"Coronavirus and the US" or "We are all going to die!!!!"

[Jokodo]

Apparently the current overall death rate in England and Wales is at a five year low:


Fewer deaths than average

In the 56 days from January 11 to March 6, the total number of people who died in England and Wales was recorded as being 90,940, only one of whom was known to have tested positive for COVID-19. Others who died may possibly have had the disease, but not been tested for it. However, it’s unlikely that the virus was widespread in England and Wales in the first few months of 2020. That’s because the 90,940 deaths was 5,023 people lower than the average in the same eight-week period over the previous five years, which was 95,963.

That article is over a month old. Here is the *current* death rate, updated weekly, directly from the office of national statistics. In the last week with data as of the time of writing, the week ending April 10, there were very nearly twice as many deaths in England and Wales as is typical for the seasons - an excess if over 8000, 2000 more than the COVID-19 deaths recorded that week. Easily the highest number since weekly figures are being collected, with a wide margin. In London which is more affected than the rest of the country, 3 times as many people died compared to the same time in recent years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...nalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

 

[Jokodo]

Apparently the current overall death rate in England and Wales is at a five year low:


Fewer deaths than average

In the 56 days from January 11 to March 6, the total number of people who died in England and Wales was recorded as being 90,940, only one of whom was known to have tested positive for COVID-19. Others who died may possibly have had the disease, but not been tested for it. However, it’s unlikely that the virus was widespread in England and Wales in the first few months of 2020. That’s because the 90,940 deaths was 5,023 people lower than the average in the same eight-week period over the previous five years, which was 95,963.

That article is over a month old. Here is the *current* death rate, updated weekly, directly from the office of national statistics. In the last week with data as of the time of writing, the week ending April 10, there were very nearly twice as many deaths in England and Wales as is typical for the seasons - an excess if over 8000, 2000 more than the COVID-19 deaths recorded that week. Easily the highest number since weekly figures are being collected, with a wide margin. In London which is more affected than the rest of the country, 3 times as many people died compared to the same time in recent years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...nalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

Actually the main purpose of that article seems to be determining if it's plausible that CV hit Britain much earlier than when the outbreak was officially recorded. Which, from a certain perspective, might be good news, because it would mean Britain is much further along on the road to herd immunity (if that even applies to this disease is another question) than official figures suggest. The conclusion us that this isn't plausible, and that conclusion it's even stronger now that we know what an *actual* outbreak looks like in terms of raw total deaths.

 

[blastula]

More on clots.

Young people with coronavirus are dying from strokes - The Washington Post

It attacks you everywhere it seems.

 

[repoman]

Can this virus enter blood vessel wall cells?

 

[barbos]

Can this virus enter blood vessel wall cells?

Chou said one question is whether the clotting is because of a direct attack on the blood vessels, or a “friendly-fire problem” caused by the patient’s immune response.

I think it's immune system overreaction - cytokine storm.

 

[repoman]

Does anyone know what is going on with ventilator protocols? Three weeks ago there was some rumbling these were used with too much air pressure I think.

 

[blastula]

Keep the Parks Open: Public green spaces are good for the immune system and the mind—and they can be rationed to allow for social distancing. - Zeynep Tufekci -The Atlantic

I concur so hard. It depends on the local circumstances, but around me, the sidewalks are getting too crowded, while the much wider trails and open space parks are closed off. And a park is not as risky as a store, viruses don't spread as easy outdoors than in. Hopefully, we'll get this sorted right.

Saw a couple more articles endorsing opening outdoor spaces.

We can open all the parks and beaches now - Slate

Keep parks open during the coronavirus. The benefits outweigh the risks. - The Washington Post

From their lips to the governors' ears.

 

[repoman]

There was a video presentation and interview by a Dr Erickson on youtube that got about 5 million views before getting removed.

It had precious few valid points.

Mostly he totally fucked up by using the sampling bias of only sick people getting tests.

So, instead of removal for "violating terms of service", too bad YT did not say for "Egregious misapplication of statistics" or similar. Innumerate viewers of the presentation will think conspiratorially about the removal.

Here is a fair discussion of the video:

 

[Angry Floof]

U.S. deaths soared in early weeks of pandemic, far exceeding number attributed to covid-19

An analysis of federal data for the first time estimates excess deaths -- the number beyond what would normally be expected -- during that period.

