LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The statistics cited above have no reference where one can check the context. Can you provide one? Preferably one with the same graphic?
Trump denies Covid-19 surge even as virus spreads among Pence's inner circle
- Status
T
tomarin
Guest
From the WHO website on the difference between Covid 19 and seasonal influenza (dated March 17, 2020):
‘Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care.’
www.who.int/coronavirus_vs/influenza
‘Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care.’
www.who.int/coronavirus_vs/influenza
O
o_mlly
Guest
Did you not read the pop-up for your site?
More importantly, the site does not support your claim. Rather, it warns against just such assumptions:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Yes I posted these stats a few weeks ag
f course they were debunked by the usual suspects
f course they were debunked by the usual suspects
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, the statement implies information on the status (asymptomatic) of those tested is not known. It appears you cannot support your claim.
U
umamibella
Guest
No, it is not misleading, Its a fact if you are in a region where corona virus is prevalent.
Now if you were in a region where corona virus was not prevalent, ie NZ or Easter Island, More testing would not = more positives. It could very well equate to more negatives.
More testing there does not logically or necessarily led to more known positives in that case.
What the number of people being tested can tell us from the number of tests is what covid is or is not doing in a community. It is also helpful with contact tracing. 'Where the clusters are, how covid has spread, its footprints and tracks, its DNA so we can know what its origin in that cluster is. How lethal or not that particular DNA is in that community.
It is just not logical to begin and end a discussion on the more = more and less = less principle. It is not a valid scientific stat as a stand alone on what covid is or is not doing in a community. That needs history, a track record, comparable testing against comparable testing.
To me, these statements are wishful thinking in an election year. It is also perhaps an attempt to stop panic or make little of the severity of Covid.
There, Zake, is an example of why the more tests = more positives , less tests = less positives is not a valid scientific stat on its own.
More testing does not = covid spiking. Covid will spike regardless of the extent to which it is subject to testing. Testing has nothing to do with covid spiking unless that testing is a super spreader event itself, then the mechanics of the test is responsible for the spike, not the fact people are fronting up to be tested. There may be absolutely no testing and covid will still spike. These two 'covid spiking and ‘more testing’ are not logically related and unconnected with each other.
Here Zake is another ‘fact’ people state without scientific backing. For this statement to be true, or false, scientifically there is a lot to be taken into account. That would include DNA, region, available health care, original health of the population, just what the definition of ‘mild’ is. (Bear in mind the flu can also hospitalize, put people in ICU, and kill. The common cold almost wiped out a few populations, and is still quite a risk in some populations). Other factors come into play there too.
I pray for your sister’s continuing recovery. Also that she and those involved do not get ‘long Covid’
I am sure you have all heard of long covid by now.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Thank you!
Z
Zake
Guest
That is not disputed. But the fact is that testing does not CAUSE more positives. And Trump’s words insinuated that the spike in the cases was CAUSE by testing. That is all.
U
umamibella
Guest
I very likely lost my aunt to covid in July. We cant really know at this point because of all the lockdown in Melbourne. She was a bit older then your relatives. I also find it absolutely remarkable that people who have turned the corner of 100 or close to it, at least here in Australia, seem to be able to fight off Covid and live to tell the tale. I do wish there is research into that in time.
Yep he got that wrong, and he really should be picked up on it, but he has stopped listening to medical people and organisations that try to say wait a minute, lets look at this. That is what I am getting from the media reports and from what he says himself.
I predict after the election the discussion will be quite different, we will not have useable vaccines by Christmas, according to all medical authorities, unless we do like Russia and China have done. Hopefully we are not so irresponsible that we would rush through vaccines.
Melbourne and Victoria is set to open up again in the coming month, the litmus test is going to be has covid truly be sunk to manageable levels or will it explode again , given Christmas is coming up and holiday season and summer and beach and BBQ weather here.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
PaulinVA . . .
People were just as sick before. Probably sicker.
Yet they were sent home earlier in the pandemic
(we all or many of us
know very sick Coronavirus people who were sent home from the hospital ER earlier by now) because the medical community was not as knowledgeable as they are now in treating corona virus.
So WHY hospitalize them (before), when they had no treatment? It would have been pointless.
I would expect hospitalizations to rise now
(“Now that we know we can actually do something, let’s admit him for TREATMENT”).
There is a case surge WORLDWIDE.
Is THAT Trump’s fault too?
Why?
People were just as sick before. Probably sicker.
Yet they were sent home earlier in the pandemic
(we all or many of us
know very sick Coronavirus people who were sent home from the hospital ER earlier by now) because the medical community was not as knowledgeable as they are now in treating corona virus.
So WHY hospitalize them (before), when they had no treatment? It would have been pointless.
I would expect hospitalizations to rise now
(“Now that we know we can actually do something, let’s admit him for TREATMENT”).
There is a case surge WORLDWIDE.
Is THAT Trump’s fault too?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
@cathoholic , I disagree with your whole analysis above.
People were being hospitalized at the beginning of the outbreak because they couldn’t breathe. Yes, treatments weren’t effective for all all people. But, to say that sick patients weren’t transported or weren’t admitted is denying reality.
Now, we do have some effective treatments. Maybe some people are treated at home and don’t become acute. Great. That means when the hospitalization rate goes up, that’s a good indicator of the serious infection rate.
People were being hospitalized at the beginning of the outbreak because they couldn’t breathe. Yes, treatments weren’t effective for all all people. But, to say that sick patients weren’t transported or weren’t admitted is denying reality.
Now, we do have some effective treatments. Maybe some people are treated at home and don’t become acute. Great. That means when the hospitalization rate goes up, that’s a good indicator of the serious infection rate.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Nonsense. They always had some treatment. Sick people were not turned away because the treatment wasn’t good enough. Hospitalization is up because the virus is surging. Many hospitals are at capacity right now in terms of doctors.
U
umamibella
Guest
This is a good testing exercise in China right now for the more tests = more positives / less tests = less positives / spike / surge theory.
More testing does not driving up the positives in this current testing so far.
1 single asymptomatic covid case was found on Sunday. 5 million people are to be tested as a result. So far 2.8 million have been tested ( quite a feat itself, in that little time) for only 137 asymptomatic cases.
So far a tiny drop in the testing ocean. 2.2 million tests to go.
More testing does not driving up the positives in this current testing so far.
1 single asymptomatic covid case was found on Sunday. 5 million people are to be tested as a result. So far 2.8 million have been tested ( quite a feat itself, in that little time) for only 137 asymptomatic cases.
So far a tiny drop in the testing ocean. 2.2 million tests to go.
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
No, people read that in to his words. More testing leads to identification of more asymptomatic people. That is obviously what he meant, but far too many people are happy to twist his words to fit their agenda.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
That isn’t true.
New York has been posting daily test results for months.
Some days have had over 100 thousand tests, and the positive rate remains about 1-2 percent.
New York has been posting daily test results for months.
Some days have had over 100 thousand tests, and the positive rate remains about 1-2 percent.
Z
Zake
Guest
It is the exact opposite. YOU try to whitewash his words. But… what is new? Maybe he was “joking”??? Some kind of a “locker room” humor?
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
PaulinVA . . .
I said corona virus patients who were thought to have no treatment options were sent home.
And I stand by that. Here it is again . . . .
Some did. But there were protocols set up at hospitals for admission to discriminate those groups out. Differing protocols for different hospitals (we have discussed that before here).
We’ve talked about them here (so I don’t understand why you are attempting to deny that).
Before, it was often either go home, or transfer to a referral center. Now even little hospitals are often admitting corona virus patients and caring for them.
No desaturation or minor desaturation? Even WITH corona virus “Go home and self-isolate!”
That is an obvious example that most of us have either went through ourselves, or KNOW someonewho did.
There are treatment options now, that just were not known several months ago. If you want we can talk about those too (again).
That was PART of the decision making process.
I stand by everything I have said here.
The problem with that is, I did not say corona virus were not admitted.
I said corona virus patients who were thought to have no treatment options were sent home.
And I stand by that. Here it is again . . . .
Not that EVERYBODY with corona virus “had no treatment”.
Some did. But there were protocols set up at hospitals for admission to discriminate those groups out. Differing protocols for different hospitals (we have discussed that before here).
We’ve talked about them here (so I don’t understand why you are attempting to deny that).
Before, it was often either go home, or transfer to a referral center. Now even little hospitals are often admitting corona virus patients and caring for them.
No desaturation or minor desaturation? Even WITH corona virus “Go home and self-isolate!”
That is an obvious example that most of us have either went through ourselves, or KNOW someonewho did.
There are treatment options now, that just were not known several months ago. If you want we can talk about those too (again).
That was PART of the decision making process.
I stand by everything I have said here.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle . . .
I personally know people who were sent home positive without treatment. Many people. One of them is stopping by here later today.
Yes but many were not candidates for treatment.
I personally know people who were sent home positive without treatment. Many people. One of them is stopping by here later today.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Those same people in the same state of health would probably also be sent home today too.
In the meantime:
As hospitalizations for Covid-19 inch up around the country, some states are readying plans for field hospitals. Communities are delaying reopening plans and even imposing new measures, though some governors remain opposed to additional restrictions.
“We thought it was horrible then, but when you look at it from this perspective, they were fairly low,” said Kimberley Shoaf, an expert in public health crises at the University of Utah, reflecting on her state’s caseload in the spring. Now, for the first time, Utah is consistently seeing more than 1,000 new daily infections, according to STAT’s Covid-19 Tracker.
“Our health care system is almost at a breaking point,” Shoaf said.
The fundamental transmission of the virus hasn’t changed. The virus will go where it’s given room to run, and will find people who are susceptible there. Despite over 8 million confirmed U.S. cases, the vast majority of Americans — up to 90% according to federal estimates — remains vulnerable to an infection.
Like in the outbreaks in Texas and Florida over the summer, younger adults appear to be accounting for a bulk of new infections, which, in a way, is a positive sign, given that they are less likely to have severe cases or die than older adults. But thinking that spread among younger adults is harmless ignores the fact that some of them will still die or get very sick, straining the health care system. Plus, if the virus is spreading among a certain population, it won’t stay there. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released this month showed how rising infections among people ages 20 to 39 preceded an increase in cases among people 60 years and older — a trend that “is likely to result in more hospitalizations, severe illnesses, and death,” the researchers wrote.
“Infection spreads,” said Stephen Kissler, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. If younger people are getting infected now, he said, “ultimately, what that will mean is that there will probably be a longer delay between the observed cases and, for example, hospitalizations and deaths, because there have to be a couple extra chains of transmission between the people who are first getting infected and then getting the disease passed onto the people who are going to be most strongly affected.”
The fact that the epidemic is now hitting states like the Dakotas and Montana so hard reflects what experts envisioned at the outset of the U.S. crisis. The virus would spread the most at first in dense cities that received a high number of imported cases, and from there would travel to other cities, and then trickle to more rural areas.
- Status