Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The Coronavirus

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not one person you know of, eh?  Why the hell didn't you say so? 

I'm going shopping, then I'm off to the bar.

Yup, dam right nobody. You know anybody yet? Anyway, go for it. I am going out soon myself and try to dodge the seasonal flu bug. Maybe I will see you out there and we can go have a coffee together at McDumps if you still like me?  You have bars still open where you are? Lucky batard, you.   :D

Edited by taxme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shady said:

Coronavirus death rate may be lower than previously thought

0.66% mortality rate.

https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates.html

The South Koreans were recording something like that a while ago because they were doing a decent level of testing. Germany is even lower? That’s still a lot higher than regular flu though. This virus is not closely related to the viruses that cause flu and probably should not be lumped in with them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, taxme said:

Today, pretty much everybody that are dying today are being lumped in with this so called seasonal flu bug virus deaths. Pneumonia deaths have dropped while the China virus has risen. Just a coincidence, right? ;)

Great point.  Apparently people have stopped dying from pneumonia, emphysema, COPD, influenza, etc is amazing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Shady said:

I don’t remember them, because we have flu vaccines, and high risk people get flu shots every season.  That’s why hospitals aren’t overrun.  And even with that, thousands of people die every flu season from the flu. 

Coronavirus death rate may be lower than previously thought

0.66% mortality rate.

https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates.html

Try and imagine the flu if we didn't have any defences.  I've never had a flu shot, but I don't get it because I was almost killed by the flu when I was a baby and it seems to have given me some immunity.  I haven't had it since. 

From what I read about this virus, no-one has an antibody to it.  And we have currently no vaccine or cure.

As to the death rate, shouldn't we just calculate it from the number of dead in relation to the number of recovered?  That would make it currently about 20%.  I understand the data is completely unreliable, in that no-one knows how many people have it, have died from it, have recovered from it, etc, but still, that makes sense to me.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Ed Yong’s articles on COVID-19:

Quote

To be clear, SARS-CoV-2 is not the flu. It causes a disease with different symptoms, spreads and kills more readily, and belongs to a completely different family of viruses. This family, the coronaviruses, includes just six other members that infect humans. Four of them—OC43, HKU1, NL63, and 229E—have been gently annoying humans for more than a century, causing a third of common colds. The other two—MERS and SARS (or “SARS-classic,” as some virologists have started calling it)—both cause far more severe disease. Why was this seventh coronavirus the one to go pandemic? Suddenly, what we do know about coronaviruses becomes a matter of international concern.
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/biography-new-coronavirus/608338/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not one person you know of, eh?  Why the hell didn't you say so? 

I'm going shopping, then I'm off to the bar.

To be fair, it's probably a small circle of friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

To be fair, it's probably a small circle of friends.

And they're all wearing hoods.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Germany and South Korea have higher rates now, still low but well over 1%, from the NYT:

Quote

But with 1,584 deaths, Germany’s fatality rate stood at 1.6 percent, compared with 12 percent in Italy, around 10 percent in Spain, France and Britain, 4 percent in China and nearly 3 percent in the United States. Even South Korea, a model of flattening the curve, has a higher fatality rate, 1.8 percent.

 

So best-case scenario, a long way north of flu. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Let’s hope it works. 

Hope, why just hope? You mean Shady doesn't have any actual evidence that it does work? You did notice the positive extraordinary claim he made right?

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Hope, why just hope? You mean Shady doesn't have any actual evidence that it does work? You did notice the positive extraordinary claim he made right?

I know nothing of this topic so I try to avoid being too dogmatic. What I can say is that if they gave me HCQ and I ended up needing a guide dog afterwards, I’d be none too impressed to hear that it was all just an ‘orrible mistake. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I know nothing of this topic so I try to avoid being too dogmatic. What I can say is that if they gave me HCQ and I ended up needing a guide dog afterwards, I’d be none too impressed to hear that it was all just an ‘orrible mistake. 

If it was Shady he'd say you should have taken it with Kool-aid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The South Koreans were recording something like that a while ago because they were doing a decent level of testing. Germany is even lower? That’s still a lot higher than regular flu though. This virus is not closely related to the viruses that cause flu and probably should not be lumped in with them. 

It is similar enough to the Sars virus and flu viruses in terms of  having learned from them and therefore making it in excusable governments did not put proper early testing protocol in place after Sars to have helped contain this much faster.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Try and imagine the flu if we didn't have any defences.  I've never had a flu shot, but I don't get it because I was almost killed by the flu when I was a baby and it seems to have given me some immunity.  I haven't had it since. 

