|
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. |
TLADT24920 Posts
On December 24 2020 07:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 01:22 JimmiC wrote:On December 23 2020 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2020 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 23 2020 09:15 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2020 08:25 JimmiC wrote:
Did you consider that the healthcare system was stressed at those levels and because it was not dropping they maintained? Nonsense. I don't know why this myth persists. In the Spring and early Summer people were avoiding hospitals, elective surgeries were cancelled, entire hospital wings were being closed, doctors and nurses were being put on leave or laid off. Very very few hospitals in the entire country were on the verge of being overrun, the vast majority were losing money because they had no customers. Source please. And why were they canceling electives then? There's countless sources I could provide, I was also posting about this happening in real time in this very thread back in April, you can probably find many of my posts there. I posted in this thread on April 2 that the shelter-in-place in California wasn't actually accomplishing anything and all it was doing was "kicking the can down the road" where we would get our surge of deaths later in the year unless we stayed locked down until the vaccine. California is now spiraling out of control, ICU beds are running out, and LA looks like it is going to be the next "new york." At the risk of sounding boastful, I have to say I pretty much predicted it. But as for actual sources, there are many you can find if you used advanced google search for the time frames of March 10 to June 1. I think generally hospitals were seeing about one-half the patient load they had were seeing the same time last year. "‘Where are the patients?’ People are avoiding doctors, hospitals because of coronavirus worries" https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/patients-are-delaying-care-at-what-price/"COVID-19 Fears Are Making People Avoid Medical Care, Vaccinations" http://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/coronavirus-update-04-24-2020/"Doctors worry the coronavirus is keeping patients away from US hospitals as ER visits drop: ‘Heart attacks don’t stop’" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/doctors-worry-the-coronavirus-is-keeping-patients-away-from-us-hospitals-as-er-visits-drop-heart-attacks-dont-stop.htmlAgain, this is for outside of New York and a few other hotspots. Perhaps even better evidence comes from this NPR article https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852435761/as-hospitals-lose-revenue-thousands-of-health-care-workers-face-furloughs-layoffAnd 1.4 million health care workers lost their jobs in April, a sharp increase from the 42,000 reported in March, according to the Labor Department. Nearly 135,000 of the April losses were in hospitals. Your post is just a massive example of confirmation bias and you more or less explain that now. Back in April you also did not talk about stress on the health care system and it is not surging now because the put in place measure then. It is because to many people ignored the measures and continue too. But as pointed out no amount of evidence will change minds that are already stuck at a conclusion. Edit: So I looked up Cali response and it is not what you say, first there was issues with the hospitalizations and you have to stop it early because there is a lag time (around 2 weeks) between when you put on measures and when they help, it is also not a straight line. At the start of 2020, California had 416 hospitals, yielding a statewide capacity of about 78,000 beds.[195] In mid-March, 2020, when the state was preparing for a surge of COVID-19 cases, Newsom submitted an unfulfilled request for 10,000 ventilators from the federal government.[195] The state government continued to acquire ventilators, but was able to flatten the curve enough that on April 6, 2020, California donated 500 ventilators to the Strategic National Stockpile for use in other states.[196] As of July 13, 2020, hospitals statewide report that 36% of ICU beds were available still, as were 72% of ventilators. However, the hardest-hit counties were quickly reaching capacity, and reportedly borrowing ventilators from neighboring hospitals to meet demand.[197] Next the government did not cancel electives. So if hospitals were doing that, it was because they thought they needed too. Keep in mind that Covid hospitalizations take up way more space because of the contagious nature. + Show Spoiler +March 4, 2020 State of emergency declared.
March 12, 2020 Mass gatherings (over 250 people) and social gatherings (over 10 people) banned.
March 19, 2020 State-wide stay-at-home order issued.
March 24, 2020 Intakes in prisons and juvenile correction centers postponed.
April 1, 2020 Closure of all public and private schools (including institutions of higher education) ordered for the remainder of the 2019–2020 academic year.
April 9, 2020 State offered to pay hotel room costs for hospital and other essential workers afraid of returning home and infecting family members.
April 24, 2020 Program to deliver free meals to elderly residents announced.
April 29, 2020 Expansion of the state's Farm to Family program (which helps connect farmers to food banks) announced.
May 6, 2020 Worker's compensation extended for all workers who contracted COVID-19 during the state's stay-at-home order.
May 6, 2020 Property tax penalties waived for residents and small businesses that have been negatively affected by the pandemic.
May 7, 2020 State entered Stage 2 of its 4-stage reopening roadmap.
May 8, 2020 Executive order signed that would send every registered voter a mail-in ballot for the general election.
May 18, 2020 Businesses that are part of Stage 3 allowed to reopen.
May 26, 2020 Hair service businesses allowed to reopen (with restrictions).
June 18, 2020 Universal masking guidance issued by Department of Public Health.
June 28, 2020 Bars ordered to close in several counties.
July 1, 2020 Most indoor businesses, including restaurants, wineries, and movie theaters ordered to close in several counties.
July 13, 2020 Closure of gyms, indoor dining, bars, movie theaters, and museums re-imposed.
August 28, 2020 Unveiled a new set of guidelines for lifting restrictions, titled a "Blueprint for a Safer Economy".
August 31, 2020 BSE county-level restrictions take effect. See below for initial classifications. More than 80% of population is under "Widespread" restrictions.
September 29, 2020 Majority of population now under "Substantial" or lower BSE restrictions.[A]
November 10, 2020 Majority of population back up to "Widespread" BSE restrictions.[A]
November 21, 2020 Nighttime curfew implemented for counties under "Widespread" BSE restrictions.
December 3, 2020 Regional stay-at-home order announced. So you asked for a source and after I provided you with several you just dismiss it as confirmation bias? You didn't refute anything I said. In fact you posted about California having so many ventilators they didn't need that they were giving them away to the national stockpile. What side of this argument are you on? Also not sure what you mean by "you didn't talk about stress on the healthcare system." I think it can be inferred from my posts that there was not much stress on the healthcare system. There might have been some in Los Angeles, but where I live in the San Francisco Bay there was not much at all. Most hospital admissions come through the Emergency Department and if the ED is getting less than 50% of it's normal case load then it means the rest of the hospital isn't busy either. Hell, despite all the sources I have provided there is also the mountain of first-hand experience that I have. I know several healthcare workers that started collecting unemployment and I know one that started driving for doordash. Again I posted about this in real-time back in April: Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 07:44 BlackJack wrote:
I know many nurses that are at home collecting unemployment checks right now. My girlfriend has been getting paid to sit at home and watch netflix for the last 3 weeks because she has been called-off every shift she was scheduled for. They still have me coming in the emergency room but things have been so dead I've basically been sitting around and talking/joking with coworkers for my shift. Someone set up a gofundme to provide food for ERs/ICUs in my area and they've been delivering 40 individualized meals to us every shift. It's like I'm getting paid to have weird social gatherings with my coworkers and eat free food.
Here in Canada, I've heard many stories of people not going to the ER and our wait times were down to 15 minutes or something ridiculously low (but great if you want a quick visit!) in the capital, because a lot of people were so fearful of catching covid if they went. In general, wait times were as high as 7-8 hours prior depending on what you're waiting for (based on triage etc...). So, what you state seems to correlate to some degree to what I've heard up here. That's not to say this is widespread all over Canada and I can't speak to other cities/provinces, but I can definitely see it being the case when covid first went viral (pun intended) and everyone was afraid of what was to come.
|
|
|
On December 24 2020 08:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 07:35 BlackJack wrote:On December 24 2020 01:22 JimmiC wrote:On December 23 2020 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2020 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 23 2020 09:15 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2020 08:25 JimmiC wrote:
Did you consider that the healthcare system was stressed at those levels and because it was not dropping they maintained? Nonsense. I don't know why this myth persists. In the Spring and early Summer people were avoiding hospitals, elective surgeries were cancelled, entire hospital wings were being closed, doctors and nurses were being put on leave or laid off. Very very few hospitals in the entire country were on the verge of being overrun, the vast majority were losing money because they had no customers. Source please. And why were they canceling electives then? There's countless sources I could provide, I was also posting about this happening in real time in this very thread back in April, you can probably find many of my posts there. I posted in this thread on April 2 that the shelter-in-place in California wasn't actually accomplishing anything and all it was doing was "kicking the can down the road" where we would get our surge of deaths later in the year unless we stayed locked down until the vaccine. California is now spiraling out of control, ICU beds are running out, and LA looks like it is going to be the next "new york." At the risk of sounding boastful, I have to say I pretty much predicted it. But as for actual sources, there are many you can find if you used advanced google search for the time frames of March 10 to June 1. I think generally hospitals were seeing about one-half the patient load they had were seeing the same time last year. "‘Where are the patients?’ People are avoiding doctors, hospitals because of coronavirus worries" https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/patients-are-delaying-care-at-what-price/"COVID-19 Fears Are Making People Avoid Medical Care, Vaccinations" http://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/coronavirus-update-04-24-2020/"Doctors worry the coronavirus is keeping patients away from US hospitals as ER visits drop: ‘Heart attacks don’t stop’" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/doctors-worry-the-coronavirus-is-keeping-patients-away-from-us-hospitals-as-er-visits-drop-heart-attacks-dont-stop.htmlAgain, this is for outside of New York and a few other hotspots. Perhaps even better evidence comes from this NPR article https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852435761/as-hospitals-lose-revenue-thousands-of-health-care-workers-face-furloughs-layoffAnd 1.4 million health care workers lost their jobs in April, a sharp increase from the 42,000 reported in March, according to the Labor Department. Nearly 135,000 of the April losses were in hospitals. Your post is just a massive example of confirmation bias and you more or less explain that now. Back in April you also did not talk about stress on the health care system and it is not surging now because the put in place measure then. It is because to many people ignored the measures and continue too. But as pointed out no amount of evidence will change minds that are already stuck at a conclusion. Edit: So I looked up Cali response and it is not what you say, first there was issues with the hospitalizations and you have to stop it early because there is a lag time (around 2 weeks) between when you put on measures and when they help, it is also not a straight line. At the start of 2020, California had 416 hospitals, yielding a statewide capacity of about 78,000 beds.[195] In mid-March, 2020, when the state was preparing for a surge of COVID-19 cases, Newsom submitted an unfulfilled request for 10,000 ventilators from the federal government.[195] The state government continued to acquire ventilators, but was able to flatten the curve enough that on April 6, 2020, California donated 500 ventilators to the Strategic National Stockpile for use in other states.[196] As of July 13, 2020, hospitals statewide report that 36% of ICU beds were available still, as were 72% of ventilators. However, the hardest-hit counties were quickly reaching capacity, and reportedly borrowing ventilators from neighboring hospitals to meet demand.[197] Next the government did not cancel electives. So if hospitals were doing that, it was because they thought they needed too. Keep in mind that Covid hospitalizations take up way more space because of the contagious nature. + Show Spoiler +March 4, 2020 State of emergency declared.
March 12, 2020 Mass gatherings (over 250 people) and social gatherings (over 10 people) banned.
March 19, 2020 State-wide stay-at-home order issued.
March 24, 2020 Intakes in prisons and juvenile correction centers postponed.
April 1, 2020 Closure of all public and private schools (including institutions of higher education) ordered for the remainder of the 2019–2020 academic year.
April 9, 2020 State offered to pay hotel room costs for hospital and other essential workers afraid of returning home and infecting family members.
April 24, 2020 Program to deliver free meals to elderly residents announced.
April 29, 2020 Expansion of the state's Farm to Family program (which helps connect farmers to food banks) announced.
May 6, 2020 Worker's compensation extended for all workers who contracted COVID-19 during the state's stay-at-home order.
May 6, 2020 Property tax penalties waived for residents and small businesses that have been negatively affected by the pandemic.
May 7, 2020 State entered Stage 2 of its 4-stage reopening roadmap.
May 8, 2020 Executive order signed that would send every registered voter a mail-in ballot for the general election.
May 18, 2020 Businesses that are part of Stage 3 allowed to reopen.
May 26, 2020 Hair service businesses allowed to reopen (with restrictions).
June 18, 2020 Universal masking guidance issued by Department of Public Health.
June 28, 2020 Bars ordered to close in several counties.
July 1, 2020 Most indoor businesses, including restaurants, wineries, and movie theaters ordered to close in several counties.
July 13, 2020 Closure of gyms, indoor dining, bars, movie theaters, and museums re-imposed.
August 28, 2020 Unveiled a new set of guidelines for lifting restrictions, titled a "Blueprint for a Safer Economy".
August 31, 2020 BSE county-level restrictions take effect. See below for initial classifications. More than 80% of population is under "Widespread" restrictions.
September 29, 2020 Majority of population now under "Substantial" or lower BSE restrictions.[A]
November 10, 2020 Majority of population back up to "Widespread" BSE restrictions.[A]
November 21, 2020 Nighttime curfew implemented for counties under "Widespread" BSE restrictions.
December 3, 2020 Regional stay-at-home order announced. So you asked for a source and after I provided you with several you just dismiss it as confirmation bias? You didn't refute anything I said. In fact you posted about California having so many ventilators they didn't need that they were giving them away to the national stockpile. What side of this argument are you on? Also not sure what you mean by "you didn't talk about stress on the healthcare system." I think it can be inferred from my posts that there was not much stress on the healthcare system. There might have been some in Los Angeles, but where I live in the San Francisco Bay there was not much at all. Most hospital admissions come through the Emergency Department and if the ED is getting less than 50% of it's normal case load then it means the rest of the hospital isn't busy either. Hell, despite all the sources I have provided there is also the mountain of first-hand experience that I have. I know several healthcare workers that started collecting unemployment and I know one that started driving for doordash. Again I posted about this in real-time back in April: On April 22 2020 07:44 BlackJack wrote:
I know many nurses that are at home collecting unemployment checks right now. My girlfriend has been getting paid to sit at home and watch netflix for the last 3 weeks because she has been called-off every shift she was scheduled for. They still have me coming in the emergency room but things have been so dead I've basically been sitting around and talking/joking with coworkers for my shift. Someone set up a gofundme to provide food for ERs/ICUs in my area and they've been delivering 40 individualized meals to us every shift. It's like I'm getting paid to have weird social gatherings with my coworkers and eat free food. You seem to be missing that none of that is because of measures. People staying away from the hospital because they are scared is not the fault of the government. The government did not cancel surgeries, so if the hospital did it was because they had too based on their particular situation. I did not address your links because they had nothing to do with your position: Show nested quote +I don't know why this myth persists. In the Spring and early Summer people were avoiding hospitals, elective surgeries were cancelled, entire hospital wings were being closed, doctors and nurses were being put on leave or laid off. Very very few hospitals in the entire country were on the verge of being overrun, the vast majority were losing money because they had no customers. You seem to be under the impression that everyone in a hospital is able to do everything, this is simply not true, you only have a certain amount of respiratory therapists (one example, surgery theaters would be another) and well the doctors can be cross trained you can't just have a LPN do what a respiratory therapist does. So if a hospital is choosing to cancel things, close wings, and so on to hurt their bottom dollar there is a reason for it. You don't up breast enhancements because there is less measures and more cases, more people all scared and less do it.
I already explained why elective surgeries were cancelled. Hospitals were bracing for the worst. They ended up being wrong. They aren't immune to my criticism just because they aren't the government. "California's response to the pandemic" isn't the same thing as "California's government's response to the pandemic." Hospital wings were being closed because there were no patients in the beds.
TLDR: That people didn't have work even though there was no measure against it indicates that high covid rates were the culprit and not the measures.
I can't tell if you're actually being serious. You're saying the culprit to healthcare workers being laid off in March-April was "high covid rates"? Not only does that not make any sense but it's in direct opposition to the mountain of evidence that I have provided while you have provided absolutely zero evidence. Literally the ONLY argument you've given is "well the hospitals did X and Y so there must have been a reason for it." Basically blind faith that the hospitals are infallible and any decision they made must have been the correct one. Please.
Here's I'll post the graph of California's cases again
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9NikeTX.png)
So those "high covid rates" in March and April were the reason healthcare workers were being laid off? You can seriously look at that graph and make that argument with a straight face?
|
On December 24 2020 12:00 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 07:35 BlackJack wrote:On December 24 2020 01:22 JimmiC wrote:On December 23 2020 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2020 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 23 2020 09:15 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2020 08:25 JimmiC wrote:
Did you consider that the healthcare system was stressed at those levels and because it was not dropping they maintained? Nonsense. I don't know why this myth persists. In the Spring and early Summer people were avoiding hospitals, elective surgeries were cancelled, entire hospital wings were being closed, doctors and nurses were being put on leave or laid off. Very very few hospitals in the entire country were on the verge of being overrun, the vast majority were losing money because they had no customers. Source please. And why were they canceling electives then? There's countless sources I could provide, I was also posting about this happening in real time in this very thread back in April, you can probably find many of my posts there. I posted in this thread on April 2 that the shelter-in-place in California wasn't actually accomplishing anything and all it was doing was "kicking the can down the road" where we would get our surge of deaths later in the year unless we stayed locked down until the vaccine. California is now spiraling out of control, ICU beds are running out, and LA looks like it is going to be the next "new york." At the risk of sounding boastful, I have to say I pretty much predicted it. But as for actual sources, there are many you can find if you used advanced google search for the time frames of March 10 to June 1. I think generally hospitals were seeing about one-half the patient load they had were seeing the same time last year. "‘Where are the patients?’ People are avoiding doctors, hospitals because of coronavirus worries" https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/patients-are-delaying-care-at-what-price/"COVID-19 Fears Are Making People Avoid Medical Care, Vaccinations" http://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/coronavirus-update-04-24-2020/"Doctors worry the coronavirus is keeping patients away from US hospitals as ER visits drop: ‘Heart attacks don’t stop’" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/doctors-worry-the-coronavirus-is-keeping-patients-away-from-us-hospitals-as-er-visits-drop-heart-attacks-dont-stop.htmlAgain, this is for outside of New York and a few other hotspots. Perhaps even better evidence comes from this NPR article https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852435761/as-hospitals-lose-revenue-thousands-of-health-care-workers-face-furloughs-layoffAnd 1.4 million health care workers lost their jobs in April, a sharp increase from the 42,000 reported in March, according to the Labor Department. Nearly 135,000 of the April losses were in hospitals. Your post is just a massive example of confirmation bias and you more or less explain that now. Back in April you also did not talk about stress on the health care system and it is not surging now because the put in place measure then. It is because to many people ignored the measures and continue too. But as pointed out no amount of evidence will change minds that are already stuck at a conclusion. Edit: So I looked up Cali response and it is not what you say, first there was issues with the hospitalizations and you have to stop it early because there is a lag time (around 2 weeks) between when you put on measures and when they help, it is also not a straight line. At the start of 2020, California had 416 hospitals, yielding a statewide capacity of about 78,000 beds.[195] In mid-March, 2020, when the state was preparing for a surge of COVID-19 cases, Newsom submitted an unfulfilled request for 10,000 ventilators from the federal government.[195] The state government continued to acquire ventilators, but was able to flatten the curve enough that on April 6, 2020, California donated 500 ventilators to the Strategic National Stockpile for use in other states.[196] As of July 13, 2020, hospitals statewide report that 36% of ICU beds were available still, as were 72% of ventilators. However, the hardest-hit counties were quickly reaching capacity, and reportedly borrowing ventilators from neighboring hospitals to meet demand.[197] Next the government did not cancel electives. So if hospitals were doing that, it was because they thought they needed too. Keep in mind that Covid hospitalizations take up way more space because of the contagious nature. + Show Spoiler +March 4, 2020 State of emergency declared.
March 12, 2020 Mass gatherings (over 250 people) and social gatherings (over 10 people) banned.
March 19, 2020 State-wide stay-at-home order issued.
March 24, 2020 Intakes in prisons and juvenile correction centers postponed.
April 1, 2020 Closure of all public and private schools (including institutions of higher education) ordered for the remainder of the 2019–2020 academic year.
April 9, 2020 State offered to pay hotel room costs for hospital and other essential workers afraid of returning home and infecting family members.
April 24, 2020 Program to deliver free meals to elderly residents announced.
April 29, 2020 Expansion of the state's Farm to Family program (which helps connect farmers to food banks) announced.
May 6, 2020 Worker's compensation extended for all workers who contracted COVID-19 during the state's stay-at-home order.
May 6, 2020 Property tax penalties waived for residents and small businesses that have been negatively affected by the pandemic.
May 7, 2020 State entered Stage 2 of its 4-stage reopening roadmap.
May 8, 2020 Executive order signed that would send every registered voter a mail-in ballot for the general election.
