Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

wuhan - coronavirus

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Kanin said:

Is this legit? I can't find info anywhere else. Hoping it's not quite as bad as the article said...

 

I thought so . Maybe not? 🤷‍♀️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pen said:

Night time Questions:

SARS2 virus is supposed to share 96% of its DNA with a bat virus that was studied at the Wuhan lab. ? 

How close is that in virus terms?

 

Humans share around 98% DNA with some other primates, it is now thought?

Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different? So Much Alike... Human and chimp DNA is so ...
 
 
So, um, the SARS2 virus is more different from the bat virus it supposedly jumped from a few months ago than humans are from chimpanzees. 
 
 
Is that a tinier difference in virus terms and expected in a very short time as a natural virus mutation? 
 

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons that viral genomes would retain a lower percentage in common:

1) viral genomes are much, much smaller than animal genomes. If you have a single page manuscript and you change ten words you've changed a much higher percentage/retained a much lower percentage than if you have a twenty-six volume encyclopedia and you change ten words.

2) A single stranded RNA genome like that of SARS-COV-2 is inherently less stable than a double stranded DNA genome such as animals have. The viral genome mutates much more easily. Also, viral "generations" and therefore opportunities for mutations to occur and be passed on are incredibly short compared to human or animal generations.

3) a virus has only two jobs: find a way to get into a cell, and make use of the cell's existing structures to replicate itself. As long as whatever mutations happen in its genome still allow those two things to happen the virus remains viable. Complex living organisms however require thousands of fine-tuned processes that must be carried out with precision in order for the organism to grow, develop, and function. Genetic sequences are retained from organism to organism because when something has evolved over millions of years in a way that works it continues to get passed on. When significant mutations happen they most often disrupt working systems and the offspring with the mutated gene doesn't develop properly and doesn't pass the mutations on.

Humans share most of our genome with other mammals because we each needed a lot of the same critical genetic sequences in order to function. We've inherited them in common from far distant ancestors. Viruses simply don't have or require many critical sequences because they are extremely limited in function. In fact, most of the genetic material that must be retained for viruses to continue to replicate isn't in their genome at all--it's in ours.

Edited by maize
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way that viral strains sometimes evolve very rapidly is by actually swapping portions of their genetic material with other viral strains. This happens for example with influenza viruses: say a person is unfortunate enough to get infected with two separate strains of influenza at the same time--I'll call them P and Q. If both viruses are replicating inside the same cell, portions of their genomes sometimes get swapped so you end up with a new viral strain that is part P and part Q.

Edited by maize
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StellaM said:

That is fantastic. 

I bet I could have a stab at explaining it - everyone being in the same boat re isolation/staying at home, common 'enemy', availability of telehealth, friends, change in environment (school/work environments can be stressful and traumatic), safe bubble of home (for many people).

I'm actually more concerned about rates in a couple of months, once things are back to 'normal'.

But for now, good news!

I think also the potential for a short term positive impact (everyone checking in on people and making time for people) but possibly long term the outcome may not be as good.  However lockdown is kind of almost over in Aus so maybe we won’t see that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to come up with ready reasons to explain lower suicide rates, but it seems like just a few days ago multiple threads here had people saying suicide is way up.  🤷‍♀️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pen said:

People seem to come up with ready reasons to explain lower suicide rates, but it seems like just a few days ago multiple threads here had people saying suicide is way up.  🤷‍♀️

Did they actually say it was up?  Or were they predicting that it would be up if they looked at statistics?  For some reason I thought that it was the latter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Did they actually say it was up?  Or were they predicting that it would be up if they looked at statistics?  For some reason I thought that it was the latter. 

 

Maybe neither. 

Maybe arguing that people committing suicide is a reason why things needed to open up.

?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Potential suicide spikes in lock down were used to argue against lock down.

Thankfully Japan, the Netherlands and AU are not seeing these spikes eventuate. 

I've always believed the rhetoric around suicide was irresponsible.

