by Heraclitusstudent ➕follow (8) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 912 - 951 of 3,363 Next » Last » Search these comments
If that's the case then someone who understands stats needs to be watching over the decisions of the doctors. They are making these triage decisions based on estimated deathrates... which push the deathrate for that group higher?
Fuck I hope that's not the case
. which push the deathrate for that group higher?
"Social-distancing" has zero effect on reducing how many people total will be exposed to it: being only a way to flatten the curve until about 70% of the population are exposed to it thereby acquiring enough herd immunity.
Exposure versus severe cases.
Supposedly just many get sick (not just exposed), but just later. But it seems to me that it may significantly reduce the number of serious cases - not just postpone them. How can it not ?
How? What difference? The same virus, the same medical condition / genetics of the same person, why would the outcome/severity (before intensive medical intervention) be different depending on the timing of the first encounter?
So, four NBA players have tested positive for CV. Thing is: only one of them has any symptoms!
That’s what makes this thing spread so fast! Young healthy people are carriers and walk around infecting everyone they meet.
And lemme tell you, they aren’t getting CV tests! I couldn’t even get one and I had moderate symptoms! Finally abating, thank God. But I suspect a crap load of people are walking Typhoid Marys. Mostly kids and young adults.
I assume the Covid-19 test is for the specific new strains (L and S), but Coronavirus in general has been around forever and causing colds and deaths.
late encounter leading to lower severity
But what I'm thinking is why would later encounter mean not less encounter ? In other words why wouldn't some of the people that caught and got deathly ill(without social distancing) , not miss it entirely if during the social distancing a lot of the most susceptible people (not most susceptible to severe illness, but most susceptible to catching it) have had time to recover and not be contagious ?
Otherwise how do you explain South Korea or China for that matter, if quarantining and or social distancing only postpone the effect.
Both countries had very localized outbreaks.
But if you can quash local outbreaks, doing more than just postponing, then certainly shutting down metro areas to a significant degree may also do more than just postpone.
In any case, changing the subject, shouldn't the US be highly motivated to do significant testing, beyond just those people that think they may have CV, very soon ?
Shutting down a metro area in the US is likely to result in killing more people by depression (due to both isolation and financial pressure) than the number of elderly such a policy would save.
Can we admit all the stats about CV are wrong yet?
CV is not growing by 50%, or even 20% per day. The death rate isnt 2%.
If these two figures were anywhere close accurate then 1% of china would have died already.
Shutting down a metro area in the US is likely to result in killing more people by depression (due to both isolation and financial pressure) than the number of elderly such a policy would save.
Also interesting: China has 15% more males than females. That could have bumped up their case rate.
« First « Previous Comments 912 - 951 of 3,363 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,248,625 comments by 14,890 users - SoTex, stereotomy online now