 

[ronburgundy]

What a bizarre op-ed, not wanting the British to be the ones who make a vaccine. Any potential vaccine looks like it will be weak and short lasting because of the nature of virus anyway. This loony leftist is a nice book end to the crackpot right.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/coronavirus-vaccine_uk_5ea067f2c5b6b2e5b83ba372?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL0FhRk1wS3pNQmY&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAOsKexOEWvHIX7YrZQT5nciWklPjD7Mpl5TEU5tXmpwAdBqDaStB7z3BhX0q52KXEa68SX4ZtU4qKZlaru6dchCwn4JmiBs-XJxQjZ5eS1wEYzYxDgDKJxuKQq-XNyT6duKKD2FVRpioGCS85vul_KBBcMUYJ29WV79uKHyla93&guccounter=2

Yeah, how insane for someone to want their country to learn the long term lessons of this pandemic that will make them and humanity in general better prepared (including more internationally collaborative) for the next one rather than to have vacuous nationalistic pride erase those lessons and the fact of the UK's poor preparedness and response. FYI: The UK is the worst in world in terms of cases per capita as a function of their low testing per capita. IOW, controlling for tests given, the UK has way more infections per capita than anyone, with the US in second.


That is all this author is saying and they lay it out very clearly. They want a vaccine as quickly as possible. They just are concerned the UK's nationalistic and Oxford-proud "leaders" will abuse the success of Oxford developing the vaccine to whitewash their own and the country's major failings and leave the UK just as vulnerable next time. It's a highly rational concern and very likely response by Boris.
So, no, it's completely fallacious to equate this to the right's anti-science denial of the virus and their equating temporary restrictions to protect public safety with fascism.

 

[Jokodo]

There was a video presentation and interview by a Dr Erickson on youtube that got about 5 million views before getting removed.

It had precious few valid points.

Mostly he totally fucked up by using the sampling bias of only sick people getting tests.

So, instead of removal for "violating terms of service", too bad YT did not say for "Egregious misapplication of statistics" or similar. Innumerate viewers of the presentation will think conspiratorially about the removal.

Here is a fair discussion of the video:

For those of us preferring text to video, there's a critical discussion here, also with a link to the transcript of dr Erickson's video. https://theprepared.com/blog/dr-ericksons-viral-covid-19-briefing-video-is-dangerously-wrong/

He really does confuse the test positivity rate with the population wide attack rate. That is, he effectively pretends people who get tested are no more likely to be carriers than the average person if the street or out of their self isolation, and therefore, if 12% of California's tests returned positive, 12% of Californians overall have been infected, based on which he pretends to calculate a case fatality rate lower than the flu's. Interestingly, even with this sorry excuse for a method when applied to NYC, you'd come up with a case fatality rate in the region if half a percent using excess mortality figures.

 

[ronburgundy]

There was a video presentation and interview by a Dr Erickson on youtube that got about 5 million views before getting removed.

It had precious few valid points.

Mostly he totally fucked up by using the sampling bias of only sick people getting tests.

So, instead of removal for "violating terms of service", too bad YT did not say for "Egregious misapplication of statistics" or similar. Innumerate viewers of the presentation will think conspiratorially about the removal.

Here is a fair discussion of the video:

For those of us preferring text to video, there's a critical discussion here, also with a link to the transcript of dr Erickson's video. https://theprepared.com/blog/dr-ericksons-viral-covid-19-briefing-video-is-dangerously-wrong/

He really does confuse the test positivity rate with the population wide attack rate. That is, he effectively pretends people who get tested are no more likely to be carriers than the average person if the street or out of their self isolation, and therefore, if 12% of California's tests returned positive, 12% of Californians overall have been infected, based on which he pretends to calculate a case fatality rate lower than the flu's. Interestingly, even with this sorry excuse for a method when applied to NYC, you'd come up with a case fatality rate in the region if half a percent using excess mortality figures.

So isn't the normal flu's fatality rate also extremely over-estimated based upon the highly biased sample of those who get diagnosed with it? As best I can tell, the CDC's attempts to estimate undiagnosed flu cases is based upon self report surveys that would exclude not only asymptomatic cases, but mildly symptomatic cases that the person assumes was merely allergies or a cold. Ignoring such cases would inflate the fatality rate of the flu.

And I would predict that that the false negative self reports of the flu are much higher than COVID since the flu isn't generally on people's mind unless the have strong symptoms, so it comes and goes without them even considering that it was the flu.

 

[skepticalbip]

There was a video presentation and interview by a Dr Erickson on youtube that got about 5 million views before getting removed.

It had precious few valid points.

Mostly he totally fucked up by using the sampling bias of only sick people getting tests.

So, instead of removal for "violating terms of service", too bad YT did not say for "Egregious misapplication of statistics" or similar. Innumerate viewers of the presentation will think conspiratorially about the removal.

