It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Novel coronavirus is a very dangerous disease

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Unfortunately your statements must be incorrect as it is fact that the UK’s testing numbers were untrue so your sums are based on false numbers...




posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Your source:

188.639 cases, 8.977 deaths


0.5% is certainly not the mortality rate here.

Also, Bonuspoints for solving the question why only 11.854 free beds might be a problem in what... 5 weeks from now, if the number of new infections keeps rising with this pace of 2.287 cases per 7 days.



posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip
Oh I get it now, your the Zika Map guy!!!!
Listen man, come back to me when you have a reliable number of how many corona virus infection there were every year for the last twenty years. If you actually bother to research it and find an answer, I am betting your going to quit yappin on about the fallen sky, which I will happily sell back to you for a premium if you like to display them next to your collection of bridges.

What part of over a 99% survival rate aren't you getting?? Stop renaming the cold!



posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

What's the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) though?

If most countries are primarily testing those with symptoms, the elderly, the medical fragile...of course the CFR is going to be high.

What CFR are countries that have conducted widespread randomized testing reporting?

Like Iceland?

Their CFR is .5%



edit on 6/15/2020 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoctorBluechip
a reply to: Dumbass
Those figures from the link don't necessarily add up too well.
The health care workers are 35% of the total positive tests , 11 have died . When there's over 6000 nl deaths , 11 represents a tiny fraction of total deaths for 35% of positive tests. Something's wrong there , not sure what yet. The hospitalisation rate in nl is over 20 % of positive tests too.
Also those healthcare figures should allow some idea of how many asymptomatic cases there are per positive tests , but it's not raised.



That's a matter of interpretation. Hence I said my interpretation of the numbers. I'm not quite sure about the NL or any other country for that matter.

There are two sample groups apparent in these tests. We know for sure testing is done limited. So testing is done for people that have complaints about symptoms and report to the hospital or wherever they go when feeling really ill. These are already more severe cases than the light symptom "I have a cough and stay home" people.

I would say that is similar as people falling down a stairs. If you would go by the numbers of people that requested medical attention after falling down a stairs, falling down a stairs is far more dangerous and deadly than when you count in everyone that fell down but did not report that in.

What we do know is that healthcare workers (and especially hospital workers got tested. These people were tested with or without symptoms and the less severe cases were caught in these tests.

Again the stairs. I'm this case they looked at everyone not only the ones that got hurt and needed medical attention but simply everyone that fell down

So two ways of measuring. Which is your OP stated as well. There is limited testing done. And within that limited group there is a high CFR. But the limits imposed on the group already cherry picked the severe cases. And by that the CFR will show a to high number that is not representative.

So I dismiss the Hopkins cherry picked sample data with the almost 15%. 15% of 17K is (made easy) 2500 deaths while there are only 11. 11 of 17K, let's say 17 or 17K is 0.1%. That's nowhere near the data of 15%.

For me the sample group that is tested because of risk and not because they reported in with symptoms gives a better view. Mostly because it does not cherrypick the data from people who show signs of having it, but it cherrypicks people who are known to be at risk because they are in contact with the virus.

So unless we have decent samples talking about a CFR does not make any sense. It's like asking to a 1000 people in an AA meeting if they know anyone that has a case of alcohol poisoning. You would get some impressive numbers, but won't be the numbers when you ask that in a sample group of shoppers.



posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The SARS-coronavirus is not covid-19 till you get the disease. The disease if actually the cytokine storm, not the virus itself.

It is dangerous for people who have certain conditions, I know someone who has a bad case, he has COPD and it is taking a toll on him, been on a ventilator for a couple of weeks, his wife has it too, she was a covid nurse, but her disease is not that bad. She did have oxygen supplementation at home and felt like crap after getting it at work in Lower Michigan in the hospital she worked in. She is doing pretty good now, but still is weak and not right yet after a month of having it. She is still off work, they wanted her to come back to work in the covid unit again, but she said with her husband in the hospital she could not concentrate because she is still sick and the two things together is too much.

It is a bad disease for some people, including people taking some meds that interfere with proper immune response.



posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

What's the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) though?

If most countries are primarily testing those with symptoms, the elderly, the medical fragile...of course the CFR is going to be high.

What CFR are countries that have conducted widespread randomized testing reporting?

Like Iceland?

Their CFR is .5%




While the *estimations* of ifr are relevant , the point being made here is that
How can apparent widespread infection exist when 6700 000 tests have been conducted but
ONLY 300 000 have come back positive ?

if , AS YOU Say , only the vulnerable , the likely to get sick ,etc are being tested , and STILL only a small ratio of positives is being returned ,
HOW can the virus be that prevalent in the wider community ?

IFR has NO handle whatsoever on wider transmission without testing , so adding a GUESS to water down the CFR into an IFR , only makes for
less reliable data .

Testing is used to determine R0 , testing is used to determine new infections
THerefore testing IS of the wider community and Does Not support * hopeful* IFR estimates .
And when that's the case and so few infections actually exist yet , the CFR is both representative of the severity and justifiably high .



posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I watch this graph daily since mid march.

Numbers are declining steady. The free bed number was always around 11-12k because the hospitals have asigned more beds to ICU. Last week we had around 600 daily cases, now it is around 400 daily cases.




0.5% is certainly not the mortality rate here.

You are right! It is 0.3% higher.

From 188.639 cases since the beginning of all this, 8.977 died with OR from Covid-19.
That is 4,76% but wait
- without taking into consideration that many of these tests trigger even if fragments of other covid family members are in the blood.
- without counting in asymptomatic cases
- without the ones that already were compromised by other chronic sickness.

Robert-Koch institute is saying that the unknown numbers are 4 - 11 fold!

Okay, so we now have
188.639 times four = 1.19%
188.639 times eleven = 0.43%

If we use the average of both we arrive at 0.8%.
Remember we still need to subtract
- the amount of people, that would have had a high risk dying from other infections like the yearly flu. Patients in coma states or where a simple yeast infection on the skin leads to more problems.
- the false positives.
- the eager will to count in every death as COVID-19 as soon as the failing tests discover that at some point in the past, this person had contact with ANY kind of corona virus.

18,75 times lower than what the OP is trying to sell to us.

Definite fear mongering, his disclaimer does not change that.

You must hate math.

edit on 16-6-2020 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 04:14 AM
link   
The latest, from the U.S. CoronaVirus Task Force, as of 6/15/2020.

twitter.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain




That is 4,76% but wait


I'm still waiting.



You must hate math.


Maybe I just don't get yours, care to share your equations? We always knew that mild cases went below the radar, which is why we have zero data for something like a new index called an 'Infection Fatality Rate'. As of now I'd say the science is sketchy at best.

Lets hope we'll have enough beds for a second wave then, I have no clue how many beds they could still assign to ICU's.
edit on 16-6-2020 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The equations are there. The science is sketchy, I agree.

Regardless the number speak for themselves, you just have to read my post unbiased and try to follow.

Care to refute any numbers?
edit on 16-6-2020 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Why argue about incomplete sets of data when we already agree that the science is sketchy?

Next!





posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I thought you want to discuss the falling numbers, the overly gross panic making, but okay.

I live in a small sub-state in the south of Germany, my sub-state is dark colored, we seem to have one of the most cases, compared to others. We Swabians. Yet I know no one that died from it, know just one person that got it and had to quarantine.

COVID-19 is a bad bug if you get it in the wrong circumstances. I said it in February that I suspect they push it up to see the publics reaction to certain things. That is also important on some levels, but for what price?
edit on 16-6-2020 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2020 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You mean the gleaning of net reality ...

No one mentioned here the excess deaths . Eg


The New York Times, the Economist and the Financial Times now publish updated figures for excess deaths in multiple countries. The New York Times and the Economist show Jakarta, Indonesia with only 84 confirmed Covid-19 deaths in March, but 1,000 total excess burial licences (according to the New York Times) or 1,543 (according to the Economist).


Everyone's happy to cite excess undetected cases to justify a low IFR , but what about facts like these ?

Excess deaths are certain figures to work with and they increase the number of deaths (which correlate to the pandemic curve both upwards and downwards ) by about a third on average.
In fact


The large excess in other deaths is one reason why we can’t reliably compare the confirmed Covid-19 death tolls around the world. In retrospect, the drooping curve charts that you may have seen in newspapers or in the government’s daily briefing can imply a more precise understanding of the outbreaks in different countries than we ever really had. (That is why the Financial Times, whose charts have become central to many people’s understanding of the epidemic, has recently switched its attention to excess mortality.)


It's a dangerous disease , more dangerous than you and all these others , the msm and governments wish to give it credit for.
You call this fearmongering , but that's set against the prevalence of your of blase attitudes and wishful thinking .

we don't know the true covid 19 survival rate yet
edit on 16-6-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2020 @ 02:52 AM
link   
We may not know the exact death rate, but logic says, it has to be lower if we count in asymptomatic people and take into account that not everyone may died from COVID-19 but with a positive result coming back.

That would lower the numbers, percentage wise they can only stay stable or go down.



posted on Jun, 17 2020 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse
in That case, a corona virus caused cold, or a bad/sever cold as it would have been called before 2020 would be as dangerous to your friend any other year while suffering with COPD. It is people with that condition and a handful of others that make up the over 160,000 dead every year in the USA if they come down with a corona virus cold.

Your weak colds are likely from Rhino virus. The strong nasty ones are from corona viruses. But in the age of newspeak, the cold has gone extinct and has been replaced with COVID-19, the deadly new disease, that is ... pretty much as lethal as the common cold with nearly identical symptoms??

I wouldn't never have made such a fuss if the cabal did not try to use this to literally destroy our country. Its too bad cattle are too stupid to read for themselves. Its why video games marketed towards the masses barely require any reading anymore. The game just talks. Great way to condition people out of the habit of reading. Reading, being the chief fundamental process to do research and find truth and staying self empowered.



posted on Jun, 17 2020 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: rickymouse
in That case, a corona virus caused cold, or a bad/sever cold as it would have been called before 2020 would be as dangerous to your friend any other year while suffering with COPD. It is people with that condition and a handful of others that make up the over 160,000 dead every year in the USA if they come down with a corona virus cold.

Your weak colds are likely from Rhino virus. The strong nasty ones are from corona viruses. But in the age of newspeak, the cold has gone extinct and has been replaced with COVID-19, the deadly new disease, that is ... pretty much as lethal as the common cold with nearly identical symptoms??

I wouldn't never have made such a fuss if the cabal did not try to use this to literally destroy our country. Its too bad cattle are too stupid to read for themselves. Its why video games marketed towards the masses barely require any reading anymore. The game just talks. Great way to condition people out of the habit of reading. Reading, being the chief fundamental process to do research and find truth and staying self empowered.


This is a little worse than the coronavirus cold, it is a little worse than the flu too. But it is true, people with these kinds of conditions usually get pretty sick when they do get cold. I do not know if he is going to make it I have a problem with cytikine storms from flu vaccinations, I cannot get them and I was told by my doctor who saw what happened twenty years ago never to get the vaccine, he mentioned the vaccine can kill me because of the overreaction but said I could also have the same thing happen if I got the flu. He mentioned though, I would definitely be better off not taking the vaccine since I never really got any serious flu or virus, my immune system fought them quick and efficiently except I found that when I was on beta blockers, I would get bronchitis and pleuracy. My chronic bronchitis has not been back anymore since I don't take them anymore.



posted on Jun, 17 2020 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse
I am sending your friend positive energy for a full and hasty recovery. I believe you will soon have an opportune time for a good ol chat over drinks, and remembering the fun times. May you all enjoy good health and happiness.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join