30,000-40,000 ventilators urgently needed for New York

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: FinallyAwake

No problem it was the “ He was not “ that made it sound definitive .

Damn, I didn't notice that 😕
Thanks for understanding 👍🏻

originally posted by: UKTruth
Your article is from over 3 weeks ago.
The reason less ventilators are needed is because the spread is slowing - due to mitigation.
Not that complicated to understand.

No, the IHME models accounted for FULL mitigation, but thanks for stopping by with a one-liner.

You personally predicted 1.2 million deaths without mitigation (after we began mitigation...). I predict 327 million deaths without mitigation, so it's a good thing we shut everything down, even though that number is completely unfalsifiable because we took mitigation action.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: UKTruth
Your article is from over 3 weeks ago.
The reason less ventilators are needed is because the spread is slowing - due to mitigation.
Not that complicated to understand.

No, the IHME models accounted for FULL mitigation, but thanks for stopping by with a one-liner.

You personally predicted 1.2 million deaths without mitigation (after we began mitigation...). I predict 327 million deaths without mitigation, so it's a good thing we shut everything down, even though that number is completely unfalsifiable because we took mitigation action.

Nope - It was more than a one liner.
Models are predictions.
The mitigation has worked better than forecast. Obviously.
...and no, I did not predict 1.2 million deaths. They were the known forecasts of others, which I agreed with.
We HAVE mitigated.
The forecast with mitigation is much lower... 100-200k, which is about what the US will end up seeing.

But keep it up. I can see why you have to cover for the fact you though this was just another flu.
Cheers

a reply to: UKTruth

Dr. Fauci himself coauthored this piece while he was simultaneously scaring you with boogeyman stories at press conferences:

. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

I don't remember ever saying it was just another flu. Are you going to source that quote for me? Or just make up more deflective lies across multiple threads? I bet I can "predict" the outcome of that question better than the boogeyman models the CDC Director admitted were to scare you into accepting draconian mitigation action infringing on your civil liberties.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: UKTruth

Dr. Fauci himself coauthored this piece while he was simultaneously scaring you with boogeyman stories at press conferences:

. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

I don't remember ever saying it was just another flu. Are you going to source that quote for me? Or just make up more deflective lies across multiple threads? I bet I can "predict" the outcome of that question better than the boogeyman models the CDC Director admitted were to scare you into accepting draconian mitigation action infringing on your civil liberties.

In the paper - published two months ago:

If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases...

As with your initial post on this thread, you are using old information in a changing situation to try and justify your initial mistake about the severity of this virus.

We don't need any assumptions or theories now we have more data.

In the US after just 2 months.
4.2m tests
819k infected
45k deaths
5.5% mortality rate from infection.

a reply to: UKTruth

Uh, every single cross-sectional screen has shown this to be true... It's not an assumption.
No source for me saying it was just another flu, eh?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: UKTruth

Uh, every single cross-sectional screen has shown this to be true... It's not an assumption.
No source for me saying it was the flu, eh?

sources please.
All of the 'every single cross sectional screen' you refer to - hopefully you don't come back with the Chinese propaganda pushed by Stanford University. I've seen you shilling for China on another thread about that.

I would also point out that what you responded to was a discussion in relation to reported data (not speculation about unreported cases) - Grambler clearly stated without doubt that the rate would fall as more people were tested. It didn't - it went up. He was wrong. Badly wrong.

I’m glad they weren’t needed, aren’t you?

I’m glad not as many reached the point of needed that piece of equipment.
It think it also turned out that vents became the very last option, that they were turned to less often, due to ineffectiveness, or even tissue damage.

a reply to: UKTruth

Haha I'm shilling for China now?

The Stanford study, the USC study in LA, the random screen in Boston, the homeless shelter in Boston, the carrier whose whole crew was tested resulting in 60% of cases showing asymptomatic, the cruise ships, etc, etc are ALL just shilling for China, eh?

How about these Ge rmans saying that testing is catching only 6% of cases worldwide and 1.6% in the US? Any comments on methodology, or is everyone collecting data you don't like just a Chinese shill?

originally posted by: spacedoubt
I’m glad they weren’t needed, aren’t you?

I’m glad not as many reached the point of needed that piece of equipment.
It think it also turned out that vents became the very last option, that they were turned to less often, due to ineffectiveness, or even tissue damage.

Exactly right.
Better to be over prepared than under prepared.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: UKTruth

Haha I'm shilling for China now?

The Stanford study, the USC study in LA, the random screen in Boston, the homeless shelter in Boston, the carrier whose whole crew was tested resulting in 60% of cases showing asymptomatic, the cruise ships, etc, etc are ALL just shilling for China, eh?

How about these Ge rmans saying that testing is catching only 6% of cases worldwide and 1.6% in the US? Any comments on methodology, or is everyone collecting data you don't like just a Chinese shill?

Yes, you are shilling for China.
See how that works? It's easy for you to call people US Govt shills when they don't agree with you, but oh no, you couldn;t possibly be shilling for China. Yet you are.

Let's take just the first of your Chinese Shill studies.

Researchers are engaged in a fierce debate over the startling estimates in a Stanford study that suggested as many as 81,000 people could already have been infected with coronavirus in Santa Clara County, with some of the world’s top number crunchers calling the study sloppy, biased and an example of “how NOT to do statistics.”

www.mercurynews.com...

here's another beauty ref the LA study:

The Los Angeles study was smaller than the Santa Clara County study, testing fewer than 1,000 people. This puts it at greater risk of distorted results. Researchers there plan to repeat the study to improve the accuracy of their results and track the virus’ spread.

However, researchers in LA took a more representative sample of residents than the Stanford team, using a market research firm rather than recruiting study subjects through Facebook, and including more minority groups.

They both used the same test kit, which is not FDA approved and has a 90 to 95% accuracy rate.

The Stanford study’s authors said they adjusted for the test kit’s performance and their limited sampling techniques to estimate the prevalence of the virus in Santa Clara County.

But over the weekend, some of the nation’s top number crunchers said their extrapolation of the results rests on a flimsy foundation.

I doubt you've even bothered to look at the other side, just grasping at anything to avoid having to admit you were dead wrong about this virus.

Now I will refer back to the ACTUAL data.
The mortality rate is 5.5% based on those testing positive from the 4million plus tests carried out to date.

a reply to: UKTruth

Can you post how sloppy all the other tests are too? Actually discuss methodology instead of getting quotes saying they are sloppy?

Even if you suggest the results are not representative or a true cross -section of the population, surely the fact everyone is finding large samples of antibodies in people who thought they had had no contact with the virus is indicative of widespread prevalence beyond the number we are catching by testing. One might argue that the cross-sections are not properly representative of the entire population to reliably extrapolate for that population(not that you bothered), but the numbers sampled still exist. Large numbers of untested still exist. That automatically increases your denominator and falsifies the data set that you yourself prefer.

When doctors tell sick people to stay home unless they are seriously ill instead of getting tested. It also creates a massive underreport of cases even if every other epidemiologist in the world is "shilling for China". Everyone knows that is true. It's axiomatic. Just like the existence of large numbers of asymptomatics.

You can't or won't address any of the data for anyone else's data-- or "systemic error" in your own numbers. Says it all, really.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: UKTruth

Can you post how sloppy all the other tests are too? Actually discuss methodology instead of getting quotes saying they are sloppy?

Even if you suggest the results are not representative or a true cross -section of the population, surely the fact everyone is finding large samples of antibodies in people who thought they had had no contact with the virus is indicative of widespread prevalence beyond the number we are catching by testing.

When doctors tell sick people to stay home unless they are seriously ill instead of getting tested. It also creates a massive underreport of csses even if every other epidemiologist in the world is "shilling for China".

You can't or won't address any of the data for anyone else's data-- or "systemic error" in your own numbers. Says it all, really.

I added more above.
Your studies are a bad joke.

Even the authors themselves say clearly that social distancing is required, by the way.
But more importantly they used unapproved testing kits, Stanford didn;t even bother to take a representative sample in their methodology and the LA study was just 1,000 people.
Moreover neither of the studies account for the progression of the virus of people they tested. They just assumed everyone would be OK and neither accounted for selection bias. Stanford got their test subjects from sodding Facebook!

How about you read some of the counter arguments instead of blindly shilling for China?
How did Stanford do their sampling and avoid selection bias for example? Please explain... I am sure you've studied it in depth, right?

Once again, now I will refer back to the ACTUAL data.
The mortality rate is 5.5% based on those testing positive from the 4million plus tests carried out to date.

If they exist in ANY large number it falsifies your numbers, even if we grant (merely for sake of discussion) that everyone's methodology is flawed and cannot reliably be extrapolated as a like percentage onto the population.

Everyone knows that's true. Calling them all Chinese shills when every one sees large percentages is worse than disingenuous.

Can you cite a single serology study that found no significant number of asymptomatic cases? Just one. If you find one (you won't), can we apply the same logic of sample size to your study screens?

Just one serology study or virus screen of a large percentage of population (cruise ships, air craft carriers, small towns, counties, whatever) that does not show a large proportion of asymptomatic cases. Please provide it. One.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Is there a thing called a mentalator? You know, a device where I can shove a tube into the BB brains of every hysteric that ever opened their mouth about this virus?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Under 200 total deaths in the last three months.

It is obvious you want old people to die!!!!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Daily press conference.

a reply to: spacedoubt

I can't watch those, I end up wanting to punch everyone on them in the face.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Is there a thing called a mentalator? You know, a device where I can shove a tube into the BB brains of every hysteric that ever opened their mouth about this virus?

I heard it referred to as "boomstick"... Shop smart shop S-Mart....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Still trying to figure out how China gains something by increasing the number of cases they have helped spread to the world...