| There are 33 comments on this blog. |
|
|
Debatable
|
|
|
Hey gloom guy, is this the covid that will kill 2 million in the US?
|
|
|
@Whatshesaid. The date is for that periodical which is compiled biannual I believe. This paper was published in May, 2020. Please read the published article entirely; if you feel there is something you disagree with please let me know--I'd be interested your thoughts.
|
|
|
@WhatSheSaid
No problem. I prefer a healthy discussion as opposed to the "knucklehead" back and forth that goes on HX (Ok, I admit it is fun). I don't mind being corrected either so if you find something more current please do share. Having the correct information is far more import than feeling I'm right. 
|
|
|
Well... I think both NPembrush and Whatshesaid are both doody heads.
I just wanted to raise the level of debate
Just kidding! Thank you both for the reasonable exchange!
|
|
|
So far we have heard from the men here. Ladies, how are you taking the news. Making long term plans?
|
|
|
Does peeing in the pool help or hurt the virus?
|
|
|
Mutations are one of the problems with finding 'one size fits all' type of vaccine. Viruses mutate very quickly.
But the people here with a biological background would know more about that than me.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
@OCGuy66 Only in saline pools otherwise farting should help.
|
|
|
You must have some killer farts there, Pembrush.
|
|
|
Kinda makes sense to me. The point of origin. Where the conditions allow the virus to multiply. In the wild. That could mean a large colony of bats close to people. Like bat shit contaminated water source. That my conspiracy theory. Or maybe china dropped another vile.
|
|
|
There have been two major papers on this mutation. One from May, and one from June. The response cited in this blog was for the paper in May. At the time, the analysis of the virus had been completely computational, and there was no functional lab evidence at the time that the new mutation made the virus more transmissible. That was the point of the second paper. In a cell culture, the new mutated virus was easily more transmissible than the original one. Now, that doesn't PROVE that in nature it would be the case, but it strengthens that hypothesis mightily that it likely IS more transmissible in the wild, and the virus with.a new mutation is likely being selected for as it sweeps across Europe and now the Americas.
The good news is that it hasn't made the virus more deadly. Just easier to get.
Also, I believe functional studies of antibodies were done on both variants, and the antibodies work for both, so no worries about a vaccine being made useless by this mutation.
|
|
|
The good news is there is a steroid used as a therapeutic. It gets people off ventilators by helping lung function. The really great news is that its cheap, and widely available.
If a viruses purpose is to reproduce then that kind mutation make more sense than killing the host that allows it to reproduce. You know survival of the fittest. Not breed yourself into extinction. Just an uninformed opinion
|
|
|
Here's that new paper that describes testing the new line of COVID-19 virus in cell lines to show increased transmissibility.
|
|
|
You guys still talking bout the Rona?
That is so yesterday. 
4 new analyses based on actual data (Not modeled data) out now about lockdowns and social distancing:
ORIGINAL Chicago study (in March) using Value of a Statistcal Life (VSL) assumption of $4.5m per resulted in benefits of $7.9 trillion based on saving 1.76 million lives. BUT, the analysis was based on Imperial College projections now known to have analytical and coding errors, i.e. GIGO. OBVIOUSLY, $7.9 trillion far outweighs the cost of any mitigation strategy.
NEW study from UC Berkeley carefully evaluating real empirical data on social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and lives saved (using cellphone travel patterns, foot traffic, etc). Social distancing reduced contact by 50% while shelter-in-place reduced contact by only 5%. Then, using actual data on CV19 infection and mortality gives estimates of 74,000 lives saved. Using same VSL and adjusting for demographics, gross benefit is $250 billion.
Given that estimates of the cost of social distancing and lockdowns exceed $1 trillion at a minimum, these findings cast major doubt on their value. Not including the now measurable costs of increased suicides, domestic violence, increased drug usage.
Even more recent study from Germany's IZA Institute of Labor Economics suggests that the 74,000 is the upperbound saved over the past 4 months.
BOTTOM LINE?
This latest research on CV19 suggests that social distancing efforts in general and shelter-in-place measures in particular, have done more harm than good.
