• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Coronavirus information on the research end of things. Progress!!

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I look forward to the more, because I do not enjoy talking past each other. We do seem to agree on a lot of points, including the general courses of viruses. BUT, you made a prediction of fading in May that you have just now adjusted to be somewhere between end of April and early June, which just proves my point that you jumped at making a prediction when the data didn't actually support that prediction with confidence. And I pointed out that the data was too variable to be confident in a prediction of fading in May and that we wouldn't really be able to be sufficiently confident about what would happen in May until we got to about the end of March.

Actually no, you are misrepresenting my post. In it I still said my prediction centered on early May, but I included a range of possible outcomes no problem

I'm reassured that you agree that the decline of the virus in China has been primarily due to remediation efforts as opposed to the natural course of the virus in China. I'm sure that as we continue to monitor the situation, more accurate predictions will emerge as to when the virus will peak.

No, I do not agree. China failed to respond in a timely manner assuring the coronavirus would follow a natural bell curve of infection rate, severity and death rates. It is abundantly documented the government did not act until three to four weeks after the doctor described the virus spread to the government. by this time the virus had spread throughout Wuhan and the doctor died. As I stated before how the virus responds to the remediation efforts, and the pattern of the virus remains the natural pattern of the virus in any given population.

You have failed to confirm that a significant part of my prediction was confirmed by your source that the death rate and severity rate is decreasing as the natural course of the virus path progresses in the human population.

My prediction still stands.
 
Last edited:

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Actually no, you are misrepresenting my post. In it I still said my prediction centered on early May, but I included a range of possible outcomes no problem



No, I do not agree. China failed to respond in a timely manner assuring the coronavirus would follow a natural bell curve of infection rate, severity and death rates. It is abundantly documented the government did not act until three to four weeks after the doctor described the virus spread to the government. by this time the virus had spread throughout Wuhan and the doctor died. As I stated before how the virus responds to the remediation efforts, and the pattern of the virus remains the natural pattern of the virus in any given population.

You have failed to confirm that a significant part of my prediction was confirmed by your source that the death rate and severity rate is decreasing as the natural course of the virus path progresses in the human population.

My prediction still stands.

It seems we are at an impasse. I don't deny that death rate and severity usually decrease as a virus progresses through a population, but you don't seem to understand that predictions come with a measure of accuracy and instead insist that your prediction "stands".
If there is no measure of accuracy on your prediction, then what does it mean for your prediction to "stand"? Surely you don't mean that you simply can't be proven wrong until after May passes. And hopefully you also don't mean that you only looked at data on China and then predicted for the rest of the world.

Perhaps, you can give a clearer view of your underlying assumptions and your reasons for affirming your accuracy when it's not clear that the virus is progressing at the same rate in different regions of the world.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It seems we are at an impasse. I don't deny that death rate and severity usually decrease as a virus progresses through a population, but you don't seem to understand that predictions come with a measure of accuracy and instead insist that your prediction "stands".
If there is no measure of accuracy on your prediction, then what does it mean for your prediction to "stand"? Surely you don't mean that you simply can't be proven wrong until after May passes. And hopefully you also don't mean that you only looked at data on China and then predicted for the rest of the world. At present, the rest of the world is following the same pattern with variation on the nature of the population, and the natural progression of the virus. The pattern of the decrease in severity and death rate is similar in the rest of the world as in China.

Perhaps, you can give a clearer view of your underlying assumptions and your reasons for affirming your accuracy when it's not clear that the virus is progressing at the same rate in different regions of the world.

No I did not look at only the data of China to predict the rest of the world, but the course of the virus in Wuhan is indeed the benchmark for the natural course of the virus. The virus that began in Wuhan is the same virus in the rest of the world.

I believe I have explained my case. I will just list the main points, and you need to read and follow the references.

(1) Viruses follow a predictable bell curve in their relationship with their host population. Wuhan China infection followed that natural curve, because the Chinese did not intervene early, and did intervene late to reduce the impact of the rest of China. The spread of the virus is then irregular in the rest of China, Korea and Japan due to their intervention efforts. The United States failed to intervene for several months and the curve will differ. ..

(2) In the natural course of viruses there is an initial high severity, rapid spread, and death rate followed by a progressive gradual decrease until the natural course of the virus ends. The corona virus is following this pattern,

My prediction still stands within the possible range with a few week exception of a peak in April to early May, some regions of the world the curve may extend a little later.and follow the same pattern of a progressive decline. The decrease in the severity and mortality actually is in the direction of how the history of the infection of all viruses eventually end.

One of the big questions is whether the coronavirus will cycle from host to host and back to humans like flus, or be a one shot deal as with SARS.
 
Last edited:

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
No I did not look at only the data of China to predict the rest of the world, but the course of the virus in Wuhan is indeed the benchmark for the natural course of the virus. The virus that began in Wuhan is the same virus in the rest of the world.

I believe I have explained my case. I will just list the main points, and you need to read and follow the references.

(1) Viruses follow a predictable bell curve in their relationship with their host population. Wuhan China infection followed that natural curve, because the Chinese did not intervene early, and did intervene late to reduce the impact of the rest of China. The spread of the virus is then irregular in the rest of China, Korea and Japan due to their intervention efforts. The United States failed to intervene for several months and the curve will differ. ..

(2) In the natural course of viruses there is an initial high severity, rapid spread, and death rate followed by a progressive gradual decrease until the natural course of the virus ends. The corona virus is following this pattern,

My prediction still stands within the possible range with a few week exception of a peak in April to early May, some regions of the world the curve may extend a little later.and follow the same pattern of a progressive decline. The decrease in the severity and mortality actually is in the direction of how the history of the infection of all viruses eventually end.

One of the big questions is whether the coronavirus will cycle from host to host and back to humans like flus, or be a one shot deal as with SARS.

I agree that you have explained your case. And I believe that I have also explained some problems.
1. Progress of the virus by country.
2. Reliance on the data from China.

I assume that your "May" prediction is a prediction for the world as opposed to a prediction for a particular region or country. I'm glad you've... clarified (?) your prediction to include part of April and for some regions of the world "a little later".
Assuming the rate of infection for the world continues to double every 7 days, then the percent of confirmed cases in the world-wide population should indeed be approximately the current percent of confirmed cases in the Wuhan population at some point in May. Will it fade soon after? Perhaps.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I agree that you have explained your case. And I believe that I have also explained some problems.
1. Progress of the virus by country.
2. Reliance on the data from China.

I assume that your "May" prediction is a prediction for the world as opposed to a prediction for a particular region or country. I'm glad you've... clarified (?) your prediction to include part of April and for some regions of the world "a little later".
Assuming the rate of infection for the world continues to double every 7 days, then the percent of confirmed cases in the world-wide population should indeed be approximately the current percent of confirmed cases in the Wuhan population at some point in May. Will it fade soon after? Perhaps.

Actually the data in China matches the history of past viruses, and the decrease in severity and death rate, and fitting the bell curve of previous virus histories as described in the sources cited. Also the present infections are following the same pattern. The difficulty is the infection of additional isolated countries without immunity, but the general decrease of the severity and death rate will make these bell curves milder.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Actually the data in China matches the history of past viruses, and the decrease in severity and death rate, and fitting the bell curve of previous virus histories as described in the sources cited. Also the present infections are following the same pattern. The difficulty is the infection of additional isolated countries without immunity, but the general decrease of the severity and death rate will make these bell curves milder.

There are indications that a variation of the coronavirus may be reappearing in China. It may become endemic to humanity and cycle in the population as I suggested it may happen. The daily figures in the site referenced below do not match the Chinese government figures.

Mystery In Wuhan: Recovered Coronavirus Patients Test Negative ... Then Positive

"A spate of mysterious second-time infections is calling into question the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnostic tools even as China prepares to lift quarantine measures to allow residents to leave the epicenter of its outbreak next month. It's also raising concerns of a possible second wave of cases.

From March 18-22, the Chinese city of Wuhan reported no new cases of the virus through domestic transmission — that is, infection passed on from one person to another. The achievement was seen as a turning point in efforts to contain the virus, which has infected more than 80,000 people in China. Wuhan was particularly hard-hit, with more than half of all confirmed cases in the country.

But some Wuhan residents who had tested positive earlier and then recovered from the disease are testing positive for the virus a second time. Based on data from several quarantine facilities in the city, which house patients for further observation after their discharge from hospitals, about 5%-10% of patients pronounced "recovered" have tested positive again.

Some of those who retested positive appear to be asymptomatic carriers — those who carry the virus and are possibly infectious but do not exhibit any of the illness's associated symptoms — suggesting that the outbreak in Wuhan is not close to being over."

