- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***
Posted on 5/14/20 at 8:52 pm to Sasquatch Smash
Posted on 5/14/20 at 8:52 pm to Sasquatch Smash
It’s ridiculous.
We don’t see that level of infection anywhere. Not in nursing homes. Not on the diamond princess. Not on naval ships (which arguably have even closer quarters than a jail).
And in the 2% negatives you would have to have all the patients who:
Got sick and already recovered
Haven’t gotten infected yet
Had a bad sample (will be very high in that non cooperative population with an uncomfortable test like this)
False negatives
I hesitate to say it’s statistically impossible but that’s pretty much what it is. I’m sure we will hear at some point that those tests were fricked up. But it will be well after they have dumped the test results.
We don’t see that level of infection anywhere. Not in nursing homes. Not on the diamond princess. Not on naval ships (which arguably have even closer quarters than a jail).
And in the 2% negatives you would have to have all the patients who:
Got sick and already recovered
Haven’t gotten infected yet
Had a bad sample (will be very high in that non cooperative population with an uncomfortable test like this)
False negatives
I hesitate to say it’s statistically impossible but that’s pretty much what it is. I’m sure we will hear at some point that those tests were fricked up. But it will be well after they have dumped the test results.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 8:53 pm
2
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:08 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:Yeah. That’s in line with the model, that has been far more accuracy about its death projections than the IHME model. It estimates the peak for new infections was on 03/28 with 11,558 and estimates that today there were 7,588. That’s about a 62% reduction in 47 days. Since that’s about 9.4 reproductive generations (every 5 days), that’s an average R0 of 0.95.
I think that since April 1st, their R value has been no higher than 1.1.
AI Projections
Similarly, it currently estimates 114,626 new infections in the United States today. With 110 days until September 1st, 22 reproductive generations, even a R0 of 0.9 would put it at about 9.6% of today’s number, or 11,288 new infections.
So I think 0.9 would be pretty close to a best case scenario, especially since it’s easy to get more lax after things slowdown. Frankly, I think we may decline for a bit, but eventually settle around a 1, if not higher, in some places.
I just don’t see it going going away starting at at an R0 of 2.6 since it doesn’t take much (especially with superspreaders) to keep it going.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:16 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:98% in a single prisons is high unless they literally did nothing to stop it, and likely did stuff to make it worse (not surprising).
We don’t see that level of infection anywhere. Not in nursing homes. Not on the diamond princess. Not on naval ships (which arguably have even closer quarters than a jail).
However, with the superspreaders out there, making the contagiousness non-linear on top of the randomness of situations to maximize the spread, it’s not impossible. For example, that one choir practice with 1 infected individual, resulted in 53 out of 61 people getting infected and 2 deaths. It’s believed that the singing made the virus spread more easily, but I could imagine scenarios in a prison where if the right people got infected (superspreaders) and in the right situation to maximize the spread, it could lead to a quick spread around the entire prison.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:25 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:1. I don’t know enough about it.
You don’t address any of the issues of heterogeneity or cell immunity.
2. We don’t know if it truly exists, let alone the extent of its existence (could be only certain groups or places).
3. We don’t know if it just minimizes symptoms/severity, but still allows for those with it to spread it.
Regardless, even if it exists, and say combined with those immune via infection, 25 to 30 percent in a community have immunity and cannot (or no longer spread it) that still puts the R0 around 1.8 to 1.9 (40 to 50 percent higher than the flu). So to get to just an R0 of 1, there has be other things to reduce it by 45% percent. But even an R0 below 1 but above 0.9 means we’ll likely still have a few thousand infections in the middle of October when cold/flu season it getting going.
That said, that would be a long way way off from the 200,000+ new infections that we had at the peak in mid to late March.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:26 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
but I could imagine scenarios in a prison where if the right people got infected (superspreaders) and in the right situation to maximize the spread, it could lead to a quick spread around the entire prison.
I don’t believe that.
I think greater than 2% of the prison at any given time can’t interact with anyone for certain behavioral reasons
In addition, not everyone gets it at the exact same time. They would all have to be infected within 10 days and the testing would probably have to be timed perfectly on day 8 or 9.
