Bill wrote:I know the ace receptor is what smokers damage, hence why anyone who currently smokes is PHARKEDD.
Ziege wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqn5UtAkBL0&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
Thought this might interest a few straight white male included
Bill wrote:I know the ace receptor is what smokers damage, hence why anyone who currently smokes is PHARKEDD.
Bill wrote:
Dude I could swap the word china with america and you still wouldnt make any sense
Stix wrote:You're quite literate for a zombie trekkin.
Better stay indoors though...a good few of us have plenty of Zmax left...
Baronvonrort wrote:
You're the one who is not willing to listen or understand you keep trying to fudge the numbers with people where the outcome is unknown for them then slag off anyone who doesn't follow your flawed logic.
I don't think our government is hiding anything on confirmed cases or deaths here, I think our death rate will increase over the next few weeks how high it goes I don't know it's still early days.
85% death rate in the UK for Kung Flu cases where outcome is known with only 15% recovery. How many of the other 13,649 diagnosed cases will recover or die we don't know.https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
This virus doesn't kill people overnight it takes a few weeks, 3 weeks ago none of us would have predicted this worldwide lockdown we're currently in.
There are no flaws in my logic can you see the flaws in your logic which I have pointed out?
Ziege wrote:Well a true number is actually impossible to get due to the severe lack of proper testing, there aren't enough tests and professionals to carry them out, so the real numbers can't and won't be known so that is going to make you all inaccurate for now
Ziege wrote:Well a true number is actually impossible to get due to the severe lack of proper testing, there aren't enough tests and professionals to carry them out, so the real numbers can't and won't be known so that is going to make you all inaccurate for now
TassieTiger wrote:Hey trek - don’t slide your last name is Richards? Got a brother called Keith?
You sound like my grand father - used to sleep next to the camp fire over night, wake up with frost on his head, had most of your diseases, had half a dozen shot gun pellets in him, would drink beer for breakfast lunch and dinner - the absolute salt of the earth. Stay safe mate. This s**t is real.
trekin wrote:
A little bit of fear mongering hey. Have had rheumatic fever as a baby, back in the days when this killed 7 out of 10 babies, had pneumonia in my mid 20,s, that had me on a morgue slab, under the aircon outlet, packed in ice for 12 hours, worked 13 years in coal mines back when PPE's weren't for real coal miners, have smoked for the last 43 years, and had this virus back in January.
Bill wrote:Trekin I work in operating theatres almost daily and my brother and his partner are both Gen surgeons, so I've a fair idea on the current situation in regards to what the effects will be on different parts of the community, and as for claiming youve already had the Covid 19 flu back in January you might want to research the first known case in Australia.
I wish you all the best in getting thru to the other side of the pandemic, the affects for smokers can be upto 3 times worse.
Ziad wrote:Yep... and that's why there are people with a lot of experience compiling the information all over the world. Probably best to listen to them
Anyway TFE and baron are probably set in their ways and will keep thinking their way is correct.
2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): estimating the case fatality rate – a word of caution
Publication Date: 07.02.2020
Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20203
At present, it is tempting to estimate the case fatality rate by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases. The resulting number, however, does not represent the true case fatality rate and might be off by orders of magnitude.
Diagnosis of viral infection will precede recovery or death by days to weeks and the number of deaths should therefore be compared to the past case counts
https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2020.20203
Bill wrote:Ahh Trekin you'll get your chance to convince us all when you get tested very shortly for antibodies from Covid 19. Let us all know the results.
trekin wrote:[
The first known case in Aus was detected only after they had knowledge of, and the tests to detect it. Can you, or any one else, unequivocally discount that, I or hundreds of other QLDER's who suffered the same symptoms back in Dec/Jan
Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally
In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally#
trekin wrote:And add to that the fact that it had spread to most countries well before the first confirmed cases outside of China.
[/quote]Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally
In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally#
poid wrote:Baron, numbers tell a story but you need to understand the numbers before you try and tell that story.
So here's the issue:
- confirmed cases: a data point which is marked by a positive test result. That is, ignored manipulation by the likes of China, a pretty reliable data point
- confirmed deaths: again, a data point that is marked by a specific event, the death of an individual. Same applies as above.
- recovered: from the John Hopkins site: "Recovered cases outside China are estimates based on local media reports, and may be substantially lower than the true number."
This is why there is a disconnect between the figure you calculate, and the estimated mortality rate which is published. It is more difficult to obtain the number recovered, because there is no event that declares someone to be recovered aside from another test. This would be typically be administered for more serious patients, but not for patients with mild symptoms. The estimated rate is an attempt to use the known characteristics of the virus to come up with the long-term mortality rate across a population that we will observe once this all washes out.
Or another way of looking at it, you're seeing a 17% mortality rate based on the recovered estimate and let's say that is the more serious cases per the logic above. The typical number of more serious cases is suggested to be 15-20%; 17% of 15-20% is about 2.5% to 3.5% overall mortality.
So it's not as straightforward as the 17% figure, nor the 3% figure. There is still a lot of noise to work through.