Jump to content
bornontheblue

Corona Virus - How bad is it going to be?

Recommended Posts

Just now, soupslam1 said:

When this first started very few in the US took it serious. Then after a couple of weeks millions were going to die. Now they are saying far more people than thought have the virus. I’m very skeptical of any of these reports. One thing for sure.  Our disease experts and leaders are reactionaries and provide little confidence they know what the hell is going on. 

Animals respond to stimuli. Welcome to biology. 

Idk about you, but personally I'd feel pretty stupid proactively running away from the shoreline if there's no tsunami. :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Animals respond to stimuli. Welcome to biology. 

Idk about you, but personally I'd feel pretty stupid proactively running away from the shoreline if there's no tsunami. :shrug:

Well, most of us are sitting around at the highest peak wondering when it’s safe to come down. And some of us are sitting on their surf boards saying “surfs up”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, toonkee said:

That sounds great! No one would date for against that.

And anyone against it will be branded as “unpatriotic” or “racist.” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Good question, and I have idea. I think LA County's forthcoming study will be more telling.

You would enjoy the link I posted.  I wonder if you see any math errors in the modeling.  
 

https://analytica.com/adjusting-the-santa-clara-county-antibody-prevalence-results-for-self-selection-bias/

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BSUTOP25 said:

And anyone against it will be branded as “unpatriotic” or “racist.” 

Yes, it's on page one of your liberal playbook. 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Yes, it's on page one of your liberal playbook. 

You’re finally coming around to acknowledging that I’m a liberal. Thank you. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sactowndog said:

You would enjoy the link I posted.  I wonder if you see any math errors in the modeling.  
 

https://analytica.com/adjusting-the-santa-clara-county-antibody-prevalence-results-for-self-selection-bias/

 

Awesome link - thanks man. This is why peer reviews are so critical (and why the findings of any papers published on medrxiv awaiting peer review should be approached with caution). Plus, as a bonus, we get to laugh at Stanford - "huge and insurmountable" indeed. 

Here's that paper distilled to a spreadsheet, where o(C) represents the adjusted (true) prevalence (edited with more complete table):

Adj-Prevalence.jpg

Using the Stanford study's high-end of the estimated range of prevalence (p), the estimated true prevalence (adjusted for the Bayesian interference) is as shown, where L represents the (greater) likelihood that someone who thinks they are/have been sick self-selecting over someone who does not.

So, for instance, if someone who thought they were sick was 5x more likely to respond to the Facebook ad than someone who was not sick, the high end of the prevalence estimate drops from 4.16% to just .8681%.

This comes with the assumption that there was indeed self-selection bias, which is something the Stanford study failed to account for. It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming LA County random testing compares.

Awesome link man. Thanks again. :cheers:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a segment yesterday on some dumb news channel that was focused on how I should be personally scared as a healthy 30-something, but instead it infuriated me. One of the young healthy men who died in the segment was forced to die alone because his wife wasn't allowed to be with him because of the quarantine. I hope that isn't as widespread as it seem it is in the US. That's +++++ing outrageous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2020 at 3:56 PM, happycamper said:

I mean... some states are already downward trajectory

The death rate for those confirmed to have COVID-19 in California is currently 3.5%. An article in today's L.A. Times article about a Bay Area study of blood test antibody or sereolgy tests suggests the number of people who have developed the disease could be 10 times higher than shown in cheek swabs. In other words, that a massive amount of people have been exposed to the virus who have exhibited symptoms sufficiently minor that they haven't needed hospitalization.

And this article linked by Joe above speaks volumes: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronavirus-isnt-as-deadly-as-we-thought-11587155298?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 As modified by this: https://analytica.com/adjusting-the-santa-clara-county-antibody-prevalence-results-for-self-selection-bias/

The point is, this disease is dangerous but the danger has been overblown in the media. (Sorry fellow leftists but that's how I feel at least.)

If you are elderly or have one of the identified medical conditions which makes it difficult for your body to fight off the virus, COVID-19 is very dangerous. However, if you're not one of the small percentage of the population in those categories, statistically speaking, it does not appear to be. So particuarly since it's always been anticipated that the chances of spreading the disease will diminish when the weather gets warm, it seems to me that in the states you refer to, people not in a problematic group should begin returning to work by mid-May.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I watched a segment yesterday on some dumb news channel that was focused on how I should be personally scared as a healthy 30-something, but instead it infuriated me. One of the young healthy men who died in the segment was forced to die alone because his wife wasn't allowed to be with him because of the quarantine. I hope that isn't as widespread as it seem it is in the US. That's +++++ing outrageous.

Well personally if I have Covid and I’m contagious I don’t want my wife with 5 miles of me.   No reason my kids should lose both parents to Covid.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Awesome link - thanks man. This is why peer reviews are so critical (and why the findings of any papers published on medrxiv awaiting peer review should be approached with caution). Plus, as a bonus, we get to laugh at Stanford - "huge and insurmountable" indeed. 

