Coronavirus!

[thecampster]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

From what I've seen the timeline is:

Thursday Evening (specific time unknown) Rapid Test Positive

Either Later Thursday Evening or Before 1:00 a.m. EST Friday PCR Positive Confirmation

Friday 5:15 p.m. EST Announced that Trump Is Being Moved to Walter Reed

 

Early on it was stated he showed symptoms on Wednesday.

[AHF]

1 minute ago, thecampster said:

Very true. However the fatality rate was overblown because in many cases Covid just accelerated already terminal conditions or was a contributing but not sole factor.

Still, the real problem is the overwhelming of health systems.

A case can be made that the actions taken slowed the virus and allowed health systems to keep pace.

But a similar case can be made that the frenzy surrounding the virus led to many people overwhelming the testing system who didn't need tests. See KB's posts.

 

As someone who is partially responsible for safety at our business, I will do whatever I can to avoid exposing our employees.  Getting them tested negative and/or having them complete a full quarantine before returning to work after they have had close exposure to someone who is Covid positive is a part of the recommended procedure.  

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Early on it was stated he showed symptoms on Wednesday.

Then that is a different starting point than from when he tested positive.  It seems he was admitted to the hospital within 24 hours of testing positive.  If what you are saying is accurate, it is somewhere around 2 days from the first symptoms.

[bleachkit]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

The main issue I've seen is the positivity or fatality rate among confirmed cases being conflated with the true rate for the total population.  The numbers cited aren't wrong or bad data - just not data for the entire population.  People should speak to the actual data.

Biggest number for the US is 214.7k but you don't get the fatality rate for the entire population by dividing that by the number of known cases.  That only tells you the rate among known cases, not the total fatality rate.

Extrapolating numbers, as the WHO did in determining 10% of the world has had Covid-19, is the established and scientifically correct way to ascertain how many people have had the virus. That's how the CDC gets numbers for most diseases as well. As Copernicus once explained, the stars you see in the night sky are not all the stars in the universe. 

[marco102]

10 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Very true. However the fatality rate was overblown because in many cases Covid just accelerated already terminal conditions or was a contributing but not sole factor.

Still, the real problem is the overwhelming of health systems.

A case can be made that the actions taken slowed the virus and allowed health systems to keep pace.

But a similar case can be made that the frenzy surrounding the virus led to many people overwhelming the testing system who didn't need tests. See KB's posts.

 

I push back on this.  It's like saying if someone with cancer falls of a mountain and dies.  Did the fall kill them or did cancer?

The fall obviously killed them.  So if someone with terminal cancer dies three months earlier than their expected date by contracting COVID, obviously it's the COVID that killed them.

 

  

[AHF]

Just now, bleachkit said:

Extrapolating numbers, as the WHO did in determining 10% of the world has had Covid-19, is the established and scientifically correct way to ascertain how many people have had the virus. That's how the CDC gets numbers for most diseases as well. As Copernicus once explained, the stars you see in the night sky are not all the stars in the universe. 

Right but the standard for reporting on fatality rates is not to use the extrapolated numbers.  The fatality rates for the flu, for example, use the same methodology.  So it is an apple to apple comparison regardless of the extrapolated numbers.  

I believe the term used is "Case Fatality Rate" and the formula is fatalities divided by individuals diagnosed with the disease.  We know there are many people who go undiagnosed whether you are talking about the flu, cold, coronavirus, etc. but these aren't part of that figure.

Obviously, we also look at the Mortality Rate which doesn't concern itself with the degree of exposure - just the fatalities and the population.  (Like deaths in the US divided by US population).

I just haven't seen many professionals using the extrapolated infected population for measuring fatality for any disease.  I'd guess that is because of the lack of confidence in the extrapolated figure as I don't see any other reason for this.

[bleachkit]

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

Right but the standard for reporting on fatality rates is not to use the extrapolated numbers.  The fatality rates for the flu, for example, use the same methodology.  So it is an apple to apple comparison regardless of the extrapolated numbers.  

I believe the term used is "Case Fatality Rate" and the formula is fatalities divided by individuals diagnosed with the disease.  We know there are many people who go undiagnosed whether you are talking about the flu, cold, coronavirus, etc. but these aren't part of that figure.

Obviously, we also look at the Mortality Rate which doesn't concern itself with the degree of exposure - just the fatalities and the population.  (Like deaths in the US divided by US population).

I just haven't seen many professionals using the extrapolated infected population for measuring fatality for any disease.  I'd guess that is because of the lack of confidence in the extrapolated figure as I don't see any other reason for this.

No, I believe the CDC uses extrapolated numbers to compute rates. Here is an example from H1N1.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html#:~:text=From April 12%2C 2009 to,the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.

[JayBirdHawk]

29 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Early on it was stated he showed symptoms on Wednesday.

 

26 minutes ago, AHF said:

Then that is a different starting point than from when he tested positive.  It seems he was admitted to the hospital within 24 hours of testing positive.  If what you are saying is accurate, it is somewhere around 2 days from the first symptoms.

Thought he was he being tested daily?  Wasn't that part of his standard protocol?  So it means he was only tested after showing symptoms?

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

No, I believe the CDC uses extrapolated numbers to compute rates. Here is an example from H1N1.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html#:~:text=From April 12%2C 2009 to,the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.

Can you quote the fatality rate from there that is based not on diagnosed cases or the population but on the extrapolated estimate of cases?  I think I'm missing it.  I see the estimated fatality rate based on actual population and an estimated number of cases.  Not the one with the formula we are discussing:  actual fatalities divided by estimate of total cases.

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

Thought he was he being tested daily?  Wasn't that part of his standard protocol?  So it means he was only tested after showing symptoms?

They have refused to answer questions about his last negative test so it is unclear.

