- 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 7/17/20 at 7:44 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Posted on 7/17/20 at 7:44 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Can these sars specific T cells be tested for?
Posted on 7/17/20 at 7:50 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Their R value appears to be the same so pending other data about immunity (e.g., those T-cell studies wawa has been pointing seem to indicate some have a natural immunity whether that prevents infection, limits the severity, and/or both)
New preprint from folks at Oxford looking at: The impact of host resistance on cumulative mortality and the threshold of herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2.
quote:
These results help to explain the large degree of regional variation observed in seroprevalence and cumulative deaths and suggest that sufficient herd-immunity may already be in place to substantially mitigate a potential second wave.
Short enough read.
(Seems to be a paper discussing how to adjust models.)
This post was edited on 7/17/20 at 8:09 am
Posted on 7/17/20 at 7:51 am to tiger91
quote:Yes, but from what I understand it is not cost-effective.
Can these sars specific T cells be tested for?
Posted on 7/17/20 at 7:52 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Yeah, it requires performing flow cytometry to identify a particular line of T cells which is very time and labor intensive, speaking from experience......
Posted on 7/17/20 at 7:57 am to escatawpabuckeye
Edited to (no message)
This post was edited on 7/17/20 at 9:35 am
Posted on 7/17/20 at 8:05 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Florida health officials counting the death of someone in their 20s....that died in a motorcycle accident.
quote:
FOX 35 News found this out after asking Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino whether two coronavirus victims who were in their 20s had any underlying conditions. One of his answers surprised us.
“The first one didn’t have any. He died in a motorcycle accident,” Pino said.
Dr. Pino was asked if the man’s data was removed.
“I don’t think so. I have to double-check,” Pino said. “We were arguing, discussing, or trying to argue with the state. Not because of the numbers -- it’s 100…it doesn’t make any difference if it's 99 -- but the fact that the individual didn’t die from COVID-19…died in the crash. But you could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash. I don’t know the conclusion of that one.”
Posted on 7/17/20 at 8:10 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
It seems to have gone unnoticed, but the CDC updates their IFR estimate from 0.27% to 0.65% which is in line with the large meta-analyses and the WHO’s estimate as well. In addition, their low end estimate is now 0.5% while their high end estimate is 0.8%.
The problem is that meta analysis is based on antibody studies which evidence is starting to show may be undercounting mild and asymptomatic cases.
I think it’s too early to say for sure. Also that meta analysis involves deaths early on in the pandemic. It’s harder to predict the mortality going forward with the advances we have made.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 8:26 am to WaWaWeeWa
.6%, as a universal IFR, is probably pretty close to right.
My issue, and has been for awhile, is the age stratification is so extreme that a universal IFR seems pointless.
The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in Stockholm – Technical report
So they came up with .58% overall IFR. .09% IFR below age of 70, and 4.29% IFR age 70 and above. That is an extreme difference, 47X.
Also, here is the chart for a few countries with their median age of death:
A universal IFR for ebola makes sense because it killed 50% of people pretty much regardless of age, but for COVID not so much.
My issue, and has been for awhile, is the age stratification is so extreme that a universal IFR seems pointless.
The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in Stockholm – Technical report
So they came up with .58% overall IFR. .09% IFR below age of 70, and 4.29% IFR age 70 and above. That is an extreme difference, 47X.
Also, here is the chart for a few countries with their median age of death:
A universal IFR for ebola makes sense because it killed 50% of people pretty much regardless of age, but for COVID not so much.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 10:19 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Thought this would go well here too
There is no way to take anything meaningful from any of the data at all
quote:LINK
A person who died in a motorcycle accident was added to Florida’s COVID-19 death count, according to a state health official.
FOX 35 News found this out after asking Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino whether two coronavirus victims who were in their 20s had any underlying conditions. One of his answers surprised us.
There is no way to take anything meaningful from any of the data at all
Posted on 7/17/20 at 10:24 am to lsupride87
quote:
Thought this would go well here
Check three posts up from yours, buddy!
Hahaha.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 12:14 pm to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
The person who made that chart, an OSU podcaster, has been so irritating lately regarding COVID, and I now see why so many OSU fans were irritated by his OSU takes as well.
And it was one thing when the MSB was making fun of his amateurish legal analysis of Title IX law during the whole Urban Meyer/Zach Smith ordeal.
And while his data gathering and visualizations are decent enough (like you posted) hopefully we’re not going to start using his amateurish (and straight up dishonest at times) data analysis as well.
And it was one thing when the MSB was making fun of his amateurish legal analysis of Title IX law during the whole Urban Meyer/Zach Smith ordeal.
And while his data gathering and visualizations are decent enough (like you posted) hopefully we’re not going to start using his amateurish (and straight up dishonest at times) data analysis as well.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 2:29 pm to Sasquatch Smash
Our population is around 330 million. When excess deaths attributed to COVID are 198,000 the per capita death rate will be .06%. I think we've already experienced at least 198,000 excess deaths.
COVID deaths are starting to accelerate again in almost every state. We have a long way to go before its over.
COVID deaths are starting to accelerate again in almost every state. We have a long way to go before its over.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 2:38 pm to Whiznot
quote:This is probably true.
Our population is around 330 million. When excess deaths attributed to COVID are 198,000 the per capita death rate will be .06%. I think we've already experienced at least 198,000 excess deaths.
quote:This isn’t true. The states initially hardest hit, are still in the decline. In fact, I saw I graph earlier (it may have been from COVID Tracking Project the OP is using) that shows deaths decreasing in the Northeast and Midwest, slightly increasing the West, and noticeably increasing in the South.
COVID deaths are starting to accelerate again in almost every state. We have a long way to go before its over.
And Nate Silver has pointed out that the biggest predictor in trend changes is the severity of the first wave. This makes sense since people are probably more inclined to take measures, there is a smaller portion of the population to infect, and similarly more immunity to slow the spread, even slightly.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 4:03 pm to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
Well shite. Thanks.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 5:02 pm to tiger91
Considering the average age of excess covid deaths is 80, we are going to have extremely low mortality years upcoming.
This post was edited on 7/17/20 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 7/17/20 at 5:10 pm to buckeye_vol
I hope you are right but I expect this virus to still be a big problem throughout almost all of 2021. Most experts that I've seen don't think much more than 10% of us have been infected. I don't expect a quick vaccine either.
I may be describing a worst case scenario but if I was in charge that is what I would plan for.
I may be describing a worst case scenario but if I was in charge that is what I would plan for.
This post was edited on 7/17/20 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 7/17/20 at 5:23 pm to Whiznot
quote:
Most experts that I've seen don't think much more than 10% of us have been infected. I don't expect a quick vaccine either.
I may be describing a worst case scenario but if I was in charge that is what I would plan for.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 6:22 pm to Whiznot
quote:
hope you are right but I expect this virus to still be a big problem throughout almost all of 2021. Most experts that I've seen don't think much more than 10% of us have been infected. I don't expect a quick vaccine either.
What are you talking about?
There are 3 vaccines coming out in September, October, and November.
All will be highly effective. This thing will be over by 2021
Popular
Back to top


1






