https://theweek.com/speedreads…leblowers-residents-claim
"faking" power consumption by forcing businesses to keep lights on and fake reports on worker numbers.
Lights Are On but No One’s Working: How Local Governments Are Faking Coronavirus Recovery
https://www.caixinglobal.com/2…s-recovery-101524058.html
in a video circulating on social media, residents can be seen shouting at visiting leaders from the apartments where they're being quarantined — "Fake, it's all fake."
All Hospital Beds In The US Will Be Filled With Patients 'By About May 8th' Due To Coronavirus: Analysis
https://www.zerohedge.com/heal…ay-8th-according-analysis
........Let’s trust Italy’s numbers and assume that about 10% of cases are serious enough to require hospitalization. (Keep in mind that for many patients, hospitalization lasts for *weeks* — in other words, turnover will be *very* slow as beds fill with COVID19 patients).By this estimate, by about May 8th, all open hospital beds in the US will be filled. (This says nothing, of course, about whether these beds are suitable for isolation of patients with a highly infectious virus.)
If only 5% of cases require it, we can make it until ~May 14th. 2.5% gets us to May 20th...….
word of caution. realization I had looked at the CFR number incorrectly. (Not that I have used that figure here much but it is often used by talking head general practitioners on TV)
The CFR is not the current number of deaths divided by the current cases. Notice that the recording of death from time of hospital admission to death takes an average of 14 days. So the correct CFR should be based on current death totals divided by the number of recorded cases 14 days ago.
You can get an estimate from daily figures by current deaths/current recovered cases +deaths.
Just something to think about for you number pushers.
Yes, it is really should have the addition of "hidden cases" but how can you do that reliably?
Display Moreword of caution. realization I had looked at the CFR number incorrectly. (Not that I have used that figure here much but it is often used by talking head general practitioners on TV)
The CFR is not the current number of deaths divided by the current cases. Notice that the recording of death from time of hospital admission to death takes an average of 14 days. So the correct CFR should be based on current death totals divided by the number of recorded cases 14 days ago.
You can get an estimate from daily figures by current deaths/current recovered cases +deaths.
Just something to think about for you number pushers.
Yes, it is really should have the addition of "hidden cases" but how can you do that reliably?
The best estimates take account the fact that recently diagnosed cases may yet die (easy) and also the expected large number of undetected cases that have minimal symptoms and do not show up in the statistics.
CFR must incorporate the undetected cases. They are estimated using mathematical models for transmission and looking at detected case dynamics over time which can give clues. But the estimates are not reliable. for CFR that gives expected 1% but anything in range 0.5% - 4% possible - those figures are probably out of date now, and also are based on historic treatment. It may get better as we understand more about how to treat people. Or worse, if health systems become overwhelmed.
Try here for an explanation:
All Hospital Beds In The US Will Be Filled With Patients 'By About May 8th' Due To Coronavirus: Analysis
https://www.zerohedge.com/heal…ay-8th-according-analysis
........Let’s trust Italy’s numbers and assume that about 10% of cases are serious enough to require hospitalization. (Keep in mind that for many patients, hospitalization lasts for *weeks* — in other words, turnover will be *very* slow as beds fill with COVID19 patients).By this estimate, by about May 8th, all open hospital beds in the US will be filled. (This says nothing, of course, about whether these beds are suitable for isolation of patients with a highly infectious virus.)If only 5% of cases require it, we can make it until ~May 14th. 2.5% gets us to May 20th...….
PS - zerohedge is a profoundly unreliable site. Don't use it for this sort of information.
[The Chinese have done extensive testing of the population which appears to be healthy, and they have found very few infections.]
They jailed (at home) the population of all affected cities for 4 weeks!
Your sentence has nothing to do with my sentence.
ME: They tested the healthy population and found few infections.
YOU: They jailed people.
So what if they did jail people? Why does that call into question or negate their conclusions from testing hundreds of thousands of apparently healthy people? Your statement is irrelevant and illogical.
In point of fact they did not "jail" people. They told them to stay at home, and then they organized deliveries of food, medicine and other things to keep those people safe. If Italy, the U.S. and other countries do not do something similar, hundreds of thousands of people will get sick, and many thousands will die unnecessarily. The Italians are, finally, taking such steps:
https://www.reuters.com/articl…avirus-jump-idUSKBN20U0RZ
In China yesterday there were only 100 new cases, all of them in Wuhan. Not one in any other city. Industry and schools in other cities are opening in stages, as every employee and student is tested. Meanwhile, in New York state there are only a thousand test kits and doctors are pleading for more. (It sometimes takes more than one kit to determine whether a patient has the disease.)
Even if the epidemic continues at the rate of 100 patients per day for a year until a vaccine becomes available, that will not hurt the Chinese economy much. They can afford that. In Italy, there were 1,247 new cases yesterday. In China, 56 people per million are sick; in Italy it is 97/million, and in S. Korea 137/million. In other words, the pandemic is far worse in Italy and S. Korea than China, because they have not taken the necessary steps to reduce it. The U.S. will soon be in the same condition. People are biologically the same everywhere.
Yes, it is really should have the addition of "hidden cases" but how can you do that reliably?
By testing hundreds of thousands of people both inside and outside the quarantine zones, and finding out how many have the disease now, but were not recorded. Also with antibody tests to hundreds of thousands of people to find out how many of them had it previously and have now recovered. The ones who did not go in for treatment were hidden.
Why would that not work? How else could it be done? Take a large sample and extrapolate to the whole population. This is how you determine any trend, or measure any social or public health parameter.
