Renzatic on 24/7/2020 at 20:52
Everyone wants to be special.
SubJeff on 24/7/2020 at 22:19
Welcome to the SD experience.
driver on 24/7/2020 at 22:29
Lucky you, Renz.* I got diagnosed with Crohn's at the end of last year, the treatment for which involves immuno-suppressants which they started me on in February, just in time for the pandemic. Great timing. I'm only 39 but in the 'at risk' group, so Covid isn't just bumping off the elderly, there's large groups of people who are vulnerable to it, they're just not so visible.
*not really, that still sucks :(
Renzatic on 24/7/2020 at 23:08
Jesus, Driver. I'm sorry. :(
faetal on 25/7/2020 at 00:06
Quote Posted by SD
There is a limited number of people who are vulnerable to the disease. As that pool dwindles, it naturally follows that the capacity for the disease to spread drops too. Eventually you run out of low-hanging fruit.
Yes, you ought to read up about how viruses work. You can start with the Russian flu pandemic of 1889-90 that killed 1 million people, which was probably caused by HCoV-OC43, one of the four coronaviruses that causes the common cold these days.
The virus enters humans via a UBIQUITOUS protein. Everyone is susceptible. Maybe you shouldn't argue science with people who actually understand the subject (PhD in immunology and several years working in medical research, in case that's useful). If you consider yourself such an authority, why don't you provide which biological mechanism would be responsible for a drop in infectiousness in a population with no previous exposure to a novel virus. Unless you are talking bullshit and referencing a virus which did not mutate the same mechanism which this virus did to pass between humans. Drop the Dunning-Kruger bullshit.
SubJeff on 25/7/2020 at 04:06
I think SD thinks that enough people have had it now, and the number of active infections is so low, that infection from normal activities amongst the general population is now unlikely.
And by vulnerable he means people who are likely to die, not the entire pool of people who can still get it. The whole "under 50" thing being based on the age groups that are at risk of death.
Is this correct SD?
One of the things the stats don't show, afaik, is the number of people who have long term effects despite what looks like a full recovery. If you're under 50 without any other medical condition you're a lower risk of death it seems, but the long term health consequences aren't fully characterised. Would you want to risk chronic kidney disease? And anyway, as my old boss when I worked in orthopaedics used to say - you can quote risks of x, y and z to patients all you like, but when they've got it 1 in 10,000 means nothing anymore; you're the one.
SD on 25/7/2020 at 14:35
Quote Posted by nickie
I find it hard to believe that you are as callous as you sound. Are you really consigning me and mine to death for no good reason. Do you want to consign people like Captain Tom to death. He only raised 32.7 million for NHS charities. Perhaps he should have done more.
To think that I've agreed with things you've said in the past. Maybe you're just not expressing yourself very well. I'd rather think that.
Where on earth do you get the idea that I'm consigning anyone to death?
People need to start reading what is actually written. To listen to some of you, you'd think I was suggesting we start deliberately infecting old people with the virus.
It's almost incredible that I have to write this, but acknowledging that older people are at much greater risk from coronavirus than younger people is not the same as thinking it to be a good thing.
SD on 25/7/2020 at 14:55
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Then there's really no point in mentioning that if you don't have a follow-through. It doesn't matter, actually, because the graphs show it (
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/) spiked in April with the biggest one on 10th April, weeks after the lockdown on 23rd March anyway. (Or if that's not reliable enough here's the (
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/) UK government version with a spread of spikes around the same timeframe.) Given a 7-14 day incubation period, this means that everyone probably had a feeding frenzy and threw caution to the wind just before the lockdown. Which, well, is the trend just about
every country has displayed so far when faced with potential supply shortages before being barred in at home.
You obviously didn't look at the paper I mentioned in my post.
The data shows that the average coronavirus death takes 17.8 days from the onset of symptoms and that symptoms appear 5.2 days from infections, so on average, people die 23 days after being infected.
Unfortunately the Worldometer graphs are flawed, because it shows when cases/deaths were reported, not when they happened. This is made clear on the UK government graph for deaths, but they still make no attempt to correct it.
When you correct the data for delays in reporting deaths (which in some instances, are reported more than a month after they happened) you get graphs like this one:
Inline Image:
https://images.theconversation.com/files/329405/original/file-20200421-82684-ghqika.JPGQuote Posted by Sulphur
No, everyone who isn't asymptomatic is vulnerable to the disease. Whether they
die from it is a separate issue. The people who're dying aren't just the old and the infirm, they're those with comorbidities like diabetes and compromised immune systems. But it's clear that this isn't really important to you, because in your eyes it's just an uncommonly fatal flu that kills only a percentage of the population, and for you those are acceptable losses.
This is getting quite ridiculous now. You make it sound like I'm wanting to sacrifice people.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Unfortunately for you, the rest of us aren't from the operational mindset that reduces people to mere numbers, and I don't need my family or friends dying from something that could have been avoided if the people around them had decided to be a little more sensible.
So basically: piss off, and I hope no one around you dies because of your monstrously shallow fuckshittery.
How is anyone going to die from anything I do? This is preposterous and offensively stupid nonsense.
SD on 25/7/2020 at 15:03
Quote Posted by Nicker
SD seems to think that nobody noticed.
Everybody noticed something that wasn't there.
Quote Posted by Nicker
You understand the value of cherry picked and dubious numbers in supporting your own bare and irresponsible assertion that people under 50 are at negligible risk.
Fatality rate is hardly a cherry-picked or dubious number. If people die, other people tend to find out about it.
Quote Posted by Nicker
We don't know the real infection rate in the USA because of data tampering and the personal risk to an infected person is not the only risk that needs to be calculated.
As it happens, we have an excellent idea of true infection rates, and from there we can work out IFR too.
(
https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1286795360120246273)
Implied IFR for the whole of the US is 0.27%.
Quote Posted by Nicker
All of this in service of a value judgement about the negligible lives of others.
There was no value judgment anywhere in any of my posts.
Why are so many of you keen to see a value judgment where one patently does not exist?
SD on 25/7/2020 at 15:14
Quote Posted by faetal
The virus enters humans via a UBIQUITOUS protein. Everyone is susceptible. Maybe you shouldn't argue science with people who actually understand the subject (PhD in immunology and several years working in medical research, in case that's useful). If you consider yourself such an authority, why don't you provide which biological mechanism would be responsible for a drop in infectiousness in a population with no previous exposure to a novel virus. Unless you are talking bullshit and referencing a virus which did not mutate the same mechanism which this virus did to pass between humans. Drop the Dunning-Kruger bullshit.
No previous exposure to this virus, but plenty of previous exposure to other coronaviruses. Which is why most people have a degree of cross immunity and why more than three quarters of cases are asymptomatic. We've already seen that T-cell response is more important than antibodies in fighting off SARS-CoV-2.
Do I really need to explain the concept of herd immunity to someone with such dizzying qualifications? Really?
Quote Posted by SubJeff
I think SD thinks that enough people have had it now, and the number of active infections is so low, that infection from normal activities amongst the general population is now unlikely.
And by vulnerable he means people who are likely to die, not the entire pool of people who can still get it. The whole "under 50" thing being based on the age groups that are at risk of death.
Is this correct SD?
Yes.
