Jump to content

Blue Mountain - COVID-19 Update


toast21602

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

Yeah so that means it’s way less serious than we thought. 

I wouldn't say "way" because the sample size is still too small, but as the tested numbers grow, it may show that the mortality rate drops.
It also would indicate that this thing is fucking contagious as hell, which really seems fishy to me.
How did all these people get this in such a short period of time and that it was only "discovered" over in a little town in China as being lethal.
If all these New Yorkers had got it so early, why weren't they dying of it?  Dunno...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, indiggio said:

I wouldn't say "way" because the sample size is still too small, but as the tested numbers grow, it may show that the mortality rate drops.
It also would indicate that this thing is fucking contagious as hell, which really seems fishy to me.
How did all these people get this in such a short period of time and that it was only "discovered" over in a little town in China as being lethal.
If all these New Yorkers had got it so early, why weren't they dying of it?  Dunno...

I am sick of people who had the flu during the first half of the winter thinking they got the corona virus..the head of the CDC is saying how lucky we are that the corona virus and the Flu didn’t hit real hard at the same time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah if there are several times more cases than the death rate is way less...but it also shows just how easily this spreads.  

From NPR


Currently, the tests on the market do not need approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and there are dozens of manufacturers making versions that claim to be more than 90% accurate. But the margin of error on false positives in many of the tests is too high for an accurate representation of the number of people who have been infected by the disease.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force, which has set an informal standard for the new tests, placed a limit of no more than 10 false positives per hundred.

"If you were to use a test that meets that standard, though, in a population where only 1% of the population has been infected, a positive result would actually be wrong a shocking amount of the time — like nine times out of 10," Harris reported
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, indiggio said:

I wouldn't say "way" because the sample size is still too small, but as the tested numbers grow, it may show that the mortality rate drops.
It also would indicate that this thing is fucking contagious as hell, which really seems fishy to me.
How did all these people get this in such a short period of time and that it was only "discovered" over in a little town in China as being lethal.
If all these New Yorkers had got it so early, why weren't they dying of it?  Dunno...

It isn't fishy. Don't turn into a facebook conspiracy theorist. They probably were dying but it wasn't associated with COVID19, just like in California where there are now confirmed deaths before the "official first death" after going back and testing people who have passed. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/22/death-coronavirus-first-california/

Edited by toast21602
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tarponhead said:


From NPR


Currently, the tests on the market do not need approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and there are dozens of manufacturers making versions that claim to be more than 90% accurate. But the margin of error on false positives in many of the tests is too high for an accurate representation of the number of people who have been infected by the disease.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force, which has set an informal standard for the new tests, placed a limit of no more than 10 false positives per hundred.

"If you were to use a test that meets that standard, though, in a population where only 1% of the population has been infected, a positive result would actually be wrong a shocking amount of the time — like nine times out of 10," Harris reported

Interesting can’t wait to see what Fox News and the Young Turks have to say about it.  I watch both sides of the spectrum. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, toast21602 said:

It isn't fishy. Don't turn into a facebook conspiracy theorist. They probably were dying but it wasn't associated with COVID19, just like in California where there are now confirmed deaths before the "official first death" after going back and testing people who have passed. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/22/death-coronavirus-first-california/

Nah, just trying to make sense of the numbers.

I think the culprit is US timing and that I wasn't paying much attention to the whole thing prior to like January or so, with the first cases in China were back in November 2019.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, indiggio said:

Nah, just trying to make sense of the numbers.

The numbers aren't as simple as most people think. Here's an example:

Flu: Out of 10,000 people 20% get the flu and 2% of those people die. 10,000 x 0.2 x 0.02 = 40 dead out of 10,000.

Corona: Out of 10,000 people 40% get it and 1.5% of those people die: 10,000 x 0.4 x 0.015 = 60 dead people out of 10,000. That's 20 more dead out of 10,000 or 50% more dead with a lower death rate per case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this conversation brings up something that I've been thinking about since day 1. We are right in the middle of this whole thing and it's absolutely crazy so I'm very glad we are taking measures to stop the spread. That being said, the severity, the spread, the death rate, the number of people infected, the locations being affected, and literally every other stat, fact, figure and measure that we are talking about has to be looked at with a wide angle lens. Number of people with Covid are most likely lower than reported because we aren't testing everyone and people are staying home and riding it out. Deaths are probably under-reported because some people die outside hospitals. False positives are a problem, lack of testing is a problem, lack of specific data on patients is a problem, i.e. age, race, health, etc. 

I don't think anyone can make an accurate prediction as to what will happen or what we should do next with the way that we are currently gathering data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Schif said:

people are staying home and riding it out.

I think this may be a big one, as many are being told that if they don't have severe symptoms, to stay at home and isolate themselves.
Thus, you could have a ton of people who have been exposed with little to no issues and not being tested/reported and no knowledge of antibodies or even if they had Rona.

Link to comment
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.

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...