Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 126   Go Down

Author Topic: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS  (Read 86406 times)

Rajan Parrikar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3950
    • Rajan Parrikar
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #140 on: March 27, 2020, 11:33:07 am »

Iceland's response.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #142 on: March 27, 2020, 11:54:13 am »

https://www.statista.com/chart/21176/covid-19-infection-density-in-countries-most-total-cases/?fbclid=IwAR2GzWzOPufIqiMaASqbg_U8ENocxodei03ZIrJPbHUes08LnTdygWDwROw

COVID-19 Cases per Million Inhabitants: A Comparison

Interesting, but this is of course confirmed cases and is dependent on individual nations testing levels.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #143 on: March 27, 2020, 11:54:53 am »

You have to have been tested to be a confirmed case. If you don't test, you can have a really low cases per thousand score.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #144 on: March 27, 2020, 11:55:52 am »

https://www.statista.com/chart/21176/covid-19-infection-density-in-countries-most-total-cases/?fbclid=IwAR2GzWzOPufIqiMaASqbg_U8ENocxodei03ZIrJPbHUes08LnTdygWDwROw

COVID-19 Cases per Million Inhabitants: A Comparison

The key word in the chart is "Confirmed" cases. Most people (including myself) have not yet been confirmed because tests are only used for those needing hospitalization, and healthcare workers. Also, most people will develop a mild case of infection (although they may be very contageouus for less fortunate others).
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #145 on: March 27, 2020, 12:17:16 pm »

Also, no need to insult.

Paolo,

I had no intention of insulting, just pointed out that in this very difficult period there are many trains of thought and it's best to stick as best we can to 'facts'.  Slobodan is naturalised American, and with all respect to Portugal, I pointed him to the advice of the CDC.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2020, 12:44:55 pm by Manoli »
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #146 on: March 27, 2020, 12:57:33 pm »

Sounds like the R0 is also approaching 1.0 like it seems to be in the Netherlands. There might still be a flare-up due to last weekend where a lot of irresponsible folks were organizing parties in defiance of the instructions, which caused the government to tighten up the restrictions and impose €400 fines for private offenders, and € 4000 for companies. Now to get the R0 below 1.0 will be a tricky balancing act.

Indeed. Last weekend in Portugal there were some gatherings of people that confused "hygienic walks around the block" with going out and clogging promenades. I live 5min away from a nice beach, it's sunny outisde, but...

I saw a news piece the other day was how the big crisis in Bergamo was traced to a football match played in Milan between Atalanta (team from Bergamo) and Valencia - there were big celebrations in Bergamo due to the victory. Same thing is possible when, in plain crisis already, UEFA decided not to cancel Liverpool - Atletic Madrid, with 60,000 people in the stadium. Criminal decision, IMO.

Even today I read an article about the crisis in Spain, and how on March 8 the prime minister and the government participated in public events that gathered large crowds. March 8 there were 1,000 cases in Spain.

Similar thing happened in France, where early this month they were entertained with local elections and large public gatherings.

The danger of epidemics curve is that during the first couple of weeks, even though the number of cases may double every 2 or 3 days, the numbers are still low, so people still think itis not serious and do not take the necessary measures ON TIME.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #147 on: March 27, 2020, 02:17:17 pm »

The key word in the chart is "Confirmed" cases. Most people (including myself) have not yet been confirmed because tests are only used for those needing hospitalization, and healthcare workers. Also, most people will develop a mild case of infection (although they may be very contageouus for less fortunate others).
Once a validated serological (blood) test comes out, the level of infection in the general population can be established.  A US company has developed a finger prick test but it has not received approval in the US yet.  I believe it is being exported right now for use in countries that might not have other testing capacity.  Several gene tests that run on auto analyzers have received US approval.  Abbott Laboratories say they will be ramping up to 1 million test kits per week for their analyzer. 
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #148 on: March 27, 2020, 02:28:06 pm »

The key word in the chart is "Confirmed" cases....

Yes, of course. But the value of the chart is different: it has just been announced that the US is now leading the world in the absolute number of "confirmed" cases. Therefore, the chart puts the comparison of confirmed cased on an equal footing (i.e., the same statistical base).

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #149 on: March 27, 2020, 02:34:59 pm »

Yes, of course. But the value of the chart is different: it has just been announced that the US is now leading the world in the absolute number of "confirmed" cases. Therefore, the chart puts the comparison of confirmed cased on an equal footing (i.e., the same statistical base).
1. What does this mean? 
2. Wouldn't a sampling of the general population have to be random to have much validity?  Testing people who look like they need a test or who come in to have a test because they think they're infected will skew the results and give false data. 
3.Do we have enough test kits to do random sampling at this time rather than using them in a more targeted way?

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #150 on: March 27, 2020, 03:37:10 pm »

1. What does this mean? 
2. Wouldn't a sampling of the general population have to be random to have much validity?  Testing people who look like they need a test or who come in to have a test because they think they're infected will skew the results and give false data. 
3.Do we have enough test kits to do random sampling at this time rather than using them in a more targeted way?

We have plenty of test kits to do this, and probably the testing tech, but people are worried about other things, I guess. You can get within 3% plus or minus valid numbers, with 95% confidence, testing any large number of people with only 1000 random samples. This could be done by contracting (fairly cheaply) with a polling company doing what's called random digit dialing, which would take a sample of 1000 people and asking if they would go to a designated test center to get swabbed. You might even pay them to do this -- paying them $100 would only cost $100,000, a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts of money we're throwing around. Or, you could pay them $1,000, still a drop in the bucket. Once you had the tests, you'd know within a range of 3%, plus or minus, with 95% confidence, what the infection rate is in any large population -- the US, New York, Wyoming, whatever large population you'd want to designate.

Nobody is doing this, as far as I know.

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #151 on: March 27, 2020, 03:57:00 pm »

We have plenty of test kits to do this, and probably the testing tech, but people are worried about other things, I guess. You can get within 3% plus or minus valid numbers, with 95% confidence, testing any large number of people with only 1000 random samples. This could be done by contracting (fairly cheaply) with a polling company doing what's called random digit dialing, which would take a sample of 1000 people and asking if they would go to a designated test center to get swabbed. You might even pay them to do this -- paying them $100 would only cost $100,000, a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts of money we're throwing around. Or, you could pay them $1,000, still a drop in the bucket. Once you had the tests, you'd know within a range of 3%, plus or minus, with 95% confidence, what the infection rate is in any large population -- the US, New York, Wyoming, whatever large population you'd want to designate.

Nobody is doing this, as far as I know.



Here's an article posted today explaining how they're gearing up to do wider testing.

"Scientists are starting to roll out new blood tests for the coronavirus, a key development that, unlike the current diagnostic tests, will help pinpoint people who are immune and reveal the full scope of the pandemic."
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/27/serological-tests-reveal-immune-coronavirus/

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #152 on: March 27, 2020, 05:27:09 pm »

Here's an article posted today explaining how they're gearing up to do wider testing.

"Scientists are starting to roll out new blood tests for the coronavirus, a key development that, unlike the current diagnostic tests, will help pinpoint people who are immune and reveal the full scope of the pandemic."
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/27/serological-tests-reveal-immune-coronavirus/
I am tracking this.  There is no approved blood test for the US right now.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #153 on: March 27, 2020, 05:44:00 pm »

I am tracking this.  There is no approved blood test for the US right now.
What about tests of the general public that tests if they have or had the disease?

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #154 on: March 27, 2020, 06:17:04 pm »

Talking about the number of cases is only valuable if you look at where you are on the cycle. Italy for example the number of new cases is doubling every 6 days. In the US the number of new cases is doubling every three days. The US is now regarded as the Epicentre of the virus and for many there is no health care. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

« Last Edit: March 27, 2020, 06:20:46 pm by BobShaw »
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #155 on: March 27, 2020, 09:33:27 pm »

The US is now regarded as the Epicentre of the virus and for many there is no health care.

It's true that there are still many uninsured individuals in the United Sates.  However a federal statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (1986), requires every hospital with an emergency department that participates in Medicare, the government insurance program for old people―effectively, this means almost every hospital in the country―to screen and provide stabilizing medical treatment for any individual who requests an emergency medical examination or treatment, regardless of the individual's ability to pay.  If the hospital doesn't have the ability to stabilize the patient, it must arrange for a transfer to a hospital that does.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5540
    • Photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #156 on: March 27, 2020, 11:09:12 pm »

It's true that there are still many uninsured individuals in the United Sates.  However a federal statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (1986), requires every hospital with an emergency department that participates in Medicare, the government insurance program for old people―effectively, this means almost every hospital in the country―to screen and provide stabilizing medical treatment for any individual who requests an emergency medical examination or treatment, regardless of the individual's ability to pay.  If the hospital doesn't have the ability to stabilize the patient, it must arrange for a transfer to a hospital that does.

Yes, if they are sick they will get admitted and treated. In ICU the vast majority of times I have no idea what insurance the patients have and I don't care.
Where it will make a difference is in the post hospital care. Most people that are that sick in the ICU don't go directly home, and the care after is quite important, particularly if they have a lot to recover.

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #157 on: March 28, 2020, 04:55:26 am »

Imperial College study:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Global-Impact-26-03-2020.pdf

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have resulted in 7.0 billion
infections and 40 million deaths globally this year. Mitigation strategiesfocussing on shielding
the elderly (60% reduction in social contacts) and slowing but not interrupting transmission
(40% reduction in social contacts for wider population) could reduce this burden by half,
saving 20 million lives, but we predict that even in this scenario, health systems in all countries
will be quickly overwhelmed."

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4764
    • Robert's Photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #158 on: March 28, 2020, 07:37:17 am »

Googling this morning, I saw quite a few stories about C19 anti-body pin prick tests. An example, https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/sd-biosensor-standard-q-covid-19-igmigg-rapid-test-administered-point-care.

The articles I happen to come across seem to be press release type statements. Does anyone know the false positive and especially the false negative rates of these tests? I realize it is too early to have field data but some data should have come out of approval testing.

What is the minimum level of reliability that we require?
Logged
--
Robert

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #159 on: March 28, 2020, 08:38:34 am »

Googling this morning, I saw quite a few stories about C19 anti-body pin prick tests. An example, https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/sd-biosensor-standard-q-covid-19-igmigg-rapid-test-administered-point-care.

The articles I happen to come across seem to be press release type statements. Does anyone know the false positive and especially the false negative rates of these tests? I realize it is too early to have field data but some data should have come out of approval testing.

What is the minimum level of reliability that we require?

On its own, such a test has limited value. At best it can tell if someone is, or has been, infected with Covid-19. Additional tests are required to increase its usefulness, and it's the lack of molecular tests that creates a problem. Also, without being used in a good methodical data-gathering effort, there is limited usefulness for the larger population (e.g. in determining when it becomes acceptable to risk going back to work).

First test results do suggest that people may be immune to reinfection, but it's still too earlier to be very sure. Currently there are also tests being done to establish the differences in (re-)contamination risk between people with only mild or more servere sympthoms. That includes specific effects from children compared to adults.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2020, 08:53:50 am by Bart_van_der_Wolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 126   Go Up