Coronavirus

[Guest oakwood42]

I agree with rb that fear is a yuge motivator. If deaths climb, people will agree with almost anything. We already agree with workplaces, restaurants, clothing stores being closed. You might think Americans won't agree to martial law, enforced quarantine, etc., watch what happens if deaths explode.

 

Now, OTOH, if deaths don't explode then other motivators trump (lol). So it depends. There is some number of deaths where people say "we don't care, we just not gonna lockdown". And there is a number of deaths where people are totally fine with lockdown of pretty much any severity.

 

I agree with this general sentiment.

[LC]

More lack of coordination between Feds/State gov'ts:

 

https://www.newsweek.com/warren-says-trump-admin-preventing-states-obtaining-coronavirus-equipment-theyre-doing-worse-1494586

 

Is the white house owned by disney? Because this is a real mickey mouse show of leadership.

[ERICOPOLY]

More lack of coordination between Feds/State gov'ts:

 

https://www.newsweek.com/warren-says-trump-admin-preventing-states-obtaining-coronavirus-equipment-theyre-doing-worse-1494586

 

Is the white house owned by disney? Because this is a real mickey mouse show of leadership.

 

California's governor has been praising Trump's handling of the crisis, and the White House has been willing to work with him.  Meanwhile, Trump has been belittling the requests of the governors of Washington and Michigan who have been sharply criticizing the Federal government's handling of the crisis.

 

The Federal government would lead if the governors would stop maligning Trump -- he is fighting their requests because of this.  Putin also recognizes that praising Trump goes a long way.

 

You have to kiss the ring.

[ERICOPOLY]

It is similar to oppositional defiance.

 

And it's best to convince him that it was his great idea all along.

[rb]

Remember those days when America used to be a superpower?

[Castanza]

Remember those days when America used to be a superpower?

 

Maybe Canada can go ask China for military support.....

[orthopa]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

[cwericb]

"Maybe Canada can go ask China for military support....."

 

But unlike some other countries I don't believe Canada pissed off any other countries lately.

[LC]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

 

This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable.

 

In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way.

[cobafdek]

We're going to get serological results quicker than I thought.  Recent past CFR numbers will be coming down.

 

A tweet from yesterday:

 

 

was updated today:

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

 

This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable.

 

In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way.

 

And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents.

 

Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them.

 

And this sums it up perfectly:

[Spekulatius]

Shutdown makes sense, but you can’t do it China style. How are you gonna mass detain people and force them into quarantine camps? How are you gonna force people to stay in their homes?

 

It doesn't have to be 100% effective. More effective it is, the shorter it is, but I saw something that ~90% reduction in interactions lowers Ro such that infections will decline.

 

90% is not the same for every area and not exact

Depending on how familiar you are with exponential behavior, the talk of Ro may or may not be helpful.

 

What's important is non-perfect shutdowns work if they are generally effective

 

Italy has clamped down and the lockdown is working. If they can do it, everyone can. Yes we can!

[orthopa]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

 

This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable.

 

In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way.

 

And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents.

 

Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them.

 

And this sums it up perfectly:

 

We will see what the serologic tests say.

 

Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground?

[copelandlewis]

Ohio expects epidemic to peak by mid May with 10,000 new cases per day in the state.

[Castanza]

Shutdown makes sense, but you can’t do it China style. How are you gonna mass detain people and force them into quarantine camps? How are you gonna force people to stay in their homes?

 

It doesn't have to be 100% effective. More effective it is, the shorter it is, but I saw something that ~90% reduction in interactions lowers Ro such that infections will decline.

 

90% is not the same for every area and not exact

Depending on how familiar you are with exponential behavior, the talk of Ro may or may not be helpful.

 

What's important is non-perfect shutdowns work if they are generally effective

 

Italy has clamped down and the lockdown is working. If they can do it, everyone can. Yes we can!

 

Didn’t Italy just see a spike in cases?

[Hielko]

Their daily new cases have been stabilizing for a week now, and I think their testing capacity has been going up, so it's possible they are now finding a higher percentage of the infected (so effectively there is already a decline). Their numbers aren't pretty, but for sure a lot better than it could have been with exponential growth.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

 

This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable.