Here is a fair discussion of the video:

For those of us preferring text to video, there's a critical discussion here, also with a link to the transcript of dr Erickson's video. https://theprepared.com/blog/dr-ericksons-viral-covid-19-briefing-video-is-dangerously-wrong/

He really does confuse the test positivity rate with the population wide attack rate. That is, he effectively pretends people who get tested are no more likely to be carriers than the average person if the street or out of their self isolation, and therefore, if 12% of California's tests returned positive, 12% of Californians overall have been infected, based on which he pretends to calculate a case fatality rate lower than the flu's. Interestingly, even with this sorry excuse for a method when applied to NYC, you'd come up with a case fatality rate in the region if half a percent using excess mortality figures.

So isn't the normal flu's fatality rate also extremely over-estimated based upon the highly biased sample of those who get diagnosed with it? As best I can tell, the CDC's attempts to estimate undiagnosed flu cases is based upon self report surveys that would exclude not only asymptomatic cases, but mildly symptomatic cases that the person assumes was merely allergies or a cold. Ignoring such cases would inflate the fatality rate of the flu.

And I would predict that that the false negative self reports of the flu are much higher than COVID since the flu isn't generally on people's mind unless the have strong symptoms, so it comes and goes without them even considering that it was the flu.

But then it is almost impossible to come up with reasonable estimates for influenza cases (or even the deaths) because they are not reliably reported even by doctors or hospitals. Flu has been with us for so long that it is pretty much taken for granted as part of the way life is. OTOH, covid 19 is new so it scares the shit out of people.

The loose estimates by the CDC of influenza cases this season in the U.S. is:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
39,000,000 to 56,000,000 infections
18,000,000 to 26,000,000 medical visits
410,000 to 740,000 hospitalizations
24,000 to 62,000 deaths

The broad spread of estimates should make it evident that people are not concerned enough to report cases but we seem to know Covid hospitalizations and deaths to the individual number.

 

[bilby]

So isn't the normal flu's fatality rate also extremely over-estimated based upon the highly biased sample of those who get diagnosed with it? As best I can tell, the CDC's attempts to estimate undiagnosed flu cases is based upon self report surveys that would exclude not only asymptomatic cases, but mildly symptomatic cases that the person assumes was merely allergies or a cold. Ignoring such cases would inflate the fatality rate of the flu.

And I would predict that that the false negative self reports of the flu are much higher than COVID since the flu isn't generally on people's mind unless the have strong symptoms, so it comes and goes without them even considering that it was the flu.

But then it is almost impossible to come up with reasonable estimates for influenza cases (or even the deaths) because they are not reliably reported even by doctors or hospitals. Flu has been with us for so long that it is pretty much taken for granted as part of the way life is. OTOH, covid 19 is new so it scares the shit out of people.

The loose estimates by the CDC of influenza cases this season in the U.S. is:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
39,000,000 to 56,000,000 infections
18,000,000 to 26,000,000 medical visits
410,000 to 740,000 hospitalizations
24,000 to 62,000 deaths

The broad spread of estimates should make it evident that people are not concerned enough to report cases but we seem to know Covid hospitalizations and deaths to the individual number.

We don't know the covid numbers to anything close to the individual number. It's just a typical case of spurious accuracy.

When worldometers declare 12,132 deaths one day and 11,921 the next, it's reasonable to infer that there were about 12,000 deaths each day, and that the number is fairly steady. It's probably more reasonable to say that between 10,000 and 15,000 died on both days.

The idea that the correct number can be known to five significant digits is absurd - but people do love to pretend that statistics are precise.

 

[blastula]

There was a video presentation and interview by a Dr Erickson on youtube that got about 5 million views before getting removed.

It had precious few valid points.

Mostly he totally fucked up by using the sampling bias of only sick people getting tests.

So, instead of removal for "violating terms of service", too bad YT did not say for "Egregious misapplication of statistics" or similar. Innumerate viewers of the presentation will think conspiratorially about the removal.

Here is a fair discussion of the video:

For those of us preferring text to video, there's a critical discussion here, also with a link to the transcript of dr Erickson's video. https://theprepared.com/blog/dr-ericksons-viral-covid-19-briefing-video-is-dangerously-wrong/

He really does confuse the test positivity rate with the population wide attack rate. That is, he effectively pretends people who get tested are no more likely to be carriers than the average person if the street or out of their self isolation, and therefore, if 12% of California's tests returned positive, 12% of Californians overall have been infected, based on which he pretends to calculate a case fatality rate lower than the flu's. Interestingly, even with this sorry excuse for a method when applied to NYC, you'd come up with a case fatality rate in the region if half a percent using excess mortality figures.

Idiots abound. Last week, I had come across an article at the Bakersfield.com site about them but the article debunked them easily, so I thought okay, those guys are assholes, but nothing more of it. Now I see they are getting all sorts of attention, time on Fox News and approval from Elon Musk. We are such a stupid people.

 

[Jokodo]

Apparently the current overall death rate in England and Wales is at a five year low:


Fewer deaths than average

In the 56 days from January 11 to March 6, the total number of people who died in England and Wales was recorded as being 90,940, only one of whom was known to have tested positive for COVID-19. Others who died may possibly have had the disease, but not been tested for it. However, it’s unlikely that the virus was widespread in England and Wales in the first few months of 2020. That’s because the 90,940 deaths was 5,023 people lower than the average in the same eight-week period over the previous five years, which was 95,963.

That article is over a month old. Here is the *current* death rate, updated weekly, directly from the office of national statistics. In the last week with data as of the time of writing, the week ending April 10, there were very nearly twice as many deaths in England and Wales as is typical for the seasons - an excess if over 8000, 2000 more than the COVID-19 deaths recorded that week. Easily the highest number since weekly figures are being collected, with a wide margin. In London which is more affected than the rest of the country, 3 times as many people died compared to the same time in recent years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...nalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

Deaths for the week ending April 17 are in: 22,351 in all of England and Wales, up from 18,516 the week before. The average of the corresponding week over the last 5 years is 10,497.

In London, there were 3275 deaths, up from 2,832. A typical value for the season is in the 900s.

 

[DBT]

Apparently the current overall death rate in England and Wales is at a five year low:


Fewer deaths than average

In the 56 days from January 11 to March 6, the total number of people who died in England and Wales was recorded as being 90,940, only one of whom was known to have tested positive for COVID-19. Others who died may possibly have had the disease, but not been tested for it. However, it’s unlikely that the virus was widespread in England and Wales in the first few months of 2020. That’s because the 90,940 deaths was 5,023 people lower than the average in the same eight-week period over the previous five years, which was 95,963.

That article is over a month old. Here is the *current* death rate, updated weekly, directly from the office of national statistics. In the last week with data as of the time of writing, the week ending April 10, there were very nearly twice as many deaths in England and Wales as is typical for the seasons - an excess if over 8000, 2000 more than the COVID-19 deaths recorded that week. Easily the highest number since weekly figures are being collected, with a wide margin. In London which is more affected than the rest of the country, 3 times as many people died compared to the same time in recent years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...nalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

Deaths for the week ending April 17 are in: 22,351 in all of England and Wales, up from 18,516 the week before. The average of the corresponding week over the last 5 years is 10,497.

In London, there were 3275 deaths, up from 2,832. A typical value for the season is in the 900s.

The extra deaths are attributed to Covid19?

 

[bilby]

Deaths for the week ending April 17 are in: 22,351 in all of England and Wales, up from 18,516 the week before. The average of the corresponding week over the last 5 years is 10,497.

In London, there were 3275 deaths, up from 2,832. A typical value for the season is in the 900s.

The extra deaths are attributed to Covid19?

What else? Daleks?

 

[DBT]

Deaths for the week ending April 17 are in: 22,351 in all of England and Wales, up from 18,516 the week before. The average of the corresponding week over the last 5 years is 10,497.

In London, there were 3275 deaths, up from 2,832. A typical value for the season is in the 900s.

The extra deaths are attributed to Covid19?

What else? Daleks?

I don't know. I don't like to make assumptions. Not enough information, there may be other factors involved.

 

[Jokodo]

Deaths for the week ending April 17 are in: 22,351 in all of England and Wales, up from 18,516 the week before. The average of the corresponding week over the last 5 years is 10,497.

In London, there were 3275 deaths, up from 2,832. A typical value for the season is in the 900s.

The extra deaths are attributed to Covid19?

You can download an excel sheet at my link. It says in the week leading up to April 17, 8000-some deaths are attributed to COVID-19 as per the death certificate. That figure includes out-of-hospital deaths of people who may never have gotten tested where the physician writing the death certificate nonetheless felt confident to attribute the death to COVID-19 based on symptoms, so this figure is already significantly higher than the daily figures published by the Department of Health and Social Care, which only registers hospital deaths with a positive test. Even so, this leaves over 3000 deaths unexplained.

Given that the lockdown can be safely assumed to lead to a net reduction of deaths by other causes (fewer traffic accidents, less street crime, fewer heart attacks due to at-risk patients not exerting themselves as much in sports, fewer people infecting themselves with multi-resistant bugs during non-essential hospital stays, fewer deaths due to other contagious diseases), we have to conclude that at least those 3000-odd and more likely around 5000 or more of those deaths that don't mention COVID-19 are in fact undetected COVID-19 cases.