Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 184 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I spend a little time on a forum where a substantial proportion of the posters think Fauci is a quack, that masks don't work, that lockdowns don't work, that C19 is no worse than the flu. The bottom line argument is, as one of these posters puts it, that this is the first pandemic in history in which the median age of death is greater than life expectancy. IOW, most of the people dying were lucky to live as long as they did.
Maybe they should also look up the median age for death from cancer. I believe it is around 75. Does anybody think that we make too big a deal about cancer?

bad news about plasma. Not completely unexpected. Late stage patients generally have plenty of antibody. Immunomodulators are more effective at that stage.

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1331357253106950144
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Maybe they should also look up the median age for death from cancer. I believe it is around 75. Does anybody think that we make too big a deal about cancer?
The argument there is that we don't shut down the economy to prevent people from getting cancer. Though economics do play a role there, too. A major reason the economy grew so much under Trump is that he loosened many environmental and safety regulations. This has consequences--many people get sick and die as a result of this. When all is said and done, it's possible that more people will die from changes in these regulations than from COVID.

Wherever politics is involved, there is hypocrisy and irony. When Obamacase was being developed, conservatives accused progressives of advocating death panels--letting older people die to save medical costs. It is a fact that something like 50-60%--i don't know the exact figures--of medical care involve people in their last years of life. But now the argument is being flipped around, as it tends to be conservatives arguing that we should let older people die for economic reasons. The reversal, of course, is because in one case the economics involve a social cost, while in the other, it's more of an individual cost.

At least this surge has stuck a fork in some theories of the spread of the virus, such as that by Michael Levitt. Levitt, a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, but not an epidemiologist, claimed that by examining the early rise in cases, he could see that even from the beginning, numbers did not rise exponentially. He had some obscure explanation that this was due to infected people quickly running out of others they could infect. He also said that spread of the virus would stop by the time one in a thousand people had died.

That latter prediction is definitely wrong. Eight states in the U.S., numerous smaller communities, and two countries (likely to be joined by the U.S. and half a dozen or so more nations by the end of the year), have exceeded overall mortality rates of one in a thousand. The first hypothesis also fails when applied to the current surge.

Levitt supported his theory originally by comparing the % increase in cases each day. He found that while cases increased, the % increase was less each day, a sign that there was not exponential spread. This led to his conclusion--welcomed by people opposed to lockdowns and other social restrictions--that the effects of the virus would die down, even if we did pretty much nothing (though he himself did not advocate that).

You can’t compare cases day by day for the U.S., at least not using the Worldometer, because reporting is less on weekends; numbers fall off at that time. But you can compare the weekly numbers, beginning and ending on the same day. When you do that, and look at the weekly cases since the beginning of October, you get this:

Cases% increase
Oct 1-7320,879
Oct 8-14374,05916.6
Oct 15-21436,56416.7
Oct 22-28530,86921.6
Oct 29-Nov 4652,37022.9
Nov 5-11912,36739.9
Nov 12-181,159,42227.1
Nov 19-25*1,459,15925.9

  • Nov. 25 data not in yet, so I took the 6 day total and multiplied by 7/6 (the estimate is a little low, as the last day will be higher than the average of the preceding six)
These values plot out as a good exponential curve, with r2=.9864. I think the reason we’re now seeing classic exponential spread is because people are maxxing out. They are doing everything they can, or are willing to, do to slow the spread. Whereas earlier in the year, people were changing their behavior during the first surge, resulting in slowing down of the spread. Thus a lot of people may wear masks and keep their distance in public, but continue to gather privately, without masks. There may be other reasons, but what I see from the data is an R0, or average number of other people infected by someone who is infected, that is not only above the magic line of 1.0, but is fairly constant over time.

Notice, too, that the spread shows no sign of peaking or even slowing down. It will eventually, but we’re not there yet. During this entire period, the number of cases on any particular day of the week has always been higher than the number of cases on the same day the week before.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Kaptain Kool
When all is said and done, it's possible that more people will die from changes in these regulations than from COVID.
Or could quite possibly save more lives than imaginable. Electricity production from natural gas readily available and inexpensive (thanks to fracking) has all but pushed coal to the sideline. Feel free to look at the decline in Greenhouse gas emissions from the US Due in large part to energy independece. Just one example and there are others. Not every regulation is worthwhile.
 
It is very positive that multiple vaccines seems to be working. I hope this is the light at the end of the tunnel ( I am not sure if this is international but it is positive affirmation :D). Other than antivaxxers I see some skepticizm in my surrounding mostly about high speed of development and long term side effects. I have my doubts too if this is not too good to be true but I am willing to get vaccine despite my relatively young age and good health conditions. We need to stop this. I think the thinking that young poeple dont need to get vaccine because there is small risk when they get covid is utterly wrong so is wrong thinking that others create herd immunity for me.
 
Doing a heterologous boost method like the Russians may be the optimal method to generate antibodies from an immunological standpoint. I would be more suspicious if they found an efficacious method when no one else could. I imagine that all the vaccines will work if you provide the spike protein to the immune system, so I tend to believe the result. You never really know about the exact numbers though. 95% is a bit convenient.
It is very positive that multiple vaccines seems to be working. I hope this is the light at the end of the tunnel ( I am not sure if this is international but it is positive affirmation :D). Other than antivaxxers I see some skepticizm in my surrounding mostly about high speed of development and long term side effects. I have my doubts too if this is not too good to be true but I am willing to get vaccine despite my relatively young age and good health conditions. We need to stop this. I think the thinking that young poeple dont need to get vaccine because there is small risk when they get covid is utterly wrong so is wrong thinking that others create herd immunity for me.
Most of the adverse effects of vaccines manifest short term. The fear of long term effects is mostly due to anti-vaxxer framing that has seeped into common discourse IMO. The misinformation that is going to be put up on social media is going to be fierce as soon as people start getting jabbed. I don't think we are adequately prepared for the onslaught.
I’m in Cali. The virus is literally blowing up here again. We have a Governor here that hates bad man to the core. We have been very restrictive here, much more so than other States. Our Gov’s goal was 60,000 tests per day. We are over 200,000 a day now. Back to a near shutdown again. Constitutional? No. Will we get compliance? Dunno this time.
If you look at the per capita numbers, California has less than half as much hospitalizations as Wisconsin (158 vs 360) and less than a quarter of South Dakota (158 vs 658) despite having a much higher population density. Weather may help, but compare to Texas and their summer and fall peaks have been a little more than half as much (223 vs 376) and (158 vs 293). You may not like what is happening, but California has been a relative success story. One of the very few that you can say that with a straight face.
 
I can see Chris,'s point(s) and they all make sense, I can't strongly disagree enough. Yes anybody putting a gun in their mouth is bad, from financial oblivion, depression,drugs or the effects from the Covid pandemic pandemonium. These scenarios that you play out are all bad, I agree. What I disagree on is creativity and concern for your fellow man being of little consequence. You need to accept that what we are doing is not working..I think we agree on that, but what I see you saying is F it, let's open up and let the chips fall where they may. I know in many minds that is an option, but it's really not because the whimsical words are based on pure luck..so we know where lots of the chips are going to fall, this attitude of digging through the cat box and picking out the least covered with litter for nutrition is crazy.. We don't need to keep discussing pandemic strategy as if all options are bad so let's just pick the best of those..
Fracking!! Reinforce my point further..first the perceived problem: a gas shortage..fairy tale..we don't need more..solution to the imaginary problem, import sand and water do a bizarre process in which you force mother nature a forced toxic enema and tank the toxic spoils for sale,leaving behind a ruined environment both above and below ground and as flammable water comes out of people's household sinks and showers and victory is declared by cheap gas\ oil and job creation..what's your job? I ruin the environment for $40 bucks and hour for a few years..If every fracking permit came w a $100000:1 ratio payment for a super fund clean up, America still loses in the end because the earth is permanently destroyed.
All the talk about Covid colliding with commerce is crazy..Bars, restaurants,scools, buses ,airplanes and trains would all be up and running if the federal government had a plan..they don't,they didn't..so am I really bent out of shape because some tiny town officials in Micro Lake Idaho couldn't come up with a plan to save themselves,their families,citizens and the United States..no.
It was never their job, it's a national disgrace that the federal government has asked Anytown, W.Virginia or Mississippi to formulate a pandemic plan.. Just like fracking, the guy,driving a truck, the people working on site today,people getting dirty, busting ass for a paycheck..those people are not responsible for knowing that ground water towns away is toxic..just not in their paygrade.
@2pm January 20th..we will toss out the notes written on bar napkins, scribbled BS on golf score cards and at the very least attempt to coordinate with one another to save lives and get the mother F-ing country open again..none of Sleepy Joe's plans or policy will take official form via Twitter..
It's absolutely amazing to see people go down fighting for a non- plan, a strategy to do nothing, claiming that just getting out of the viruses way will work..it's really really scary that we have a better picture of who is dying in the US and people say, oh well ,cost of doing business,Manuel,you and Juan get back to work..you are essential after all..
Disgusting!
 
