quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Im going to say it, all of these stats, projections and curves are total B.S., educated guesses at best.

The data is inaccurate at best. You are only testing a small sample of the population and that is random. No one has any idea what the true infection and recovery rate is today as they're only testing the very sick, if tests are available.

The only thing you can accurately determine is the % of tested positive, the % of tested negative, increase/decrease, and % of deaths & recoveries.

The fact that you're testing more, and more are positive doesn't mean there is an increase in rate of spread, it only demonstrates you can record and report that data. It doesn't appear to show how many were already presumed and now simply confirmed.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
It is weird Fauci says one thing in the briefs with the President. But publishes in the New England Journal of Medicine that it will look just like the mortality rate of the flu.

quote:

This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/...EJMe2002387?query=RP

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
DocH or any one else.Has there been any preliminary reports out of New York on the trial treatments?

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
If you get infected, then recover, are you immune?

Can you go lick door knobs in the Corona ward and not be in danger?

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
It is weird Fauci says one thing in the briefs with the President. But publishes in the New England Journal of Medicine that it will look just like the mortality rate of the flu.

quote:

This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/...EJMe2002387?query=RP

Despite the date shown on that page, that was published in late February. I posted about it in this thread then. If you look at the page view metrics, it has page views more than 30 days ago. https://www.nejm.org/doi/metrics/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

At the time, the fatality rate was being widely reported as 2-3%, sometimes worse.

The linked paper doesn't say the fatality rate WAS 0.1%. It was suggesting that because of undertesting, the fatality rate was likely significantly less than 2-3%, and closer to the 0.1% of a severe seasonal flu than to the MUCH higher fatality rates of SARS and MERS (which is true).

A disease as transmissible as COVID-19 and as deadly as SARS or MERS could be catastrophic.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Seeing a ALOT of anger directed toward China on social media today.

---

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Pennsylvania is predicted to be one of the early states with days about 16 April

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Well, he finally caved to the pressure.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Im going to say it, all of these stats, projections and curves are total B.S., educated guesses at best.

The data is inaccurate at best. You are only testing a small sample of the population and that is random. No one has any idea what the true infection and recovery rate is today as they're only testing the very sick, if tests are available.

The only thing you can accurately determine is the % of tested positive, the % of tested negative, increase/decrease, and % of deaths & recoveries.

The fact that you're testing more, and more are positive doesn't mean there is an increase in rate of spread, it only demonstrates you can record and report that data. It doesn't appear to show how many were already presumed and now simply confirmed.

The one thing that stands out and I have to disagree with above is, “You are only testing a small sample of the population and that is random.” First, ”a minute sample” would probably be more accurate. Second, and probably more important, the sample isn’t random at all. It is people who are sick and are expected to have the virus and healthcare workers who have a higher probability of having been exposed to the virus (and who you really would not want spreading the virus if infected).

Realistically, the way we might know who has been infected is when this settles down if there is a serum test for antibodies and it is very widely deployed across the population. Even if it were available now, I’d be really surprised if the folks who are trying to save the sick people spent any time on an effort to get us better statistics.

Time will tell. In the meantime, we needs to be patient, as frustrating as that is.

I need one of those signs that says, “Please God, give me patience, and give it to me NOW!”

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
DocH or any one else.Has there been any preliminary reports out of New York on the trial treatments?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
[One might also ask, if this virus does not like hot weather, why aren't our numbers declining (or at least slowing to rise) given the damn temperature has been near 90 degrees for the past couple weeks? I did some yard work on Saturday and the temp gauge at my house showed 92 degrees.