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

[Stotty]

And now we're in for this for another six months. That's a death sentence for hospitality and the arts.

Arts, hospitality, tourism, aviation, entertainment, retailing on the high street... the list goes on and on.

They are destroying the country and blaming it all on the population. The worst government in my lifetime.

 

[Touring Mars]

The continued use of dramatic and misleading language used by the UK government and the media is becoming ingrained in peoples minds... a 'surge' would indicate we're seeing the situation returning to March/April levels, but this is far from the case.. it's not a surge, it's not even a wave, though it might just be a ripple...

The number of cases of coronavirus are doubling approx every 7-8 days. At that rate, without intervention, case numbers will reach April levels* by mid October.

* the levels according to the 'modified' curve in your graph.

This relatively tiny increase in cases is easily explained by the natural increase in prevalence of flu like illnesses seen every year as we go in to autumn and winter.

Hang on a minute... how does a positive coronavirus test indicate flu?? I get it that people with flu may present with COVID-19 like symptoms, but the cases of coronavirus being reported now are mostly (if not entirely) from PCR tests that specifically detect coronavirus, not flu.

As for the relationship between cases and deaths, I wouldn't be too hasty in declaring the danger over. Indeed, deaths from COVID-19 lag a few weeks behind reported cases.

A second wave is also fundamentally different to the first insomuch as a) there is more and better protection (for the moment) of vulnerable groups, b) the rate of increase of confirmed cases is lower than the first wave (thanks to most people taking more precautions), c) the demographics of positive cases is different - more young people are testing positive now than in March/April.

A word about deaths, though - as has been said often in this thread already, deaths is only one metric by which to measure the impact of the disease... the fact that more younger people are getting the virus means that a lower proportion of cases will translate into deaths. But the impact of the virus on younger people is still not fully understood or appreciated.

-

I just found out that the wife of the guy who had to go home yesterday (and who I am currently covering for) has tested positive for coronavirus

 

[Jezza819]

I just assume they all get tested every 3 days. I mean if 17,000 Chiefs fans can get tested to attend a game, surely the NFL is doing this. Right?

Looks like the NFL was serious in that memo they sent last week. Now they are issuing fines.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-fines-broncos-49ers-seahawks-for-violation-of-face-covering-rules

 

[Famine]

A word about deaths, though - as has been said often in this thread already, deaths is only one metric by which to measure the impact of the disease... the fact that more younger people are getting the virus means that a lower proportion of cases will translate into deaths. But the impact of the virus on younger people is still not fully understood or appreciated.

And roughly twice as many cases result in an ongoing, at least months-long ****show of serious health deficits (which sound a lot like Guillain–Barre) as death.

 

[Joey D]

The continued use of dramatic and misleading language used by the UK government and the media is becoming ingrained in peoples minds... a 'surge' would indicate we're seeing the situation returning to March/April levels, but this is far from the case.. it's not a surge, it's not even a wave, though it might just be a ripple...

I'm not entirely sure where that data is coming from. I use the John Hopkins dashboard for the most part since it seems to be the goto in terms of accurate data. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that it's a ripple instead of a wave. Here are snippets from the JH dashboard looking at the daily case count:

UK:

France:

Spain:

Looking at this there very much so appears to be a surge in case numbers.

This relatively tiny increase in cases is easily explained by the natural increase in prevalence of flu like illnesses seen every year as we go in to autumn and winter.

I assume in Europe they count positive test results as COVID cases, not merely anyone who has symptoms. So having flu-like symptoms wouldn't do anything in terms of COVID cases, unless those people went and got a test and that test came back positive. The only thing the flu-like symptoms would explain is an uptick in the testing number since, presumably, more people are feeling ill, thus more people are getting tested.

Deaths 'with covid19' are practically irrelevant - 11 in the UK yesterday and mentioned in 1% of all deaths in the UK for w/e Sept 11.

Deaths aren't the greatest statistic to look at since there's a myriad of reasons for a country's mortality rate with regards to COVID. Things like the population's age, health, access to health care, etc. I work with this data frequently and there are over 50 data points we look at for Salt Lake City alone.

Also, the vast majority of people who get COVID don't have a fatal result. So there's not always going to be a correlation between a surge in case and a surge in deaths. We're also getting better at treating COVID since there is not six months of clinical data between now and the start of the pandemic. That's huge and resulting in more positive outcomes from patients.

Even in Spain and France, which are quoted as being 3 weeks ahead of the UK in this 'terrifying 2nd wave', deaths are nowhere near March/April levels... and despite the terrifying messages in the media, only 9% of Spanish hospital beds are occupied by Covid19 patients, with only 1,400 in ICU.

Hospitilizations are about as useful as look at mortality rates to determine a surge. A vast majority of people who get COVID don't end up in the hospital.

Also, hospitals are only part of the health care system. With an uptick in cases, there will be more strain on the health care system as a whole. People won't end up being admitted, but they will be trying to get to the doctor (I think you call the general practitioners in the UK) and get a test.

Protect the vulnerable (the old and those with existing serious contributing conditions) but let the rest of the population get back to life as normal... the current approach is like using a hammer to try and kill a fly.

As for the measures the UK government is taking, I can't really comment on that. But this statement seems like a bad approach. People can't get back to their life as normal if they want the pandemic to subside. They don't need to be locked in their homes, but they certainly need to take precautions and not be stupid. All one needs to do is look at how some people are treating COVID in America to see what happens when a population acts like selfish jerks who don't respect that COVID is real and is serious.

 

[Stotty]

The number of cases of coronavirus are doubling approx every 7-8 days. At that rate, without intervention, case numbers will reach April levels* by mid October.

* the levels according to the 'modified' curve in your graph.
View attachment 942430

Same shape as Spain and France's recent increase - but the initial rate of increase didn't continue in either of those countries and extrapolated to the UK, would result in around half the 'not a prediction, but what could happen' fantasy presented by the governments advisors yesterday (Sky news had a chart of this last night).... so c.100 deaths a day vs the 200 presented, which is nothing like March/April levels.

Hang on a minute... how does a positive coronavirus test indicate flu?? I get it that people with flu may present with COVID-19 like symptoms, but the cases of coronavirus being reported now are mostly (if not entirely) from PCR tests that specifically detect coronavirus, not flu.
As for the relationship between cases and deaths, I wouldn't be too hasty in declaring the danger over. Indeed, deaths from COVID-19 lag a few weeks behind reported cases.

A second wave is also fundamentally different to the first insomuch as a) there is more and better protection (for the moment) of vulnerable groups, b) the rate of increase of confirmed cases is lower than the first wave (thanks to most people taking more precautions), c) the demographics of positive cases is different - more young people are testing positive now than in March/April.

That's not what I said.

This will explain it better, and in far more detail than I can...



Spain and France are 3 weeks ahead of us, yet deaths remain a fraction of March/April levels.

A word about deaths, though - as has been said often in this thread already, deaths is only one metric by which to measure the impact of the disease... the fact that more younger people are getting the virus means that a lower proportion of cases will translate into deaths. But the impact of the virus on younger people is still not fully understood or appreciated.

The young don't die from Coivd19, the rest is just fear of something that may or may not happen to an unknown number of people... yet everyone seems excited by the prospect of Vaccine, knocked up in 6 months, with unknown potential long-term side effects and no recourse to the manufacturer as the government is giving them immunity.

What we absolutely know will is the young will be paying for this for decades to come (assuming they can actually get jobs). The cost of this will make the cost of dealing with the '08/09 financial crash look like pocket change... Can you not see where this is headed?

Peak borrowing post the crash was 2012, at c.£150bn. This has been steadily declining over subsequent years. UK government was forecasting to borrow c.£55bn for the 20/21 financial year. It borrowed £130bn in the 1st 3 months alone. Just over a month ago, their own estimates for the full 20/21 had increased to £260bn-£390bn... the upper end is equivalent to total borrowing for the last 6 years or 3 x total annual cost of the NHS... and that was before today's news of more restrictions.

