I don't think that was the reason for failing to recommend masks, at least in the early going -- I chalked up the early failures to officials fearing that front line medical workers wouldn't have enough masks.

US will probably pass a law to let US citizens sue Chinese government. It’s what they’ve been doing recently with Saudis and Iran.

US, Euros and rest of the world in a position to do so, will probably demand reparations.

Biotech sector probably won’t change much. There has been an enormous feeding frenzy on pretty much every biotech firm even tangentially related to viruses. If you had a company with a patent on “mRNA” or some such thing, even without anything close to a product, someone (most likely from China) will throw money at you. It’s possible some of those sales will be reversed but I doubt it. They lack the kind of high profile Trump wants to make his name with.

Maybe it weighed on it, but they held that position a long time after there were more than enough. There are major US physician organizations who STILL advise against broad public mask wearing because the evidence doesn't support it. The WHO also has as similar position on blanket mask wearing.

If people are told to wear masks they can easily sew their own. We're not talking N95 here, which frontline workers need, which were already all accounted for by governments already, so population advice would make little difference. If they thought masks worked they would have recommended them imo. They didn't think they worked and were too staid to recommend something without sufficient evidence. They also failed to grasp the significance of asymptomatic transmission; again the experts openly dismissed the early case study which proved asymptomatic transmission beyond doubt (the German one that we discussed here).

"All the papers I read show low prevalence of special damage stuff"
"Great, can I see those papers?"
"Woah woah woah, YOU'RE the one making the claim here"

I independently confirmed it by thinking about it.

Where do you get the claim it's <10%?

All subjective opinion, obviously, but this is a poker forum and positing gut %s seems standard.

Heart stuff that's beyond me and brain inflammation causing things like encephalitis lethargica.

You probably know I don't have a solid best estimate. I don't think many people do. That's what scares me. Certainly not zero.

Enough to establish my concerns, yes.

I mean the new studies coming out are the evidence. You may or not find it compelling enough to believe them strongly, but I'm not sure how you arrive at "baseless scare".

Probably in a bad mood but also sick of thought leaders dismissing anything that doesn't jibe with their narrative.

insightful. thanks grizy.

Pushing to top, anyone?

Loving the TS x YS crossover

The ramifications would be largely dependent on who's in the White House.

Seedless, I think you can be more discerning than to get so worked up about some weak article like that. Just the sloppiness in the first sentence should have you inclined to ignore it. The article subtitle is "Actual cases may be as much as 6 to 24 times higher..." And then the first sentence in the article is "The number of COVID-19 infections nationwide is 6 to 24 times higher than the 3.9 million confirmed cases..." Funny how it goes from may be to is just like that.

I skimmed the rest of that crap, but I don't know why you're homing in on July 19th. What is the significance of that date? The study took random blood samples from people between March 23rd and May 12th. Was there any place (of the ten locations, which varied from cities to entire states) that had a 24x multiplier besides Missouri? Missouri had very little prevalence of the disease back in early May, so just a bit of variance or false positives could explain that discrepancy, especially if they're only testing about 1800 people in that location.

I think cases are probably undercounted by something like 4x–6x nationally. That puts the death rate at like 0.7% or so, and I think it'll trend down slightly from that for various reasons.

I got a good idea. I live in the south, and what I am going to do is put a poll on my Facebook to try and identify what % of people on my Facebook have caught this thing (or at least were symptomatic). I have over 600 friends on there (decent sample size), and the vast majority of them are young (which a lot of people are expecting are making up the majority of cases down here). I am not going to ask them the question, "Do you know anyone that has been infected?" I am instead going to ask them, "Have you been infected with SARS-CoV-2? The virus that causes Covid-19? Were you symptomatic?". The reason I am doing this is because I am skeptical of this 10 - 20% infected stuff. If anyone has seroprevalence data, please show me.

EDIT: I will also be asking what the age of the respondents is.

Also, does anyone have data to show what % of cases in the United States are actually false positives/false negatives? Thank you.

It's 2020 and I can't even post a poll on my feed? What the **** lizard man Zuckerberg!

Like, everywhere? State of Tejas? The south overall?

I mean, what do you think is a reasonable multiple of confirmed vs actual? I mean surely not everyone with symptoms gets a test right? What would you like to define as the asymp % (that go untested)?

State of LA has 133k, 4.6mm pop. I cannot fathom the real number (asypm included) is less than 460k.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...dashboard.html

Navigate to LA. Unfortunately rd2 isn't available yet.

I think this is the actual study the 6x-24x article was referencing?

They projected 16x under-reported in early April for LA. This multiple goes down over time as testing wasn't as capable then.

