shepherdless

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 914 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by shepherdless

• 
  35

  Two Doctors Present Local Data from California

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uatyyk3hxoc&feature=share&fbclid=iwar3wteffhrsovngi6fwhlg23nuljis43qi7ydvxy1ssc2ww_gjkkqa9jdmi.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Okay. Agree flu death rate is 0.001.

  I think we have now established that even on most optimistic (in my view incorrect) interpretation of NY data, COVID-19 death rate is 0.005. That calc is based on your assumptions, not mine.

  The 2 doctors did not find anything. I will try to say it in another way. Around 30,000 people, ie 1% of California’s population who thought they were in need of testing, got a test and 12% were positive. That doesn’t say much about the other 99% who didn’t feel the need to get a test. To assume that the other 99% also would test positive at the same 12% rate is ridiculous.

  I haven’t seen the German study you refer to.

  My fundamental problem with your post is this: What is wrong with comparing the number of deaths to the number of people with antibodies, since that is a far more accurate way of determining the number of people who have contracted the virus?

  I don’t know how many times I can explain this. I will try again. By your own reasoning, 1.5 million (29.5 x 15%) New Yorkers have, or have had COVID-19. So far 23,000 of them have died. We don’t know how many more of them will die, but some of them definitely will. If every single one of them survives, then your calc is correct, and COVID-19 is only five times deadlier than the flu. However, overseas experience suggests that some more of this 1.5 million will die. Possibly 10s of thousands. That is “What is wrong with comparing the number of deaths to the number of people with antibodies”. It is not an accuracy issue.
• 
  35

  Two Doctors Present Local Data from California

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uatyyk3hxoc&feature=share&fbclid=iwar3wteffhrsovngi6fwhlg23nuljis43qi7ydvxy1ssc2ww_gjkkqa9jdmi.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  By the way, I didn’t respond to:

  Looks like up to 50% are without symptoms... nothing to recover from. So, that doesn't make sense. Using the number of people with antibodies is far more accurate.

  I never challenged you on that. That is another topic again. My primary points are:

  1. Your calc was out by a factor of 10; and

  2. Calculating a death rate using a denominator that includes people who have neither died nor recovered, is fundamentally flawed.

  In relation to your Trump and “fear mongering liberals” point, I will keep out of that political debate.
  
  
• 
  35

  Two Doctors Present Local Data from California

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uatyyk3hxoc&feature=share&fbclid=iwar3wteffhrsovngi6fwhlg23nuljis43qi7ydvxy1ssc2ww_gjkkqa9jdmi.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Sea breeze, 0.5% is five times 0.1%, not half of 0.1%. By the way, I have seen others make the same or similar mathematical mistake both on this site and elsewhere.

  No one did that.

  You, in effect, did that. So did the doctors, by the way, at one point.

  Yes, the numbers keep changing.

  Perhaps there is a simple way to make the point. Look at the data for a country where most of the people have recovered, whether China (if you believe the data), Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand etc. Some of those countries (incl Australia) have tested very widely to prevent community transmission. Do any of them have a death rate of less than 1%?
• 
  18

  Possibly new vaccine can be ready by September this year

  by newsheep in

  1. social
  2. current

  just saw this on the news tonight.

  england has come up with a covid vaccine at the oxford university.

  india wants to start using it in a couple of months.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  It would be an amazing achievement, if true.

  My (non-expert) understanding is that it is extremely difficult to create a vaccine for a respiratory illness, and no vaccine has ever been developed for any of the other known coronaviruses.

  The reference in the article about injecting genetic material into a common cold virus is probably not a reference to injecting it into a rhinovirus (rhinoviruses cause most common colds). There is another type of coronavirus that also causes a flu, that has been in wide circulation for at least decades that we know of. That is probably what they are using, assuming the article is true.
• 
  35

  Two Doctors Present Local Data from California

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uatyyk3hxoc&feature=share&fbclid=iwar3wteffhrsovngi6fwhlg23nuljis43qi7ydvxy1ssc2ww_gjkkqa9jdmi.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Watched a bit of the video. From about the 4 minute mark to the 6 minute mark, the guy demonstrates his woeful ignorance of the use of data and statistics.

  If 6% of the people requesting a test at his clinic test positive, or 12% of the people tested in California test positive, that does not mean 6% or 12% of the population has it. Obviously the only people tested will be people displaying symptoms, or in some sort of high risk group. And remember the number of people tested amounts to only 1% or so of the population.

  I didn’t watch the rest of the video. Life is too short to listen to nonsense.

  By the way, I personally would not want to stifle debate on whether economies should re-open, and to what extent. However, such debate should not be based on falsehoods and misinformation. If YouTube has blocked the video, I am comfortable with that, because it contains fundamentally flawed info, in circumstances where lives hang in the balance.
• 
  35

  Two Doctors Present Local Data from California

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uatyyk3hxoc&feature=share&fbclid=iwar3wteffhrsovngi6fwhlg23nuljis43qi7ydvxy1ssc2ww_gjkkqa9jdmi.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Sea breeze, you made a mistake in your calculation; you are out by a factor of 10. Your “death rate” of 0.05% should be 0.5%.

