RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

gransoporro wrote:I already expressed my agreement on this subject. That is a regime change.

You are far too reasonable to argue with. I banish you to a cruise ship on the Adriatic sea with coughing tourists.

If I get the COVID-19, my mortality rate is pretty high: 1.4% according to the CDC. But I will not let the hysterical media take down TGPT (The Great President Trump). Nor I will start the revolution while sick: everybody knows you have to be in good health to partecipate in a revolution. Starving helps too.

If you're healthy, the death rate is far lower. About he same as the flu. It is killing folks (typically) with existing issues; heart conditions, respiratory problems. Some of these folks could well die on any given year if they caught the flu.

Buggs mate, not only are there seasonal vaccines against influenza A and B, but there are some proven effective (and safe) anti-viral drugs for acute treatment of influenza. Neither of these things exist for Covid 19, so the potential to overwhelm health services is quite real. The thing has only just been sequenced and it will take years before the necessary structural information is available for targeting seasonal antigenic shift, which is a pain in the arse feature of most rapidly replicating RNA viruses. Are you volunteering an immunocompromised friend or relative to get out there and show this low death rate thing is no big deal? Mortality from influenza is less than 1%. Covid 19 mortality is around 3%. That's around 30-fold higher, and you can expect this rate to rise if health services get overwhelmed.

What is the basis of a mortality rate, or at least of this mortality rate under discussion? I assume it'd be based on case fatality rates and accounts for, amongst other things, the notion that not all of those going to die have yet actually died, but if many people don't show symptoms or symptoms are mild and aren't reported is it based on something other than case fertality rates?

If you wanted to believe in it, this could be seen as the Earth trying to kill off some of the overpopulation with a new disease.

Digby wrote:What is the basis of a mortality rate, or at least of this mortality rate under discussion? I assume it'd be based on case fatality rates and accounts for, amongst other things, the notion that not all of those going to die have yet actually died, but if many people don't show symptoms or symptoms are mild and aren't reported is it based on something other than case fertality rates?

Deaths as a percentage of numbers infected. Will change from population to population depending on the relative quality of healthcare, health of the local population etc. Can only be estimated for a worldwide percentage. And yes, once a true estimate of infection rates becomes available, a truly representative mortality rate will become available.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:What is the basis of a mortality rate, or at least of this mortality rate under discussion? I assume it'd be based on case fatality rates and accounts for, amongst other things, the notion that not all of those going to die have yet actually died, but if many people don't show symptoms or symptoms are mild and aren't reported is it based on something other than case fertality rates?

Deaths as a percentage of numbers infected. Will change from population to population depending on the relative quality of healthcare, health of the local population etc. Can only be estimated for a worldwide percentage. And yes, once a true estimate of infection rates becomes available, a truly representative mortality rate will become available.

At heart it's how they're determining the numbers infected that I'm wondering about. Partly given the numbers being tested varies so hugely by nation, and partly given many infected may never know. I'm not suggesting for a moment they're plucking a number from the air.

Is it as simple as saying the rate is based on known cases and the actual rate would be lower?

Buggaluggs wrote:If you're healthy, the death rate is far lower. About he same as the flu. It is killing folks (typically) with existing issues; heart conditions, respiratory problems. Some of these folks could well die on any given year if they caught the flu.

In addition to what Morepork said, then IF you're healthy AND younger than 50; then the death rate is far lower - about the same as the 'flu If you don't apply those same exclusion criteria.
Surprisingly enough, influenza is also more of a problem for the elderly and immune compromised; so it's an apples vs oranges comparison; it's also not much comfort for those who are old &/ unhealthy.

For the old and unhealthy, COVID-19 seems to be about 30 times as deadly as 'flu. for the young and healthy, COVID19 seems to be at least an order of magnitude more deadly than 'flu (I'm not sure quite how much, as there's so much variety with seasonal flu it's tough to pin a number on it for the various age and health demographics).


Remember, the panic and hysteria is out of proportion to the threat. But a false sense of security is just as bad, as it leads to people not taking the preventative measures that would keep it away from the old and infirm. Quietly concerned, and taking precautions seems to be the spropriate reaction at the moment.

Which Tyler wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:If you're healthy, the death rate is far lower. About he same as the flu. It is killing folks (typically) with existing issues; heart conditions, respiratory problems. Some of these folks could well die on any given year if they caught the flu.

In addition to what Morepork said, then IF you're healthy AND younger than 50; then the death rate is far lower - about the same as the 'flu If you don't apply those same exclusion criteria.
Surprisingly enough, influenza is also more of a problem for the elderly and immune compromised; so it's an apples vs oranges comparison; it's also not much comfort for those who are old &/ unhealthy.

For the old and unhealthy, COVID-19 seems to be about 30 times as deadly as 'flu. for the young and healthy, COVID19 seems to be at least an order of magnitude more deadly than 'flu (I'm not sure quite how much, as there's so much variety with seasonal flu it's tough to pin a number on it for the various age and health demographics).


Remember, the panic and hysteria is out of proportion to the threat. But a false sense of security is just as bad, as it leads to people not taking the preventative measures that would keep it away from the old and infirm. Quietly concerned, and taking precautions seems to be the spropriate reaction at the moment.

The problem is...how do you know whether it is Covid-19?

I mean...my wife and I (her especially) displayed most of the symptoms. My son also just showed the same symptoms.

How do we know that we didn't come in contact with someone who might have had the virus? All of us have recovered normally with no ill-effects. But how do we know we had flu and not coronavirus?

There's no way.

So true infection rates - if it is as infectious as reported - may be much, much higher. Especially somewhere like here, where trust in the government is so low, people would rather die at home than risk being quarantined by the government. Hence just the 4 cases, 3 of them foreign nationals.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:If you're healthy, the death rate is far lower. About he same as the flu. It is killing folks (typically) with existing issues; heart conditions, respiratory problems. Some of these folks could well die on any given year if they caught the flu.

In addition to what Morepork said, then IF you're healthy AND younger than 50; then the death rate is far lower - about the same as the 'flu If you don't apply those same exclusion criteria.
Surprisingly enough, influenza is also more of a problem for the elderly and immune compromised; so it's an apples vs oranges comparison; it's also not much comfort for those who are old &/ unhealthy.

For the old and unhealthy, COVID-19 seems to be about 30 times as deadly as 'flu. for the young and healthy, COVID19 seems to be at least an order of magnitude more deadly than 'flu (I'm not sure quite how much, as there's so much variety with seasonal flu it's tough to pin a number on it for the various age and health demographics).


Remember, the panic and hysteria is out of proportion to the threat. But a false sense of security is just as bad, as it leads to people not taking the preventative measures that would keep it away from the old and infirm. Quietly concerned, and taking precautions seems to be the spropriate reaction at the moment.

The problem is...how do you know whether it is Covid-19?

I mean...my wife and I (her especially) displayed most of the symptoms. My son also just showed the same symptoms.

How do we know that we didn't come in contact with someone who might have had the virus? All of us have recovered normally with no ill-effects. But how do we know we had flu and not coronavirus?

There's no way.

So true infection rates - if it is as infectious as reported - may be much, much higher. Especially somewhere like here, where trust in the government is so low, people would rather die at home than risk being quarantined by the government. Hence just the 4 cases, 3 of them foreign nationals.

There is a way. You would be seropositive for covid antigens. If you are at risk of complications from influenza there are medications available for that, but no such exist for covid. One pathogen can be targeted, the other cannot, so the one that cannot incurs a higher risk of mortality. Why speculate when you could have decisions based on actual data? Yes, the increased prevalence revealed by testing may indeed lower the current estimate for mortality, but the fact remains there is a risk for mortality, and an accurate diagnosis lowers the risk of wasting precious time administering influenza-specific treatment while your lungs fill up with fluid. One avoidable death is one too many in this day and age.

Man oh man, all that money, all those resources, and all that expertise, and still the US drops the ball. This is going to be a steep ride up to the plateau.

It's worth pointing out that the flu mortality rate is probably lower than reported as well as there will be people with low reactions to seasonal flu as well and the vast majority of people will never report.

As for Covid, the gross average is not really of much import given the vast disparities in mortality by age. If you're under 50 you'd be pretty unlucky to die from it. Over 50 it's going to take out serious numbers of the population. Over 80, you should be very concerned to avoid getting it.

It occurred to me, while reading an article about Trump deciding that he doesn't need to be tested or self-isolate after interacting with an infected person, that he's slap bang in the middle of the at-risk demographic - mid-70s, very overweight with attendant health problems. You'd've thought he'd take it more seriously considering it could actually affect the only thing he cares about.

Puja

Does a President even get to decide such a thing as being tested? I'd assume you wouldn't get an option given your oath to serve

Puja wrote:It occurred to me, while reading an article about Trump deciding that he doesn't need to be tested or self-isolate after interacting with an infected person, that he's slap bang in the middle of the at-risk demographic - mid-70s, very overweight with attendant health problems. You'd've thought he'd take it more seriously considering it could actually affect the only thing he cares about.

Puja

I'd go further. Given that the elderly are a very important demographic for him and the margins could be pretty tight, I'd have thought that he'd be taking the whole thing much more seriously as it could seriously fuck with his re-election.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It's worth pointing out that the flu mortality rate is probably lower than reported as well as there will be people with low reactions to seasonal flu as well and the vast majority of people will never report.

As for Covid, the gross average is not really of much import given the vast disparities in mortality by age. If you're under 50 you'd be pretty unlucky to die from it. Over 50 it's going to take out serious numbers of the population. Over 80, you should be very concerned to avoid getting it.

Covid has neither an accurate gross average and , by extension, no way of assessing whether certain age demographics fall outside the normal distribution. And at the risk of sounding redundant, there are treatments for influenza infection, but not covid. Put your fate in the hands of the lord if you wish, but I worship at the altar of empirical science. Even if the mortality rate is as “low” as influenza, the absence of effective therapy defines this likely to overwhelm facilities. The US is heading for a few weeks of shutdown because of an absence of this data. Will I die? Probably not. Will I transmit risk of such to others? Very possibly. They should have been aggressively testing from day one

Joe continues to build a lead over Bernie, I don't know whether to be impressed or not. On the one hand Biden has spent but a tiny fraction of what Bernie has and still the voters flock to him, but that might all just be name recognition and association with Obama. Very hard to see a route back into this for Bernie now, he seems condemned as a very white man from a very white state, for sure he's tried to reach out, but so did other candidates and it hasn't really helped any of them.

It looks like it’s all over bar the shouting. I suppose the real question now is how nasty the row gets between now and the Democratic convention and whether it’s possible to build a consensus as a party to really challenge Trump.

I read somewhere that last time out, about 15-20% of Sanders supporters voted Trump. Biden will need that support if he is going to get elected.

On another note, why is Gabbard still in the race? An enjoyment of punishment beatings?

Sandydragon wrote:It looks like it’s all over bar the shouting. I suppose the real question now is how nasty the row gets between now and the Democratic convention and whether it’s possible to build a consensus as a party to really challenge Trump.

I read somewhere that last time out, about 15-20% of Sanders supporters voted Trump. Biden will need that support if he is going to get elected.

Or he needs them not to vote period. Though actually across the rust belt where many blue collar workers voted Trump when they might normally go Democrat it looks the case Biden is a far stronger candidate to Clinton

What I simply don't have a read on is what happens to all those Conservatives who didn't vote last time or voted Libertarian? Will a possible Democratic win influence them to vote for Trump, or are they simply Trump averse?

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:It looks like it’s all over bar the shouting. I suppose the real question now is how nasty the row gets between now and the Democratic convention and whether it’s possible to build a consensus as a party to really challenge Trump.

I read somewhere that last time out, about 15-20% of Sanders supporters voted Trump. Biden will need that support if he is going to get elected.

Or he needs them not to vote period. Though actually across the rust belt where many blue collar workers voted Trump when they might normally go Democrat it looks the case Biden is a far stronger candidate to Clinton

What I simply don't have a read on is what happens to all those Conservatives who didn't vote last time or voted Libertarian? Will a possible Democratic win influence them to vote for Trump, or are they simply Trump averse?

I guess Biden may at least be a good shout for those people. I'd imagine he will appeal more to them than anybody on the left.

He's an enormous backwards step in general, but anything non-Trump has to be viewed as progress I suppose.

I just wish I could stop having an interest entirely.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:It looks like it’s all over bar the shouting. I suppose the real question now is how nasty the row gets between now and the Democratic convention and whether it’s possible to build a consensus as a party to really challenge Trump.

I read somewhere that last time out, about 15-20% of Sanders supporters voted Trump. Biden will need that support if he is going to get elected.

Or he needs them not to vote period. Though actually across the rust belt where many blue collar workers voted Trump when they might normally go Democrat it looks the case Biden is a far stronger candidate to Clinton

What I simply don't have a read on is what happens to all those Conservatives who didn't vote last time or voted Libertarian? Will a possible Democratic win influence them to vote for Trump, or are they simply Trump averse?

I guess Biden may at least be a good shout for those people. I'd imagine he will appeal more to them than anybody on the left.

He's an enormous backwards step in general, but anything non-Trump has to be viewed as progress I suppose.

I just wish I could stop having an interest entirely.

Good summary

People are though coming out in record numbers to endorse Biden, albeit part of that is a shift in a couple of states from caucus to primary. And again Bernie loses support quickly when it's not down to enthusiasm of his supporters trying to drown out different voices. There probably is now a route for a candidate further on the left to advance the case for a nomination, but maybe not quite yet, and not for someone who lacks a little finesse like Bernie

Sigh. The great leap backwards. I hope the latest incarnation of leading white male actor has some policies. His opposition seems to be dusting off the Boarder (sic) Wall single focus campaign strategy again in order to take advantage of the current public health emergency.


what a fuck up.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:It looks like it’s all over bar the shouting. I suppose the real question now is how nasty the row gets between now and the Democratic convention and whether it’s possible to build a consensus as a party to really challenge Trump.

I read somewhere that last time out, about 15-20% of Sanders supporters voted Trump. Biden will need that support if he is going to get elected.

Or he needs them not to vote period. Though actually across the rust belt where many blue collar workers voted Trump when they might normally go Democrat it looks the case Biden is a far stronger candidate to Clinton

What I simply don't have a read on is what happens to all those Conservatives who didn't vote last time or voted Libertarian? Will a possible Democratic win influence them to vote for Trump, or are they simply Trump averse?

Gary Johnson got something like 3% of the popular vote. Those voters could already vote Trump, why would they pick him now? His policies are not libertarian. I don’t think that, if they don’t vote, they will feel threatened by Biden.

One factor that keeps popping up is the increased turnout. So thinking of 2016 as a zero sum is not going to work.
What is happening is that there are a lot more people showing up for Biden right now. They are probably not Latino or young, from what I read, but they overcome any advantage Sanders may have in those segments of population, and then some.

I personally doubt that 15-20% of Sanders supporters voted Trump: Clinton doesn’t win the popular vote if you take a look to the 2016 House elections as well.