All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (4 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[The moose]

Want a shovel? Florida is fairing far better than most states with similar populations and makeup.

Don't need a shovel.

Has a case been reported from any meat process plant in the state? Looks like the state has 89

What are the numbers for the incarcerated? The state has 513 per 100k in adult population.

The state has done well with the elderly I will definitely say that but the rest is not reported

 

[Beach Friends]

Don't need a shovel.

Has a case been reported from any meat process plant in the state? Looks like the state has 89

What are the numbers for the incarcerated? The state has 513 per 100k in adult population.

The state has done well with the elderly I will definitely say that but the rest is not reported

Moose, don't you have some new info to share about that crazy lady down in Florida who you thought was tragically fired a couple of days ago?

 

[J-DONK]

It's also very easy to say it's common sense that epidemiologists and infectious disease experts should review data before a multiple-arrested non-public-health expert publishes it.

Again, was there an issue with the data as is? Do they have a concern of it being over counted or under counted? The fact they aren't forthcoming makes its look like a flimsy cover. It gives an excuse for those looking for one.

 

[JimEverett]

Again, was there an issue with the data as is? Do they have a concern of it being over counted or under counted? The fact they aren't forthcoming makes its look like a flimsy cover. It gives an excuse for those looking for one.

The report says that a single column of data was delayed, a column gathered by a person with a degree in geography, from being reported by a day and a half by the state's official epidemiologist in order to confirm that the data was accurate. Is there some reason you think this is not true?

 

[The moose]

Moose, don't you have some new info to share about that crazy lady down in Florida who you thought was tragically fired a couple of days ago?

Hi beach!


Well we already have a great post about that from a blogger.

Good read about your speed of absolute one sided stuff.

Heck that guy before his blogger site was former spokesman for Gov. Rick Scott.

So I am sure that was certainly slanted one way!

If you are interested you can Google plenty of other articles from non republican employed writers and make your own mind up.

Hope all is well!

 

[The moose]

The report says that a single column of data was delayed, a column gathered by a person with a degree in geography, from being reported by a day and a half by the state's official epidemiologist in order to confirm that the data was accurate. Is there some reason you think this is not true?

Might I suggest reread the credible source thread again

This is great

Spokesman Brian Burgess leaves RPOF after dodging questions about Rick Scott's dog

www.tampabay.com

That is the writer of said article. A riot I tell ya, class act! Man the Rick Scott was a complete dirt bag.

As said by a guy that was former spokesman for Gov. Rick Scott !



Nope don't believe it!

 

[wardorican]

That article isn't the home run you want it to be Jim. It's very easy to read between the lines of "We need to review this data before you publish it." as "We need to delay this data so our numbers look better for reopening."

If they truly are having issues with incorrect data, they should have given examples, otherwise it sounds like a flimsy cover.

As someone who has been looking at the data almost daily, I wouldnt consider it true. Only one county had a slight flare up. Most of the data is just one day old. The hospital data is older (and a new addition) because it takes longer to get it.

If they are hiding data, they are doing a crappy job of it.

 

[Heathen]

So, my boss needed me to help him with an app on his phone and to book his condo for vacation. When I walked into his office he tells me, "This COVID apparently doesn't live on any surfaces at all."

Anyone know where he could have gotten this information or have you heard this claim from anyone else? I know he's an avid far-right talk radio listener so he probably got it from Limbaugh's show. Were the scientists wrong this entire time about the sustainability of COVID on surfaces and this is actually true?

You have to wonder why folks of this political persuasion seem to have a fixation on downplaying the disease.

No I'm kidding, I know why they do.

 

[Surviving Saint]

That people are making a life and death situation where 90K American lives have already been lost a political issue to win points for their side is the most despicable thing that anyone could do.

So just to be clear this virus has a 0.02% mortality rate. NY is responsible for 30% of those.

That's the same as the flu with a vaccine. Something is fishy.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So just to be clear this virus has a 0.02% mortality rate. NY is responsible for 30% of those.

That's the same as the flu with a vaccine. Something is fishy.

Where are you getting those numbers from?

Latest I saw was a death rate of 1.3% for Covid-19 for those showing symptoms, vs 0.1% for the flu.

COVID-19: UW study reports ‘staggering’ death toll in US among those infected who show symptoms

COVID-19 is a lot more deadly than the flu, according to a new study by the University of Washington published May 7 in the journal Health Affairs. The study’s results also project a grim future if...

www.washington.edu

 

[Surviving Saint]

Where are you getting those numbers from?

Latest I saw was a death rate of 1.3% for Covid-19 for those showing symptoms, vs 0.1% for the flu.

COVID-19: UW study reports ‘staggering’ death toll in US among those infected who show symptoms

COVID-19 is a lot more deadly than the flu, according to a new study by the University of Washington published May 7 in the journal Health Affairs. The study’s results also project a grim future if...

www.washington.edu

We have a population of 330m. 90K is not 1.3%

 

[Dragon]

We have a population of 330m. 90K is not 1.3%

You can't use the entire population when you calculate deathrate for a disease, only infected vs. dead

 

[Surviving Saint]

You can't use the entire population when you calculate deathrate for a disease, only infected vs. dead

We don't know how many are infected or how many were and nothing happened to them.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

We have a population of 330m. 90K is not 1.3%

330 m people haven't gotten Covid-19 yet. That should be obvious. Fatality rate is the percentage of people who died divided by the number of people infected.

So, if you want to go like numbers to like numbers about 9,000 people have died from the flu this year and that number is pretty steady. 90K+ have died from Covid-19, and that number was growing super fast before the lock down.

I'm not trying to be condescending. How familiar are you with geometric progression?

 

[JimEverett]

Where are you getting those numbers from?

Latest I saw was a death rate of 1.3% for Covid-19 for those showing symptoms, vs 0.1% for the flu.

COVID-19: UW study reports ‘staggering’ death toll in US among those infected who show symptoms

COVID-19 is a lot more deadly than the flu, according to a new study by the University of Washington published May 7 in the journal Health Affairs. The study’s results also project a grim future if...

www.washington.edu

Is there a reason that report only used people infected and who were symptomatic? As opposed to just infected?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Why did that report only include symptomatic cases? Is there a reason for that in terms of comparing the death rate to seasonal flu?

Just going by my state - the death rate currently as measured by number of reported deaths divided by the number of people who have tested positive - is 1.66%

I think it was to do a comparison to the flu. We don't know how many people have actually gotten Covid-19 yet, and we haven't done enough anti-body testing to do a great estimate yet either. So the true mortality rate is unknown. It is highly probable that it has a far lower mortality rate than 1.3% (or 1.66%) given that we know there are a number of asymptomatic cases. So, they just did a study of symptomatic cases I guess.

I'm pretty sure the "true" mortality rate will be less than 1%, and probably greater than 0.5%. But it's highly contagious and there are no built in immunities yet, hence the risk of quick spikes.

 

[insidejob]

I think it was to do a comparison to the flu. We don't know how many people have actually gotten Covid-19 yet, and we haven't done enough anti-body testing to do a great estimate yet either. So the true mortality rate is unknown. It is highly probable that it has a far lower mortality rate than 1.3% (or 1.66%) given that we know there are a number of asymptomatic cases. So, they just did a study of symptomatic cases I guess.

I'm pretty sure the "true" mortality rate will be less than 1%, and probably greater than 0.5%. But it's highly contagious and there are no built in immunities yet, hence the risk of quick spikes.

The pretty in depth piece I listened to about the 1918 Flu over the weekend said it wasn't the first wave that killed the majority of people. The first wave "only" killed thousands (as is the case with COVID now) but the following waves ended up tallying 50,000,000 deaths.

If we don't start mass testing and contact tracing our butts off, there's a real fear that the same thing is going to happen when Fall gets here.

 

[JimEverett]

I think it was to do a comparison to the flu. We don't know how many people have actually gotten Covid-19 yet, and we haven't done enough anti-body testing to do a great estimate yet either. So the true mortality rate is unknown. It is highly probable that it has a far lower mortality rate than 1.3% (or 1.66%) given that we know there are a number of asymptomatic cases. So, they just did a study of symptomatic cases I guess.

I'm pretty sure the "true" mortality rate will be less than 1%, and probably greater than 0.5%. But it's highly contagious and there are no built in immunities yet, hence the risk of quick spikes.

The serologic study of Santa Clara County, California suggested 2.5% - 4.2% of the population had been infected. Supposing that is correct, and then making a bigger leap to say the numbers apply across the country would result in a death rate, currently, of 0.68% to 1.15%

Just trying to understand the numbers - in order to have a death rate around 0.2% roughly 15% of the U.S. population would need to be infected - which I think some German studies have suggested.