Started By
Message

re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***

Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:18 pm to
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
85149 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:18 pm to
quote:

I’m not getting into a pissing match




Yet you threw it out there that you were better qualified than Scuffy


My appeal to authority? I just thought it was funny as frick that you pulled the same shite that you’ve done over and over in this thread... Changed the game mid-discussion to try to fit your narrative.

I’ve never claimed to be an expert, however, now you have, so spill it... What makes you so much better than us peasants in this thread that you know what’s going to happen? And frick, I hope you’re not my doctor, because I’d hate for her to be wishing for a worst case scenario. But, you’re prob better than her, soooo

Posted by rds dc
Member since Jun 2008
21551 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:20 pm to
quote:

Italy has about 650 infections and 15 deaths, so a 2% death rate


Italy just updated data with 2 additional deaths, total now 17.
Posted by Mizzoufan26
Vacaville CA
Member since Sep 2012
18965 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:21 pm to
quote:

because I’d hate for her to be wishing for a worst case scenario


Why is it the assumption of those in here that anyone is wishing for the worst case scenario, if this evaporates into the air and is gone tomorrow wonderful. The issue though is we are clearly not ahead of this thing. The current CDC guidelines are not keeping this out of the country, there is no pre-testing and screening is hit or miss.

With that said, the questions left are severity, and contagiousness as it's a pretty foregone conclusion it's either already here or coming shortly.

For it to be spreading the way it is it's clearly damn contagious, and we still don't have a consensus on how severe this is.
Posted by Jon Ham
Member since Jun 2011
29691 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:23 pm to
quote:

I think he saying that the data isn't there.


I get that the data we have could be better, but all the data we do have, which is a significant amount, is showing something like a 2% death rate, right?
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
86246 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:23 pm to
quote:

Why is it the assumption of those in here that anyone is wishing for the worst case scenario


because some seem to believe all bad news, but are skeptical or ignore all good news

Posted by WaWaWeeWa
Member since Oct 2015
15714 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:25 pm to
I’m not sure what your problem is but I don’t think I have ever said that I know what’s going to happen.

You aren’t really open to having your mind changed because you have already taken such an extreme position as being the flag bearer of anti-panic. So just move along, post some relevant new information, or GFY
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
77273 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:25 pm to
quote:

Italy has about 650 infections and 15 deaths, so a 2% death rate.
Well, another concern in regards to this current situation is both availability of testing and the frequency of its use.

Flu is actually a great example to use as a reference.

100s of millions of flu tests are performed each year. This results in a high number of flu detection and, thus, shows the true fatality rate of influenza each season.

They aren’t testing every person who walks in at this time, or locations don’t have the capabilities to test.

The reason you see such a high fatality rate at the start of an illness like this is because we don’t have a definitive number of true infected or the capabilities to test a large number of people.

This results in the test being run on the most ill and therefore skews the mortality rate.

The most accurate data that we will see will likely come out of SK since they have begun to test a large number of people.

The number may hold at 2%, but I don’t suspect that will be the case.

Remember, the most common symptoms are general cold symptoms and possibly flu-like.

Again, with more definitive data, my opinion may change, but the numbers are too small or the reporting sources are too questionable to trust at this time.
This post was edited on 2/27/20 at 12:29 pm
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
77273 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:28 pm to
quote:

I get that the data we have could be better, but all the data we do have, which is a significant amount, is showing something like a 2% death rate, right?
It is still skewed at this time because, due to the availability of the testing, they seem to be testing the most sick patients.

Unlike the flu, not every person who shows up with cough, congestion, and fever is being tested for Coronavirus yet.
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15299 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:29 pm to
Detection probability skews stuff. Scruffy is correct.

Can we get more ninjas fighting rabid virus spreading dog gifs?

Posted by Poker_hog
Member since Mar 2019
3652 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:30 pm to
quote:

The number may hold at 2%, but I don’t suspect that will be the case.


