pregnancy tests are no good. A woman can test negative all her life, then BOOM all of a sudden she tests positive. They're not great.

And don't talk to me about smoke alarms...

The same people who claim the "disinfectant remark" was some super calculated, and well-meaning quip about using disinfectant properties in a possible vaccine. Rofl.

[PointOfViewGun]

Just told a client yesterday that they have weeks maybe months to live -not easy thing believe me- fortunately the covid swabs came in negative- but still wouldn't make much difference in the prognosis if they did come in +'ve

Yet you still choose to ignore the 'selection Bias' (that I've already talked about) & the fact that these fake statistics concerning covid19 infection fatality rate are ultimately all driven by a false denominator -in other words the covid19 case fatality rates reported are WRONG...incorrect...erroneous! etc..

I really feel sorry for all you still living under these 'draconian lock-down' laws that clearly do more damage than good- those that have lost your jobs, your business etc. Makes me realise how lucky I am to be living here where "those in power" have shown at least some common sense in past few days.

You're in no position to talk about what we ignore. You lied about numbers earlier claiming that death certificates were not showing comorbidities. The statistics are not fake. You're not even trying to respond to arguments addressing the shortcomings of your claims. You're merely repeating the same false claims.

[sumskilz]

Speaking of which, Trumps quote regarding this was truly amazing...

TRUMP: “Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive ... this is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great ... today, I guess, for some reason, she tested positive."

Trumpspeak aside, there is a real issue there. The sensitivity of those PCR tests is dependent upon viral load. She tested positive on Friday after testing negative on Thursday. That Thursday test was almost certainly a false negative. If they're testing their staff that regularly, she may have already had a few false negatives before crossing the sensitivity threshold. In other words, you can't actually be certain that someone isn't infectious despite testing negative. Although they may be less infectious at the point.

[antaeus]

Trumpspeak aside, there is a real issue there. The sensitivity of those PCR tests is dependent upon viral load. She tested positive on Friday after testing negative on Thursday. That Thursday test was almost certainly a false negative. If they're testing their staff that regularly, she may have already had a few false negatives before crossing the sensitivity threshold. In other words, you can't actually be certain that someone isn't infectious despite testing negative. Although they may be less infectious at the point.

I don't see the issue... every test is going to show negative until it reaches a detectable threshold? Prior tests aren't false negatives... they're just negative. If you're testing someone every day, if they catch something at some point, they're going to switch from testing negative to positive no?

[sumskilz]

I don't see the issue... every test is going to show negative until it reaches a detectable threshold? Prior tests aren't false negatives... they're just negative. If you're testing someone every day, if they catch something at some point, they're going to switch from testing negative to positive no?

No, there is a limit of detection, which is the viral load threshold above which the test is 95% likely to detect the presence of the virus. With the best tests, that's 100 RNA copies per milliliter at the site swabbed. The virus doesn't immediately reach that threshold, it takes time to replicate and time to spread internally. In some cases it can be detected with a CT scan before it's detected with a PCR test. That means that it has actually done damage to the lungs before it was detected by a PCR test. If a PCR test fails to detect the presence of the virus when it is in fact present, it's a false negative. Since Katie Miller tested positive on Friday, she almost certainly had the virus and was infectious on Thursday when she tested negative, and potentially before that. This is also the reason why release from quarantine protocols generally require multiple negative results separated by a week or more.

[B. W.]

No, there is a limit of detection, which is the viral load threshold above which the test is 95% likely to detect the presence of the virus. With the best tests, that's 100 RNA copies per milliliter at the site swabbed. The virus doesn't immediately reach that threshold, it takes time to replicate and time to spread internally. In some cases it can be detected with a CT scan before it's detected with a PCR test. That means that it has actually done damage to the lungs before it was detected by a PCR test. If a PCR test fails to detected the presence of the virus when it is in fact present, it's a false negative. Since Katie Miller tested positive on Friday, she almost certainly had the virus and was infectious on Thursday when she tested negative, and potentially before that. This is also the reason why release from quarantine protocols generally require multiple negative results separated by a week or more.