I will follow the progress of the coronavirus. The best source for the general international and national trends. is::Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) – Statistics and Research
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There is along history of the relationship between these viruses and humans. Relationship and history of coronavirus types:

Coronaviruses and Acute Respiratory Syndromes (COVID-19, MERS, and SARS) - Infectious Diseases - Merck Manuals Professional Edition

"Numerous coronaviruses, first discovered in domestic poultry in the 1930s, cause respiratory, gastrointestinal, liver, and neurologic diseases in animals. Only 7 coronaviruses are known to cause disease in humans.

common cold. Coronaviruses 229E and OC43 cause the common cold; the serotypes NL63 and HUK1 have also been associated with the common cold. Rarely, severe lower respiratory tract infections, including pneumonia, can occur, primarily in infants, older people, and the immunocompromised.

SARS-CoV2 is a novel coronavirus identified as the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that began in Wuhan, China in late 2019 and spread worldwide.

  • MERS-CoV was identified in 2012 as the cause of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
  • SARS-CoV was identified in 2002 as the cause of an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
These coronaviruses that cause severe respiratory infections are zoonotic pathogens, which begin in infected animals and are transmitted from animals to people."
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I believe that the Coronavirus will follow a similar pattern as other virus that jump from animals to humans. At first they are very contagious and have a high death rate, as time progresses the death rate drops and the severity of the virus infection decreases. This pattern was followed in China for about three months. This is the pattern that will likely be for the virus as it infected other populations. As time passes in all countries and the course of the infection over time the severity and the death rate will drop, and Coronavirus will become endemic with the human population and possibly will cycle at different times from humans to animals and humans to animals.

Based on the graphs and tables I predict the infection rate and severity of the coronavirus will decrease and fade through May.

See some graphs and maps that reflect the nature of the coronavirus over time here.

Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Spread of the Outbreak

One sort of correction is that I did not realize that the coronavirus in about 12 to 29th of December. The virus spread may have a longer history than I first knew of. They bell curve of the infection is longer. It does not change much, but worthy of note.

There is a possible pattern of recent infections and possible reinfections is that the severity, and transmission is decreasing, which is the pattern that leads of down side of the infection of the virus.

Itally infections and deaths appears to be leveling out, which confirms the original bell curve pattern.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
China likely is covering up the true death toll and the current new cases in China. Deliveries of burial urns to Wuhan far exceed the claimed death toll of the Chinese government claimed. Also, western sources report a steady number of new cases of coronavirus, while the Chinese government claims few to none.

Urn deliveries in Wuhan raise questions about China's actual coronavirus death toll

Urn deliveries in Wuhan raise questions about China's actual coronavirus death toll
New York Post

Massive deliveries of urns in Wuhan have raised fresh skepticism of China’s coronavirus reporting.

As families in the central Chinese city began picking up the cremated ashes of those who have died from the virus this week, photos began circulating on social media and local media outlets showing vast numbers of urns at Wuhan funeral homes.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL CORONAVIRUS COVERAGE

People-Resume-in-Wuhan-REUTERS-1.jpg

People wearing face masks arrive at a railway station in Wuhan on the first day of inbound train services resumed following the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, in Wuhan of Hubei province, the epicentre of China's coronavirus outbreak, March 28, 2020. (Reuters)

China has reported 3,299 coronavirus-related deaths, with most taking place in Wuhan, the epicenter of the global pandemic. But one funeral home received two shipments of 5,000 urns over the course of two days, according to the Chinese media outlet Caixin.

It’s not clear how many of the urns were filled.

Workers at several funeral parlors declined to provide any details to Bloomberg as to how many urns were waiting to be collected, saying they either did not know or were not authorized to share the number.

WUHAN, THE CHINESE CITY WHERE CORONAVIRUS BEGAN, STARTS EASING RESTRICTIONS AFTER TWO MONTHS OF QUARANTINE

The photos surfaced after both the United States and Italy have reported significantly more cases and than China. Italy has reported just shy of three times the fatalities.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I would like to keep this thread current, because I would like follow the predictions concerning the natural beel cure of the coronavirus history, particularly in post #23.
Yeah in spite of all the fun we're having in the meantime I think it's a great thing for anybody who finds any news about progress such as a vaccine and whatnot to submit it here on the thread wholeheartedly and share it with everyone.

