Scrutable

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Fri May 22, 2020 1:24 pm

Yes, I am agreeing with you, but this keeps coming up. People keep saying they think they had it last fall. It seems to be a fashionable belief these days.

Bucking the trend is the BBC's Fergus Walsh - who has tested positive for antibodies multiple times.

Despite the fact he had pneumonia in January - he doesn't think that was COVID-19 - and assumes he must have picked it up later...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52762939

Which way does Occam's Razor slice this? Asymptomatic infection in March? Or is it more likely that COVID-19 caused a case of pneumonia in January in the UK (for someone working among people travelling the globe)?

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 8:11 am

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Fri May 22, 2020 1:24 pm

Yes, I am agreeing with you, but this keeps coming up. People keep saying they think they had it last fall. It seems to be a fashionable belief these days.

Bucking the trend is the BBC's Fergus Walsh - who has tested positive for antibodies multiple times.

Despite the fact he had pneumonia in January - he doesn't think that was COVID-19 - and assumes he must have picked it up later...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52762939

Which way does Occam's Razor slice this? Asymptomatic infection in March? Or is it more likely that COVID-19 caused a case of pneumonia in January in the UK (for someone working among people travelling the globe)?

Same as with France.

If someone was seriously ill with Covid-19 in Britain in early January how come it took until 28 February for the first case from domestic transmission to be diagnosed (as opposed to people who’d been infected abroad)? If he had been infected with Covid in London on, say, 7 January by someone who’d flown from Hubei then there should have been thousands of cases in the UK by the end of the month. That would have been obvious because the hospitals and mortuaries would have started filling up in February (a month earlier than they did).

Am I missing something in this article about the prevalence of covid in Pacific Islander communities in California?
It says they're being more affected than average, but I'm not seeing it from the figures.

314,000 Islanders out of 39million is 0.8%
537 out of 80,400 cases is 0.7%
28 out of 3,300 deaths is 0.8%

Slightly higher IFR, but the article says the rates are 2.6 times higher than average for the state.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... death-rate

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 12:37 pm

Am I missing something in this article about the prevalence of covid in Pacific Islander communities in California?
It says they're being more affected than average, but I'm not seeing it from the figures.

314,000 Islanders out of 39million is 0.8%
537 out of 80,400 cases is 0.7%
28 out of 3,300 deaths is 0.8%

Slightly higher IFR, but the article says the rates are 2.6 times higher than average for the state.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... death-rate

The tables on the CDPH website linked in the article give these figures:

Pacific Islanders are 0.3% of the population, 0.9% of cases and 0.8% of deaths.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 1:15 pm

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 12:37 pm

Am I missing something in this article about the prevalence of covid in Pacific Islander communities in California?
It says they're being more affected than average, but I'm not seeing it from the figures.

314,000 Islanders out of 39million is 0.8%
537 out of 80,400 cases is 0.7%
28 out of 3,300 deaths is 0.8%

Slightly higher IFR, but the article says the rates are 2.6 times higher than average for the state.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... death-rate

The tables on the CDPH website linked in the article give these figures:

Pacific Islanders are 0.3% of the population, 0.9% of cases and 0.8% of deaths.

Thanks, yes, that explains it - the Guardian article has overstated the Pacific Islander population.
I had looked at the CDHP website, but when viewed on my phone one of the columns has been shifted over, so the Percent Deaths column shows the Percentage Ca Population instead.

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 8:11 am

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Fri May 22, 2020 1:24 pm

Yes, I am agreeing with you, but this keeps coming up. People keep saying they think they had it last fall. It seems to be a fashionable belief these days.

Bucking the trend is the BBC's Fergus Walsh - who has tested positive for antibodies multiple times.

Despite the fact he had pneumonia in January - he doesn't think that was COVID-19 - and assumes he must have picked it up later...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52762939

Which way does Occam's Razor slice this? Asymptomatic infection in March? Or is it more likely that COVID-19 caused a case of pneumonia in January in the UK (for someone working among people travelling the globe)?

I was going to say false positive, but he tested three times, so not that. Does anybody know what percentage of cases have asymptomatic results for the whole duration? I don't know how you could figure that out as most asymptomatic people would not get tested.

Cuba has developed two drugs that are helping it deal with its Covid19 pandemic.

HAVANA (Reuters) - Communist-run Cuba said this week that use of two drugs produced by its biotech industry that reduce hyper-inflammation in seriously ill COVID-19 patients has sharply curbed its coronavirus-related death toll.

“Some 80 percent of patients who end up in critical condition are dying. In Cuba, with the use of these drugs, 80 percent of those who end up in critical or serious condition are being saved,” President Miguel Diaz-Canel said on Thursday in a meeting shown on state television.

Is this for real or is it just propaganda?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22Y2Y4

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 2:48 pm

Cuba has developed two drugs that are helping it deal with its Covid19 pandemic.

HAVANA (Reuters) - Communist-run Cuba said this week that use of two drugs produced by its biotech industry that reduce hyper-inflammation in seriously ill COVID-19 patients has sharply curbed its coronavirus-related death toll.

“Some 80 percent of patients who end up in critical condition are dying. In Cuba, with the use of these drugs, 80 percent of those who end up in critical or serious condition are being saved,” President Miguel Diaz-Canel said on Thursday in a meeting shown on state television.

Is this for real or is it just propaganda?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22Y2Y4

Others will know more about this specific case, but while there are plenty of things to criticise the regime in Cuba for (as there are with most regimes, to be honest) I don't think there's any doubt that their medical system gets good results. The article does note that RCTs haven't happened yet, and that there are other confounding explanations for the low death rate in Cuba (an early and strict lockdown, for instance).

(What does look like propaganda is the opening of the article: "Communist-run Cuba..." - how is communism remotely relevant to the story?)

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 7:27 pm

Others will know more about this specific case, but while there are plenty of things to criticise the regime in Cuba for (as there are with most regimes, to be honest) I don't think there's any doubt that their medical system gets good results. The article does note that RCTs haven't happened yet, and that there are other confounding explanations for the low death rate in Cuba (an early and strict lockdown, for instance).

(What does look like propaganda is the opening of the article: "Communist-run Cuba..." - how is communism remotely relevant to the story?)

Maybe communist regimes are better at handling public health emergencies?

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 7:53 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 7:27 pm

Others will know more about this specific case, but while there are plenty of things to criticise the regime in Cuba for (as there are with most regimes, to be honest) I don't think there's any doubt that their medical system gets good results. The article does note that RCTs haven't happened yet, and that there are other confounding explanations for the low death rate in Cuba (an early and strict lockdown, for instance).

(What does look like propaganda is the opening of the article: "Communist-run Cuba..." - how is communism remotely relevant to the story?)

Maybe communist regimes are better at handling public health emergencies?

That's probably going beyond the scope of the article, to be honest. We don't have many other contemporary examples, and there's plenty to criticise in the way the CCP handled the early stages.

I think it's pretty clear that having a lot of well-qualified doctors per capita is helpful, and possibly regimes that tend towards greater authoritarianism (which includes all the communist regimes that survived the 20th Century) are better able to restrict people's movements and so on (though plenty of liberal democracies have also managed). The fact that Cuba has a lot of doctors is pretty clearly related to its unique political trajectory, comparing with other Latin and Caribbean nations, though.

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 7:53 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 7:27 pm

Others will know more about this specific case, but while there are plenty of things to criticise the regime in Cuba for (as there are with most regimes, to be honest) I don't think there's any doubt that their medical system gets good results. The article does note that RCTs haven't happened yet, and that there are other confounding explanations for the low death rate in Cuba (an early and strict lockdown, for instance).

(What does look like propaganda is the opening of the article: "Communist-run Cuba..." - how is communism remotely relevant to the story?)

Maybe communist regimes are better at handling public health emergencies?

They aren't. Compare China's disastrous initial handling, allowing the pandemic to spread not just locally but globally while disappearing journalists and sending the police to threaten doctors for even mentioning there were symptomatic people to democratic countries like Taiwan and South Korea, who handled it radically better.

It was a communist regime - the one you like to shill for - that caused the largest famine in history - and the reasons it happened were inextricable from their totalitarian system of government.

Is it possible to get back to this specific example of medications used in Cuba against Covid19?

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 7:27 pm

Others will know more about this specific case, but while there are plenty of things to criticise the regime in Cuba for (as there are with most regimes, to be honest) I don't think there's any doubt that their medical system gets good results. The article does note that RCTs haven't happened yet, and that there are other confounding explanations for the low death rate in Cuba (an early and strict lockdown, for instance).

(What does look like propaganda is the opening of the article: "Communist-run Cuba..." - how is communism remotely relevant to the story?)

One thing I'd been wondering, and may also be showing up in African CV stats, is how different countries' rates of obesity and type-2 diabetes affect the fatality rates, as well as population age profiles.

AMS wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 8:57 pm

One thing I'd been wondering, and may also be showing up in African CV stats, is how different countries' rates of obesity and type-2 diabetes affect the fatality rates, as well as population age profiles.

Africa may not tell us very much about the rest of the world as it has a large range of human genetic diversity.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun May 24, 2020 2:15 am

AMS wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 8:57 pm

One thing I'd been wondering, and may also be showing up in African CV stats, is how different countries' rates of obesity and type-2 diabetes affect the fatality rates, as well as population age profiles.

Africa may not tell us very much about the rest of the world as it has a large range of human genetic diversity.

Although these days, thanks to easy travel, most of the world has a large range of human genetic diversity

The Metro has Johnson's COVID-19 handling approval ratings dropping 20% over the weekend*




*although that only takes them to the -1% other trackers had him on before this story broke.

Found this comparison of the various death stats on Facebook.

Meanwhile, how's Test Track Trace, one of the essential pillars for the loosening of restrictions, coming along?

How confident are we that what we have in place before June 1st will help keep R below 1?

Just decided washing up will be more interesting than watching Boris at the Select Committee Chairman's meeting.

Oh my god he's SUCH a c.nt.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 3:28 pm

Oh my god he's SUCH a c.nt.

It's the insistence that 'much of what was reported was false', when it plainly wasn't; except for the falsehoods that they tried to cobble up.

.

Blackcountryboy wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 3:21 pm

Just decided washing up will be more interesting than watching Boris at the Select Committee Chairman's meeting.

Actually in a train-crash fashion it's mesmerising.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 5:42 pm

Blackcountryboy wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 3:21 pm

Just decided washing up will be more interesting than watching Boris at the Select Committee Chairman's meeting.

Actually in a train-crash fashion it's mesmerising.

Perhaps Johnson needs his eyes testing, I've heard driving 60 miles in a car with your family to the local tourist spot is the recommended test.