Personally I only consider biochemical evidence as being reliable, which clearly suggests all the proposed Anti Bat components have activity against this coronavirus. Clinical evidence is always secondary whether RCT double blind or not.
Covid-19 News
- Alan Smith
- Closed
-
-
Anyway, going up to 25% infection through the US would be much much higher than current levels, so this is not relevant to decisions about lockdown or not at current level.
Worldmeters has the U.S. at 3,000 cases per million (0.3%). Assuming that is off by a factor of 10, and the actual total is 3%, 25% infected would be 8.3 times more cases than we probably have. Meaning total deaths would be ~500,000.
To put it another way, 25% of the U.S. population is 82 million. So, if 25% have been infected we should have seen ~825,000 deaths.
The mortality rate cannot be much lower than 1%, based on data from Korea and other places that have controlled the epidemic, and that have first-rate healthcare. The U.S. healthcare and general health of the population is far below Korea, so we will have a higher mortality rate.
-
So if there is such a group, and they are resistant to the virus, but when tested show no antibodies,
In some cases the antibodies are only produced for a short time (a few weeks or months) and then "go away"
That is the immunity may only last for a short time.
I expect a second wave in the US but not Sweden.
-
I fully expect a second wave in the US this winter. We should prepare now for that- PPE strategic stockpiles, sites with at least minimal infrastructure support for emergency hospitals/test sites/ etc.
By sites, I envision communities leveling areas and routing utilities for the areas. Perhaps they won't be needed now but communities should have such places designated for future emergencies (tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires....)
I would a lot rather have such emergency sites available than more endowments for the Kennedy Center and the house's pet projects.
-
Worldmeters has the U.S. at 3,000 cases per million (0.3%). Assuming that is off by a factor of 10, and the actual total is 3%, 25% infected would be 8.3 times more cases than we probably have. Meaning total deaths would be ~500,000.
To put it another way, 25% of the U.S. population is 82 million. So, if 25% have been infected we should have seen ~825,000 deaths.
The mortality rate cannot be much lower than 1%, based on data from Korea and other places that have controlled the epidemic, and that have first-rate healthcare. The U.S. healthcare and general health of the population is far below Korea, so we will have a higher mortality rate.
OR,
It is off by a factor of 10, (the other way), and there are actually 30 million people that have already been infected, not 3 million,
And that possibility moves the decimal the other way.
Until we KNOW, we don’t.
It is difficult to make intelligent, informed decisions with out all of the required data.
-
This is what it is really about. The social engineering begins.
Cue board members to start debating this topic! Suggested topics: who gets it first? in the arm or in the rear? should ID 2020 be mandatory or not? can we board planes or not wt/ vaccine?
recommended: https://londonreal.tv/digital-…rview-1-dr-rashid-buttar/ banned by Youtube!
-
Cue board members to start debating this topic! Suggested topics: who gets it first? in the arm or in the rear? should ID 2020 be mandatory or not? can we board planes or not wt/ vaccine?
The site "londonreal.tv" wants your e-mail not quite what I expect of a freedom site.
Only uneducated idiots believes that a vaccine for covid-19 will be needed for reopening etc.. The research for corona vaccine is old - 40 unsuccessful years now and we know that the virus changes to fast and immunity for mild corona lasts only 1 year in average. This would be the ideal business case for a 1 year working vaccine... But nobody will take the vaccine if one dose of Ivermectin works fast and even Sutherlandia can stop it in short time. Both will be 1000x cheaper than any vaccine they would like to sell for 1000$ a dose.
Thus, forget the vaccination fear. Most people under panic pressure just over screw their minds. Unluckily for the state terror minds fellowships (RY, FM, J,B) covid-19 turns out to be a complete fail. It mostly kills their own members and most ardent followers. 97% of all deaths are older than 65. Lets be ironic. It's a nice cleanup virus that bashes only the misbehaving and the medical over treated live (survival) hungry. I have no mercy with big pharma that at least looses 10000$ yearly income with each old covid-19 death.
I can only invite all people to just follow the Swedish rules that are enough to survive. Only dense & polluted cities must be more restrict. Open the Restaurants and all other business - no masks required except for especially exposed people like dentists, hair dressers. Secure the old and people with severe preconditions.
But first you have to wait until the hospitals have at least 50% free capacity. Here (Switzerland) the hospitals have to send doctors & nurses home due do restrictions for other treatments... It's all completely nuts now.
-
It is difficult to make intelligent, informed decisions with out all of the required data.
