https://www.massdevice.com/fda-clears-bodysphere-2-minute-covid-19-test/
“In Bergamo, Italy, clinicians reflected on how to prepare for the next outbreak. Their view is that focussing on hospitals is the wrong way to manage COVID…
…
Changing the emphasis from hospitals to the community could avert a disaster for the wider population. Care in the home setting restricts movements of the infected…
Older Patients admitted to hospital are at greater risk… An older person admitted to hospital runs the risk of never seeing the light of day again. This is probably the clearest message coming from Italy.”
Editorial from New England Journal of Medicine [one of the three world references in medical sciences] co-autor Anthony Fauci, director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases:
“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.”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
Our current best assumption, as of the 22nd March, is the CFR is 0.51%
The current COVID outbreak seems to be following previous pandemics: initial CFRs start high and trend downwards. For example, In Wuhan, the CFR has gone down from 17% in the initial phase to near 1% in the late stage.
estimate for the COVID-19 IFR [Letality or “mortality” rates] between 0.1% and 0.26%.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/
https://www.vettimes.co.uk/article/lessons-to-be-learned-from-foot-and-mouth-outbreaks/?format=pdf
“The model also assumed the virus would infect whole herds or flocks at once and be excreted maximally and indefinitely, unless the animals were killed. Clearly, this was a gross exaggeration of the predicted risk of spread.
A mathematical modeller later remarked: “The initial [Imperial] model was formulated during the 3 / 8 first few weeks of the epidemic and was necessarily a crude approximation.” More importantly, it was wrong.
The 24hr/48hr cull, announced by Sir David on 23 March and implemented on 29 March, was based on a model that was crude and wrong, and led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals, created severe disposal problems, and diverted scarce veterinary resources and support
staff from activities of greater priority.”
That model was from Neil Fergunson the one who predicted 500 000 deaths from corona in the UK. This time the cull is not for animals, its for us.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/neil-ferguson-scientist-convinced-boris-johnson-uk-coronavirus-lockdown-criticised/
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/coronavirus-epidemiologe-folgen-helmholtz-100.html
Not only the economy warns of the consequences of the anti-corona measures: epidemiologist Gérard Krause fears that they could lead to more deaths than the virus itself.
( Helmholtz is a medical research colossus)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300972<
There are 16 endemic viruses** in common circulation in developed countries, and 2.6 million deaths from respiratory infections (excluding tuberculosis) per year have been noted in recent years worldwide [27]. There is little chance that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 could change this statistic significantly. Fear could have a larger impact than the virus itself;
** adenovirus, bocavirus, cytomegalovirus, enterovirus, influenza A H1N1 virus, influenza A H3N2 virus, influenza B virus, metapneumovirus, parainfluenzae virus 1, parainfluenzae virus 2, parainfluenzae virus 3, parainfluenzae virus 4, parechovirus, picornavirus, rhinovirus, syncytial respiratory virus
You just need to activate captions to understand the insanity of this social experiment.
https://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/epidemiologe-ueber-corona-wir-wissen-in-wahrheit-nur-sehr-wenig-a-972772a4-98f7-49ea-a279-c1590a59f6f1
There is a saying in financial markets that “when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold”.
That is no more, a new update is needed.
“When China sneezes, the world catches a cold”
This will be first major episode of the shift east.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think
At the time of writing, 422 deaths are linked to Covid-19 — so 0.8 per cent of that expected total. On a global basis, we’d expect 14 million to die over the first three months of the year. The world’s 18,944 coronavirus deaths represent 0.14 per cent of that total. These figures might shoot up but they are, right now, lower than other infectious diseases that we live with (such as flu). Not figures that would, in and of themselves, cause drastic global reactions
In Italy “A mortality rate of 10.7 per 1,000 inhabitants was observed in the winter season 2014/2015 (more than 375,000 deaths in absolute terms), corresponding to an estimated 54,000 excess deaths (+9.1%) as compared to 2014”
54 000 excess deaths and no one considered closing a single school or shop let alone a whole country. Not a single report reached mainstream. Fifty four thousand excess death.
O epidemiologista clínico Frits Rosendaal do Centro Médico da Universidade de Leiden…..
acredita que o número de infecções detectado é só a ponta do icebergue e que os casos reais serão muitos mais….
Em Itália, a capacidade dos Cuidados Intensivos é tratada de maneira muito diferente. Lá eles incluem pessoas que não incluiríamos porque são muito velhas. Os idosos têm uma posição muito diferente na cultura italiana”…….
Na Holanda, os pacientes mais idosos ficarão a receber tratamentos em casa, considerando-se que, dadas as poucas hipóteses de sobrevivência, será mais “humano” deixá-los nos seus lares.
How can imperial college review the death estimate for the uk from 500 000 to 20 000 because of the lockdown, a dramatic shift of reduction, while at the same time Portugal has gone through 14 days of such measures and the number of cases stays in exponential?
There are huge flaws in the model and it must not advise any decision that lead to certain suicide deaths.
Thanks Henrique P dos Santos
Rate of new corona cases is in steady exponential growth.
Where are the effects? Why are we condemning the vulnerable to starvation and suicide if there is no indication whatsoever it influences anything?
The most bizarre social experiment ever taken on the back of mass fear. This is the terrifying aspect, and I am certain to be insulted and ostracised for this post.
This is a tiny sample, non random, it’s very little but it’s enough to start questioning the numbers, as they should always have been. This hints at 10% assymptomatic prevalence, that would collapse known letality, would make herd imunity much faster and safer.
We cannot trust current numbers. No decision should have been made with them.
Tem uma janela temporal para serem feitos. Como detectam virus, só podem ser feitos quando há no infectado cargas viricas decentes. Uns dias antes ou depois e dão negativo. Isto tem implicações brutais em termos estatisticos, porque não podemos confiar que testamos todas as pessoas quando tem doença, logo não podemos confiar nos valores de infectados para calcular letalidade – o busilis que causa o medo todo.
Precisamos de testes serologicos. Com esses podemos fazer uma amostra aleatoria da população, ver quantos dão positivo e depois estimar a letalidade do pior caso que é atribuir todas as mortes desde o verão a essa percentagem de pessoas que deu seropositivo.
E quandos e faz isto quase sempre a letalidade colapsa, como na gripe suina, de aterradores 30% para menos de 1% da gripe.
Nenhuma medida de conteção, nenhuma quarentena devia ter sido decidida sem estes dados. Pura e simplesmente não sabemos o que isto é, mas sabemos da história de séculos que a esmagadora maioria nunca é nada, sabemos que virus fulminantes como o ébola nao vão a lado nenhum porque matam o burro de carga, e infecções carrascos são obrigatoriamente lentas.
A gripe espanhola que aparece recorrentemente mencionada não se deve ao virus, deve-se a uma mudança brutal e radical da teoria de redes, dos factos de propagação, dos fundamentos da epidemiologia que abanaram as fundações da imunidade de grupo: primeira vez na história que um número gigantesco de pessoas jovens movimentou-se muito rapidamente com o fim da guerra. Não há nada semelhante no ultimo ano que justifique atirar todo o bom senso e conhecimento epidemiologico pela janela. Assassinos não socializam, socialites não assassinam.
Spring is coming. And with spring comes a sharp decline in 65+ baseline mortality and the closure of all the seasons of mortality by pulmonary diseases, illness like influenza ILI, also known as “flu”.
The trend is dramatic in older populations, in countries that have large portions of 65+
http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/SISMG_sintesi_ULTIMO.pdf
The initial data on infectious outbreaks is essentially noise with very little to use as signal. First, for some weeks there is no agent identified, then there is no specific test for the agent, then there are only virological tests (where we are now) and only much later serological tests / antibodies tests appear.
Virological tests can only be carried out in a very short time window or turn negative, hence inducing gigantic noise. Serologic tests indicate if there has ever been contact with the virus, so they can be done in population sampling and return statistically significant data.
There is no reliable data to estimate mortality at 1% or 5%. All of this is noise. The number of infected people can be what we know or 10 0000x greater (yes, ten thousand times). Only with the arrival of serologic tests do we begin to have a real image of prevalence. Only last week did the Netherlands announce that they had achieved such a antibody test, and started testing themselves.
To give prespective the Swine flu started with estimates of 30% – literally Human extinction within a few months – ended below 1%, below the seasonal flu and did no harm. This is the kind of noise we are dealing with.
The only minimally reliable data we have from virological tests are from the quarentened cruise, because everyone was tested within a relatively short window of time. They indicate 1% lethality in a very old population, in a confined environment and sharing a canteen. We can be sure that the world outside the cruise will have much lower rates. In addition, less than 20% of people have been infected and there is still no explanation for this.
Since lethality cannot even be estimated, all the reasoning of fear and panic is just empty and irrational.
Extreme, extreme, paranoid care is needed with the release of initial data on outbreaks, particularly with lethality. WHO should respond criminally for not controlling this data and not ensuring that it indicates the order of magnitude of the noise. It was only and only this that made this “outbreak”.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b
Os dados iniciais de surtos infecciosos são essencialmente ruido com muito pouco para tirar de sinal. Primeiro porque algumas semanas não há agente identificado, depois não há teste especifico para o agente, depois so há testes virologicos (onde estamos agora) e só bastante mais tarde aparecem testes serologicos/anticorpos.
