Doug B
Footballguy
"Fecal cloud" my a ... er, backside. That article is about straight-up feces.A follow up on the “fecal cloud” speculation...
"Fecal cloud" my a ... er, backside. That article is about straight-up feces.A follow up on the “fecal cloud” speculation...
I always thought it was Fecal Cloud Spreading. I get those two mixed upFecal Cloud Speculation was the name of the improv troupe I was in back in the 90's.
Yep. I'll still update post because it's nice and easy to see how the numbers are moving every day. But I'll do it every morning as it appears they update it at 4AM Eastern for each day.I really appreciate your efforts, however someone is already being paid to do it.![]()
This is fascinating.
I don’t get it. Either we believe China or we don’t. If we do, fine. That’s an ok position.This is fascinating.
So far only one teenager has died and then only people below age 30 that have died are medical staff.
If you aren't a doctor or working with cases directly, and under the age of 50 your odds of dying of this so far is 0.15%
Mortality expounds virtually unchecked out to age 85.
edit, 0.15 not .0015
I know, it’s just them filthy Asians with their wacky diets making us all sick.You shut your whore mouth mister!
And pharmaceutical stock is possibly being pimped on faux science from link 3.W.H.O. Fights a Pandemic Besides Coronavirus: an ‘Infodemic’ (The New York Times)
Shoddy Coronavirus Studies Are Going Viral And Stoking Panic (BuzzFeed News)
Baseless Conspiracy Theories Claim New Coronavirus Was Bioengineered (FactCheck.org)
I choose to believe they are presenting a sample of the real data. So whatever they have might be .33x reality. Therefore it would nearly extrapolate to ROWshader said:I don’t get it. Either we believe China or we don’t. If we do, fine. That’s an ok position.
If we don’t, than we can’t make detailed statistical analysis of false numbers.
One thing I read is that people will still allowed to walk around the deck. They were advised to stay 6 feet from other guests. So it wasn't a complete quarantine. Also, the staff delivering stuff to them could have had the virus. If they were going to quarantine the ship, they should have tested everyone instead of waiting for a fever.bradyfan said:"As it turned out, that was very ineffective in preventing spread on the ship," Fauci told the USA TODAY Editorial Board and reporters Monday. Every hour, another four or five people were being infected.
"The quarantine process failed," Fauci said. "I'd like to sugarcoat it and try to be diplomatic about it, but it failed. People were getting infected on that ship. Something went awry in the process of the quarantining on that ship. I don't know what it was, but a lot of people got infected on that ship."
No idea if you’re right or not. Truth will be out in the next 3-4 weeks as it’s out of China now.I choose to believe they are presenting a sample of the real data. So whatever they have might be .33x reality. Therefore it would nearly extrapolate to ROW
If that mortality rate is right we are looking at 14-25 million dead Americans. (Twitter, don't check my math).No idea if you’re right or not. Truth will be out in the next 3-4 weeks as it’s out of China now.
I thought that's what this whole thread is about. Made up numbers, numbers from Chinese gov, real numbers plugged into crazy made up formulas. This thing has been going on since December. At this rate the sun burning out will get us before this virus.shader said:I don’t get it. Either we believe China or we don’t. If we do, fine. That’s an ok position.
If we don’t, than we can’t make detailed statistical analysis of false numbers.
Bad tweet. The author divides deaths into some number of recoveries/discharges and makes up his own "mortality rate". Absolutely not.This seems bad. Spreading a lot faster than SARS.
https://twitter.com/BlogGuero/status/1229787340710830080?s=20
Agreed the mortality rate is bunk, but the chart showing infectivity curve vs SARS is valid and eye opening.Bad tweet. The author divides deaths into some number of recoveries/discharges and makes up his own "mortality rate". Absolutely not.
Doug B said:That's an overcalculation due to the discarding of both low-symptom unrecovered cases and undiagnosed cases.shader said:So would dividing the recovered by the dead be a good way of calculating the mortality rate?
Also, a true mortality rate requires a time component -- over one year is common. With COVID-19 so new, mortality rate calculations necessarily will be fuzzy and location-specific (e.g. Wuhan itself, Hubei, China, other countries, the world, etc.).
