Jump to content

gad198

Members
  • Content Count

    693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1089 Excellent

About gad198

  • Rank
    KIC Expert

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cincinnati, OH

Recent Profile Visitors

4929 profile views
  1. True. But notice the following (Source): and (Source):
  2. That is unfortunate, especially if those workers are in a high-risk group. The article also states that each of the six was wearing a mask. Six is hardly a large sample size, but still...
  3. Yeah, I remember when I was in high school that during one school year where schools closed for about a week because of a bad seasonal flu outbreak. It's certainly nothing to play around with. But schools don't enact extreme, non-scientific-based measures to combat seasonal flu. We know from the data that COVID simply doesn't affect the overwhelming majority of grade school aged kids (1 in 20,000 chance of hospitalization!). We also know that children are extremely unlikely to pass COVID on to others, including adults (i.e., teachers). Countries that have reopened grade schools have yet to see increases in cases as a result. Does it make sense to apply more drastic measures to deal with COVID in schools when we know it's much less dangerous to children?
  4. And that is one of the many reasons why so many experts were calling for tests. The data from the testing was valuable. The tests aren't perfect, but combined with the other data we have available should help decision makers to see a more clear picture. I will say this. Quarantining or locking down healthy people has never been a sensible medical strategy. I didn't know this until this week, but apparently asymptomatic transmission of the seasonal flu is high also. The lowest estimate I've seen is 50% of all seasonal flu cases are asymptomatic. Seasonally, anywhere from 5%-20% of the population gets the flu each year. I would imagine that the numbers for COVID will likely be in a similar range if not a little higher. What are we going to do when seasonal flu rolls around this year?
  5. The answer to the age 20-49 age group probably involves the things you both mention. It may involve greater numbers of tests in that group as a result of needing to be cleared for work. It may just be a reversion to the mean from earlier numbers where older populations initially had a higher proportion of the positive tests. It will be interesting to see what information comes out about this later on. The age 20-49 positive test numbers increase also likely explains why the mortality rate continues to come down despite the higher numbers of positive COVID tests. That group simply isn't being affected by the virus the same way that older populations are. Their hospitalization numbers back that up. One of the things that you don't hear about is that the overall infection mortality rate is very close to coming back down below the epidemic threshold from the CDC (if the numbers drop again next week it will be below that level). Also, a quote from the CDC: The fact that we're not hearing this information is really troubling. It's sad that so many people now only see each other as walking biohazards. When was the last time you saw a person smile at you in public? There has to be a point at which rational, sound, data-driven decisions have to start being made.
  6. Pop quiz time. I'll post the answer and the link to the answer immediately after the question. All answers are as of the time of this writing: In Ohio, the 20-49 age group has what percentage of the positive COVID tests? Answer: 60%. (Source) In the US, what is the probability of someone in that same 18-49 age group requiring hospitalization for COVID? Answer: 1 in 1,600 (Source) In the US, what is the probability of someone under age 18 requiring hospitalization for COVID? Answer: 1 in 20,000 (Source) In the US, of the people in the ER, what is the percentage of those individuals admitted strictly due to COVID and/or flu-like illness? Answer: 3.6% (Source) In the US, for every one person who dies due to PIC (pneumonia, influenza, COVID), this many people are dying of something else? Answer: 16 (Source) No one is saying that there's no risk. At some point though, we need to understand what the actual risk is and make decisions with real data. We need to stop focusing on the number of cases. The cases are primarily affecting people in the 20-49 age group who are overwhelmingly not being severely affected. We know the number of cases is definitely under-counted, possibly by a factor of 10 (Source). There's almost no possibility that the hospitalizations and mortality numbers are under-counted. Why is the science and data being ignored right now?
  7. There's truth to that statement. Having said that, please go to the following website and find a country where deaths have been declining for more than two weeks (US, UK, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Spain, Italy, doesn't make a difference): https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Find one country where the mortality curve has started going down for more than two weeks and then later starting climbing back up. You'll be hard pressed to find one country right now where that's the case. Even individual states right now are seeing this same pattern. For instance, see the state of Georgia (see "COVID Cases Over Time". The graph there is for cases. In the heading of that graph you'll see deaths. When you click on that, what do you see compared to the number of cases?).
  8. Let's take a look at the numbers, shall we? From the CDC: Age 85+ group (numbers are similar across all groups age 45 and over, so I used the worst numbers to illustrate this): Number of COVID deaths in that group during the two highest weeks of the pandemic (April 18 and 25) - 10,477 Number of COVID deaths in that group during the last two weeks with full data (ending June 13) - 1,856 In that same age 85+ age group (again, numbers are similar across all groups age 45 and over): Percentage of deaths in that group attributable to COVID during the two highest weeks of the pandemic (April 18 and 25) - 22% Percentage of deaths in that group attributable to COVID during the last two weeks with full data (ending June 13) - 5% Again, from the CDC - in that same over 85+ age group, the odds of you being hospitalized right now with COVID is just a shade under 1 in 200. So right now for the most susceptible group, there is an under 1% chance of being hospitalized with COVID and a 5% (and falling) chance of COVID being the cause of death (with over 90% of those deaths having other co-morbidities that contributed). I'm not saying the risk is zero. But to say that getting COVID is a death sentence if you're over age 70 - or age 85 - is misleading at best.