Boris was bombarded with questions about, and requests for, financial help in his parliamentary session today... his answer every time was a version of 'we're already spending x billion on that and will continue to support'.

Even if he said 'we've made a mistake, everything is fine, return to your normal lives' and we switched everything back on now, the economic impact of this is catastrophic. More restrictions will lead to thousands of businesses collapsing under the weight of fixed costs and lack of cash flow. Even big, stable businesses, able to withstand the short term impact will have to downsize in the future as demand falls. Millions will lose their jobs. Billions will be wiped from the value of private pensions as the markets finally grasp the hole they're in. Pressure on the welfare state will be huge.

Then the choices come... more cuts and decades of austerity? Increased taxes? Sell the NHS to the Americans (or more likely the Chinese as the Yanks are about as ****ed as we are)? Print more money and devalue everything? The hole will be so deep all of those might not get us out of this.

View attachment 942430[/QUOTE]

I just found out that the wife of the guy who had to go home yesterday (and who I am currently covering for) has tested positive for coronavirus

The level of fear is hilarious.

If she's under 65 and isn't obese/has other medical conditions she's almost certainly not going to die. She's far more likely to be asymptomatic (80% of cases according to WHO) or one of the massive number of tests that are false positive.

Protect the vulnerable, let the rest of the population get on with life.

 

[Stotty]

I'm not entirely sure where that data is coming from. I use the John Hopkins dashboard for the most part since it seems to be the goto in terms of accurate data. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that it's a ripple instead of a wave. Here are snippets from the JH dashboard looking at the daily case count:

UK:

France:

Spain:

Looking at this there very much so appears to be a surge in case numbers.



I assume in Europe they count positive test results as COVID cases, not merely anyone who has symptoms. So having flu-like symptoms wouldn't do anything in terms of COVID cases, unless those people went and got a test and that test came back positive. The only thing the flu-like symptoms would explain is an uptick in the testing number since, presumably, more people are feeling ill, thus more people are getting tested.



Deaths aren't the greatest statistic to look at since there's a myriad of reasons for a country's mortality rate with regards to COVID. Things like the population's age, health, access to health care, etc. I work with this data frequently and there are over 50 data points we look at for Salt Lake City alone.

Also, the vast majority of people who get COVID don't have a fatal result. So there's not always going to be a correlation between a surge in case and a surge in deaths. We're also getting better at treating COVID since there is not six months of clinical data between now and the start of the pandemic. That's huge and resulting in more positive outcomes from patients.



Hospitilizations are about as useful as look at mortality rates to determine a surge. A vast majority of people who get COVID don't end up in the hospital.

Also, hospitals are only part of the health care system. With an uptick in cases, there will be more strain on the health care system as a whole. People won't end up being admitted, but they will be trying to get to the doctor (I think you call the general practitioners in the UK) and get a test.



As for the measures the UK government is taking, I can't really comment on that. But this statement seems like a bad approach. People can't get back to their life as normal if they want the pandemic to subside. They don't need to be locked in their homes, but they certainly need to take precautions and not be stupid. All one needs to do is look at how some people are treating COVID in America to see what happens when a population acts like selfish jerks who don't respect that COVID is real and is serious.

I won't reply individually to the various points as I think I cover most in my subsequent post.

But the charts you shared are one of the fundamental misunderstandings of what's happening now.... this whole thing has turned from a pandemic in to a casedemic.

Of course the number of cases looks like it's increasing. Back at the peak, in March/April, we were testing 4,000-6,000 per day - now we're testing 200k people a day... it's no surprise you find more cases as you test more people!

This chart (from my original post) takes known fatality and infection rates, and predicts how many cases there were...

It's from this article...

