Impact of the new Coronavirus where you are?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

does it really matter if it 1100 people dead or 1200? 

You need to ask what the background number of deaths (seasonally adjusted) is.  [Hint: It's not zero.]  And compare that to what is happening now.

No one seems to be doing that.  No one is publishing total death rates and comparing it to same-date-range rates from prior years.  That is my point.  That is what we should be looking at to make policy decisions.

Instead we're getting hung on models that project highly improbable future death counts.  Only Italy has these really alarming numbers, and I'm trying to open peoples eyes to the possibility that they are measuring covid19 deaths in a biased way.

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The impact of coronavirus where I am?   Hmm.  Where to begin.  Last weekend, when I left the hospital on Friday night, we had 9 cases in our ICU.  When I came in on Monday, the ICU was completely

Might be irreverent after I posted the currently existing horror scenarios back on page 1 and 2 of this thread on January 30th - ages ago in this fast developing news circle. So, to end my commen

I’m ready, come what may...  

10 minutes ago, TheGipper said:

You need to ask what the background number of deaths (seasonally adjusted) is.  [Hint: It's not zero.]  And compare that to what is happening now.

No one seems to be doing that.  No one is publishing total death rates and comparing it to same-date-range rates from prior years.  That is my point.  That is what we should be looking at to make policy decisions.

Instead we're getting hung on models that project highly improbable future death counts.  Only Italy has these really alarming numbers, and I'm trying to open peoples eyes to the possibility that they are measuring covid19 deaths in a biased way.

How do you compare year-to-year deaths for a novel (as in, never seen before) virus?

How do you measure COVID-19 deaths in a biased way? If you're infected and die from it, you die from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheGipper said:

You need to ask what the background number of deaths (seasonally adjusted) is.  [Hint: It's not zero.]  And compare that to what is happening now.

No one seems to be doing that.  No one is publishing total death rates and comparing it to same-date-range rates from prior years.  That is my point.  That is what we should be looking at to make policy decisions.

Instead we're getting hung on models that project highly improbable future death counts.  Only Italy has these really alarming numbers, and I'm trying to open peoples eyes to the possibility that they are measuring covid19 deaths in a biased way.

i understand what you are saying but i really doubt that the various health organisations, or the competent ones, are unaware of this. my point is that there are obviously a large numbers of people infected and a great many deaths. does it matter if the official stats are slightly out? we can worry about exact numbers when we are through this. look back to the spanish flu figures - they range from 20 million to 50 million. either way, an unbelievable tragedy (and the deaths of up to 5% of the population of the world at the time). surely there are enough cases and deaths for the concern and the actions taken? 

have the doctors not misdiagnosed anyone? i doubt it, but most doctors are surely of a level of expertise and competence to get the vast majority correct. 

at the moment, from the site https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries, there are currently 308,227 confirmed cases and 13,064 deaths from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of March 22, 2020, 03:45 GMT.

how many do we need? even if you are correct and say that the numbers are half what they are suggesting (although that seems extremely unlikely), so what? surely we still have a massive problem? or am i missing something? arguing over irrelevant numbers is a monumental waste of time at this stage. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Governor just announced Hawaii’s most drastic steps yet to fight this - a mandated 14-day quarantine for anyone coming into the state starting Thursday. In essence, this means the visitor industry is shut down. It’s getting real. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is grim , 793 deaths in Italy on Saturday and approaching 5000 , can't slow this F**ker down. The Virus is getting through the social distancing measures and curfews. Next option a complete lockdown . Hope they find the solution quickly, for them, and us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just announced via the news that the two biggest states in Australia, New South Wales (where Sydney is) and Victoria (where Melbourne is) are preparing for a 48 hour non-essential services lockdown. Supermarkets, convenience stores, petrol stations and freight/delivery services will continue. Schools will be shut on Tuesday.