  9. The other issue with the graph you all are debating is the fact that it's total cases. A total case graph is never going to go down!
  10. I just want to focus in on the statement in italics. If you have large amounts of people decked out in face masks that are using them improperly or are unsanitary (which will be a good bet at a place like Kings Island, especially with as long as people will be wearing them), how is this good for anyone? If two face mask wearers are both wearing unsanitary masks, they may marginally help others, but they're also increasing their own infection chances. I fail to see how that's good for anyone.
  11. @medford - if someone offered me a choice between (1) having access to the park in 2020 with their current reopening protocols and (2) no access to the park until 2021 with a normal (pre-coronavirus) strategy I'd sign up for #2 right now. Going to the park has to offer some sense of enjoyment, and right now all of the "extras" necessary for a visit (reduced capacity on rides, face masks, distancing, etc.) have the potential to suck a lot of fun out of visiting the park. I'd gladly skip this year if it meant not having to worry about having to deal with any of those things next year. Regarding face masks - I simply cannot see how many guest face masks will be kept sanitary throughout the course of their visit. Continued touching and/or re-adjusting a mask makes it unsanitary (in fact, I've talked to about a dozen doctors who have all said that in a surgical setting that if they touch their mask at all they have to stop and go through the whole sanitation process again before they can re-enter). As soon as the mask becomes damp it becomes unsanitary. Coughing or sneezing into a mask without covering your face is a hazard to others. What's the difference between someone wearing a mask improperly versus not wearing one at all?
  12. I agree with others who said that your post was well-written. Having said that, some of the articles that talk about the hospital situation in Arizona also mention a couple of very important points in them. A sampling is below: This is why you can't simply read an article - particularly the headline and first few sentences - and then disregard the remaining context. Reading the whole article yields the underlying reason for the increase in hospitalizations, and an increase in coronavirus patients is only one of the reasons. I'm certainly not picking on anyone in particular, but these kinds of news stories are symptomatic of what's happening in much of the population. Many people only see (often misleading) headlines, cliches and platitudes without getting everything in context. I've been guilty of this too. The sooner we all get away from this kind of behavior the better off we all are.
  13. I agree with the portion about testing. To me, this is pretty cut and dry. If I test negative then there's very little reason for me wearing a face mask. If I don't have the virus that means by definition I can't transmit it. The other thing that the article references is what essentially constitutes an admission that this disease is mild for the overwhelming majority of the population. According to this website (which draws the data directly from each countries health reporting agency), less than 2% of those who contract the virus have symptoms that are considered serious or critical, and that's across all age groups: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/ From the CDC:: Put another way, the odds of me needing to go to the hospital with this virus if I live in the US is 82 out of 100,000, or 0.082%, or 8.2 times out of 10,000. A lot of bad things need to happen for me to have a bad outcome with this virus. First, I need to catch it. According to the same CDC website, 6% of tests are coming back positive. Let's assume triple that are actually positive. That's a 18% chance I catch it (with odds falling with each week that passes). I then have to show symptoms severe enough for me to require hospitalization. I'll use the 2% number above as it's more conservative. Now we're at 18% * 2% = 0.036%, which is 3.6 times out of 10,000, which matches pretty closely to the number I referenced above. For reference, the coronavirus mortality rate as a percentage of the Ohio population right now is 2,500 out of approximately 10,000,000, 0.025% (or 2.5 times out of 10,000). At least 90% of deaths being classified as related to coronavirus around the world had co-morbidities associated with them (hypertension and diabetes are two biggies). Coronavirus makes pre-existing conditions worse, but that 90% co-morbidity number is significant. It means that a lot of people happen to be dying with coronavirus than dying from it. That's one of the reasons why healthy people aren't particularly at risk regardless of age, and the numbers overwhelmingly bear that out. You're absolutely right in that a lot of this data is looking backward. We didn't know much about this virus when the various restrictions were first imposed, but we have a lot more data now. Decisions about this need to be made sensibly with reliable information as it currently stands. We've learned a lot in the last few months, and it's time to start putting some common sense back into how we move forward.
  14. I would argue even that question is moot if healthy people aren't spreading it. High temperature is just one of a few symptoms if you have the virus, so temperature checks probably aren't going to screen out everyone who is symptomatic. The other thing to consider is this...do you remember the last time you had a really high temperature? I do, and the last place I want to be is running around at an amusement park when I'm running a fever!
  15. Just saw this pop up a few hours ago. This has enormous implications if true: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-its-rare-for-asymptomatic-people-to-spread-the-coronavirus-2020-6 I bolded what I believe is the key takeaway. Asymptomatic is just another way of saying "healthy person". If healthy people aren't spreading coronavirus, that has immediate trickle-down effects - the mask debate is largely rendered moot (which would be a huge relief to nearly all of us), the continuation of social distancing, on down the line.
×
×
  • Create New...