COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,265 comments
  • 622,161 views
Dr. John Ioannidis says study shows we can be optimistic.



[Link to study]

I agree. If data from testing could be comprehensive and accurate enough to show that a majority of population has already been infected, that would change the picture very rapidly to the positive side.

But testing is very, very flawed IMO, because the tests themselves seem to be quite unreliable, and authorities are very reluctant to use them because they are so expensive in terms of PPE and the other costs, I guess. I can also guess that authorities would be very reluctant to increase testing if they showed no further need for their unlawful expanded control over social and economic freedoms.
 
"COVID 19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza"
With all my respect it's hard to believe because refrigerated trucks to hospitals in New York and morgues in Italy full of corpses are not something I've seen so far from seasonal influenza.

I don't have any data on previous seasonal influenza outbrakes in New York or Italy. But I know that for the Netherlands, atleast 1 hospital didn't have enough capicity to handle the outbrake of 2018. It was reported but there was less panic. Most people didn't even remember we had an outbreak...
Could there be another issue having to do with cost cutting in health care services? Just last year 2 hospitals closed in the Netherlands.. (dutch article on how previous outbreak should have been a warning)
 
I don't have any data on previous seasonal influenza outbrakes in New York or Italy. But I know that for the Netherlands, atleast 1 hospital didn't have enough capicity to handle the outbrake of 2018. It was reported but there was less panic. Most people didn't even remember we had an outbreak...
Could there be another issue having to do with cost cutting in health care services? Just last year 2 hospitals closed in the Netherlands.. (dutch article on how previous outbreak should have been a warning)


Seasonal US flu deaths range from 12,000 to 61,000. Current total US coronavirus deaths are 45,000, a fairly average year for normal flu.
 
I agree. If data from testing could be comprehensive and accurate enough to show that a majority of population has already been infected, that would change the picture very rapidly to the positive side.

But testing is very, very flawed IMO, because the tests themselves seem to be quite unreliable, and authorities are very reluctant to use them because they are so expensive in terms of PPE and the other costs, I guess. I can also guess that authorities would be very reluctant to increase testing if they showed no further need for their unlawful expanded control over social and economic freedoms.

I agree too... the UK has recorded its highest death rates in 20 years this week... almost 50% more deaths than normal for this time of year - and that is with the country on lockdown (and not to mention that this number is also very likely to be a large underestimate).

It is also way too early to say anything about what happens to people who have been infected already and have 'recovered', not to mention the chances of new/different strains infecting people who may have recovered from other strains.

Hopefully, this study may well point to herd immunity kicking in much sooner than hoped, but until it is backed up with considerably more research, it would be wise to assume that their interpretation of the word 'ballpark' is pretty loose.
 
"COVID 19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza"
With all my respect it's hard to believe because refrigerated trucks to hospitals in New York and morgues in Italy full of corpses are not something I've seen so far from seasonal influenza.

Influenza has a vaccine, or at least we attempt to vaccinate against it and sometimes get it wrong. But still, people in the high-risk group often get a vaccine every year (plus many who aren't high-risk) so that helps out a bunch with keeping people from dying. If we didn't have a vaccine and it wasn't used as often as it is, I'm guessing you'd see more flu seasons turn out like this.
 
Seasonal US flu deaths range from 12,000 to 61,000. Current total US coronavirus deaths are 45,000, a fairly average year for normal flu.
Should you also mention that the numbers for the flu include the period that dates back to October 2019? And that there were no measures taken for preventing the spread?
 
"COVID 19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza"
With all my respect it's hard to believe because refrigerated trucks to hospitals in New York and morgues in Italy full of corpses are not something I've seen so far from seasonal influenza.

Too early to have any kind of accurate estimate of the real infections out there.

However, you're forgetting above that there IS a vaccine for the flu which is given to the vast majority of those at highest risk. If there wasnt a vaccine, the number of serious/critical cases relating to the flu would certainly be many times over the normal level we have every year.

Currently, there IS NOT a vaccine for Covid-19, which means those people at risk are suffering in much higher numbers from Covid-19 than they do from the flu. If you took away the flu vaccine, you most likely WOULD have those trucks operating in New York and Italy.

I do still think the actual mortality rate of Covid-19 will turn out to be substantially higher than the annual flu in the final figures, but no-one knows the answer to that yet.

EDIT - re the normal flu deaths quoted by @Dotini, seasonal flu lasts several months, those deaths from Covid-19 have nearly all happened in, what, 3 to 4 weeks? They certainly have in the UK.

What's to say that 45k wouldn't die in the US next month without any degree of lockdown. And the month after. And the month after that...? Thr only way to know that answer would be to know how many have already been infected and IF that confers immunity to them (no way that's a guarantee).
 
Last edited:
"COVID 19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza"
With all my respect it's hard to believe because refrigerated trucks to hospitals in New York and morgues in Italy full of corpses are not something I've seen so far from seasonal influenza.

Worse, it wouldn't be comparing like for like. The study notes that:
This study had several limitations. First, our sampling strategy selected for members of Santa Clara County with access to Facebook and a car to attend drive-through testing sites. This resulted in an over-representation of white women between the ages of 19 and 64, and an under-representation of Hispanic and Asian populations, relative to our community. Those imbalances were partly addressed by weighting our sample population by zip code, race, and sex to match the county. We did not account for age imbalance in our sample, and could not ascertain representativeness of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in homeless populations. Other biases, such as bias favoring individuals in good health capable of attending our testing sites, or bias favoring those with prior COVID-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation are also possible. The overall effect of such biases is hard to ascertain.

So their calculated mortality rate of 0.12% to 0.2% should be compared to flu deaths in (mostly) people between 19 and 64 in good health who are on Facebook... anyone care to guess what that might be? Is it even measurable? :lol:

A similar study in Germany came up with a mortality rate of around 0.37%.

Both studies were small so have wide margins for error.

Personally my hunch is that the figure of 50 to 85 times more people have had it than the confirmed cases is somewhat likely, but doesn't really narrow down my armchair estimate of 10 to 100 much. Even if it's 100x nowhere has reached any sort of herd immunity, or had enough of the population exposed to it that a second wave couldn't be even larger than the first if restrictions were eased too much, too soon.

Seasonal US flu deaths range from 12,000 to 61,000. Current total US coronavirus deaths are 45,000, a fairly average year for normal flu.

In just a few weeks, and it's far from over.

The flip side of many more having had it asymptomatically is that it means there are many more people who might act as superspreaders. It's not just the mortality rate that matters, it's also how fast and how effectively it spreads.
 
Viruses have been on Earth for longer than single cell lifeforms. Virus is present in our DNA, and is hypothesized to be at the root of human consciousness. Maybe all consciousness. Humans are literally symbionts. So the ubiquity of virus is an essential fact of nature, the Gaia Hypothesis if you will.

But humanity and its civilizations and technologies are not an essential fact of nature, and are comparatively recent developments. The virus is not novel - we are. The success of humanity and its covering the Earth with 7.8 billion people who rapidly move about has led to a strategic, species-level vulnerability. There is an easy hypothesis that human encroachment on wild animal territory led to the novel coronavirus getting into the global human population, and this time it is highly virulent, successful and comprehensive in doing its purposeful mission of reproducing.

So, is not humanity responsible for its own troubles? Recognizing this, how are are we to continue to flourish on Earth if we must constantly deal with pandemics? The answer is that we must make ourselves less vulnerable by permanently and meaningfully incorporating the principles of isolation, cultural/social distancing on a global basis. We must adapt our economies and lifestyles to do this.
 