May 18, 2020 Businesses that are part of Stage 3 allowed to reopen.
May 26, 2020 Hair service businesses allowed to reopen (with restrictions).
June 18, 2020 Universal masking guidance issued by Department of Public Health.
June 28, 2020 Bars ordered to close in several counties.
July 1, 2020 Most indoor businesses, including restaurants, wineries, and movie theaters ordered to close in several counties.
July 13, 2020 Closure of gyms, indoor dining, bars, movie theaters, and museums re-imposed.
August 28, 2020 Unveiled a new set of guidelines for lifting restrictions, titled a "Blueprint for a Safer Economy".
August 31, 2020 BSE county-level restrictions take effect. See below for initial classifications. More than 80% of population is under "Widespread" restrictions.
September 29, 2020 Majority of population now under "Substantial" or lower BSE restrictions.[A]
November 10, 2020 Majority of population back up to "Widespread" BSE restrictions.[A]
November 21, 2020 Nighttime curfew implemented for counties under "Widespread" BSE restrictions.
December 3, 2020 Regional stay-at-home order announced. So you asked for a source and after I provided you with several you just dismiss it as confirmation bias? You didn't refute anything I said. In fact you posted about California having so many ventilators they didn't need that they were giving them away to the national stockpile. What side of this argument are you on? Also not sure what you mean by "you didn't talk about stress on the healthcare system." I think it can be inferred from my posts that there was not much stress on the healthcare system. There might have been some in Los Angeles, but where I live in the San Francisco Bay there was not much at all. Most hospital admissions come through the Emergency Department and if the ED is getting less than 50% of it's normal case load then it means the rest of the hospital isn't busy either. Hell, despite all the sources I have provided there is also the mountain of first-hand experience that I have. I know several healthcare workers that started collecting unemployment and I know one that started driving for doordash. Again I posted about this in real-time back in April: On April 22 2020 07:44 BlackJack wrote:
I know many nurses that are at home collecting unemployment checks right now. My girlfriend has been getting paid to sit at home and watch netflix for the last 3 weeks because she has been called-off every shift she was scheduled for. They still have me coming in the emergency room but things have been so dead I've basically been sitting around and talking/joking with coworkers for my shift. Someone set up a gofundme to provide food for ERs/ICUs in my area and they've been delivering 40 individualized meals to us every shift. It's like I'm getting paid to have weird social gatherings with my coworkers and eat free food. Here in Canada, I've heard many stories of people not going to the ER and our wait times were down to 15 minutes or something ridiculously low (but great if you want a quick visit!) in the capital, because a lot of people were so fearful of catching covid if they went. In general, wait times were as high as 7-8 hours prior depending on what you're waiting for (based on triage etc...). So, what you state seems to correlate to some degree to what I've heard up here. That's not to say this is widespread all over Canada and I can't speak to other cities/provinces, but I can definitely see it being the case when covid first went viral (pun intended) and everyone was afraid of what was to come.
Hah, thanks for the corroborating evidence. Honestly though I've spent way more time on this than I should have.
Across the country, ER volumes are down about 40% to 50%, says Dr. William Jaquis, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
"I haven't seen anything like it, ever," he says. "We anticipated, actually, higher volumes."
When the President of ACEP is saying it, anyone that disagrees with this is just somebody that thinks they are entitled to their own set of facts.
|
|
|
ER admissions could be down in some areas (or not up) despite higher infection rates for a number of possible reasons. JimmiC mentioned some. Another reason could be that the viral load is down, which could be due to people taking more safety precautions. They get infected at an increased rate because it's winter season but perhaps the viral load from an infection is lower due to behavioral adjustments. Or it could be various other factors that aren't immediately obvious. Even variance (i.e. chance) can play a significant role. Pandemics and their consequences are extremely hard to predict, and just a quick glance at different countries and regions makes this very clear.
|
|
|
On December 24 2020 23:14 JimmiC wrote:You are still missing my point. I'm not arguing that ER rates were and are not down. What I'm saying is that you are completely missing why they are down. Bigfan also points this out, it is because of fear of Covid.
There was no measures on ER or electives, it was not measures that caused the slow down in the business of health care. Therefore blaming measures for the slowdown is logically incongruent.
I'm blaming the measures on the slowdown in the ER? Here is what I wrote that started this discussion:
BlackJack wroteNonsense. I don't know why this myth persists. In the Spring and early Summer people were avoiding hospitals, elective surgeries were cancelled, entire hospital wings were being closed, doctors and nurses were being put on leave or laid off. Very very few hospitals in the entire country were on the verge of being overrun, the vast majority were losing money because they had no customers.
people were avoiding hospitals is literally the first reason I gave for why ER census was down. In fact if you read that post again you will see that it is in fact the only reason I gave for why ER census was down. Yet somehow you interpreted that as me "blaming the measures."
People avoiding hospitals is what caused the slowdown in the ER. The measures just continued the slowdown. If the measures were slowly lifted the ER census would have picked up because, spoiler alert, COVID-19 is highly infectious and deadly. It's why we saw surges literally everywhere that restrictions were loosened. That's something we should obviously agree on because arguing otherwise would mean the measures were useless and that wouldn't make sense since you just argued that California needed even harsher measures.
Also when do you think you will get around to posting some data/sources to support your fairy tales? Because so far I have been the only one providing any data to this argument. All you've done is thrown out wild ideas of bottle necks and stressed healthcare systems and viral loads. You have provided absolutely nothing to support any of your posts. Months ago you were posting ICU capacity of all the counties of Florida, where is your data on California? Please show me your data on how stressed the hospitals in California were because I can't wait to find out if everyone I know working in Cali has been lying to me and if my lived experiences are some kind of delusion or Matrix-esque simulation.
|
On December 24 2020 10:59 Magic Powers wrote:There's a phenomenon of infections going up and deaths not rising proportionally. This is in response to BlackJack's and JimmiC's discussion. The phenomenon has been observed in various countries like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, NL, Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US like NY, NJ and MA, just to name a few examples. In Sweden deaths have even gone down while infections were still going up https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ (that may've happened in a number of countries, but I haven't looked into it in such detail). It's a widespread phenomenon that you can observe on worldometers. But not all countries follow this trend. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan, many states in the US., and many more countries show a significant correlation between infections and deaths. And then there's deaths per million and CFR, which also vary dramatically between different countries. Another mystery that needs explanation. The point being that it's difficult to know the causes for the various observations in things like hospitalization rates, ER admission rates, etc. We just don't have the answers yet. Here's information on CFR for various countries. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/
There are many factors that can explain this
1)Testing is a lot better now than it was in the Spring. So the lack of proportionality you are seeing now is actually the correct proportions of cases vs deaths, but the numbers were just so out of proportion in the Spring that the correct proportions seem "off" by comparison.
2) A larger percent of the infected are younger adults that have better outcomes
3) Treatment is better
4) The first wave killed off a lot of the vulnerable which means less vulnerable to kill off now. The supporting evidence for this is that states that had the deadliest waves in the Spring, e.g. NY/NJ are having relatively few deaths right now whereas states that never had a big first wave, e.g. California are having all-time record deaths right now.
|
|
|
On December 25 2020 08:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 10:59 Magic Powers wrote:There's a phenomenon of infections going up and deaths not rising proportionally. This is in response to BlackJack's and JimmiC's discussion. The phenomenon has been observed in various countries like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, NL, Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US like NY, NJ and MA, just to name a few examples. In Sweden deaths have even gone down while infections were still going up https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ (that may've happened in a number of countries, but I haven't looked into it in such detail). It's a widespread phenomenon that you can observe on worldometers. But not all countries follow this trend. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan, many states in the US., and many more countries show a significant correlation between infections and deaths. And then there's deaths per million and CFR, which also vary dramatically between different countries. Another mystery that needs explanation. The point being that it's difficult to know the causes for the various observations in things like hospitalization rates, ER admission rates, etc. We just don't have the answers yet. Here's information on CFR for various countries. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ There are many factors that can explain this 1)Testing is a lot better now than it was in the Spring. So the lack of proportionality you are seeing now is actually the correct proportions of cases vs deaths, but the numbers were just so out of proportion in the Spring that the correct proportions seem "off" by comparison. 2) A larger percent of the infected are younger adults that have better outcomes 3) Treatment is better 4) The first wave killed off a lot of the vulnerable which means less vulnerable to kill off now. The supporting evidence for this is that states that had the deadliest waves in the Spring, e.g. NY/NJ are having relatively few deaths right now whereas states that never had a big first wave, e.g. California are having all-time record deaths right now.
1) I don't know what it means to say that testing has gotten "better". Better for what purpose?
Also, the testing methodology varies drastically between countries, as the study on CFR shows that I'll link in this comment.
Where can I find information on how the testing has changed over time?
2) Are you saying that previously the infection rate used to be higher among old(er) individuals than it has been as of late? If so, could you provide a source for this?
3) What do you mean treatment is "better", and what has made it better?
4) I haven't yet read sources for this, but it's a possible and valid explanation. There appears to be a meaningful correlation according to my own research. Unfortunately more research is needed for a definitive conclusion.
In regards to point 3)
"The reasons are not entirely obvious. There have been no miracle drugs, no new technologies and no great advances in treatment strategies for the disease that has infected more than 50 million and killed more than 1.2 million around the world. Shifts in the demographics of those being treated might have contributed to perceived boosts in survival. And at many hospitals, it seems clear that physicians are getting incrementally better at treating COVID-19 — particularly as health-care systems become less overwhelmed. Still, those gains could be erased by increasing case loads around the world."
In short: no significant change in treatment has been observed. It can be speculated that hospitals are filled with fewer low(er)-risk individuals which would free up space and treatment for high(er)-risk individuals. But it can also be speculated that it's the opposite (for example in hospitals running at full capacity), i.e. a greater portion of the treated individuals are low(er)-risk. Also, treatment appears to be better when hospitals are less overwhelmed.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03132-4
Study on CFR (July 2020)
It essentially concludes that age and CFR are strongly linked. But it doesn't explain all the differences. Unfortunately the study is several months old. I wasn't able to find a more recent study that analyzes recent mortality trends and compares them with previous waves.
"Our study reveals the strong and important role that the age distribution of cases can have on COVID-19 casefatality. However, even after we corrected for age distortions, important differences in CFRs remained across countries. This suggests that differences in the underlying health of a country's population and how effectively the health system cares for identified COVID-19 cases have meaningful effects on the share of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 who survive. Removing the noise from age distortions and focusing on why age-adjusted CFRs are higher in some countries than in others, and why they change within countries over time, will be essential for formulating best case strategies for preventing and reducing COVID-19 mortality."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343190396_The_Contribution_of_the_Age_Distribution_of_Cases_to_COVID-19_Case_Fatality_Across_Countries_A_9-Country_Demographic_Study
Data on mortality rate trends in countries and US states (I haven't yet had time to read any of this)
https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/cfed-district-data-briefs/cfddb-20200513-covid19-mortality-rate-trends-series.aspx
Meta-study on IFR for additional information (not necessarily required for this discussion)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809
|
By better testing I mean more plentiful testing. If you are looking at the proportionality of cases to deaths it makes a big difference if a lot of cases are going under the radar due to a lack of testing. Tests were rationed in the spring and only the sickest got tested so more of the cases were fatalities because the cases were the sickest.
As for point 2 it looks like you provided your own source for that since the nature article you posted says better survival rates probably have a lot to do with shifts in demographics of the infected. Here is another source from the nytimes https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/us/coronavirus-cases-young-people.html
Regarding point 3, there are several different drugs that have been given FDA authorization for the treatment of COVID-19. I'm not qualified to speak on how much treatment has improved over the course of the pandemic but it stands to reason that the more experience we have dealing with the beast the more adept we become at fighting it, even if only marginally.
|
On December 25 2020 14:50 BlackJack wrote:By better testing I mean more plentiful testing. If you are looking at the proportionality of cases to deaths it makes a big difference if a lot of cases are going under the radar due to a lack of testing. Tests were rationed in the spring and only the sickest got tested so more of the cases were fatalities because the cases were the sickest. As for point 2 it looks like you provided your own source for that since the nature article you posted says better survival rates probably have a lot to do with shifts in demographics of the infected. Here is another source from the nytimes https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/us/coronavirus-cases-young-people.htmlRegarding point 3, there are several different drugs that have been given FDA authorization for the treatment of COVID-19. I'm not qualified to speak on how much treatment has improved over the course of the pandemic but it stands to reason that the more experience we have dealing with the beast the more adept we become at fighting it, even if only marginally.
More testing doesn't necessarily mean "better". It depends on what the purpose is. If we're trying to figure out how many people have been infected, then testing literally everyone would accomplish that. The question is, what does that achieve? That depends on how we can utilize that information for science or policy sake. But for that it's crucial that we keep comparing apples to apples, as increased testing only gives us better information if that change is accounted for when comparing old to new data.
So if we test everyone, do we gain anything from that? The answer would be yes, because we can send infected people into quarantine and alert communities. But a side effect is that the new data would only be comparable to old data of the same kind. For example if the ratio of symptomatic people within tested individuals was previously greater, then the CFR we derive from that would be expected to meaningfully differ from the new data which contains an increased ratio of asymptomatic people.
As the study I posted demonstrates, it's not as simple as counting numbers. There are many factors at play that can shift the data one way or another. I mean far too many to consider all of them, and some of them impossible to account for in any analysis right now, since there's a consistent information delay and also a delay between infections and deaths, as well as regional differences.
Since I'm not subscribed to NYT I couldn't read your link, so instead I took this news article from msn apparently covering the same topic:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-coronavirus-surges-in-us-younger-people-account-for-disturbing-number-of-cases/ar-BB15ZKxJ
"Adriana Carter, 21, is among the newly infected.
For many weeks this spring, she said, she took steps to limit her exposure, eating many of her meals at her apartment in San Marcos, Texas, and wearing a mask when going in and out of stores. At the one Black Lives Matter protest she attended, most people were in masks.
But after a particularly long week of juggling online summer classes and her job at an eye clinic, Carter took a risk one Saturday night in early June and met a friend at the Square, a popular bar district downtown. Though they were careful to avoid the most crowded spots, they chose not to wear masks as they sipped drinks inside and endured the hot Texas weather.
Days later, her friend woke up feeling ill. Both tested positive for the virus."
This is a very good example of people not taking precautions. Carter says that she and her friend both tested positive after meeting inside a bar. Now, we don't know who infected who, or if they even infected each other, but we know that symptoms can show up weeks later. This means Carter could've been infected at the BLM protest or by her friend or by someone else inside/nearby the bar. There's also a reasonable chance that they then infected someone else, and so forth.
What this shows us is that - since we can assume these two are not the only people displaying such reckless behavior - there's a significant trend of people not socially distancing anywhere near as much as we can expect them to reasonably be able to. So we can conclude a significant portion of people are not behaving reasonably - and more is not needed for the virus to spread a lot more than would otherwise be necessary.
Such behavior is typical for younger demographics. Since the at-risk demographics have been thoroughly scared off, I doubt that they engage in that same behavior very much these days. This leads me to suspect that the surge in cases is not (only or mainly) due to more testing, but more likely due to a combination of the winter season and the behavior of younger demographics (which can be partially or fully attributed to policy).
Something similar appears to have happened in Germany (article from Dec 18th) and Switzerland (article from Dec 11th).
https://www.thelocal.de/20201218/analysis-how-germany-squandered-early-covid-19-success
https://www.thelocal.ch/20201211/explained-why-are-coronavirus-infections-on-the-rise-again-in-switzerland
In contrast, Austria with its strict lockdown has brought infections down much more significantly than Switzerland. However, Austria started on a much worse foot than Germany so that comparison looks less rosey - although the direction is very good. Another strict lockdown is planned starting Dec 26th.
|
On December 25 2020 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2020 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On December 24 2020 10:59 Magic Powers wrote:There's a phenomenon of infections going up and deaths not rising proportionally. This is in response to BlackJack's and JimmiC's discussion. The phenomenon has been observed in various countries like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, NL, Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US like NY, NJ and MA, just to name a few examples. In Sweden deaths have even gone down while infections were still going up https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ (that may've happened in a number of countries, but I haven't looked into it in such detail). It's a widespread phenomenon that you can observe on worldometers. But not all countries follow this trend. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan, many states in the US., and many more countries show a significant correlation between infections and deaths. And then there's deaths per million and CFR, which also vary dramatically between different countries. Another mystery that needs explanation. The point being that it's difficult to know the causes for the various observations in things like hospitalization rates, ER admission rates, etc. We just don't have the answers yet. Here's information on CFR for various countries. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ There are many factors that can explain this 1)Testing is a lot better now than it was in the Spring. So the lack of proportionality you are seeing now is actually the correct proportions of cases vs deaths, but the numbers were just so out of proportion in the Spring that the correct proportions seem "off" by comparison. 2) A larger percent of the infected are younger adults that have better outcomes 3) Treatment is better 4) The first wave killed off a lot of the vulnerable which means less vulnerable to kill off now. The supporting evidence for this is that states that had the deadliest waves in the Spring, e.g. NY/NJ are having relatively few deaths right now whereas states that never had a big first wave, e.g. California are having all-time record deaths right now. 1) I don't know what it means to say that testing has gotten "better". Better for what purpose? Also, the testing methodology varies drastically between countries, as the study on CFR shows that I'll link in this comment. Where can I find information on how the testing has changed over time? 2) Are you saying that previously the infection rate used to be higher among old(er) individuals than it has been as of late? If so, could you provide a source for this? 3) What do you mean treatment is "better", and what has made it better? 4) I haven't yet read sources for this, but it's a possible and valid explanation. There appears to be a meaningful correlation according to my own research. Unfortunately more research is needed for a definitive conclusion. In regards to point 3) "The reasons are not entirely obvious. There have been no miracle drugs, no new technologies and no great advances in treatment strategies for the disease that has infected more than 50 million and killed more than 1.2 million around the world. Shifts in the demographics of those being treated might have contributed to perceived boosts in survival. And at many hospitals, it seems clear that physicians are getting incrementally better at treating COVID-19 — particularly as health-care systems become less overwhelmed. Still, those gains could be erased by increasing case loads around the world." In short: no significant change in treatment has been observed. It can be speculated that hospitals are filled with fewer low(er)-risk individuals which would free up space and treatment for high(er)-risk individuals. But it can also be speculated that it's the opposite (for example in hospitals running at full capacity), i.e. a greater portion of the treated individuals are low(er)-risk. Also, treatment appears to be better when hospitals are less overwhelmed. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03132-4Study on CFR (July 2020) It essentially concludes that age and CFR are strongly linked. But it doesn't explain all the differences. Unfortunately the study is several months old. I wasn't able to find a more recent study that analyzes recent mortality trends and compares them with previous waves. "Our study reveals the strong and important role that the age distribution of cases can have on COVID-19 casefatality. However, even after we corrected for age distortions, important differences in CFRs remained across countries. This suggests that differences in the underlying health of a country's population and how effectively the health system cares for identified COVID-19 cases have meaningful effects on the share of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 who survive. Removing the noise from age distortions and focusing on why age-adjusted CFRs are higher in some countries than in others, and why they change within countries over time, will be essential for formulating best case strategies for preventing and reducing COVID-19 mortality." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343190396_The_Contribution_of_the_Age_Distribution_of_Cases_to_COVID-19_Case_Fatality_Across_Countries_A_9-Country_Demographic_StudyData on mortality rate trends in countries and US states (I haven't yet had time to read any of this) https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/cfed-district-data-briefs/cfddb-20200513-covid19-mortality-rate-trends-series.aspxMeta-study on IFR for additional information (not necessarily required for this discussion) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809
1) Case numbers have been known to be gated behind testing capacity for a long time for many countries and when they are it's a shit metric. Look at Swedens numbers for the two peaks, that difference is 100 % only testing. And we are still gated at the moment (just not critically as before). If you have too little tests (as in, you can't test EVERYONE) the numbers are skewed and you should look at deaths/hospital admittance for covid instead.
2) This is probably true for many countries and can be checked by looking at the ratio in age groups for people being tested positive. It can be hard to know for certain if you only tested people with severe symptoms way back but short term trends when testing are stable is a good read (in Sweden the proportion of young people went up even after testing was stable but you can't really compare to last peak because you didn't test so many young back then). You can also do antibody studies and just epidemiological studies when you test a cross section of the population. From everything I've heard it has been more young people getting it the second wave and since it's not that hard to check I assume this is correct.
3) New treatment protocols (putting patients on their belly, how to administer oxygen, waiting with ICU treatment longer, steroids etc) have improved outcomes. This is a well known fact.
