The new Corona virus, should we worry?

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
25,756
Reaction score
1,221
Points
113
Those could be a factor, but just the basic math behind social distancing and what they've modeled doesn't make any sense. They keep modeling a delaying of the peak, and show very little flattening of the curve. Their different scenarios even show that social distancing isn't necessarily preventing deaths, it's just delaying them.

When they released their early April update, they even said within a 95% probability that we'll be at peak ICU demand beginning in mid May. At that time there was ~70 in the ICU, and they said we were going to need ~3000 ICU beds at peak. That was complete crazy talk, and it still is, especially when considering they extended the SAH order at that time.

This video is a great explanation of the math behind social distancing and how it flattens the curve. It's like the MN modelers have completely ignored basics behind this.

Good explanation, thanks!
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
14,876
Reaction score
1,161
Points
113
If you click on the article link the provided graphs show such minimal difference in the ultimate numbers between the west’s Lockdown Theater vs the Swedish approach it is plainly obvious which was the better choice. They are much further along the recovery curve than many states and provinces to boot...only another 7-12 months (maybe) for an abbreviated safety-validated vaccine. What to do until then?
 

scools12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
586
Points
113
If you click on the article link the provided graphs show such minimal difference in the ultimate numbers between the west’s Lockdown Theater vs the Swedish approach it is plainly obvious which was the better choice. They are much further along the recovery curve than many states and provinces to boot...only another 7-12 months (maybe) for an abbreviated safety-validated vaccine. What to do until then?
Doesn’t matter what the better choice is. All that matters is howie got to post a Tweet with “horrifying” in it.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
If you click on the article link the provided graphs show such minimal difference in the ultimate numbers between the west’s Lockdown Theater vs the Swedish approach it is plainly obvious which was the better choice. They are much further along the recovery curve than many states and provinces to boot...only another 7-12 months (maybe) for an abbreviated safety-validated vaccine. What to do until then?
Spoiler: Howie didn't click on the link.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
For all the claims that Trump is a fascist dictator, isn't it interesting how very clearly that is being shown false, while Democrat mayors, AGs, and governors are showing their totalitarian true colors every day?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
If you click on the article link the provided graphs show such minimal difference in the ultimate numbers between the west’s Lockdown Theater vs the Swedish approach it is plainly obvious which was the better choice. They are much further along the recovery curve than many states and provinces to boot...only another 7-12 months (maybe) for an abbreviated safety-validated vaccine. What to do until then?
But as you were saying the other day, the negative effects (deaths and economic impact) are largely just going to average out over all countries (in a per capita sense) once the rest of the world gets far enough along in the recovery cycle.

So, end of the day, I'd rather take the cautious approach, as opposed to the approach that maximizes "rights". And I'm glad we did. Boo friggin hoo to "rights" lovers.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
1,893
Reaction score
449
Points
83
I thought I'd take a look at different countries New Cases / 1M Population and rank those. The following shows only countries with 2 or more daily new cases per million (there's 88 of these countries).

CountryNew Cases / 1M Pop
Qatar474.775
Kuwait197.286
Bahrain134.619
Chile119.288
Djibouti118.632
Armenia118.477
Mayotte102.950
Belarus97.569
Equatorial Guinea89.486
UAE84.245
Peru80.812
Saudi Arabia74.624
USA68.415
Brazil67.275
Russia61.167
Singapore52.182
Gabon50.472
Sao Tome and Principe50.308
French Guiana43.670
UK39.959
Dominican Republic37.933
Oman37.918
Panama36.457
Canada28.380
Iran27.354
Belgium24.085
Sweden23.187
Ecuador22.714
Bolivia22.482
Maldives22.248
Tajikistan21.555
Guinea-Bissau21.406
Moldova19.331
Ireland17.846
Portugal16.961
Mexico16.114
Cameroon16.023
South Africa15.502
Kazakhstan15.094
Colombia14.188
Turkey13.748
North Macedonia12.000
Kyrgyzstan11.980
El Salvador11.570
Malta11.327
Azerbaijan11.157
Guinea10.545
Afghanistan10.511
Czechia10.367
Serbia10.182
Spain10.032
Bangladesh9.739
Poland9.405
Pakistan8.958
Guyana8.905
Romania8.571
Netherlands8.523
Guatemala8.336
Honduras8.194
Germany7.618
Estonia7.539
Italy7.458
Ukraine7.426
Denmark7.081
Sudan6.908
Haiti6.763
Argentina6.712
Finland5.957
France5.486
Egypt5.240
Bosnia and Herzegovina4.264
Algeria4.160
Mauritania4.100
Senegal3.835
Congo3.818
Iraq3.740
Togo3.513
Bulgaria3.451
India3.359
Israel3.010
Austria3.000
Lebanon2.929
Nepal2.752
Venezuela2.707
Hungary2.691
Morocco2.225
Lithuania2.201
Somalia2.147

