Toggle sidebar

All Purpose Coronavirus Discussion Part XVI: The Negative (For Coronavirus) One

Favorite Type Of Goldfish

  • Total voters
    45
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord Defect

Lord Defect

Secretary of Blowtorching
Nov 13, 2013
18,754
34,770
Jack Straw said:
Once he knew where all the white stuffing was hidden it was game over. Every day I'd come home from work and my favorite chair would be smaller and smaller.

full
Click to expand...
Lol his face. “Do something. I’ve already won”
 
  • Like
Reactions: BackToTheBrierePatch, Amorgus, dragonoffrost and 3 others
JojoTheWhale

JojoTheWhale

CORN BOY
May 22, 2008
33,733
105,240
Chinatown88 said:
I detest you participating in this meme. Just cause Team Secret makes it work doesn't mean it works in every damn pub.

Edit. I was having a decent green steak playing unranked. The past couple of days have been red as fck. Damn forced 50 percent win rate.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to spam it! I picked it into a Bounty Hunter + KotL Safelane. Sometimes you have to out-cancer cancer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chinatown88
deadhead

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
TheKingPin said:
No. Disease that peaks vs disease that lingers. It’s pretty simple.



I’ve thought about that too. You would expect more deaths earlier on. But if people were dying from heart attack, stroke, pneumonia without it being known as covid then that could explain it. There are still cases that people are 100%. It really didn’t get discovered here until that nursing home and everyone dying there.

Friend of mine and her family had illness that seems classic for covid from cough right down to the post covid syndrome kids are getting. She was sick mid February in the greater philly area.
Click to expand...

You should read the twitter string - it's by a researcher in Seattle and the project that went back and looked at all flu test samples from January and February (when they weren't testing for COVID) to see how many were COVID, and none in January and a handful starting in late February.

"We tested 3600 samples collected in Jan 2020 for COVID-19 status and found zero positives. We tested 3308 samples collected in Feb 2020 and found a first positive on Feb 21 with a total of 10 samples testing positive in Feb."

"As you may know, seasonal coronaviruses are responsible for ~30% of common colds and are easily distinguished from #SARSCoV2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) in molecular assays. There is no chance of confusion between these in our assay."

"For (2), the genetic relationships among sequenced viruses reveals their transmission history"

"There have been hundreds of viruses sequenced from infections in the USA. We can use these sequences to date the arrival of the epidemic. Doing so, we see that there were multiple introductions driving the US epidemic and the earliest was in Jan."

"There were multiple paths the virus took to reach the US. There was a direct introduction from China that occurred in late Jan and there were multiple introductions from the European epidemic that occurred during the course of Feb. "

"If we restrict to viruses sampled in California (highlighted here as larger yellow dots) we see that they fall in with the rest of the US epidemic. There is no chance SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in California in fall 2019. Circulation in CA started in Jan or Feb 2020."
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKingPin
TheKingPin

TheKingPin

Registered User
Nov 16, 2005
20,635
10,093
Philadelphia, PA
Beef Invictus said:
No, that's just not how diseases this contagious work.

Flus work differently. They have distinct seasons. On top of that, flus are controlled via vaccines and treatment methods. What we are seeing so far with this is that it doesn't care so much about seasons and there aren't vaccines and treatment is still being sorted out. This is not the flu. It is not a controllable disease yet. It's also far more contagious than the flu which makes that comparison even more useless.

You should be comparing it to past uncontrolled diseases. Polio created annual lockdowns to control it before there was a vaccine; nobody was monstrous enough to just "let it peak" and hope it got tired of crippling and killing children, or ran out of children to afflict. The 2nd wave of the Black Death lasted briefly compared to the 1st wave because this neat idea of quarantine and lockdown was used, which limited spread and didn't allow it to be a 2 century-long multi-generational event like the 1st wave. The 1st wave didn't stop just because it peaked. It just went on and on and on.