Here's that paper distilled to a spreadsheet, where o(C) represents the adjusted (true) prevalence:

Screen-Shot-2020-04-18-at-12-40-36-PM.pn

Using the Stanford study's high-end of the estimated range of prevalence (p), the estimated true prevalence (adjusted for the Bayesian interference) is as shown, where L represents the (greater) likelihood that someone who thinks they are/have been sick self-selecting over someone who does not.

So, for instance, if someone who thought they were sick was 5x more likely to respond to the Facebook ad than someone who was not sick, the high end of the prevalence estimate drops from 4.16% to just .8681%.

This comes with the assumption that there was indeed self-selection bias, which is something the Stanford study failed to account for. It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming LA County random testing compares.

Awesome link man. Thanks again. :cheers:

 

Yeah given the absence of available test resources and no control method you have to assume a high level of self selection bias exists.  The article cites one such person searching for the ad.  I know another person in Santa Clara who thought he was exposed desperately looking to be tested.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Well personally if I have Covid and I’m contagious I don’t want my wife with 5 miles of me.   No reason my kids should lose both parents to Covid.  

Good for you. You should be able to make those choices for yourself. If my wife was dying of covid, I almost certainly would have it too. If they forced her to die alone to protect her low-risk husband, I'd be giving it to people in the local jail.

Death rituals are one of the universal aspects of the human experience. The state or some other authority forcing people to die without them is stripping death of its humanity. It's more grotesque than the death itself.

  • Like 3
  • Cheers 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

The death rate for those confirmed to have COVID-19 in California is currently 3.5%. An article in today's L.A. Times article about a Bay Area study of blood test antibody or sereolgy tests suggests the number of people who have developed the disease could be 10 times higher than shown in cheek swabs. In other words, that a massive amount of people have been exposed to the virus who have exhibited symptoms sufficiently minor that they haven't needed hospitalization.

And this article linked by Joe above speaks volumes: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronavirus-isnt-as-deadly-as-we-thought-11587155298?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 As modified by this: https://analytica.com/adjusting-the-santa-clara-county-antibody-prevalence-results-for-self-selection-bias/

The point is, this disease is dangerous but the danger has been overblown in the media. (Sorry fellow leftists but that's how I feel at least.)

If you are elderly or have one of the identified medical conditions which makes it difficult for your body to fight off the virus, COVID-19 is very dangerous. However, if you're not one of the small percentage of the population in those categories, statistically speaking, it does not appear to be. So particuarly since it's always been anticipated that the chances of spreading the disease will diminish when the weather gets warm, it seems to me that in the states you refer to, people not in a problematic group should begin returning to work by mid-May.

Is the rate 3.5%.  Almost certainly not.   Is the rate as low as the Wall Street Journal report?  Only if you believe no self-selection bias occurred.   Most likely the Covid death rate, if you account for self selection bias, lies between 1-2%.  This rate is 10 x 20% more deadly than the flu and the Covid RO factor is much higher.   

The problem is the Stanford study is pretty bad science.  Even a marketing MBA like me could look at it and go “wait a minute”.   I am most interested who funded this study and why Stanford allowed it to be conducted with such a rookie mistake.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Didn’t think things could get worse? Well, hold my flat beer:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/beer-may-lose-its-fizz-as-co2-supplies-go-flat-during-pandemic

Just drink real ale. New belgium's trippel has a live yeast culture. @Brew_Pokeany live bottle recommendations, especially for the northwest?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

It was interesting to read that 22-24% of all deaths each year in this country occur in nursing homes.

Are we sure this virus is Asian? Because tbh it seems lazy to go for the low hanging fruit like that.  Now give me a good, old-fashioned Spanish flu, one that wasn't afraid to go after the young and healthy... it seems you just don't see that kind of work ethic in a virus any more. :oldman:

Make pathogens great again!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Good for you. You should be able to make those choices for yourself. If my wife was dying of covid, I almost certainly would have it too. If they forced her to die alone to protect her low-risk husband, I'd be giving it to people in the local jail.

Death rituals are one of the universal aspects of the human experience. The state or some other authority forcing people to die without them is stripping death of its humanity. It's more grotesque than the death itself.

It is a thing. Someone at the company I work for lost her grandmother to Covid last week and her family watched her pass via FaceTime with the help of a nurse at the hospital. It’s an horrible death from what I understand. 

  • Angry 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Yeah given the absence of available test resources and no control method you have to assume a high level of self selection bias exists.  The article cites one such person searching for the ad.  I know another person in Santa Clara who thought he was exposed desperately looking to be tested.  

I think they could have also captured this information at the point of testing - simply ask respondents if they believe they are, or have been, infected with the virus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I think they could have also captured this information at the point of testing - simply ask respondents if they believe they are, or have been, infected with the virus.

Sure.  Lots of means to account for it.   That fact is what makes it so odd that an organization of Stanford’s reputation would make such a rookie mistake.   

LA County has a study coming out Monday that has a much more random selection method.  It will be interesting to see those results.   

  • Like 1
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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...