Covid-19

My non-medical hot take on the CDC data: The 6% number is a bit "wrong" in that no other conditions were recorded, but how many of those had other conditions? CV-19 is going to be deadlier with respiratory conditions...that were probably caused by the disease. 60+ is known to be far more affected than younger age groups. When you start slicing the report, you can kind of slew the numbers to your bias.

And that's assuming the numbers can be trusted which we've proven time and time again that you cannot.

So...why are we getting our panties in a bunch over this? Are we yelling at the sun next?
 
All of this back and forth about the numbers reminds me of something Michael Osterholm said on Joe Rogan:

(Paraphrasing) "The catch 22 with pandemic response is that, if it works and we catch it in time, people won't believe the disease was as bad as we thought".

Sure, we shut the country down for only 6% deaths from COVID alone, but we have no idea what those numbers would have been had everything stayed open.
 
Cookie_ said:
All of this back and forth about the numbers reminds me of something Michael Osterholm said on Joe Rogan:

(Paraphrasing) "The catch 22 with pandemic response is that, if it works and we catch it in time, people won't believe the disease was as bad as we thought".

Sure, we shut the country down for only 6% deaths from COVID alone, but we have no idea what those numbers would have been had everything stayed open.
Click to expand...

That is true; we'll never know. But it's easy enough to model (I am not going to do it because 1) I do not have time, and 2) I hate statistical modeling).

But here's the thing, of the 100% who got it, it's that 6% who died, and of that 6%, the vast majority were over 55 and had one or more comorbidities. So the questions should be, do we alter the lifestyle and economy for 0.0002% of the population; or, do we target specific interventions to that population and be strategic about shutting down the country?

I do think we have enough data to see retrospectively that as an aggregate it was not as bad as we thought is was going to be, but for a specific population it was every bad as we thought it was going to be.
 
Devildoc said:
That is true; we'll never know. But it's easy enough to model (I am not going to do it because 1) I do not have time, and 2) I hate statistical modeling).

But here's the thing, of the 100% who got it, it's that 6% who died, and of that 6%, the vast majority were over 55 and had one or more comorbidities. So the questions should be, do we alter the lifestyle and economy for 0.0002% of the population; or, do we target specific interventions to that population and be strategic about shutting down the country?

I do think we have enough data to see retrospectively that as an aggregate it was not as bad as we thought is was going to be, but for a specific population it was every bad as we thought it was going to be.
Click to expand...

I'd love to say we just have specific interventions and can trust the populace to follow them, but quite frankly I don't think that's possible for a good amount of citizens to do.

ETA: Not that I'm in favor of the continuing shutdowns either, I just don't trust people not to be selfish pricks
 
Cookie_ said:
I'd love to say we just have specific interventions and can trust the populace to follow them, but quite frankly I don't think that's possible for a good amount of citizens to do.

ETA: Not that I'm in favor of the continuing shutdowns either, I just don't trust people not to be selfish pricks
Click to expand...
"Selfish" sorry man. But it is "selfish" to tell me I can't visit my family. It is "selfish" to tell me I can't visit my friends. It is not healthy to keep people stuck in their homes for 6 months. That's why OD rates are up, that's why suicide rates are up. This needs to be over.
 
Cookie_ said:
I'd love to say we just have specific interventions and can trust the populace to follow them, but quite frankly I don't think that's possible for a good amount of citizens to do.

ETA: Not that I'm in favor of the continuing shutdowns either, I just don't trust people not to be selfish pricks
Click to expand...

It has to be a 2-way street; part of the onus is on the >55 with comorbidities to exercise prudence. And we know they can do that, we see it every day with people with compromised immune system, the elderly during high-peak flu season, at-risk kids during RSV season. So we know the patient education is there. The other onus is on the local jurisdiction and businesses to assist by engineering interventions.
 
ThunderHorse said:
"Selfish" sorry man. But it is "selfish" to tell me I can't visit my family. It is "selfish" to tell me I can't visit my friends. It is not healthy to keep people stuck in their homes for 6 months. That's why OD rates are up, that's why suicide rates are up. This needs to be over.
Click to expand...
All of those things can be done 'non-selfishly' in ways that preclude the need for the continuing shutdowns mentioned by @Cookie_.
 
ThunderHorse said:
"Selfish" sorry man. But it is "selfish" to tell me I can't visit my family. It is "selfish" to tell me I can't visit my friends. It is not healthy to keep people stuck in their homes for 6 months. That's why OD rates are up, that's why suicide rates are up. This needs to be over.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more of the "I'm gonna go cough into people's faces and call them sheep" or "I'm gonna pull my pistol on someone in the store telling me to wear a mask" selfish.