Here's one of late I heard recently and it sounds pretty good so far, but one thing's for certain we're learning more and more about the virus.....

FDA issues emergency-use authorization for anti-malaria drugs amid coronavirus outbreak

I think we all want to be up to date on the advances made so far in the war against Coronavirus.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the news.....
https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/video-player/18357411
Excerpted....
Recent work has demonstrated that exhalations, sneezes, and coughs comprise a multiphase turbulent gas (puff) cloud of exhaled air that entrains ambient air and traps and carries within it clusters of mucosalivary fluid droplets with a continuum of droplet sizes. The droplets of all sizes are created both within and outside of the respiratory tract. This video demonstrates the phenomena in human sneezes visualized by light scattering toward the camera from multiple optical sources and at different distances. It illustrates how mucosalivary liquid emissions, in the form of droplets of a continuous size range, are coupled with the hot, moist, and high momentum gas cloud, which traps and carries them forward up to 7 to 8 m (26 ft). This newer understanding of respiratory emission dynamics has implications for mask and respiratory design, social distancing recommendations, and other public health interventions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Click the related article link for complete details. Video courtesy of Lydia Bourouiba. Used with permission.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
About masks.....
Many things have been said with great certainty.
Clearly, uncertainty should've been practiced.
In the news (all accept CNN, right?)....
Face masks and coronavirus: Asia may have been right and the rest of the world is coming around
Excerpted....

In the coming weeks, if they have not already, your government is likely to begin advising you to wear a face mask to protect against coronavirus.

For those living in Asia, such announcements will be a vindication of a tactic that has been adopted across much of the region since the beginning of the crisis and appears to have been borne out by lower rates of infection and faster containment of outbreaks.

In other parts of the world, this message may be confusing, coming after weeks of public health authorities, politicians and media figures confidently claiming masks do not help and urging people instead to focus on washing their hands and maintaining social distancing.

The tone of such claims ranged from condescending to frustrated, with the US Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeting in late February -- in all caps -- "STOP BUYING MASKS!"

"They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk," he added, in a post that has since been retweeted over 43,000 times.

That same week, Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), appeared before lawmakers. Asked if people should wear masks, he had a straightforward answer: "No."

Now he's not so sure. On Monday, Redfield said told NPR that the CDC was reviewing its guidelines and may recommend general mask use to guard against community infection. It's likely only a matter of time before other mask holdouts, most prominently the World Health Organization (WHO), follow suit.

Pivot to protection
Writing last month, Adrien Burch, an expert in microbiology at the University of California, Berkeley, noted that "despite hearing that face masks 'don't work,' you probably haven't seen any strong evidence to support that claim. That's because it doesn't exist."

In fact, there is evidence of the exact opposite: that masks help prevent viral infections like the current pandemic.

Burch pointed to a Cochrane Review -- a systemic analysis of published studies on a given topic -- which found strong evidence during the 2003 SARS epidemic in support of wearing masks. One study of community transmission in Beijing found that "consistently wearing a mask in public was associated with a 70% reduction in the risk of catching SARS."

SARS, like Covid-19, is a respiratory illnesses caused by the same family of viruses called coronavirus.

While SARS spread around the world, the worst of the epidemic was focused in Asia, particularly mainland China and Hong Kong. The legacy of this experience could be seen early on in the current pandemic, as news of a virus spreading led people across the region to don face masks to protect themselves.

From the beginning, Hong Kong and many other Asian governments have recommended people wear masks in public, whether they are showing virus symptoms or not.

Despite eye-rolling in some parts of the Western press, and talk of Asia's "obsession" with face masks, the tactic appears to have contributed in helping to stem the outbreak.

Taiwan, South Korea and mainland China, all places with widespread mask use, have seen greater success in preventing major outbreaks or reigning them in once they begin than in Europe and North America where masks are either not used or hard to come by.

Speaking to CNN, Ivan Hung, an infectious diseases specialist at the Hong Kong University School of Medicine, said that "if you look at the data in Hong Kong, wearing a mask is probably the most important thing in terms of infection control."

"And it not only brings down the cases of coronaviruses, it also brings down the influenza," he said. "In fact, this is now the influenza season, and we hardly see any influenza cases. And that is because the masks actually protected not only against coronaviruses but also against the influenza viruses as well."