 

 

I also wonder if there’s a relationship between the level of financial support available in an economic crisis and lower suicides rates.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 new case here today in someone who came in on compassionate grounds from overseas.  They spent several days quarantine in Vic then flew into SA.  There are quite a number of contacts through the flight and airport that now need to self isolate for 14days as well. 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ABC (aus) Almost 50 crew on live export ship at risk after coronavirus outbreak in WA

Six crew members of a livestock carrier docked in Fremantle have tested positive for coronavirus, withthe WA Premier accusing the Federal Government of allowing the ship to berth despite health concerns on board.

Key points:

Six of the Al Kuwait's 48 crew have tested positive for COVID-19

The WA Premier says he expects more cases on the ship in coming days

The remaining crew, including two Australians, are being kept on board

The Al Kuwait arrived in Fremantle last Friday after receiving permission from the Federal Government and having travelled from the United Arab Emirates, Premier Mark McGowan said.

"The Al Kuwait departed the United Arab Emirates on May 7 with a total of 48 crew members onboard," he said.

"This morning, seven crew members were tested for COVID-19.

"Six have tested positive, all males, and are being moved off the ship to a Perth hotel for quarantine purposes."

Two Australians have been confirmed as being among the 48 crew members, while at least one person boarded the ship to help it berth and has been put into isolation.

I can see live export ships being another ongoing problem area - you have the ship thing which seems to be a problem anyway, plus animals and less than sterile environments.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I thought so . Maybe not? 🤷‍♀️

I don't trust my interpretation of the paper, since I don't have a science background... hoping the vaccine shows promise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20105999v1.full.pdf
 

i don’t have time to read this in detail now but it’s a pre print paper supposed to show that sewage analysis is very successful at predicting where the next outbreak is going to happen.  
 

popping it here in case anyone else is interested and hopefully so I can find it later.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kanin said:

I don't trust my interpretation of the paper, since I don't have a science background... hoping the vaccine shows promise!

 

I have now heard (but don’t know if this is true) that while the 6 vaccinated monkeys did get sick when exposed to SARS2, they had “mild” cases—apparently meaning not progressive to pneumonia stage. 

Not sure if that is enough os a sample to conclude it is still helpful even though not preventative.  If 80% of cases are “mild” 6 is a small sample for determining mildness rate was enhanced. 

This report came from Telegraph apparently, but I am paywalled out.

 I have not seen anything that looks official and scientific. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Campbell did a vaccines progress report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27403803_ScreenShot2020-05-26at3_25_54PM.thumb.png.bcf52ddc4729bd9b10d49282414b75c6.pngThis organization is tracking US nursing home Covid-19 deaths, they have some interesting infographs.  I've never heard of the organization, but their numbers seem to match up with others I've seen.

https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70

It is hard to find median age of US Covid-19 deaths, but from the info in these graphs, statistically it should be a number greater than 85.

Based on current CDC data, median age >75 years old.

I'd like to know the median age of death!  They have the number, they could easily report it.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Edited by ElizabethB
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EmseB said:

So China apparently tested 9 million people in Wuhan and found only 248 positives. Lol. Why not at least craft some believable lies?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wuhan-tests-nine-million-people-for-coronavirus-in-10-days-11590408910?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/Q2wB5UN3EE

Apparently to make it more efficient they pooled the samples.  I’m not sure exactly how they did that but basically they tested 10 people’s samples together then if that came back positive they retested those 10 people.

I have no idea what “pooling the samples” looks like in practice but I’m wondering if it’s possible that that would dilute enough that a positive result might not show up given the tests are notoriously not that sensitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pen said:

Hydroxychloroquine, South Korea—post exposure prophylaxis (this is the situation I would want it myself—before clearly sick, but when its apparent potential ability to reduce Spike protein (the crown ends) from binding to ACE2 receptors would be most helpful. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092485792030145X

This sounds positive but would be better if there was a control group I guess.  Especially given what we know about the way this spreads (sometimes a lot of spread from one person, sometimes almost zero).  It sounds like it might be best to be done under supervised conditions to monitor and discontinue if side effects occurred.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I have now heard (but don’t know if this is true) that while the 6 vaccinated monkeys did get sick when exposed to SARS2, they had “mild” cases—apparently meaning not progressive to pneumonia stage. 