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-d...tistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

Written by Dr Mike Yeadon, the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd

 

[Danoff]

I won't reply individually to the various points as I think I cover most in my subsequent post.

But the charts you shared are one of the fundamental misunderstandings of what's happening now.... this whole thing has turned from a pandemic in to a casedemic.

Of course the number of cases looks like it's increasing. Back at the peak, in March/April, we were testing 4,000-6,000 per day - now we're testing 200k people a day... it's no surprise you find more cases as you test more people!

This chart (from my original post) takes known fatality and infection rates, and predicts how many cases there were...

It's from this article...

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-d...tistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

Written by Dr Mike Yeadon, the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd

Nope.

Note how the testing in the US doesn't go up as cases go up (I'm looking in the last 2 weeks). Note how testing in Colorado rises by about 50% from 8000/day 2 weeks ago to 12000/day today. Note how cases rise from 275 2 weeks ago to 525 today. A rise of almost 100%.

30% rise in testing, over 200% rise in cases in the UK.

 

[Joey D]

The young don't die from Coivd19

That absolutely not true. Young people do die from COVID and even some seemingly healthy younger people die. While it's true as you get older your risk of mortality from COVID increases, it's not like the young are immune to it. In the US we've seen deaths in people under the age of one. I have to assume it's the same way in Europe.

I won't reply individually to the various points as I think I cover most in my subsequent post.

But the charts you shared are one of the fundamental misunderstandings of what's happening now.

Of course the number of cases looks like it's increasing. Back at the peak, in March/April, we were testing 4,000-6,000 per day - now we're testing 200k people a day... it's no surprise you find more cases as you test more people!

This chart (from my original post) takes known fatality and infection rates, and predicts how many cases there were...

It's from this article...

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-d...tistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

Written by Dr Mike Yeadon, the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd

I'm not going to accept data from some conspiracy websites over data present by one of the leading health institutions in the world. What John Hopkins is shows is the number of positive cases reported per day. There's not manipulation or misunderstanding. It's showing exactly what's being reported by the country and putting it on a graph. We don't have a reliable way of determining how many cases there might've been so anyone who attempts to use some made up algorithm to determine this is just posing their best guess. All we know for certain right now is how many positive tests are being reported. We can't say how many people may or may not having it unless we start doing a ton of antibody testing.

Also, increased testing doesn't mean that the increases cases are proportional. This is something Trump touted and is flat out wrong. Back in July, we saw an 80% increase in testing while we saw a 215% increase in COVID cases.

 

[Touring Mars]

Same shape as Spain and France's recent increase - but the initial rate of increase didn't continue in either of those countries

...except Spain.

That's not what I said.

Well, it is, but I now understand what you meant - you meant that the level of excess deaths currently being observed in Spain is as one might expect from a normal flu season. That is as may be, but as has been explained here, the impact of a second wave of coronavirus in terms of deaths alone may well be different for a variety of reasons.

Even if there were no deaths from coronavirus over winter at all, however, that still doesn't mean there is or was not a second wave.

The level of fear is hilarious.

Maybe you ought to choose your words a bit more carefully. Hilarious? My mate's wife has tested positive and you think it's hilarious that people are scared of what might happen? Seriously? You know nothing about them or their circumstances... I'd say they have every right to be worried.

-

The points you make about the economic impacts are all fair and valid - it is going to hurt for a very long time. But the impact of doing too little could be equally savage... if not considerably more so.

 

[Joey D]

Maybe you ought to choose your words a bit more carefully. Hilarious? My mate's wife has tested positive and you think it's hilarious that people are scared of what might happen? Seriously? You know nothing about them or their circumstances... I'd say they have every right to be worried.

Even without knowing their circumstances, I think anyone has the right to be worried about contracting COVID since we have no idea what the long term effects might be. Sure you might get through your COVID infection with some sniffles, a mild fever, and a bit of a cough, but it might increase your risk of cardiovascular disease substantially or might give you chronic breathing issues for the rest of your life.

 

[Danoff]

I've noticed a pattern when talking to covid deniers. They'll open with a seemingly innocuous question like "do you know anyone who had it". And when I say yes, they immediately proceed with their script "well I don't... blah blah blah conspiracy theories blah hoopla blah blah". I assume this is meant to mostly be confirmation bias with people saying "no" feeding back into the notion that it's not real. But when I say yes, it gets immediately dropped because it doesn't fit into their narrative.

So weird. People are so weird right now.

 

[x3ra]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

UK YESTERDAY --- 398,625 cases +4,368 positive tests 41,788 total deaths +11 daily deaths 22,171,979 total tests
UK DAYBEFORE --- 394,257 cases +3,899 positive tests 41,777 total deaths +18 daily deaths 21,368,297 total tests

Did you see the number of tests. 22,171,979-21,368,297 = 803,682 (8 hundred thousand)

Roughly if we take the number of positive tests and divide into the number of tests we get 800,000 divided by 4000. Giving a grand percentage of 0.5%.(Half of one percent)

Is John Hopkins reputable?

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/covid-19-testing-understanding-the-percent-positive.html

The higher the percent positive is, the more concerning it is. As a rule of thumb, however, one threshold for the percent positive being “too high” is 5%. For example, the World Health Organization recommended in May that the percent positive remain below 5% for at least two weeks before governments consider reopening. If we are successful in bringing coronavirus transmission under control, this threshold might be lowered over time. To further relax social restrictions and allow very large gatherings or meetings of people traveling from many different areas, for example, we would want a lower threshold.

Also

As of July 2020, some countries (for example, Australia, South Korea, and Uruguay) and U.S. states (for example, New York, Maine, and Connecticut) were well below the 5% threshold, with 1% of tests or fewer being positive—while other countries (for example, Mexico and Nigeria) and states (for example, Mississippi, Nevada, and Florida) had percent positive levels higher than 15%, far above this cutoff.

So Boris, what the hell is going on?

They also agree that a positive test is not a case.

@TouringMars I would tell her not to worry, how does your mates wife feel? Is she ill? Why did she have a test?

 

[Touring Mars]

Did you see the number of tests. 22,171,979-21,368,297 = 803,682 (8 hundred thousand)

The number of tests is wrong - the actual numbers for yesterday were 4368 cases and 219723 tests (Source), yielding a 2% positivity rate.

@TouringMars I would tell her not to worry, how does your mates wife feel? Is she ill? Why did she have a test?

She had a test because a colleague tested positive.

 

[Joey D]

Is John Hopkins reputable?

Yes.

They also agree that a positive test is not a case.

Do they? Where did you see that in the article you linked? All I see is that in some instances by the time a positive test comes back, the person may or may not be infectious anymore.

 

[Stotty]

Nope.

View attachment 959622 View attachment 959621 View attachment 959624 View attachment 959623

Note how the testing in the US doesn't go up as cases go up (I'm looking in the last 2 weeks). Note how testing in Colorado rises by about 50% from 8000/day 2 weeks ago to 12000/day today. Note how cases rise from 275 2 weeks ago to 525 today. A rise of almost 100%.

That's all US data - The US has a very different profile to Northern Europe.

Watch the video I posted in my reply to Touring Mars above.

That absolutely not true. Young people do die from COVID and even some seemingly healthy younger people die. While it's true as you get older your risk of mortality from COVID increases, it's not like the young are immune to it. In the US we've seen deaths in people under the age of one. I have to assume it's the same way in Europe.

I'm not going to accept data from some conspiracy websites over data present by one of the leading health institutions in the world. What John Hopkins is shows is the number of positive cases reported per day. There's not manipulation or misunderstanding. It's showing exactly what's being reported by the country and putting it on a graph. We don't have a reliable way of determining how many cases there might've been so anyone who attempts to use some made up algorithm to determine this is just posing their best guess. All we know for certain right now is how many positive tests are being reported. We can't say how many people may or may not having it unless we start doing a ton of antibody testing.