At the beginning of March, Hong Kong had only around 150 cases of the virus, despite being on the frontlines of the pandemic since it began and not instituting many of the more draconian population controls seen elsewhere. The city has only seen a spike recently after people began returning to the city from Europe and the US.

"Based on the research, face masks are much more likely to help than to hurt," according to Burch. "Even if it's just a homemade cloth mask, if you wear it correctly and avoid touching it, the science suggests that it won't hurt you and will most likely reduce your exposure to the virus."

Heightened contradictions
In its guidance on the coronavirus, the CDC notes that it spreads primarily "through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneeze," which "can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs."

The agency recommends that people who are sick wear a face mask or otherwise attempt "to cover your coughs and sneezes," while those caring for them should also wear a face mask whenever they are in the same room.

Yet, in the same advice, the CDC said that non-symptomatic "do not need" to wear face masks, adding that they "may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."


News to stay informed. Advice to stay safe.
Click here for complete coronavirus coverage from Microsoft News



And this is what has been so frustrating and confusing for many people, particularly those who advocate for wearing face masks as a precaution. The CDC, along with the WHO and several other public health bodies and experts, has been simultaneously claiming that masks do not offer protection in ordinary circumstances, while stating they are necessary for health workers and caregivers.

This conflicting advice helped create confusion and no small amount of hostility towards officials who people felt were lying to them and putting them at risk. There were numerous replies to Adams' tweet about masks in February asking "why are masks good for healthcare workers but not for the public?"

Writing last month in the New York Times, Zeynep Tufekci, a professor of information science, said that "to help manage the shortage, the authorities sent a message that made them untrustworthy."



There's more in the link.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I believe that the Coronavirus will follow a similar pattern as other virus that jump from animals to humans. At first they are very contagious and have a high death rate, as time progresses the death rate drops and the severity of the virus infection decreases. This pattern was followed in China for about three months. This is the pattern that will likely be for the virus as it infected other populations. As time passes in all countries and the course of the infection over time the severity and the death rate will drop, and Coronavirus will become endemic with the human population and possibly will cycle at different times from humans to animals and humans to animals.

Based on the graphs and tables I predict the infection rate and severity of the coronavirus will decrease and fade through May.

See some graphs and maps that reflect the nature of the coronavirus over time here.

Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Spread of the Outbreak

Yep, that's pretty much it. Herd immunity and future vaccines will begin to minimize the outbreaks. The tricky part right now is to not let up with control measures too soon and find ourselves in a rebound of the disease.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the news....
Coronavirus: How sick will you get?
Excerpted...
Monica and Adrian Arima both were infected by the COVID-19 virus at the same time on the same Nile River cruise, probably during a shared dinner buffet between the Egyptian cities of Aswan and Luxor. As they traveled home to Palo Alto, the couple’s early symptoms — body aches and low-grade fever — were identical.

But then, mysteriously, their experiences suddenly diverged. Monica spent 13 days at Stanford Hospital; Adrian was there for just three days. She needed extra oxygen and an experimental drug; he didn’t.

Now, weeks later, she still has a cough. He is fully recovered, healthy enough to go food shopping and do other errands. Meanwhile, two of their traveling companions — in their 70s and 80s — tested positive but never suffered symptoms.

Their experience illustrates one of the many puzzling questions raised by the lethal new disease: Why is COVID-19 so inexplicably and dreadfully selective? The difference between life and death can depend on the patient’s health and age — but not always.


To understand, scientists are scrutinizing patients’ medical histories, genomes and recoveries for any clues to explain this mystery.

“Why are some people completely asymptomatic, some have mild disease, others have severe disease but recover — and others have fatal disease? We are still trying to figure this out,” said Dr. Brian Schwartz, Vice Chief for Clinical Affairs in UC San Francisco’s Division of Infectious Diseases.

“It is a small subset of people that will go on to develop serious disease. Most will not,” he said. “We want to learn how to prevent people from developing serious disease — and if they do, figure out how to treat it the right way.”

It’s well known that death rates are higher among older people. Only 0.2% of people younger than 19 die. But for people between the ages of 60 and 69, the death rate is 3.6%. It jumps to 8% to 12.5% for those between ages 70 and 79 and 14.8% to 20% percent for those older than 80.

But there’s more to it than that. Monica Arima is age 64; her husband Adrian, at 70, is six years her senior. But she has asthma and diabetes, while his underlying health is good.