Good explanation.

[antaeus]

No, there is a limit of detection, which is the viral load threshold above which the test is 95% likely to detect the presence of the virus. With the best tests, that's 100 RNA copies per milliliter at the site swabbed. The virus doesn't immediately reach that threshold, it takes time to replicate and time to spread internally. In some cases it can be detected with a CT scan before it's detected with a PCR test. That means that it has actually done damage to the lungs before it was detected by a PCR test. If a PCR test fails to detect the presence of the virus when it is in fact present, it's a false negative. Since Katie Miller tested positive on Friday, she almost certainly had the virus and was infectious on Thursday when she tested negative, and potentially before that. This is also the reason why release from quarantine protocols generally require multiple negative results separated by a week or more.

So what you're telling me here is that it would be a good measure to take additional precautions on top of a testing regime?

[Gaidin]

So what you're telling me here is that it would be a good measure to take additional precautions on top of a testing regime?

When you read the stories of people that have been in ICU with this virus and then released from the hospital, you'll find that they often spend a few weeks in law-enforced quarantine with meals delivered to them. For this very reason.

[antaeus]

When you read the stories of people that have been in ICU with this virus and then released from the hospital, you'll find that they often spend a few weeks in law-enforced quarantine with meals delivered to them. For this very reason.

I'm more thinking that it would be good for our national leaders to show solidarity with the people who have to live with their decisions. (a soft ball for sumskilz)

[Stario]

You're in no position to talk about what we ignore. You lied about numbers earlier claiming that death certificates were not showing comorbidities.

And you're making things up again...

Now back on topic... what about that 'selection Bias' (that I've already talked about) & the fact that the covid19 CFR reported are ultimately all driven by a false denominator -in other words the covid19 case fatality rates (CFR) being reported are inaccurate/unreliable due to such 'selection bias' & 'false denominator'.

[PointOfViewGun]

And you're making things up again...

Now back on topic... what about that 'selection Bias' (that I've already talked about) & the fact that the covid19 CFR reported are ultimately all driven by a false denominator -in other words the covid19 case fatality rates (CFR) being reported are inaccurate/unreliable due to such 'selection bias' & 'false denominator'.

Sigh... What am I making up? You did lie about numbers. You claimed that 88% of cases in Italy did not show comorbidities. You lied. Admit that first, then we can consider other arguments from you.

[Infidel144]

Sigh... What am I making up? You did lie about numbers. You claimed that 88% of cases in Italy did not show comorbidities. You lied. Admit that first, then we can consider other arguments from you.

No he did not. What Stario said was:
"This is not happening in 88% of cases (in Italy) Covid-19 is listed as the cause of death even if a patient was already ill and died from a combination of illnesses. This is highly biased & totally unreliable."

Which following back refers to this from the Telegraph article:
"“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.
“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many had two or three,” he says."

[PointOfViewGun]

No he did not. What Stario said was:
"This is not happening in 88% of cases (in Italy) Covid-19 is listed as the cause of death even if a patient was already ill and died from a combination of illnesses. This is highly biased & totally unreliable."

Which following back refers to this from the Telegraph article:
"“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.
“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many had two or three,” he says."

You basically proved me right. That post you quoted from Stario claims that comorbidities are not listed in the death certificates of patients with COVID19 upon death. The Telegraph article you quoted indicate how the death certificates list comorbidities to the contrary. Thank you for that.

[Infidel144]

You basically proved me right. That post you quoted from Stario claims that comorbidities are not listed in the death certificates of patients with COVID19 upon death. The Telegraph article you quoted indicate how the death certificates list comorbidities to the contrary. Thank you for that.

No, Setekh, you are lying. Stario did not claim that, he claimed that covid is being "listed as the cause of death" (article: "all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus"), even though there are comorbidities (Stario: "died from a combination of illnesses"). He made no claim about comorbidities not being listed. This is your lie.