4) This is historically true for every respiratory tract disease that mainly affect vulnerable people (look at past flue numbers for example with high years followed by lower ones) and it would be virtually impossible to not have this effect with covid.
|
Are you guys gonna take a COVID-19 vaccine? If so, which one do you prefer? I see a lot of anti-vaxxers due to quickly developed vaccines and the usual microchip conspiracy.
|
Definitively gonna take it, unless something really bad appears during the next few months.
According to German priorization rules. i will probably get a dose sometime in summer, since there are about 20 million people ahead of me in line.
You always have to remember that this is not a choice between vaccine risks and no risks, it is a choice between vaccine risks and getting covid * probability of getting covid risks.I think the latter is a lot more dangerous.
|
On December 25 2020 18:11 Simberto wrote:
Definitively gonna take it, unless something really bad appears during the next few months.
According to German priorization rules. i will probably get a dose sometime in summer, since there are about 20 million people ahead of me in line.
You always have to remember that this is not a choice between vaccine risks and no risks, it is a choice between vaccine risks and getting covid * probability of getting covid risks.I think the latter is a lot more dangerous.
I'm considering the same, but I'm not sure if Pfizer's mRNA which is relatively untested/new from what I understand or the usual vaccine like Oxford's one. I guess I'll have to wait and see till vaccines are widely available. I've only understood that Pfizer's one is more effective against COVID-19.
|
On December 25 2020 17:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2020 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 25 2020 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On December 24 2020 10:59 Magic Powers wrote:There's a phenomenon of infections going up and deaths not rising proportionally. This is in response to BlackJack's and JimmiC's discussion. The phenomenon has been observed in various countries like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, NL, Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US like NY, NJ and MA, just to name a few examples. In Sweden deaths have even gone down while infections were still going up https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ (that may've happened in a number of countries, but I haven't looked into it in such detail). It's a widespread phenomenon that you can observe on worldometers. But not all countries follow this trend. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan, many states in the US., and many more countries show a significant correlation between infections and deaths. And then there's deaths per million and CFR, which also vary dramatically between different countries. Another mystery that needs explanation. The point being that it's difficult to know the causes for the various observations in things like hospitalization rates, ER admission rates, etc. We just don't have the answers yet. Here's information on CFR for various countries. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ There are many factors that can explain this 1)Testing is a lot better now than it was in the Spring. So the lack of proportionality you are seeing now is actually the correct proportions of cases vs deaths, but the numbers were just so out of proportion in the Spring that the correct proportions seem "off" by comparison. 2) A larger percent of the infected are younger adults that have better outcomes 3) Treatment is better 4) The first wave killed off a lot of the vulnerable which means less vulnerable to kill off now. The supporting evidence for this is that states that had the deadliest waves in the Spring, e.g. NY/NJ are having relatively few deaths right now whereas states that never had a big first wave, e.g. California are having all-time record deaths right now. 1) I don't know what it means to say that testing has gotten "better". Better for what purpose? Also, the testing methodology varies drastically between countries, as the study on CFR shows that I'll link in this comment. Where can I find information on how the testing has changed over time? 2) Are you saying that previously the infection rate used to be higher among old(er) individuals than it has been as of late? If so, could you provide a source for this? 3) What do you mean treatment is "better", and what has made it better? 4) I haven't yet read sources for this, but it's a possible and valid explanation. There appears to be a meaningful correlation according to my own research. Unfortunately more research is needed for a definitive conclusion. In regards to point 3) "The reasons are not entirely obvious. There have been no miracle drugs, no new technologies and no great advances in treatment strategies for the disease that has infected more than 50 million and killed more than 1.2 million around the world. Shifts in the demographics of those being treated might have contributed to perceived boosts in survival. And at many hospitals, it seems clear that physicians are getting incrementally better at treating COVID-19 — particularly as health-care systems become less overwhelmed. Still, those gains could be erased by increasing case loads around the world." In short: no significant change in treatment has been observed. It can be speculated that hospitals are filled with fewer low(er)-risk individuals which would free up space and treatment for high(er)-risk individuals. But it can also be speculated that it's the opposite (for example in hospitals running at full capacity), i.e. a greater portion of the treated individuals are low(er)-risk. Also, treatment appears to be better when hospitals are less overwhelmed. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03132-4Study on CFR (July 2020) It essentially concludes that age and CFR are strongly linked. But it doesn't explain all the differences. Unfortunately the study is several months old. I wasn't able to find a more recent study that analyzes recent mortality trends and compares them with previous waves. "Our study reveals the strong and important role that the age distribution of cases can have on COVID-19 casefatality. However, even after we corrected for age distortions, important differences in CFRs remained across countries. This suggests that differences in the underlying health of a country's population and how effectively the health system cares for identified COVID-19 cases have meaningful effects on the share of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 who survive. Removing the noise from age distortions and focusing on why age-adjusted CFRs are higher in some countries than in others, and why they change within countries over time, will be essential for formulating best case strategies for preventing and reducing COVID-19 mortality." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343190396_The_Contribution_of_the_Age_Distribution_of_Cases_to_COVID-19_Case_Fatality_Across_Countries_A_9-Country_Demographic_StudyData on mortality rate trends in countries and US states (I haven't yet had time to read any of this) https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/cfed-district-data-briefs/cfddb-20200513-covid19-mortality-rate-trends-series.aspxMeta-study on IFR for additional information (not necessarily required for this discussion) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809 1) Case numbers have been known to be gated behind testing capacity for a long time for many countries and when they are it's a shit metric. Look at Swedens numbers for the two peaks, that difference is 100 % only testing. And we are still gated at the moment (just not critically as before). If you have too little tests (as in, you can't test EVERYONE) the numbers are skewed and you should look at deaths/hospital admittance for covid instead. 2) This is probably true for many countries and can be checked by looking at the ratio in age groups for people being tested positive. It can be hard to know for certain if you only tested people with severe symptoms way back but short term trends when testing are stable is a good read (in Sweden the proportion of young people went up even after testing was stable but you can't really compare to last peak because you didn't test so many young back then). You can also do antibody studies and just epidemiological studies when you test a cross section of the population. From everything I've heard it has been more young people getting it the second wave and since it's not that hard to check I assume this is correct. 3) New treatment protocols (putting patients on their belly, how to administer oxygen, waiting with ICU treatment longer, steroids etc) have improved outcomes. This is a well known fact. 4) This is historically true for every respiratory tract disease that mainly affect vulnerable people (look at past flue numbers for example with high years followed by lower ones) and it would be virtually impossible to not have this effect with covid.
In regards to 2) There are other confounding variables like for example seasonal differences or policy and other things affecting behavior. Even if testing had remained exactly equal, the numbers would've likely changed. So it's not all down to testing.
My question to BlackJack was about the rate of infections among old people, which would be a way to show that a smaller ratio of old people among all infected people could be expected. If the infection rate among all age groups remained stable, then the infection ratio between the groups should also stay the same. So I was hoping he'd provide information on that in particular. The news article he posted didn't contain such information.