I agree but I also don’t see a scenario driving the mortality rate down to season flu levels.
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
85149 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:31 pm to
quote:

So just move along, post some relevant new information, or GFY


What did you say earlier?

“Nice melt”.



And what extreme position have I taken? That I don’t jump into the doom and gloom camp? That I took a wait and see approach? That I wanted to see it impact 1st world countries and those that aren’t normally susceptible to the flu before I raised any concerns?

I was the one that posted about the Korean attendant being in LAX and said that LA may be in a bad spot, so I’m more than open..
Posted by BuckyCheese
Member since Jan 2015
57778 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:32 pm to
quote:

I’m not getting into a pissing match




Yet you threw it out there that you were better qualified than Scuffy


Obviously stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Posted by Jon Ham
Member since Jun 2011
29691 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:33 pm to
That makes sense. Surely there are predictive models that can give a death rate estimate taking into account that only the most sick are getting tested. I wonder what those models show.
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15299 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:35 pm to
quote:

I wonder what those models show.


Probably show a wide range of possible answers. Too wide to really help anything.
Posted by Poker_hog
Member since Mar 2019
3652 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:37 pm to
T
quote:

That makes sense. Surely there are predictive models that can give a death rate estimate taking into account that only the most sick are getting tested. I wonder what those models show.


That’s why a lot of us are paying attention to the cruise ship. Every symptomatic person is tested. Still may be a month before all that shakes out though.
Posted by WaWaWeeWa
Member since Oct 2015
15714 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:38 pm to
The cruise ship tested everyone. Half of the patients that tested positive were asymptomatic.

That’s the best data we have so far of asymptomatic cases. If there is better evidence of an estimation of asymptomatic cases I’d like to see it or tell me how it will be done.

The counter argument to the asymptomatic rate (which will definitely lower the mortality rate if accurate) is that there are patients recently diagnosed that will turn critical and die.
This post was edited on 2/27/20 at 12:43 pm
Posted by Bullfrog
Running Through the Wet Grass
Member since Jul 2010
61234 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:38 pm to
quote:

This is for construction supply so maybe they've made all their inventory for Hospitals?
I’ve heard masks are running low and good luck getting any N95 level masks.
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
77273 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:40 pm to
Look, if we look at the graph if SK cases and deaths, you can already see the situation I am talking about.



Feb 22, you had 2 deaths w/ 433 cases, 0.46%.

Feb 23, 0.8%.

Feb 24, 0.84%.

Feb 25, 0.97%

Feb 26, 0.94%

Feb 27, 0.73%

You have an initial spike, but when your infected cases are increasing at such a rate, but your deaths aren't, the % mortality will start to decline.

Unless there is a spike in deaths that will show a significant increase in the deaths following along with a significant increase in spread, the percentage will continue to decline simply because the spread will outpace the deaths.

Like I said before, the data isn't sufficient at this time, but if the trend that is already present continues, the mortality will decline.
This post was edited on 2/27/20 at 12:49 pm
Posted by WaWaWeeWa
Member since Oct 2015
15714 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:43 pm to
The death rate lags behind the infection rate.

The average ICU course for this virus is 10-14 days. The average time for young patients will be even longer as they are kept on ventilation and heroic attempts such as ECMO are attempted.

I hope you have a more in depth analysis than that

That being said, I agree with your general statement that the mortality may decline but I disagree that it will be anywhere near the flu. That’s assuming the system isn’t overwhelmed, in which case the mortality will go up (this has already been proven)
This post was edited on 2/27/20 at 12:50 pm
Posted by TigerstuckinMS
Member since Nov 2005
33687 posts
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:54 pm to
quote:

I have just as much training and more experience than him

Normally, I have to pay for a ticket to the circus and smell elephant shite to see a clown show like this one.
Jump to page
Page First 270 271 272 273 274 ... 1190
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 272 of 1190Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram