Pushing back patient zero, possibly good news

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

The decisions are not being made on the basis of fatality rates, but on hospitalization rates.

And fatality rates.
School up on some ratios and proportion classes.

I have had a theory for and have shared with most people i know, that this has been here longer than we think. i have several friends and at least two co workers who were as sick as they had ever been and said that getting rid of this sickness took longer than ever and that was between one and one and a half months ago. After sharing this with my sister who lives in Columbus, OH she told me the same thing. Like I said this is just a theory and one of the coworkers went to the doctor and tested negative for the flu and she told me later she didn't know how in the world she tested negative and what on earth was it, if not the flu. The doctor told her that she must have been in the end stages of flu and that was why she tested negative.

Though I'm not sure if you have corona virus you would test negative for the flu, and i'm not even close to being educated on how sickness works, I can't help but think this just didn't pop up in the last few weeks here in the USA. Maybe it was here undetected well before that. Who knows?

a reply to: RadioRobert

And if prevalence rates are as high as suggested, those would drop precipitously as well, my little mathematician..

A percentage of cases will require hospitalization. Whatever that percentage is. Right now New York is at about 13% of those who are tested positive. It doesn't really matter how many are not tested.

As long as the numbers of cases rise, so will the numbers of cases which require hospitalization. The faster those numbers rise, the greater the stress on hospitals.

Do you have reason to think that the rate of increase is slowing? Do you have reason to think that the number requiring hospitalization is falling?

a reply to: Phage
Which is why I noted:

To be clear, this is still an emergency for the health care system. It is certainly going to strain it. Certain measures are both warranted, and common sense.

None of the studies suggest doing nothing. They suggest a possible overreaction based on knowingly incomplete and misleading data.

a reply to: RadioRobert

They suggest a possible overreaction based on knowingly incomplete and misleading data.

Not any studies I've seen. Or are you back to just paying attention to fatalities?

But how long do you suggest waiting to find out?

a reply to: RadioRobert

How many US flu cases, deaths prior to 27 Jan were undiagnosed/untested COVID-19 cases?

The head of the CDC testified in public that cases diagnosed in America( after postmortems) were definitely corona and NOT flu. The problem is he said no dates. I saw this on TV. The questioner didn't follow up and ask when did these cases happen.

Does it make any sense this kind of stuff inst known or followed up on?

a reply to: keenmachine

I shared in another thread (admitting it was "crazy") that I got knocked flat by something for two weeks in Dec-Jan that seems to fit the bill. Battling occasional colds or flu is not terribly uncommon, but this was quite severe. I never go to the doctor, but I was being pushed hard to go. Took another two weeks after that to get back to speed. So about a month affected. Rest of the house experienced zero or mild symptoms.
Could be particular reaction to some other new bug, but it seems it matches up well with what we know of COVID-19. Probably nothing unless they keep pushing back patient zero(-es). I'd be interested in taking an antibody test when it becomes available.

a reply to: Phage

Well you could start by reading any of three epidemiologist-written/sourced articles in the OP.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The ones regarding mortality rates? Those ones?

I don't see anything about overreaction regarding hospitalization rates. The opposite, in fact. I see concern.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

The decisions are not being made on the basis of fatality rates, but on hospitalization rates.

Hospitalization rates are an inaccurate means to gauge severity when taken alone.

We have to determine the infection rate and then that'll drive the current rates down by 10x to 100x.

There are other mitigating factors as well.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Hospitalization rates are an inaccurate means to gauge severity when taken alone.

Yes. I know. That's the point.
What matters now is the raw numbers of people who require hospitalization.

a reply to: Phage

Are you just going to talk in circles?

Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity.
...
That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational.

Even Fauci admits that economic factors impact the healthcare system:

“Obviously, this is something that’s under very intense discussion. What the president is trying to do is to balance the public health issues with the fact that this is having an enormous impact on the economy of the country, which may actually indirectly even cause a considerable amount of harm and difficultly, even health wise.

“So, it’s a delicate balancing act, which the president is trying to get it right, and we’re under very intense discussions right now about what the most appropriate timeline is and if we do modify it, how we modify it.”

WMAL

Are you just being deliberately obtuse (again)?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

The ones regarding mortality rates? Those ones?

I don't see anything about overreaction regarding hospitalization rates. The opposite, in fact. I see concern.

This whole thing was a massive overreaction considering that half the population has unprotected sex with random partners as often as they can score.

It's a bunch of diseased dirty ppl hypocritically telling me I should worry about the new strain of the Common Cold.

Seriously Phage, all science will prove this was Much Ado about Nothing as I've emphatically stated every day since this began.

I've been absolutely clear about it. If you have any actual concerns please share them and we can do some thoughtful research to debunk them. At most it'll take 15 minutes.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

Hospitalization rates are an inaccurate means to gauge severity when taken alone.

Yes. I know. That's the point.
What matters now is the raw numbers of people who require hospitalization.

Those numbers are small and it's important to note most of those people would be hospitalized from most variants of the common cold.

There's nothing special about this CoV aside from the MSM hysteria that was based on utter bs. All doctors who played along should lose their licenses if I had any say in it.

I'd even prosecute some of them for screaming fire in a crowded theatre when there was no fire.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: keenmachine

I shared in another thread (admitting it was "crazy") that I got knocked flat by something for two weeks in Dec-Jan that seems to fit the bill. Battling occasional colds or flu is not terribly uncommon, but this was quite severe. I never go to the doctor, but I was being pushed hard to go. Took another two weeks after that to get back to speed. So about a month affected. Rest of the house experienced zero or mild symptoms.
Could be particular reaction to some other new bug, but it seems it matches up well with what we know of COVID-19. Probably nothing unless they keep pushing back patient zero(-es). I'd be interested in taking an antibody test when it becomes available.

Those results would be interesting.

My guess is that it could be any of the 200+ cold causing viruses. Most of them can do that.

CoV 19 isn't special compared with the whole zoo of pathogens we have around us generally speaking. All the same rules apply.

a reply to: Phage

So Phage, the real question here is how do you feel now that it's becoming much more obvious this whole episode was a sham?

Within months it'll be proven beyond even the deepest doubts that the media went insane and proved they don't have a clue what they're talking about. All fake doctors talking in the media included (it's quackery so they are fake).

I want a minimum of 1,000 licenses revoked and that's just the beginning. We seriously need to clean house with Media and Medicine in general. Any idiot can go get a degree and then push false bs and wreck economies and lives apparently. There MUST be blowback and consequences to this recklessly negligent behavior.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Are you just going to talk in circles?

No.

I see that neither you or Ioannidis offer a suggestion about how long to wait. But he wrote that Op-ed a week ago. I wonder if his opinion might have changed. The numbers certainly have.

a reply to: infolurker
What, you cannot accept that the oligarchy owned Global media machine is able to force emotional responses from people on command by using a microscope on any Illness they want and just program people with repetitive messaging?? It's not just the message either, it's the music and tones they use when reporting as well. 70 years of neroscie ce studies have taught the rulers how you react to stimuli better than you could ever know.

If you replaced covid-19 with the average seasonal cold, and saturated the airwaves with 24/7 update of every single recorded case and fatality, but only confirmed cases, you would achieve the same exact results with similar numbers of the I'll.

It's why the focus is on confirmed cases, because the ratio will always look scary until you test as many as possible.

a reply to: Phage

If Ebola or HIV went airborne and developed infection rates like the cold I would agree to a full shutdown OK?

But this is a Coronavirus, the common cold. Even in the .05% chance SARS developed more than half would survive with proper treatment.

This isn't the Nipah plague by any measures. They totally #d up BIG TIME on this. Cried wolf over a mouse.

Their Credibility now = Zero.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Absolutely correct.

They scientifically engineered mind control propaganda and this event is perfect proof of how programmed everyone is by TV programming.

I'm still mind blown that most haven't caught on yet.

My theory is they are poisoned by chemicals and so their brainwave functions are destabilized and disrupted by all the internal damage to their organs.