Not sure if that is enough os a sample to conclude it is still helpful even though not preventative.  If 80% of cases are “mild” 6 is a small sample for determining mildness rate was enhanced. 

This report came from Telegraph apparently, but I am paywalled out.

 I have not seen anything that looks official and scientific. 

 

I’m also curious to know whether the severity level in monkeys is typically similar to that in humans or not.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

This sounds positive but would be better if there was a control group I guess.  Especially given what we know about the way this spreads (sometimes a lot of spread from one person, sometimes almost zero).  It sounds like it might be best to be done under supervised conditions to monitor and discontinue if side effects occurred.  

 

Absolutely I agree with discontinuing if side effects!

But also remember that for ?decades? Travelers to malarial areas like zAfrica and India could take quinones along with them to take, including for not infrequently  two year assignments when not expecting to have access to medical help or monitoring.  

 

 

I don’t think there’s a very effective or humane way to do a control group because there’s no way to know how many would get it in any given group and too many differences between nursing homes etc to make them consistent as in a laboratory.

I think pretty much in such a situation they are dealing with an old medicine, which does have serious side effects and risks, but mostly when used long term iirc from being offered it for AI. 

 

Personally I think it is a situation where if anyone wants to opt out or wants their relatives not to be treated if they think it’s too dangerous, or if they havevrisk factors or know adverse reactions to quinones, they shouldn’t have it, but otherwise, what else do you have to suggest that might be more likely to help in a situation like that? And if nothing then I think using prophylactic HCQ makes sense — similar to if there were a malaria outbreak at a time when it wasn’t expected to be HCQ resistant. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Apparently to make it more efficient they pooled the samples.  I’m not sure exactly how they did that but basically they tested 10 people’s samples together then if that came back positive they retested those 10 people.

I have no idea what “pooling the samples” looks like in practice but I’m wondering if it’s possible that that would dilute enough that a positive result might not show up given the tests are notoriously not that sensitive.

 

Typically, yes, it means combining groups so that fewer total tests are needed and then if any group test is positive they can check the individuals. And usually I think it’s considered a good way to get large numbers of people tested reasonably quickly. 

 

I think you are right about potential problems doing that with so many false negatives 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pen said:

 

Absolutely I agree with discontinuing if side effects!

But also remember that for ?decades? Travelers to malarial areas like zAfrica and India could take quinones along with them to take, including for not infrequently  two year assignments when not expecting to have access to medical help or monitoring.  

 

 

I don’t think there’s a very effective or humane way to do a control group because there’s no way to know how many would get it in any given group and too many differences between nursing homes etc to make them consistent as in a laboratory.

I think pretty much in such a situation they are dealing with an old medicine, which does have serious side effects and risks, but mostly when used long term iirc from being offered it for AI. 

 

Personally I think it is a situation where if anyone wants to opt out or wants their relatives not to be treated if they think it’s too dangerous, or if they havevrisk factors or know adverse reactions to quinones, they shouldn’t have it, but otherwise, what else do you have to suggest that might be more likely to help in a situation like that? And if nothing then I think using prophylactic HCQ makes sense — similar to if there were a malaria outbreak at a time when it wasn’t expected to be HCQ resistant. 

In that study they had at least one health care worker opt out because they didn’t believe it would work.  They could have included them as a at least a single control.  Maybe if more people are sketchy over it they can be used as a control group.  But measuring exposure levels etc must be hard as well.

im guessing prophylactic use might be safer because the concerns are more around increased risk due to covid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Apparently to make it more efficient they pooled the samples.  I’m not sure exactly how they did that but basically they tested 10 people’s samples together then if that came back positive they retested those 10 people.

I have no idea what “pooling the samples” looks like in practice but I’m wondering if it’s possible that that would dilute enough that a positive result might not show up given the tests are notoriously not that sensitive.

Well that and it seems like with the known false *positive* rates of most tests they'd even get higher than the 150(?) they are reporting. It all just seems like such obvious lying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Well that and it seems like with the known false *positive* rates of most tests they'd even get higher than the 150(?) they are reporting. It all just seems like such obvious lying.

 

Or maybe they have a remedy for it working fairly well already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Or maybe they have a remedy for it working fairly well already?

I don’t think so because they still seem to be having an outbreak on the border with China/Russia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure when this arrived on our state CV19 website, but today I just noticed that “create a bubble” has become a concept here, perhaps borrowed from NZ: 

 

Everyday Tips
Learn how to stay safe by creating a bubble.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I also wonder if there’s a relationship between the level of financial support available in an economic crisis and lower suicides rates.  

Anecdotal: My mom is a high-level admin at a larger hospital.  She has seen suicide attempts triple in the last eight weeks.  These are all people who have not lost income.

Edited by hopeallgoeswell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Anecdotal: My mom is a high-level admin at a larger hospital.  She has seen suicide attempts triple in the last eight months.  These are all people who have not lost income.

 

We've only been dealing with coronavirus for three and a half months and the holidays/new year are ALWAYS a big time for suicides. 8 months goes back to October. IJS.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sneezyone said:

 

We've only been dealing with coronavirus for three and a half months and the holidays/new year are ALWAYS a big time for suicides. 8 months goes back to October. IJS.

Thanks for pointing that out.  I was trying to make dinner and thought I could type a few sentences on my phone while doing that.  Obviously, multitasking is not something I should do!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Anecdotal: My mom is a high-level admin at a larger hospital.  She has seen suicide attempts triple in the last eight weeks.  These are all people who have not lost income.

Also there is an EMT on this board who mentioned she had seen a huge spike in attempted suicides in her own daily work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another "Is this true?"  I've seen it in a couple places: 

The flu vax is causing false positives for Covid19?

If true, that would help explain so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Interestingly, I googled and there are a few articles from years ago, regarding studies that show recent vaccines can create false positive titers for coronavirus antibodies.  As more people get tested for covid antibodies, it might be interesting to see if there is an association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EmseB said:

So China apparently tested 9 million people in Wuhan and found only 248 positives. Lol. Why not at least craft some believable lies?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wuhan-tests-nine-million-people-for-coronavirus-in-10-days-11590408910?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/Q2wB5UN3EE

 

This doesn't strike me as obviously a lie at all.  I'm horrified that this number is so high, actually, considering how strongly they have been trying to stomp the virus out in that city and for how long.  This suggests that there are a *lot* of undetected cases even in places that seem to have the epidemic under control right now.

Pooled testing is also being used elsewhere and it is supposed to reduce the false positive rate when testing low-incidence populations.

These are very worrisome results.  

I have been somewhat skeptical of Paul Romer's call for mass testing but am starting to think that perhaps he might be right after all.

Edited by JennyD
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

 

https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70

It is hard to find median age of US Covid-19 deaths, but from the info in these graphs, statistically it should be a number greater than 85.

Based on current CDC data, median age >75 years old.

I'd like to know the median age of death!  They have the number, they could easily report it.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

It does seem hard to find that number, though I know I’ve seen various articles that included median age statistics. So far I found some for Michigan, where the median age of Covid19 deaths is 76. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/05/09/coronavirus-covid-19-cases-death-toll-pandemic/3103300001/

I found a few more. It ranges widely, being upper 60s some places and as high as mid-80s others. I would guess that all depends on where the big outbreaks have happened. More nursing homes will mean higher median age while workplace outbreaks will mean younger. The median age of those infected seems to run about twenty years younger than the median age of those who die. 
 

3 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Anecdotal: My mom is a high-level admin at a larger hospital.  She has seen suicide attempts triple in the last eight weeks.  These are all people who have not lost income.

😢 I’m sorry to hear. As an anecdotal not directed at you, but I’ve noticed an odd correlation that the people I know of who were were anti shutdown and gave the potential for increased suicides as one of their reasons are the same people I now hear reporting suicide spikes. Like I’ve said in another post, I’ve been bothered since this was just starting at all the talk about how people would commit suicide if we had to stay at home. It’s such a suggestible thing with high susceptibility to social contagion, particularly for young people, that it has made me worry about a self fulfilling prophecy 😢

6 hours ago, EmseB said:

Well that and it seems like with the known false *positive* rates of most tests they'd even get higher than the 150(?) they are reporting. It all just seems like such obvious lying.

