Stanford Profs view on COVID-19 data, in case you didnt see
https://www.collective-evolution.co...-if-covid-19-is-really-as-deadly-as-they-say/
https://www.collective-evolution.co...-if-covid-19-is-really-as-deadly-as-they-say/
Stanford Profs view on COVID-19 data
- Thread starter blion72
- Start date
Some people will be very angry to learn that several medical professors from one of the top universities in the country hold this expert opinion. After all, some are blaming the anti-science crowd for the virus in the first place.
My position as someone who has taught in the sciences at a university level, maybe we don't know enough about COVID19 yet and have sufficiently reliable data to make accurate predictions.
It is clear that the world has never responded this way in the last century. So if I have to take a stand on what to do, it is get the lower risk areas geographically and job types or work conditions back to work with a number of risk/mitigation strategies at those work sites (to include work from home to the greatest extent possible) sooner rather than later and continue to social distance and monitor the problem.
The numbers are pretty easy to extrapolate. Only very ill were tested. Of them those with preconditions died at a 2 to 5 percent rate.
Again though the issue is slowing the spread.
If you slow it, this ends up being a minor thing.
The longer we stay in lockdown the worse we will be post lockdown. Look at the Bolt Bus thread for example.
That type of us vs them mentality will take over.
LdN
I think your last paragraph will be the direction sooner rather than later. multi-month lockdown is not feasible in a modern economy.
the data from the Princess cruise is interesting, as it represents a controlled cohort with a high % of at risk vs general population. It is the only example of cohort data for infection rate estimates.
I was on a conf call with a group of people all with PhD's. The group think was that the case rate change is the infection rate. When i questioned, i was attacked.
Well, that's an easy one to handicap should it happen. Who has the ammo?
Seems pretty clear to me from comprehending the entire article that testing strategy needs to change from their point of view. There are several inferences in the article that indicate flawed testing.
"Antibody testing of representative samples to measure disease prevalence (including in those who have recovered) is crucial."
At least that was the recommendation I took from the article.
Boy does this article miss the mark. The issues are hospitalizations and overwhelming the health system. The data already show that the virus spreads fast, with one infected person inflecting 2-3 others. Hospitalization data show that covid-19 is impacting many age groups and the difference is that younger people are more likely to survive with prolonged medical treatment.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69...1WrZrVDW2t15m0Rri9j_63NYuNAwthKCf5KCCYl6B7-OA
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69...1WrZrVDW2t15m0Rri9j_63NYuNAwthKCf5KCCYl6B7-OA
Yup, they said we need more data to build a better model. I agree.
Antibody testing can only be done through serology. Not sure that a whole lot of people who are asymptomatic, whether they've contracted the virus or not, will submit to blood tests regardless of the degree to which it's invasive.
I could never understand those who offer only ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with a point that I or someone else makes, then offer an alternate point of view. A one line personal attack is like an admission that you cannot articulate your position. I'm willing to entertain and consider alternate points of view, are you?
How dare they not panic like the rest of us, they should be tarred and feathered!
Excellent points. A difficult situation to get real data. I for one would submit to a blood test if it helps.
The question then becomes when do you do the sampling? Now? You will come up with people who show no evidence of covid19 infection and no covid19-related antibodies. What conclusions can be reached for that group? That they were exposed and developed no infection OR that they were not exposed? That becomes problematical because people in that group will include some with no exposure as a result of the massive social distancing efforts which we someday hope to come out of.
