Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

GDP declining by 2.9% for USA for the year will require a massive q4 number. Gonna be worse than 2.9%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cax16 said:

Jacksonville Beach reopened 26 minutes ago. This is a live picture.

Who took that decision:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

-

Edited by Fullbuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say I’m pleasantly surprised at how effective Greece has been so far. Never would’ve expected the government to be efficient or the populace to go along with things, but full credit to them. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plain Old Tele said:

I will say I’m pleasantly surprised at how effective Greece has been so far. Never would’ve expected the government to be efficient or the populace to go along with things, but full credit to them. 

Feels like Greece did most things right following their Olympic hosting, which to be fair was before the IOC was exposed as a money sink. The decision to let Banks die in 2009 might have been the best thing in the end because it actually showed a government willing to take risks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Glad Greece is doing better. Wonderful people, great place and my lord the food

 

756E.gif

Edited by cdsacken
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cax16 said:

original.gif

We have 17 patrolled beaches here. The council stopped patrols for the season early at the end of March but the beaches remained open. You could still surf, swim or exercise on the beach. I’ve been going in to the beach every day or so to run along the coastal bike path. 
 

I was in there yesterday and a couple of mounted police had come down from Sydney to patrol the coastal path. 
 

Yesterday. 
 

MK79SHx.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Porthos said:

Preliminary results from the Santa Clara antibody test:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf

 

Going straight to the source as opposed to media filters that may or may not be misinterpreting data.

 

From the abstract:

 

This is just one study that has not been peer-reviewed yet, but it's already making the rounds here in California and I suspect it'll break through into the national conversation soon enough.

 

That does seem to me to suggest good news on the lethality front at the very least.  Probably not nearly as good news on the communicability front (I am very prepared to be wrong on that however and welcome feedback on that stance). 

 

Not sure how many of those people in the study reported any symptoms at any time, as all I've read is the front page abstract and I wouldn't be able to glean much from the actual paper, I suspect.

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

As I think about that preliminary study some more the main problem I have with it is that it wasn't controlled by economic background.  The big red flag I had with it was that it was selected via Facebook and I didn't see any/many controls for economic status.

 

Also did see a bit in there about how some of the people mentioned being symptomatic at one stage, but I didn't see any discussion about the percentage of folks screened who were.  Makes me worried that it was possibly over-sampled in that respect and not truly random.

 

I do have some other concerns, but I'll leave them to the side as I don't want to prejudge conversation over the topic. 

 

Selecting via Facebook isn't terrible if the necessary controls are in place (most were, as noted, economic background was absent), but what concerns me most is that people who had been sick at some point with a respiratory illness would have been more likely to respond to the Facebook ad. Given that they inquired about prior clinical symptoms, I find it strange that their only mention of it in the discussion is "bias favoring those with prior COVID-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation [is] also possible. The overall effect of such biases is hard to ascertain."

I would be interested in seeing the breakdown of the positive results by gender/race/age. Given that the population-adjustment from raw data goes from a 1.50% positive tests to a median estimate of 2.81%, and that they didn't do age-adjustment; one of the under-sampled subgroups must have had a markedly higher rate of positive tests. That said, even if I had that data I wouldn't be sure of how much it would impact the aggregate results, my statistics is too rusty for that. They do mention that they avoided further population adjustments so that some some groups wouldn't be too small.

In terms of drawing conclusions about the fatality rate and transmissibility: tentatively good news regarding the fatality rate, but with a grain of salt - and probably no conclusions can be drawn about the transmissibility.

They estimate an infection fatality rate of 0.12% - 0.2%, based on the confirmed COVID-19 deaths extrapolated to 3 additional weeks. My concern there though is that if their infection estimates are accurate, testing has been truly terrible, missing 98-99% of infections. So the death count may also be missing deaths - ideally, I'd like to see a comparison of past fatalities in February and March for Santa Clara Country with fatalities for this year, to get a better sense of whether there may be a large undercount.

Conclusions about transmissibility (R0) are only drawn by using estimates of total infections at different time intervals, and there isn't another antibody-based estimate from earlier to compare this study with - which is why the authors don't comment on it at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Selecting via Facebook isn't terrible if the necessary controls are in place (most were, as noted, economic background was absent), but what concerns me most is that people who had been sick at some point with a respiratory illness would have been more likely to respond to the Facebook ad. Given that they inquired about prior clinical symptoms, I find it strange that their only mention of it in the discussion is "bias favoring those with prior COVID-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation [is] also possible. The overall effect of such biases is hard to ascertain."

 

 

Yes, that concerned me as well.  I don’t want to say GIGO, but it makes me more skeptical than I want to be.

 

on the whole a decent study, just wish it was more opaque and had better controls for self-selection.

 

I see that UW is starting it’s own antibody trial, and I’ll be interested to see what they come up with, especially as we’re two weeks further down the calendar.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't actually have a huge issue with this... as long as social distancing IS enforced.  If they can't be enforced/folks aren't observing them, then shut them back down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

I don't actually have a huge issue with this... as long as social distancing IS enforced.  If they can't be enforced/folks aren't observing them, then shut them back down.


How are they gonna enforce social distancing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:


How are they gonna enforce social distancing?

Patrols? Tips? Cameras?

 

If this was a crowded beach scene like Florida, I'd be more resistant.  But we're talking the Boardwalk (which has regular police presence) and trails and parks in the county.

 

I would point out that our parks locally in Sacramento County are still open, including the ones on our rivers.  They were all shut down for Easter Weekend, however as a preventative measure.  But they opened right back up on Monday, and I know this for a fact as I just saw people strolling about at Land Park as I came home from doing the laundry.  Most of them seemed to be observing social distancing, unless they were a couple or families.

 

Basically just pointing out that other places in California still have their parks open, presumably subject to how many people are flouting regulations.

Edited by Porthos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Killimano3 said:

It does seem that WSJ is reporting around 4500 deaths yesterday

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-surges-in-some-asian-countries-that-had-been-lightly-hit-11587031743

 

It's still around 2100 on worldometer and I really don't know where WSJ got that number from since I can't read the article...

Most likely a result of ongoing NY official updates. From worldometer:

Quote
  • 30342 new cases and 2618 new deaths in the United States

     

    New York Governor Cuomo: "we will begin reporting all categories of fatalities pursuant to new CDC guidelines and are contacting facilities to get updated numbers" There may be additional people who died that have not been counted because not in a hospital

  • 30720 new cases and 6185 new deaths in the United States

     

    New York City today has reported 3,778 additional deaths that have occurred since March 11 and have been classified as "probable," defined as follows: “decedent [...] had no known positive laboratory test for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) but the death certificate lists as a cause of death “COVID-19” or an equivalent" [source]. We will add these to the New York State total as soon as it is determined whether the historical distribution can be obtained

 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Patrols? Tips? Cameras?

 

If this was a crowded beach scene like Florida, I'd be more resistant.  But we're talking the Boardwalk (which has regular police presence) and trails and parks in the county.

 

I would point out that our parks locally in Sacramento County are still open, including the ones on our rivers.  They were all shut down for Easter Weekend, however as a preventative measure.  But they opened right back up on Monday, and I know this for a fact as I just saw people strolling about at Land Park as I came home from doing the laundry.  Most of them seemed to be observing social distancing, unless they were a couple or families.

 

Basically just pointing out that other places in California still have their parks open, presumably subject to how many people are flouting regulations.


Myeah, I hope people are sensible. Here — way too often — people seem to have a rather dubious understanding of 6’ minimum. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plain Old Tele said:


Myeah, I hope people are sensible. Here — way too often — people seem to have a rather dubious understanding of 6’ minimum. 

I mean, I get the concern. And if too many people are flaunting, then you have to close them down, like I said originally.  I understand the beaches in Malibu/Santa Monica tried to stay open, but too many idiots abused the privilege.  But it is kinda a touristy scene down in your neck of the woods.

 

They might have to close down the Boardwalk for the same reason, but leave the rest of Santa Cruz still open.

 

It's tough, no two ways about it.  On the one hand, getting outside with sun and exercise is absolutely medically sound (not to mention mentally).  But if you have yahoos abuse it, might have to say "Nope, try again in three weeks".

 

Guess I am saying that I don't mind the attempt especially in the non-touristy areas, but you have to have the fortitude to close it back down if it gets abused.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.