Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (68 Viewers)

[Dostoevsky]

Not even surprised dude. Not even surprised.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Quetzalcoatl]

Haven't heard from @Seven in a while. I wonder what's his take

 

[Post Ironic]

I'll move this here, so we dont clog Murica thread.
Nah...Those are early estimates/researches but several studdies since pointed out IFR has tendecy to decline over longer period of observation. Data from Sero surveys, may vary significanty and they always tend to opt for higher figures. See survey drom New Delhi and inflated figures they presented, which were quickly discredited. The issue are always asymptomatic cases.

Medical Research Council estimates IFR at 0.3% for England, after 8 weeks of observation period. Office for National Statistics estimates IFR at 0.49%, but the latter is considered less stable than MRC due to falling 80% at the end of observation period.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/estimating-the-infection-fatality-ratio-in-england/

Those are estimates of total infections, not seroprevalence studies. Which makes them a bit more unreliable. And they show 0.3-0.49% IFR which just a wee bit higher than your previous 0.1-0.3.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173690v2

England seroprevalence study of 100,000 from April through The end of June. Calculated 0.9% IFR.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.06.20169722v2

Spanish seroprevalence study of 61,000 up to July 15. IFR 0.8%.

As in the Nature article I linked previously, I trust the experts on this stuff, who are giving credence to the vast majority of seroprevalence and IFR studies that are estimating 0.5-1.0% IFR.

Not 0.1-0.3 IFR. You are, of course, welcome to make your own guesses based on your own numbers like before and/or pick outlier studies, but I’ll stick to what majority are currently showing.

Anyways, thanks for the link this time. Helps to actually see what you’re basing your opinion on.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

The fuck you guys arguing about?

 

[Pegi]

The fuck you guys arguing about?

They're arguing about who's been reading more about the covid-19 situation past 6 months and then they're comparing the numbers from the different sites, while acting like total experts.

 

[Post Ironic]

The fuck you guys arguing about?

Infection fatality rate and whether Covid is actually a deadly virus or kind of meh.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Infection fatality rate and whether Covid is actually a deadly virus or kind of meh.

Anything less than 50% is meh

 

[Pegi]

Infection fatality rate and whether Covid is actually a deadly virus or kind of meh.

What you mean by deadly? Even bee sting might be deadly.

Give me the exact numbers as a fact.

 

[Vlad]

Those are estimates of total infections, not seroprevalence studies. Which makes them a bit more unreliable. And they show 0.3-0.49% IFR which just a wee bit higher than your previous 0.1-0.3.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173690v2

England seroprevalence study of 100,000 from April through The end of June. Calculated 0.9% IFR.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.06.20169722v2

Spanish seroprevalence study of 61,000 up to July 15. IFR 0.8%.

As in the Nature article I linked previously, I trust the experts on this stuff, who are giving credence to the vast majority of seroprevalence and IFR studies that are estimating 0.5-1.0% IFR.

Not 0.1-0.3 IFR. You are, of course, welcome to make your own guesses based on your own numbers like before and/or pick outlier studies, but I’ll stick to what majority are currently showing.

Anyways, thanks for the link this time. Helps to actually see what you’re basing your opinion on.

I claimed 0.1%-0.3%, more credible of the two (MRC), estimates at 0.3% and with declining tendency over longer period.

Depends on various factors as I pointed out New Delhi disaster. They are doing 3rd round of seroprevalence survey, so figures may vary significantly. Since the sero survey data (Spain) was published after only few months of Covid pandemic, when a large % of older and vulnerable population were hit and most number of fatalities occured in that period, it is fair to assume IFR would have been far lower now.

I also trust experts but they are rarely unanimous.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386

- - - Updated - - -

The fuck you guys arguing about?

Boredom I guess. Fucking internationals

 

[Monty]

 

[DAiDEViL]

Infection fatality rate and whether Covid is actually a deadly virus or kind of meh.

I mean, why even wash your hands at this point.

 

[Pegi]

I claimed 0.1%-0.3%, more credible of the two (MRC), estimates at 0.3% and with declining tendency over longer period.

Depends on various factors as I pointed out New Delhi disaster. They are doing 3rd round of seroprevalence survey, so figures may vary significantly. Since the sero survey data (Spain) was published after only few months of Covid pandemic, when a large % of older and vulnerable population were hit and most number of fatalities occured in that period, it is fair to assume IFR would have been far lower now.

I also trust experts but they are rarely unanimous.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386

Went to the site and it literally started "nearly 6.000 experts say"

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, why even wash your hands at this point.

If Napoli's team and their staff washed their hands before and after Genoa game, we would have played them on sunday.

That's what experts say.

 

[Post Ironic]

I claimed 0.1%-0.3%, more credible of the two (MRC), estimates at 0.3% and with declining tendency over longer period.

Depends on various factors as I pointed out New Delhi disaster. They are doing 3rd round of seroprevalence survey, so figures may vary significantly. Since the sero survey data (Spain) was published after only few months of Covid pandemic, when a large % of older and vulnerable population were hit and most number of fatalities occured in that period, it is fair to assume IFR would have been far lower now.

I also trust experts but they are rarely unanimous.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386

- - - Updated - - -


Boredom I guess. Fucking internationals

I don’t think anyone is saying lockdowns are a good thing now. The initial 1-2 month lockdown is what most of us, plus experts are/were in support of. And that should be possible without a train wreck of the economy, society, etc. We didn’t know enough about the disease , how to contain it, how to treat it, and initial estimates were of 1-3% IFR. Thankfully that’s not true and it’s somewhere under 1%. With how virulent it is, with no measures at all that’s A huge death toll still, but new lockdowns shouldn’t be happening unless the population goes full retard. It’s the several month/year-long lockdown that I doubt economies/society have the capacity to handle without terrible consequences.

My province is pretty much entirely reopened, schools, gyms, bars, restaurants, etc. and because we have good testing protocols, and more importantly, adequate contact tracing, we currently have close to zero uncontrolled community spread. Everything right now is traceable. And that’s what governments should have spent the initial 1-2 month lockdown doing, preparing measures to make this containable without further lockdown. Unfortunately that’s too much to ask for most.

 

[il brutto]

I don’t think anyone is saying lockdowns are a good thing now. The initial 1-2 month lockdown is what most of us, plus experts are/were in support of. And that should be possible without a train wreck of the economy, society, etc. We didn’t know enough about the disease , how to contain it, how to treat it, and initial estimates were of 1-3% IFR. Thankfully that’s not true and it’s somewhere under 1%. With how virulent it is, with no measures at all that’s A huge death toll still, but new lockdowns shouldn’t be happening unless the population goes full retard. It’s the several month/year-long lockdown that I doubt economies/society have the capacity to handle without terrible consequences.

My province is pretty much entirely reopened, schools, gyms, bars, restaurants, etc. and because we have good testing protocols, and more importantly, adequate contact tracing, we currently have close to zero uncontrolled community spread. Everything right now is traceable. And that’s what governments should have spent the initial 1-2 month lockdown doing, preparing measures to make this containable without further lockdown. Unfortunately that’s too much to ask for most.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...in-q2-worse-nordic-neighbors-2020-8?r=US&IR=T

 

[Post Ironic]

Anything less than 50% is meh

Anything less than biblical apocalyptic plague, leaving one man, one woman, one transman, one transwoman, one non-binary, one gender-fluid to repopulate the planet... anything less is super meh.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...in-q2-worse-nordic-neighbors-2020-8?r=US&IR=T

Yep. People are failing to realize that allowing 1+ in every 1000 people in your country to die is also going to have serious economic consequences.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Anything less than biblical apocalyptic plague, leaving one man, one woman, one transman, one transwoman, one non-binary, one gender-fluid to repopulate the planet... anything less is super meh.

Just no Chinese, please

 

[Pegi]

Anything less than biblical apocalyptic plague, leaving one man, one woman, one transman, one transwoman, one non-binary, one gender-fluid to repopulate the planet... anything less is super meh.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep. People are failing to realize that allowing 1+ in every 1000 people in your country to die is also going to have serious economic consequences.

Don’t forget Greta Thunberg and her/their mission. From an ecologic standpoint of view, one person to die estimately decreases the amount of ice that is going to melt from the north pole.

 

[Monty]

Don’t forget Greta Thunberg and her/their mission. From an ecologic standpoint of view, one person to die estimately decreases the amount of ice that is going to melt from the north pole.

Will you shut up man

 

[Vlad]

I don’t think anyone is saying lockdowns are a good thing now. The initial 1-2 month lockdown is what most of us, plus experts are/were in support of. And that should be possible without a train wreck of the economy, society, etc. We didn’t know enough about the disease , how to contain it, how to treat it, and initial estimates were of 1-3% IFR. Thankfully that’s not true and it’s somewhere under 1%. With how virulent it is, with no measures at all that’s A huge death toll still, but new lockdowns shouldn’t be happening unless the population goes full retard. It’s the several month/year-long lockdown that I doubt economies/society have the capacity to handle without terrible consequences.

My province is pretty much entirely reopened, schools, gyms, bars, restaurants, etc. and because we have good testing protocols, and more importantly, adequate contact tracing, we currently have close to zero uncontrolled community spread. Everything right now is traceable. And that’s what governments should have spent the initial 1-2 month lockdown doing, preparing measures to make this containable without further lockdown. Unfortunately that’s too much to ask for most.

The first part is where we dont agree and will never agree. Goverments in most countries waited too long to take any kind of measures, they played it down at very beginnings and then when a death toll spiked up (mostly among older population), they panicked and locked everyone in. A lot of experts though were more in favor of more selective approach. Media contributed to overall pshychosis and they have been milking this far too long. Experts whose line of view aligned with created social climate were promoted in mainstream media, while others were marginalized. In my country priminister called in a meeting with representatives of most published/viewed media outlets...

It's a valuable lesson though, because I think we will see more and more pandemics of this sort in near future, due to overpopulation, climate change, etc...

 

[DAiDEViL]

Don’t forget Greta Thunberg and her/their mission. From an ecologic standpoint of view, one person to die estimately decreases the amount of ice that is going to melt from the north pole.

Now we're talking.