  In any event, you don’t calculate death rate by dividing the number of deaths by the number who currently have it, because that leaves out the people who currently have COVID-19 and will die. You calculate by dividing the number of deaths (currently 23k) by the number of recoveries.

  Currently, about 23k have died in NY. Therefore, even if you assume all 15% of 19.5 million people (about 3 million) have recovered and none will die (an unlikely optimistic assumption), you still get 0.0077, or 0.77%, which is nearly 8 times deadlier than flu.

  I twice previously mentioned death rate is problematic to calculate at this stage (primarily because 2/3 of the world’s COVID-19 cases haven not yet recovered, and it seems to kill a lot of people who seem to have partially recovered), but data from countries where most of the people have recovered suggest a death rate of around 2 to 3% (or 20 to 30 times deadlier than the flu).
• 
  42

  Sad News Of Zing

  by ZindagiNaMilegiDobaara in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  very sad news .i am zing's partner.

  first time on any kind of blog so please forgive any mistakes.

  we have lost zing to the coronavirus this saturday gone, in the early hours.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  I am so sorry to read this. Condolences to Zing’s family and friends.
• 
  11

  Projected Covid 19 deaths in USA - about the same as 'flu stats.

  by The Fall Guy in

  1. social
  2. current

  according to white house task-force expert: .

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52241221.

  "dr anthony fauci, a key member of the white house's coronavirus task force, told nbc news' today show on thursday the final number of americans who will die from covid-19 in the outbreak "looks more like 60,000".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  The link in the article gives an estimate of 39 to 56 million flu infections, resulting an estimated 24 to 62 thousand deaths. That is consistent with a flu death rate of 0.1%.

  I have previously explained the complication about calculating a death rate for covid19, and said that while the current death rate is higher, my guess is that it would settle at 2 to 3%. Actually, on current figures, it is looking like at least 4%.

  So then, “doing the math”: if 39 to 56 million people get Covid19, instead of flu, then the death toll would be at least 1,560,000 (1.56 million) to 2,240,000 (2.24 million).

  Let me spell it out. 2.24 MILLION IS A BIGGER NUMBER THAN 60 THOUSAND!

  Dr Fauci is obviously assuming they can stop the spread of Covid19 in its tracks to somewhere between 1 and 2 million people infected, to get his 60,000.
• 
  75

  Coronavirus Positive

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey all,.

  i'm day six of isolation, confirmed to have coronavirus.

  i have been seeing very sick cv positive patients over the last month in my a&e role (emergency physician) it was inevitable i would contract it.. just wanted to give some symptom and treatment advice, it's anecdotal but may help.. started as sore throat and headache, then croaky voice, then dry cough, then episodic transient fevers, all this over the first few days.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Dear Snare&Racket

  I hope you are recovering well. Thankyou for the care you are taking of others, and thanks for the excellent info.

  (Late response; I didn’t see this thread, until now.)
• 
  36

  China where it started ,83,000 / USA now <400,000 How come ?

  by smiddy3 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  am i missing something here ?

  how is it that where this covid 19 started , in wuhan china, china has only ,reportedly 83,000 for the whole country ?

  whereas in the united states of america the figure is just under 400,000 ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  As someone who has been following this closely right from the start (my work colleagues could testify to my scaremongering since mid January) I will throw in my 2c worth.

  China lied in the early stages about what was going on. Lies were exposed and obvious to anyone taking notice, by mid-January.

  W.H.O. were too politically correct in some of their statements for the second half of January, but the detail of the message was pretty clear. They warned what was coming about EVERYTHING, apart from the toilet paper fetish.

  USA, Australia and others shutting their borders to travellers to China on 1 Feb was an intelligent move, and one that the politically correct progressives would have struggled with, but possibly a few days overdue, given the information available at the time.

  For what it is worth, I give credit to Trump for giving the okay to that decision, at the time.

  Perhaps this is not quite politically correct to say, but figures for both USA and China (and for a number of other countries) are dubious, at the moment.

  This will probably draw a lot of criticism to say this, but since that one good decision by Trump, the USA response appears to have been utterly shambolic. How can you fight a disease if you don’t test who has it? Why give mixed and contradictory messages? That only stops people taking it seriously. Why say it will fade by summer (without any evidence that that may be the case)? Why tell people they might be back in churches by Easter when any statistician looking at the data could see that that was delusional. Why make it all so political, so only 41% of Republicans (compared to 71% of Democrats) think they are at risk? Just a crazy mess, in my view. And it gets worse, NY Gov Cuomo (a Democrat) thinks they are near or on an “apex”. The data doesn’t seem to suggest that at all. On current trends, I would predict USA will be approaching 1 million cases within about a fortnight, but I would be happy ( even ecstatic) to be wrong.