I think I misled you a bit -- what I should have made clear about the SARS vaccine failures during animal testing was that the animals' immune systems over-reacted once the test vaccines were introduced, harming and even killing the subjects. No new strain of SARS was created.Mr. Ham said:You, who has been a voice of reason (thank you) sort of prove my point. There does seem to be something different about Wuhan, and it seems plausible that a dodgy vaccine out of the Wuhan Lab did cause a high virulent strain that mutated down and explains the relatively mild strain in the wild.
Way too early to start celebrating, obviously ... but the preliminary numbers from cases outside of China (or even just outside of Hubei itself) are looking promising.
- We can manage and mitigate severe cases an bring the death rate below 2% of overall cases, and hopefully below that in children and the healthy
Feel free to shoot holes My theory on that is the "bad" cases are more "recoverable" when a healthcare system is under reasonable load and resources like beds, doctors, ventilators are available.Way too early to start celebrating, obviously ... but the preliminary numbers from cases outside of China (or even just outside of Hubei itself) are looking promising.
I'm all for this thing going away, but we are up to 999 cases outside of China and the number is growing. I don't see how anything looks promising yet. Most of these cases are new patients (as just 11 days ago there were only 270ish cases), so I don't think we can draw any reasonable mortality rates yet.Way too early to start celebrating, obviously ... but the preliminary numbers from cases outside of China (or even just outside of Hubei itself) are looking promising.
The thing that concerns me is how many of the younger doctors treating the patients have died. These guys are likely to be in good health, and get the best care possible, yet several high profile folks have died.This seems bad. Spreading a lot faster than SARS.
https://twitter.com/BlogGuero/status/1229787340710830080?s=20
This is explainable. I have to find the study/support to this, but young people are not only less likely to die but less likely to contract it in the first place. Doctors being in the presence of the virus more are limited in their capacity to avoid contraction.The thing that concerns me is how many of the younger doctors treating the patients have died. These guys are likely to be in good health, and get the best care possible, yet several high profile folks have died.
I don't trust any of the numbers out of China.
I'd be reassured if this could be explained better.This is explainable. I have to find the study/support to this, but young people are not only less likely to die but less likely to contract it in the first place. Doctors being in the presence of the virus more are limited in their capacity to avoid contraction.
I'm searching now for this with respect to SARS, where the same thing tended to happen (outsized effect on medical team vs. same age gen pop). If someone has the opportunity to search this would be nice.
What I meant by "looking promising" was, specifically, the mortality rate outside of China to date. Mortality rate was what Mr. Ham brought up in his post I quoted upthread.I'm all for this thing going away, but we are up to 999 cases outside of China and the number is growing. I don't see how anything looks promising yet. Most of these cases are new patients (as just 11 days ago there were only 270ish cases), so I don't think we can draw any reasonable mortality rates yet.
I hope the mortality rate stays down and I suspect the next few weeks will be crucial for that data point, as there are about 800 people outside of China that currently have the virus.What I meant by "looking promising" was, specifically, the mortality rate outside of China to date. Mortality rate was what Mr. Ham brought up in his post I quoted upthread.
And I can see this is a matter of perspective and expectations: going from 270 to ~1,000 cases outside of China in 11 days ... to me, that is good news because that degree of spread is much less than what was going on in Wuhan in late December - early January. Plus, IMHO you can also kick out 400+ cases due to the artificial "overspread" from the quarantine conditions on the Diamond Princess.
I worry very little about raw number of infections. I worry instead about infirmity rate (% of patients requiring medical intervention) and mortality rate of those infected.
Coronavirus Update: 346 Americans Emerge From Quarantine At California Military Bases (NPR)
Some 346 Americans who were evacuated from Wuhan, China, amid the deadly coronavirus outbreak emerged from their quarantine at two military bases in California on Tuesday, U.S. officials say.
The group includes 180 Americans who have been living under a mandatory quarantine order at Travis Air Force Base, roughly 40 miles southwest of Sacramento, and 166 U.S. citizens who have been living at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar near San Diego.
