By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

SvennoJ on 04 May 2020
John2290 said:
Should people with darker skin be classed as vulnerable in the same way the over 70s and obese people are? Doing it could spark insane backlash but it could save live, actually, you know what, why aren't the governments sending out Vitimin D supplements to people with darker skin? This will be a great shame on us when we look back that no one spoke up for fear of calls of racism.

Isn't it more a case of different living circumstances?

They might not be more at risk because of their skin color, more because of their social economic status.
https://time.com/5815820/data-new-york-low-income-neighborhoods-coronavirus/

The fear of racism does stop the CDC collecting any useful data to compare based on race.

But living closer together, more people together per house, that's the best way for the virus to spread.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 04 May 2020

Well svennoj there might be some truth about Somali immigrants not practicing good social distancing because here in USA have something similar with the Orthodox Jews. They would show funerals in NYC and they would pack the streets to see funeral casket carried through streets by carriage. However now we have protest and beach rallies. So pretty much a decent minority is saying fuck it. We will see in a few weeks how that turns out. Only exposure I get now is either through my girl or going to gas station for beer.  Still don't wear mask but I'm like in the store for 2 mins.  When my manufacturing plant calls me back to work mid this month I believe I have to wear face mask there and get temp checked each day.



sethnintendo on 04 May 2020

Well this is starting to get out of hand here in USA...

Security guard shot for refusing entry of woman's child to Family Dollar because she wasn't wearing a mask.

https://apnews.com/9e9eadf6757e8ad1551030dacf6b3e29

"A woman, her adult son and husband have been charged in the fatal shooting of a security guard who refused to let her daughter enter a Family Dollar in Michigan because she wasn’t wearing a face mask to protect against transmission of the coronavirus.

Calvin Munerlyn was shot Friday at the store just north of downtown Flint a short time after telling Sharmel Teague’s daughter she had to leave because she lacked a mask, according to Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton.

Teague, 45, argued with Munerlyn, 43, before leaving. Two men later came to the store.

Teague; her husband, Larry Teague, 44; and Ramonyea Bishop, 23; are charged with first-degree premeditated murder and gun charges."



Pyro as Bill on 04 May 2020
Scoobes said:
Pyro as Bill said:

The antibody test doesn't become 90%+ accurate until 21 days after symptoms.

I think your 0.2% CFR number for under 18s is bullshit.

100,000+ people infected in Stockholm at the end of March. How many under 18s had died there a month ago?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

It's taken from here using global statistics, not just Sweden:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

I made a mistake as the 0-9 age group is low enough to be not statistically significant (or it's out of date), 10-19 is 0.2% likelihood of death.

Age of Coronavirus Deaths

COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE:

*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%). This probability differs depending on the age group. The percentages shown below do not have to add up to 100%, as they do NOT represent share of deaths by age group. Rather, it represents, for a person in a given age group, the risk of dying if infected with COVID-19.

AGE
 DEATH RATE
confirmed cases		 DEATH RATE
all cases
80+ years old
21.9%
14.8%
70-79 years old
8.0%
60-69 years old
3.6%
50-59 years old
1.3%
40-49 years old
0.4%
30-39 years old
0.2%
20-29 years old
0.2%
10-19 years old
0.2%
0-9 years old
no fatalities

*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%). The percentages do not have to add up to 100%, as they do NOT represent share of deaths by age group.

That's still up to 15,000 10-19 year olds dead in the UK if we assume they all get infected. So, is that acceptable?

Why would you choose China's shitty numbers instead of the more reliable 0.04% number from New York? NY's number is still way above the real number but that won't be proven until we see how many people were actually infected.

NY has 3 deaths (as of Apr 14) and all 3 had underlying health conditions. Sweden has 2.

We know Covid is worse than regular flu for everyone except children. Would you shut down the world's economy to protect kids from the regular flu?

Edit - a 10yr old has the same chance of dying as a 39yr old and you don't think those numbers look a little suspect?