Os testes virologicos só podem ser feitos numa janela temporal muito curta ou dão negativo, dai induzirem um ruido gigantesco. Os serologicos indicam se houve contacto alguma vez com o virus, logo podem ser feitos em amostragem populacional e retornam dados estatisticamente significativos.
Não há dados nenhuns fiáveis para estimar letalidade a 0,001% ou 5%. Tudo isso é ruido. O numero de infectados pode ser o que conhecemos ou 10 0000x maior (sim, dez mil vezes). Só com chegada de testes serologicios se começa a ter real imagem de prevalencia. Só na semana passada a Holanda anunciou ter conseguido um tal teste marcador de anti corpos.
Para ter noção, a gripe Suina começou com estimativas de 30% – literalmente extinção Humana em poucos meses – acabou abaixo de 1%, abaixo da gripe sazonal e não fez dano nenhum. Este tipo de ruido que estamos a lidar.
Os unicos dados minimamente fiaveis que temos de testes virologicos são do cruzeiro retido, porque toda a gente foi testada num intervalo relativamente curto. Indicam 1% de letalidade numa população muito envelhecida, em ambiente confinado e a partilhar cantina. Podemos ter certeza estatistica que o mundo fora do cruzeiro terá taxas bem mais baixas. Adicionalmente menos de 20% das pessoas foram infectadas e não há ainda explicação para tal.
Como não se pode sequer estimar a letalidade, todo o raciocinio de medo e panico é apenas vazio e irracional.
É preciso um cuidado extremo, extremo, paranoico, com a divulgação de dados inciais de surtos em particular com a letalidade. A OMS devia responder criminalmente por não controlar esses dados e não assegurar que indica a ordem de grandeza do ruido. Foi só e apenas isso que fez este “surto”.
Looking at
http://www.euromomo.eu/
One thing jumps to the eye: incredibly mild 18-19 flu season and 19-20 even more mild untiil now.
What follows is a shocking logic. Stop now if you are easily impressed.
Roughly 300 000 people in Europe – the graphs do not represent all of Europe, but still – have gotten a free token for extra life worth 1 or 2 years. Covid is still leaving a huge credit after its gone. It is just a very mild catchup of what is the tik tak of life.
Also worth noting in the detailed country graphs is that all previous spikes, mostly caused by the seasonal flu, are closed by week 19 and peak at most on week 12. The baseline mortality line, red, crosses the average around that time and it represents itself the baseline impact of pulmonary disease slaughter in winter. There is an almost certainity that covid will be closing shop soon.
At current pattern, even if exponential growth stays for the remaining couple of weeks, the body count is below the credit left by mild flu.
Those health systems that struggle with current demand, besides the induced demand due to panic, are just catching up with two seasons of lower demand. For future we need to forecast such spikes.
Prove me wrong.
Please check 2016.
We estimate that only 1.8% (0.9–3.3%) of symptomatic cases that occurred between 10 December 2019 and 3 January 2020 were ascertained.
As of 29 February 2020, the crude case fatality risk in areas outside Hubei was 0.85%
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7/figures/6
This is probably the most relevant breakthrough in the essential understanding of corona virus. It will tell us how widespread it actually is and if it represents any significant risk or not
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221.full
IF this proves substantiated The immediate consequence is that we face a nothing, something that never existed.
Para todos quantos têm levado à letra os “estudos” dum certo matemático :
“Os artigos escritos e as posições públicas assumidas por Jorge Buescu são uma vergonha e um exemplo de má prática profissional. Usar os seus pergaminhos de matemático para tecer considerações irresponsáveis (primeiro menorizadoras e depois catastrofistas) sobre a epidemia de Covid 19, como se fosse epidemiologista, e sobre a gestão da crise, como se fosse um especialista de saúde pública, são um exemplo da pior arrogância de que um cientista pode dar provas, abusando da credibilidade do público e desprezando o saber dos verdadeiros especialistas. É mais um exemplo lamentável da arrogância das ciências exactas, do desprezo pelas ciências sociais e humanas e do desconhecimento das coisas humanas. Felizmente, nem todos os matemáticos são assim.
Buescu pode ter as opiniões que quiser como cidadão, mas não pode invocar a sua autoridade como matemático para exprimir opiniões fora dessa área.
A epidemiologia usa a matemática mas NÃO É matemática. Que Buescu não o saiba é lamentável. Que não se importe por não saber é irresponsável”