The Chinese are doing both of these things. Together, they allow an accurate estimate of hidden cases. They have shown there were very few hidden cases. Unfortunately, that means the mortality rate really is between 0.6 and 2%, depending on the location and situation.
Clinical trials from bigpharm and China increasing.. vaccines and antivirals
https://www.genengnews.com/a-l…reatments-in-development/
That is not exactly correct.
The problem with such testing is that you cannot catch people who have had the infection and overcome it.
When we have a reliable antibody-based test we will be able to do that and the epidemiological position will be much more certain. We do not at the moment have that.
The Chinese know that. They are performing hundreds of thousands of antibody tests. This was described in the W.H.O. report and in Alyward's presentation. I suggest you review these before commenting.
The Chinese know that. They are performing hundreds of thousands of antibody tests. This was described in the W.H.O. report and in Alyward's presentation. I suggest you review these before commenting.
Perhaps you could link something.
I very much doubt the Chinese are performing 100,000 antibody tests because they are still in process of being developed.
https://www.the-scientist.com/…ovid-19-diagnostics-67210
(March 3rd)
It seems some unis in Singapore think they have one.
QuoteI think it's probably worth just sticking to tonic water which will only possibly give you a slight edge against the virus - any slight advantage could be the difference between life and death
Complete nonsense. The amount of quinine in modern tonic water, if that is what you are thinking of, is negligible to zero. Look it up. Some has only quinine flavor and no quinine at all.
I suggest drinking rum. It does nothing against coronavirus but it does allay anxiety, albeit very termporarily. And if it is over 120 proof (60% ethanol) it can be used in a pinch, to clean surfaces and hands. Smells good too.
In point of fact they did not "jail" people. They told them to stay at home, and then they organized deliveries of food,
They did in fact jail them. They built walls up to 3 meters around all buildings with a single checkpoint for selected individuals allowed to leave e.g. twice a week... what does this tell about China? China is the most ready country to contain their people - sorry slaves....
This is not from conspiracy sites: A one our documentation published by several European broadcast centers.
The Chinese know that. They are performing hundreds of thousands of antibody tests.
According to western news no antibody test do exist so far. Also regular tests only have a hit ratio of 50%. If you know one then please tell our doctors... Reference labs have to do PCR on positive tested people.
Forget all illusions and follow the Swiss doctrine. No more testing/hospital isolation of soft cases no more tracking of infections as it simply is faking the people, telling them a myth, instead of preparing them for the (rare) emergency case(s).
The best measure today to estimate how severe cover-19 is can be get by looking at the increase of the daily death rate. Any sudden decrease in the rate - like just happened in Italy - tells that only highly sensitive people get killed.
Please remind that in Wuhan most people were sensitive like the strongest smokers, due to outraging air pollution and acid fog.
According to western news no antibody test do exist so far.
The W.H.O. says otherwise.
Serological assays (antibody tests) for COVID-19 do exist. They are not used in the USA... that I know of yet. Here are two citations:
https://globalbiodefense.com/h…outbreak-contact-tracing/
QuoteResearchers at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore have used antibody testing to demonstrate a link between two separate clusters of infections, and in patients who had cleared their symptoms at the time they were given the antibody test. Meanwhile, researchers in Taiwan are also working to identify a SARS-CoV-2 antibody that could be used for diagnostic testing, and they say such a test could deliver a result in a matter of minutes rather than hours.
https://www.the-scientist.com/…ovid-19-diagnostics-67210
Testing for antibody is not intended for diagnosis. It is used for infection tracing in patients who have recovered and are no longer shedding virus from their respiratory tract and nose. Their real time PCR test for virus would be negative but antibodies remain in the blood for a long time and can be detected.
rather bad radio news this morning... more or less a lock down of northern italy - all of lombardia, milano, parts of veneto with venecia (red zone). According to news no one is allowed in or out. 10 million people are locked up. 1/6 of total population. Measures have been leaked too early and people tried to escape to southern, not so affected parts, of italy. Over 5800 infections in italy!
How is India doing? They either don't care to test and report or having large number of vegans keeps them immune.
India is 39 so far.
Testing for antibody is not intended for diagnosis. It is used for infection tracing in patients who have recovered and are no longer shedding virus from their respiratory tract and nose.
As said: All done by PCR no real antibody test only streamlined for most important RNA pieces.
A real antibody test would need no PCR, just a ligand that contacts to DNA/RNA and can be read out either optically or by a simple chemical process.
May be its again the simplifying English when people mix-up "anti-body test" what in German would be one word and in English also just means testing for antibody...
As said: All done by PCR no real antibody test only streamlined for most important RNA pieces.
A real antibody test would need no PCR, just a ligand that contacts to DNA/RNA and can be read out either optically or by a simple chemical process.
May be its again the simplifying English when people mix-up "anti-body test" what in German would be one word and in English also just means testing for antibody...
The test that is being used is a non-specific antibody test showing recent recovery from an infection generating new antibodies. That is not specific to COVID-19 but can be used to improve reliability of nucleic acid COVID-19 testing. It is not much good for epidemiological work, and AFAIK not used for that purpose in China.
What we need for epidemiological work is a test that specifically detects COVID-19 antibodies, which would determine accurately what percentage of the population had ever been infected. I'm not sure whether the Singapore preliminary tests are that: but if not it will no doubt happen eventually. The point is that such a test is irrelevant to containment, but essential for any accurate estimate of CFR.