Emerging U.S. data confirms trends seen in China and Italy: Rates of serious COVID-related symptoms are higher in those with other medical problems and risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic renal disease and smoking. In a U.S. Centers for Disease Control report released on Tuesday, higher percentages of patients with underlying conditions were admitted to the hospital and to an ICU than patients without other health issues.

There may also be a genetic influence.

“One of the things that we’ve learned from human genetics is that there are extremes at the human phenotype distribution, and pathogen susceptibility is no different,” Stanford geneticist Carlos Bustamante told the journal Science. Stanford is part of a “COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative,” a Finnish effort to link genetic variants associated with COVID-19 susceptibility and severity.

“There are going to be people who are particularly susceptible, and there are going to be those who are particularly resistant,” he said.

Biologically, what’s going on?

One leading theory is focused on the “doors” of a cell that permit the virus to enter. We know that the virus enters the body through epithelial cells in the respiratory tract. To get inside the cell, the virus uses a “door” — a receptor called ACE-2 (angiotensin converting enzyme 2) — on the cell’s surface.


There's more in the link.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the news....
The Perils of Mass Coronavirus Testing | RealClearPolitics

The Perils of Mass Coronavirus Testing
ANALYSIS
By Sean Trende - RCP Staff
March 18, 2020
AP Photo

The public health response to the new coronavirus continues to evolve rapidly, with states shutting down schools, restaurants, bars, vacation places, and even elections. At the same time, the nation’s capacity to test individuals continues to steadily ramp up. This has led some people asking, “Why don’t we do what South Korea does and just test anyone?”

Test-kit availability aside, there are crucial issues to consider. For example, so long as the background level of infection is low, there are real downsides to mass testing, and good reasons to limit testing to individuals who show symptoms or have been in contact with people who have shown symptoms. The problem is that when the overall level of infection is low, the overwhelming majority of your positive test results from mass testing will be false positives. This gives the public a false sense of what the actual mortality level is, a false sense of security in their own immunity status, and can contribute to future outbreaks. In fact, the mass testing in South Korea could be skewing their data.

To see why this might be the case, I draw upon this thread from Dr. Sterling Haring at Vanderbilt University, as well as my own statistical background. Like him, rather than walking through the actual math of Bayes Rule (I explore it here), I utilize 2x2 charts. We’ll start with the claim from Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine last Thursday that 100,000 people in Ohio were infected. That seems high, but let’s take it. That works out to a little less than 1% of the state’s population having the virus. So we have a society that looks something like this:
504645_5_.png



The public health response to the new coronavirus continues to evolve rapidly, with states shutting down schools, restaurants, bars, vacation places, and even elections. At the same time, the nation’s capacity to test individuals continues to steadily ramp up. This has led some people asking, “Why don’t we do what South Korea does and just test anyone?”

Test-kit availability aside, there are crucial issues to consider. For example, so long as the background level of infection is low, there are real downsides to mass testing, and good reasons to limit testing to individuals who show symptoms or have been in contact with people who have shown symptoms. The problem is that when the overall level of infection is low, the overwhelming majority of your positive test results from mass testing will be false positives. This gives the public a false sense of what the actual mortality level is, a false sense of security in their own immunity status, and can contribute to future outbreaks. In fact, the mass testing in South Korea could be skewing their data.

To see why this might be the case, I draw upon this thread from Dr. Sterling Haring at Vanderbilt University, as well as my own statistical background. Like him, rather than walking through the actual math of Bayes Rule (I explore it here), I utilize 2x2 charts. We’ll start with the claim from Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine last Thursday that 100,000 people in Ohio were infected. That seems high, but let’s take it. That works out to a little less than 1% of the state’s population having the virus. So we have a society that looks something like this:

504645_5_.png




What happens if everyone is tested? If tests were perfect, this would be great. But almost all of them come with errors. My understanding is that the quick test used in South Korean drive-throughs generates an error roughly one in 10 times (which would still be much more accurate than the rapid flu tests), while the test with the longer turnaround generates an error roughly one in 20 times.

Let’s assume we tested everyone with the 90% accurate test. We would get a result that looks something like this:

504646_5_.png


This is not bad. Most of the people who have the virus get a positive reading. What about the people who don’t have the illness?
504647_5_.png


ost of them get a negative reading. The problem is that, since there are far more people that don’t have the virus than do have it, the 10% error rate for that group overwhelms the 90% accuracy rate for the group that does have it. You end up with a scenario where 93% of the people who test positive for the disease do not, in fact, have it.