Can you share what you mean about false positive rates? I know about the high rate of false negatives with some of the tests, but the fake Facebook story someone shared about flu vaccines making people test positive is the only place I heard talk of false positives. 
 

eta: I’m seeing that false positives are extremely rare. Rare enough as to approach zero. https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/state-official-false-positive-covid-19-tests-very-rare-not-so-with-false-negatives/article_369216dc-3a09-5139-8a29-0520bc3c9d63.html
I did find a story about false positives, but then I saw the website it was on was filled with stories about the dangers of 5G and why wearing a mask is a serious heath risk, along with other headlines I didn’t even understand 😳

Edited by kand
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-27/coronavirus-testing-queensland-death-dies/12287058
 

this isn’t great news in australia

a 30 year old man has died with coronavirus.  He had a “complicated medical history”.  The other worrying part though is he’s from a small town (4,500 people) and there’s no known link with a known case indicating a silent transmission chain might be going on.

edited to add turns out he lives in a fly in fly out mining town.  He’s not worked since November but his partner works in a shop.  

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Anecdotal: My mom is a high-level admin at a larger hospital.  She has seen suicide attempts triple in the last eight weeks.  These are all people who have not lost income.

I can’t find any stats for the US but several people are saying this.  That’s why I was wondering if finances was a piece of the puzzle that explained the different between Aus and US.  The only other thing I can think of is that the government here has spent quite a bit on mental health resourcing so maybe that has helped.  Lockdowns are common to both countries. The only other difference is the restrictions have been slightly more mild and seem to have really controlled things more quickly.  Maybe it’s been easier to hold out hope when you think it’s actually achieving something.

I do know of at least one person whose mental health stuff has been exacerbated though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I can’t find any stats for the US but several people are saying this.  That’s why I was wondering if finances was a piece of the puzzle that explained the different between Aus and US.  The only other thing I can think of is that the government here has spent quite a bit on mental health resourcing so maybe that has helped.  Lockdowns are common to both countries. The only other difference is the restrictions have been slightly more mild and seem to have really controlled things more quickly.  Maybe it’s been easier to hold out hope when you think it’s actually achieving something.

I do know of at least one person whose mental health stuff has been exacerbated though.

My mom works with the military, so there was no loss of income, people were on the younger side, (20s), and all had free access to mental health resources. She speculated that since we are social creatures, keeping individuals isolated for months and months while the goal posts are constantly moving is erasing hope for the future.  She said some more about freedoms and oaths, but that's probably not for this forum. 
 

I hope the person you know gets the help he/she needs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

My mom works with the military, so there was no loss of income, people were on the younger side, (20s), and all had free access to mental health resources. She speculated that since we are social creatures, keeping individuals isolated for months and months while the goal posts are constantly moving is erasing hope for the future.  She said some more about freedoms and oaths, but that's probably not for this forum. 
 

I hope the person you know gets the help he/she needs. 

Yes.  But the posts above mentioned show that at this point this hasn’t happened in Aus or Netherlands in spite of restrictions so there must be another factor?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kand said:

It does seem hard to find that number, though I know I’ve seen various articles that included median age statistics. So far I found some for Michigan, where the median age of Covid19 deaths is 76. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/05/09/coronavirus-covid-19-cases-death-toll-pandemic/3103300001/

I found a few more. It ranges widely, being upper 60s some places and as high as mid-80s others. I would guess that all depends on where the big outbreaks have happened. More nursing homes will mean higher median age while workplace outbreaks will mean younger. The median age of those infected seems to run about twenty years younger than the median age of those who die. 
 

