« prev   random   next »

0
0

Death WITH Wuhan virus are not deaths FROM Wuhan virus

By Patrick follow Patrick   2020 Jun 26, 6:31pm 73 views   1 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


https://medium.com/analyticaper/covid-19-what-the-data-tells-us-in-detail-3640748bd049

Summary: Expect to go from ~30M to 60M infections in the US and ~100K to 200K fatalities. In the short-term we’ve seen infections drop off, and I would expect to see true deaths drop below 300 / day by the end of June.

HOWEVER, if we count people who died “with covid” rather than “by covid” I would expect this to be at least 800+ or more / day for a long time. i.e. if 10% of people are currently infected, and 8,000 people normally die each day, then at least 10% will show up with Covid. Meanwhile, the true number should be significantly lower. We must therefore ensure we capture “caused by.”

*I know the 10% example is flawed, but it’s illustrative of the broader point … we need to count “by covid” vs. “with covid” because a meaningful percentage of our population has been infected and will continue to be infected.*

Basically if you’re under 9 years old, your odds are virtually none (thank goodness). But if you’re 80+ the odds are ~2.5% you won’t make it, if you get infected.


Meaning that you have a 97.5% chance of surviving even if you are older than 80! Let's put it that way.

In the case of Covid 19, your odds of dying from it are much lower than your general odds of dying at every age group. The gap is much smaller above 60, but as a general rule everyone is much more likely to die from something else (THIS YEAR) than Covid 19.

For me, Covid 19 presents a 0.02% chance of dying (if infected) so personally I have no reason to modify my behavior, except to protect the vulnerable.

Similarly, if I was willing to let my 2 year old daughter (who I’d die for) be around bacteria, the flu, and a host of other microbes her first few years of life, which are more deadly to her than Covid 19, then I’d be silly to suddenly try to protect her from something far less deadly. ...

We have a pretty good understanding of total fatalities but were initially missing a true understanding of how many people were infected (i.e. a good denominator / good ratio). For example if we had 100K deaths and 100K were infected, then Covid19 would be a death sentence. But if 100M were infected, then it would be less deadly than the flu on a rate basis. So various institutions set out to do Serology Tests (i.e. antibody studies) to understand it. ...

One study demonstrated that up to 60% of all persons may already have some level of cellular background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses. So it’s possible up to 70% of our population already has some level of resistance. If that were the case, then we may already have achieved or be very close to herd immunity depending on the strength of those resistance levels. ...

When you hear reports about the virus being detected on various surfaces, and in various settings, the thing to keep in mind is whether or not what they found was “transmissible.” Meaning virions may be detected, but they may not be “viable enough to infect you.” For instance, exposure to direct sunlight can damage most of the virions and render them harmless. Testing would detect it, but unless they test for “viability,” it has no bearing on transmission. ...

Viruses spread more easily in cold and dry climates. So maintaining your indoor climate at 68F and ~50% humidity was shown to be effective against the influenza virus in guinea pigs, as well as at higher humidity levels. ...

The Sun: Testing from the Department of Homeland Security Bio Defense, has shown that “within minutes, the majority of the virus is inactivated on surfaces and in the air in direct sunlight.” ...

Sweden (and a few others) have adopted the “mitigation” policy that basically says, we are taking the long-view and believe we’ll be better off in 12 months than the rest of you. They believe they can get it over with now and avoid a second wave while avoiding the unintended consequences of lockdowns.

They too want to flatten the curve to avoid healthcare overload, but not so much that it drags out what they see as the inevitable. They believe lockdowns are only a short-term solution with greater long-term costs (human life costs) and that as soon as they are lifted the virus will go back to doing what it does best, infecting people. The premise is that the virus will run its course nomatter what we do. Like water, we can try to slow it down with our hands, but eventually it will get through. So it’s better to build up herd immunity quicker so the virus can be neutralized and the elderly can return from isolation. They argue suppression will only keep the virus circulating longer and therefore give more opportunities for it to infect the at-risk populations. ...

Stanford professor Scott Atlas explains in an interview with CNN that “the idea of having to stop Covid19 has created a catastrophic health care situation”. Professor Atlas says that the disease is “generally mild” and that irrational fears had been created. He adds that there is “absolutely no reason” for extensive testing in the general population, which is only necessary in hospitals and nursing homes. Professor Atlas wrote an article at the end of April entitled “The data are in — Stop the panic and end total isolation.”


1   CBOEtrader   ignore (6)   2020 Jun 26, 7:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says

One study demonstrated that up to 60% of all persons may already have some level of cellular background immunity to Covid19


Id be careful w this guy's reasoning. These super high population CV % studies were treating self selected CV testing group as a random slice of the population, which ofc it isn't.

A lot of his info is good but he s cherry picking stats.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions