bob_doe_nz on 26/3/2020 at 12:11
I am loving the silence that is right now at 1 in the morning. No planes, no morning traffic. Ahh.
Also, just before lockdown. I realised I needed a paper mask for costuming. Went to the shop and couldn't find one. So I came up with a plan...
(
https://imgur.com/LBlySlc)
Inline Image:
http://i.imgur.com/LBlySlc.jpglowenz on 26/3/2020 at 12:15
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Italians are more likely to have consumed gelato in the past year. Therefore gelato consumption is a risk factor in severity of Covid-19.
Wait a moment.....
(
https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/coronavirus-fiera-del-gelato-di-rimini-la-vicinanza-sospetta-fra-gli-stand-di-codogno-e-wuhan_16596881-202002a.shtml)
From 18 to 22 January, the stands of the two main coronavirus outbreaks in Italy and China, Codogno and Wuhan, were found side by side at the Sigep ice cream fair in Rimini. A coincidence reported by the TPI website, which states that, in the same pavilion where the Chinese company was included, there were also companies from Crema and Codogno "with bizarre neighborhoods also with companies from San Marino and Treviso".
Wuhan Huiyou Wood Products (a company that produces biodegradable objects such as spoons and trays), The Italian point of Nanni Franco di Crema and Pomati Group srl of Codogno appears in the grid of the pavilions, in the one marked with the word B3, consisting of 60 stands. It should also be appealed that the Wuhan lockdown was ordered on January 23, just the day after the closing of the fair.demagogue on 26/3/2020 at 12:36
Well I'm on home stay detail starting from today. Like a lot of people predicted, as soon as the Olympics got postponed, the policy changed here quickly ... A lot more testing now & the mayor of Tokyo advised people stay home unless necessary. (It's not a legal order yet though.)
lowenz on 26/3/2020 at 14:21
Ah, weighting the death per gender here in Italy with the gender distribution per age the result is clear.
The death rate in the males is 2->4 higher than in the females
Different hormonal modulation of the inflammation?
Well, good hypothesis but in 90 yo old too?
Another hypothesis is the difference in the lung tissues and vessels so we return to the ACE2......in the males there's simply more viruses reaching for the lungs thanks to more ACE2 receptors.
Ah, another
2006 study about SARS (!)
(
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16303146)
Epidemiologic data suggested that there was an obvious predominance of young adult patients with a slight female proneness in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) was very recently identified as a functional receptor for SARS virus and is therefore a prime target for pathogenesis and pharmacological intervention. Rats of both genders at three distinct ages (young-adult, 3 months; middle-aged, 12 months; old, 24 months) were evaluated to determine the characteristic of ACE2 expression in lung and the effect of aging and gender on its expression. ACE2 was predominantly expressed in alveolar epithelium, bronchiolar epithelium, endothelium and smooth muscle cells of pulmonary vessels with similar content, whereas no obvious signal was detected in the bronchiolar smooth muscle cells. ACE2 expression is dramatically reduced with aging in both genders: young-adult vs. old P < 0.001 (by 78% in male and 67% in female, respectively) and middle-aged vs. old P < 0.001 (by 71% in male rats and 59% in female rats, respectively). The decrease of ACE2 content was relatively slight between young-adult and middle-aged groups (by 25% in male and 18% in female, respectively). Although there was no gender-related difference of ACE2 in young-adult and middle-aged groups, a significantly higher ACE2 content was detected in old female rats than male. In conclusion, the more elevated ACE2 in young adults as compared to aged groups may contribute to the predominance in SARS attacks in this age group.Gryzemuis on 26/3/2020 at 14:41
The Chinese also saw a much higher death-rate in male as in female. Their explanation was simple: until 20-30 years ago, most of the male population in China smoked cigarettes. While it was somewhat "inappropriate" for Chinese women to smoke. As the majority of deaths (also in China) were elderly people, it can be assumed that a high percentage of those male deaths were smokers (all their lives, or the largest part of their lives). While the large majority of women had never smoked. I've read that the Chinese concluded that after age, they think the 2nd biggest factor is smoking (or having been a smoker).
I think 40+ years ago, in NL men were heavier smokers than women. E.g. my dad smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. (He stopped cold turkey when he was ~40 years old). My mum hardly ever smoked. Nowadays people smoke a lot less (20%+ now ?). But we are emancipated, young women smoke more often than young men.
I don't know about Italian habits. Especially not from the 50s-80s. But maybe men did smoke a lot more than women back then ? Maybe that explains the difference in ratios ?
lowenz on 26/3/2020 at 15:05
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
The Chinese also saw a much higher death-rate in male as in female. Their explanation was simple: until 20-30 years ago, most of the male population in China smoked cigarettes. While it was somewhat "inappropriate" for Chinese women to smoke. As the majority of deaths (also in China) were elderly people, it can be assumed that a high percentage of those male deaths were smokers (all their lives, or the largest part of their lives). While the large majority of women had never smoked. I've read that the Chinese concluded that after age, they think the 2nd biggest factor is smoking (or having been a smoker).
I think 40+ years ago, in NL men were heavier smokers than women. E.g. my dad smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. (He stopped cold turkey when he was ~40 years old). My mum hardly ever smoked. Nowadays people smoke a lot less (20%+ now ?). But we are emancipated, young women smoke more often than young men.
I don't know about Italian habits. Especially not from the 50s-80s. But maybe men did smoke a lot more than women back then ? Maybe that explains the difference in ratios ?
That's the "social" hypothesis.
zombe on 26/3/2020 at 15:39
Nonsensical garbage language in title to assure the reader that this is total trash. Ok, i'll bite...
Mostly because a while back i tried to back-project some useful data out of deaths and got nowhere. Lets see what the smarter guys will do.
---------------------------------
Diamond Princess has very strong selection bias in its population and i would reject it as proxy. Also, small sample size.
South Korea basis on estimates is better, but still crap. To get some true numbers you need to use antibody checks to fully evaluate age group biases and other possible biases we do not yet know for this virus. People and different countries and locations have different spread patterns / behaviors making infection rate calculations specific to given country / location and tricky as hell. Therefore, even if the number they got from it would not be junk - it would be fairly useless for everywhere else.
Either one is fairly irrelevant anyway. A death rate difference between 3% and 1% is a few days anyway - the average time-till-death value is bound to be quite dominating (one is few days the other somewhere in weeks). Must get that one right. Which is where i stopped back when i looked into it as i could not find good data for it and also could not estimate death reporting accuracy either (ie. it is dependent on testing coverage which is one of the big question marks to begin with). Too much junk input to be worth my trouble.
The linked paper does not say what they tell it does. It actually only tells the
mean (which is of questionable usefulness for our purpose) time from onset of symptoms till death - 17.8 days. Valid for Wuhan. I personally reject all stats from that region as the situation there was just way too volatile ... but fine ... let's use ~23 with the estimated
average incubation period of 5 clumsily added to it.
Their following math is kinda crap (not counting that all of their input so far has been crap). So, i went with my own (using their garbage as my input - except the death stats which i used my own as that is the only place that can give some semi-useful information and theirs was just crap).
Death count multiplier is 1.35 ([this is the semi-useful information bit] which should be comparable to the true infection rate we cannot know currently for USA). This is calculated using only the daily deaths in the range where they are numerous enough and not anomalous ( using SLOPE : (
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/How_Tos/Calc:_SLOPE_function) ).
That would give 19396 vs their 25625 infected on February 25th - 123784 vs their 100000 on March 2nd. Both are equally meaningless due to the level on garbage in input data.
Then they add this bold text (literally bold):
Quote:
That means our death toll will be 800 on March 26th [you can verify the accuracy of our model on March 26th by comparing the actual death toll to our estimate].No shit you fucking imbeciles! Jesus fucking christ! I hope you all are rolling on floor laughing your asses off right now.
Ok, this is all i can stomach - i'm out.
lowenz on 26/3/2020 at 19:09
More deaths than in China :/