From what I read about this virus, no-one has an antibody to it.  And we have currently no vaccine or cure.

As to the death rate, shouldn't we just calculate it from the number of dead in relation to the number of recovered?  That would make it currently about 20%.  I understand the data is completely unreliable, in that no-one knows how many people have it, have died from it, have recovered from it, etc, but still, that makes sense to me.

The  actual death rate varies from one to three percent of reported cases not 20 percent. The true death rate is unknown since we do  not know all actual cases and therefore actual rate of death or percentageof people who have it and who never get sick and therefore in the clinical sense did not need medical assistance let alone  from a hospital or social service.

It is possible a person could be immune to it in the sense of never getting ill from it. That much is now well known. The problem is such people could transmit it on to someone vulnerable to it or may not. People do become immune to it creating anti- bodies.,

What remains highly inaccurate are deaths assumed to be caused by the virus. Opportunistic infections penetrate compromised immunity systems and they are what kills not the virus.

Those infections could very well have been present and would have killed their host not withstanding they got the virus but it's still reported as a virus death.

All viruses are viruses. It is illogical to state differences  are so great as to make all generalizations about them incorrect.

In fact from the perspectives of treatment and controlling of their spread, protocol considerations are sufficiently close to justify uniform consideration through past experiences as to how to treat and contain them.

Scientific methodology makes generalizations based on testing to create treatment protocols.

No this virus is not killing more than the flu,  it does not kill 20  percent of the people with it nor will most or any of you die from it.

Your need to keep posting assumptions of its strength to kill you is based on conflicting info you have been swamped with disjointed information and the human behaviour of negative thinking triggered by anxiety from not having clear answers.

Negative thinking processes are in fact far more lethal and contagious than any virus. They have led to countless wars, suicide, genocide.

May  I suggest with utmost respect the impulse to think and attribute far more lethal qualities to this virus than is actually the case is not productive.

I know it's easy to dismiss people who try point out actual data and not assumptions and get mad at us forcdoing so or presume we are insensitive, arrogant etc., but no it is nonsensical to suggest 20 percent of people are dying from the virus.

The fact also remains  early testing and proper protocols would have prevented the current crisis and prevented the pattern of  condensed time period of deaths you may  think makes the virus more lethal than it actually is.

Nothing I have said argues the virus is not lethal or dangerous but please go read up on it and compare its treatment and spread and death rates to polio, sars, legionnaire's disease, aids, swine and avian flu, Spanish flu, rabies, syphilis, malaria, Ebola, Zika virus, sleeping sickness, cholera, dysentery, typhoid fever, bubonic plague, whooping cough, diphtheria, rubella, herpes viruses, cancer, aids.

Diseases kill but education about them defuses much of the powers you falsely attribute to them.

I say this with respect not to be an asshole. 

 

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The South Koreans were recording something like that a while ago because they were doing a decent level of testing. Germany is even lower? That’s still a lot higher than regular flu though. This virus is not closely related to the viruses that cause flu and probably should not be lumped in with them. 

Yes and it's not by science except when it comes to learning treatment and containment protocols and certain treatments that may be sufficiently similiar to allow their being used with this virus. For example, aids is far different, but certain medications used to treat aids can be used to treat this virus. Their effect of course is being studied. Some seem to help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

The death rate varies from one to three percent of reported cases not 20 percent. The death rate is unknown sincecwecdo actual cases and therefore actual rate of death or percentagebof people who have it who never get sick and therefore in the clinical sense needed a y degree of medical assistance from a hospital or social service.

When this is all over and done they will calculate the death rate based on the number of people who died against the number of people who were infected.  One would assume those who were infected and didn't die recovered.  That's all I did. 

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

All viruses are viruses. It is illogical to state differences  are so great as to make all generalizations about them incorrect. In fact from the perspectives of treatment and controlling of their spread, protocol considerations are sufficiently close to justify uniform consideration through past experiences that led to generalizations.

I'm afraid I disagree completely.  See my last comment below.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

No this virus is not killing more than the flu, 20  percent of the people with it nor will most or any of you die from it.

What would have happened if we had treated this virus just like the seasonal flu?  I don't claim to know the answer to that question.  I would like to hear your view on it.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Your need to keep posting assumptions of its strength to kill you is based on conflicting info you have been swamped with disjointed information and the human behaviour of negative thinking triggered by anxiety from not having clear answers. Negative thinking rocesses are in fact far more lethal and contagious than any virus. They have led to countless wars, suicide, genocide.

They also led to me getting my truck stuck in the snow on Tuesday.  Took me an hour to dig the damn thing out, and I still ache.  What's your point?

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

May  I suggest with utmost respect the impulse to think and attribute far more lethal qualities to this virus than is actually the case is not productive.

You may suggest whatever you wish.  May I suggest, also with the utmost respect, that your inclination to attribute seasonal flu like qualities only to this virus is also not productive.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I know it's easy to dismiss people who try point out actual data and not assumptions and get mad at us or presume we are insensitive, arrogant etc., but no it is nonsensical to suggest 20 percent of people are dying from the virus and early testingandcproper protocolscwoul have prevented the current crisis and prevented the pattern of  condensed time period of deaths you think make the virus more lethal than it actually is.

Sure, but what better way to attribute a death rate is there than to compare those who have died to those who haven't?  We have no idea which way those who fall into the currently not recovered but not dead category will eventually go.  With the obvious provisor that I already made, which is that no-one can actually trust any of the numbers anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Nothing I have said argues the virus is not lethal or dangerous but please go read up on it and compare its treatment andcspreadcand death rates compared to polio, sars, legionnaire's disease, aids, swine and avian flu, Spanish flu, rabies, syphilis, malaria, Ebola, Zika virus, sleeping sickness, cholera, dysentery, typhoid fever, bubonic plague, whooping cough, diphtheria, rubella, herpes viruses, cancer, aids.

What would you rather have, swine flu or polio?

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rue said:

The fact also remains  early testing and proper protocols

What protocols?

17 minutes ago, Rue said:

No this virus is not killing more than the flu,

We don't know that yet. It looks like it may well kill more than the flu. Though, let's remeber it isn't here to replace the regular flu — we will have both. Covid-19 might also have come to stay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

When this is all over and done they will calculate the death rate based on the number of people who died against the number of people who were infected.  One would assume those who were infected and didn't die recovered.  That's all I did. Maybe

Are you talking about the death rate, infection fatality rate, or the case fatality rate?

"In epidemiology, a case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time. A CFR is conventionally expressed as a percentage and represents a measure of disease severity.[1] CFRs are most often used for diseases with discrete, limited time courses, such as outbreaks of acute infections. A CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered). The preliminary CFR, for example, during the course of an outbreak with a high daily increase and long resolution time would be substantially lower than the final CFR.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate

The term infection fatality rate (IFR) also applies to infectious disease outbreaks, and is closely related to the CFR, but attempts to additionally account for all asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections.[7] The IFR differs from the CFR in that it aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group).[8] (Individuals who are infected, but always remain asymptomatic, are said to have "inapparent" — or silent, or subclinical, or occult — infections.) The IFR will always be lower than the CFR as long as all deaths are accurately attributed to either the infected or the non-infected class."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Are you talking about the death rate, infection fatality rate, or the case fatality rate?

"In epidemiology, a case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time. A CFR is conventionally expressed as a percentage and represents a measure of disease severity.[1] CFRs are most often used for diseases with discrete, limited time courses, such as outbreaks of acute infections. A CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered). The preliminary CFR, for example, during the course of an outbreak with a high daily increase and long resolution time would be substantially lower than the final CFR.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate

The term infection fatality rate (IFR) also applies to infectious disease outbreaks, and is closely related to the CFR, but attempts to additionally account for all asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections.[7] The IFR differs from the CFR in that it aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group).[8] (Individuals who are infected, but always remain asymptomatic, are said to have "inapparent" — or silent, or subclinical, or occult — infections.) The IFR will always be lower than the CFR as long as all deaths are accurately attributed to either the infected or the non-infected class."

None of them really, as I wasn't aware of the distinction.  However, the ratio of those who died to those who recovered seems to be the CFR, given those among the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time who don't die from it would be considered recovered.

I realise the final ratio of those who died from it to those who got it will be less than 20%, but I doubt an accurate figure will ever be available.  And even less available will be a number based on what would have happened if we had treated this as we do the seasonal flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference in my understanding is a person with lung ailments can survive the flu, this not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

And even less available will be a number based on what would have happened if we had treated this as we do the seasonal flu.

They say this could become a seasonal flu. Maybe we will find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Marocc said:

They say this could become a seasonal flu. Maybe we will find out.

Hopefully we will have a vaccine for this too, then.  I have never had the flu vaccine, but I might get in line for this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

When this is all over and done they will calculate the death rate based on the number of people who died against the number of people who were infected.  One would assume those who were infected and didn't die recovered.  That's all

 

What would have happened if we had treated this virus just like.

 May I suggest, also with the utmost respect, that your inclination to attribute seasonal flu like qualities only to this virus is also not productive.

Sure, but what better way to attribute a death rate is there than to compare those who have died to those.

What would you rather have, swine flu or polio?

In regards to your first statement no the analysis will contain far more variables. Your assumption is based on not understanding how disease death and mortality rates are actually tabulated.

Nowhere did I  state the flu and this virus have the same qualities..you didn't understand  what I wrote. You erroneously assume if symptoms of illnesses or their physical structure is different  their reatment and/or  containment  protocols can not be the same.

Containment and treatment protocols for different viruses have both specific differences but general or uniform similarities allowing the same protocols to  be used for different viruses. I did not and never said viruses are identical and all treatments are the same I said they have sufficient similarity to be able warrant the same containment and treatment protocols.

We do treat all viruses already with many uniform protocols.

Your death rate is based on false assumptions, specifically; why some died; how many  actually recovered from viruses related infections that would have never been lethal; why they recovered; and who even got the illness which is not possible to know as many will not ever be known.

Your question  about swine flu and polio makes no sense. No one has argued a vaccine does not work.

A proper analogy would be to ask me which of  two viruses with no vaccine I would prefer to have. That is dependent on my individual immunity profile in relation to both viruses.  Your assumption the covid virus is more likely to allow the piggy backing of opportunistic infections into my body to then kill me rather than another virus is an assumption not a fact.

SARS causes more challenges to the body than  Covid so in that sense could be argued is more lethal. However the same properties that make it more challenging to the body to deal with make it very difficult to catch and therefore less lethal.

What makes any illness lethal depends on variables including; how  contagious it is; what general protocols are in place for its treatment and containment; and the individual immunity profile of each patient.

You u have made false assumptions as to what I  stated, and how lethality is determined.

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Marocc said:

They say this could become a seasonal flu. Maybe we will find out.

All immunologists or doctors said is any virus is more likely to be transmitted indoors because of our closer physical proximity. So in winter as proximity indoors increases so does the likeliness of contamination which is why some refer to  some viruses being more likely to be spread in the winter..orca season where you must remain shut indoors..the point is..itsvtye time you spend shutb indoors not necessarily the season and it also is  dependent on many arecshutbin with, how close you are to them and your hygiene protocols.

Sars mutated to both become more challenging to the body but much more difficult to spread. So it's more of a problem in confined indoors facilities..but proper hygiene protocols  have contained its spread meaning it does not suddenly increase in our winters anymore.

So speculating about what could happen with any virus without proper data is musleadingb because a virus may mutate to something more harmful or less harmful until a vaccine or efficient treatment protocols contains the virus.

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rue said:

In regards to your first statement no the analysis will contain far more variables. Your assumption is based on not understanding how disease death and mortality rates are actually tabulated.

I'm sure there are lots of variables, but really, what more does the layperson need than (number of dead/number who got it)100?  Of course, one would have to wait for all those who currently have it and have not died or recovered to pick a side, but once that's done, it should be fairly easy.  (with the understanding that the reliability of the final numbers will be in question)

 

19 minutes ago, Rue said:

Nowhere did I  state the flu and this virus have the same qualities..you didn't understand  what I wrote. You erroneously assume if symptoms of illnesses or their is structure is different  their reatment and/or  containment  can not be the same. Containment and treatment protocols for different viruses have both specific differences buf general or uniform similarities allowing the same protocols to  be used for different viruses. I did not and never said viruses are identical. I said they have sufficient similarity to becable warrant the same containment and treatment protocols

That's not an erroneous assumption.  It's an obvious statement of fact that is borne out by currnet events.  The seasonal flu and COVID 19 most certainly do not warrant the same containment and treatment protocols.

 

22 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your question  about swine flu and polio makes no sense. No one has argued a vaccine does not work.

We didn't argue about vaccines at all.  I just asked you which you would rather get. 

 

29 minutes ago, Rue said:

A proper analogy would be to ask me which 9c two virusescwith no vaccine I would prefer to have.

No, my question was in response to your statement that all viruses are viruses, and that it is illogical to state differences are so great as to make all generalizations about them incorrect.  Let's assume there are no vaccines for either.  Which one?

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

What makes any illness lethal depends on variables including; how  contagious it is, what general protocols are in place for its treatment and containment and the individual immunity profile of each patient.

Absolutely.  And when this is all over we can figure it all out.  I suspect there will be very few who will still maintain the world over-reacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...