 

In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way.

 

And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents.

 

Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them.

 

And this sums it up perfectly:

 

We will see what the serologic tests say.

 

Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground?

 

You can judge my posts based on their content. After all, I presume when I come here that this is a place for analytical people who can interpret data (though my faith in that is stretched very often). I do not need to use my degrees/what I do for a living to support my arguments.

[patience_and_focus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/health/a-heart-attack-no-it-was-the-coronavirus.html

 

"An electrocardiogram revealed an ominous heart rhythm. The patient had high blood levels of a protein called troponin, a sign of damaged heart muscle. Doctors rushed to open the patient’s blocked arteries — but found that no arteries were blocked."

 

"A report on heart problems among coronavirus patients in Wuhan, China, was published in JAMA Cardiology on Friday. The study, led by Dr. Zhibing Lu at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, found that 20 percent of patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, had some evidence of heart damage."

[orthopa]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

 

This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable.

 

In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way.

 

And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents.

 

Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them.

 

And this sums it up perfectly:

 

We will see what the serologic tests say.

 

Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground?

 

You can judge my posts based on their content. After all, I presume when I come here that this is a place for analytical people who can interpret data (though my faith in that is stretched very often). I do not need to use my degrees/what I do for a living to support my arguments.

 

I didn't ask that it be used to support your arguments. You questioned me a while back and noticed you said you were an M.D. and your uncle went to MIT. Based on your response and the fact you deleted the post it sounds like you lied. Just wondering.

[Dalal.Holdings]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/health/a-heart-attack-no-it-was-the-coronavirus.html

 

"An electrocardiogram revealed an ominous heart rhythm. The patient had high blood levels of a protein called troponin, a sign of damaged heart muscle. Doctors rushed to open the patient’s blocked arteries — but found that no arteries were blocked."

 

"A report on heart problems among coronavirus patients in Wuhan, China, was published in JAMA Cardiology on Friday. The study, led by Dr. Zhibing Lu at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, found that 20 percent of patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, had some evidence of heart damage."

 

When patients "code" in the hospital, it is usually due to an abnormal heart rhythm that often leads to mortality. The underlying cause does not have to be cardiac (though if you have preexisting cardiac disease you are at increased risk). For example--a virus that causes ARDS can cause severe hypoxia. Severe hypoxia can cause pulmonary hypertension (increased load for the right side of the heart to pump against) and cause cardiac ischemia/infarction, cardiac arrest, V-fib, etc. Certain viral infections are also known direct cardiomyopathy and as your article notes, that could be a factor with this but obviously lots of uncertainty at this point.

 

Or another example: taking Trump's favorite drug Hydroxychloroquine can prolong what's called the QT interval and lead to Torsades de Pointes which is often fatal. In that case, the drug should be blamed as the culprit, not the heart.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

 

This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable.

 

In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way.

 

And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents.

 

Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them.

 

And this sums it up perfectly:

 

We will see what the serologic tests say.

 

Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground?

 

You can judge my posts based on their content. After all, I presume when I come here that this is a place for analytical people who can interpret data (though my faith in that is stretched very often). I do not need to use my degrees/what I do for a living to support my arguments.

 

I didn't ask that it be used to support your arguments. You questioned me a while back and noticed you said you were an M.D. and your uncle went to MIT. Based on your response and the fact you deleted the post it sounds like you lied. Just wondering.

 

You repeatedly use your credentials in the ED to bolster your arguments--someone else asked you whether you were an ortho pa based on your posts.

 

And LOL about the uncle quip. I was mocking our genius President, but whoosh.

[orthopa]

Flu season looks like a blip on the NYC Influenza Like Illness data tracker.  So much for orthopa's theory--deaths and illness rates now clearly indicate no widespread incidence back in Jan/Feb. 

 

https://weinbergerlab.shinyapps.io/NYC_syndromic/

 

You forgot to post this part:

 

CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination.

 

Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC?

 

This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable.

 

In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way.

 

And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents.

 

Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them.

 

And this sums it up perfectly:

 

We will see what the serologic tests say.

 

Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground?

 

You can judge my posts based on their content. After all, I presume when I come here that this is a place for analytical people who can interpret data (though my faith in that is stretched very often). I do not need to use my degrees/what I do for a living to support my arguments.

 

I didn't ask that it be used to support your arguments. You questioned me a while back and noticed you said you were an M.D. and your uncle went to MIT. Based on your response and the fact you deleted the post it sounds like you lied. Just wondering.

 

You repeatedly use your credentials in the ED to bolster your arguments--someone else asked you whether you were an ortho pa based on your posts.

 

And LOL about the uncle quip. I was mocking our genius President, but whoosh.

 

No I use my credentials to give some perspective from what I see/think. Take it or leave it I don't give a fuck. I would feel the same based on your background if it was medical. I just think its weird you would state your an MD in a condescending response to someone else then erase the post thats all.

[Castanza]

Their daily new cases have been stabilizing for a week now, and I think their testing capacity has been going up, so it's possible they are now finding a higher percentage of the infected (so effectively there is already a decline). Their numbers aren't pretty, but for sure a lot better than it could have been with exponential growth.

 

Respectfully, how can you be sure?

[orthopa]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/health/a-heart-attack-no-it-was-the-coronavirus.html

 

"An electrocardiogram revealed an ominous heart rhythm. The patient had high blood levels of a protein called troponin, a sign of damaged heart muscle. Doctors rushed to open the patient’s blocked arteries — but found that no arteries were blocked."

 

"A report on heart problems among coronavirus patients in Wuhan, China, was published in JAMA Cardiology on Friday. The study, led by Dr. Zhibing Lu at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, found that 20 percent of patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, had some evidence of heart damage."

 

When patients "code" in the hospital, it is usually due to an abnormal heart rhythm that often leads to mortality. The underlying cause does not have to be cardiac (though if you have preexisting cardiac disease you are at increased risk). For example--a virus that causes ARDS can cause severe hypoxia. Severe hypoxia can cause pulmonary hypertension (increased load for the right side of the heart to pump against) and cause cardiac ischemia/infarction, cardiac arrest, V-fib, etc. Certain viral infections are also known direct cardiomyopathy and as your article notes, that could be a factor with this but obviously lots of uncertainty at this point.

 

Or another example: taking Trump's favorite drug Hydroxychloroquine can prolong what's called the QT interval and lead to Torsades de Pointes which is often fatal. In that case, the drug should be blamed as the culprit, not the heart.

 

Yep definitely a psychiatrist. Didn't do to well on match day did you?

[Dalal.Holdings]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/health/a-heart-attack-no-it-was-the-coronavirus.html

 

"An electrocardiogram revealed an ominous heart rhythm. The patient had high blood levels of a protein called troponin, a sign of damaged heart muscle. Doctors rushed to open the patient’s blocked arteries — but found that no arteries were blocked."

 

"A report on heart problems among coronavirus patients in Wuhan, China, was published in JAMA Cardiology on Friday. The study, led by Dr. Zhibing Lu at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, found that 20 percent of patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, had some evidence of heart damage."

 

When patients "code" in the hospital, it is usually due to an abnormal heart rhythm that often leads to mortality. The underlying cause does not have to be cardiac (though if you have preexisting cardiac disease you are at increased risk). For example--a virus that causes ARDS can cause severe hypoxia. Severe hypoxia can cause pulmonary hypertension (increased load for the right side of the heart to pump against) and cause cardiac ischemia/infarction, cardiac arrest, V-fib, etc. Certain viral infections are also known direct cardiomyopathy and as your article notes, that could be a factor with this but obviously lots of uncertainty at this point.

 

Or another example: taking Trump's favorite drug Hydroxychloroquine can prolong what's called the QT interval and lead to Torsades de Pointes which is often fatal. In that case, the drug should be blamed as the culprit, not the heart.

 

Yep definitely a psychiatrist. Didn't do to well on match day did you?

 

So when you have no arguments left, attack individuals. Got it.