Jump to content

Covid-19 Prepared?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

26 minutes ago, jbirds510 said:

I cant know im healthy? no sure easy way? I bet you cant find 1 person that doesnt remember hearing "an apple a day keeps the dr away".

 

Obviously an apple a day does not prevent illnesses but it does no harm either. A diet including fruit is good for you. Being healthy doesn't guarantee that you will remain healthy nor does it prevent illness. If you are reasonably healthy, likely your immune system is also, and so illnesses when they happen, and they will happen, can sometimes be avoided or lessened in their effects. If you think your lifestyle is the only preventative measure needed that will save you, well that's on you. A prudent sky diver carries a reserve chute. The easiest way to avoid some sickness, is to avoid situations involving sick people.

  • Like 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, jbirds510 said:

dont have to, eulle gibbons genetic flaw and fix at had a cholesterol issue (arterial congestion aka plaque build up)..My guess would be too much red meat but that has nothing to do with the immune system. what you just did there was try to compare a 1972 buick grille to a banana and insinuate theres a comparison some how.

 

No,what i did there was point out how you can be healthy and still die of something random.

  • Like 2
Link to post

Sometimes not even random. They can have an underlying cause that isn't apparent in how well you feel. Hey, living a healthy lifestyle is good for the rest of your life however long it is.

 

I walk 2 miles minimum a day and have ever since this started in late March. Yesterday was almost 5 miles and 2 1/2 already by 9 today. 

  • Like 3
Link to post

I think the statistical data needs to be cleared up.

 

just because you tested positive for Covid19 after death doesn’t mean you died from Covid19.

 

but $8000 paid per life being marked

down as Covid means their going to count everything as Covid. 
 

Glaring failure right there. The data pool has shit floating in it. 
 


 

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
6 hours ago, jbirds510 said:

yeah, still over it, I know how to not get infected and spread it without wearing a mask or gloves or lock myself in a box, Ill do me, you do you and hope to see everyone come through this healthy. peace!

 

Hey man, don't let a stupid thread on ratsun kill your Datsun vibe.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

If this is no worse than a regular flu season (or even close) why are the hospitals in major cities overwhelmed? This doesn't happen in regular flu seasons does it?

 

 

 

 

Not overwhelmed but they are losing money and furloughing workers because they are not allowed to treat anything except Covid and emergencies.

If you have cancer, heart problems whatever too bad.

 

"CDC estimates that influenza was associated with more than 35.5 million illnesses, more than 16.5 million medical visits, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 influenza season."

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

I saw that and rolled my eyes.

 

 

 

Dguy210 I'm willing to listen.

 

If this is no worse than a regular flu season (or even close) why are the hospitals in major cities overwhelmed? This doesn't happen in regular flu seasons does it?

 

Would you say that elderly deaths are higher this year compared to the regular flu season? 

 

If this is basically BS why is everything shut down? If money talks and makes the world turn then what's the end game here if this is just made up or an over reaction? Wall street and banks just wouldn't allow it, they are loosing money!!!.

 

 

The reason no one believes your facts is you can't convince the listener that they are facts. (even if accurate) Real and accurate or not, they are just buried under all the BS. Today, why would anyone believe you? I don't believe anything I hear or am very skeptical and just nod. Who the fuck can you trust for real news. ?????????????????????????

 

 

On herd immunity. About 60% is needed, an insane amount if there is no vaccine. This means that of 330,000,000 ? people in the US, 198,000,000 need to have immunity and (by your number of 0.5% death rate) 990,000 will have died to grant us this????

 

Very short answers:

It is worse than the flu but not 20-40 times worse as predicted more like 2x. I'm not saying no precautions should have been taken, just what was done was an over-reaction. But since it is new more people will initially get sick.

The projections and models by Dr. Ferguson were almost criminally wrong and he actually has a history of massively overpredicting deaths. 

Herd immunity isn't a one and done, it is slowing an exponential number over time, any herd immunity starts slowing the spread. Also, the 60% is a massively overinflated number based on the worst case scenario "reproduction number" for spread. It appears to be nowhere close to that bad. Reality is way messier on both spread and immunity, these are after all projections.