[JayBirdHawk]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

They have refused to answer questions about his last negative test so it is unclear.

Like so many things around COVID-19, except 210K+ dead in the span of 8+ months from the 1st reported positive case in the US on January 20th, 2020.

[High5]

48 minutes ago, marco102 said:

I push back on this.  It's like saying if someone with cancer falls of a mountain and dies.  Did the fall kill them or did cancer?

The fall obviously killed them.  So if someone with terminal cancer dies three months earlier than their expected date by contracting COVID, obviously it's the COVID that killed them.

 

  

That's one thing (of many) I have never understood. People will say that person had cancer, that person had diabetes, that person had asthma, that person had migraines, that person was overweight, that person had a broken arm...so what? Most or all of those people would still be alive today if not for the virus.

The hoops people are willing to jump through to minimize the virus and avoid doing anything to help are insane. All any reasonable person is asking is to wash your hands, wear a mask, social distance, and avoid large gatherings. But we have people who would rather get arrested, lose their job, miss a flight, become a viral video, etc. The White House has more cases than some countries because they can't be bothered to follow any of the guidelines a month out from one of the most important elections in US history. 

[kg01]

13 minutes ago, High5 said:

That's one thing (of many) I have never understood. People will say that person had cancer, that person had diabetes, that person had asthma, that person had migraines, that person was overweight, that person had a broken arm...so what? Most or all of those people would still be alive today if not for the virus.

The hoops people are willing to jump through to minimize the virus and avoid doing anything to help are insane. All any reasonable person is asking is to wash your hands, wear a mask, social distance, and avoid large gatherings. But we have people who would rather get arrested, lose their job, miss a flight, become a viral video, etc. The White House has more cases than some countries because they can't be bothered to follow any of the guidelines a month out from one of the most important elections in US history. 

If we hadn't made this a political thing, this wouldn't sound so unreasonable to some.

[Vol4ever]

1 hour ago, thecampster said:

There is also plenty of evidence now that there has been a wealth of false positives as I suggested early on. The early kits were broad based tests, not specific for Covid-19.

Just one article on the subject. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

 

Fact remains that we don't know what we don't know and stating we know (either side) is just patently false in most cases.

 

Are you a doctor also AHF?  Not a swipe or anything just dont know.  

[macdaddy]

My daughter is a college student.  Living in a house with 2 others and taking all classes virtually.   Her roommates socialized on Saturday with someone who started showing symptoms 2 days later and was positive.   My daughter left campus at this point even though her roommates had no symptoms.   2 days later they both had confirmed covid with symptoms.   A few days after coming home my daughter also developed symptoms and tested postive.   At no time was she around someone with actual symptoms or who had even tested positive. 

I'm not sure if there was an assertion that you can't catch it from someone if they aren't showing symptoms but in our case that definitely wasn't true.     

[AHF]

48 minutes ago, Vol4ever said:

Are you a doctor also AHF?  Not a swipe or anything just dont know.  

No.  Just part of my job to read up on what doctors and researchers have been advising on this.  Asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission has been part of the picture for roughly the last 6 months.  Companies have to manage their safety protocols around these guidelines.  That is why nearly all big employers have instituted quarantine procedures for people who have had close contact with someone who is positive regardless of whether they have symptoms or not.  

If you recall, Governor Kemp instituted his stay-at-home order in early April for Georgia and explained the decision to move forward with the lockdown in part because he had just found out that asymptomatic transmission was a concern.  He was ridiculed for having "just" learned that when it had already been widely understood.

This is what Fauci said in February:

Quote

“I don’t think there’s any question that someone who is without symptoms and carrying the virus can transmit the virus to somebody else,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

It isn't new or controversial.  The debate has been more around the transmittal rate of asympomatic people (some studies have argued the risk is similar relative to symptomatic individuals whereas others have argued the risk is materially lower, though still present).  Transmissability of the disease in pre-symptomatic individuals is an off-shoot of this where the data has been more challenging to get because it requires identifying timing of exposure in a way that isn't needed when looking at asymptomatic positive people.

People get hung up on things like the WHO's Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove having made a statement in June that it was very rare to see asymptomatic transmission which she immediately clarified the next day to confirm that:

Quote

"We do know that some people who are asymptomatic or some people who don't have symptoms can transmit the virus on," she said. "What we need to better understand is how many people in the population don't have symptoms and, separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others."

Again, a question about rate of transmission and not about whether transmissable.

[macdaddy]

12 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

My daughter is a college student.  Living in a house with 2 others and taking all classes virtually.   Her roommates socialized on Saturday with someone who started showing symptoms 2 days later and was positive.   My daughter left campus at this point even though her roommates had no symptoms.   2 days later they both had confirmed covid with symptoms.   A few days after coming home my daughter also developed symptoms and tested postive.   At no time was she around someone with actual symptoms or who had even tested positive. 

I'm not sure if there was an assertion that you can't catch it from someone if they aren't showing symptoms but in our case that definitely wasn't true.     

Just to be clear i should have said on A Saturday.  This was 3 weeks ago and she is doing fine now.  

[JayBirdHawk]

5 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Just to be clear i should have said on A Saturday.  This was 3 weeks ago and she is doing fine now.  

I was about to ask.  Glad she is doing better.  How was it for her overall?

[macdaddy]

31 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I was about to ask.  Glad she is doing better.  How was it for her overall?

Not bad.  fever for 3 days, sore throat, congestion.  Her since of smell has not returned but she thinks she can still taste ok.  

 

[AHF]

I'm putting the political talk behind the curtain.  Please pick that up in the politics forum.  Thanks all!

[thecampster]

 

This was widely discussed here in this forum. You can rehash those arguments over there, like AH said.