Last edited by Pyro as Bill - on 04 May 2020

Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

drkohler on 05 May 2020

Things are getting more and more interesting by the day.
French doctors went through samples from early December patients with unexplained flu-like symptoms. A 42 year old French/Algerian tested positive for Covid-19, and no connection to China whatsoever.
Switzerland has had very low numbers of new infections in the past days. In no cases was it possible to specifically track down the origins of the infections.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 05 May 2020

Graphs for Europe

Russia is getting out of control, over 10K new cases daily already.
Everyone else is doing very well, extra deep dip this weekend, hope it mostly stays.

Reported deaths recover a day sooner from the weekend dip, hence the uptick here and there already.

Norway is off the scale now, avg 1 death per day left and only 40 new cases daily.



Since Europe is starting to go to work again I'm preparing some graphs that put the weekly change more in focus.
Here's the first one for the big six:

The natural rate of the virus R0 2.2 is a 290% change week over week, any country charting already has the brakes on.

What this plots is the difference between avg reported cases today and those of one week ago.
For example, France on April 19th reported 50% of the cases they reported 7 days earlier.

Where each country dips down below 100% is where the peak is, from there they are in decline. Exception, the UK, they started growing again for a bit.
The further down the line goes, the harder the brakes are on.
France and Germany end in a thinner line, that's where they went under 1000 reported cases per day.
Russia, going back up, brakes failed :/

This can be used to see how movement restrictions correlate to stopping power, for example Italy vs China aligned at the growth peak.

China stomped on the brakes and went under 100 cases daily 25 days after the growth peak of 3604.
Italy is currently 35 days past the peak and is down to 1500 daily cases from a peak of 6029.



The question is now, how does it relate to mobility per country and will it go back up when loosening restrictions. The Imperial college seems to think so. They have done an in detail analysis of Italy, what's next.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-05-04-COVID19-Report-20.pdf

They calculated through what could happen when loosening mobility restrictions and it's not pretty.




They even think Lombardy still has the capability to flare up again if loosening restrictions too much.



JRPGfan on 05 May 2020
SpokenTruth said:
John2290 said:
Should people with darker skin be classed as vulnerable in the same way the over 70s and obese people are? Doing it could spark insane backlash but it could save live, actually, you know what, why aren't the governments sending out Vitimin D supplements to people with darker skin? This will be a great shame on us when we look back that no one spoke up for fear of calls of racism.

A Vitamin D supplement won't do anything unless you are already deficient in Vitamin D.

US stats:

which 60%+ in nurseing homes suffer from.
Which ~58% hospitalised suffer from.

"73% of elderly black subjects were vitamin D insufficient, compared with 36% of elderly non-Hispanic whites" - Vin Tangpricha, MD, PhD

Also deficiency isnt the same, as haveing enough.
You can be "non-deficient" and still show positive effects from getting vitamin D.

John Campbell saw a study about vitamin D on this virus, and started recammending everyone take it.
He himself takes a suppliment of it. 

If your white, and like to sun bathe / be outsides, chances are your vitamin D levels are fine.
The issue is, most of us arnt or dont live like that (esp now with the virus) we re basically just indoors all the time.
I see it as a "it cant hurt" type of thing, so yeah Im doing it too now.

edit:
He keeps mentioning vitamin D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=6-WjTdmwKjA&feature=emb_logo

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 05 May 2020

JRPGfan on 05 May 2020
SvennoJ said:
Trumpstyle said:

But our confirmed cases is now steady even with increased testing, same with our daily reported dead, it's stable or in a slight decline. This can only mean that about 25-30% of stockholm must be immune otherwise it would just keep increasing and increasing.

As for getting down from the peak, that is not the goal from what I know. Our virus dude (Anders Tegnell) said he aims to hover around R1, this could mean slightly higher or slightly below. I'm hoping he will increase the R number as you can't ask the vulnerable people to remain isolated forever, maybe 2-4 month and they will stop isolate themself.

How can it go from a (not all that reliable measurement) of 10% to 25% to 30% while the reported cases are in a slight decline vs increased testing.
Even if 10% was reached from the first detected case on Februari 15th, 1 month of unhampered growth (Sweden started social distancing on about March 10th) plus another 20 days of restricted growth. Then how on earth can it now be 25% to 30% after 1 more month without further growth.

Sweden reported 17,370 new cases since April 1st. Even if we assume that it's still 10x under reported, and we pile all those cases onto Stockholm, and we take the 10% on April 1st for granted, today Stockholm could at most be at 24% infected. That's a lot of ifs, wild guesses and incorrect counting piled on top of each other.

So basically what your virus dude wants to happen is kill another 5 times as many people in Stockholm, then the rest of the country as well?
(Wild guess on deaths, it will still take 20 days to find out the fatalities from April 1st to today, when that number is known and it is indeed 24% currently, then it would 'only' be another 2x to 3x as many piled on top, excluding the rest of the country)


Not as drastic a change compared to other countries, hence no real decline.

At least Sweden kept the parks open and people go there to I assume stay apart from each other. That's the big misstep here, herding everyone into the few remaining green spaces that are not closed, closed to keep people apart... You don't need common sense to be a politician :)

How good are their tests? in terms of accuracy?

Some of these anti body tests, have false negative, false positive %'s so high, you might as well just flip a coin.

"have I had coronavirus? do I have antibodies in my blood?"

*Let me check*

*flips coin*



vivster on 05 May 2020

Russia has massively ramped up testing it seems. If we pretend that they don't hide deaths it would seem they're doing a good job. They're gonna overtake Germany in cases very soon. After that Brazil will probably pass us. Though that depends on how well we're dealing with the reopening. It has been two weeks since the partial reopening of stores and we've gone down steadily in both deaths and cases. Next week is probably gonna start the next wave of reopenings.

I fully expect another surge in late May through June where we'll close down again.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

JRPGfan on 05 May 2020
SpokenTruth said:
JRPGfan said:

US stats:

which 60%+ in nurseing homes suffer from.
Which ~58% hospitalised suffer from.

"73% of elderly black subjects were vitamin D insufficient, compared with 36% of elderly non-Hispanic whites" - Vin Tangpricha, MD, PhD

Also deficiency isnt the same, as haveing enough.
You can be "non-deficient" and still show positive effects from getting vitamin D.

John Campbell saw a study about vitamin D on this virus, and started recammending everyone take it.
He himself takes a suppliment of it. 

If your white, and like to sun bathe / be outsides, chances are your vitamin D levels are fine.
The issue is, most of us arnt or dont live like that (esp now with the virus) we re basically just indoors all the time.
I see it as a "it cant hurt" type of thing, so yeah Im doing it too now.

You miss my point.  I didn't say people weren't deficient, only that unless you are it won't do you much good.  And the reason for that is simply absorption. As with all vitamins, the body will only absorb what it needs.  It can't store excess. 

If you or others want to take a Vitamin D supplement, go for it. 
Just understand the overwhelming majority of it will simply end up in your urine.


And while Dr. Campbell mentions Vitamin D, it's almost completely in reference to his viewer's submission photos.  His most valid point is that it would be great if we could all be tested for Vitamin D levels.  But why get tested for our Vitamin D levels? So we know if we are deficient or not.  If Vitamin D supplements were simply a valid means to protecting against Covid-19 regardless of our levels, he wouldn't suggest we should all be tested.  He'd just say take it anyway.

Again, don't get me wrong.  For those that need it, take it. But if you're already getting an adequate level (or already reasonably healthy to begin with), a supplement won't be of benefit.

We cant all just get tested for vitamin levels, now (waste of lab capacity).
Some places its like ~50% of the population that suffer from deficencies.

He does say "just take it anyways".
He himself takes it, and recammends others to "just take it".

"Again, don't get me wrong.  For those that need it, take it. But if you're already getting an adequate level (or already reasonably healthy to begin with), a supplement won't be of benefit."

The thing is so many people actually have this issue (its so common), that the reality is its easier to just say "everyone take this pill".
Those that barely lack anything, like you said it would just end up in their urine.

Imagine gathering 100 people.
Testing them for vitamin levels, and finding out 50 of them need a suppliment.
Then giveing those 50 the suppliment.

It might be easier, faster, cheaper... to just give all 100 a pill.