Peaking alone isn't what makes a disease stop. Letting it peak in the false assumption that it will magically stop isn't ever a superior method. It's a brutal and evil means of facing a deadly disease. And finally, it seems you've arrived at this conclusion using an image that isn't close to being meant for what you've used it for. When a disease isn't controlled and you just "let it peak" it doesn't hit a handy high and then drop. It'll hit that high and stay there. It will still go on for a long time, far longer than if you're trying to control it. It will do far more damage. It will kill far more, directly and indirectly. If you want a pandemic to stop, you have to take action to stop it. Letting it run its course is 2nd century methodology. We've learned some since then.
Click to expand...

Wrong. With a disease that doesn’t have high mortality rate like this you will have a higher peak with 99% recovery and antibody development making that curve go to 0 quickly. If everyone got it and then got antibodies the same day the virus would be done. If we locked it down so 4% have it but people have to keep on living with essential activities and services as well as predictable failures in distancing then the virus would continue to linger for a very long time. And again I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do but it’s just wrong to say it will linger longer without a lockdown. Antibodies make that impossible. The more people with antibodies the smaller that R0 gets. Flattening the curve means exactly that, it’s not just lowering the peak. The area under the curve is extended out longer.

GapToothedWonder said:
You can extrapolate what you want, but you should not speak as if there is hard evidence from your theories. If you are going to cite something that you are using as the basis for your opinion is vastly different then citing it as a fact.you and everyone else should hold themselves to that standard.

You are trying to manipulate data to reinforces the way you feel. This is a standard result of conformation bias.
Click to expand...

I treat patients. I get update all the time on what’s going on. I read as much as I can. I have meetings on what we know. We don’t know a lot about things. If there is anything we know it’s that we don’t know a lot yet. So we treat on what we know and adapt on the fly. It’s not treating some known entity. It’s treating what you know. And this is what we know. I’m simply educating you on what I know. The US has only been really studying it for a matter of months. If you want concrete tried and true data you aren’t going to get it right now. Of course I have my opinions. I’m read up on things and I am allowed to have my opinion. I have to say the stuff posted on this thread is really good and useful, but you should not be taking things posted on HFboards as evidenced based medicine or as concrete if you are going to want to make decisions off that info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gertbfrobe16, Ghosts Beer and Defect
TheKingPin

TheKingPin

Registered User
Nov 16, 2005
20,635
10,093
Philadelphia, PA
deadhead said:
You should read the twitter string - it's by a researcher in Seattle and the project that went back and looked at all flu test samples from January and February (when they weren't testing for COVID) to see how many were COVID, and none in January and a handful starting in late February.

"We tested 3600 samples collected in Jan 2020 for COVID-19 status and found zero positives. We tested 3308 samples collected in Feb 2020 and found a first positive on Feb 21 with a total of 10 samples testing positive in Feb."

"As you may know, seasonal coronaviruses are responsible for ~30% of common colds and are easily distinguished from #SARSCoV2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) in molecular assays. There is no chance of confusion between these in our assay."

"For (2), the genetic relationships among sequenced viruses reveals their transmission history"

"There have been hundreds of viruses sequenced from infections in the USA. We can use these sequences to date the arrival of the epidemic. Doing so, we see that there were multiple introductions driving the US epidemic and the earliest was in Jan."

"There were multiple paths the virus took to reach the US. There was a direct introduction from China that occurred in late Jan and there were multiple introductions from the European epidemic that occurred during the course of Feb. "

"If we restrict to viruses sampled in California (highlighted here as larger yellow dots) we see that they fall in with the rest of the US epidemic. There is no chance SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in California in fall 2019. Circulation in CA started in Jan or Feb 2020."
Click to expand...
I read the article about that. It’s interesting. But I think early Jan is a good estimate and one that many think may be. It’s likely multiple sources. Not a single pt 0.
 
Lord Defect

Lord Defect

Secretary of Blowtorching
Nov 13, 2013
18,754
34,770
deadhead said:
You should read the twitter string - it's by a researcher in Seattle and the project that went back and looked at all flu test samples from January and February (when they weren't testing for COVID) to see how many were COVID, and none in January and a handful starting in late February.

"We tested 3600 samples collected in Jan 2020 for COVID-19 status and found zero positives. We tested 3308 samples collected in Feb 2020 and found a first positive on Feb 21 with a total of 10 samples testing positive in Feb."

"As you may know, seasonal coronaviruses are responsible for ~30% of common colds and are easily distinguished from #SARSCoV2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) in molecular assays. There is no chance of confusion between these in our assay."

"For (2), the genetic relationships among sequenced viruses reveals their transmission history"

"There have been hundreds of viruses sequenced from infections in the USA. We can use these sequences to date the arrival of the epidemic. Doing so, we see that there were multiple introductions driving the US epidemic and the earliest was in Jan."

"There were multiple paths the virus took to reach the US. There was a direct introduction from China that occurred in late Jan and there were multiple introductions from the European epidemic that occurred during the course of Feb. "

"If we restrict to viruses sampled in California (highlighted here as larger yellow dots) we see that they fall in with the rest of the US epidemic. There is no chance SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in California in fall 2019. Circulation in CA started in Jan or Feb 2020."
Click to expand...
FWIW I’ve only been tested for the flu once. The rest of the times the Dr’s usually say something along the lines of “I think it’s the flu and the time it takes to get the results it’ll have run it’s course. I’m going to prescribe you (insert proper medicine that I’m having a brain fart on).
 
Beef Invictus

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
128,031
165,879
Armored Train
TheKingPin said:
Wrong. With a disease that doesn’t have high mortality rate like this you will have a higher peak with 99% recovery and antibody development making that curve go to 0 quickly. If everyone got it and then got antibodies the same day the virus would be done. If we locked it down so 4% have it but people have to keep on living with essential activities and services as well as predictable failures in distancing then the virus would continue to linger for a very long time. And again I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do but it’s just wrong to say it will linger longer without a lockdown. Antibodies make that impossible. The more people with antibodies the smaller that R0 gets. Flattening the curve means exactly that, it’s not just lowering the peak. The area under the curve is extended out longer.



I treat patients. I get update all the time on what’s going on. I read as much as I can. I have meetings on what we know. We don’t know a lot about things. If there is anything we know it’s that we don’t know a lot yet. So we treat on what we know and adapt on the fly. It’s not treating some known entity. It’s treating what you know. And this is what we know. I’m simply educating you on what I know. The US has only been really studying it for a matter of months. If you want concrete tried and true data you aren’t going to get it right now. Of course I have my opinions. I’m read up on things and I am allowed to have my opinion. I have to say the stuff posted on this thread is really good and useful, but you should not be taking things posted on HFboards as evidenced based medicine or as concrete if you are going to want to make decisions off that info.
Click to expand...

To the bolded, if this is only applicable to diseases without a high mortality rate like COVID-19....why even pursue it as an option?

And after that you have to construct impossible hypothetical situations to support your position, like the entire population getting the virus in a day. That isn't how diseases work. And because you built this on a chart that doesn't actually reflect reality but is only trying to depict a basic concept in a basic manner, you've failed to account for the fact that a peak can also become a plateau before it finally begins dropping off, or that the peak can be massively higher than the lower curve sitting below hospital capacity.
 
TheKingPin

TheKingPin

Registered User
Nov 16, 2005
20,635
10,093
Philadelphia, PA
Beef Invictus said:
To the bolded, if this is only applicable to diseases without a high mortality rate like COVID-19....why even pursue it as an option?

And after that you have to construct impossible hypothetical situations to support your position, like the entire population getting the virus in a day. That isn't how diseases work. And because you built this on a chart that doesn't actually reflect reality but is only trying to depict a basic concept in a basic manner, you've failed to account for the fact that a peak can also become a plateau before it finally begins dropping off, or that the peak can be massively higher than the lower curve sitting below hospital capacity.
Click to expand...

Haha ok I think we both can just be done. Antibodies would make it impossible for a plateau in cases. It would drop. The reason it drops is bc if antibodies. The more with antibodies the faster it drops. I didn’t build it off the graph that’s everywhere and wildly used. I built off of my training and understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom