Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
05 May 20
13:48
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Aug 05
Fascinating interview from Professor Hendrik Streeck of the University of Bonn who has just completed a major new study using real data in Germany.
Key Points:
1. Infection fatality rate was 0.2% to 0.36%
2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.
3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.
4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.
5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.
The paper is located here:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Video with the professor here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrL9QKGQrWk
Key Points:
1. Infection fatality rate was 0.2% to 0.36%
2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.
3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.
4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.
5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.
The paper is located here:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Video with the professor here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrL9QKGQrWk
Show More
Fascinating?
Do you understand it all?
Can you explain this one to me that my mate in the bts is looking at
I will pass on your comments to him if they make any sense
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v1
Do you understand it all?
Can you explain this one to me that my mate in the bts is looking at
I will pass on your comments to him if they make any sense
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v1
At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.
hmmmm
hmmmm
To be fair Angoose they have had some of the key players on.
What did you make of his comments on his study and Covid in general?
What did you make of his comments on his study and Covid in general?
Increased testing means a massive drop in fatality rate....
Can't wait to see how they get out of that one
Oh they've attacked all flu seasonal deaths now to covid 19 so that gives them a few bodies at least
Is anyone even keeping up with this s*** at this point? they've mucked up the narrative, been caught out and now its time to muddy it further to confuse people
Increased testing means much lower fatality rate
Can't wait to see how they get out of that one
Oh they've attacked all flu seasonal deaths now to covid 19 so that gives them a few bodies at least
Is anyone even keeping up with this s*** at this point? they've mucked up the narrative, been caught out and now its time to muddy it further to confuse people
Increased testing means much lower fatality rate
From Iceland back in March (study 13th-23rd March) 0.89% of the population were positive in a blind test.
For a population of 364,000 that would be 3239 people. It is safe to assume more people there have caught it since then.
For sake of argument lets say 4000 people had had it in Iceland.
10 deaths.
That give an infection fatality rate of 0.25%.
This study just out is 0.2% to 0.36%.
So coming out similar.
Translated into UK terms 30,000 deaths would mean 12m people in the UK already had it.
Imperial College study number was 0.9% suggesting only 3.3m people in UK have had it.
Of course if a disproportionate percentage of people in carehomes have had it compared to the locked down young people those numbers will be very different due to the policy of lockdown itself.
For a population of 364,000 that would be 3239 people. It is safe to assume more people there have caught it since then.
For sake of argument lets say 4000 people had had it in Iceland.
10 deaths.
That give an infection fatality rate of 0.25%.
This study just out is 0.2% to 0.36%.
So coming out similar.
Translated into UK terms 30,000 deaths would mean 12m people in the UK already had it.
Imperial College study number was 0.9% suggesting only 3.3m people in UK have had it.
Of course if a disproportionate percentage of people in carehomes have had it compared to the locked down young people those numbers will be very different due to the policy of lockdown itself.
1. Infection fatality rate was 0.2% to 0.36%
The study says in the conclusions: "Based on the estimated percentage of infected people in this population, the IFR was estimated to be 0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%]" I assume you got the 0.2 from the misquoting interviewer?
2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.
Is the widespread assumption, but not fact and shouldn't be presented as such (Streeck also made sure to point this out)
3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.
In a two-person household cluster, the estimated risk for the second infection increased from
15.53% to 43.59% [25.26%; 64.60%]; in a three-person household cluster the estimated risk
for the second and third persons increased from 15.53% to 35.71% [19.57%; 55.60%] each,
and in a four-person household cluster the estimated risk for the second, third and fourth
persons increased from 15.53% to 18.33% [9.67%; 28.74%] each. For household clusters with
at least one infected child (< 18 years), the estimated per-person risk for the other person to
be infected in three-person household clusters increased from 15.53% to 66.67% [21.83%,
100.00%] and in four-person household clusters from 15.53% to 33.33% [9.02%; 71.60%].
page 10
4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.
carneval is not necessarily indoors. There's lots of smooching though and for the shagging people usually end up indoors. Again, this is an assumption from Streeck and his colleagues, as he makes sure to point out in the video (it's not mentioned in the study as far as I can tell) and should not be presented as fact.
5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.
Where does it say this in either the published study manuscript or the video?
on a sidenote: What a gorgeous stallion that interviewer is. Facial structure of a Greek God.
The study says in the conclusions: "Based on the estimated percentage of infected people in this population, the IFR was estimated to be 0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%]" I assume you got the 0.2 from the misquoting interviewer?
2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.
Is the widespread assumption, but not fact and shouldn't be presented as such (Streeck also made sure to point this out)
3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.
In a two-person household cluster, the estimated risk for the second infection increased from
15.53% to 43.59% [25.26%; 64.60%]; in a three-person household cluster the estimated risk
for the second and third persons increased from 15.53% to 35.71% [19.57%; 55.60%] each,
and in a four-person household cluster the estimated risk for the second, third and fourth
persons increased from 15.53% to 18.33% [9.67%; 28.74%] each. For household clusters with
at least one infected child (< 18 years), the estimated per-person risk for the other person to
be infected in three-person household clusters increased from 15.53% to 66.67% [21.83%,
100.00%] and in four-person household clusters from 15.53% to 33.33% [9.02%; 71.60%].
page 10
4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.
carneval is not necessarily indoors. There's lots of smooching though and for the shagging people usually end up indoors. Again, this is an assumption from Streeck and his colleagues, as he makes sure to point out in the video (it's not mentioned in the study as far as I can tell) and should not be presented as fact.
5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.
Where does it say this in either the published study manuscript or the video?
on a sidenote: What a gorgeous stallion that interviewer is. Facial structure of a Greek God.
edy, did you know that Insider Trader is an expert in AI modelling and data analysis ?
I do, because he told us earlier.
I do, because he told us earlier.
I did know he's been in AI research for the better part of a decade, yes. Occasionally I think the forum account is operated by a bot he programmed.
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 226,566 | Blogger: edy's blog
1. Infection fatality rate was 0.2% to 0.36%
The study says in the conclusions: "Based on the estimated percentage of infected people in this population, the IFR was estimated to be 0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%]" I assume you got the 0.2 from the misquoting interviewer?
^
Stated in the video the 0.036% is too high due to the fact 3% of area was known to be infected but only 2% of the sample was infected. Thats how he got the low end number.
2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.
Is the widespread assumption, but not fact and shouldn't be presented as such (Streeck also made sure to point this out)
^
Indeed but it is an important observation to share.
3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.
In a two-person household cluster, the estimated risk for the second infection increased from
15.53% to 43.59% [25.26%; 64.60%]; in a three-person household cluster the estimated risk
for the second and third persons increased from 15.53% to 35.71% [19.57%; 55.60%] each,
and in a four-person household cluster the estimated risk for the second, third and fourth
persons increased from 15.53% to 18.33% [9.67%; 28.74%] each. For household clusters with
at least one infected child (< 18 years), the estimated per-person risk for the other person to
be infected in three-person household clusters increased from 15.53% to 66.67% [21.83%,
100.00%] and in four-person household clusters from 15.53% to 33.33% [9.02%; 71.60%].
page 10
^
Correct. Again watch the film for explanation.
4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.
carneval is not necessarily indoors. There's lots of smooching though and for the shagging people usually end up indoors. Again, this is an assumption from Streeck and his colleagues, as he makes sure to point out in the video (it's not mentioned in the study as far as I can tell) and should not be presented as fact.
^
Observation made in the video.
5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.
Where does it say this in either the published study manuscript or the video?
19.40 he said if the schools had been the big transmitter we would have seen much more....
It is again an observation.
......
What do you make of the general findings of the paper Edy?
To me I find them quite positive.
| Topic/replies: 226,566 | Blogger: edy's blog
1. Infection fatality rate was 0.2% to 0.36%
The study says in the conclusions: "Based on the estimated percentage of infected people in this population, the IFR was estimated to be 0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%]" I assume you got the 0.2 from the misquoting interviewer?
^
Stated in the video the 0.036% is too high due to the fact 3% of area was known to be infected but only 2% of the sample was infected. Thats how he got the low end number.
2. Viral load when first infected effects how severe disease is.
Is the widespread assumption, but not fact and shouldn't be presented as such (Streeck also made sure to point this out)
^
Indeed but it is an important observation to share.
3. Only 14% of people in same household as someone who had Covid 19 caught it.
In a two-person household cluster, the estimated risk for the second infection increased from
15.53% to 43.59% [25.26%; 64.60%]; in a three-person household cluster the estimated risk
for the second and third persons increased from 15.53% to 35.71% [19.57%; 55.60%] each,
and in a four-person household cluster the estimated risk for the second, third and fourth
persons increased from 15.53% to 18.33% [9.67%; 28.74%] each. For household clusters with
at least one infected child (< 18 years), the estimated per-person risk for the other person to
be infected in three-person household clusters increased from 15.53% to 66.67% [21.83%,
100.00%] and in four-person household clusters from 15.53% to 33.33% [9.02%; 71.60%].
page 10
^
Correct. Again watch the film for explanation.
4. At on indoor event where people kissed other people on the lips the rate of infection was 40%.
carneval is not necessarily indoors. There's lots of smooching though and for the shagging people usually end up indoors. Again, this is an assumption from Streeck and his colleagues, as he makes sure to point out in the video (it's not mentioned in the study as far as I can tell) and should not be presented as fact.
^
Observation made in the video.
5. No one transmitted it out of schools even after area was highly infected.
Where does it say this in either the published study manuscript or the video?
19.40 he said if the schools had been the big transmitter we would have seen much more....
It is again an observation.
......
What do you make of the general findings of the paper Edy?
To me I find them quite positive.
https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1257392347010215947
that is a review of several studies - prolonged close contact seems necessary for infection to occur.
that is a review of several studies - prolonged close contact seems necessary for infection to occur.
I don't think it's really positive or negative. It's mostly expected stuff (though the fatality rate is higher than I personally would've thought).
As for the schools bit: He doesn't say at any time that no-one transmitted it out of school.
As for the schools bit: He doesn't say at any time that no-one transmitted it out of school.
I thought it would be lower. More in line with a flu maybe or even lower, but more dangerous because it's transmitted more easily. Or maybe I just hoped it would be lower.
I mean, a fatality rate of even "just" 0.2% means a whole lot of deaths if vast amounts of people get infected.
I mean, a fatality rate of even "just" 0.2% means a whole lot of deaths if vast amounts of people get infected.
Of course it depends on the age.
If enough young people get it that have a far lower IFR then they will shield the old as herd immunity builds.
If enough young people get it that have a far lower IFR then they will shield the old as herd immunity builds.
There is still no evidence (other than assumptions from similar pathogens) that infection confers long term immunity.
Also "ill enough to require hospitalization" is the social metric of most importance as that results in general detriment to the population by diminishing resources required for normal healthcare.
If you wipe out vulnerable in first wave ifr will drop too...
edy
05 May 20 14:49
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 226,577 | Blogger: edy's blog
...Streeck said he deems herd immunity unlikely
^
He does suggest you build up some sort of anti-bodies that make it milder each time you get it. Other viruses you have had may help. So it is something we live with as it gets weaker and weaker in the population.
05 May 20 14:49
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 226,577 | Blogger: edy's blog
...Streeck said he deems herd immunity unlikely
^
He does suggest you build up some sort of anti-bodies that make it milder each time you get it. Other viruses you have had may help. So it is something we live with as it gets weaker and weaker in the population.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539