This is a snapshot of only Monday's data (May 18). The reason I did this was to compare the US to Russia (since I noticed that Russia had a lot of new cases lately). The US (for Monday) had 68.4 new cases per million, whereas Russia had 61.2 new cases per million. So they are in the same ballpark.

The UK is at 40 per million and Canada is at 28.4.

Sweden is at 23.2 new cases per million. So, interestingly, Sweden kicked our butt on Monday in that it had 1/3 fewer new cases per million than the US did. Does this mean that Sweden is making progress toward herd immunity, but the US is making much slower progress? I don't know.

At the extreme worst end of the spectrum is Qatar at 475 new cases per million, followed by Kuwait and Bahrain at 197 and 135 new cases per million, respectively.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
No one loves our troops like Trump!

More than 40,000 National Guard members currently helping states test residents for the coronavirus and trace the spread of infections will face a “hard stop” on their deployments on June 24 — just one day shy of many members becoming eligible for key federal benefits, according to a senior FEMA official.

The official outlined the Trump administration’s plans on an interagency call on May 12, an audio version of which was obtained by POLITICO. The official also acknowledged during the call that the June 24 deadline means that thousands of members who first deployed in late March will find themselves with only 89 days of duty credit, one short of the 90-day threshold for qualifying for early retirement and education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI bill.

 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
Georgia is now finding only about 3% positives in their daily testing. They are coming out of it. Minnesota is now having about 13% positive tests as we are now peaking. In the end Walz prolonged the pain of lock downs for the general population and allowed the nursing homes to get hammered at the highest rate in the nation - 81% of all Minnesota deaths.
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
531
Points
113
I did some reading of recent studies on the epidemiology of Covid-19 on pediatrics cases. And, I found this little nugget on serious and critical levels of the disease.

"Table 2 shows the severity of illness by age and it reveals that young children, particularly infants, were vulnerable to 2019-nCoV infection. The proportion of severe and critical cases was 10.6 %, 7.3%, 4.2%, 4.1% and 3.0% for the age group of <1, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and ≥16 years, respectively."

There has been a misconception that this disease does not affect the young. The above reference is the equivalent of kids being put in intensive care and critical care in hospitals. If an infant gets the disease, they have a 1 in 10 chance of being in the hospital, and a good chunk of those cases do end up in the ICU. That gradually declines until the age of 20. And, at that point it starts to rise slowly until the 30's at which point it rises at a much more steep slope, which might be described as the take off stage.
By the time you are in your 40s, you might as well be a toddler again. You have similar chances of 1 in 10 going to the ICU or Critical Care of the hospital. And, we know from there the chance keeps getting larger as you go up the age scale.

When an infant gets pneumonia, a common secondary condition of Covid-19, babies do not fare well. Every year on planet Earth, some 1.5 million babies die of pneumonia of all types. Covid-19 plus pneumonia is more lethal than that. Some people think that we must protect our elderly as the goal of the lockdown. I disagree. The goal is to protect the very young. We do not need them to end up in the ICU intubated with pneumonia. The prognosis is not good for those kids. And, we know that with Covid-19, about 15% of cases become severe, Babies are not that far behind adults. But, with babies, the prognosis is really poor. They just don't have the immune system to defeat pneumonia well.

The data and report came from China. About 1800 kids were studied who had Covid-19. If you want the citation, I'm not going to give it to you out of selfish pleasure in denying the masses free access to freely available material. You would have to have double blind folds on to not find it in a simple search engine of scholarly articles. You might use a keyword search of "pediatrics", "Covid-19" and "epidemiology" to find them all. It is not a long list. Google.com/scholar can find it for you in about 14 nanoseconds. If that isn't fast enough for you, tough shitzkies. I really don't care for your excessive laziness and silver spoon executive attitudes. If you want that type of service, all you will get from me is my rather working class middle finger salute and the Almighty's effenheimer. There are those on this board who expect this level of catering. And, you know whether it involves yourself, the reader.

Discuss among yourselves. Your opinions mean nothing to me.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
1,893
Reaction score
449
Points
83
Bumbling masks malice.
Neither bumbling nor malice. They actually started out with the Sweden (correct) approach, and caved to maniacal progs. The lesson as always, never ever do so.
> Quote from George Monbiot of the Guardian: "Yes, the UK was prepared for the coronavirus. Then Boris Johnson's government knowingly and deliberately de-prepared us."

> @Bad Gopher: Bumbling masks malice.

> @Section2: Neither bumbling nor malice. They actually started out with the Sweden (correct) approach, and caved to maniacal progs. The lesson as always, never ever do so.

Actually, neither of the above claims by @Bad Gopher and @Section2 are completely the truth. The truth is actually a hybrid of the two approaches.

George Monbiot points out that a few years back (in the Obama era) the US was ranked #1 internationally (by some organization) in pandemic preparedness, and the UK was ranked #2. The assertion by Monbiot is that the UK did not shut things down soon enough. If they had shut things down a week earlier (I claim probably 2 weeks earlier), many lives could have been saved - but (my opinion here) probably more importantly, the UK could have shut things down when the number of COVID-19 cases was small enough that they could have tracked down all those cases via testing and contact tracing plus quarantining (aided by a temporary shutdown) and gotten the number of cases low enough to actually extinguish the local UK pandemic.

By implication, he makes the same point for the US. If we had reacted sooner and shut down sooner, we too could have halted the COVID-19 expansion at a point from which we could eliminate it via testing and contact tracing and quarantining (aided by a temporary shutdown) and gotten the number of cases low enough to actually extinguish the local US pandemic.

Monbiot's essential claim is that both the UK and the US leaderships ignored (or de-valued) any prior advantage that they had in pandemic preparedness, by acting like it was no big deal, when it actually was a big deal, and if they had (properly) taken it as a big deal before it got out of control, then the pandemics could have been shut down (in both the UK and the US).

I largely agree with that part of Monbiot's analysis.

The problem with the (US, for instance) shutdowns is/was not the shutdowns per se, but rather the timing of them. They were needed about two weeks sooner, and if they had been implemented two weeks sooner (when SARS-CoV-2 infections were growing exponentially yet were still in the small-quantity portion of that exponential growth), then it was possible to make the shutdowns to only last until testing bandwidth caught up with the pandemic, and we could be totally lifting all shutdowns by now.

Monbiot claims that the governments of both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson totally screwed up, and did not take the pandemic seriously enough early enough. I concur in that finding.

The shutdowns were necessary, only they were necessary earlier. It's all a matter of timing. A much earlier shutdown would have provided a better result for both the US and the UK.

At that (earlier) point in time, the motivation for shutdowns would have been much different. The shutdowns would (at that point) not have been necessary (yet) for squashing/extending the daily curves (i.e., the daily new cases and the daily new deaths curves) - something that most folks refer to as "flattening the curve." But that's actually a bad choice of terminology because those daily curves never become completely flat, they are just squashed down, and as they are squashed down, they get extended further out in time by an amount commensurate with the squashing factor. The integral of the daily curves (namely the total curves), when evaluated at the end point (i.e., after the whole pandemic is over) stays the same since it's just the area under the daily curves.

Such an earlier shutdown/stay-at-home order would have sharply squashed/extended the daily curves, but at a point in time when, although growing exponentially, the total cases was yet still small. The need for shutting it down then (weeks earlier) was *not* so as not to exceed hospital and ventilator and PPE capacity; but rather to keep total cases small enough to track them down via testing/case-tracing/quarantining to actually defeat the coronavirus. And the problem at that time (especially in the US) was insufficient testing capacity. So we absolutely needed an (earlier) shutdown just to let testing capacity catch up with extant cases. That's why we needed it then. Monbiot (improperly) refrains from stating that, so I'll state it for him right here.

Both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump were dumb-asses for not shutting down earlier. Or, perhaps more properly stated, all the advisors of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump (at least the ones that they were listening to and not ignoring at the time) were dumb-asses for not advising them to shut down earlier. And that includes Fauci. Let me say it in so many words: Fauci was a dumb ass (at that point in time; perhaps his record from here on out will improve).

No malice. Just dumb-ass bumbling.

> @Section2: They (i.e., the UK) actually started out with the Sweden (correct) approach, and caved to maniacal progs.

This latter statement by @Section2 is partly correct (the first "started out with the Sweden approach" part, that is) and more partly correct (the end "and caved to (the) progs" part, that is). But the aspect of that sentence that is positively, absolutely incorrect is the two parts that claim that (a) the progs were "maniacal" and (b) that the Swedish approach was "correct."

The progs were not maniacal. What they (at least eventually) claimed was necessary (i.e., the shutdowns/stay-at-home orders) were indeed necessary, it's just that they were really necessary a couple weeks earlier, that's all. If such shutdowns had occurred sufficiently earlier, then they could have been shorter (less-economy-damaging) shutdowns. At that point they would only have been needed long enough for testing bandwidth to catch up with cases. After such a brief shutdown, during which testing catches up, then (in the US, for instance) a Swedish approach might have been an option since we could have gotten active infections even lower during the brief shutdown, and with sufficient testing in place, we could have used testing plus contact tracing plus quarantining of the infected, along with the Swedish approach for everything else (except lockdown of the nursing homes is required in any event).

In fact, the historical path that actually did evolve for the US was that we skipped the opportunity for such an early shutdown. The UK also skipped its opportunity for an early shutdown. Both countries advanced too late in the cycle - to the point where things were already out of control and the infection had spread to all parts of the respective countries.

At that later date, the (somewhat longer) shutdowns/stay-at-home orders were still absolutely necessary, but for a different reason. The new reason was to prevent exceeding the capacity of hospitals and ventilators and PPE supply. It was too late to stem the pandemic entirely. That opportunity was already squandered by extremely poor leadership on both sides of the pond.

And most importantly, the opportunity for leveraging the Swedish approach in the future was largely gone as well. At least we see so in hindsight. We (and the Brits) had painted ourselves into a corner. The local pandemic(s) were so rampant at that point, that any attempt to "let the virus proceed through the population" (Swedish style) would almost immediately push our hospital/ventilator/PPE needs over capacity. Relinquishing the lockdowns too soon (once we had gotten to that point) would likely send coronavirus growth back into exponential mode, with disastrous consequences.

Then too (also in hindsight) the US (can't say about the UK, but perhaps there as well) shutdowns were not designed properly at all. There were many things wrong with them, including way too much of the "one size fits all of my state's counties" approach that shuts down International Falls to the same extent as Minneapolis. And more smarts were needed for nursing homes. The litany of "shutdown faults" is way too long to air all that dirty laundry here.

The end result was that the net effect of the half-ass shutdowns (which is what I call them, because they were only half a shutdown, really) were generally only sufficient to get any given state's Effective R reduced to barely below the critical threshold of 1.0. In fact, such a small delta below 1.0 such that the daily new cases and daily new deaths curves, although squashed/extended (as was the goal at this point), were extended at a still-high daily cases/deaths toll that (importantly) was mostly just moving sideways (at least in the problem states). Since it's mostly only the problem states that determines the US coronavirus fate, the US daily cases/deaths curves were also mostly just moving sideways.

By sideways, I mean that for all intents and purposes the daily curves can be modeled (during the various shutdowns/stay-at-home orders) as a straight line sloping very gradually to the right (i.e., getting smaller very slowly as a function of time). In practice, this means that the daily curves are nearly linear, and with a slightly negative coefficient on the time variable (X-axis). This implies that the total (cases/deaths) curves, which are the integral of the daily curves, are actually quadratic curves. They look kinda like my "very simplistic" model, such as the graph in my recent post #14429 https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...rona-virus-should-we-worry.95159/post-1976725.

One of the reasons why all the other models are so far off, is that virtually all of those models don't properly model the current "shutdown/stay-at-home-orders" state that we are mostly in at the present (although a few of the less problematic states are now starting to relax these restrictions). Pretty much all of these models "believe" that that the rise and fall (of the daily curves) follows a pattern of a symmetric smooth curve that looks very much like a normal (Bell Curve) probability distribution, rising smoothly to a peak and then falling smoothly back to zero, and symmetric about the midpoint/peak. And that's just not the case for the current point in time. We were told of the need to "flatten the curve" (which really means to squash/extend the daily curves), and we sort-of achieved that. Except that the artificially squashed/extended curve is not a smoothly ascending then smoothly descending curve at all. It has a long, almost flat (but slightly descending) shape like a flat-top mountain.

This is due to the fact that we are currently stuck (forever, if we wrongly listen to the Gretchen Whitmer's and the Nancy Pelosi's of the world) with an Effective R slightly below 1.0. None of the mainstream models allow for this. So, most/all of the mainstream models are pretty much crap. That includes the Minnesota model, I fear. As it turns out (at least, I'm more and more coming to believe this), my "very simplistic model" that took me 5 minutes to design, might actually be better (for current conditions, anyway) than all/most of the mainstream models. A bit of humor for those of you that lean Republican: at the moment anyway, you might be equally suspect of the mainstream models (MSM) as you might tend to be suspect of the mainstream media (MSM).

Of course, things could change, model-wise. It's possible that we could go exponential again, which would happen if our Effective R went significantly higher than 1.0.

The current dilemma that we're in is that the shutdowns, although mandatory (so that a pure Swedish approach without any economy-bashing measures would simply not have worked), were not started early enough, and now that they have started too late, and were implemented in such a fashion that they only induced sideways motion of the daily curves (with Effective R at or slightly below 1.0), we now have a bunch of crazy Democrats (typified by Gretchen and Nancy) who want us to stay shutdown until the shutdowns achieve their desired results (which they will never do because they were improperly designed, so that implies that if we did so, we would go sideways at a very slow rate toward herd immunity while the economy is shutdown forever), and we also have some folks who may tend toward simply dropping all the social-distancing mandates all at once (which would take us exponential again in no time, with disastrous results). So we're stuck trying to thread the needle between two pretty much equally bad extremes. Our decision process is like walking a tight wire over the Grand Canyon.

It is too late to just unplug all the social-distancing measures all at once, and "just go Swedish." That most likely could have been done if an initial short shutdown had been implemented much earlier in the cycle of the coronavirus pandemic. But that window of opportunity is now gone. Sweden was able to do that because it had sufficient testing early on. Through CDC screw-ups, we didn't have sufficient testing (well, we didn't have any testing if you go back far enough). Given insufficient US testing bandwidth, we at least needed a very early US shutdown (in all the high-population-density spots) to let testing bandwidth catch up with current infections. But we didn't have any leaders smart enough to know that, and recommend that, and approve that.

The people who are currently yelling "let's just go Swedish starting right now" as well as the people currently yelling (well, they're not yelling this specifically, but what they're actually yelling for is tantamount to this) "let's shut down the economy and put half the population on welfare until 2023" are both miserably wrong!
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
14,876
Reaction score
1,161
Points
113
To summarize, as a species we are slow learners. It’s no surprise the few nations that have done well (thus far) in early containment of SARS2 are the ones that have had big problems with regional epidemics of SARS1 and MERS and avian flu in recent decades. If only Benjamin Franklin were here:

“Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other, and scarce in that.”

Now that those countries have the snake by the tail what do they do with it?
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
14,876
Reaction score
1,161
Points
113
I did some reading of recent studies on the epidemiology of Covid-19 on pediatrics cases. And, I found this little nugget on serious and critical levels of the disease.

"Table 2 shows the severity of illness by age and it reveals that young children, particularly infants, were vulnerable to 2019-nCoV infection. The proportion of severe and critical cases was 10.6 %, 7.3%, 4.2%, 4.1% and 3.0% for the age group of <1, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and ≥16 years, respectively."

There has been a misconception that this disease does not affect the young. The above reference is the equivalent of kids being put in intensive care and critical care in hospitals. If an infant gets the disease, they have a 1 in 10 chance of being in the hospital, and a good chunk of those cases do end up in the ICU. That gradually declines until the age of 20. And, at that point it starts to rise slowly until the 30's at which point it rises at a much more steep slope, which might be described as the take off stage.
By the time you are in your 40s, you might as well be a toddler again. You have similar chances of 1 in 10 going to the ICU or Critical Care of the hospital. And, we know from there the chance keeps getting larger as you go up the age scale.

When an infant gets pneumonia, a common secondary condition of Covid-19, babies do not fare well. Every year on planet Earth, some 1.5 million babies die of pneumonia of all types. Covid-19 plus pneumonia is more lethal than that. Some people think that we must protect our elderly as the goal of the lockdown. I disagree. The goal is to protect the very young. We do not need them to end up in the ICU intubated with pneumonia. The prognosis is not good for those kids. And, we know that with Covid-19, about 15% of cases become severe, Babies are not that far behind adults. But, with babies, the prognosis is really poor. They just don't have the immune system to defeat pneumonia well.

The data and report came from China. About 1800 kids were studied who had Covid-19. If you want the citation, I'm not going to give it to you out of selfish pleasure in denying the masses free access to freely available material. You would have to have double blind folds on to not find it in a simple search engine of scholarly articles. You might use a keyword search of "pediatrics", "Covid-19" and "epidemiology" to find them all. It is not a long list. Google.com/scholar can find it for you in about 14 nanoseconds. If that isn't fast enough for you, tough shitzkies. I really don't care for your excessive laziness and silver spoon executive attitudes. If you want that type of service, all you will get from me is my rather working class middle finger salute and the Almighty's effenheimer. There are those on this board who expect this level of catering. And, you know whether it involves yourself, the reader.

Discuss among yourselves. Your opinions mean nothing to me.
Yes, it’s a Chinese CCP-censored study so immediately suspect. Regardless of that I did look it up and the study indicates 94.2% of 2135 diagnosed pediatric cases were asymptomatic to moderate. They looked at the entire cohort of (reported) pediatric cases in China which means 123 children had severe or critical disease and one 14 year old boy did pass. Now if you believe China is reporting all of its cases (I don’t) that means the infection fatality rate was 1:2135. If you believe the actual rate of infection is at minimum 10x the reported number then it is 1:20135. Still not great, but not as scary. It might compare favorably to seasonal influenza in the <5 yr age group.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
No one loves our troops like Trump!

More than 40,000 National Guard members currently helping states test residents for the coronavirus and trace the spread of infections will face a “hard stop” on their deployments on June 24 — just one day shy of many members becoming eligible for key federal benefits, according to a senior FEMA official.

The official outlined the Trump administration’s plans on an interagency call on May 12, an audio version of which was obtained by POLITICO. The official also acknowledged during the call that the June 24 deadline means that thousands of members who first deployed in late March will find themselves with only 89 days of duty credit, one short of the 90-day threshold for qualifying for early retirement and education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI bill.

Howie hates fiscal responsibility.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
I did some reading of recent studies on the epidemiology of Covid-19 on pediatrics cases. And, I found this little nugget on serious and critical levels of the disease.

"Table 2 shows the severity of illness by age and it reveals that young children, particularly infants, were vulnerable to 2019-nCoV infection. The proportion of severe and critical cases was 10.6 %, 7.3%, 4.2%, 4.1% and 3.0% for the age group of <1, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and ≥16 years, respectively."

There has been a misconception that this disease does not affect the young. The above reference is the equivalent of kids being put in intensive care and critical care in hospitals. If an infant gets the disease, they have a 1 in 10 chance of being in the hospital, and a good chunk of those cases do end up in the ICU. That gradually declines until the age of 20. And, at that point it starts to rise slowly until the 30's at which point it rises at a much more steep slope, which might be described as the take off stage.
By the time you are in your 40s, you might as well be a toddler again. You have similar chances of 1 in 10 going to the ICU or Critical Care of the hospital. And, we know from there the chance keeps getting larger as you go up the age scale.

When an infant gets pneumonia, a common secondary condition of Covid-19, babies do not fare well. Every year on planet Earth, some 1.5 million babies die of pneumonia of all types. Covid-19 plus pneumonia is more lethal than that. Some people think that we must protect our elderly as the goal of the lockdown. I disagree. The goal is to protect the very young. We do not need them to end up in the ICU intubated with pneumonia. The prognosis is not good for those kids. And, we know that with Covid-19, about 15% of cases become severe, Babies are not that far behind adults. But, with babies, the prognosis is really poor. They just don't have the immune system to defeat pneumonia well.

The data and report came from China. About 1800 kids were studied who had Covid-19. If you want the citation, I'm not going to give it to you out of selfish pleasure in denying the masses free access to freely available material. You would have to have double blind folds on to not find it in a simple search engine of scholarly articles. You might use a keyword search of "pediatrics", "Covid-19" and "epidemiology" to find them all. It is not a long list. Google.com/scholar can find it for you in about 14 nanoseconds. If that isn't fast enough for you, tough shitzkies. I really don't care for your excessive laziness and silver spoon executive attitudes. If you want that type of service, all you will get from me is my rather working class middle finger salute and the Almighty's effenheimer. There are those on this board who expect this level of catering. And, you know whether it involves yourself, the reader.

Discuss among yourselves. Your opinions mean nothing to me.
Right, for hypothetical example, if for every 1000 in the general population age <15, there are 5 who got infected with any symptoms, and then 1 got severe symptoms .... well there you go, that's 20% proportion of the infected who get severe symptoms.

As opposed to age >45, where 150 out of 1000 in the general population got infected with any symptoms, then 30 got severe symptoms. SEE! The same 20% proportion !!!

But the number of infected means nothing. Let's pretend that doesn't exist.



Keep trying to bang this absurd drum that age means nothing.

Top, actual experts at the U will say you're misrepresenting reality. Shall I make the call?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Yes, it’s a Chinese CCP-censored study so immediately suspect. Regardless of that I did look it up and the study indicates 94.2% of 2135 diagnosed pediatric cases were asymptomatic to moderate. They looked at the entire cohort of (reported) pediatric cases in China which means 123 children had severe or critical disease and one 14 year old boy did pass. Now if you believe China is reporting all of its cases (I don’t) that means the infection fatality rate was 1:2135. If you believe the actual rate of infection is at minimum 10x the reported number then it is 1:20135. Still not great, but not as scary. It might compare favorably to seasonal influenza in the <5 yr age group.
Dean is really being an asshat about this. Especially the part about refusing to provide citations. Disqualifies him from sharing these opinions, to be honest.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
14,876
Reaction score
1,161
Points
113
Dean is really being an asshat about this. Especially the part about refusing to provide citations. Disqualifies him from sharing these opinions, to be honest.
I’m still waiting on the evidence of long term damage/fibrosis in asymptomatics. On the face of it it seems odd asymptomatics would a) present to a hospital or b) undergo a CT scan or other testing amid a pandemic. I’m also curious of the alleged mechanism of progressive lung injury referred to, that should prevent military service. I suspect we haven’t seen any links because they don’t exist but Dean will have to comment.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,414
Reaction score
1,040
Points
113
Minnesota Covid-19 Update - Wednesday, May 20th. Using data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive cases 17,670 +645.

Deaths 777 +29.

Deaths at Long-term care and Assisted Living facilities 635 +27.

Patients Hospitalized 550 +5.

Patients In ICU 212 -17.

Total Tests Processed 167,338 +5,503.


(number of patients hospitalized goes up again. will have to see if this is a spike or a trend. and if any of them visited the Candy Store.....)
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,796
Reaction score
858
Points
113
Minnesota Covid-19 Update - Wednesday, May 20th. Using data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive cases 17,670 +645.

Deaths 777 +29.

Deaths at Long-term care and Assisted Living facilities 635 +27.

Patients Hospitalized 550 +5.

Patients In ICU 212 -17.

Total Tests Processed 167,338 +5,503.


(number of patients hospitalized goes up again. will have to see if this is a spike or a trend. and if any of them visited the Candy Store.....)
So 27 of the 29 fatalities (93%) were at nursing homes (aka Long-term care and Assisted Living facilities). Yet the libs still defend his decision to take infected patients out of hospitals and send them to nursing homes...
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
14,876
Reaction score
1,161
Points
113
So 27 of the 29 fatalities (93%) were at nursing homes (aka Long-term care and Assisted Living facilities). Yet the libs still defend his decision to take infected patients out of hospitals and send them to nursing homes...
I’m not sure of the particulars on the NY policy but I believe they were sending back suspected and recovered, not actively infected positives but I could be wrong. Even then, probably a horrible idea to send anyone from a COVID hospital directly to a long term care facility without a thorough delousing and minimum 7 day isolation ”halfway house”. These facilities won’t even allow family visitors. Like a lot of things with policy so far it doesn’t make much sense to let the enemy in the front door. Some people have a lot of answering to do. Cuomo is probably bulletproof in a state like NY even if he lined up the elderly and shot them.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom