COVID 19 Facts and Science

People with some other underlying pathology definitely make up the vast majority. Many of them are very common, unfortunately, in this country.

Fish To Escape wrote:

People with some other underlying pathology definitely make up the vast majority. Many of them are very common, unfortunately, in this country.

I know this has seem to be the overall trend but I wish I knew the percentage. It 99.9%, 90% 80%?? I just have not seen the number

Justin, Yes there are outliers. just like with anything. Folks have passed without any prior comorbidities. Very rare.

I think this stat is very telling. Fresh from the MDH.
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html#ageg1

Deaths: 1,435
Deaths among cases that resided in long-term care or assisted living facilities: 1,129

I haven’t looked for it but I know in Minnesota several weeks ago it was 98.5% at one point. That is the only time I remember seeing a number. Data like that won’t accurately come out for a very long time after researchers review records. That number would include a 54 year old with mild hypertension, a 40 year old with diabetes, and a 75 year old with congestive heart failure. All have pre-existing conditions

Apology accepted Suzuki. I’m sure it was an honest misunderstanding like the Reddit comment.

Justin, IMO the exact percentage of the outlier is not important. its just that, an outlier statistic.

What is important with COVID is knowing who isn’t the outliers. Are you one? take warning. it is not the public’s responsibility to put safety nets out for you. but it is the public’s responsibility to inform you of the risks.

for example, I don’t need to know who has peanut allergies. it is of the utmost importance for the person with the allergy to know and take precautions. It is my responsibility to inform the folks that eat my cookies if they do or do not contain peanuts. get it?

IMO!!!!!

biggill wrote:

Apology accepted Suzuki. I’m sure it was an honest misunderstanding like the Reddit comment.

Wake up. You’re dreaming.

joe-winter wrote:

Justin, IMO the exact percentage of the outlier is not important. its just that, an outlier statistic.

What is important with COVID is knowing who isn’t the outliers. Are you one? take warning. it is not the public’s responsibility to put safety nets out for you. but it is the public’s responsibility to inform you of the risks.

Thank you for the reply/replies, my point was and is we still do not have solid number on people who are “healthy” then get and die. We do know not one kid in MN has died from it. I would tend to take this a lot more serious if the virus kid people that were not already compromised. How many of the 1,400 people in MN would have died anyway? How many more people of died in 2020 versus 2019?

Interesting developments in children with COVID. There were a lot of reports of kids with discoloring on their toes and was assumed caused by COVID but has been found unrelated according to two new studies.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/news-scan-jun-25-2020

Chilblains—which in this pandemic have been referred to as “COVID toes”—are not a sign of COVID-19 infection but rather a result of sedentary lifestyles linked to community lockdown measures and a lack of warm footwear, two small studies published today in JAMA Dermatology have found.

My company’s SARS CoV-2 IgG antibody test finally received FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The FDA has been reviewing the test’s performance much more closely than before so now the EUA means something. Some customer’s won’t buy the test without it. I am on the support team to work with issues customers have. It’s exciting to be part of it but I wish this test wasn’t needed. Here’s a link to the press release:

https://www.beckmancoulter.com/en/about-beckman-coulter/newsroom/press-releases/2020/q2/2020-june-29-bec-sars-cov-2-igg-antibody-test-fda-eua

Serology test has confirmed 100% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity.

Justin riegel wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>joe-winter wrote:</div>
Justin, IMO the exact percentage of the outlier is not important. its just that, an outlier statistic.

What is important with COVID is knowing who isn’t the outliers. Are you one? take warning. it is not the public’s responsibility to put safety nets out for you. but it is the public’s responsibility to inform you of the risks.

Thank you for the reply/replies, my point was and is we still do not have solid number on people who are “healthy” then get and die. We do know not one kid in MN has died from it. I would tend to take this a lot more serious if the virus kid people that were not already compromised. How many of the 1,400 people in MN would have died anyway? How many more people of died in 2020 versus 2019?

Prior to June deaths in Minnesota were up 20% over average (I haven’t seen numbers through June yet). All of the people would have died eventually. Some in a few weeks, some in 30-40 years. Biggest reason to take it seriously is still hospital capacity, ask Texas. If that happens it affects the care of every other disease and we will be shut down again.

Another thing I read this weekend is a piece about Sweden’s response. They don’t seem to haven gotten an honest viewpoint from any media source. This one seems a little more honest and highlights their actual strategy. They’ve often be touted as not have any sort of strategy but the fact is people there are taking it as seriously as anywhere else.

In my opinion it’s a worthwhile experiment in a well developed country.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-06-28/sweden-s-covid-expert-says-the-world-still-doesn-t-understand

“Sweden’s approach has been widely misrepresented as doing nothing. It’s not,” Hanage said. “Given a starting point in which it has been decided an outbreak is inevitable, the question becomes how to mitigate it and preserve health care, and the earlier on in the outbreak you take action to slow transmission, the less intense that action needs to be — initially.”