Last edited:
Any opinions on this article on COVID-19 testing the homeless?
I agree. If data from testing could be comprehensive and accurate enough to show that a majority of population has already been infected, that would change the picture very rapidly to the positive side.
What i see is people claiming death rate is in influenza ballpark, despite overwhelmed hospitals and death count having already passed influenza despite stay-at-home orders in several European countries

Here are test results from the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles-de-Gaule, where french army conducted a complete testing:
- 1760 tested
- 1081 positives
- 545 with symptoms
- 24 hospitalized
- 2 under ICU
This from a rather young and in good shape population, and with asymptomatic still candidates to have symptoms.
upload_2020-4-22_0-12-48.png



Since i'm in data,
Pasteur Institute today published a projection (May 11th) map of infection rate in France and here's the result:
Abstract : France has been heavily affected by the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and went into lockdown on the 17th March 2020. Using models applied to hospital and death data, we estimate the impact of the lockdown and current population immunity. We find 2.6% of infected individuals are hospitalized and 0.53% die, ranging from 0.001% in those <20y to 8.3% in those >80y. Across all ages, men are more likely to be hospitalized, enter intensive care, and die than women. The lockdown reduced the reproductive number from 3.3 to 0.5 (84% reduction). By 11 May, when interventions are scheduled to be eased, we project 3.7 million (range: 2.3-6.7) people, 5.7% of the population, will have been infected. Population immunity appears insufficient to avoid a second wave if all control measures are released at the end of the lockdown
upload_2020-4-22_0-6-21.png

Eastern affected area top under 13%.
Western area, where Sars-Cov-2 progression has been alted by national lockdown triggered by eastern situation,


Any reason why they went for a 0 to 64 age group in that article? I don't know much about France, but here in the Netherlands the mortality rate starts picking up from the age of 49. The mortality in ages 0 to 50 is 23 in the Netherlands. 198 in the catagory 50 to 65.. That is a significant difference in my opinion. Or is the situation different in France?
Editorial choice i guess, as we wouldn't see the difference on a graph since these data are from Covid-19 affected regions diluted into national data.
Death rate from Pasteur Institute:
upload_2020-4-22_0-8-44.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-4-22_0-6-13.png
    upload_2020-4-22_0-6-13.png
    80.9 KB · Views: 14
However, you're forgetting above that there IS a vaccine for the flu which is given to the vast majority of those at highest risk. If there wasnt a vaccine, the number of serious/critical cases relating to the flu would certainly be many times over the normal level we have every year.

Currently, there IS NOT a vaccine for Covid-19, which means those people at risk are suffering in much higher numbers from Covid-19 than they do from the flu. If you took away the flu vaccine, you most likely WOULD have those trucks operating in New York and Italy.
I was going to post something similar to this, but actually I reckon it's the wrong way round...

What this study is apparently suggesting is that the death rate from SARS-CoV-2 without a vaccine is comparable to "seasonal influenza" where vaccines are available...

That seems at odds with observations.
 
I was going to post something similar to this, but actually I reckon it's the wrong way round...

What this study is apparently suggesting is that the death rate from SARS-CoV-2 without a vaccine is comparable to "seasonal influenza" where vaccines are available...

That seems at odds with observations.
Observations are incomplete, but yes, it does seem more deadly that seasonal flu, yet easily within an order of magnitude.

In some places, health care is overwhelmed. Yet in Seattle, it is not exactly loafing, but is far from overwhelmed.
 
Here are the UK's high level stats for this winter's seasonal flu vs covid-19:

_111872537_optimised-flu_deaths_comparison_21apr-nc-2.png


Nothing like flu whatsoever. Imagine how steep and how high that covid-19 graph would have climbed had the UK not locked down for the last month.

Overall UK death rate is currently 8000 higher each week than the norm for this time of year if taken against a 20 year average.
 
Here are the UK's high level stats for this winter's seasonal flu vs covid-19:

_111872537_optimised-flu_deaths_comparison_21apr-nc-2.png


Nothing like flu whatsoever. Imagine how steep and how high that covid-19 graph would have climbed had the UK not locked down for the last month.

Overall UK death rate is currently 8000 higher each week than the norm for this time of year if taken against a 20 year average.

It has been stated about 5 times in the last few pages that influenza has vaccines and general immunity in society. Imagine for a moment that influenza was introduced for the first time ever into our population.

============================================

The other day my wife turned to me and said:

"I've always loved Oryx and Crake because of how possible that [awful] future seemed. But I never saw just how we could get there until now."

I concur, suddenly it is easier to see the path to the dystopian future that Atwood envisioned in that book.
 
Tonight the Governor of the State of Washington announced reduced infections, deaths and almost total lack of stress on the hospitals. He announced accelerated plans to reopen some forms of normal work and operations, albeit with careful monitoring. Some of these steps could come before May 4.
 
Tonight the Governor of the State of Washington announced reduced infections, deaths and almost total lack of stress on the hospitals. He announced accelerated plans to reopen some forms of normal work and operations, albeit with careful monitoring. Some of these steps could come before May 4.
I honestly am hoping in about a month it starts to move back to normal in the NYC area. And then my boss will insist all of us will work from the office again and never be allowed to WFH.
 
...suddenly it is easier to see the path to the dystopian future that Atwood envisioned in that book.
Everybody always knew the future could be dystopian. Are we concurring the present can be characterized as dystopian?
 
It has been stated about 5 times in the last few pages that influenza has vaccines and general immunity in society
Then what? You're moving an argument out of context to make it easier to attack.
We have to cope for months with a discourse of "don't worry, it's just a flu, keep living normally", I never read the fine prints "but we don't have vaccine so just ignored what I've just said".
 
It has been stated about 5 times in the last few pages that influenza has vaccines and general immunity in society. Imagine for a moment that influenza was introduced for the first time ever into our population.

It would be... bad. Does that change the figures in the chart you were responding to? Because it sounds like you're saying, "here look, if you compare it to this hypothetical scenario, it's not that bad!".
 
Here in Hamburg, since yesterday life looks like it's close to being back to normal. Traffic jams are already here, lots more people commuting, and stores being open.

Still not 100%, of course, especially because night life is still on hold and every business closed. But during the day, of you didn't know about the corona virus, you'd only find odd that some people wear masks, buses are free and people keep some distance.
 
It has been stated about 5 times in the last few pages that influenza has vaccines and general immunity in society. Imagine for a moment that influenza was introduced for the first time ever into our population.
It would be just as bad as we are currently experiencing with Covid-19. Winter flu with no vaccine or general immunity is not the same as winter flu with a vaccine and general immunity.
 
Viruses have been on Earth for longer than single cell lifeforms. Virus is present in our DNA, and is hypothesized to be at the root of human consciousness. Maybe all consciousness. Humans are literally symbionts. So the ubiquity of virus is an essential fact of nature, the Gaia Hypothesis if you will.


I don't suppose you have any credible citations for this, do you?
 
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is revealing a problem that has existed for some time but is now becoming painfully obvious...

Non-peer-reviewed research is being snapped up by media outlets without a second thought. This study is not peer-reviewed, and yet even we are talking about it.

Read some of the comments posted on the paper at the site where it has been published (by the authors, without peer-review...)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

... to say these results should be taken with caution is a huge understatement.

-

Frankly, the lead authors should not be going public (i.e. on Youtube) with statements about what isn't even peer-reviewed science. Indeed, the comments posted above on Youtube do not even chime with what the paper even says i.e. there is no comment in the paper about SARS-CoV-2 being in the same ballpark as seasonal flu. Not only is that particular statement misleading for a number of reasons, it is also not even substantiated by their own research... because it has not been properly critiqued.

Obviously, there is a need for new, robust data and results to be shared as soon as possible, but the danger is that the wrong message can be picked up and (ironically) go viral before that message has been properly verified - and in the current circumstances, that could be dangerous... and it is irresponsible to go public with statements on a study that hasn't even been reviewed yet. If someone in my department did this, they would likely be sacked.

-

edit: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04...irus-study-the-authors-owe-us-all-an-apology/
 
Last edited:
Back