So here's the deal on this virus

[Burney]

This is the problem with data and why people who get it are paid a lot of money. There are so many variables at play, any such conclusion is ridiculous. Even if we accept the conclusion, would the rates be the same if ICU capacity was insufficient?

The numbers the Chief quotes are meaningless, I'm afraid. Nobody has a clue what the mortality rates of this are because there is such a variation in how infections and deaths are being reported. mortality rates could be significantly higher or lower than we currently think. It's simply too early to draw any conclusions.

[AFC East]

The numbers the Chief quotes are meaningless, I'm afraid. Nobody has a clue what the mortality rates of this are because there is such a variation in how infections and deaths are being reported. mortality rates could be significantly higher or lower than we currently think. It's simply too early to draw any conclusions.

I suspect your first statement is the closest to a universal truth that we may see in this thread.

[Chief Arrowhead]

I suspect your first statement is the closest to a universal truth that we may see in this thread.

Hi AFC East. How is it meaningless to use the current data, not what existed a month ago, to become more knowledgeable as how this particular virus works? What I've been looking at is current analysis and studies like the one Stanford did in Santa Clara county. There have been other anecdotal occurrences where a whole population was tested, like the Boston homeless testing, not just who took themselves to a hospital or testing site. It reveals many who acquired the virus and didn't know it. It also uncludes those who felt sick for a time but did not get tested and then got better. Those are not included in the CFR ratio that is widely quoted and is being used to determine societal restrictions and behavior. Simply, the numerator (deaths) is known. The denominator, number of people who acquired it, is UNKNOWN and is many many times higher. the Santa Clara study indicates the denominator could be 55 times higher.

Second, who is dying? Look at the data, AFC East. About 80% of the deaths are in this subset: Over 70 and/or those with co-morbidities. Nobody knows the true CFR, granted, but using this data we have now (again, not a month ago or longer) it looks like around 0.5%. I think it's actually lower but let's use that. that means 5 out of 1000 that acquire it die. 4 out of those 5 are in the HIGH RISK subset described. the high risk subset population should be restricted. They should be wearing masks, avoiding crowds, etc. That is the way a quarantine used to work.

Please explain to me and other readers why this is meaningless. I do not want to be wrong. We already did the lockdown and there will be many analyses done as to whether that was appropriate. I'm concerned about the present and what we advise from here.

This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/...alth-concerns/

This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.

[Burney]

Hi AFC East. How is it meaningless to use the current data, not what existed a month ago, to become more knowledgeable as how this particular virus works? What I've been looking at is current analysis and studies like the one Stanford did in Santa Clara county. There have been other anecdotal occurrences where a whole population was tested, like the Boston homeless testing, not just who took themselves to a hospital or testing site. It reveals many who acquired the virus and didn't know it. It also uncludes those who felt sick for a time but did not get tested and then got better. Those are not included in the CFR ratio that is widely quoted and is being used to determine societal restrictions and behavior. Simply, the numerator (deaths) is known. The denominator, number of people who acquired it, is UNKNOWN and is many many times higher. the Santa Clara study indicates the denominator could be 55 times higher.

Second, who is dying? Look at the data, AFC East. About 80% of the deaths are in this subset: Over 70 and/or those with co-morbidities. Nobody knows the true CFR, granted, but using this data we have now (again, not a month ago or longer) it looks like around 0.5%. I think it's actually lower but let's use that. that means 5 out of 1000 that acquire it die. 4 out of those 5 are in the HIGH RISK subset described. the high risk subset population should be restricted. They should be wearing masks, avoiding crowds, etc. That is the way a quarantine used to work.

Please explain to me and other readers why this is meaningless. I do not want to be wrong. We already did the lockdown and there will be many analyses done as to whether that was appropriate. I'm concerned about the present and what we advise from here.

This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/...alth-concerns/

This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.

Firstou're operating on a false premise - namely that all the deaths attributed to Covid are all the deaths there are that were caused or occasioned by it. Since we don't even know when it started, that is not a valid conclusion to draw. Also, what were the criteria for attributing a death to Covid? Having it or dying from it? How many deaths were misattributed either way? The point is, the numbers are screwed before you even begin. That's not anyone's fault - it's simply that there isn't the quality of data at this point to start drawing any serious conclusions here.
What you've got there is raw, local data - not something you can undertake a serious public health initiative with.

[AFC East]

This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/...alth-concerns/

This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.

The article you shared is written by someone who either doesn't understand or is wilfully ignoring the principles of science.

"All the science indicated that existing measures, encouraging the public to observe basic hygiene and limit interactions with vulnerable people, was working, as C19 followed the normal bell curve of any viral disease in a population."

Utter cobblers, I am afraid. I can't think of a single scientific domain where all 'science' (whatever that means) has ever totally agreed on something. It's just a series of hyperbolic/completely ungrounded statements that no data analyst would ever make.

As Burney has repeatedly said, the data is a mess. Science relies on data. Anybody drawing conclusions is a fraud. By all means, share a hypothesis that you can start to support with some data, but don't draw conclusions. It's silly.

[dismalswamp]

from skeptics:
“I have always wondered how the German nation adapted to the hideous excesses of Hitler and his regime since Germans by and large are sympathetic and stoic and caring people. I happen to be married to a German and have been for 35 years. Now I have a more perfect understanding. If you accept something without questioning authority, then that authority takes ever more advantage of the situation and soon you have a population that is denied the opportunity to question. This is what is happening here and I am concerned that the nation is on the wrong track.”

[redgunamo]

Nonsense, I'm afraid. It was just Germans being German. Nothing to do with H.

from skeptics:
“I have always wondered how the German nation adapted to the hideous excesses of Hitler and his regime since Germans by and large are sympathetic and stoic and caring people. I happen to be married to a German and have been for 35 years. Now I have a more perfect understanding. If you accept something without questioning authority, then that authority takes ever more advantage of the situation and soon you have a population that is denied the opportunity to question. This is what is happening here and I am concerned that the nation is on the wrong track.”