| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study 18:54 - May 4 with 2840 views | Darth_Koont |
https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/111-2020
Now that means it's a lot more fatal than flu as that is 0.04% to 0.1% depending on whether you test everyone or just count symptomatic cases. But still, it really seems to suggest that with the measures available e.g. more vigilance and better treatment of cases, tracking and tracing, keeping up habits of working from home and social distancing, isolation of those most at risk etc. that we can manage this until a vaccine is available. And without the need for lockdowns when all that is in place.
The bad news? With all the measures and discipline needed to keep it manageable, there's no way we're going to see football with crowds, concerts, packed pubs, cinemas etc. this year. But I think that's a small price to pay if it means we can still reclaim most other areas of our lives. |  |
| |  |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:30 - May 4 with 537 views | StokieBlue |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:18 - May 4 by Swansea_Blue |
There was a ST piece yesterday talking about how there were an increasing number of studies showing high infection rates and making a case to ease lockdowns. New York was one quoted at 25%. The guy who wrote it is apparently a big star in the epidemiology world. He does look like Ron Jeremy though.
|
Interesting.
That's essentially the exact opposite of the Germany studies and what I believe the UK government are predicting at the moment?
SB
Edit: Seems that study is being pulled apart by the scientific community. The mortality rate is also miles off from the study cited by DK in the first post:
https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/
[Post edited 4 May 2020 22:35]
|  | | |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:31 - May 4 with 537 views | Chutney |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 21:59 - May 4 by J2BLUE |
You seem to have taken my post as a shot at the UK for some odd reason. |
Not at all. The UK’s makes up 1% of the worlds population, I don't think it should be worrying that nearly half of the manufacturing of a potential vaccine should exist here, quite the opposite. We’re lucky. |  | | |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:41 - May 4 with 526 views | Swansea_Blue |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:30 - May 4 by StokieBlue |
Interesting.
That's essentially the exact opposite of the Germany studies and what I believe the UK government are predicting at the moment?
SB
Edit: Seems that study is being pulled apart by the scientific community. The mortality rate is also miles off from the study cited by DK in the first post:
https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/
[Post edited 4 May 2020 22:35]
|
It jarred with me when I saw it because it's so different to other stuff we've seen reported. I've no idea who's got the right line on this, but I'll go and have a look at the responses to that ST piece now thanks as I haven't seen them.
Edit - that article is an excellent piece btw. The guy who wrote it writes for Scientific American, so I'm not surprised. But it stands out like a sore thumb compared to a lot of our dumbed down press these days. [Post edited 4 May 2020 22:54]
|  |
| |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:45 - May 4 with 522 views | ElderGrizzly |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:41 - May 4 by Swansea_Blue |
It jarred with me when I saw it because it's so different to other stuff we've seen reported. I've no idea who's got the right line on this, but I'll go and have a look at the responses to that ST piece now thanks as I haven't seen them.
Edit - that article is an excellent piece btw. The guy who wrote it writes for Scientific American, so I'm not surprised. But it stands out like a sore thumb compared to a lot of our dumbed down press these days. [Post edited 4 May 2020 22:54]
|
Two studies last week at very different end of the spectrum from different experts.
The result of the top one is encouraging them to open schools. The result of the bottom one is cautioning against.
|  | | |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:58 - May 4 with 504 views | Swansea_Blue |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:45 - May 4 by ElderGrizzly |
Two studies last week at very different end of the spectrum from different experts.
The result of the top one is encouraging them to open schools. The result of the bottom one is cautioning against.
|
Bonkers isn't it. We can't distinguish as we don't have the experience (well I certainly don't). It shows the problems the government is facing too, which is why it's so important that they consult a wide variety of sources and show complete transparency. They're not "following the science" when they won't share the information they're making decisions on. Interesting to see that Sir David King today hosted his alternative to the SAGE cttee on a live video link. I didn't watch it, but that's the level of openess needed if the government want to try to rebuild trust (I'm not convinced they want to). | |
| |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 08:53 - May 5 with 431 views | gordon |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:30 - May 4 by StokieBlue |
Interesting.
That's essentially the exact opposite of the Germany studies and what I believe the UK government are predicting at the moment?
SB
Edit: Seems that study is being pulled apart by the scientific community. The mortality rate is also miles off from the study cited by DK in the first post:
https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/
[Post edited 4 May 2020 22:35]
|
Ioannidis has been found to be pretty loose with the truth - for a long time he was lying about the fatality rate on the Diamond Princess which was the basis for lots of his and others contrarianism.
There were 7 deaths fairly quickly, adjusted for age this gave a very low fatality rate which was used by the likes of Ioannidis as evidence for COVID being relatively mild, but he knew that another 15 or so people from DP remained in ICU / induced comas, most of whom were likely to die.
Even now the fatality rate is up at about 13 (with 4 more in induced comas) / 697, he has still been quoting a fatality rate based on 7 / 697, because the remaining deaths / patients on the DP weren't widely reported in the media. In knowingly mis-stating evidence, he forfeits any right to be treated as an 'expert' and really should be treated more like a Toby Young type.
The Stanford antibody studies have been a bit of a joke as well, in terms of sampling methodology etc. |  | | |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 08:57 - May 5 with 426 views | StokieBlue |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 08:53 - May 5 by gordon |
Ioannidis has been found to be pretty loose with the truth - for a long time he was lying about the fatality rate on the Diamond Princess which was the basis for lots of his and others contrarianism.
There were 7 deaths fairly quickly, adjusted for age this gave a very low fatality rate which was used by the likes of Ioannidis as evidence for COVID being relatively mild, but he knew that another 15 or so people from DP remained in ICU / induced comas, most of whom were likely to die.
Even now the fatality rate is up at about 13 (with 4 more in induced comas) / 697, he has still been quoting a fatality rate based on 7 / 697, because the remaining deaths / patients on the DP weren't widely reported in the media. In knowingly mis-stating evidence, he forfeits any right to be treated as an 'expert' and really should be treated more like a Toby Young type.
The Stanford antibody studies have been a bit of a joke as well, in terms of sampling methodology etc. |
Thanks for the extra information Gordon - that's pretty much the conclusion I came to after doing a bit of research.
SB | | | |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 09:05 - May 5 with 422 views | gordon |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 22:45 - May 4 by ElderGrizzly |
Two studies last week at very different end of the spectrum from different experts.
The result of the top one is encouraging them to open schools. The result of the bottom one is cautioning against.
|
On that one, Karol Sikora isn't an expert on Coronavirus by any stretch.
A few weeks ago he was tweeting that we should be starting to open the lockdown at the end of April, with large events / gatherings back on in June - probably disastrous.
He's gained a large following because he has a pleasant manner, is a medical specialist and has been absurdly optimistic, but he's really just been trying to raise his own profile and that of his private cancer clinic. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 09:09 - May 5 with 419 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| 0.37% infection fatality rate according to this study on 19:12 - May 4 by J2BLUE |
Why do people keep saying a year until a vaccine when Oxford Uni say they could have one by September? Genuine question. |
You can go one better than Trump and say there could be a vaccine tomorrow. Which there could be - the only issue would be - does it work?
Everything indicates that this virus has very little effect on 90% of the people who get it.... but the vulnerable people who do get it are in deep do-dos. Normal drug (and vaccine) trials are done on healthy individuals.... people with underlying conditions are deliberately excluded from trials.
So establishing the efficacy of this vaccine on the people it is desgined to predict is all but impossible.... as in normal drug trials large scale problems only emerge when the drug is used on the peope it has been developed to treat in large quatities. In normal times even this flawed process takes years and years. Ascertaining IF the first vaccine for a corona virus works in any way shape or form is enormously difficult... and will take years to ascertain. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
