Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The numbers are concerning when you look at what percent of patients who go to the hospital because of bad symptoms, cases are confirmed, then they die. (1-2%)

 

The numbers seem more manageable when you look at confirmed cases per million population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bazza said:

92669549_10219941257514480_4829893992269

 

And that's 98.54% of the people that test positive.  We are not going to lose 4.5+ million people to this virus.

 

New York State has 131,800 cases out of 19,500,000 people and 4,758 deaths.

 

That's a survival rate of 99.976% and no other state has been hit this hard (yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

And that's 98.54% of the people that test positive.  We are not going to lose 4.5+ million people to this virus.

 

New York State has 131,800 cases out of 19,500,000 people and 4,758 deaths.

 

That's a survival rate of 99.976% and no other state has been hit this hard (yet).

 

Isn't survival rate supposed to be calculated out of people who actually contract the virus? On that basis, New York's would be 96.4%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Pretty sure this is why they decided liquor stores were *essential*. 

 

 

 

I recall reading somewhere in the early days of this that alcohol in the blood seemed to have a negative effect on the virus. 

 

If this is true, I have an entire department here at work that is going to be invulnerable to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I recall reading somewhere in the early days of this that alcohol in the blood seemed to have a negative effect on the virus. 

 

If this is true, I have an entire department here at work that is going to be invulnerable to it. 

Wasn't that debunked at some point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Isn't survival rate supposed to be calculated out of people who actually contract the virus? On that basis, New York's would be 96.4%.

 

You bring up a very good point. 

However, the number of people who contract the virus and the number who get tested for it are significantly different numbers.

 

What we have is the survival rate for people who get tested which is skewed towards people sick enough to need medical treatment (though test availability seems to be improving) so we end up with a very gloomy number.

 

And you're right about New York - They're having a bad survival rate compared to most states and its probably due to the volume of victims pouring in.

 

But it's not going to be 3.6% of New York which would be over 700,000 deaths. 

They're at 4,758 currently and they seem to be in the thick of it.  I would expect somewhere between 2-4x the current number (which is tragic), but nothing like 3.6% of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Isn't survival rate supposed to be calculated out of people who actually contract the virus? On that basis, New York's would be 96.4%.

 

NYC coronavirus fatalities drastically underreported

 

Tl;dr: Massive spike in deaths at home.  Bodies are not tested for coronavirus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AAAHHHGGGGHHHH!!!!

Gotta vent.

 

So...yesterday the Governor expanded the restrictions;  grocery stores are restricted to 20% of their capacity, starting this morning.  Well, today was the day I'd planned, plus my normal "damn I'm an old fart" prescriptions had to be picked up.

So I get them, get a couple things at Nat Grocers...then hit Sprouts.  They've got a door monitor, and there's a short line.  No big.  Everyone's cool.  Except for this one idiot woman in front of me, going "this is all stupid, we don't need this, it's nothing more than the flu."  You know the lines.  OK, MAYBE I can see the argument down here;  we had 30 cases as of last night, in a county of about 220,000.  Still, the blanket rejection is foolish, IMO.  But THEN, of course, she trots out the classic.  "It's all because people don't like the President."

 

Unreal.  STILL?  Wow.  Let's just deny the evidence from around the world.  From every competent authority.  Does this count as blinders?  Or simply blind?

 

Upside...meat counter was nicely packed.  They had the frozen ground venison I really like...and being frozen, I can keep a pack in the freezer for a fair while, just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

NYC coronavirus fatalities drastically underreported

 

Tl;dr: Massive spike in deaths at home.  Bodies are not tested for coronavirus.

 

That's a great bit of journalism.  So it seems like maybe as much as 30% of the deaths are not being recorded.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Isn't survival rate supposed to be calculated out of people who actually contract the virus? On that basis, New York's would be 96.4%.

 

For survival rate, yes;  that implicitly assumes you're infected.  

For mortality rate, I think that would hold true as well.

For a broader death rate, then you could do it as a percentage of the population at large.

Plus...I can absolutely buy that the home deaths aren't being counted, and therefore the death rate's higher.  France had that issue too;  they weren't counting deaths outside a hospital.  That's why they had a major spike in deaths about...10 days or so, IIRC.

 

This also just underscores that what we know only represents the BEST case, and the reality on the ground is very likely worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news:  Bloomberg had a plan for a pandemic of this caliber in place 14 years ago and.... budget cuts.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-new-york-city-emergency-ventilator-stockpile-ended-up-on-the-auction-block

 

tl;dr - They only got 500 of the nearly 10k ventilators they would need and then sold those off as they broke down.

 

Budget > Safety.

 

Looks like Bloomberg's administration had a good grip on this issue 14 years ago and it died a budgetary death over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mightybec said:

New York City had a rough day yesterday, but still, it's 85 deaths per million population

 

Yeah, what's another two 9/11s?  :straight:

 

(So far.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

Wasn't that debunked at some point?

 

 

Not trying to bother you, Michael; I just wanted to revisit this now that I've done some reading.

 

I still don't know.  :lol:

 

Seriously: there is a mountain of evidence that alcohol, particularly to excess or, more particularly, in those who repeat that excess with regularity, can cause immune complications, and in particular can weaken or damage the lining of the lungs (who hasn't inhaled at the wrong time after knocking shots of Golden Grain?  :lol:  That's proof enough right there or possible lung damage!   :D ), particularly in the upper bronchi and other areas Corona likes to attack. 

 

_However_-- and I want to be clear here both ways---  I have not found anything that specifically rules out the possibility that it might affect the odds of contracting Corona, for good or for bad.  My knee-jerk reaction is to say "yeah; it's probably bad to starting drinking right now."      :lol:

 

However, I have to remember the massive knee-jerk condemnation of the current medication cocktail that is showing the best results.   Granted, _my_ knee jerk condemnation of drinking-as-a-preventative is based on the actual effects of large quantities of alcohol on the body.   The knee-jerk reaction to the medication cocktail (even from doctors and pharmacists) was based entirely on the fact that it was twitted  (Twittered?) by Trump. 

 

Oddly, both the condemnations of the current treatment and the endorsement for alcohol as a preventative seem to have just dropped off the internet, presumably because they were both half-assed shots fired before the facts were in.

 

 

So......

 

well, straight-up:  I still don't know if it's debunked.  I do know that poison seems to be the cure (in terms of medicines; not alcohol), so it's already over the meager (and decades-outdated) medical education I managed to get.

 

 

I'm going to assume it's nonsense, if only because I neither want to continue looking nor start drinking in earnest.  :lol:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italy continues to have fewer case numbers...a touch over 3000 today, which is 500 less than yesterday, and about half of the rate near the end of March.

Spain had somewhat more new cases today than yesterday, but only about 4%.  Still showing a good downward trend.

Germany rose quite a bit, unfortunately.

UK stayed low.

 

France....something's weird with them.  There's a MASSIVE spike on the 3rd...23,000 cases reported.  That's 3x any day around it.  Last 4 days, the approximate new case counts have been 7800, 2900, 5200...then over 11,000 today.  And that kind of reporting pattern shows up in earlier data to a degree.

 

Unfortunately, US case counts don't show much sign of improving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

France....something's weird with them.  There's a MASSIVE spike on the 3rd...23,000 cases reported.  That's 3x any day around it.  Last 4 days, the approximate new case counts have been 7800, 2900, 5200...then over 11,000 today.  And that kind of reporting pattern shows up in earlier data to a degree.

 

France was not counting Covid-19 deaths in nursing homes.  Once they decided that deaths of old people are still deaths, they did a correction where they brought in bunch of nursing home deaths from previous days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

 

France was not counting Covid-19 deaths in nursing homes.  Once they decided that deaths of old people are still deaths, they did a correction where they brought in bunch of nursing home deaths from previous days.

 

 

I know.  But that was deaths, not new cases, and that correction was, I believe, April 2nd.  That's the day they went from 509 deaths on the 1st, to 1355 a day later.  The death counts per day since have never been below 500...and 3 of the 5 days, have been over 1000.  

 

That's the other factor that makes me think it's possibly just very bad communication on their part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sociotard said:

The thing is humans instinctively react differently to death by violence than any other kind. Accident, disaster, disease... they just don't provoke us like violence can

 

because it is so unnecessary.  Death by disease happens, and until the last century happened a whole lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...