Link to post
Share on other sites



i understand what you are saying but i really doubt that the various health organisations, or the competent ones, are unaware of this. my point is that there are obviously a large numbers of people infected and a great many deaths. does it matter if the official stats are slightly out? we can worry about exact numbers when we are through this. look back to the spanish flu figures - they range from 20 million to 50 million. either way, an unbelievable tragedy (and the deaths of up to 5% of the population of the world at the time). surely there are enough cases and deaths for the concern and the actions taken? 
have the doctors not misdiagnosed anyone? i doubt it, but most doctors are surely of a level of expertise and competence to get the vast majority correct. 
at the moment, from the site https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries, there are currently 308,227 confirmed cases and 13,064 deaths from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of March 22, 2020, 03:45 GMT.
how many do we need? even if you are correct and say that the numbers are half what they are suggesting (although that seems extremely unlikely), so what? surely we still have a massive problem? or am i missing something? arguing over irrelevant numbers is a monumental waste of time at this stage. 


I think the thing that destroys this argument is the situation in Lombardy. So yes there might be some that would have died soon anyway. People on their last legs in care homes or in hospitals who would have died soon anyway, but if that is the case why are health services being so utterly overwhelmed that we need the army to dispose of bodies?

If it was just a bad flu season that would not be the case. And this is just the start. Give it a few weeks and todays numbers will seem like nothing.

Governments don't take actions like lockdowns lightly. They will have considered things like the background death rate very carefully before taking these actions.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 7kingsguy said:

I think the thing that destroys this argument is the situation in Lombardy. So yes there might be some that would have died soon anyway. People on their last legs in care homes or in hospitals who would have died soon anyway, but if that is the case why are health services being so utterly overwhelmed that we need the army to dispose of bodies?

If it was just a bad flu season that would not be the case. And this is just the start. Give it a few weeks and todays numbers will seem like nothing.

Governments don't take actions like lockdowns lightly. They will have considered things like the background death rate very carefully before taking these actions.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

forgive me and perhaps i am misunderstanding, but it seems what you are saying supports what i think rather than destroys it? or perhaps i expressed myself badly and if so, i can confirm that agree with you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
forgive me and perhaps i am misunderstanding, but it seems what you are saying supports what i think rather than destroys it? or perhaps i expressed myself badly and if so, i can confirm that agree with you. 
No i was agreeing with you. Refuting the argument above.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

(if only more people would agree with me). 

In general, or just in reference to this particular subject? ?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Until a Vaccine. How the hell will this ever be contained in the massive overcrowded housing projects and slums of the worlds big cities.    
It wont. Containment is no longer possible. Nearly everyone will get it, its just a question of when. By quaranteening we reduce the peak of infection and ensure as many people as possible get treatment and access to a ventilator. Stating inside means your elderly relatives, cancer patients, asthma sufferers etc stand a chance when they need hospitalization.

We are looking at a year of various restrictions on movement.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the heck of it, or maybe in my quest to put this in the most optimistic perspective possible, I calculated coronavirus deaths worldwide (13000+-) per global population of 7.8 billion. So far just under 2 out of every million people have died. Did I do that right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for the heck of it, or maybe in my quest to put this in the most optimistic perspective possible, I calculated coronavirus deaths worldwide (13000+-) per global population of 7.8 billion. So far just under 2 out of every million people have died. Did I do that right?
Yes. Now try doubling that number every 5 days or so.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, 7kingsguy said:

I think the thing that destroys this argument

It's not an argument.  It is just a question that I don't have the answer to.  Where are the graphs of seasonally-aligned mortality rates (by all causes) overlaid with current all-cause death counts?  It's a simple graph that will give us the best picture of what is happening.  It's an obvious thing to collect and publish, yet I don't see it anywhere.

We have 13,069 deaths worldwide since January 1 directly attributed to the virus.  Total background world death rate over the same time period (not seasonally adjusted) is 12.56 million deaths.  Are global death rates on a same-day-of-year stable enough for us to see the presumed 13k excess deaths?  Do we actually have 13k excess deaths, or are there some percentage of these deaths that are "borrowing" from the background rate?

Again, it's not an argument or an assertion, it is just a question that I have.  And no one in mass media seems to be asking let alone answering it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For us now Northern California, Illinois (Chicago) and New York are on total lockdown for weeks. Expect most states in the US will follow soon. 

Our plans to visit our daughter in Chicago and son in Denver this spring are on hold.

Work from home is the word of the day.

Bright side is more time to smoke cigars as the weather is warming up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
It's not an argument.  It is just a question that I don't have the answer to.  Where are the graphs of seasonally-aligned mortality rates (by all causes) overlaid with current all-cause death counts?  It's a simple graph that will give us the best picture of what is happening.  It's an obvious thing to collect and publish, yet I don't see it anywhere.
We have 13,069 deaths worldwide since January 1 directly attributed to the virus.  Total background world death rate over the same time period (not seasonally adjusted) is 12.56 million deaths.  Are global death rates on a same-day-of-year stable enough for us to see the presumed 13k excess deaths?  Do we actually have 13k excess deaths, or are there some percentage of these deaths that are "borrowing" from the background rate?
Again, it's not an argument or an assertion, it is just a question that I have.  And no one in mass media seems to be asking let alone answering it.
That is a fair point. Unfortunately i have seen people using it as a reason to take it less seriously.

I have also just read a tweet from the mayor of Bergamo which suggest the deaths in italy are actually being underestimated as there are many more deaths above the baseline not being accounted for.


The numbers he gave earlier in the week were as follows:

from March 1st to March 14th, Bergamo had 164 deaths.

31 were due to COVID-19

The prior year in the same time period Bergamo had 56 deaths.

This leaves an excess mortality of 77, which he stated that he believes are probably COVID-19 victims that weren't tested.

It's quite likely that future examination of excess mortality will show the real death toll being much higher than the current official numbers.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7kingsguy said:

The prior year in the same time period Bergamo had 56 deaths.

I would rather see that vs a decadal average (or longer).  Flu variability can be 5x from one year to the next (US estimates put yearly flu yearly deaths between somewhere around 10,000 and 60,000 for each year in the last decade).  It might help to compare to recent high flu years, like 2010 or 2018.

The people at Kinsa have graphs similar to what I'd like to see at: https://healthweather.us/

image.png.406adbb31ae96461e09fdc8d5767897d.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnS said:

Just announced via the news that the two biggest states in Australia, New South Wales (where Sydney is) and Victoria (where Melbourne is) are preparing for a 48 hour non-essential services lockdown. Supermarkets, convenience stores, petrol stations and freight/delivery services will continue. Schools will be shut on Tuesday.

Correction, non-essential services are to be locked down in 48 hours. There is no indication how long the lock down will remain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correction, non-essential services are to be locked down in 48 hours. There is no indication how long the lock down will remain.

That makes a lot more sense - a 48hr lockdown would achieve nothing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

makes more sense (if only more people would agree with me). 

That would take something bigger than a global pandemic. :lol3:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

That would take something bigger than a global pandemic. :lol3:

nice! always one. 

more seriously, i am assuming that this virus is more like the flu than say measles where if you get it, you can get it again. down the track. like we do with the flu. which makes it infinitely more dangerous.

my understanding is that an effective vaccine is not realistic for at least 12 months (that said, a scientist mate of mine - who himself made 100s of millions with an anti-cancer treatment he developed - told me to expect a positive announcement, 'the light at the end of the tunnel' as he put it, towards end of May. he did say that when you see the shares in a 'medical company' suddenly skyrocket, that good news is nigh, though of course the bugger would not tell me what company). 

even then, when an effective vaccine is found, how long to get anywhere near enough doses to share with those who need them? 

if isolation can't put a real dint in this, a lot of us have a dim future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is grim , 793 deaths in Italy on Saturday and approaching 5000 , can't slow this F**ker down. The Virus is getting through the social distancing measures and curfews. Next option a complete lockdown . Hope they find the solution quickly, for them, and us.

Social distancing is the only thing that works right now. Take in to account that the people that died today could have cought this up to two weeks ago. So the measures we take today will be to slow things down for the weeks to come. But yeah, what’s happening in Italy and now Spain is brutal. It’s hard to grasp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.