MIT's recently published results of alternative strategies concluded that TWICE as many lives could have been saved if governments had focused limited resources on protecting the most vulnerable in rifle style rather than squandering them shotgun style on everybody including low risk populations.
Plenty of other conclusions can be drawn from this REAL ANALYSES USING REAL DATA......
Like Fauci should probably be arrested, de Blasio shot, Cuomo hung, Newsome drowned, etc etc. But, I'll leave it to you guys to decide on the penalty phase.
|
|
|
Oh yeah, almost forgot.
Nice Gloomy lead in, OP
|
|
|
Sources, please?
|
|
|
Links?
|
|
|
I'm resting after all that typing but you're a smart guy.
I bet you can find them using the sources given.
Or, I just made it all up!
|
|
|
The most recent analysis in Nature suggests 4,800,000 more US cases (not just infections) would have been had by April 6th if we didn’t lockdown. That’s easily 275,000 lives saved if we go by today’s death rate. And that’s only up to April 6th.
|
|
|
I took micro biology. It wasn't a purely virology class but I learned that as a virus mutates they tend to weaken. There are always exceptions of course. Started going back to rolling in jiu jitsu 2 weeks ago so so good. Can't hide under the bed covers the rest of my life.
|
|
|
If a virus mutates, it tends to stay the same. Most mutations are neutral in effect. So I’d expect the coronavirus to stay as is for a while.
|
|
|
You realize that the Nature article was accepted on March 22, which means the data was gathered more than 3 months ago, probably longer?
Which also means it has some validity but not really that much, given the last 3 months of new data that has blown up many early assumptions that make up the econometric model.
In other words, if that's really pre March data and analysis, it's not worth much.
It's just more of the same doom and gloom that the Imperial College brought us without legs to stand on.
|
|
|
It was received March 22nd, but it was accepted in late May. As most papers are, it was clearly updated as the analysis goes through April 6th. And it only tells the story up until then. We’ll wait and get the updates that are coming the next few months, but if the trend continues, many hundreds of thousands of American lives were saved by the lockdown.
|
|
|
Or not
And even if you trust any estimate made thru "modeling"
You can't just accept that as the end of the analysis
You need to apply the balance of the equation
How many lives were lost or taken away by the lockdown due to reasons cited above and many more but not CV19?
I'm now hearing that the number of deaths attributed to the lockdown is HIGHER than those attributed to CV19. It's still early days and nobody can call it for sure til it's over.
I will be sure to do so when there's a reputable study but the MIT analysis alone should give you pause.
|
|
|
And, your study data is over 2 months old, which is no bueno
|
|
|
It's certainly true more people did die from suicide during this period. A new paper just out today highlights a large mental health service provider covering 1.2 million residents in south London reporting 958 excess deaths from a period of February 1 to May 15. Is that all due to the lockdown though? All the stress from fear of the virus I'm sure is enough to make those with mental health issues worse.
|
|
|
"models" that is the same as the "polls" BULLCHIT..
Thanks to gloom guy for tryin to keep the gloom fresh.
|
|
|
Models and polls tend to be based on data and science. They can be wrong because they are extrapolations. I guess we should just stop trying to improve them and just go on feelings and beliefs.
|
|
|
Feelings were apparently better than the Imperial College model, sadly
|
|
|
Last 14 days have shown major increased in total cases for California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, Utah, Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Puerto Rico. (See chart). Household transmission has likely been held constant. In some cases during some period of the times, testing has decreased. We're seeing cases go up likely because of transmission outside of households is going way up.
Can't blame COVID-19 infections on density anymore, as New York and other areas in the Northeast are still going down in total cases.
Arizona (1506) will soon have more people hospitalized than New York (1538).
Maybe it takes an area (like NY) to get hit really hard to fully understand how bad COVID-19 is. And enough people from these areas are still going to socially distance and wear masks because they've seen these bad things firsthand. We haven't.
Still think the lockdown or mask wearing or social distancing didn't work?
|
|
|
Appreciate all your attempt at common sense. Unfortunately people still think it is better to snort and drink Clorox.
|
|
|
Bottom line... the mandatory shut down saved the lives of people who should have died because they were too stupid to protect themselves.
I’ll never forgive Trump for that.
|
| There are 33 comments on this blog. |