Thank you for the reply/replies, my point was and is we still do not have solid number on people who are “healthy” then get and die. We do know not one kid in MN has died from it. I would tend to take this a lot more serious if the virus kid people that were not already compromised. How many of the 1,400 people in MN would have died anyway? How many more people of died in 2020 versus 2019?
[/quote]

Justin, AMEN!! what has been missing from all articles written by media and news outlets is CONTEXT and COMPARISDN!! I am not taking COVID lightly, but I need to know these things because I know that life and life statistics are a lot uglier then the public realizes.

Netguy wrote:

My company’s SARS CoV-2 IgG antibody test finally received FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The FDA has been reviewing the test’s performance much more closely than before so now the EUA means something. Some customer’s won’t buy the test without it. I am on the support team to work with issues customers have. It’s exciting to be part of it but I wish this test wasn’t needed. Here’s a link to the press release:

https://www.beckmancoulter.com/en/about-beckman-coulter/newsroom/press-releases/2020/q2/2020-june-29-bec-sars-cov-2-igg-antibody-test-fda-eua

Serology test has confirmed 100% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity.

That’s awesome. It’s nice to be part of a company that is benefiting from this. My wife works for a company who’s sales are up 130% because they make temperature controlled packaging for pharmaceutical companies.

With the current estimated 7% infection rate, that test would have about 5% false positives. That’s pretty good. As infection rates go up that percentage goes down. The only one fully approved by the FDA I believe is 99.6 or 99.8%.

I’m generally not one to read blogs or anything but this guy makes some interesting points, and he backs them up with good references:

https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/lockdownlunacy

Here is a breakdown of why the Stanford study he references is so flawed. Some of the researchers have even come forward with significant concerns

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-not-to-do-an-antibody-survey-for-sars-cov-2-67488/amp

G_Smitty wrote:

I’m generally not one to read blogs or anything but this guy makes some interesting points, and he backs them up with good references:

https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/lockdownlunacy

There’s some really good info in that article and some really poor information. The way it was presented is very off putting and difficult to read if you want to keep an open mind.

I agree with schools, masks, outdoors and a couple others. He cites a lot of good evidence here.

I disagree with community spread because it is currently playing out in front of our eyes in the southern US and anecdotally here. The part about asymptomatic carriers isn’t correct either. The statement by the CDC was sort of out of context and was immediately clarified. I’ll see if I can find the real story in this.

Fact #1 about mortality rate is so outrageously ignorant I don’t know where to start. The mortality rate of seasonal flu is actually closer to .05% most years and approaches maybe .1% on a bad year. Total deaths per year in the US range from 25K-65K. The mortality rate for Ebola is somewhere around 65-70%. Total all time deaths from Ebola worldwide is right around 10K. If Ebola were to spread like flu, we’d have another Black Death on our hands because we would have deaths in the billions. COVID-19 has already killed half a million people worldwide and has killed 125,000 in the US alone in the first 6 months. The article fails to mention how the R0 value has ranged as high as 4 in Europe and in some places probably much higher. R0 for seasonal flu is around 1.3. Seasonal flu is just that, seasonal. The seasonal flu has a vaccine, COVID-19 isn’t even close.

There’s a number of studies coming out right now suggesting that antibodies wane in as little as 3 months and it isn’t even clear if they are effective at all.

We have to remember, we’re only 6 months into a 18-24 month pandemic. Overall, there’s some really good stuff there but he cherry-picked some data when he really didn’t have to.

biggill wrote:

Fact #1 about mortality rate is so outrageously ignorant I don’t know where to start. The mortality rate of seasonal flu is actually closer to .05% most years and approaches maybe .1% on a bad year. Total deaths per year in the US range from 25K-65K. The mortality rate for Ebola is somewhere around 65-70%. Total all time deaths from Ebola worldwide is right around 10K. If Ebola were to spread like flu, we’d have another Black Death on our hands because we would have deaths in the billions. COVID-19 has already killed half a million people worldwide and has killed 125,000 in the US alone in the first 6 months. The article fails to mention how the R0 value has ranged as high as 4 in Europe and in some places probably much higher. R0 for seasonal flu is around 1.3. Seasonal flu is just that, seasonal. The seasonal flu has a vaccine, COVID-19 isn’t even close.

There’s a number of studies coming out right now suggesting that antibodies wane in as little as 3 months and it isn’t even clear if they are effective at all.

We have to remember, we’re only 6 months into a 18-24 month pandemic. Overall, there’s some really good stuff there but he cherry-picked some data when he really didn’t have to.

Well said, although the duration is still very much open to conjecture. I hope it doesn’t last that long.

Found this really intriguing. Although, there currently aren’t any articles reviewed yet.

http://www.statnews.com/2020/06/29/new-journal-vet-covid-19-preprints/

The wild, wild west of Covid-19 preprints is about to get a new sheriff. On Monday, the MIT Press is announcing the launch of an open access journal that will publish reviews of preprints related to Covid-19, in an effort to quickly and authoritatively call out misinformation as well as highlight important, credible research.

The story above also identifies this as another good place to see reviewed research.

https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/

Found this one interesting about masks.
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/identifying-airborne-transmission-as-the-dominant-route-for-the-spread-of-covid-19/

Most of the testing results don’t show the full story as I think most show for the date the testing completed and not the date the sample was taken and it seems testing results in WI can be up to 7-14 days from when the testing occurred

I also know that they were only testing people with symptoms for quite a while and they don’t break down results for symptomatic and asymptomatic tests that are being done now.

Why not also test these samples for influenza? The flu doesn’t simply vanish during the warm months so it is either around all the time or carried in from travelers

The masks must work after the Great Clips in Missouri where 2 employees exposed over 100 customers to this and they are claiming all customers tested negative as both employee and customers were wearing masks

Jeremy wrote:

Why not also test these samples for influenza? The flu doesn’t simply vanish during the warm months so it is either around all the time or carried in from travelers

It actually does and it’s never been proven why. You have to remember that we have a northern and Southern Hemisphere. Winter in the north means summer in the south. And vice versa. While it doesn’t disappear, it becomes barely detectable.

I was looking at different charts and it showed flu deaths almost year round in the US, just a lot less during summer months

Wednesday, July 1

Numbers released by the Minnesota Department of Health show a continuing downward trend in COVID-19 related hospitalizations, and a return to single-day deaths in the single digits.

The media makes it sound like its dramatically expanding everywhere. Not here.
Hopefully this trend continues.

Jeremy wrote:

…

The masks must work after the Great Clips in Missouri where 2 employees exposed over 100 customers to this and they are claiming all customers tested negative as both employee and customers were wearing masks

I’ve read that report about the hairstylists and it seems reasonable to conclude that this case shows that wearing masks works to stop transmission. However, this is just anectodotal and not proof that masks work… there is no control arm (two hairstylist that did everything else the same but didn’t wear masks) to definitively conclude the masks were responsible. There was also a very early case in IL of a woman returning from Wuhan that was infected and came into contact with many people, including hospital staff, but didn’t transmit the disease and there was no evidence she wore a mask at all…

Just saying that we need to be careful attributing causality when the ‘study’ isn’t properly controlled…

G_Smitty wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jeremy wrote:</div>
…

The masks must work after the Great Clips in Missouri where 2 employees exposed over 100 customers to this and they are claiming all customers tested negative as both employee and customers were wearing masks

I’ve read that report about the hairstylists and it seems reasonable to conclude that this case shows that wearing masks works to stop transmission. However, this is just anectodotal and not proof that masks work… there is no control arm (two hairstylist that did everything else the same but didn’t wear masks) to definitively conclude the masks were responsible. There was also a very early case in IL of a woman returning from Wuhan that was infected and came into contact with many people, including hospital staff, but didn’t transmit the disease and there was no evidence she wore a mask at all…

Just saying that we need to be careful attributing causality when the ‘study’ isn’t properly controlled…

Some good points there. However, we’re never going to get a controlled study because medical studies of that nature require volunteers for both the protected exposure and unprotected exposure cohorts. Blind studies – subjecting people to Covid without their knowledge – would be unethical and wouldn’t take place.

I have seen this posted about a million times today. I’m not sure the Department of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering at FAU would be considered experts but still an interesting read, at least what I think I understood.

visualizing effectiveness of a face mask

Enjoyed seeing all the view points here. While we are not living in fear, we have scaled back where we go and what we do. Iowa opened up rather quickly and then we started seeing increasing test rates in my home county with a college population. The same for the Iowa City area. While younger people have an easier time with the virus and since many of us don’t know people with an active case, feel we won’t get it.

Based on what I have read, I believe masks provide enough protection to warrant wearing one. It is the right to wear a mask to for the protection of others more so than myself. I feel it is right to do so and hopefully we can avoid another shutdown.

b-curtis wrote:

I have seen this posted about a million times today. I’m not sure the Department of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering at FAU would be considered experts but still an interesting read, at least what I think I understood.

visualizing effectiveness of a face mask

A couple quick thoughts right off the bat. I recently Found out that the virus is approximately 0.1-0.2 µm. This study estimates their particle to be 1-10 µm. They estimate that because particles stayed suspended for around 3 minutes. I do believe they’ve found RNA from this virus for several hours. This study and most out there explain how they can help capture water droplets from coughs and sneezes. I don’t know about you but I haven’t heard another human being cough in 6 months.

I think the consensus right now is to wear a mask in spite of good evidence. It won’t hurt. what could hurt is what I heard on the radio yesterday. The Edina mayor was on Wcco talking about their new mask mandate. He said that masks are going to be one of the keys to opening the economy. Then immediately after he stated that even if they are wrong about masks, they can’t do any harm.

That’s completely false. If we even admit that they are effective we still have no clue how effective. If we use them as justification to open up more or reduce other effective measures, we’re making a horrible decision NOT based on science.