😢 I’m sorry to hear. As an anecdotal not directed at you, but I’ve noticed an odd correlation that the people I know of who were were anti shutdown and gave the potential for increased suicides as one of their reasons are the same people I now hear reporting suicide spikes. Like I’ve said in another post, I’ve been bothered since this was just starting at all the talk about how people would commit suicide if we had to stay at home. It’s such a suggestible thing with high susceptibility to social contagion, particularly for young people, that it has made me worry about a self fulfilling prophecy 😢

Can you share what you mean about false positive rates? I know about the high rate of false negatives with some of the tests, but the fake Facebook story someone shared about flu vaccines making people test positive is the only place I heard talk of false positives. 
 

eta: I’m seeing that false positives are extremely rare. Rare enough as to approach zero. https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/state-official-false-positive-covid-19-tests-very-rare-not-so-with-false-negatives/article_369216dc-3a09-5139-8a29-0520bc3c9d63.html
I did find a story about false positives, but then I saw the website it was on was filled with stories about the dangers of 5G and why wearing a mask is a serious heath risk, along with other headlines I didn’t even understand 😳

I had read there would absolutely be a certain rate of false positives for people who had previously had the virus. In a city hit as hard as Wuhan, testing nine million people, it seems like the rate would be pretty high. I guess you do have to take Chinese state media at their word that they actually completed 9 million tests accurately in that amount of time and I don't know why anyone would necessarily believe that anyway.

It wasn't a conspiracy site but I can't find it now. All I can find are articles about how to keep from getting false positives on per tests, which makes it seem like they exist, but I can't find the article I read a few days ago.

I guess ultimately I'd probably be more concerned about false negatives which are much more likely, but the numbers don't make sense to me with that amount of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I had read there would absolutely be a certain rate of false positives for people who had previously had the virus. In a city hit as hard as Wuhan, testing nine million people, it seems like the rate would be pretty high. I guess you do have to take Chinese state media at their word that they actually completed 9 million tests accurately in that amount of time and I don't know why anyone would necessarily believe that anyway.

It wasn't a conspiracy site but I can't find it now. All I can find are articles about how to keep from getting false positives on per tests, which makes it seem like they exist, but I can't find the article I read a few days ago.

I guess ultimately I'd probably be more concerned about false negatives which are much more likely, but the numbers don't make sense to me with that amount of people.

Well in South Korea they had people testing positive weeks after recovering but when they tried to culture the virus it didn’t grow because it was just dead virus still being shed so maybe the same thing is happening in Wuhan?  It’s not a false positive in the sense that the person never had the virus but it’s not an infection risk.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JennyD said:

 

This doesn't strike me as obviously a lie at all.  I'm horrified that this number is so high, actually, considering how strongly they have been trying to stomp the virus out in that city and for how long. 

But how many people left Wuhan when all that happened and then came back?

And I've never believed China or Wuhan had this under control anyway. No one actually believe there were days of zero new cases right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EmseB said:

But how many people left Wuhan when all that happened and then came back?

And I've never believed China or Wuhan had this under control anyway. No one actually believe there were days of zero new cases right?

I have no idea what to believe now.  Things have been really reduced here in Aus with social distancing.  China have used some pretty draconian lockdown measures.  So maybe they have knocked it down pretty hard.  The one thing I know for sure is we probably won’t know the truth anyway.  It’s hard enough getting true stats out of our own countries let alone one that suppresses information like China 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

27403803_ScreenShot2020-05-26at3_25_54PM.thumb.png.bcf52ddc4729bd9b10d49282414b75c6.pngThis organization is tracking US nursing home Covid-19 deaths, they have some interesting infographs.  I've never heard of the organization, but their numbers seem to match up with others I've seen.

https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70

It is hard to find median age of US Covid-19 deaths, but from the info in these graphs, statistically it should be a number greater than 85.

Based on current CDC data, median age >75 years old.

I'd like to know the median age of death!  They have the number, they could easily report it.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Both the variation across the country and some of the regional similarities are striking. The N.Y. percentage is so low. Thanks for posting! 

Edited by Frances
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Frances said:

Both the variation across the country and some of the regional similarities are striking. The N.Y. percentage is so low. Thanks for posting! 

I read that they categorized any death in NY as a hospital death if they had previously been in a nursing home and are only counting those that die in a nursing home as a nursing home death, but I'm not sure about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...