I agree we are firmly to a point where we should just be able to maintain distancing, cleanliness/sanitation, and masks without it being an issue.

Life should get back to normal, with precautions is all.
 
Devildoc said:
Interesting NYT article hypothesizing that many COVID-positive people had so little of the disease they may not have been contageous:

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
Click to expand...

Gee, that looks a lot like the one I said it would be interesting to hear your take on.... :D

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

If this is accurate (I'd love to hear @Devildoc 's take on this) then those numbers are highly inflated, just like all of the COVID numbers have been. There are multiple accounts of healthcare professionals sending in samples that weren't actually swabbed and having positive results come back. Now this article is suggesting that between 70-80+ % of the positives may be due to the process of testing rather than the prevalence of the virus. How do we reconcile these?
Click to expand...

Corona Virus (Thanks China)
 
compforce said:
Gee, that looks a lot like the one I said it would be interesting to hear your take on.... :D



Corona Virus (Thanks China)
Click to expand...

Lol, how the fuck did I ever miss that?? Sorry, man... (Face-palming now....)

We have felt this but not been able to quantify it. There are a lot of people who are testing positive who are literally back at work in 3 days feeling fine. The tests have become so sensitive but clearly people are not getting to the point of being contagious when other people in the household are not getting sick. For the problem is that for the first three months of this thing doctors were reporting people as "presumptive positive" based on symptoms without ever doing the test. now we have people who are taking the test and are positive but may not be contagious at all.
 
Devildoc said:
Lol, how the fuck did I ever miss that?? Sorry, man... (Face-palming now....)

We have felt this but not been able to quantify it. There are a lot of people who are testing positive who are literally back at work in 3 days feeling fine. The tests have become so sensitive but clearly people are not getting to the point of being contagious when other people in the household are not getting sick. For the problem is that for the first three months of this thing doctors were reporting people as "presumptive positive" based on symptoms without ever doing the test. now we have people who are taking the test and are positive but may not be contagious at all.
Click to expand...

What's your feeling on the other professionals in the article saying that positive at 40 cycles is ridiculous and that it shouldn't be counted positive over 33-35 cycles?
 
Cookie_ said:
All of this back and forth about the numbers reminds me of something Michael Osterholm said on Joe Rogan:

(Paraphrasing) "The catch 22 with pandemic response is that, if it works and we catch it in time, people won't believe the disease was as bad as we thought".

Sure, we shut the country down for only 6% deaths from COVID alone, but we have no idea what those numbers would have been had everything stayed open.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I go back to my previous post above...

We should have plenty of data now. The Sturgis rally was a nearly perfect control group; no masks, no social distancing, crowd of 460,000 behaving like heathens. And what do we have to show for it? Transmission rate of .03 - .04%?! We know the at risk populations and they remain the at risk populations.

Everything else is mostly noise... remember flatten the curve, 15 days to slow the spread, we shut everything down, then we had to mass produce ventilators, then ERs were going to be overrun, in MN the state even purchased a warehouse building to serve as a makeshift morgue for all of the bodies that were going to pile up. We had to have testing, then we needed contact tracing. Then, we all had to wear masks everywhere... All the while, the virus just did what it did.

So, while it's difficult to quantify, if someone is interested in honestly and objectively going back and sifting through data, we probably can make some reasonable conclusions.
 
Devildoc said:
We have felt this but not been able to quantify it. There are a lot of people who are testing positive who are literally back at work in 3 days feeling fine. The tests have become so sensitive but clearly people are not getting to the point of being contagious when other people in the household are not getting sick.
Click to expand...

Were they actually positive? Did they actually have the disease? As I posted earlier, an RN friend of ours, at her hospital some of the docs sent off blank swabs that came back CV-19 positive. They did this twice. There are 6+ "positive" cases on the books for tests that were never taken.

Without cross referencing anitbody tests with "known" positive cases, we'll never know. We destroyed a global economy over one of the most haphazard and broken testing programs in medical history.
 

Similar threads

R.Caerbannog
Economic shifts in Central America and China
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
AWP
The Aging Crisis in America
Replies
8
Views
297
Dame
Dame
Ooh-Rah
Nanny Wars in Manhattan- sheesh…
Replies
18
Views
905
Box
Box
Devildoc
EKGs at MEPS...
Replies
8
Views
779
Stretcher Jockey
Stretcher Jockey
AWP
Computer Help
Replies
4
Views
126
RackMaster
RackMaster
Back
Top