Scott, if it's not clear yet, but it should be, the Covid-19 global pandemic was never going to be solved at a Huntington Beach city council meeting, no global solution from a Texas or N Dakota governors..it was not ever going to happen,because it could never happen..
Our leadership our federal leadership has not done any leading..
 
Reactions: Koronin and jmdirt
I know that dj an MI know this, but I still want to point out a distinction between cancer and covid: I can't get cancer from the lady at work, but I sure can get covid from her. That's why limiting person to person activities is critical for slowing covid, but not for slowing cancer.
 
Reactions: Koronin
Reactions: jmdirt
but what I see you saying is F it, let's open up and let the chips fall where they may.
We know the demographics of the vulnerable. We need to protect to the extent that is possible while at the same time not killing our economy. If you look, you’ll see that I haven’t changed.

Fracking!! Reinforce my point further..first the perceived problem: a gas shortage..fairy tale..we don't need more..solution to the imaginary problem,
Not being forced to purchase energy from our enemies is a good thing. Thanks to Wildcatters all over this Country. And a giant bonus is what it’s done for our Country’s carbon footprint. Or is Climate change so last year....?


America still loses in the end because the earth is permanently destroyed.
Real “hair on fire” stuff right here.

All the talk about Covid colliding with commerce is crazy..Bars, restaurants,scools, buses ,airplanes and trains would all be up and running if the federal government had a plan..they don't,they didn't..
Absolutely not. The worst analysis in an otherwise thoroughly forgettable post.
 
Reactions: Castman
I know that dj an MI know this, but I still want to point out a distinction between cancer and covid: I can't get cancer from the lady at work, but I sure can get covid from her. That's why limiting person to person activities is critical for slowing covid, but not for slowing cancer.
This is all true.

What is also true is that the Globalists are counting on this sort of fear. Stoking it actually. Reading up a bit on Klaus Schwab. Good stuff.
 
Scott, if it's not clear yet, but it should be
Is Chris G. Scott SoCal? His posts don't seem quite to reflect that.

I can't get cancer from the lady at work, but I sure can get covid from her. That's why limiting person to person activities is critical for slowing covid, but not for slowing cancer.
Yes, but that's also why no one is talking about shutting down the economy to reduce cancer. Which in turn is why the median age of death by cancer is irrelevant to the argument over the median age of death by C19.

Not being forced to purchase energy from our enemies is a good thing. Thanks to Wildcatters all over this Country. And a giant bonus is what it’s done for our Country’s carbon footprint.
That's a bit oversimplified. We have the second highest carbon footprint in the world, after China, and the highest per person among large nations. It has been reduced somewhat under Trump, but it has been reduced steadily since at least the early part of this century, and has been reduced less under Trump than under previous administrations. It has fallen a lot this year, mostly because of the economic shutdown.

Don't forget Trump promised to revive the coal industry. It has actually declined slightly under him, though not nearly as much as under Obama.

Continuing on my post on the exponential growth of cases, how much worse could things get if cases continue to increase at that rate?

WeekCasesCases/dayDeathsDeaths/day
Nov26-Dec21,610,833230,11912,5461792
Dec3-91,986,256283,75114,7952114
Dec10-162,449,175349,88217,4472492
Dec17-233,019,984431,42620,5752939
Dec24-303,723,825531,97524,2643466
Dec31-Jan64,591,705655,95728,6144088
Jan7-135,661,854808,83633,7434820
Jan14-2039,7935685
Jan21-2746,9266704
Jan28-Feb355,3397906


This is NOT a projection. Things are not likely to get that bad, But this gives you an idea how fast the virus is currently spreading, and how much worse things could get.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I see there's a lot of skepticism about this - quite possibly well founded - but I hope it's really legit cos it'd be great news if so - i.e. - another vaccine to add to the choices... but - how true is all the data?

And there is your real problem right there. There is no one to believe because the American news media has gutted its own credibility. A large faction of the media spent three years pushing conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. CNN could broadcast live video of Jesus descending from the heavens and the god fearing among the population would not believe it because of CNN's past lies. Sometime in 2016, The New York Times and the Washington Post, previously stalwarts of American journalism even if they did lean left, made a conscious decision to give up any pretext of objectivity. The chickens have now come home to roost. What covid-19 made clear is the coffin lid on MSM news has been fitted in place and we are just waiting for the nails to be hammered home. I don't see any way back, not in a time frame that is not measured in decades.

