OT - NO POLITICS Local COVID-19 Discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dubi Doo

Registered User
Aug 27, 2008
19,221
12,693
Monroe County has lowest COVID-19 case rate in country for communities with more than 500,000 people | RochesterFirst

Nice. Probably because we locked down a few days before NYC, and reopened wisely. Even then- my ICU was completely full of COVID patients back in April. It seems so long ago now. Hopefully we can hold strong throughout the winter, but Im seeing fatigue start to creep up.

What's crazy is we've had damn near everything opened up since June with the exception of gyms and malls which opened up in July or August.
 
Last edited:

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Monroe County has lowest COVID-19 case rate in country for communities with more than 500,000 people | RochesterFirst

Nice. Probably because we locked down a few days before NYC, and reopened wisely. Even then- my ICU was completely full of COVID patients back in April. It seems so long ago now. Hopefully we can hold strong throughout the winter, but Im seeing fatigue start to creep up.

What's crazy is we've had damn near everything opened up since June with the exception of gyms and malls which opened up in July or August.
You jinxed it! Monroe is now #2
COVID Monroe County: Why cases are on the rise in Rochester NY area
ROCHESTER, NY — Rising numbers of new COVID-19 cases being reported in Monroe County — particularly among children and teens — is being attributed to increased surveillance by schools, as well as increased testing and contact tracing.
That, and large gatherings, said Dr. Michael Mendoza, the county's public health commissioner.
Monroe County reported 52 new cases on Thursday, a quarter of those being people below the age of 20.

Percentage Positive Results By County Dashboard
Monroe 1.6%, Erie 1.2%, Niagara 0.7%
I take credit for the Niagara County numbers by suggesting we not test people who are symptomatic. :laugh:
 

brian_griffin

"Eric Cartman?"
May 10, 2007
16,624
7,850
In the Panderverse
You jinxed it! Monroe is now #2
COVID Monroe County: Why cases are on the rise in Rochester NY area
ROCHESTER, NY — Rising numbers of new COVID-19 cases being reported in Monroe County — particularly among children and teens — is being attributed to increased surveillance by schools, as well as increased testing and contact tracing.
That, and large gatherings, said Dr. Michael Mendoza, the county's public health commissioner.
Monroe County reported 52 new cases on Thursday, a quarter of those being people below the age of 20.

Percentage Positive Results By County Dashboard
Monroe 1.6%, Erie 1.2%, Niagara 0.7%
I take credit for the Niagara County numbers by suggesting we not test people who are symptomatic. :laugh:
County I live in my state is 0.4% presumed positive, yet we still remain in phase 2.5 between phase 2 & 3.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
We Just Got More Evidence Your Blood Type May Change COVID-19 Risk And Severity
Two studies published this week suggest that people with Type O have a lower risk of getting the coronavirus, as well as a reduced likelihood of getting severely sick if they do get infected.
One of the new studies specifically found that COVID-19 patients with Type O or B blood spent less time in an intensive-care unit than their counterparts with Type A or AB. They were also less likely to require ventilation and less likely to experience kidney failure.
These new findings echo similar findings about Type O blood seen in previous research, creating a clearer picture of one particular coronavirus risk factor.
Patients with Type O or B blood had less severe COVID-19

People with Type O blood had 'reduced susceptibility' to infection



Similar finding were observed with SARS. It may have something to do with the AB surface antigens that are used to determine blood type. Maybe Coronavirus has something in common with the AB antigens so people with type O reject it.
Type O is the most common blood type accounting for ~45% of the population. About 38% of people are O positive and about 7% O negative (aka universal donor).
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
County I live in my state is 0.4% presumed positive, yet we still remain in phase 2.5 between phase 2 & 3.
They go by region in NY. You can be in a county with a low rate but if a county with a high rate is in your region that drives the numbers up the state uses to determine what phase you're in.
 