Or try dividing some state death totals by what you think the IFR (age adjusted?) is.

Look man, I am not making a definitive claim that 10 - 20% of Texans have not caught this thing. Actually, if you follow my post, I disappeared from this forum for quite awhile and stopped following the data on this thing. I admit that I am not up to date with all the current various data over the past couple of weeks/months. Here is what I am asking though. If we look at Texas, we have a total confirmed case count of (524,356), which is about 1.8% of all Texans infected. The question I would ask is this. If we are assuming somewhere between 5x - 10x of actual cases are not being identified within the population, what percent of this estimate are in-reality false positives? We are assuming that there are actually 2.6 million - 5.2 million Texans infected with this thing. What I am asking is this, what % of the total 524,356 are false positives?

6 to 24 times higher than the 3.9 million confirmed cases

That's a hell of a range. They just pulled it out their proverbial, this isn't science. Let me pull something out of mine. I think it's about 7-10% of the US, about 8x higher than confirmed cases. 1% death rate first wave for 130K = 12 million (4-5% also fits broadly with most of Europe which locked down at a similar time) followed by 0.2-0.3% death rate young summer wave = 15-20 million for 30 million total or about 9%. Good enough for me.

I can't see any reasoning or data that puts it above 10x. 24x is fanciful.

This sounds more likely, what is your estimation for the asymptomatic rate? Essentially, what % of Americans do you think have actually become symptomatic?

The other issue I am struggling with is this. Why are we even assuming there are 5x/7x or 10x cases going unnoticed? How is everyone coming to this conclusion? If there is an answer for this (which there very well may be), please let me know. Why is it more likely to be 5x vs 10x? Or vise-versa?

It's a good question. There have been 20% of the US population worth of tests, and 1.6% of the US population have come back positive. For it to be more than 5x undetected, the positive rate would have to be higher in the untested population than in the test population, which seems an extremely unlikely event. There's a lot of wiggle room with multiple tests for one person, let's say 2x, but not a lot. It's one of many reasons why 24x is a laugh-out-the-room cuckshow in that "study".

People forget too easily that researchers and experts are morons like everyone else, there's this aura of intelligence and care that's not at all deserved. If anything I trust the average person on average topics more than I trust a researher on science topics; the competence of the average person is higher at doing average things than a researcher doing research things.

I agree that 24x is obvious nonsense. America's total confirmed infected 15 days ago was 4.37 million, and as of today America has somewhere around 156k -167k deaths. 4.37 million x 24 ~ 105 million, LMFAO. (167,000/105,000,000) = 0.15. (156,000/105,000,000) = 0.14. A fatality rate of 0.14% - 0.15%..... Yea nonsense. These #'s are barely above seasonal Influenza.

For the record my comment is founded on just the early data so far and represented as nothing more than my concern. i am not representing that i have facts or strong data backed concerns at this point.

Your view is akin to your bet on the data that we've seen as well. It is not founded either. It is simply your bet as to where you think things are going.

It's all a big data shitshow.

Look at these states with close to the same confirmed cases and wildly different death #s.



I mean I guess you explain it by when they were hit? Age adjusted (+nursing home), and testing capacity, but still, huge differences.


I posted this link a while back, it got updated July 30th.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ing-homes.html

Mass with a shocking 64% of deaths attributed to nursing homes.

But wow look at NY! Only 20%! Cuomo really is the best.

JK, they sweep that **** under the rug in NY by only counting a nursing home death if they die on nursing home property. Lol

https://apnews.com/212ccd87924b6906053703a00514647f

The thing many people seem to not understand is that the main killer of covid is the overwhelming of the health care facilities such that people cannot get care.

Without care that death rate spikes up massively.

So unlike seasonal influenza which is left unchecked to run its course, COvid needs many interventions such as distancing and mask wearing, and strategic shut downs to allow for some alleviation of the stress on the systems and them to catch up and get ahead of the patient load.

You just can't sustain a system where multiples more people walk in the hospital doors each day then they can discharge.

That is why it is, in no way comparable to seasonal flu.

A quick look suggests also what I point to above. The concentration of when the cases hit. i have not deep dived on it, but that appears to be a factor.

Total cases between date X and Y is less important than the distribution of those cases. If the curve is more flat or stretched out, you end up with better outcomes.

Please.

Good preliminary news on leronlimab from Cytodyne. This is also a press release and therefore suspect, but leronlimab has been used for HIV and is generally safe. The press release indicates that 90 per cent of the test patients receiving it (all with mild or moderate C19 cases) improved as opposed to 71 per cent receiving a placebo. Probably not a game changer, but every little bit helps.

Why we're not pooling tests is utterly beyond me.