What’s the downside of false positives? There are a couple. First, it can skew your data. A number of people have looked at South Korea’s findings and noted the relatively low mortality rate – dropping below 1%. The problem is that with widespread testing, a lot of people who tested positive there won’t actually have the disease in the first place. The virus will be less widespread than the data suggest, but also deadlier.

Second, it can give people a false sense of confidence. We don’t know whether you can get the disease twice, and there are at least two strains of the virus floating around out there. The question is one of public perception. If people believe that you can only get it once – and the possibilities for disinformation on the Internet are legendary – and go out falsely believing that they are immune, then they are susceptible to actual infection from the people who had the sickness and falsely believed they did not have it. They can also conclude that they must have the flu or a cold and delay seeking medical treatment.


What if we use the quick test for screening, and tell people that they need a follow-up if they get a positive reading? Giving the more accurate test to the subset of people who tested positive the first time around is useful – but the false positive rate is still 40%. And our false negative rate starts to creep up as well, with 15% of the people with the disease now getting a medical “all clear.”

To be clear, none of this is meant to suggest that we shouldn’t test at all. It is simply to say that testing isn’t the panacea that many are hoping it is. After all, South Korea may have widely available drive-through testing, but it also pioneered social distancing and did extensive tracking of contacts with infected people. It is also important to emphasize that our scenario assumes the disease has not become widespread; if 5% of the population is infected, the false-positive rate from the second test plummets to just 10%. If we look only at the population that exhibits symptoms, it would be even lower.

All this points toward a larger medium-term problem. The social distancing measures being implemented will likely result in fewer daily infections but also come at great societal costs and are likely untenable for more than a few months, if that. With an estimated 12 to 18 months to go until a vaccine is available, the relaxing of social distancing measures is likely not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. More accurate testing may help, but absent that, we’re likely in for a bumpy ride.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yep, that's pretty much it. Herd immunity and future vaccines will begin to minimize the outbreaks. The tricky part right now is to not let up with control measures too soon and find ourselves in a rebound of the disease.

Fauci and others are mirroring my predictions of the natural bell curve of the course of the virus I predicted a month ago, and not repeating his bogus conflicting predictions of 'being in control,' the bogus 15 and 45 predictions, and the odd incometant prediction of the possible 100,000 to 240,000 fatalities.

The problem is that his making the bogus claim like the government measures are the cause of the present bell curve we are now observing, like the false claims of China. Yes, we can decrease the fatalities and number of cases, but the virus does what the virus does, and the over all bell curve of the coronavirus course is a natural curve, just like in China, and previous virus pandemics..

The late inconsistent response by China and the USA guaranteed a high infection and fatality rate.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Thanks for sharing so much new useful information and sources about the virus researches! I am doing my own little research on virus consequences now, but social (like stigma, online/offline life, work/life balance, relationship changes, etc.) I supposed to gather many resources to get my relevant data, also I used Research Paper Writing Service | 100% Plagiarism-Free for help with a methodology for my paper. I got a good basis from the research papers writing service, also I need to check all links with the info you have mentioned, thank you a lot!
Correction: The prediction of the fatalities is much higher than I predicted, and the natural bell curve is much longer, but yes I predicted later peaks in the rate of cases, and fatalities after the first peak. It has most definitely been a more protracted brutal pandemic, and it may be with us for a while.

I do believe it will be medical technology that will be the future solution and the vaccines will only rehuce the infection rate.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Thanks for sharing so much new useful information and sources about the virus researches! I am doing my own little research on virus consequences now, but social (like stigma, online/offline life, work/life balance, relationship changes, etc.) I supposed to gather many resources to get my relevant data, also I used Research Paper Writing Service | 100% Plagiarism-Free for help with a methodology for my paper. I got a good basis from the research papers writing service, also I need to check all links with the info you have mentioned, thank you a lot!
Prepare for new data coming in. The current second wave in Europe is inconsistent with prior knowledge. I suspect a new strain of the virus with a higher infection rate and maybe even new ways of infection. At the same time the new strain seems to be much less fatal.
Yes people have become careless and yes, treatment has become better but that alone can't explain the current numbers.
 
Top