Covid-19 News

  • Those (facts) being that children and young students have almost no risk from the virus,

    That is an outrageous thing to say! They are as likely to be infected as anyone. Perhap you mean they are less likely to suffer severe illness or die, but that does not mean there is no risk. There is far greater risk to them than from seasonal influenza. They are much more likely to end up with life-long disabilities.


    FURTHERMORE, as I have said repeatedly, there is a larger risk that the children will infect adults at home, or teachers in the school.

  • Students in Universities here are sneaking out at night to leave their COVID-infected residences and (I suppose) are trying to return home, where If positive will be further spreading the virus to their parents-Meanwhile in London, Anti-lockdown protest marches became violent after police 'Kettling' resulted in bottles being thrown. There is a widespread sense that the government simply does not know what it is doing and we seem to be veering into a state of general anarchy - I still think this all could have been avoided if we had done as the Germans and others had done and stockpiled HCQ, Avigan and the rest of anti-bat and focused on the treatment now rather than 'vaccines sometime in the distant future (maybe)' so we could advise every citizen of a preventative therapy and secondly an acute treatment once symptoms arose. As it is we will have to eventually do this anyway, because gradually enough good people with common sense will start protecting themselves regardless of the so-called 'sensible' advice from pharmacists, the NHS and puffed up government officials:)


  • You are probably right, but as the testing becomes so widespread, and the virus has made it;s rounds, the guesstimate for infection rate will draw closer to the case rate. With 200,000 tests/day, that may be happening. Anyway.thanks for the heads-up, but I do not see anything blatant in the graph, unless it was done by an expert.


    Shane - please stop talking off the top of your head without engaging brain?


    The infection rate now is close to the case rate - true. Though there are still many asymptomatic infections that nevcer get traced and therefore are not counted as traces.


    WHAT ABOUT THE INFECTION RATE DURING THE FIRST PEAK?


    Surely Shane even you can see that with only a few thousand tests per day, and government advice for those with symptoms was to stay at home WITHOUT A TEST, the infection rate should be much higher.


    Now, this is where you need to engage brain a bit. If the infection rate was MUCH higher than the case rate when people with symptoms were told not to test (and anyway there were only enough tests for those in hospital, and you only got to hospital with serious COVID) you can then see that the infection rate graph should have been 10X higher or so then (100K not 10K) compared with 7K now, and would look nothing like the CASE rate graph - which is why changing the label is such an egregious lie. BTW - where does this graphic come from? I can see it in mailOnline but they may have grabbed it from elsewhere - it seems to have gone viral.


    1. So we have : approx 10X factor from the lying INFECTION label - Shane please eat your words or i will go ob explaining in simpler words till you admit what I'm saying is correct. That 10X difference (it was really 10X higher as infections than the graphic shows) is the direct factual error
    2. approx 5X factor from the 2-3 weeks delay between cases and deaths (look at how steep that graph is in the UK). That is merely an implied error - because most people don't think to align the graphs correctly
    3. Some factor (not sure how large, but definitely > 1, for the skew in demographics, with old people now sheltering at least a bit, and young going out and partying. That is well justified by facts but is I guess less obvious than the other two.


    I'm just trying to set the record straight so that people here are not mislead: Shane, Bjonk and Mark u ticked the orginal lie, seem to have ignored my correction, if Shane's reply here is anything to go by.


    The real infection rate now from which current deaths in UK should be calculated is some 30 - 200X lower lower than what it was at the peak (broad range because each figure above is uncertain without more research than I can be bothered to do). There is actually quite a lot of noise in the death figures at that time - due to detection of specific outbreaks. Now that rate is a bit higher we are getting community transmission everywhere and the curve will alas be smoother.


    The various people who are broadly arguing that we should not now have lockdown have possible real arguments - not least of which is that a large death toll of mostly old people is preferable to the economic hit - though Jed's counter-argument is that in a free society because people are not idiots you get an economic hit anyway from people's behaviour as soon as you let the infection rate go high. It therefore is very annoying to me that instead of doing a good job arguing these things they seem to rely on obviously and provably (see above) bogus comparisons.

  • Students in Universities here are sneaking out at night to leave their COVID-infected residences and (I suppose) are trying to return home, where If positive will be further spreading the virus to their parents-Meanwhile in London, Anti-lockdown protest marches became violent after police 'Kettling' resulted in bottles being thrown. There is a widespread sense that the government simply does not know what it is doing and we seem to be veering into a state of general anarchy -


    Police kettling a march in these high COVID rate times beggars belief. I think I'd feel like becoming violent if forced not to social distance by police in such a march. At very least I'd accuse those doing the kettling of reckless endangerment.

  • we have had the schools open all the time in Sweden and the teachers were better of then other work groups


    Yes, I'd like to have better understanding of how transmission happens from all these asymptomatic cases. I'd guess that you need quite close contact because children only seem to infect about 20% of other household members. Presumably your teachers are not hugging children nor within 1m very often.


    Another thing to factor in is the average age of teachers - unless you are testing them enough that you reckon the figures will catch all infections?

  • Here is quite recent data (August 21 published) on the IFR in the UK (and hence how those deaths relate to infection numbers)


    https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/…atality-ratio-in-england/


    We recently presented an estimate of recent declining trends in the case fatality ratio (CFR) in England. But there is a question of much greater interest: what is the probability of death conditional on infection, or the infection fatality ratio (IFR)?

    Variation in testing behaviour and case ascertainment over time means that any trends in cases do not necessarily reflect trends in infections. Similarly, trends in the CFR do not necessarily reflect trends in the IFR. The CFR is also an overestimate of the IFR, being scaled up by the ratio of actual infections to infections detected.

    This article presents data from two models estimating daily infections in England, deriving recent IFRs estimates of 0.30% using the MRC unit’s data and 0.49% using ONS data.

  • Yes, I'd like to have better understanding of how transmission happens from all these asymptomatic cases.


    The illness has three natural stages.

    1) Nasal infection

    2) Upper lung

    3) Full lung/ body with forming out a lot of fluids.


    In children it seems to stop latest at 2). So they produce not much aerosols.


    More dangerous is a strong aerosol transmission directly going to phase 2) what gives the immune system less time to cope with the threat. You should also note that the exposed area (surface) nasal/upper lung / full is always increasing by a very large factor.


    There was a recent paper about nasal only infections - a follow up of nasal vaccination - that shows that with the right dose (in the nose) the immune system works as expected.


    Good tip. Even when you talk - in a heat - use your nose for breathing !!

  • This article presents data from two models estimating daily infections in England, deriving recent IFRs estimates of 0.30% using the MRC unit’s data and 0.49% using ONS data.


    Thanks! And "Estimates from the MRC data appear to be more stable over time, having fallen by around 55% in the six weeks to 4 August, compared to a fall of over 80% for estimates based on the ONS data."

    EDIT : And with the correct search term : https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru…p/planning-scenarios.html
    Gives the current IFR (under various scenarios) .. but not the trend.

    EDIT2 : Is Covid-19 growing less lethal? The infection fatality rate says ‘no’
    https://www.statnews.com/2020/…isnt-getting-less-deadly/

    This yielded an infection fatality rate of 0.63%, which is not significantly different from the CDC’s best estimate of 0.65% for the U.S. in the Spring of 2020.

  • I'm just trying to set the record straight so that people here are not mislead: Shane, Bjonk and Mark u ticked the orginal lie, seem to have ignored my correction, if Shane's reply here is anything to go by.


    THH, I'll reply because I find this fascinating. When I 'ticked' (liked) Zeus46's post showing the graph, I did so for two reasons. One his comment : "I think the real scale of the problem is shown by the lower graph." Two, notice the amazing colour coordination between the graph and Zeus46's avatar pic. Striking black, red, yellow and blue!

    Unlike you, when I saw the word 'infection' instead of 'case' on the graph, what came immediately to mind was that the creator was not familiar with the lingo of epidemiologists, who of course distinguish between 'infection' and 'case' rate. But THH then you go and parrot it as 'fake news', as if the mistake was a deliberate lie and as if it was some kind of big deal. It's not a big deal to me, at all. The main point is that the death rate is probably more a close indicator of the true infection rate than PCR test data reveal, due to profound differences in PCR testing numbers and protocols between the early and later stages.

  • Police kettling a march in these high COVID rate times beggars belief. I think I'd feel like becoming violent if forced not to social distance by police in such a march. At very least I'd accuse those doing the kettling of reckless endangerment.

    We residents of Toronto do not forget the kettling of citizens during the G20 in 2010 and their subsequent mistreatment. So bizarrely unCanadian. A day of infamy and shame for the police of Toronto and outlying regions.

  • Yes, I'd like to have better understanding of how transmission happens from all these asymptomatic cases. I'd guess that you need quite close contact because children only seem to infect about 20% of other household members. Presumably your teachers are not hugging children nor within 1m very often.


    Another thing to factor in is the average age of teachers - unless you are testing them enough that you reckon the figures will catch all infections?

    The one stating this are expert of stats, I think that age groups are factored in, that's standard procedures if you know the stats of this decease. Anyway they do take measures in school by being careful to send home children when they have symptoms, washing hands and keep distances. No masks for children, people that ask for such measures are seen to be unrealistic by us and a bit weird. Also when we do not have much outbreaks in school why bother. Gymnasium have been closed or teachers taught at distance. They are opening now with a ton of precautions, a few outbreaks that are under control have been the result and currently things go well. No masks, but they are making sure there is no crowding and that people do not meet outside the study groups.

  • you have to gather enough information yourself. E.g. I just read - German doctors heavily prescribe HCQ!

    https://www.eturbonews.com/578…-rates-is-low-in-germany/

    Why is the death rate in Germany so low compared to others?

    eTurboNews talked to a medical professional in Germany involved in the treatment of Coronavirus.

    He or she did not want to be named but said there is a reason for it.

    Kept as an internal secret the treatment protocol in the Federal Republic of Germany looks very different from other regions.

    211,060 infections, 395 new cases today, 9226 dead, including two more today.

    This is the COVID-19 situation in Germany.2,518 Germans out of 1 million had the virus, and 110 out of a million died.

    These are sad numbers, but compared with neighboring Belgium, 849 people out of a million died with 5,930 infected.

    The UK counts for 680 fatalities out of a million with 4,475 infected out of a million.


    Germany’s unpublished treatment protocol was also followed by Dr. Stella,...

    She claimed in public that “No American has to die” ..eTurboNews has seen the video with her statement.

    It was removed by Facebook and YouTube for “spreading information that is against WHO guidelines.”


    Based on the available scientific evidence and current clinical experience,

    the SPR Collaboration recommends that physicians and authorities consider the following Covid-19 treatment ..

    This information had been published in the Swiss Policy Research.

    It’s important that patients are instructed to consult a doctor before implementing any such protocol.

    Treatment protocol

    1. Zinc (75mg- 100mg per day) 2.Hydroxychloroquine (400mg per day) ...



    1. https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/
  • I'm just trying to set the record straight so that people here are not mislead: Shane


    You are right, so the record is straight. Like Mark, I really did not attach as much significance to the upper graph as you. What matters is the bottom (favorable death trend). Frankly, I tend to ignore case trends, as they have been so abused.


    Good of you though to explain to us why the mislabeling (infections instead of cases) was so important, and misleading. Whether an intentional "big lie", or amateur mistake, those errors have to be noted, and corrected.

  • Why is the death rate in Germany so low compared to others?

    eTurboNews talked to a medical professional in Germany involved in the treatment of Coronavirus.

    He or she did not want to be named but said there is a reason for it.

    Kept as an internal secret the treatment protocol in the Federal Republic of Germany looks very different from other regions


    Be nice to have that confirmed by some source within Germany. With all the hoopla surrounding HCQ, it would be a hard secret to keep in a developed country. The W.H.O. has eyes everywhere.

  • Young people are infecting older people in waves. Quote:


    "In states like Alabama, Florida and Georgia, transmission was more sequential. The increase among people in the 20-to-39 age group was followed by a bump in cases nine days later among those ages 40 to 59, and then another rise in cases 15 days later among people 60 and older."


    "College campuses have become a particular threat. According to a database maintained by The New York Times, there were more than 88,000 coronavirus infections reported on nearly 1,200 campuses as of early September."


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…navirus-young-adults.html


    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6939e1.htm

  • [Perhaps you mean they are less likely to suffer severe illness or die, but that does not mean there is no risk.]


    Yes, of course that is what I meant.


    I think you are overlooking the main point made by the CDC and others. The risk for young people is not so much to themselves, but to older people they live with, work with, or encounter. They are just as likely to be infected as other age groups. They are just as contagious when infected, even though their cases tend to be light. Since the cases tend to be light, they may not even realize they are sick, so they may go around spreading it to others. (This happened to my nephew.) So, they are a danger to rest of the population more than to themselves.


    This is a good thing in nearly every respect. It would be nightmare if the disease was worse in young people. The 1918 pandemic was more dangerous to young people than older people. I gather this is because death was caused by an allergic reaction, which was stronger in young, healthy people.

  • Exactly. Here we do a lot of antigen tests in blood and they don't correlate well with PCR tests on nasopharyngeal tests. In asymptomatic people a positive PCR test does not necessarily lead to a positive antigen test in blood despite excellent sensitivity (<1 pg/ml LOQ) of the antigen test. In many subjects the virus does not come into the circulation, cannot replicate itself and as such asymptomatic people are way less contagious. This includes not only children but also aged people who have low levels of endothelial nflammation (with VitD a big player to minimize endothelial inflammation).


    A PCR test has very low value, it just says whether someone has been exposed to the virus. It does not say anything about infection and still less about contagiosity. Only an antigen test in blood, and still better in saliva, does provide information on contagiosity.


    Here in Switzerland we see the first hints of a herd immunity. We currently have less cases of SARS-COV-2 than of rhino, influenza, etc... viruses.