Also, increased testing doesn't mean that the increases cases are proportional. This is something Trump touted and is flat out wrong. Back in July, we saw an 80% increase in testing while we saw a 215% increase in COVID cases.

The guy I quoted is ex Chief Scientific Officer at one of the largest drug companies in the World. He's hardly a conspiracy theorist

Just like the people who wrote this letter to the UK government aren't...

US deaths to 9/12/20 by age...

So out of a total population of almost 105m, and c.35k deaths of people under 25 years old, Covid kills less than 400... Where's the perspective?

Well, it is, but I now understand what you meant - you meant that the level of excess deaths currently being observed in Spain is as one might expect from a normal flu season. That is as may be, but as has been explained here, the impact of a second wave of coronavirus in terms of deaths alone may well be different for a variety of reasons.

Even if there were no deaths from coronavirus over winter at all, however, that still doesn't mean there is or was not a second wave.

No, I meant Covid19 is behaving like flu virus... in so far as upper respiratory tract illnesses have a natural increase in prevalence in September as kids return to school and adults to work after summer holidays. It will continue to increase as the weather gets colder and the nights get longer.

Not sure I understand your 2nd point.

Maybe you ought to choose your words a bit more carefully. Hilarious? My mate's wife has tested positive and you think it's hilarious that people are scared of what might happen? Seriously? You know nothing about them or their circumstances... I'd say they have every right to be worried.

-

The points you make about the economic impacts are all fair and valid - it is going to hurt for a very long time. But the impact of doing too little could be equally savage... if not considerably more so.

I'm not laughing at your friend, but at your reaction. As I said, unless she's old/ill she's hardly more likely to die than if she drove to the shops and had a car crash... the fear of Covid is totally disproportionate to its threat for the vast majority of people... a direct result of the continuous fear messages sent out by the government and the media.

Flu kills c.30k people in a bad season in the UK. We don't shut the country down and spend £300bn as a result. 170k people die from heart disease every year. We don't ban all fatty foods, sugar, alcohol and cigarettes. We accept it as a sad part of life.

The costs of this, and the increased deaths due to NHS ineptitude will cause far more pain to the population over the coming years than Covid has.

I've noticed a pattern when talking to covid deniers. They'll open with a seemingly innocuous question like "do you know anyone who had it". And when I say yes, they immediately proceed with their script "well I don't... blah blah blah conspiracy theories blah hoopla blah blah". I assume this is meant to mostly be confirmation bias with people saying "no" feeding back into the notion that it's not real. But when I say yes, it gets immediately dropped because it doesn't fit into their narrative.

So weird. People are so weird right now.

I'm not a Covid denier... and I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks it's all a big Chinese plot, or something to do with 5G

My neighbor and friend here in Spain has had it. She's 72. I'd spent a reasonable amount of time in her company in the weeks up to her getting ill.

She spent 9 days in hospital, came out, got a kidney infection and spent another 11 days in hospital. She's now home recovering. I've been walking her dog for her morning and evening on and off for the past month or so. She's still weak, but slowly getting back to normal... biggest impact has been mental rather than physical, and that's a result of the 2nd trip to hospital rather than the 1st.

3 weeks ago I had dinner with friends on the Saturday night, On the Monday one of them went in for tests prior to a minor operation she was due to have on the Thursday... she had a Covid test as part of that and she tested positive. I was told when she found out later that week.

In both instances I didn't wring my hands and spend the next 14 days worrying about if I was going to die or not. Other than walking the dog around our urbanisation, I kept myself to myself and just got on with things.

 

[Danoff]

That's all US data - The US has a very different profile to Northern Europe.

I put the UK in there. Your point about cases/tests doesn't look good in the UK.

I'm not a Covid denier... and I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks it's all a big Chinese plot, or something to do with 5G

That wasn't aimed at you.

 

[Joey D]

The guy I quoted is ex Chief Scientific Officer at one of the largest drug companies in the World. He's hardly a conspiracy theorist

Lockdown Sceptics is absolutely a conspiracy theory website that pedals unscientific, non-peer-reviewed, drivel, and tries to pass it off as fact. You're free to believe what you want, but I like to stick to academic, peer-reviewed sources instead of listening to someone skew data and manipulate it to fit whatever they're trying to pedal.

So out of a total population of almost 105m, and c.35k deaths of people under 25 years old, Covid kills less than 400... Where's the perspective?

You said "the young don't die from COVID", which is 100% untrue. You didn't say, "young people die is far fewer numbers than older people", which would be 100% truthful.

 

[x3ra]

Yes.

Do they? Where did you see that in the article you linked? All I see is that in some instances by the time a positive test comes back, the person may or may not be infectious anymore.

While tracking the number of positive tests is useful, what matters more is the total number of people who are infected—and we can only know this number by testing more people.

Although I think I may have misinterpreted this, upon further inspection, then again maybe I didn't. Whilst I would consider a case to be someone who is suffering, rather than be tested positive.

BTW Attacking a websites reputation instead of arguing with the points discussed, is poor use of your time and everyone else's. You're effectively saying nothing. There is very little time for any peer-reviewed studies since the time periods are so small. It takes time to peer-review.

If you want something to worry about though. Yesterday there was only me. Now there are 2, using the governments logic of doubling. In a months time you'll be arguing against 1,073,741,824 of us.

 

[Dennisch]

People are so weird right now.

That is not the word you're looking for.

 

[Joey D]

Whilst I would consider a case to be someone who is suffering, rather than be tested positive.

Your definition of a case is wrong then. A case, in the medical sense, is someone who has been diagnoses with a disease, it is not just someone who is suffering.

And yes, John Hopkins is correct with that statement. Positive tests are useful, but when it comes to how COVID is affecting a community as a whole, the more important number is looking at the total number of active infections. So if you're adding 3,000 positive tests a day, that's important to know, but what decision makers should be looking at is whether the current number of active infections in a population is 30,000 or 300,000.

BTW Attacking a websites reputation instead of arguing with the points discussed, is poor use of your time and everyone else's. You're effectively saying nothing.

Not really. Bad and misleading information is probably the number one cause of COVID spread right now.

 

[x3ra]

Your definition of a case is wrong then. A case, in the medical sense, is someone who has been diagnoses with a disease, it is not just someone who is suffering.

And yes, John Hopkins is correct with that statement. Positive tests are useful, but when it comes to how COVID is affecting a community as a whole, the more important number is looking at the total number of active infections. So if you're adding 3,000 positive tests a day, that's important to know, but what decision makers should be looking at is whether the current number of active infections in a population is 30,000 or 300,000.

Except that a positive test isn't an active infection. It could be that someone has already had it and isn't infectious. It could be a false positive. My brother knows someone whose wife had an appointment for a test and she came back positive. What's particularly weird is that she never went for the test. I will get further information on this(why she had an appointment etc).

Not really. Bad and misleading information is probably the number one cause of COVID spread right now.

Can you find a peer-reviewed article that backs that up?

 

[Danoff]

is poor use of your time and everyone else's. You're effectively saying nothing.

Says the guy who ditches the moment the conversation gets tough.

 

[Famine]

Except that a positive test isn't an active infection. It could be that someone has already had it and isn't infectious.

That depends on the type of test.

Both are important to track though. For epidemiology - where the virus has been and where it went next - it's no less important to know who has had it than to know who currently has it. It allows for accurate propagation modelling, which can determine the type and magnitude of response and, after the fact, how effect that response was.

It could be a false positive.

The RT-PCR test has a specificity of 95% and a sensitivity of 95%. Given that negative tests outweigh positive ones 50 times over, the number of false negatives is thus likely to be 50 times higher than the number of false positives. Sure, you can wave away five positives out of every 100, but there's another 250 unknown positives hiding away.

That's why two tests are better than one.

 

[Touring Mars]

Not sure I understand your 2nd point.

My point is that you can't just look at the number of coronavirus deaths when considering the spread of the virus. Even if no new deaths ever occur from now on, it doesn't mean that the virus is contained - or harmless.

Your point seemed to be that the number of excess deaths observed across Europe in the last few weeks looks like a normal flu season is starting (and it is...), but the guy doesn't even consider the

I'm not laughing at your friend, but at your reaction.

Gee, thanks.

As I said, unless she's old/ill she's hardly more likely to die than if she drove to the shops and had a car crash... the fear of Covid is totally disproportionate to its threat for the vast majority of people...

Again, though, it is not just about deaths. It may well be true that a woman in her mid 30's is unlikely to die as a result of catching the virus, but an alarmingly high number of people who get ill from the virus in her age group (20-44) require hospitalization (ca. 1 in 6)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105402/covid-hospitalization-rates-us-by-age-group/

If 80% of infections result in no illness* (or at least no symptoms in the short term...), then that would mean that 1 in 5 people who get infected will get sick to some degree... and 1 in 6 people in the 20-44 age range who get sick end up in hospital. That would mean that someone like my friend's wife has an approximate 1 in 30 chance (3%) of ending up in hospital.

Do 1 in 30 car journeys to the shops end up in people requiring hospital treatment?

* Of course, this is known infections. It is estimated that 10x more infections will never be detected/known, so factoring this it, I'll rephrase my question... do 1 in 300 car journeys to the shops end up in people requiring hospital treatment?


--


A number of cases have just been confirmed in Glasgow University Halls of Residence - two days into the new term

 

[Danoff]

A number of cases have just been confirmed in Glasgow University Halls of Residence - two days into the new term

Universities are apparently driving the Colorado numbers as well. They seem like a real weak link at the moment.

 

[Joey D]

Can you find a peer-reviewed article that backs that up?

Yes, it's called an infodemic.

Misleading information in 1 in 4 most viewed YouTube COVID-19 videos in English, study finds

The Relation between Media Consumption and Misinformation at the Outset of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in the US

From the Media Consumption study, here's a relevant bit:

Exposure to mainstream print was positively associated with holding more accurate beliefs about prevention of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, exposure to sources such as the Associated Press, The New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal was positively associated with accurately believing that regular hand washing and avoiding contact with symptomatic people prevent infection.

Exposure to mainstream print was negatively associated with the beliefs that taking vitamin C can prevent infection, some in the CDC were exaggerating the threat to harm Trump, and the virus is a bioweapon created by the Chinese government

 

[Stotty]

I come back to the fundamental, but apparently unmentionable issue...

The financial cost of trying to potentially save another, say 20k lives (Worst case, and majority of them at or around natural life expectancy) is not a price worth paying.

The cure is far worse than the disease.

I’ll leave you to your hand wringing and we’re all going to die discussion.

 

[Joey D]

I’ll leave you to your hand wringing and we’re all going to die discussion.

No one is doing that. Most of us are taking a realistic look at COVID and taking it seriously. We understand that life can't continue on as normal until there's either a vaccine or enough people contract COVID to develop herd immunity. This is assuming there isn't a mutation along the way, which may or may not happen.

 

[x3ra]

A false positive is not the percentage of positive tests that should be negative. It's the percentage of the total number of tests that have been given as positive but were actually negative.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/probability-false-negatives-positives.html

I really think you've got this wrong. @Famine

Hang on. I've found out what Test sensitivity means , and test specificity.

T.Sense is the proportion of patients who have it and test positive. T.Spec is the proportion of patients who don't have it and test negative. I'm coming back to this.

Back: There's also a pretest probability. What is this and how is it determined?

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1808

If I put a probability that someone has it at 1% then 1 person has it and 6 people are diagnosed with it (5 of them incorrectly). That's using your figures for Spec and Sense 95% 95%.

or 16% chance of having it if you have a positive test.