Trust the scientists? Which ones? These days scientists are little more than expert witnesses in a court trial. Each side hires the ones who support its view. The same leftists who belittle conservatives for not believing in science are the ones who spent the last decade fear mongering about GMOs, did everything they can to put roadblocks up to stop nuclear power, promoted quack medicine in the form of alternative treatments, etc. It is, "Let's trust in science but only if it supports our political views." That is true for both sides of the political aisle.

Sorry. Rant off.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
And there is your real problem right there. There is no one to believe because the American news media has gutted its own credibility. A large faction of the media spent three years pushing conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. CNN could broadcast live video of Jesus descending from the heavens and the god fearing among the population would not believe it because of CNN's past lies. Sometime in 2016, The New York Times and the Washington Post, previously stalwarts of American journalism even if they did lean left, made a conscious decision to give up any pretext of objectivity. The chickens have now come home to roost. What covid-19 made clear is the coffin lid on MSM news has been fitted in place and we are just waiting for the nails to be hammered home. I don't see any way back, not in a time frame that is not measured in decades.

Trust the scientists? Which ones? These days scientists are little more than expert witnesses in a court trial. Each side hires the ones who support its view. The same leftists who belittle conservatives for not believing in science are the ones who spent the last decade fear mongering about GMOs, did everything they can to put roadblocks up to stop nuclear power, promoted quack medicine in the form of alternative treatments, etc. It is, "Let's trust in science but only if it supports our political views." That is true for both sides of the political aisle.

Sorry. Rant off.
:oops::eek:o_O
 
A large faction of the media spent three years pushing conspiracy theories about Russian collusion.
It wasn't conspiracy theories. There was stuff over the edge, yes, but also enough verifiable information to get a lot of people indicted and convicted.

Trust the scientists? Which ones? These days scientists are little more than expert witnesses in a court trial. Each side hires the ones who support its view. The same leftists who belittle conservatives for not believing in science are the ones who spent the last decade fear mongering about GMOs, did everything they can to put roadblocks up to stop nuclear power, promoted quack medicine in the form of alternative treatments, etc. It is, "Let's trust in science but only if it supports our political views." That is true for both sides of the political aisle.
????The vast majority of scientists, including the U.S. Academy of Science, support GMOs, as far as health effects go. Environmental effects, and the way large corporations use GMOs to get farmers under their control in some parts of the world, are other matters. I agree that some on the left have made false claims about GMOs, but very few scientists will endorse them. It would be like saying anti-VAXers get scientists to support their views. Very rare.

There are legitimate issues about nuclear power, there is nothing anti-scientific about opposing it.

Some scientists have promoted research into alternative treatments, but there are very few who are recommending them for most medical purposes. While there are a lot of non-scientists pushing undocumented claims, I'm not sure this area is the exclusive province of the left. It seems to include people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Before you trash science, you ought to stop and consider that without science, we wouldn't even know what a virus is, let alone how to develop a vaccine against it. Most of the field--astrophysics, quantum physics, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and many other disciplines--chugs along, continuing to make major advances. Once in a while, an issue becomes highly politicized--like climate change, and now the pandemic--and there is legitimate disagreement about what are facts, which is nothing new at all in the history of science. Even with all that, we have made immense progress in understanding the virus and how to combat it, even if science has to drag much of society, kicking and screaming, along after it.
 
Last edited:
The argument there is that we don't shut down the economy to prevent people from getting cancer. Though economics do play a role there, too. A major reason the economy grew so much under Trump is that he loosened many environmental and safety regulations. This has consequences--many people get sick and die as a result of this. When all is said and done, it's possible that more people will die from changes in these regulations than from COVID.