Yes, that is right
People also may not be counting deaths from the virus that are not counted.
And most of the deaths now (like 80% in NY studies) are from multiple comorbidities.
we just don't know. They are all guesses.
-
Study of CV out break in South Korea call center.
-
It is off by a factor of 10, (the other way), and there are actually 30 million people that have already been infected, not 3 million,
You are confused. The Worldmeters data shows 0.3% of the population has been infected. That is to say, 1 million out of 330 million. If it were off the other way, it would be 0.03% (300,000). That's not possible. You are suggesting it might be too low by a factor of 100, instead of a factor of 10. That is extremely unlikely. There would be many more deaths, if that were the case.
-
Only dense & polluted cities must be more restrict.
Yes, one size does not fit all.
Here, I must go 25 miles to a stop light, neighbors no closer than 4 miles, other than a few very small churches and school functions there are no "gathering places". Why do I need to wear a state wide mandated mask when I am outside on my own land (25 acres)? I carry one in my pocket for when the UPS delivery arrives but some state wide rules/laws are just plan crazy.
I think Sweden got it right. protect those at risk, quarantine AFTER symptoms/ tests. And if you have to give away trillions, send it directly to those who are documented to be at risk and are self isolating and keep most of the work force working and use some for PPE and health support instead of Art projects and political wish lists.
OH well, that is my view on Shane's standing, "IF you were king" question. I still wait for Shane's answer for himself.
-
And most of the deaths now (like 80% in NY studies) are from multiple comorbidities.
From Germany section results: 100% comorbidity. From Italy first 3500 covid-19 deaths. 100% comorbidity at the end it will be something between 98-99%. But not in places where "healthy" people don't get simple ICU like intravenous nutrition/liquid to safe the kidney, if they are to weak.
And most of the deaths now (like 80% in NY studies)
Here the link to the NY detailed data: Currently 89% have comorbidity.
-
...
I think Sweden got it right. protect those at risk, quarantine AFTER symptoms/ tests. And if you have to give away trillions, send it directly to those who are documented to be at risk and are self isolating and keep most of the work force working and use some for PPE and health support instead of Art projects and political wish lists.
...
Numbers count or do they ?
Denmark (5,8 M) 434 deaths
Norway (5,4M) 206
Sweden (10,2M) 2355
Finland (5M) 199
This is the latest snapshot and of course it doesn't tell the final truth. Anyway Sweden has the lightest restrictions at the moment and highest relative number of deaths in this Nordic set.
-
You are confused. The Worldmeters data shows 0.3% of the population has been infected. That is to say, 1 million out of 330 million. If it were off the other way, it would be 0.03% (300,000). That's not possible. You are suggesting it might be too low by a factor of 100, instead of a factor of 10. That is extremely unlikely. There would be many more deaths, if that were the case.
You obviously missed it Jed.
I will frame it in a question for you.
Is it possible that more than 3 million people have been infected? Say 30 million?
Of course it is. It is also highly probable that the infection rate is grossly under reported
as the overwhelming majority of people that have been infected, don’t know it and have not been counted.
-
: Currently 89% have comorbidity.
The info I heard (news cast) was about 90% had comorbidity and about 80% had multiple comorbidity (more than on issue)
-
and of course it doesn't tell the final truth
exactly, it is too narrow a sample - look at what happens if you use Europe in general:
And it is not over yet
Sweden should do
better if there is a
second wave with
greater immunity
Country, Deaths/ Continent Other 1M pop San Marino 1,208 Europe Belgium 633 Europe Andorra 518 Europe Spain 510 Europe Italy 453 Europe France 357 Europe UK 319 Europe Netherlands 266 Europe Isle of Man 247 Europe Ireland 235 Europe Sweden 233 Europe -
Display More
OR,
It is off by a factor of 10, (the other way), and there are actually 30 million people that have already been infected, not 3 million,
And that possibility moves the decimal the other way.
Until we KNOW, we don’t.
It is difficult to make intelligent, informed decisions with out all of the required data.
The data on (antibody) IFR is looking pretty consistent at between 0.5% and 1%.
Then the (resistant, no antibody) percentage is limited to no more than 75% from NY data which showed 24% antibodies.
Putting this together, you can estimate what would happen in the US of the virus is allowed to rip, and decide whether you can tolerate that.
On balance, I would say mandatory (and high quality) sheltering of those most likely to die, and let it rip, would be an OK policy. I don't think there are any good policies here. And I'm not sure the US can do that mandatory sheltering policy.
