Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Something I think missing from most breathless news coverage is relative risk. In the United States, 34,000-44,000 people die annually from influenza and complications from influenza. Probably that number times 100 are clinically affected, but recover. Other countries have similar incidence/case fatality rate per unit of population.

My guess is that those individuals that tested positive for the Wuhan Coronavirus were *not* screened or reported for co-pathogens or factors that could substantially influence co-morbidity. For example, how many of the reported deaths "due to Coronavirus" were also screened for influenza or other causes of bacterial pneumonia? What number of the coronavirus-ascribed mortality were elderly with pre-existing conditions related to respiratory failure? I haven't seen any reports of insight into the effects that mundane features / causes of respiratory disease are being screened and weighed relative to their importance.

The Wuhan Coronavirus (2019) is an interesting development that bears watching. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It's still a novel respiratory pathogen that is unlikely to be a pandemic or even a major WHO health concern.

Take a deep breath. Remember the tendency of media towards the salacious: see SARS, Ebola (outside of West Africa) and any number of other novel health developments. Outside of the central nidus of viral origin, none of these 'outbreaks' bore out the drama that media heaped upon them at the time.

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Something I think missing from most breathless news coverage is relative risk. In the United States, 34,000-44,000 people die annually from influenza and complications from influenza. Probably that number times 100 are clinically affected, but recover. Other countries have similar incidence/case fatality rate per unit of population.

My guess is that those individuals that tested positive for the Wuhan Coronavirus were *not* screened or reported for co-pathogens or factors that could substantially influence co-morbidity. For example, how many of the reported deaths "due to Coronavirus" were also screened for influenza or other causes of bacterial pneumonia? What number of the coronavirus-ascribed mortality were elderly with pre-existing conditions related to respiratory failure? I haven't seen any reports of insight into the effects that mundane features / causes of respiratory disease are being screened and weighed relative to their importance.

The Wuhan Coronavirus (2019) is an interesting development that bears watching. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It's still a novel respiratory pathogen that is unlikely to be a pandemic or even a major WHO health concern.

Take a deep breath. Remember the tendency of media towards the salacious: see SARS, Ebola (outside of West Africa) and any number of other novel health developments. Outside of the central nidus of viral origin, none of these 'outbreaks' bore out the drama that media heaped upon them at the time.

Sage advice.

There is also the CB-AE virus that has 100% mortality. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Something I think missing from most breathless news coverage is relative risk. In the United States, 34,000-44,000 people die annually from influenza and complications from influenza. Probably that number times 100 are clinically affected, but recover. Other countries have similar incidence/case fatality rate per unit of population.

My guess is that those individuals that tested positive for the Wuhan Coronavirus were *not* screened or reported for co-pathogens or factors that could substantially influence co-morbidity. For example, how many of the reported deaths "due to Coronavirus" were also screened for influenza or other causes of bacterial pneumonia? What number of the coronavirus-ascribed mortality were elderly with pre-existing conditions related to respiratory failure? I haven't seen any reports of insight into the effects that mundane features / causes of respiratory disease are being screened and weighed relative to their importance.

The Wuhan Coronavirus (2019) is an interesting development that bears watching. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It's still a novel respiratory pathogen that is unlikely to be a pandemic or even a major WHO health concern.

Take a deep breath. Remember the tendency of media towards the salacious: see SARS, Ebola (outside of West Africa) and any number of other novel health developments. Outside of the central nidus of viral origin, none of these 'outbreaks' bore out the drama that media heaped upon them at the time.

Sage advice.

There is also the CB-AE virus that has 100% mortality. [8D]

Aye. But there are certain mitigating features that can reduce the mortality. Both of my 2x2 partners are still alive and well, thank goodness. I believe that the 'dilution' effect from having twice as many partners was protective.

Also, one of the survivors of that game went on to challenge me in a 1x1 campaign. He is thankfully still alive. But I reckon that previous low-dose exposure to the CB-AE virus left him with a certain degree of protective immunity.

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Something I think missing from most breathless news coverage is relative risk. In the United States, 34,000-44,000 people die annually from influenza and complications from influenza. Probably that number times 100 are clinically affected, but recover. Other countries have similar incidence/case fatality rate per unit of population.

My guess is that those individuals that tested positive for the Wuhan Coronavirus were *not* screened or reported for co-pathogens or factors that could substantially influence co-morbidity. For example, how many of the reported deaths "due to Coronavirus" were also screened for influenza or other causes of bacterial pneumonia? What number of the coronavirus-ascribed mortality were elderly with pre-existing conditions related to respiratory failure? I haven't seen any reports of insight into the effects that mundane features / causes of respiratory disease are being screened and weighed relative to their importance.

The Wuhan Coronavirus (2019) is an interesting development that bears watching. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It's still a novel respiratory pathogen that is unlikely to be a pandemic or even a major WHO health concern.

Take a deep breath. Remember the tendency of media towards the salacious: see SARS, Ebola (outside of West Africa) and any number of other novel health developments. Outside of the central nidus of viral origin, none of these 'outbreaks' bore out the drama that media heaped upon them at the time.

Sage advice.

There is also the CB-AE virus that has 100% mortality. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Something I think missing from most breathless news coverage is relative risk. In the United States, 34,000-44,000 people die annually from influenza and complications from influenza. Probably that number times 100 are clinically affected, but recover. Other countries have similar incidence/case fatality rate per unit of population.

My guess is that those individuals that tested positive for the Wuhan Coronavirus were *not* screened or reported for co-pathogens or factors that could substantially influence co-morbidity. For example, how many of the reported deaths "due to Coronavirus" were also screened for influenza or other causes of bacterial pneumonia? What number of the coronavirus-ascribed mortality were elderly with pre-existing conditions related to respiratory failure? I haven't seen any reports of insight into the effects that mundane features / causes of respiratory disease are being screened and weighed relative to their importance.

The Wuhan Coronavirus (2019) is an interesting development that bears watching. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It's still a novel respiratory pathogen that is unlikely to be a pandemic or even a major WHO health concern.

Take a deep breath. Remember the tendency of media towards the salacious: see SARS, Ebola (outside of West Africa) and any number of other novel health developments. Outside of the central nidus of viral origin, none of these 'outbreaks' bore out the drama that media heaped upon them at the time.

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Something I think missing from most breathless news coverage is relative risk. In the United States, 34,000-44,000 people die annually from influenza and complications from influenza. Probably that number times 100 are clinically affected, but recover. Other countries have similar incidence/case fatality rate per unit of population.

My guess is that those individuals that tested positive for the Wuhan Coronavirus were *not* screened or reported for co-pathogens or factors that could substantially influence co-morbidity. For example, how many of the reported deaths "due to Coronavirus" were also screened for influenza or other causes of bacterial pneumonia? What number of the coronavirus-ascribed mortality were elderly with pre-existing conditions related to respiratory failure? I haven't seen any reports of insight into the effects that mundane features / causes of respiratory disease are being screened and weighed relative to their importance.

The Wuhan Coronavirus (2019) is an interesting development that bears watching. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It's still a novel respiratory pathogen that is unlikely to be a pandemic or even a major WHO health concern.

Take a deep breath. Remember the tendency of media towards the salacious: see SARS, Ebola (outside of West Africa) and any number of other novel health developments. Outside of the central nidus of viral origin, none of these 'outbreaks' bore out the drama that media heaped upon them at the time.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, to amend my previous comments, it appears that the WHO is classifying this outbreak as a major global health issue today. But that doesn't mean dink for the world at large. They also said that twice for Ebola and Polio in 2014. Regional-yes-but hardly global health issues.

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

Im at home with Influenza not dying as we speak.

Those adverse to making a donation to the WHO can make one directly to me.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

Im at home with Influenza not dying as we speak.

Those adverse to making a donation to the WHO can make one directly to me.

I'm sorry, my good man, but I will require the PCR/Rapid antigen test results confirming that diagnosis before tendering my donation. God forbid that I should send you a donation for the common cold! If malingering / goldbricking on the sick lists was financially rewarding, I'd have retired by now. [;)]

Also, I assume that donations should be in the denomination of "Whiskey, Bourbon"?

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

Im at home with Influenza not dying as we speak.

Those adverse to making a donation to the WHO can make one directly to me.

I'm sorry, my good man, but I will require the PCR/Rapid antigen test results confirming that diagnosis before tendering my donation. God forbid that I should send you a donation for the common cold! If malingering / goldbricking on the sick lists was financially rewarding, I'd have retired by now. [;)]

Also, I assume that donations should be in the denomination of "Whiskey, Bourbon"?

In addition, a specialist Dr. will visit your home to ensure compliance with all aspects of quarantine protocol.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
[:o]
If you drink a liter of Jack Daniels, the influenza will not bother you.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
[:o]
If you drink a liter of Jack Daniels, the influenza will not bother you.

[:D] You could probably step in front of a bus and survive the impact.