rick81721
Lothar
UV radiation instead of temp?
https://www.accuweather.com/en/heal...r-and-could-be-key-in-slowing-covid-19/703393
This Thread Blows - C19 and beyond
- Thread starter Paul H
- Start date
UV radiation instead of temp?
https://www.accuweather.com/en/heal...r-and-could-be-key-in-slowing-covid-19/703393
JPark
Well-Known Member
Sweden is doing a long term strategy.
They know they will have more sick now, but when covid pops up again in the fall/winter they will have a much more immune population than their neighbors.
Next winter they could be business as usual, while other countries go back into lockdowns.
They know they will have more sick now, but when covid pops up again in the fall/winter they will have a much more immune population than their neighbors.
Next winter they could be business as usual, while other countries go back into lockdowns.
so just to put this into perspective - that means 4% of the population (approx median from paper).
so open the place up and let's get the other 96% on board.
they've currently had 83 deaths of - so pick a multiplier.
covid 19 deaths in santa clara county - Google Search
www.google.com
Is Sweden's curve behind ours? If it is im sure they are benefiting from what has been learned about the use of ventilators.....I was reading last night that up to 80% of people put on ventilators are dying....which really isnt surprising given the condition you would be in when they decide to put you on a ventilator.
us first death 3/1, sweden 3/14
i read there is a study about the ventilator vs mask/orientation of patient - can't find it...
deaths % of pop - they aren't testing, since it doesn't matter.
then stories from the internet, cause they are the most trustworthy.
Why deaths % of population and not deaths per 1M?
And on this note, when we are looking at the figures,
are these numbers even reliable in the testing sense
I mean are we confident in the accuracy of the test itself at this point?
And aren't there multiple testing standards in play?
It seems to me accuracy varies by test type and also timing of test relative to infection.
Honest question, I'm not just muckraking here.
@Patrick @rick81721 what's the status of test accuracy currently?
I mean I get that noisy data > no data (mostly), but just not clear on the potential conflicting biases in the numbers.
is there a difference? i keep messing up the math! so there is that. ok d/M
hospitalized / critical would also be useful relative to their capacity.
one of the articles indicated that swedes traditionally take off from work if not feeling well. it is government
supported, so the employer does not take the $$ hit. that would work well if people got sick immediatly.
does it matter if it is consistent?
seems that the test produces false negatives below a certain viral load - so under-reported?
then add in the asymptomatic/recovered - so more under reporting.
that i why i like critical and deaths as a measurement - although they aren't testing all dead bodies for the virus.
Maybe we should really be counting just the total number of people that are dying in a given country from everything. It would indirectly address the people not being counted properly* save for the people dead & alone in their houses and rotting away.
* note that the dead generally DGAF how they are counted.
* note that the dead generally DGAF how they are counted.
Typically not, as long as it's consistent.
But I guess that's my question- aren't these counts based on multiple test standards?
If so, then I'm concerned about the potential mix of biases in the aggregate.
Again, I'm not up on the status of what test(s) are being used,
if it is just a single method, then yes, it can be probably assumed to be consistent if not totally accurate.
JPark
Well-Known Member
If the Study is accurate, that means the virus is far less deadly than previously thought.
Because the number of deaths hasn't changed.
santa clara has 1.9M people -
if 4% are/have been and 83 have died that scales up to 4,000 on 1,900,000
or 4 on 1,900 or about .2% - good number. that is what NYC is seeing for 20-60 yo.
86% of santa clara is under 65.
haven't seen their age co-horts.
This is true - or against their 'expected'
here is my concern - it hasn't changed since it started.
- if the people that are going to die, are going to die - covid-19 or anything,
clog the system to the point where the people that would live,
again c19 or not, will die, cause lack of people/equipment to help them.
a perfectly treatable heart attack can not be properly triaged?
Ambulance not available for a stroke victim.
etc.
If anyone is interested, there's an APHA/NAM webinar on testing tomorrow.
This series has had some great speakers.
This series has had some great speakers.
COVID-19 Conversations Webinar Series COVID-19 Testing: Possibilities, Challenges, and Ensuring Equity April 22, 2020 | 5 – 6:30 p.m. ET |
|
The fifth COVID-19 Conversations webinar will provide an update on the state of testing for COVID-19, what data the different tests being developed will provide, how we can use that data to inform plans to ease physical distancing, and the equity issues we must all consider regarding what populations can access testing and how we can ensure equal access for all. The webinar’s panel of expert speakers:
|
rick81721
Lothar
You measure prevalence of disease only one way - number of cases/population. Pat wants to look at deaths as it fits his narrative better but deaths tells you severity, not prevalence. And severity in this case is highly dependent on the infected population - health/comorbidities, age and sex being drivers from highest relevance down. And the claim that Sweden "isn't testing" is false. They have tested over 0.7% of the population, basically where we were 2 weeks ago.
rick81721
Lothar
No one is catching all cases by testing for viable virus. Dependent on time of taking samples false negatives can be as high as 30%. I think the serological testing going forward will be more relevant and will more accurately tell who has been exposed and has some immunity.