Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 680 comments are related to the topic:
Have Sweden flattened the curve without trashing the economy?
Have Sweden flattened the curve without trashing the economy?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 680
|
By:
stridingedge
24 Apr 20 22:07 Joined: 14 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 56,347 | Blogger: stridingedge's blog What would your IFR figure be? ^ So the blended rate of 0.9% or 0.5% or whatever is actually pointless. The key thing from the datasets is the IFR for older people is over thousand times greater for people over 75 than people under 30. So rather than quarantining the low risk young people by closing schools etc really protecting the older/vulnerable is the key to reducing deaths. But that aside about the rate by age used by Imperial was.... Imperial College Assumptions IRF 0 to 9 0.00% 10 to 19 0.01% 20 to 29 0.03% 30 to 39 0.08% 40 to 49 0.15% 50 to 59 0.60% 60 to 60 2.20% 70 to 79 5.10% 80+ 9.30% New York City IFR 0 to 19 0.00% 18-44 0.06% 45-64 0.56% 65-74 1.82% 75+ 4.52% New York City uses different age groups but the numbers are much much lower (around half). Also take into account that these are deaths with Covid on death certificate (may not be positive) and deaths in hospital after testing positive (death could have been from Heart Attack or anything). * New York Numbers assume 21% infection rate as discovered from the 3000 person blind AB test in big box stores and the data up to 24th April (had virus up to 6 weeks prior) published here. These people likely to be non-essential workers and fit enough to go to stores. So true number infected likely higher. ** NYC deaths per 100,000 data https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page |
|
By:
**
Imperial College Assumptions IRF 0 to 9 0.00% 10 to 19 0.01% 20 to 29 0.03% 30 to 39 0.08% 40 to 49 0.15% 50 to 59 0.60% 60 to 70 2.20% 70 to 79 5.10% 80+ 9.30% |
|
By:
The Gangelt study in Germany came back with IFR of 0.36%
|
|
By:
On that basis if you did an anti-body test in London right now you would expect 14% to be positive.
(4426 deaths at 0.036% is 1.229m people had it from 9m population). Stockholm would be around 30% (1128 deaths at 0.036% is 313,000 had had it from 1m population). |
|
By:
*0.36%
|
|
By:
FFS Belgium nearly hitting 600 deaths per million
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Half Belgium deaths are from care homes but only 4% of those deaths had a positive test. If it is suspected Covid cases they put it down as one.
So halve the numbers if you want to compare to Germany, UK or Spain that only have those who tested positive and died from something in hospital. |
|
By:
you are forgetting those already infected and going to die in your model for calculating death rate.
if there were no more infections from today the death total will sadly increase. maffs innit ! |
|
By:
Indeed but there is also lag in the the AB tests.
You do not development the anti-bodies immediately. It takes a few weeks. Sadly it also takes a few weeks from being infected to dying usually. They cancel each other out. But you make a good point about the lag. It suggests even more people are currently infected and will have anti-bodies in a few weeks than the recent studies show. |
|
By:
doesnt really matter though does it !
we can only assume deaths as so many have not been tested and are now buried, maybe time team 2120 will stumble across bodies and be able to test them. but we will never know for sure if they had the virus without them being tested. we must be at 20k in hospital, and 8k carehomes total is currently doubling every 17 days but that is falling so hopefully we will not double that 28k but there are still sadly many still in hopeless positions. there seems to be a higher death rate for bame in the uk, so uk overall rate will be a blend. they were talking about a straight extrapolation once its over to calculate true rates, but i reckon they will be unable to get any great degree of accuracy. antibody tests at the mo seem pretty useless for mesuring rates as they are simply not tuned in or specific enough. lots of false positives which i guess is miles better than false negatives, but dont swear on the results |
|
By:
we should not forget the great innovation of british doctors who seem to have done a great job with
new treatments, they must have saved a few lives, and shaved a bit off the death rate, which will be passed onto other countries going forward. |
|
By:
I agree we do not know for sure on quality of the testing and sampling and of course there is a delay factor.
But it is vital to get this data to decide on policy. The 0.9% IFR figure just looks way too high to me. The only way it happens is if a disproportionate amount of older people are infected which is possible given Europe's poor management of this in care homes. |
|
By:
New York City IFR
0 to 19 0.00% 18-44 0.06% 45-64 0.56% 65-74 1.82% 75+ 4.52% trader, where do these numbers come from please? tia |
|
By:
if it was 0.9 in china then it will surely be lower in uk as white folk seem blessed with a degree of immunity
that chinese did not. |
|
By:
Jolly...
Take this data.. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page They state deaths per 100,000 people: AGE_GROUP Deaths 0-17 years 0 18-44 years 13.44 45-64 years 117.6 65-74 years 382.2 75 and older years 949.95 The AB test had NYC at 21% having anti-bodies. So that is 21,000 per 100,000 people. Clearly is may not be accurate as it is from people well enough to go out shopping for more likely younger people and not key workers according to Cuomo. So for 65-74 take 382.2/21,000 to get 1.82% IFR. You can do same calculations for other age groups. |
|
By:
It has to be stressed again the key to getting the blended rate down is to increase young infected and decrease old infected.
|
|
By:
decreasing old infected is a great idea, but as tories have locked them up in care homes and stopped them going to hospital
that horse has already bolted |
|
By:
WHO say today theres not a shred ofr evidence that someone who,s had the virus has built up any immunity , so as we stand sweeden/Stockholm as 25% of sweet fooook all
|
|
By:
call me picky[ again ] but you,d like to think these scientists would have proof of immunity before embarking on infecting 70% of their public,just a thought
|
|
By:
1st time poster
25 Apr 20 11:24 Joined: 25 Dec 05 | Topic/replies: 38,728 | Blogger: 1st time poster's blog call me picky[ again ] but you,d like to think these scientists would have proof of immunity before embarking on infecting 70% of their public,just a thought ^ Wont it happen anyway in time? It is just when. Can we really delay it for 18 more months on the hope that the first ever coronavirus vaccine will be produced in record time? |
|
By:
That there are no coronavirus vaccines for humans as of right now is most likely more the result of a lack of urgency than anything else. There are vaccine candidates for SARS.MkI and MERS that have been found safe and working in Phase I clinical trials.
|
|
By:
If a virus has zero immunity can you still make a vaccine?
|
|
By:
The problem is that the statistics are wrongly focused . Epidemiologists should look at the REASONS older people are adversely affected . They are
not looking why BAME , obese , diabetics , people suffering from heart conditions or care home residents have adverse mortality rates . It is staring them in the face but they refuse to recognise the one factor that links them . I feel like Ignaz Semmelweis...... |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I’m still at a loss to see why social distancing is required in the fresh air. Having a BBQ with friends and family in the garden is not going to spread this virus.
|
|
By:
If you otherwise are in close contact with those friends and family, indeed.
If you only see them for the BBQ and one is infected, it will. |
|
By:
*If you otherwise are in close contact with those friends and family, indeed, because you will already have spread it amongst each other.
|
|
By:
In fresh air edy?
Supermarkets have a 2m rule. Like that will make any difference! No breeze, people breathing other’s air. |
|
By:
Sweden's policy is not herd immunity. The policy is to protect the old and frail, with some immunity as a by-product of that policy. If there's no immunity they'll just have to keep going as they are and old people will have to stay out of danger. But it will be the same everywhere else except Sweden won't have killed their economy.
If there's a breeze it's likely the virus can travel further than 2m. It certainly can when someone coughs or sneezes. |
|
By:
Of course you also come into contact with other people's exhaled air and evil germs outside if you sit right next or across to each other.
Am at a bit of a loss at that post tbh, Injera. Does the virus exist now again? Is it not exosomes anymore? |
|
By:
lurka spot on
|
|
By:
Haven’t a clue edy because I don’t know what they’re testing for.
If exhaled air from contagious people with no symptoms carries infection, then why is a 2m rule imposed in supermarkets? Surely it has to e at least 10m and ask people to queue for 2 hours rather than the 30 mins it can take now. As for outside, 2m between people from different households seems more than ample. If someone is coughing and sneezing, keep away. Just exhaled air? 2m more than enough in the fresh air. |
|
By:
edy
25 Apr 20 11:50 Joined: 13 Dec 06 | Topic/replies: 225,675 | Blogger: edy's blog Apr 25, 2020 -- 11:46AM, InsiderTrader wrote: If a virus has zero immunity can you still make a vaccine? questionable ^ What happens then if no vaccine is possible? I hear in NYC they are treating people with plasma from people that have been infected with some success. Does this imply there is some immunity from having it? |
|
By:
The country is being dominated by total paranoia.
|
|
By:
What happens then if no vaccine is possible?
We let the virus rip for some good natural selection  |
|
By:
It’s a lie that there’s no immunity. Most are with mild or no symptoms. Their bodies defeat the virus using usual remedies.
A 3lb prem baby tested positive and recovered. A 98 year old gent ditto. People do have immunity. As eyeball keeps asking - what do the deaths have most in common? |
|
By:
As eyeball keeps asking - what do the deaths have most in common?
They are all human! |
|
By:
herd some golf course green keeper say they could turn the hole upside down,why don't they just some sanatiser on every green,tee box and golfers wear their glove, the virus is only passed by puuting it in your mouth,nose,era etc,
besides all that we,re edging our way to revealing itsairbourn imo,evidence of it been carried in pollution particles |
|
By:
eyeball
25 Apr 20 11:47 Joined: 09 Mar 03 | Topic/replies: 6,981 | Blogger: eyeball's blog The problem is that the statistics are wrongly focused . Epidemiologists should look at the REASONS older people are adversely affected . They are not looking why BAME , obese , diabetics , people suffering from heart conditions or care home residents have adverse mortality rates . It is staring them in the face but they refuse to recognise the one factor that links them . ^ What is it? |