Montag DP

Sabres fan in...
Apr 4, 2007
11,854
4,069
...Maryland

The European numbers are interesting, because many countries have had infections surging for a month or two (see France, Spain, UK) but with only a minor increase in deaths. The infections curves in these countries look much worse than in the spring, but the daily deaths are an order of magnitude lower. Granted, the peak in daily deaths has probably not arrived yet, but I certainly would have expected a bigger increase by now based on the infections. Obviously, it's good that it hasn't happened, but it makes you wonder why not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeDislikeEich

Dubi Doo

Registered User
Aug 27, 2008
19,221
12,693
The European numbers are interesting, because many countries have had infections surging for a month or two (see France, Spain, UK) but with only a minor increase in deaths. The infections curves in these countries look much worse than in the spring, but the daily deaths are an order of magnitude lower. Granted, the peak in daily deaths has probably not arrived yet, but I certainly would have expected a bigger increase by now based on the infections. Obviously, it's good that it hasn't happened, but it makes you wonder why not.
Perhaps the first outbreak was much more severe than initially thought? Treatment is a bit better, but I dont think it's at the point to curb stomp mortality rates. Perhaps a mutation has occured, and a new less lethal strain is starting to become the dominant strain? Masks have been said to lower the viral loads which would lessen the severity of the virus (Japan would be an interesting case study here as they have strong mask usage and a low death toll). Perhaps the world is getting better at protecting nursing homes? Some herd immunity in hard bit places also maybe factoring in. It's possible the efforts put into mitigate the spread have made the steep increase in deaths we saw in April rise at a slower rate this fall.

Im just spit balling here...

Sadly, I believe hospitalizations are approaching the levels they were at in April in some areas, so Im not sure if the deaths are still going to remain low. We know it takes a few weeks for those hospitalizations to turn into deaths due to the progression of the symptoms and reporting of the deaths (I know it takes at least a week in the many states to report deaths, and, as I said, the efforts put into mitigating the spread may make the deaths graph today appear different than tbe spring's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Buffaloed

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Perhaps the first outbreak was much more severe than initially thought? Treatment is a bit better, but I dont think it's at the point to curb stomp mortality rates. Perhaps a mutation has occured, and a new less lethal strain is starting to become the dominant strain? Masks have been said to lower the viral loads which would lessen the severity of the virus (Japan would be an interesting case study here as they have strong mask usage and a low death toll). Perhaps the world is getting better at protecting nursing homes? Some herd immunity in hard bit places also maybe factoring in. It's possible the efforts put into mitigate the spread have made the steep increase in deaths we saw in April rise at a slower rate this fall.

Im just spit balling here...

Sadly, I believe hospitalizations are approaching the levels they were at in April in some areas, so Im not sure if the deaths are still going to remain low. We know it takes a few weeks for those hospitalizations to turn into deaths due to the progression of the symptoms and reporting of the deaths (I know it takes at least a week in the many states to report deaths, and, as I said, the efforts put into mitigating the spread may make the deaths graph today appear different than tbe spring's.

Here's a good article on the mask theory Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer
I think it plays a huge role in reducing severity of disease. Demographics are also in play. More young people are being infected.
Logically it should be possible to use the virus itself as a vaccine for a large segment of the population. It's a matter of determining the virus titer that produces an immune response and no symptoms. Might be hard to find volunteers for trials. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dubi Doo

Beerz

Registered User
Jun 28, 2011
34,855
10,348
I beg of you @Buffaloed , or any of the moderators. Please start banning people who continue to post that masks do nothing.

Show a damn study. I just linked countless studies.. done both before and after this pandemic started .. stating the obvious.

You can't name one study that says masks are anything but useless outside of a controlled laboratory setting or using N95 masks by professionals.

The amount of wah wah wah after being presented with Scientific evidence is laughable...
 

Beerz

Registered User
Jun 28, 2011
34,855
10,348
When you're citing the AAPS, you know you are on the wrong side of an issue. It's like citing the Family Research Council, you just can't do it in a serious argument

These are actual studies. Not done by AAPS .. just gathered and presented by AAPS so if you want to debate the merits of these studies by all means but its pretty pathetic to cry about who is showing the studies.
 

OkimLom

Registered User
May 3, 2010
15,123
6,580
Show a damn study. I just linked countless studies.. done both before and after this pandemic started .. stating the obvious.

You can't name one study that says masks are anything but useless outside of a controlled laboratory setting or using N95 masks by professionals.

The amount of wah wah wah after being presented with Scientific evidence is laughable...

Masks were never going to be a catch all To STOP the spread virus, but in terms of the best preventive measures it was a PART of it. It wasn’t just masks, but other protocols as well, but you and others that are “anti-masks” don’t account for that.
 

Beerz

Registered User
Jun 28, 2011
34,855
10,348
Masks were never going to be a catch all To STOP the spread virus, but in terms of the best preventive measures it was a PART of it. It wasn’t just masks, but other protocols as well, but you and others that are “anti-masks” don’t account for that.

Don't pretend I'm something I'm not. I wear masks when I have to. I just know they aren't doing a damn thing.
 

SnuggaRUDE

Registered User
Apr 5, 2013
8,950
6,481
Show a damn study. I just linked countless studies.. done both before and after this pandemic started .. stating the obvious.

You can't name one study that says masks are anything but useless outside of a controlled laboratory setting or using N95 masks by professionals.

The amount of wah wah wah after being presented with Scientific evidence is laughable...

This is one of the studies your AAPS sites: Error - Cookies Turned Off

If you go to page 175, it clearly shows that surgical masks while not a panacea are about 30% better than not wearing a mask; though significantly worse than an N95 mask. Why they'd site a study that doesn't show what they claim it does is beyond me.

Its intellectually dishonest to pretend that since non N95 are not as effective as an N95 mask that they're useless. For a group of medical professionals the rational to push such a narrative is confusing, and most likely political.

Another study they cite followed people for 77 days in a hosptial: Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed it concludes that masks did not demonstrate effectiveness, but acknowledges the short time frame, and self reported nature of the survey.

For some reason they didn't cite: Masks for prevention of respiratory viruses on the BMT unit: results of a quality initiative - PubMed
Which followed a hospital ward for 4 YEARS, 2 of which required masks to be worn. During that second two year period Respiratory Viral Infections were significantly lower than during the first two year period.

AAPS is at best doing a poor job at picking useful studies to back up their conclusions, and at worst being obtuse or malevolent.

All of these studies are far from being epidemiologically sufficient, but why would anyone choose a limited participation 2.5 month study over a 4 year study?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vcv

Beerz

Registered User
Jun 28, 2011
34,855
10,348
This is one of the studies your AAPS sites: Error - Cookies Turned Off

If you go to page 175, it clearly shows that surgical masks while not a panacea are about 30% better than not wearing a mask; though significantly worse than an N95 mask. Why they'd site a study that doesn't show what they claim it does is beyond me.

Its intellectually dishonest to pretend that since non N95 are not as effective as an N95 mask that they're useless. For a group of medical professionals the rational to push such a narrative is confusing, and most likely political.

Another study they cite followed people for 77 days in a hosptial: Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed it concludes that masks did not demonstrate effectiveness, but acknowledges the short time frame, and self reported nature of the survey.

For some reason they didn't cite: Masks for prevention of respiratory viruses on the BMT unit: results of a quality initiative - PubMed
Which followed a hospital ward for 4 YEARS, 2 of which required masks to be worn. During that second two year period Respiratory Viral Infections were significantly lower than during the first two year period.

AAPS is at best doing a poor job at picking useful studies to back up their conclusions, and at worst being obtuse or malevolent.

All of these studies are far from being epidemiologically sufficient, but why would anyone choose a limited participation 2.5 month study over a 4 year study?


Thank you for at least taking on the studies with legit issues instead of just yelling ban them! Or i don't like that website.

I'll address tomorrow.. 'tis late.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->