https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/stuff-you-need-to-know/news/?message=50612
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
More interesting news. It’s Not Whether You Were Exposed to the Virus. It’s How Much.A few viral particles cannot make you sick — the immune system would vanquish the intruders before they could. But how much virus is needed for an infection to take root? What is the minimum effective dose?https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/health/coronavirus-transmission-dose.html
This new science is one of the reasons alarmists have lost their indefinite lockdown argument.
Also, in terms f all cases in the United States...
oh member Shady! The 2 "less than honest broker' guys at Fundstrat are under long-standing criticism of how they 'present' data for their principal financial interests (hence the name 'Fundstrat')... in this case their own 'cherry-pick' is the Monday May 11th date. Monday's are always lower in total numbers because of the weekend lull - that's why Tuesday's have always been the highest day of reported data... the weekend catch-up day!in any case, considering how you purposely repeatedly singled out New York City as a part of your own politicization against Democrat Governors of U.S. states, here's an interesting graphic (on the left) that now isolates the ever reducing numbers from NYC... what do you see now, hey member Shady - what now?
Good news.0.4%: Is The CDC’s New Estimated Case Fatality Ratehttps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#box
Scientists Say New, Lower CDC Estimates For Severity Of COVID-19 Are OptimisticQuoteThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week revised downward its estimates for future infections and deaths from the coronavirus, painting a picture of the pandemic that some scientists say is overly optimistic — and that plays into fears the agency could be responding to political pressure.Four out of seven experts consulted earlier by the Center for Public Integrity found the CDC's death rate estimates from April too low. The revised figures remain too optimistic, Harvard epidemiologist William Hanage said."If you're taking these numbers to be your guide, they're obviously lowball estimates," he said.The fatality rates in the document "are certainly at the very low end" of those that scientists think possible, agreed Joseph Lewnard, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Greater clarity on the scientific basis for these estimates is urgently needed."Another expert, University of Washington biologist Carl Bergstrom, said that even the CDC's worst-case scenario is realistically a best-case scenario. The agency's worst-case fatality rate, he noted, is more optimistic than recent, high-quality coronavirus data about the death rate in Spain."These [CDC] numbers are so far outside of the scientific consensus that this strikes me as a devious and cynical effort to manipulate not only federal modeling but the broader scientific discourse," Bergstrom wrote on Twitter.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week revised downward its estimates for future infections and deaths from the coronavirus, painting a picture of the pandemic that some scientists say is overly optimistic — and that plays into fears the agency could be responding to political pressure.Four out of seven experts consulted earlier by the Center for Public Integrity found the CDC's death rate estimates from April too low. The revised figures remain too optimistic, Harvard epidemiologist William Hanage said."If you're taking these numbers to be your guide, they're obviously lowball estimates," he said.The fatality rates in the document "are certainly at the very low end" of those that scientists think possible, agreed Joseph Lewnard, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Greater clarity on the scientific basis for these estimates is urgently needed."Another expert, University of Washington biologist Carl Bergstrom, said that even the CDC's worst-case scenario is realistically a best-case scenario. The agency's worst-case fatality rate, he noted, is more optimistic than recent, high-quality coronavirus data about the death rate in Spain."These [CDC] numbers are so far outside of the scientific consensus that this strikes me as a devious and cynical effort to manipulate not only federal modeling but the broader scientific discourse," Bergstrom wrote on Twitter.
Good news.Up to 80% of COVID-19 Infections Are Asymptomatichttps://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-asymptomatic-transmission/
authors: Alvin J Ing, Christine ****, Jeffery Peter GreenAbstractWe describe what we believe is the first instance of complete COVID-19 testing of all passengers and crew on an isolated cruise ship during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 217 passengers and crew on board, 128 tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription–PCR (59%). Of the COVID-19-positive patients, 19% (24) were symptomatic; 6.2% ( required medical evacuation; 3.1% (4) were intubated and ventilated; and the mortality was 0.8% (1). The majority of COVID-19-positive patients were asymptomatic (81%, 104 patients). We conclude that the prevalence of COVID-19 on affected cruise ships is likely to be significantly underestimated, and strategies are needed to assess and monitor all passengers to prevent community transmission after disembarkation...We conclude from this observational study that - The prevalence of COVID-19 on affected cruise ships is likely to be significantly underestimated, and strategies are needed to assess and monitor all passengers to prevent community transmission after disembarkation. - Rapid Ab COVID-19 testing of patients in the acute phase is unreliable. - The majority of COVID-19-positive patients were asymptomatic (81%). - The presence of discordant COVID-19 results in numerous cabins suggests that there may be a significant false-negative rate with RT-PCR testing. Follow-up testing is being performed to determine this. - The timing of symptoms in some passengers (day 24) suggests that there may have been cross contamination after cabin isolation.
it is... news - perhaps you could offer a member Shady spin on why its, as you say, "Good news" - yes?in any case, from the study itself:
Yes I was kind of wondering as to the logic of concluding that being able to carry/transmit a potentially deadly virus without knowing you had it was somehow "good news". Yikes!The good news will be when they get the testing to the point it needs to be so that even the asymptomatic cases can be traced.
The worst thing about the Internet is how it makes the particularly dim feel like experts on things they know nothing about.
Shady, why not stop by this thread? I thought facts didn't care about your feelings?
Sorry, which facts would you like a comment on? The fact that the Wuhan coronavirus is more deadly than SARS, etc doesn’t really say much. Those were barely notable. We have flu seasons worse than those “pandemic”. It also doesn’t change the data related to fatality rates by age and health. I value your input though.
Ah, no. The two month death rate for Covid has been right up there with the worst influenza years this century and that was with most of the country locked down.