Oddly, heart disease, cancer and death from diabetes have all vanished.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Start Reopening U.S. Stores Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you please learn to read the data correctly.
The "when" is not irrelevant. Cuomo himself said something about 66% of New York's new cases being in people who haven't even left their homes. Which somehow is starting to suggest that "stay at home" isn't working either. That was our best "plan" and Cuomo's statement seems to suggest we are getting to a point where that isn't working either. If it was working...these people shouldn't be getting sick...correct? Especially if no one is coming into their homes with them. We may now not have a choice but to get back out there. Those who are in a lesser risk category...should be the ones to return first. While we take care of and isolate those at higher risk. As for the time being irrelevant...again, it won't matter. This is a new virus that we've never seen before. No proven immunity. Which means no matter WHEN we get back out there...there is going to be a spike. R value is going to go right back up no matter when we go back out into the world. BECAUSE THERE IS NO IMMUNITY!!! As time goes on...my hospital has been admitting more people due to suicide attempts. As I understand it, (I've been out of work for two weeks for a quarantine). In the last two weeks, we had 3x as many admits for suicide risks...as we did for COVID. And we were a hard hit hospital when it came to COVID. The "too soon" crowd is falling to realize that the "cure" can NOT be worse than the "disease". If we create five new problems in the process of trying to solve one...did we really solve one?
Again, there's a severe bias in testing, in that people only tested those who were showing obvious symptoms, or were associated with those showing severe symptoms. Further, the tests only showed those who were currently infected.
Antibody tests have shown that for a county with 1,000 confirmed cases, the rate of those with antibodies are 54x higher. Potentially, you're overestimating mortality rates by a similar factor.
COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
Background Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a community...
Unfortunately, in regards to the post you responded to...my state's director of public health admitted on live television that that is exactly what's happening...and she said it without hesitation.
"Just the flu" according to you? How about a flu that is magnitudes more contagious, 3x more deadly, and no vaccine, unlike the normal flu where you could just go "get the flu shot" and be cool.
If none of that bothers you, why not take a quick get-away in NYC or other hot-spot. After-all, it's just the flu...shake it off, right?
Are you... actually suggesting that there’s a global conspiracy to count all deaths from heart disease, cancer, and diabetes as coronavirus deaths? Really?
Antibody tests have shown that for a county with 1,000 confirmed cases, the rate of those with antibodies are 54x higher. Potentially, you're overestimating mortality rates by a similar factor.
COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
Background Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a community...www.medrxiv.org
I'm not doubting there are more people that have it then know it.
But if you run a Facebook ad "Get antibody testing to see if you had COVID-19" -- you are going to get a biased sample of people who think they might have had it.
So... not an unbiased test pool.
arn
Not entering into the hoax discussion (it isn't), or even into a discussion into how severe Covid-19 is (it's severe), but these are two bad graphs to prove your point. They can't go down as it's cumulative.
This is a much better graph:
Of course, the above doesn't take into consideration the improvements in testing, autopsies etc., but that's a different subject.
This thinking is just so wrong. I can't believe we get to have public policy massively influenced by people who can't understand an exponent. Even if the 0.3% is correct, the replication rate of this virus is about 2.3, vs. about 1.3 for the flu. So, what happens after, say, 20 generations of spread? Check what 2.3^20 is and divide by 1.3^20.
That would be fantastic. It would mean that the virus is much less deadlier than we think.
Well, to be fair, as I mentioned above...my state's director of public health admitted on live television that this is what we're doing. If someone dies of say, a heart attack, for instance and a postmortem test results in a positive for COVID...then they died of COVID and not the heart attack.
Agree but very few think the way you do. Good on you for understanding that.
Even if you believe that, it doesn't explain this. More deaths than typical for time of year.
The Pandemic’s Hidden Toll: Half a Million Deaths (Published 2020)
Far more people died in 2020 during the pandemic than have been officially reported, a review of mortality data in 35 countries shows.
Even if you believe that, it doesn't explain this. More deaths than typical for time of year.
The Pandemic’s Hidden Toll: Half a Million Deaths (Published 2020)
Far more people died in 2020 during the pandemic than have been officially reported, a review of mortality data in 35 countries shows.www.nytimes.com
I think that the issue is trying to find what is an "acceptable" threshold from a public policy point of view. Truth be told, I don't think anyone knows, as long as the healthcare system is not overwhelmed.
(good graphs by the way, very interesting)
They specifically corrected for that. Along with demographic corrections (age, income and geography via zip code, race), they found the rates of cough and fever for their sample versus the general population, found that their sample did have a slightly higher rate, and then reweighed for it. See page 23 in their paper.
I'm not saying anything about acceptable deaths or whether we should reopen or not.
But, there's a small vocal contingent of people who essentially claim that there aren't any excess deaths from corona... and that these people had other things and are being mislabeled. And then you have people arguing death rates, and that it is or isn't worse than the flu etc.
All that goes away when you look at the total all-cause deaths. Something has happened in March - April 2020 that is causing more deaths than usual then historically. Most people believe that is due to Coronavirus.
arn
I think that is very fair but the million dollar question is how many peoples lives are going to be ruined financially? Is it worth it? We know it isn't with the flu since they don't shut down the economy for the flu. What is the acceptable death rate where it is not worth it? Is it total number of deaths and not the rate?
How many people died of the stress caused by the economy shutting down? How many still will?