Upstate NY Banter and General Discussion..

[OSUmetstud]

8 minutes ago, Luke_Mages said:

I’ll do the math Monday on the actual percentage, but why not use the .26% quoted by USA Today? That’s 400k people, we’re more than halfway there.  

I already posted it above in that table. I didnt make it up.

The CDC has done three updates since the beginning of the pandemic in its scenarios. The first was 0.26, the second was 0.65, this is the third one which is age banded. 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

5 hours ago, OSUmetstud said:

0.09 over 80+ is a bit of an inference. But it seems reasonable based on the same study that the CDC bases it's numbers on. The CDC data says 70+ but if you read the print under the table, it doesn't include over 80 because the CDC and the study assumes that the 80+ CFR is the same as the IFR (there aren't missed cases). 

 

That’s bad math. You have to use the 0.054 for the entire 70+ population. Or lower the 70-79 if you’re going to infer the 0.09 number. 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

Just now, OSUmetstud said:

I already posted it above in that table. I didnt make it up.

The CDC has done three updates since the beginning of the pandemic in its scenarios. The first was 0.26, the second was 0.65, this is the third one which is age banded. 

Done again correctly, with the 70+ age group at 0.054 won’t be .26%, but certainly not .9%. 

[OSUmetstud]

Just now, Luke_Mages said:

That’s bad math. You have to use the 0.054 for the entire 70+ population. Or lower the 70-79 if you’re going to infer the 0.09 number. 

No. The 0.054 is for the 70-79 bracket. 

The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons  ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.

 

[OSUmetstud]

I mean we can debate policy. But debating this is ridiculous. Do the math yourself. 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

4 hours ago, OSUmetstud said:

I mean we can debate policy. But debating this is ridiculous. Do the math yourself. 

You need to fix your chart. You’re missing a 0 on the 20-49 age group. .0002, not .002. Do that and fix the extrapolated 80+ Number you added and we’re at a best guess of .6% mortality...and that’s including all the deaths that occurred before they figured out that respirators did more damage than good. 
 

[lakeeffectkid383]

46 minutes ago, Luke_Mages said:

You need to fix your chart. You’re missing a 0 on the 20-49 age group. .0002, not .002. Do that and fix the extrapolated 80+ Number you added and we’re at a best guess of .6% mortality...and that’s including all the deaths that occurred before they figured out that respirators did more damage than good. 
 

Wait.... explain how a respirator (N95) does more harm than good against Covid-19. 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

4 hours ago, lakeeffectkid383 said:

Wait.... explain how a respirator (N95) does more harm than good against Covid-19. 

Respirator as in intubation. I didn’t think I had to spell that out. 
I’m not anti mask, if that’s what you’re insinuating. 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

18 hours ago, CNY_WX said:

Can you please provide your data that support a 0.26% mortality rate?  Right now there have been roughly 216,000 deaths out of 8 million cases.  That is a mortality rate of 2.7%.

The math is way beyond that simple calc. See @OSUmetstud chart. The mortality rate is currently about 0.6%, once he fixes the misplaced 0...

[lakeeffectkid383]

31 minutes ago, Luke_Mages said:

Respirator as in intubation. I didn’t think I had to spell that out. 
I’m not anti mask, if that’s what you’re insinuating. 

Sorry, never heard of that called a respirator before. I think of a respirator as a mask with or without cartridges to protect you against airborne particulates.  What you’re referring to is a ventilator. Makes more sense what you’re saying now. 

[OSUmetstud]

7 hours ago, Luke_Mages said:

You need to fix your chart. You’re missing a 0 on the 20-49 age group. .0002, not .002. Do that and fix the extrapolated 80+ Number you added and we’re at a best guess of .6% mortality...and that’s including all the deaths that occurred before they figured out that respirators did more damage than good. 
 

True. Good catch. It will make a very small difference in the overall IFR since the 20-49 mortality component is very small there on the right. Why do I need to fix the 80+ number? It jives with the study that the CDC based those numbers on. 

[OSUmetstud]

Across countries, model estimates of IFR ranged from 0.5% (95% CrI 0.4%–0.6%) in Switzerland to 1.4% (95% CrI 1.1%–1.6%) in Lombardy, Italy. The patterns of age-specific IFR estimates were similar across locations (Fig 4B), despite differences in the surveillance-reported age distribution of cases

 The IFR increased with age; among those 80 years or older, estimates ranged from 20% in Switzerland to 34% in Spain.

 

[OSUmetstud]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/23/cdc-director-says-more-than-90percent-of-americans-remain-susceptible-to-the-coronavirus.html#:~:text=Health and Science-,CDC director says more than 90% of,remain susceptible to the coronavirus&text=“A majority of our nation,of Americans are still susceptible.”

Per the national lab survey data from August 15th, it does appear that older Americans are doing a reasonable job in shielding themselves. Their seroprevalence is considerably lower than the younger cohorts. 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab

[Buckeyes_Suck]

1 hour ago, OSUmetstud said:

Across countries, model estimates of IFR ranged from 0.5% (95% CrI 0.4%–0.6%) in Switzerland to 1.4% (95% CrI 1.1%–1.6%) in Lombardy, Italy. The patterns of age-specific IFR estimates were similar across locations (Fig 4B), despite differences in the surveillance-reported age distribution of cases

 The IFR increased with age; among those 80 years or older, estimates ranged from 20% in Switzerland to 34% in Spain.

 

So I was wrong, as of now it’s 0.8% and not not 0.26% as written about by USA Today in July. 
What I don’t get is why such the wide swing in the cdc estimate in just 3 months, I hope that’s not political pressure...
This still doesn’t change my stance that a viable vaccine won’t be widely available before we’ve attained “herd immunity”.  We haven’t successfully made a coronavirus vaccine in almost 70 years of trying. 

[OSUmetstud]

16 minutes ago, Luke_Mages said:

So I was wrong, as of now it’s 0.8% and not not 0.26% as written about by USA Today in July. 
What I don’t get is why such the wide swing in the cdc estimate in just 3 months, I hope that’s not political pressure...
This still doesn’t change my stance that a viable vaccine won’t be widely available before we’ve attained “herd immunity”.  We haven’t successfully made a coronavirus vaccine in almost 70 years of trying. 

They're scenarios. I think that's important to appreciate. 

But, when I saw the first best guess one they posted at 0.26 (I think it was April?), I was pretty skeptical. It seemed very low given the American experience thus far. They did a July update to 0.65, and then this one on September 10th to the banded age groups. 

It's actually quite close to the imo wrongly maligned University of College London study from March 16th which had an age banded 0.9% and projected the 2.2 million US deaths in an unmitigated pandemic. 

I don't think we've ever tried to make a coronavirus vaccine, at least to this great extent. We're throwing all the will and might of science and cash at the problem. 

They were getting close with SARS (and they are using some of that research/technology for this one), but then because it is only infectious when people are very sick, we were able to isolate everyone and the infection died out so we didn't need it. 

I think the most likely scenario is that the vaccine reduces severe disease but doesn't prevent infection and that SARS-Cov 2 becomes a fairly benign endemic seasonal coronavirus in the next several years much like the other ones. 

 

[vortmax]

7 hours ago, OSUmetstud said:

I don't think we've ever tried to make a coronavirus vaccine, at least to this great extent. We're throwing all the will and might of science and cash at the problem. 

They were getting close with SARS (and they are using some of that research/technology for this one), but then because it is only infectious when people are very sick, we were able to isolate everyone and the infection died out so we didn't need it. 

I think the most likely scenario is that the vaccine reduces severe disease but doesn't prevent infection and that SARS-Cov 2 becomes a fairly benign endemic seasonal coronavirus in the next several years much like the other ones. 

 

We've also never had an mRNA vaccine either. The one from Moderna could be how all future vaccines are created - assuming it's successful. 

[OSUmetstud]

24 minutes ago, vortmax said:

We've also never had an mRNA vaccine either. The one from Moderna could be how all future vaccines are created - assuming it's successful. 

Yeah, interesting technology for sure. 

[wolfie09]

Nearly 40 million people have voted so far..Nearing 30% of the 2016 turnout.. I'm not sure these rally's and debates mean anything anymore lol You either love him or hate him, not much in-between..

The Republicans are taking a chance with flooding the polls on election day given many states will have less polls, long lines, possibility of bad weather etc..

[wolfie09]

People need to vote!!

[wolfie09]

Pennsylvania for example has roughly 800k more registered Democrats than Republicans, if everyone voted trump shouldn't win the state lol 

Imo it's more likey for a registered Republican to reverse course then vice versa..

[Buckeyes_Suck]

2 hours ago, wolfie09 said:

Pennsylvania for example has roughly 800k more registered Democrats than Republicans, if everyone voted trump shouldn't win the state lol 

Imo it's more likey for a registered Republican to reverse course then vice versa..

Ya I think that’s why voter enthusiasm is so important. I think that’s why Trump won in 16 and would be the reason if he won this year. Trump being so polarizing might have helped democratic enthusiasm though. 

[vortmax]

On 10/21/2020 at 12:00 PM, Luke_Mages said:

Ya I think that’s why voter enthusiasm is so important. I think that’s why Trump won in 16 and would be the reason if he won this year. Trump being so polarizing might have helped democratic enthusiasm though. 

I'm thinking the POTUS will see unexpectedly high Black and Latino votes...which will clearly push him through on Nov 3.

[CIK62]

COVID-19  &   CANDIDA-AURIS   &   GLOBAL WARMING

Yet another problem for hospitals as the population in them begins to explode:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/drug-resistant-superbug-candida-auris-thriving-hospitals-coronavirus-era/?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=SpecialEdition_20201023&rid=B9928FB3EBF090DA6038662B9C04F4BA

[brentrich]

we hit new record of 81k cases yesterday. We have a shot of seeing 90k+ today and possible 100k+ next week. Hopefully Joe Biden wins the election because he said once he get in white house, he will do whole national lockdown for few months to get cases down. Hurry up!!!! 

[vortmax]

2 minutes ago, brentrich said:

we hit new record of 81k cases yesterday. We have a shot of seeing 90k+ today and possible 100k+ next week. Hopefully Joe Biden wins the election because he said once he get in white house, he will do whole national lockdown for few months to get cases down. Hurry up!!!! 

Not sure that's a good idea...should be localized.

[wolfie09]

I'm not sure that's exactly what he said lol I have never personally heard him say he was going to lockdown the country..Mask mandate? Yes Total lockdown?No.. 

[vortmax]

6 minutes ago, wolfie09 said:

I'm not sure that's exactly what he said lol I have never personally heard him say he was going to lockdown the country..Mask mandate? Yes Total lockdown?No.. 

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said he would do "whatever it takes" to combat the spread of coronavirus within the country — including locking down the U.S. if deemed necessary.

“I would shut it down; I would listen to the scientists,” Biden told ABC’s David Muir in a joint interview with his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, to air Sunday.

[wolfie09]

Thanks

Yeah, that's "worst case scenario" IF scientist recommend it..That's different than he "will"..It was also an interview 2 months ago.. Today he was talking about improving the economy while being safe (mask, social distancing etc..)

[vortmax]

20 minutes ago, wolfie09 said:

Thanks

Yeah, that's "worst case scenario" IF scientist recommend it..That's different than he "will"..It was also an interview 2 months ago.. Today he was talking about improving the economy while being safe (mask, social distancing etc..)

Same as the POTUS. A national mask mandate from the Feds isn't likely legal though - so I've read at least.

[Buckeyes_Suck]

4 hours ago, brentrich said:

we hit new record of 81k cases yesterday. We have a shot of seeing 90k+ today and possible 100k+ next week. Hopefully Joe Biden wins the election because he said once he get in white house, he will do whole national lockdown for few months to get cases down. Hurry up!!!! 

Just delaying the inevitable.  At this rate 10 years of lockdowns...

if that actually plays out you’re looking at your looking at several economic collapses and ww3.