The actual final death rate is bounded between NY death rate (1.5%) and 4X that (6%) if there is no sheltering (everyone gets it). We would expect up to 80% to get it.
With high quality sheltering of the most susceptible that goes down. 15% of US is 65+. Take that as a benchmark (you actually shelter based on comorbidities more than age I expect - we must have good data). I'm not sure how much it reduces death rate but one would hope by a factor of 2 - 4.
That leaves us with 0.375% (min ) 3% (max) of population dying over a period of 6 months if virus is let rip except for that 15% sheltered (we assume perfectly).
That lower limit of 0.375% is a hope, based on no more people getting the disease than did in NY (Jed - before you leap in here - the idea is that MAYBE 75% of the population would shake the disease of very quickly without an antibody reaction. Thus if you suppose that basically everyone was exposed in NY, you get this good figure). Realistically that is never possible, but if v optimistic you might reckon 50% of NY population was actually exposed, and hence limit the 100% exposure death rate to 3%, or at a realistic 80% you have 2.4%. dying (no sheltering) 0.6% dying (sheltering reduces death rate to 0.25%).
I agree with roseland that there is still much uncertainty here, mainly that factor of 4 in NY - how many of those non-antibody-reactors were exposed?
I don't see much other uncertainty. How effective shielding is depends on what percentage of the population you are willing to lock up and whether you can make that work. Arguably in the US - with 20% of population apparently believing COVID is a Democrat-inspired hoax - it won't work at all and then you have those much worse figures.
For context, 1% of US population dies each year. So picking an optimistic 1% die of COVID in 6 months you have an additional 4X the normal death rate.
I would go with Shane and say that is a price worth paying, except that the way these people die is horrendous, and the effect on the health system is horrendous, unless you can stomach saying everyone with the virus dies at home out of sight. (Then the deaths are even more horrendous but people can pretend they are not happening).
So, in a democracy, I just can't see any civilised society tolerating such a high preventable death rate, even though preventing it creates a larger problem down the line.
We have to hope that social distancing measures are enough to keep infections well below the "let it rip" maximum. Not pretend that if we let it rip asymptomatic cases will save us. the numbers don't add up even with current uncertainties.
Maybe these numbers are wrong?
-
Is it possible that more than 3 million people have been infected? Say 30 million?
Of course it is.No, that is not possible. There would be at least 300,000 dead if that were the case. The mortality rate varies somewhat, but nowhere on earth is it less than 1%.
It is also highly probable that the infection rate is grossly under reported
as the overwhelming majority of people that have been infected, don’t know it and have not been counted.
No, that is out of the question. The infected and even the dead have not been counted properly in some locations, such as Georgia. But in other places such as Korea, China and Japan they have been counted rigorously, with multiple tests, and far more tests per capita. Both tests for the disease and the antibody tests have shown that the mortality rate is 1% to 2%. Both tests have been conducted randomly on large samples of the population. This rules out the possibility that many people do not know they had it and have not been counted. They would be discovered by the random testing.
-
The data on (antibody) IFR is looking pretty consistent at between 0.5% and 1%.
I think it is higher than 1%, because many deaths were not ascribed to the disease which should have been. They missed about half the deaths at first, and about 20% now. The New York Times article about excess deaths describes this.
On balance, I would say mandatory (and high quality) sheltering of those most likely to die, and let it rip, would be an OK policy.
I think that would be an insane policy. First because it is genocidal on the scale of the Nazis or Stalin. You cannot possibly protect the vulnerable population, such as obese people. By the time you achieve 60% herd immunity, 2 to 4 million people will be dead. Second, because it would bring about the economic collapse we are trying to avoid. Third, and most important, it is totally unnecessary. We know how to stop this pandemic. We know how to keep the number of people down to 1 or 2% of the population for as long as it takes to deploy a vaccine. The methods are now well established. They have been proven to work in China, Korea, Japan and New Zealand. It will cost billions of dollars to implement them in the U.S., and it will take 300,000 people, but that cost is trivial compared to keeping the economy closed, or the cost of having hundreds of thousands or millions of people die.
I do not see how anyone can look at the data from Korea and deny this is the way forward, and this method works. It is self evident from this graph alone:
Why is there any debate? Why is there any discussion in government, or here in this forum, for that matter? The epidemic was out of control, and it was brought back under control. The Chinese did the same thing. Perhaps you do not believe their data, but Korea and Japan are open, free, democratic societies, and you can be sure their data is correct. Korea was never closed down. Japan is close to returning to control and will probably soon return to a semi-open condition. Here is the latest Japanese data:
