Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Yes...trolls delight in the opportunity to incite panic and distrust. Even amateur trolls.ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Wouldn't be surprised if cyber-warfare pros are poking at every discussion to try and turn it into a shouting match. I am very suspicious of every troll that posts outrageous stuff and refuses to listen to reasonable criticism.ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: USSAmerica
I just want to thank all of you gentlemen again for keeping things quite civil in this discussion. Unlike the fiasco running in the General Discussion forum, this one continues to be a very valuable exchange of information, thoughts and discussion.
Not really a 'fiasco'. A robust exchange of views. One person decided that the best way to calculate death rate would be to completely and utterly ignore the biggest variable in the data set. Despite numerous more measured heads pointing out why that is not a sensible idea, he continues to provide this alarmist nonsense on a daily basis. Fiasco? Not really.
It's not the numbers he (Curtis) posts that I have a problem with; it's his logic that mortality can be calculated from them, and from them alone.ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: USSAmerica
I just want to thank all of you gentlemen again for keeping things quite civil in this discussion. Unlike the fiasco running in the General Discussion forum, this one continues to be a very valuable exchange of information, thoughts and discussion.
Not really a 'fiasco'. A robust exchange of views. One person decided that the best way to calculate death rate would be to completely and utterly ignore the biggest variable in the data set. Despite numerous more measured heads pointing out why that is not a sensible idea, he continues to provide this alarmist nonsense on a daily basis. Fiasco? Not really.
Coronavirus Disease 2019 vs. the Flu
Deaths
COVID-19: Approximately 10,067 deaths reported worldwide; 205 deaths in the U.S., as of Mar. 20, 2020.*
Flu: 291,000 to 646,000 deaths worldwide; 12,000 to 61,000 deaths in the U.S. per year.
The COVID-19 situation is changing rapidly. Since this disease is caused by a new virus, people do not have immunity to it, and a vaccine may be many months away. Doctors and scientists are working on estimating the mortality rate of COVID-19, but at present, it is thought to be higher than that of most strains of the flu.
; Julia Child
ORIGINAL: obvert
About the interpretation of the number tested per thousand, which is Lombardy in up to 381/1000 positive, how do we interpret this stat?
Does this probably mean nearly half of the people in the region are positive (considering those not tested or asymptomatic)?
I'm curious as these numbers are all over the place in various countries and regions, with Spain at a whopping 572/1000!
We know they're not testing a lot, but also that they're getting a LOT of positives.
I'm also perplexed by the low UK number considering they've mostly tested people going into hospitals in high risk categories, but only get 46/1000 positive.
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I read about a week ago in regards to the meaning of the numbers out there, in particular in the US, that the test the US is using (I believe as opposed to China and Germany and some others) only identifies people who are shedding virus at the time of the test. Other tests being used elsewhere identify people who at some point had the virus and have recovered. So, particularly in China, where the number of active cases has been brought down substantially, considerable weight can be given to them, and at this point the mortality rate there is 4.4%. In the US, not only has very little testing been done compared to some other countries, but these tests cannot identify recovered cases after the fact. So we can't really rely on the US numbers for much.
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Liberty is a conundrum in the social contract that holds societies together. Letting people do whatever they feel like has never held a society together - there has to be laws and regulations to guide behaviour. It turns out that once your liberties begin affecting your neighbours, their liberties are being violated. An example would be playing music really loud such that the neighbours cannot hear their TV or enjoy the tranquility of their patio. Whose rights are more important?ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
"Take my liberty, I'am scared to death."
In a life or death situation such as this epidemic, I suggest that the first item in the declaration of independence indicates priority - life is listed before liberty. IMO this applies to all liberties that could result in the death of an innocent person.
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I also heard today but I'm not sure it is true, that the chloroquinone dose used in the case of malaria is one half of a fatal dose. If that's true we don't need any cowboys promoting its use except under careful supervision by medical professionals. We all know there's going to be people looking to buy the stuff on line. In my case I'm allergic to quinine so even a much smaller dose might be lethal. Plus, it is only being discussed as a treatment for symptoms, not as a cure.
Between Feb. 25 and March 2, the price paid for a single 25-gram bottle of chloroquine phosphate rose from $9.99 to over $500.
On March 18, eBay’s tracking indicated that one seller had sold 84 lots of the substance in 24 hours. By that afternoon, all sizes were sold out save for 100 gram lots, which were being listed for $519 each.
ORIGINAL: Kull
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I read about a week ago in regards to the meaning of the numbers out there, in particular in the US, that the test the US is using (I believe as opposed to China and Germany and some others) only identifies people who are shedding virus at the time of the test. Other tests being used elsewhere identify people who at some point had the virus and have recovered. So, particularly in China, where the number of active cases has been brought down substantially, considerable weight can be given to them, and at this point the mortality rate there is 4.4%. In the US, not only has very little testing been done compared to some other countries, but these tests cannot identify recovered cases after the fact. So we can't really rely on the US numbers for much.
Not true. Everybody is using some variety of PCR testing (read the "Test methods" section in the linked document), which only looks for active infections. I remember reading (but can't find the link) that China started off using an old SARS test which could sort of do both, but gave a high rate of false readings. The original US CDC test was not only slow, but had an inaccurate sub-test that made the whole thing invalid. That has long since been corrected. In general, everyone is now using PCR tests, all have high reliability, and all are designed to look only for active infections.
Using an antibody test developed by the Duke-NUS Medical School that relies on blood samples, the Singapore Ministry of Health has been successful in identifying two people who were infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and have since recovered. The antibody test can be used for detecting people infected with novel coronavirus but are asymptomatic or exhibit only mild symptoms. The Singapore Ministry of Health announced this during a press conference on Tuesday.
; Julia Child 