We should be more realistic about the "economy" and what impacts it. Trump made the Dow average his benchmark for "his" performance. It's an international market impacted by every other market and where capital needs to hide with a shakey global outlook. Presidents may like to take credit but, save for timely announcements about tariffs that shady hedge funders know about in advance; the average 401k isn't profiting specifically from the President's actions.
As for his environmental regulation jihad; they can be undone before there is much damage. A announcement the Donald made opening the Tongass to logging at the start of Winter doesn't mean any deforesting is starting soon. The air and water quality standards can be reinstated and all of the automakers are committed to a global market that wants cleaner cars. Even the dirty coal mine owners aren't going to open soon 'cause nobody wants to pay to mine sulphur laden coal and ship their sludge to the other side of the planet.
On the other hand, comparing an easily spread virus to cancer is not a relevant comparison. People aren't catching cancer from each other last time I heard and I'm an ignorant bike rider. And most of the "mental health and depression" issues will subside with the hope of vaccines as humans are fairly hopeful given a little daylight. We just need to minimize transmission in the meantime and not drink ourselves to death. That's more of a personal challenge but you probably understand.
 
It wasn't conspiracy theories. There was stuff over the edge, yes, but also enough verifiable information to get a lot of people indicted and convicted.
If you’ll look you’ll find those convicted had nothing to do with the Russia collusion wholecloth. FBI could start an investigation of the moon being made of cheese and they will trap people for perjury and tax-evasion. It’s what they do.

Before you trash science, you ought to stop and consider that without science, we wouldn't even know what a virus is, let alone how to develop a vaccine against it.
That’s not what I got from BroDeal’s post. He’s trashing political elites for actively searching out those in the field that will confirm their political bias. Which, of course, leaves the rest of to question everybody, or confirm those we agree with because of politics.
 
Reactions: Castman
And there is your real problem right there. There is no one to believe because the American news media has gutted its own credibility. A large faction of the media spent three years pushing conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. CNN could broadcast live video of Jesus descending from the heavens and the god fearing among the population would not believe it because of CNN's past lies. Sometime in 2016, The New York Times and the Washington Post, previously stalwarts of American journalism even if they did lean left, made a conscious decision to give up any pretext of objectivity. The chickens have now come home to roost. What covid-19 made clear is the coffin lid on MSM news has been fitted in place and we are just waiting for the nails to be hammered home. I don't see any way back, not in a time frame that is not measured in decades.

Trust the scientists? Which ones? These days scientists are little more than expert witnesses in a court trial. Each side hires the ones who support its view. The same leftists who belittle conservatives for not believing in science are the ones who spent the last decade fear mongering about GMOs, did everything they can to put roadblocks up to stop nuclear power, promoted quack medicine in the form of alternative treatments, etc. It is, "Let's trust in science but only if it supports our political views." That is true for both sides of the political aisle.

Sorry. Rant off.
This probably isn't the place for this discussion, but using "scientist" as an overall term is part of the problem. For example a neurologist who focusses on the economic impact of health shouldn't be the go to for Covid-19. Yes, he is a scientist, but he is so far out of his lane that he's on a dirt road in a different country. Epidemiologists are the go to here. So "which ones?", the ones who specialize in a specific area.

Do you go to an ear, nose, and throat specialist for hip pain? I wonder if the dermatologist is a good source for pregnancy issues?

We agree that politicians on all sides have crapped it up!
 
Reactions: Castman
I don't know what happens this weekend, but the data looks like the curve might be bending here.
That's what I'm seeing. It's possible that cases are peaking, though I don't see how deaths can for a few more weeks.

If you’ll look you’ll find those convicted had nothing to do with the Russia collusion wholecloth. FBI could start an investigation of the moon being made of cheese and they will trap people for perjury and tax-evasion. It’s what they do.
It was more than that. Mueller said it wasn't his role to prosecute. He also said there was abundant evidence of crimes, and he wasn't talking about just tax evasion. People commit perjury to avoid confessing to more serious crimes.

That’s not what I got from BroDeal’s post. He’s trashing political elites for actively searching out those in the field that will confirm their political bias.
I understand that, but for either side to use science to support political bias, there has to be a substantial proportion of scientists willing to provide evidence of that. In the examples cited, there hasn't been. Scientific consensus has come down firmly on one side. Brodeal seems to be saying that whatever your view is on some issue, you can find scientists who support you. Sometimes that is the case, but a lot of it, I think, is greatly exaggerated.

Look at C19. Brodeal accuses the media of pushing conspiracy theories. There are very few scientists who have supported conspiracy theories about C19, and those who have have been subjected to withering rebuttal by other scientists. The areas where scientists have disagreed--in the projections of cases and deaths; the use of masks; the benefit of treatments like HCQ--are not in conspiracy theory territory. These are legitimate issues, and scientists have weighed in on both or multiple sides, though usually in the end a consensus has emerged.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Koronin and jmdirt

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts