fasonfan
Jesus Saves
- Nov 1, 2017
- 320
- 190
I'm not Breitbart or foxnews type. I was mainly Ted Cruz type.
Gator Basketball NCAA Tourney cancelled
- Thread starter Jbossgator8
- Start date
- Jun 10, 2014
- 16,578
- 20,016
Founding Member
The fact of the matter is, if you yourself are not that susceptible to the virus, that’s great. Good for you. You’re healthy! Just think of the countless number of people you come into contact with directly or indirectly on a daily basis and stop being a selfish douche bag. There’s nothing hysterical about telling people to wash their hands and quarantine themselves if they come down with the virus. It’s common sense to avoid the spread.
- Jul 24, 2014
- 9,193
- 22,903
- Jun 14, 2014
- 25,397
- 29,513
Founding Member
Cannot rate this thing as to any kind of rate (death, infectivity). Because :
1) we don't know when it started (first cases here)
2) we don't know how many, many are positive overall the expanse of people exposed
3) we don't know how many got it, beat it, while just thinking it was the flu
4) because we don't know 1-3 statistical pronouncements are inaccurate.
Still, as straightforward, protect oneself and others. Carry a zip-lock with the effective wipes. Offer them in any threatful situation. Because China started this "whenever" nothing is trustworthy data-wise from them.
Now as for tournaments, check IDs no one over 60 can be admitted. The tourneys will have normalcy. Players won't feel bad, cheated.
Going on a death rate nobody should be allowed out driving their cars, at least at night.
1) we don't know when it started (first cases here)
2) we don't know how many, many are positive overall the expanse of people exposed
3) we don't know how many got it, beat it, while just thinking it was the flu
4) because we don't know 1-3 statistical pronouncements are inaccurate.
Still, as straightforward, protect oneself and others. Carry a zip-lock with the effective wipes. Offer them in any threatful situation. Because China started this "whenever" nothing is trustworthy data-wise from them.
Now as for tournaments, check IDs no one over 60 can be admitted. The tourneys will have normalcy. Players won't feel bad, cheated.
Going on a death rate nobody should be allowed out driving their cars, at least at night.
- Nov 16, 2017
- 5,552
- 13,091
We've got one going into trials, as do the Aussies and the Chinese.
If you fall into two or more of these you need to be concerned:
Obese
Diabetic
Immunodeficient
Cardiovascular disease
Smoker
Live in an area with high levels of air pollution
Very Old
Very Young
Asian decent*
African decent*
*For a myriad of reasons including quality of care, likelihood of other complicating health conditions and (it is believed by some) increased genetic susceptibility to respiratory viruses these groups tend to fair worst in influenza outbreaks. The last big one they made up over half the deaths despite constituting about 1/3 of the cases).
If the NCAA wanted to save lives it should ban tailgates at the tournament. Even if we went totally bonkers and decided that this thing was going to four times more deadly than the average flu, grandpa would still be about four times more likely to die because of his habit of eating extra cheeseburgers at the tailgate.
- Nov 16, 2017
- 5,552
- 13,091
It IS nuts to cancel large events for everyone because some people in at risk populations might decide to expose themselves to the risk. If I still had a baby in the house would I take extra precautions? Hell yes. If my mom lived with me? Yup.
I can't speak for why others are annoyed, only for myself; and it is the ignorant fear-based knee jerk decisions that irritate me. And yes, I'm not a fan of the newly announced government measures because I recognize that they are doing this largely to quell the growing anxiety people are experiencing rather than smacking them soundly with common sense and reason based on experience and potential best and worst case scenarios. It is already here, and no matter what we do it's going spread. Healthy people will be just fine - and should keep doing what they are doing, unless they get symptoms or have reason to believe they might develop them. It should be common courtesy to do this no matter what you may be ill with if it is contagious. When I use to have a team in a big office I'd tell my people in advance not to come in if they were sick, even if it was the sniffles. I rarely had anyone abuse that trust and we didn't have a whole lot of absenteeism due to illness (imagine that). I realize not ever place has a policy like that, but they should and maybe if this panic has one happy result, that will be it.
If you're not healthy or have other risk factors, of course be more careful. We should always be washing our hands, etc, etc. Even mild cases of the flu are no fun and people should take reasonable precautions to avoid this as well. What we are seeing are not reasonable precautions for what for roughly 85% of the people actually infected will have symptoms so mild they think it is a cold and another 12-14 percent will have flu-like symptoms only with no further damage. Breeding fear like this can have worse consequences for the people most at risk. For instance, what happens when people start flooding medical offices and ERs the minute they get a fever when they aren't in a special risk group? They are potentially sucking up finite resources that could be directed to those most vulnerable. That's a consequence of feeding into the hysteria and fear rather than taking the time to try and truly educate.
Do I blame the media? Sort of. People need to be able to sift through this stuff for themselves. We've got the Library of Alexandria in our living rooms but a large segment of the population is primarily using it to look up step-sibling porn. That's on them.
- Aug 31, 2014
- 1,305
- 1,859
Where are you getting this information? Genuinely interested if I am reading something different. NIH has no clinical trials for a vaccine at this time. They have a clinical trial for antiviral treatment but no vaccines. NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins. They have only begun to map the virus which is the first step in developing a vaccine.
I point you to the NEJM article pointed to through the NIH that reports the mortality rate at 3.2 which is 32 times more deadly not 4 times. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032 Also of note is the severe illness of 15.7% of the cases, which is a factor in overloading the hospitals and health systems.
Also from Johns Hopkins world map and case count shows about a 3.2 mortality rate. Operations Dashboard for ArcGIS
- Jun 19, 2014
- 9,556
- 15,653
Founding Member
You buy a ticket, you assume the risk.
You grab the buggy at Publix without wiping the handle off, you assume the risk.
Media hype led to all of these cancellations. Masters tickets are plummeting to record lows on the secondary market, surprised they haven't cancelled it yet even though it's outdoors.
You grab the buggy at Publix without wiping the handle off, you assume the risk.
Media hype led to all of these cancellations. Masters tickets are plummeting to record lows on the secondary market, surprised they haven't cancelled it yet even though it's outdoors.
- Jun 24, 2014
- 10,107
- 7,389
Founding Member
Italy?
- Nov 16, 2017
- 5,552
- 13,091
COVID-19 Vaccine Shipped, and Drug Trials Start
The human trials expected in April but the vaccine is in the hands of NIH. Happened to catch something about a fast tracking even of this process, but it was in the background on the radio a day or so ago and I'm not sure if that has to do with an influx of funding and priorities or not.
"We extracted data regarding 1099 patients .." Really? Just stop and ponder that for a second. It's 1099 samples of people who were sick AND were tested to confirm the presence of the virus, and you think this is actionable data? A death rate from this is meaningless. Even from the study below you're talking about a stupidly small sample.
While not much more statistically significant take a look here: cmrivers/ncov
Notice the disparity? Now, why might we have one? Well, sick enough to feel you need to be tested, positive test - 2.3% death rate among these people versus 0.3% among confirmed infected health care workers. Way too early to "know" with this particular virus - but if I was a betting man I'm going to bet that you can chalk that disparity up to the preexisting health of the people that were exposed - kind of like H1N1 and your good friend the regular old flu. I'm also going to go ahead and say that just like those even that .3% among a fairly representative group will be much higher in Asia and Africa than here. That isn't based on a study, just history because the data is going to be all over the place at this point.
As for the risk factors, the data is from just about every respiratory outbreak that we've ever had a sufficiently large study on. The CDC and WHO have large amounts of data for you. Typically circulating flu strains hit the elderly hardest. H1N1 had higher mortality among children. Patterns are already emerging with the limited data that is available on this one that all the things you'd expect would contribute to mortality are.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext?ref=hvper.com
Obviously small and did not sample very young children but damn sure looks like what you'd expect based on what we've seen previously:
"191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age"
Again, too small to plant your flag on and call settled, but more significant in that we see this same pattern over and over.
- Jun 11, 2014
- 4,720
- 4,309
Founding Member
With the NBA suspending their season, this may open the door for the NCAA to cancel the tourney. Not all teams have private jets to fly to game sights. With the professionals getting their games cancelled, will they allow amatuers to travel and still play? Stay tuned sports fans...
- Aug 31, 2014
- 1,305
- 1,859
COVID-19 Vaccine Shipped, and Drug Trials Start
The human trials expected in April but the vaccine is in the hands of NIH. Happened to catch something about a fast tracking even of this process, but it was in the background on the radio a day or so ago and I'm not sure if that has to do with an influx of funding and priorities or not.
"We extracted data regarding 1099 patients .." Really? Just stop and ponder that for a second. It's 1099 samples of people who were sick AND were tested to confirm the presence of the virus, and you think this is actionable data? A death rate from this is meaningless. Even from the study below you're talking about a stupidly small sample.
While not much more statistically significant take a look here: cmrivers/ncov
Notice the disparity? Now, why might we have one? Well, sick enough to feel you need to be tested, positive test - 2.3% death rate among these people versus 0.3% among confirmed infected health care workers. Way too early to "know" with this particular virus - but if I was a betting man I'm going to bet that you can chalk that disparity up to the preexisting health of the people that were exposed - kind of like H1N1 and your good friend the regular old flu. I'm also going to go ahead and say that just like those even that .3% among a fairly representative group will be much higher in Asia and Africa than here. That isn't based on a study, just history because the data is going to be all over the place at this point.
As for the risk factors, the data is from just about every respiratory outbreak that we've ever had a sufficiently large study on. The CDC and WHO have large amounts of data for you. Typically circulating flu strains hit the elderly hardest. H1N1 had higher mortality among children. Patterns are already emerging with the limited data that is available on this one that all the things you'd expect would contribute to mortality are.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext?ref=hvper.com
Obviously small and did not sample very young children but damn sure looks like what you'd expect based on what we've seen previously:
"191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age"
Again, too small to plant your flag on and call settled, but more significant in that we see this same pattern over and over.
Thanks for sharing your sources. Good news on the vaccine but obviously the NIH is not actively publicizing it, could be a business trying to be a first entrant with a non-effective product but that's exactly the positive behaviour for a strong capitalistic society and should lead to a vaccine in short order.
In regards to the rest your comments, I believe you are misinterpreting the information that you are presenting. Epidemiologically, death rates are calculated from the whole exposed population not just certain subsets. Yes, you analyze the subsets to understand how to combat the morbidity factors but when assessing the risk to the population you use the death rate. So pointing to 0.3% death rate for health care workers certainly helps your argument but is not sound because the virus does not only attack health care workers. The study in the lancet shows a 2.3% death rate. I dont really understand your point of small sample sizes, I mean that is how statistics works. You cant sample the world, you take a sample and extrapolate from there recognizing limitations. You continue to sample and adjust as new data comes in. Again, all the new data and samples in regards to this virus still point to a death rate of 20-30 times higher than the flu. And you are correct that individuals in countries with poorer health systems are going to show worse results like in africa and asia. Still working from the data we know even Italy (perhaps a country closer representative of US) is showing a 6.6 death rate. Bottom line the rates seen with what we know are much much higher than our old friend the flu.
Containing its spread is important not only to prevent a significant number of deaths, but also to not overwhelm the healthcare system and create potentially more negative downstream effects for people that need healthcare for other conditions. Preventing mass gatherings of people for something as trivial as a sporting event is a responsible move in light of what we know. Yes I agree, the hysteria of lets suddenly start buying all the toilet paper, purell, and clorox wipes we can is pure stupidity. Cancelling fan attendance at these sporting events is a no-brainer in trying to stop the spread and potential negative impacts of this.
- Mar 14, 2015
- 3,375
- 14,227
- Nov 16, 2017
- 5,552
- 13,091
Yes, after it is over - and also, estimated because non-hospital admissions are always guesses. But that is not what you are presenting, nor what happened in what you are quoting, as I demonstrated. Look at the criteria for the what was studied. They were giving the rate of mortality in their data set. There are no wider implications to that.
No kidding, but who is a more representative population?
Among people sick enough to seek treatment - versus a group that is tested regularly due to exposure risk. Which one of these is going to be closer to the general population?
Well for one, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Which is why you need to look at the sample and understand what the inherent bias is.
The second point is absurd and if you really don't understand how what you quoted here does not come close to proving this, I can't help you. You have data from one region. You have data from only people seeking treatment. You have no widespread testing. In the one and only representative/100% tested group you have, in the largest study we have you have you have that group at .3% death rate. That's barely higher than Heath and Human services estimates for our severe flu seasons in the US- which is also irrelevant because these don't affect the variant regions the same way. If you don't like health care workers as a control, the best data you've got is from the only place with large scale testing, SK. Every time they publish, the mortality goes down because they are not just counting people so symptomatic they self report. The early report was something like 1.3 - then .7 the most recent I can find is .6 and will continue to fall as more positive, non-symptomatic people are screened. This is hysteria - plan and simple, and it happens every time Asia sneezes, because you get headlines quoting studies they don't understand.
What ‘wonderful laboratory’ South Korea can teach world about Covid-19
- Nov 16, 2017
- 5,552
- 13,091
- Aug 20, 2018
- 16,979
- 21,201