 

Also, the 0.5% mortality rate even for a 60% infected herd immunity and 990k dead assumes an even distribution of deaths, which it very much isn't. The mortality rate is extremely skewed to those over 60 or already sick. In healthy people under 60 the mortality rate is extremely low, the 0.5% is an AVERAGE based on all ages. Without seriously digging into the stats I don't believe that takes into account the actual distribution of ages in a population, especially in the US which is quite different from European countries (for example, off the top of my head I believe Italy has the highest number of elderly of any European population). From the Italian health authority the median age of the people who died was 80 and 99% had a some other preexisting condition. From a pure statistical viewpoint (not ethically) the best outcome is the under 50s who are all healthy all going out and getting infected as there are very unlikely to die from it, and therefore halt the spread, but sequestering and taking precautions for those who are elderly or immune compromised. But in reality that is true for a whole bunch of things in life. If you are old and/or sick you are just more likely to die. Not to be crass about their deaths but the reality of it is that the vast majority of the people who died from COVID were likely to die of something soon anyways.

 

Long answer. 

Oh it is worse than the flu, that is why I posted those numbers just not amazingly worse. Somewhere between 2x and 5x times worse assuming the mortality 0.5% number is accurate. A bad flu year is 80,000 deaths. However, that is still not justification to shutdown everything. Looking at the response Sweden did which was way less restrictive and there mortality was right in the middle of the pack for European countries, neither lower nor higher. Indicating the extreme efforts undertaken elsewhere where basically useless or at least very ineffective.

 

Because this is a "novel" virus and supposed has a spread slightly more than the flu on a weak year and about the same as on a bad year you will see more people initially coming down with it. Some of the antibody tests in NY were giving numbers as high as 20% of the population already had it, although I suspect that is somewhat high do to an inherent inaccuracy in the nature of the test as it may detect antibodies against closely related viruses. However, that may also suggest there is already some minor resistance to it due to prior infection with a closely related coronavirus, I wouldn't be surprised if that is why there is such a large mostly asymptomatic population.

 

The models based, for example on the Santa Clara study which was predicting as low as a 0.1% or even lower for mortality rate, I suspect were under predicting the mortality due to the % error in the nature of the antibody test. It gets messy here on the how and why and some of it is proprietary stuff I'm actually working on so I can't comment. I will note though the model they derived to calculate total population deaths was actually way closer to the actual measured number (they calculated 100 for their area population, actual was 54). So something is definitely going on.

 

Without repeating myself on the herd immunity, there are many diseases with higher "infectivity" that do not spread as far even under historical conditions. The short answer being reality is exceptionally more complicated with more variables than the simple spread models. The models sort of do the "assume a spherical cow" shorthand for an upper theoretical limit.


The major hospitals aren't overwhelmed though, that is the sort of big lie of omission you are hearing.  In NY the hospital ship Comfort left because it was not being used and several of the emergency military hospitals that were setup were dismantled as they were not being used at all.

 

For example take Oregon, we had 115 people die of this in the entire state. and about 2975 test positive. One of the major hospitals in the Portland area for example publishes its numbers. Since this began in about January they had 162 COVID-19 cases to date: 48 inpatient/ED, 114 outpatient Of 48 inpatient/ED patients: 32 discharged, 6 deceased, 10 remain in hospital. So they had about 50 cases requiring hospitalization,  OVER A PERIOD OF 5 MONTHS. About half of those I believe were also transfers from other areas.

 

I am unaware of what the hospital load is during the normal or bad flu season so I will leave that unanswered as I can only speculate.

 

I think that addresses all the points, if I've missed one or not addressed one enough let me know.

 

As always this is based on my interpretation of the evidence I've seen and I'm a virologist, not an epidemiologist, although obviously there is a lot of overlap in those fields.

 

But my opinion and others is this is the overall why: Political power

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/28/coronavirus-hype-biggest-political-hoax-in-history/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

 

Ferguson's Fuckup

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/professor-lockdown-modeler-resigns-in-disgrace/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=second

Edited by Dguy210
add data
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, john510 said:

I watched a little bit of that.The guy's hard to listen to,would it help if i smoked a fatty ? 

 

I like that he pauses to think about his answers instead of blurting things out. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, john510 said:

I watched a little bit of that.The guy's hard to listen to,would it help if i smoked a fatty ? 

 

It's 4:20 somewhere in the world.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

I like that he pauses to think about his answers instead of blurting things out. 

 

 

I skipped along some because he was mumbling and when he got to drilling 1" holes in your head and hard wiring your brain I bailed I have better things to do. To a certain extent it does take some intelligence to make billions, the rest is just right place at the right time and luck,  but I think it takes more to hang onto it. When billionaires talk I quickly start looking at the walls. Billionaires are good at one thing... being billionaires and just like you and I they put their pants on one leg at a time. If they tell you something you agree with well that's just fine you got exactly what you paid for. A worth...... less opinion.      

  • Like 1
Link to post

Dt210 guy...

 

It's hard to argue about herd immunity when you say it's an over inflated number. I just went on line and some say 70-90% , two say 85-90%, another 70% minimum. Most of these are through the use of inoculation. So far and away,  I haven't found any herd immunity stat below 60%.

 

Three say specifically for corona that 60% is needed another is 29-75% so I don't fucking know. I like your numbers, who wouldn't?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Dt210 guy...

 

It's hard to argue about herd immunity when you say it's an over inflated number. I just went on line and some say 70-90% , two say 85-90%, another 70% minimum. Most of these are through the use of inoculation. So far and away,  I haven't found any herd immunity stat below 60%.

 

Three say specifically for corona that 60% is needed another is 29-75% so I don't fucking know. I like your numbers, who wouldn't?

 

 

 

The 60% was calculated using the high end of the predicted reproduction number (R0), which is sort of a bullshit number.  I actually dug up the original math used to calculated it just to see myself. That R0 is sort of an educated guess based on a bunch of factors, depending on who makes certain predictions you get a whole range of values, for COVID-19 the spread is 1.4-5.7 for that number which basically means no one has a fucking clue and is pretty much pulling numbers out of their ass based on shitty data. Influenza is 1.4-2.8 depending on strain and a bunch of other factors. SARS is 3.1-4.2, mind you and SARS had a mortality up in the 10%. MERS which was another related one was 34% but a R0 or 0.3-0.8. For comparison Chickenpox is 10-12.

 

For example the common cold and HIV both have an R0 much higher than influenza or the low end of COVID-19 but no one argues for herd immunity for HIV (obviously this is treading on Reducto Ad Absurdum here), but the point is things are very context and spread dependent. the R0 is extremely environmentally dependent on spread and based on mathematical models. The problem with that number is the underlying assumption to do that math is that you want the minimum % needed to provide "herd immunity" to a whole population so that given a single infection point source it can't spread past whatever predefined variable you've set, usually stopping an outbreak or growth (this is a very simplified explanation of this). 

 

The problem with these mathematical models is real life has a tendency not to follow mathematical models and your mathematical model is only as good as your starting assumptions. The starting assumptions are only as good as your initial data you use to make those assumptions and we know that was all kinds of faulty.

 

Furthermore, in this case the mathematical model Ferguson used is incredibly fucked up and horribly wrong (See prev post for source). 

 

However, Sweden has provided us with a nice natural experiment in that they are predicted to already have achieved herd immunity and their deaths were right in the middle of the pack for Europe, neither higher nor lower. Once again bringing this back to my main point, the shutdowns were predicated on faulty data and shitty models. We now understand that to be the case so further keeping everything shutdown is not a logical course of action with regard to the disease, unless you are using this for political gain. 

 

 

Edited by Dguy210
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post

 further keeping everything shutdown is not a logical course of action with regard to the disease, unless you are using this for political gain.

 

THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT 

the dems looking for a way to look better than the republicans 

  • Like 3
Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.