3) I'm very interested, do you have a study on this?
|
On December 25 2020 18:21 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2020 18:11 Simberto wrote:
Definitively gonna take it, unless something really bad appears during the next few months.
According to German priorization rules. i will probably get a dose sometime in summer, since there are about 20 million people ahead of me in line.
You always have to remember that this is not a choice between vaccine risks and no risks, it is a choice between vaccine risks and getting covid * probability of getting covid risks.I think the latter is a lot more dangerous. I'm considering the same, but I'm not sure if Pfizer's mRNA which is relatively untested/new from what I understand or the usual vaccine like Oxford's one. I guess I'll have to wait and see till vaccines are widely available. I've only understood that Pfizer's one is more effective against COVID-19.
Considering the large amounts are being vaccinated each day now, it can hardly be called untested (and gone through phase 3). It's not really a new technique, just new to use on a mass scale on humans.
I want the vaccine that is most effective for my age group and gender. Don't know which one that is yet, but since I am in the low risk group I am sure it will take a while before I am allowed to take a vaccine.
|
On December 25 2020 19:11 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2020 17:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 25 2020 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 25 2020 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On December 24 2020 10:59 Magic Powers wrote:There's a phenomenon of infections going up and deaths not rising proportionally. This is in response to BlackJack's and JimmiC's discussion. The phenomenon has been observed in various countries like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, NL, Ireland, Canada, and some states in the US like NY, NJ and MA, just to name a few examples. In Sweden deaths have even gone down while infections were still going up https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ (that may've happened in a number of countries, but I haven't looked into it in such detail). It's a widespread phenomenon that you can observe on worldometers. But not all countries follow this trend. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan, many states in the US., and many more countries show a significant correlation between infections and deaths. And then there's deaths per million and CFR, which also vary dramatically between different countries. Another mystery that needs explanation. The point being that it's difficult to know the causes for the various observations in things like hospitalization rates, ER admission rates, etc. We just don't have the answers yet. Here's information on CFR for various countries. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ There are many factors that can explain this 1)Testing is a lot better now than it was in the Spring. So the lack of proportionality you are seeing now is actually the correct proportions of cases vs deaths, but the numbers were just so out of proportion in the Spring that the correct proportions seem "off" by comparison. 2) A larger percent of the infected are younger adults that have better outcomes 3) Treatment is better 4) The first wave killed off a lot of the vulnerable which means less vulnerable to kill off now. The supporting evidence for this is that states that had the deadliest waves in the Spring, e.g. NY/NJ are having relatively few deaths right now whereas states that never had a big first wave, e.g. California are having all-time record deaths right now. 1) I don't know what it means to say that testing has gotten "better". Better for what purpose? Also, the testing methodology varies drastically between countries, as the study on CFR shows that I'll link in this comment. Where can I find information on how the testing has changed over time? 2) Are you saying that previously the infection rate used to be higher among old(er) individuals than it has been as of late? If so, could you provide a source for this? 3) What do you mean treatment is "better", and what has made it better? 4) I haven't yet read sources for this, but it's a possible and valid explanation. There appears to be a meaningful correlation according to my own research. Unfortunately more research is needed for a definitive conclusion. In regards to point 3) "The reasons are not entirely obvious. There have been no miracle drugs, no new technologies and no great advances in treatment strategies for the disease that has infected more than 50 million and killed more than 1.2 million around the world. Shifts in the demographics of those being treated might have contributed to perceived boosts in survival. And at many hospitals, it seems clear that physicians are getting incrementally better at treating COVID-19 — particularly as health-care systems become less overwhelmed. Still, those gains could be erased by increasing case loads around the world." In short: no significant change in treatment has been observed. It can be speculated that hospitals are filled with fewer low(er)-risk individuals which would free up space and treatment for high(er)-risk individuals. But it can also be speculated that it's the opposite (for example in hospitals running at full capacity), i.e. a greater portion of the treated individuals are low(er)-risk. Also, treatment appears to be better when hospitals are less overwhelmed. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03132-4Study on CFR (July 2020) It essentially concludes that age and CFR are strongly linked. But it doesn't explain all the differences. Unfortunately the study is several months old. I wasn't able to find a more recent study that analyzes recent mortality trends and compares them with previous waves. "Our study reveals the strong and important role that the age distribution of cases can have on COVID-19 casefatality. However, even after we corrected for age distortions, important differences in CFRs remained across countries. This suggests that differences in the underlying health of a country's population and how effectively the health system cares for identified COVID-19 cases have meaningful effects on the share of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 who survive. Removing the noise from age distortions and focusing on why age-adjusted CFRs are higher in some countries than in others, and why they change within countries over time, will be essential for formulating best case strategies for preventing and reducing COVID-19 mortality." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343190396_The_Contribution_of_the_Age_Distribution_of_Cases_to_COVID-19_Case_Fatality_Across_Countries_A_9-Country_Demographic_StudyData on mortality rate trends in countries and US states (I haven't yet had time to read any of this) https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/cfed-district-data-briefs/cfddb-20200513-covid19-mortality-rate-trends-series.aspxMeta-study on IFR for additional information (not necessarily required for this discussion) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809 1) Case numbers have been known to be gated behind testing capacity for a long time for many countries and when they are it's a shit metric. Look at Swedens numbers for the two peaks, that difference is 100 % only testing. And we are still gated at the moment (just not critically as before). If you have too little tests (as in, you can't test EVERYONE) the numbers are skewed and you should look at deaths/hospital admittance for covid instead. 2) This is probably true for many countries and can be checked by looking at the ratio in age groups for people being tested positive. It can be hard to know for certain if you only tested people with severe symptoms way back but short term trends when testing are stable is a good read (in Sweden the proportion of young people went up even after testing was stable but you can't really compare to last peak because you didn't test so many young back then). You can also do antibody studies and just epidemiological studies when you test a cross section of the population. From everything I've heard it has been more young people getting it the second wave and since it's not that hard to check I assume this is correct. 3) New treatment protocols (putting patients on their belly, how to administer oxygen, waiting with ICU treatment longer, steroids etc) have improved outcomes. This is a well known fact. 4) This is historically true for every respiratory tract disease that mainly affect vulnerable people (look at past flue numbers for example with high years followed by lower ones) and it would be virtually impossible to not have this effect with covid. In regards to 2) There are other confounding variables like for example seasonal differences or policy and other things affecting behavior. Even if testing had remained exactly equal, the numbers would've likely changed. So it's not all down to testing. My question to BlackJack was about the rate of infections among old people, which would be a way to show that a smaller ratio of old people among all infected people could be expected. If the infection rate among all age groups remained stable, then the infection ratio between the groups should also stay the same. So I was hoping he'd provide information on that in particular. The news article he posted didn't contain such information. 3) I'm very interested, do you have a study on this?
I'm not sure I follow what you mean by rate of infection. The rates that people are being infected are never stable. That's why the "Daily New Cases" graph are all sinusoidal in shape and not flat lined. People are being infected at a way higher rate right now then at any other time. If I am understanding you correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
