Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

According to a new a study, the China flu is far more widespread, and far less deadly than originally thought, with a mortality rate around 0.1%.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...han-predicted/

Encouraging - but all of the linked articles say basically the same thing: these are preliminary numbers that have not been peer reviewed and there are a number of unverified assumptions underlying them. I am also dubious about the mortality rate since this rate runs counter to what has been reported from both Germany and S. Korea, both of whom have done careful tracing and studies. So more info is needed.

But this is one of the few articles I have seen from Brietbart that appears to be largely free of spin and agenda, so

[Charles]

According to a new a study, the China flu is far more widespread, and far less deadly than originally thought, with a mortality rate around 0.1%.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...han-predicted/

And the last sentence in that article goes:

Global health officials have also reportedly cautioned that antibody testing may not be able to accurately determine if a person has any immunity to the coronavirus.

And then there is a link to an article with the headline: WHO warning: No evidence that antibody tests can show coronavirus immunity



However, apart from that, it is probably a very interesting study...

[Mountain Man]

Encouraging - but all of the linked articles say basically the same thing: these are preliminary numbers that have not been peer reviewed and there are a number of unverified assumptions underlying them. I am also dubious about the mortality rate since this rate runs counter to what has been reported from both Germany and S. Korea, both of whom have done careful tracing and studies. So more info is needed.

But this is one of the few articles I have seen from Brietbart that appears to be largely free of spin and agenda, so

You obviously don't read Breitbart very often, because this kind of "just the facts" reporting is typical for them.

[firstfloor]

[Charles]

You obviously don't read Breitbart very often, because this kind of "just the facts" reporting is typical for them.

I suppose you are not including this one in that description:

[carpedm9587]

You obviously don't read Breitbart very often, because this kind of "just the facts" reporting is typical for them.

I usually read them when someone links them. Way back in 2017, I had added them to my news feed in an attempt to avoid the "bubble effect." I found myself spending so much time vetting their claims to eliminate the embedded spin and slant and carefully selected quotes (like you are prone to doing) that I finally decided it wasn't worth my time. Breitbart has mastered the art of selectively taking facts that can individually check out to be true and weaving them into a narrative that leaves the wrong impression or sometimes actually makes the opposite case of the facts when they are taken in context. So I removed them from the feed and now only read them when someone attempts to use them to support a position. I did the same thing with Mother Jones for the same reasons. When you go to media at the far left and far right, the amount of work required to filter out the bias becomes onerous.

BTW, after some reflection, I'm a little more hesitant about the article (and study) that prompted this discussion. A couple of things come to mind. First, the study clear says that they use a database and randomization to obtain their testing population, but it also says that they use six drive-thru testing locations. That potentially introduces a bias into their data: people who are actually sheltering in place are arguably the least likely to be infected. Ergo, people out-and-about who would drive through these testing locations would be more likely to be infected, potentially inflating the count.

I also have to wonder how this approach can possibly capture the highest end of the population that is the most vulnerable. If their samples are heavily skewed to the young, that would also bias the data. We have reports from several countries now (China, S. Korea, Germany) that the mortality is around 0.2% for people under 50, and then climbs precipitously to 14% for people over 80. The average is the often bandied 1% number, factoring age distribution. The 0.1% number cited for the flu is this average number across all age groups. So if the 0.12 to 0.2% is skewed to the young population, that is close to in-line with the previously published numbers, and does not capture the skew introduced when an older population is factored in.

I will be interested to see the peer reviews of the study. If you find them, please link them as well. It would be interesting to see if my analysis is confirmed, or refuted.

[seanD]

Watch out for immunity certificates and the desire of desperate people to get themselves infected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/p...lockdowns.html

If I understand the gist, they're saying that there's a proposal to give those who are immune certificates of verification? And that they think this would cause some to intentionally catch the virus in order to develop the antibodies of immunity to also get that certificate? Or am I off?

[firstfloor]

If I understand the gist, they're saying that there's a proposal to give those who are immune certificates of verification? And that they think this would cause some to intentionally catch the virus in order to develop the antibodies of immunity to also get that certificate? Or am I off?

That is correct. If you need a immunity passport to work, there will be all sorts of swicking and hazardous behaviour going on.

[Darfius]

Since papers can be forged, the only "safe" route is to tie the "immunity certificate" to biometrics, the "safest" form of which is implantable.

kermit 2.jpg

[DivineOb]

You obviously don't read Breitbart very often, because this kind of "just the facts" reporting is typical for them.

As someone who personally contacted advertisers and got more than 20 of them to blacklist Breitbart from their advertising list I can say you are absolutely full of it on this.

[seanD]

That is correct. If you need a immunity passport to work, there will be all sorts of swicking and hazardous behaviour going on.

So those who are immune are also excluded from being carriers as well? I haven't been keeping track of the subject. But from what I understand, and I read about this when it all began, that there are possibly those who are immune but can still be carriers.

[Cow Poke]

So those who are immune are also excluded from being carriers as well? I haven't been keeping track of the subject. But from what I understand, and I read about this when it all began, that there are possibly those who are immune but can still be carriers.

I keep hearing conflicting reports... that somebody who has the antibodies is immune - and others say "there's no proof they can't get infected again"...... I heard one of the female doctors being interviewed on this very same thing saying "we just don't know".

[Mountain Man]

Breitbart has mastered the art of selectively taking facts that can individually check out to be true and weaving them into a narrative that leaves the wrong impression...

Right, it's the old "I don't dispute the facts, I just don't like how they're presented" canard.

[shunyadragon]

I keep hearing conflicting reports... that somebody who has the antibodies is immune - and others say "there's no proof they can't get infected again"...... I heard one of the female doctors being interviewed on this very same thing saying "we just don't know".

This question is not a matter of proof, like everything else. The evidence shows that antibodies give significant immunity for a time, depending on the virus and how much the virus mutates. If the virus mutates significantly the immunity deteriorates, which in the past has been a cyclic annual event. The vaccines that provide a degree of immunity through antibodies contribute to the immune system. The problem like with flus they mutate fairly quicly in a diverse way and limite the long term effectiveness of vaccines over time.

[Cow Poke]

This question is not a matter of proof, like everything else. The evidence shows that antibodies give significant immunity for a time, depending on the virus and how much the virus mutates. If the virus mutates significantly the immunity deteriorates, which in the past has been a cyclic annual event. The vaccines that provide a degree of immunity through antibodies contribute to the immune system. The problem like with flus they mutate fairly quicly in a diverse way and limite the long term effectiveness of vaccines over time.

I understand all that. But, beyond that, there seems to be a sense of "well, this virus is different, so we don't really know".