"One person from the MCAS Miramar group who is confirmed to have COVID-19 remains under care at a local hospital," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement sent to NPR.
All of the other U.S. evacuees "have been medically cleared and CDC officials have lifted their quarantine orders," said Jason McDonald, a CDC press officer.
This took place just a few hours ago. These Americans were in Wuhan itself during the initial outbreak, and so presumably much more at risk than the general American public.
Following these 346 Americans over the next few weeks will be telling. Specifically, I am curious to see if any of these people end up providing evidence for 20-something day incubation periods.
This peer-reviewed paper (NCBI - NIH, Nov 9, 2015) was cited in line after the words "previously used virus backbone". Of interest is the abstract which I have spoiler-boxed for length:The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of an existing SARS-related coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for human ACE2 receptor binding with an efficient binding solution different to that which would have been predicted. Further, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one would expect that one of the several reverse genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would have been used. However, this is not the case as the genetic data shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.17
Coronavirus death rate in Wuhan may reflect "severe" pressure on health care system, official says (CNN, scroll down to find article)
Numbers suggesting death rates from coronavirus may be higher inside Wuhan and lower elsewhere may reflect "severe" pressure on the health care system there, Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Health Emergencies Programme, told reporters Tuesday.
Ryan was responding to a report published Monday by scientists with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, showing that patient outcomes in Hubei province are a key driver of the 2.3% case fatality rate they calculated. In Hubei, that number is 2.9%; in other Chinese provinces, that number is 0.4%.
The upside, Ryan added, is that "the lessons that have been learned in Hubei and Wuhan are being applied elsewhere."
Those lessons include predicting who's most at risk, getting people into critical care early, and ensuring medical teams are well trained in advanced critical care techniques such as ventilation.
"I think the system in China, for example, has got much better at prioritizing those more likely be severely ill," said Ryan, who maintained that the case fatality rate can be misleading without proper context.
"You have a huge bias at the beginning of an outbreak because what you find are the really sick people coming forward," Ryan said, adding that death rates are likely to drop "probably because of better and better interventions over time, but also because we're finding more mild cases."
Appreciate the spoiler tags. I want to see how this thing ends in real time. Don't want anyone spoiling the ending for me.Pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) addressing the "virus is man-made" theories. Unfortunately, much of the content is technical and not written or presented for the layman. Skip down to the "Theories of SARS-CoV-2 origins" section about halfway down:
This peer-reviewed paper (NCBI - NIH, Nov 9, 2015) was cited in line after the words "previously used virus backbone". Of interest is the abstract which I have spoiler-boxed for length:
The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV underscores the threat of cross-species transmission events leading to outbreaks in humans. Here we examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations. Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. On the basis of these findings, we synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo.
Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.
Not an answer to your question ... but out of Japan's first 24 cases**, 20 have already recovered. I am trying to find out when their first case was identified.For those that have recovered, what is the average time span between confirmed and recovered?
Same two people.Also, looking at the Johns Hopkins site, it shows Chicago having 2 confirmed and 2 recovered. Are those the same people or were there 4 in total?
OK, here we go.Not an answer to your question ... but out of Japan's first 24 cases**, 20 have already recovered. I am trying to find out when their first case was identified.
Non-China Reported Casesshader said:Testing out some additional information
Non-China Reported Cases
2/7 - 277
2/10 - 394
2/11 - 430
2/12 - 490
2/14 - 525
2/15 - 684
2/16 - 695
2/17 - 893 Reported Cases - (454 on Diamond Princess) - 135 recovered - 36 serious/critical - 5 dead
That’s not entirely accurate. If the virus replicates enough to spread to other hosts before the original one dies, it’s done its job. Only if the virus killed the host so quickly it hindered its own propagation, or it was 100% fatal, would natural selection favor less virulent versions.Exactly, that’s a trend that favors this diminishing over time. The variants that kill quickly end up snuffed out with their hosts, while the ones this linger survive.
2 weeks later:As scary as it must be living in China, and we'll probably never learn the true extent of it, until these numbers rise drastically, I'll remain optimistic that this thing will be contained:
12 confirmed cases in the US
2 deaths outside of Mainland China