And I still don’t believe they could get an accurate sample from 98% of a prison population. They can’t do that in the general population.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:36 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:Probably depends on the prison. If it’s not a maximum security prison, then I doubt that is the case.
I think greater than 2% of the prison at any given time can’t interact with anyone for certain behavioral reasons
quote:With asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread I could easily see it spreading earlier, especially if the prison was run incompetently and waited too long to realize it was spreading despite the evidence.
In addition, not everyone gets it at the exact same time. They would all have to be infected within 10 days and the testing would probably have to be timed perfectly on day 8 or 9.
That said, I do agree 98% is unusually high. That said, out of a nearly 2,000 prisons (many more if you include 3,000+ jails and nearly 1,000 juvenile detention centers), 1 prison with the right circumstances (superspreaders in situations to maximize spread, a lot of spread before many showed symptoms, prison catching it too late out of incompetence, etc), it’s not out of the realm of possibilities, as it’s just in the 99.5th percentile of them.
quote:Do we know what prison? That might help make the possibility easier to understand.
And I still don’t believe they could get an accurate sample from 98% of a prison population. They can’t do that in the general population.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:40 pm to rds dc
quote:
Several new papers out pinning the IFR around 0.75% and attack rates in France and Spain b/w 4.5 - 5%. The antibody studies for France and Spain are somewhat discouraging, they suffered worse outbreaks in this 1st wave than the US and that makes the 1 - 3% attack rate for the US seem reasonable.
quote:
Results: After exclusions, there were 13 estimates of IFR included in the final meta-analysis, from a wide range of countries, published between February and April 2020. The meta-analysis demonstrated a point-estimate of IFR of 0.75% (0.49-1.01%) with significant heterogeneity (p<0.001).
LINK
quote:
By 11 May 2020, when interventions are scheduled to be eased, we project 2.8 million (range: 1.8–4.7) people, or 4.4% (range: 2.8–7.2) of the population, will have been infected.
LINK
quote:
Preliminary results of Spain's seroprevalence study #ENECOVID.
>60,000 participants
Antibodies for #SARSCoV2:
5% of Spanish population
English language story on the Spanish study referenced above.
quote:
Only 5% of Spaniards have been infected with the coronavirus, according to the preliminary results of a study by the Carlos III public health institute, which took blood samples from nearly 70,000 participants.
quote:
The Spanish overall figure of 5% is in line with studies in other European countries that showed a prevalence of 4% to 5%, far below the rate that would provide the population with so-called herd immunity, and which experts place at 60% at the very least.
quote:
“Five percent is the equivalent of 2,350,000 cases. If there were around 27,100 deaths, that means that the fatality rate is between 1 and 1.2%,” explains Jesús Molina Cabrillana, an epidemiologist at the Spanish Society of Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Hygiene (Sempsph).
That is in the higher range of the best available estimates from other countries, which talk about 0.5% to 1% of deaths among people who were infected with the coronavirus, known as the infection fatality rate or IFR. In Spain, if we add another 5,900 suspicious but untested cases to the total number of infections, the fatality rate grows to 1.3%.
LINK
Another study out of Indiana estimates 2.8% have been infected in that state.
quote:
We’ve just seen that happen in Indiana. Thanks to a study done with the state’s help, we now know that it’s likely that about 2.8 percent of Hoosiers have so far been infected with this virus.
LINK
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:53 pm to rds dc
Hard to believe Spain only has a 1.2% higher infection rate than Indiana,
Almost impossible to believe really
Almost impossible to believe really
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:55 pm to rds dc
quote:The unique part of that study was that 1.1% of those infections were from those who tested positive for antibodies, while 1.7% were those who tested positive for the infection. I’m not sure what to make of that, and it’s difficult estimating the IFR with the currently infected population given the 3-4 week lag between infection and death.
Another study out of Indiana estimates 2.8% have been infected in that state.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:58 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Hard to believe Spain only has a 1.2% higher infection rate than Indiana
Almost impossible to beleive really
Read the article, Spain is pretty consistent with the rest of Europe and even the US. The hardest hit areas are 10 - 20% but the rest of the country is much lower.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:59 pm to lsupride87
quote:Well since 1.1% of the 2.8% were for antibodies, and all 5% from Spain were for antibodies, then that means Spain had at least 4.5 times as many infections from an apples to apples comparison.
Hard to believe Spain only has a 1.2% higher infection rate than Indiana
Almost impossible to beleive really
And since a lower base rate for those antibodies increases the likelihood of more false positives and fewer false negatives (assuming the same test accuracy) then it may be more like 5 to 7 times higher in Spain.
So it’s possible that Spain’s antibody infections rate was either exactly correct or even a a bit higher (say 5.25%) while Indiana’s was more likely to be lower (say 0.7 to 1 percent).
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:59 pm to rds dc
quote:Dont need to
Read the article
Spain has a much higher population density than Indiana
They have more multi-generational living
More international travel in and out
Just doesnt add up their infection rates would be so close
You disagree? Also, we have tested 17,500 statewide for Louisiana. Showing 8.6% positive rate for Louisiana. Just seems strange spain would be so low
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 10:01 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:That is more in line with what I would imagine
then it may be more like 5 to 7 times higher in Spain.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 10:13 pm to lsupride87
I was just messing around with some possibilities, not knowing the specificity and sensitivity of the tests.
If both Spain and Indiana study used a test with 99.5% specificity and 90% sensitivity, then Indiana’s 1.1% would imply a true rate of about 0.67% while Spain’s would imply a nearly identify 5.03%, which puts Spain’s rate at about 7.5 times higher.
If both Spain and Indiana study used a test with 99.5% specificity and 90% sensitivity, then Indiana’s 1.1% would imply a true rate of about 0.67% while Spain’s would imply a nearly identify 5.03%, which puts Spain’s rate at about 7.5 times higher.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 10:16 pm to lsupride87
There's just obviously some junk data out there somewhere. Sweden is saying that over 20% of their population is now positive, but their per capita deaths is much lower than Spain's.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 10:29 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:Yeah. I doubt it’s even close. The data from NYC (roughly 20 to 30 percent) and Madrid (11%) pretty much makes a 20% total infection rate in Sweden nonsense.
Sweden is saying that over 20% of their population is now positive, but their per capita deaths is much lower than Spain's.
That’s 11.4 times as many infections as tests given. In addition, since their positive test rate should be much higher (16.1%) than those not tested, to get to 20% infected, the opposite would have to be true (20% positive).
Both the AI model I linked (6.2% with 9.2% at the upper bound of 95% CI) and the IHME model, and just basic logic, but it much lower than 20%. I even think that 6.2% seems high (given Spain data), but that’s at least quite believable.
In the middle of last month they were projecting something like 33% (at least in Stockholm) by the beginning of this month, so I don’t think they have any accurate idea.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 10:34 pm
Posted on 5/15/20 at 8:47 am to buckeye_vol
Posted on 5/15/20 at 9:05 am to lsulaker
It reads a little like a news article published by North Korea but I sure hope they're right.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 9:36 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
We don’t see that level of infection anywhere. Not in nursing homes. Not on the diamond princess. Not on naval ships (which arguably have even closer quarters than a jail).
It'll be really interesting to see the TR data (if it's ever available). I know that both the air wing enlisted and nuclear enlisted were infected - and those two groups don't go anywhere near each other on a carrier.
Found another superspread - more clusters associated with singing. 102 of 130 members of a Dutch Chorus.
Dutch Chorus
British Chorus - No Data
Story of British Chorus (no data provided)
German scientists estimates 1.5 meters to be a safe distance if you do decide to start singing.
German Study - 1.5m for Safe Singing
I don't know if I would trust that German one? Seems like singing for an extended period of time in one spot may generate a concentration higher and an affected range wider than can be measured in this study.
There was a second link from the Dutch outbreak I saw last week but can't find now - none of the audience members got it (theater capacity 2000).
All of these events involve an undue amount of exposure that's easily prevented in real life - outside of large sporting events.
Additional info:
No Home Depot, Lowes, or Walmart related outbreak known. Implication: Retail activity (briefly passing other people in aisles, 1 minute conversations with employees at a normal talking volume) not actually a significant problem.
This is not to say it's a physically impossible spread mechanism, just that it's not likely in a manner that should be used for policy implications.
At some point people need enough information to be surgical in their approach. If a 25% full church full of people singing is worse than a 100% full church of people praying - this info needs to be out there and used.
Page 1104 of 1190
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News