***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***

[JakeF]

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!

Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.

California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.

“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”

The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.

The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”

Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.

The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.

The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.

A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.

Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.

“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”

It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.

“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”

On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.

“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”

According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.

More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.

But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.

“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”

CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.

Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.

“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

They were predicting that many deaths with the lockdowns?

The Washington Post had a map of every county in the US and the expected number of cases with no lockdowns, 'medium' measures, and 'extreme' measures.... I think it's behind a paywall now, but would be interesting to look at it again.

The point was about the overall deadliness of Sars-Cov2 in the human population. Of course there will be all kinds of models where they can claim well, we did X so Y didn't happen.

But lucky for us we can have places that did not lockdown like Sweden. Applying the basics of the Imperial College predictions to Sweden, Upsalla University assumed IFR 1 percent and...

The Swedish model laid out its predicted death and hospitalization rates for competing policy scenarios in a series of graphs. According to their projections (shown below in blue), the current Swedish government’s response – if permitted to continue – would pass 40,000 deaths shortly after May 1, 2020 and continue to rise to almost 100,000 deaths by June.

The most severe of the lockdown strategies they considered was supposed to cut that number to between 10-20,000 by May 1st while preserving hospital capacity – provided that the Swedish government changed course by April 10th and imposed a policy similar to the rest of Europe. In its most optimistic scenario, the model predicted that this change would reduce total deaths from 96,000 to under 30,000 by the end of June.
https://www.aier.org/article/imperia...erous-results/

The actual number by end of June? About 5,000.

So Sweden had far less deaths than even what was supposed to happen if they did a harsh lockdown, let alone light advised measures.

So 100,000 dead predicted not only by Imperial but also Bill Gates IHME in Washington. And instead the number with no lockdown was 20 times lower.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

The Doomsday guys were wrong. They were predicting the equivalent of 1 years natural death at the Royal Society, Imperial College etc. And their advice is what prompted the extreme measures and lockdowns.

Others said it would be closer to 1 month natural death. Those people were laughed at but were right all along.

Imperial predicted 2.2 million deaths WITHOUT mitigation efforts. We went with 1 to 2.2 million.

And we estimated 100,000 to 240,000 deaths WITH mitigation efforts. Unfortunately, we've far exceeded that.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

The point was about the overall deadliness of Sars-Cov2 in the human population. Of course there will be all kinds of models where they can claim well, we did X so Y didn't happen.

But lucky for us we can have places that did not lockdown like Sweden. Applying the basics of the Imperial College predictions to Sweden, Upsalla University assumed IFR 1 percent and...

The Swedish model laid out its predicted death and hospitalization rates for competing policy scenarios in a series of graphs. According to their projections (shown below in blue), the current Swedish government’s response – if permitted to continue – would pass 40,000 deaths shortly after May 1, 2020 and continue to rise to almost 100,000 deaths by June.

The most severe of the lockdown strategies they considered was supposed to cut that number to between 10-20,000 by May 1st while preserving hospital capacity – provided that the Swedish government changed course by April 10th and imposed a policy similar to the rest of Europe. In its most optimistic scenario, the model predicted that this change would reduce total deaths from 96,000 to under 30,000 by the end of June.
https://www.aier.org/article/imperia...erous-results/

The actual number by end of June? About 5,000.

So Sweden had far less deaths than even what was supposed to happen if they did a harsh lockdown, let alone light advised measures.

So 100,000 dead predicted not only by Imperial but also Bill Gates IHME in Washington. And instead the number with no lockdown was 20 times lower.

At least you're not still falsely claiming that Imperial made that prediction.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

The point was about the overall deadliness of Sars-Cov2 in the human population. Of course there will be all kinds of models where they can claim well, we did X so Y didn't happen.

But lucky for us we can have places that did not lockdown like Sweden. Applying the basics of the Imperial College predictions to Sweden, Upsalla University assumed IFR 1 percent and...

The Swedish model laid out its predicted death and hospitalization rates for competing policy scenarios in a series of graphs. According to their projections (shown below in blue), the current Swedish government’s response – if permitted to continue – would pass 40,000 deaths shortly after May 1, 2020 and continue to rise to almost 100,000 deaths by June.

The most severe of the lockdown strategies they considered was supposed to cut that number to between 10-20,000 by May 1st while preserving hospital capacity – provided that the Swedish government changed course by April 10th and imposed a policy similar to the rest of Europe. In its most optimistic scenario, the model predicted that this change would reduce total deaths from 96,000 to under 30,000 by the end of June.
https://www.aier.org/article/imperia...erous-results/

The actual number by end of June? About 5,000.

So Sweden had far less deaths than even what was supposed to happen if they did a harsh lockdown, let alone light advised measures.

So 100,000 dead predicted not only by Imperial but also Bill Gates IHME in Washington. And instead the number with no lockdown was 20 times lower.

The 40k prediction for May sounds pretty crazy considering the population density of NYC and outcome there... then again, they were creating models for something that didn't exist a year ago and I'm sure siding on extreme caution.

Really though, if anyone has a logon to Washington Post...

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The 40k prediction for May sounds pretty crazy considering the population density of NYC and outcome there... then again, they were creating models for something that didn't exist a year ago and I'm sure siding on extreme caution.

Really though, if anyone has a logon to Washington Post...

Sorry, those numbers in the piece were for Sweden. I used them to show that the idea of X will die with no mitigation was also way off and made up out of whole cloth.

[Donger]

Speaking of Sweden...

Sweden recommends masks for rush hour, as COVID-19 deaths hit record

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2941KX

[Donger]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Sorry, those numbers in the piece were for Sweden. I used them to show that the idea of X will die with no mitigation was also way off and made up out of whole cloth.

So you're of the opinion that we wouldn't have reached 1,000,000 dead with no mitigation efforts?

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Donger

So you're of the opinion that we wouldn't have reached 1,000,000 dead with no mitigation efforts?

No. Of course not. Sweden proves it.



Another way to look at it was Imperial College and their Doomsday model was based on the idea that Covid/SarsCov2 would kill 1 out of every 100 people. A super high death rate.

Right from the start that was challenged by top infectious disease experts and epidemiologists that were world-renowned including Ioannidis, Giesecke, and Gupta.

Ioannidis of Stanford early on did sero blood work to test IFR for it and the numbers came out to .25 or so.

Giesecke who was the equivalent of Fauci for all of Europe, or their CDC, said it was going to be .10. He was widely mocked and screamed at by the Twitter verse and the junior people working on their degrees while Giesecke had written a textbook on infectious disease and had decades of real world experience.

Now we see it's going to come in lower than.20 worldwide, probably higher in the US but less than .20 overall.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

No. Of course not. Sweden proves it.



Another way to look at it was Imperial College and their Doomsday model was based on the idea that Covid/SarsCov2 would kill 1 out of every 100 people. A super high death rate.

Right from the start that was challenged by top infectious disease experts and epidemiologists that were world-renowned including Ioannidis, Giesecke, and Gupta.

Ioannidis of Stanford early on did sero blood work to test IFR for it and the numbers came out to .25 or so.

Giesecke who was the equivalent of Fauci for all of Europe, or their CDC, said it was going to be .10. He was widely mocked and screamed at by the Twitter verse and the junior people working on their degrees while Giesecke had written a textbook on infectious disease and had decades of real world experience.

Now we see it's going to come in lower than.20 worldwide, probably higher in the US but less than .20 overall.

Considering that Sweden did not have no mitigation efforts, I fail to see why you think that.

We've already had 340,000 deaths WITH mitigation efforts. And we'll probably get to 500,000. So, it seems completely reasonable that if we had done nothing, 1,000,000 deaths would have been the likely result.

[O.city]

Would have depended on hospital capacity and such. If it would have really burdened or broke, we'd have potentially gotten alot higher.

IFR is tricky to calculate.

Ioannidis serology studies were pretty widely criticized for how they were set up, which for him was surprising.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Donger

Considering that Sweden did not have no mitigation efforts, I fail to see why you think that.

We've already had 340,000 deaths WITH mitigation efforts. And we'll probably get to 500,000. So, it seems completely reasonable that if we had done nothing, 1,000,000 deaths would have been the likely result.

The prediction was 2.8 million without mitigation.

You are telling me if we didn't have these cloth masks another 2 million people dead?!

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by O.city

Would have depended on hospital capacity and such. If it would have really burdened or broke, we'd have potentially gotten alot higher.

IFR is tricky to calculate.

Ioannidis serology studies were pretty widely criticized for how they were set up, which for him was surprising.

Of course they were. Anyone who did not sing from the songbook was treated the same. But over and over and over we are arriving at the same numbers and lower by sero studies. Keep in mind that Ioannidis is not the one taking blood samples. People are welcome to review the studies he is using and the WHO just published his latest sero report without complaint. Might not be up to snuff for "Health Nerd" on social media but the World Health Organization posted it here. And they have top scientists from around the world (including Giesecke) available to review such papers.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_....20.265892.pdf

[Donger]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

The prediction was 2.8 million without mitigation.

You are telling me if we didn't have these cloth masks another 2 million people dead?!

No, it was 2.2 million:

In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in G.B. and 2.2 million in the U.S., not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.

Masks aren't the only mitigation method, as you know. Do I think that we would have fallen in the 1 to 2.2 million dead range with no mitigation? Yes, since even with those efforts, we'll get to 500,000

[Shiver Me Timbers]

Originally Posted by Donger

Considering that Sweden did not have no mitigation efforts, I fail to see why you think that.

I fail to see how anyone is supposed to understand this comment

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Donger

No, it was 2.2 million:

In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in G.B. and 2.2 million in the U.S., not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.

Masks aren't the only mitigation method, as you know. Do I think that we would have fallen in the 1 to 2.2 million dead range with no mitigation? Yes, since even with those efforts, we'll get to 500,000

The numbers don't add up. The so called mitigation measures are also, ridiculous. Early on actual infectious disease experts stated you can't save lives, only perhaps slow down the rate of infection. That's why the message was "Flatten the Curve". The idea that we could do more than help hospitals out was a fairytale. But that fairytale was indeed substituted in a bait and switch.

Now the masks and shutdowns were not only going to save the hospitals, they were going to save lives. A proposition that no serious experts were proposing early on. Soon the NPI's and saving millions of lives was the new mission and we got on that right away.

The problem is that there is no science to back any of this up. The lockdowns have not been shown to save lives. Instead of actual science, we get smiley faces telling us to wear a mask to save lives and we are all in this together.

Anyone that can read and was curious early on knew that we were being lied to on this front.