|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On June 10 2020 06:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 05:41 Slydie wrote:When it comes to herd immunity and antibody studies, it's possible that the tests don't report everybody that have been infected, since many who didn't have symptoms may not develop antibodies. No. I saw an article in a Norwegian paper about a study showing that 99% do indeed develop antibodies. It is interesting how quickly the narrative changed from "not overloading the HC system" to "stopping the pandemic completely." I guess it is because it is far less contagious than first feared, but also that death tolls of 0,2-2% of all infected in the end was considered morally unacceptable, even with an average victim around 80 years old. That seems like misinformation to me. While it is true that people 80 and higher are at the highest risk there is no way the mean is around 80. This is from May 13th and is just for New York. of the 15230 people that died 7419 were over 75, 3788 65-74, 3413 45-64, 18-44 601, and 9 0-17. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/I would like to know where you got the average age is 80 because I hear people say stuff like this fairly frequently and I see no data to support it. It is like people don't understand the difference between a average and most cases. It would be near impossible for the average to be 80 when there is less than 50% of the dead 75 and above.
In Sweden 25 % of all dead are >90, 41 % are 80-89, 22 % are 70-79. That's 88 % total.
An average age of at least 80 is very reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 10 2020 14:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 06:07 JimmiC wrote:On June 10 2020 05:41 Slydie wrote:When it comes to herd immunity and antibody studies, it's possible that the tests don't report everybody that have been infected, since many who didn't have symptoms may not develop antibodies. No. I saw an article in a Norwegian paper about a study showing that 99% do indeed develop antibodies. It is interesting how quickly the narrative changed from "not overloading the HC system" to "stopping the pandemic completely." I guess it is because it is far less contagious than first feared, but also that death tolls of 0,2-2% of all infected in the end was considered morally unacceptable, even with an average victim around 80 years old. That seems like misinformation to me. While it is true that people 80 and higher are at the highest risk there is no way the mean is around 80. This is from May 13th and is just for New York. of the 15230 people that died 7419 were over 75, 3788 65-74, 3413 45-64, 18-44 601, and 9 0-17. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/I would like to know where you got the average age is 80 because I hear people say stuff like this fairly frequently and I see no data to support it. It is like people don't understand the difference between a average and most cases. It would be near impossible for the average to be 80 when there is less than 50% of the dead 75 and above. In Sweden 25 % of all dead are >90, 41 % are 80-89, 22 % are 70-79. That's 88 % total. An average age of at least 80 is very reasonable.
42% of US deaths are people in nursing homes, so it wouldn't surprise me to see the average victim at least 70-something.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths/#149ba31e74cd
Anyway one of the protesters at the Australian 30,000 BLM protests just got diagnosed with coronavirus so we're just hoping that doesn't start a second wave and cause everything to lockdown again.Fingers crossed!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8408779/Black-Lives-Matter-protester-tests-positive-coronavirus.html?ito=push-notification&ci=18168&si=7793636
|
Well, it was a smaller scale than the BLM gatherings, but to get back to this:
We are now 1 1/2 weeks later and I see no increases or spikes in infection cases in Berlin (for all I see, they are the same for the last two weeks... for better or worse...)! So multiple theories you could do from that:
1. of course, we could be just lucky
2. as some predicted, the virus has a very bad chance of infecting someone if people are outside
3. the crowd for this party was probably quite young (<40years, at least for the majority) and we know, that younger people are quite "immune" or without any symptoms.
Maybe BLM can give us more data about that!
|
|
|
Looks like the USA will pass another milestone tomorrow. WW1 saw ~116,516 American deaths, over the course of a year of combat to disease and combat. It's killing people at a higher rate than the first world war for the USA. With all the places reopening, that's probably going to rise.
It's more controlled now in New York now, but California and Florida are rising to take its place. Both of those are seeing consistent increases in newly detected infections, which doesn't bode well for the track and trace success further down the line.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Keep in mind that the US population has increased greatly since the first world war so if you think of it in terms of proportions, WWI would've still killed more, but a single life is important so its obviously not good news!
|
Most illnesses kill old people far more likely than young ones (safe babies). This focus on mainly elderly dieing seems really stupid to me. Covid is not some supervirus that kills people instantly, but it kills "weak" people and we, luckily, long ago decided that weak people should also have nice lives.
|
|
|
My intent wasn't to say that it "ONLY" kills old people... It is dangerous but it mainly kills "the weak" and yes, most meassures taken were not to stop to virus but to save our health care systems and to wait it out. Trying to immediatly save people was a secondary concern in the western world because we were too late or too afraid to take the meassures necessary to stop it.
|
From 20 cases daily to close to 100 now. WHO says it's not 2nd wave but it depends on your definition. In my opinion, it is second ocurrence of peak, whether you call that 2nd wave or 2nd peak, I don't really care.
|
|
|
That is not true, it kills more old people, but it kills some young people, some even without preexisting conditions.
It does, but IMO, that number is so low it should not impact our decisions at all. The same can be said about just about any other illness.
I think the massive focus on total deaths is a big mistake. Imagine if all the ~18 million annual deaths worldwide by cardiovascular diseases were counted by every mainstream media source? Or the ~10 million by cancer, including some young children?
|
On June 13 2020 23:45 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +That is not true, it kills more old people, but it kills some young people, some even without preexisting conditions. It does, but IMO, that number is so low it should not impact our decisions at all. The same can be said about just about any other illness. I think the massive focus on total deaths is a big mistake. Imagine if all the ~18 million annual deaths worldwide by cardiovascular diseases were counted by every mainstream media source? Or the ~10 million by cancer, including some young children?
Are they contagious? Does the number of affected people grow exponentially? Are we ignoring cardiovascular diseases and cancer or rather pouring lots of resources into fighting them?
|
On June 13 2020 23:45 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +That is not true, it kills more old people, but it kills some young people, some even without preexisting conditions. It does, but IMO, that number is so low it should not impact our decisions at all. The same can be said about just about any other illness. I think the massive focus on total deaths is a big mistake. Imagine if all the ~18 million annual deaths worldwide by cardiovascular diseases were counted by every mainstream media source? Or the ~10 million by cancer, including some young children?
Really?
|
|
|
Lalalaland34504 Posts
Slydie some of your sentiments really upset or annoy me sometimes.
|
On June 14 2020 04:32 Firebolt145 wrote:
Slydie some of your sentiments really upset or annoy me sometimes.
Yeah the idea that the only statistic that matters is deaths irks me. Heart disease and cancer are things that affect everybody in the world to varying degrees, but can be mitigated through lifestyle choices.
At the moment, Covid has affected 0.1% of the world's population, with 430,000 deaths(actual numbers are much higher). Multiply both by a thousand and it will be more than all other sources of death combined. Taking action to not let covid affect most of the people in the world is pretty much a no brainer. Especially now that extensive mask usage has been shown to be able to reduce the spread to a point where it will slowly die out.
13.8% of cases are severe(source: worldometers), and from what I've read, causes permanent lung damage, kidney/liver damage etc. Sure it might not kill you, but those are very real QoL decreases even for somebody in their 20's or 30's, even if they're very likely to survive.
|
A friend of mine has survived COVID but now he has problems with walking two floors up the stairs, he is in his twenties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
) 
