Unconfigured Ad Widget

**gwanghoops** · 03-28-2020, 7:17 AM

That's an awesome study.

NY must have had 1000 hospitalizations (738 deaths), so every one in NY has covid19 (8.6M), the deaths should just stop, social distancing doesn't work, and they can go back to work.

Oh wait, NY had go scramble for PPE, masks, ventilators, and added tens of thousands of healthcare volunteers.

**jglabe** · 03-28-2020, 7:18 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

Those of you who still believe the 3% death rate scenarios, sorry but your fantasy is not real

https://spectator.org/overreacting-t...ous-situation/

Your blooded part above gave me pause. I couldn’t find any info on total US hospitalizations. I did however remember seeing New York publish the numbers for their state. I did a relatively quick google search for a current total. I found this.

Redirect Notice

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coronavirus-deaths-climb-in-new-york-11585250404

It is dated March 26th. It states that in New York there are 5327 people hospitalized. So if only 1 in 10,000 need hospitalization, like that “prestigious” study claims, the that means New York has 53 million plus people infected.

Do you really believe that? (Hint: look up the current population of New York for your clue...) Apparently that doctor that wrote the article does!! Does that seem like common sense to you?

Facts and logic man, facts and logic.....

**sd_shooter** · 03-28-2020, 8:15 AM

Originally posted by jglabe

Your blooded part above gave me pause. I couldn’t find any info on total US hospitalizations. I did however remember seeing New York publish the numbers for their state. I did a relatively quick google search for a current total. I found this.

Redirect Notice

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coronavirus-deaths-climb-in-new-york-11585250404

It is dated March 26th. It states that in New York there are 5327 people hospitalized. So if only 1 in 10,000 need hospitalization, like that “prestigious” study claims, the that means New York has 53 million plus people infected.

Do you really believe that? (Hint: look up the current population of New York for your clue...) Apparently that doctor that wrote the article does!! Does that seem like common sense to you?

Facts and logic man, facts and logic.....

I don't see how NY could have 5k hospitalized when the number of "serious" cases in the entire country is less than 2k:

Coronavirus Dashboard

https://ncov2019.live/data

Live coronavirus dashboard tracker. See data, maps, social media trends, and learn about prevention measures.

Even Italy only has 3700 "serious" cases. So no, I don't believe your WSJ article.

Facts and logic...

**harbormaster** · 03-28-2020, 8:17 AM

So the vast majority can treat this at home. Home is where people should be if they have symptoms or came in to contact with someone having the disease.

**jglabe** · 03-28-2020, 8:38 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

I don't see how NY could have 5k hospitalized when the number of "serious" cases in the entire country is less than 2k:

Coronavirus Dashboard

https://ncov2019.live/data

Live coronavirus dashboard tracker. See data, maps, social media trends, and learn about prevention measures.

Even Italy only has 3700 "serious" cases. So no, I don't believe your WSJ article.

Facts and logic...

**Creampuff** · 03-28-2020, 8:42 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

I don't see how NY could have 5k hospitalized when the number of "serious" cases in the entire country is less than 2k:

Coronavirus Dashboard

https://ncov2019.live/data

Live coronavirus dashboard tracker. See data, maps, social media trends, and learn about prevention measures.

Even Italy only has 3700 "serious" cases. So no, I don't believe your WSJ article.

Facts and logic...

There is a big difference between acute care medicine and critical care medicine. Not all 5K that are hospitalized require critical care medicine. Hospitalization encompasses both acute and critical care.

**sd_shooter** · 03-28-2020, 9:10 AM

Don't know what you're talking about at this point.

Let's look at regular flu stats:

Page Not Found | CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Page Not Found | CDC

Annually:
- 140k-180k hospitalized
- 9.3M-45M cases

So the hospitalization rate of 1 in 10k for WuHu certainly sounds plausible. Let's say half the country catches it (150M), then we have 15k people going through a hospital.

So the article mentions two studies:
- 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus
- only .01% (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization

Which one is real? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Forget Italy BTW, we are not the same. They have tons of Chinese immigrants who just came back from Chinese New Year, more elderly, worse health care, poor cultural habits. Half of them might die off for all I know, doesn't necessarily mean the same thing will happen elsewhere.

**jglabe** · 03-28-2020, 9:30 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

Don't know what you're talking about at this point.

Let's look at regular flu stats:

Page Not Found | CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Page Not Found | CDC

Annually:
- 140k-180k hospitalized
- 9.3M-45M cases

So the hospitalization rate of 1 in 10k for WuHu certainly sounds plausible. Let's say half the country catches it (150M), then we have 15k people going through a hospital.

So the article mentions two studies:
- 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus
- only .01% (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization

Which one is real? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Forget Italy BTW, we are not the same. They have tons of Chinese immigrants who just came back from Chinese New Year, more elderly, worse health care, poor cultural habits. Half of them might die off for all I know, doesn't necessarily mean the same thing will happen elsewhere.

Refuting a dubious claim with another dubious claim, is well..... dubious!

Which in turn discredits the author....

**GlockN'Roll** · 03-28-2020, 9:31 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

Those of you who still believe the 3% death rate scenarios, sorry but your fantasy is not real

https://spectator.org/overreacting-t...ous-situation/

"Dr. Steve Skinner is a practicing dermatologist in Cullman, Alabama."

Alabama Dermatologists are who I always go to when I want the best info on infectious diseases...

**The War Wagon** · 03-28-2020, 9:35 AM

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but... MEDIA PANDEMONIUM VIRUS!!!

**Steve1968LS2** · 03-28-2020, 9:37 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

So the article mentions two studies:
- 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus
- only .01% (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization
.

Didn't the guy with the UK numbers already say "OOPS! My math was wrong!"?

Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Drastically Downgrades Projection

https://www.dailywire.com/news/epidemiologist-behind-highly-cited-coronavirus-model-admits-he-was-wrong-drastically-revises-model?utm_source=63red.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=63red

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, who created the highly-cited Imperial College London coronavirus model, which has been cited by organizations like The New York Times and has been instrumental in governmental policy decision-making, offered a massively downgraded projection of the potential deathtoll on Wednesday.Ferguson’s model projected 2.2 million dead people in the United States and 500,000 in the U.K. from COVID-19 if no action were taken to slow the virus and blunt its curve. The model predicted far fewer deaths if lockdown measures — measures such as those taken by the British and American governments — were undertaken.After just one day of ordered lockdowns in the U.K., Ferguson is presenting drastically downgraded estimates, crediting lockdown measures, but also revealing that far more people likely have the virus than his team figured.Ferguson explained, “I should admit, we’ve always been sensitive in the analysis in the modeling to a variety of levels or values to those quantities. What we’ve been seeing, though, in Europe in the last week or two is a rate of growth of the epidemic which was faster than we expected from early data in China. And so we are revising our quotes, our central best estimate of the reproduction… something more, a little bit above of the order of three or a little bit above rather than about 2.5.” He added, “the current values are still within the wide range of values which modeling groups [unintelligible] we should have been looking at previously.”A higher rate of transmission than expected means that more people have the virus than previously expected; when the number of those with coronavirus is divided by the number of deaths, therefore, the mortality rate for the disease drops.Based on both those revised estimates and the lockdown measures taken by the British government, the epidemiologist predicts, hospitals will be just fine taking on COVID-19 patients and estimates 20,000 or far fewer people will die from the virus itself or from its agitation of other ailments, as reported by New Scientist Wednesday.Ferguson’s change of tune comes days after Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta criticized the professor’s model.“I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” Gupta said, according to the Financial Times.Professor Gupta led a team of researchers at Oxford in a modeling study which suggests that the virus has been invisibly spreading for at least a month earlier than suspected, concluding that as many as half of the people in the United Kingdom have already been infected by COVID-19.If her model is accurate, fewer than one in a thousand who’ve been infected with COVID-19 become sick enough to need hospitalization, leaving the vast majority with mild cases or free of symptoms.Ferguson did continue to argue that the Oxford model is too optimistic about death rates.UPDATE: Amid widespread reporting on his new death rate estimates — including by White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx, who cited his 20,000 estimate during a press conference Thursday — Ferguson issued a statement on social media Thursday to “clear up confusion” about his revised estimates:I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19. This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged. My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place. Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).1/4 – I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.— neil_ferguson (@neil_ferguson) March 26, 2020 Correction: The original title of this article incorrectly suggested that Neil Ferguson stated his initial model was wrong. The article has been revised to make clear that he provided a downgraded projection given the new data and current mitigation steps. This article has also been updated to include Ferguson’s clarifying statement posted on Twitter on Thursday.

After just one day of ordered lockdowns in the U.K., Ferguson is presenting drastically downgraded estimates, crediting lockdown measures, but also revealing that far more people likely have the virus than his team figured.

**colossians323** · 03-28-2020, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

I don't see how NY could have 5k hospitalized when the number of "serious" cases in the entire country is less than 2k:

Coronavirus Dashboard

https://ncov2019.live/data

Live coronavirus dashboard tracker. See data, maps, social media trends, and learn about prevention measures.

Even Italy only has 3700 "serious" cases. So no, I don't believe your WSJ article.

Facts and logic...

IF you looked at the clip from the emergency room, most patients were in their street clothes, they were on beds with no IV drips, some were sitting up.
My guess is many of those hospitalized are hypochondriacs.
Think Kathy Griffin style (without blaming Trump for her stupidity)
She had a tummy ache, and was in the Wuhan flu emergency ward?
Right, they put her in.with the other infected even though she had no symptoms.
My bet is there is a high percentage that are Kathy griffin

**capo** · 03-28-2020, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Steve1968LS2

Didn't the guy with the UK numbers already say "OOPS! My math was wrong!"?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/epide...campaign=63red

That'd be a gross mischaracterization of reality. It is a trending talking point right now though for people who haven't actually reviewed the UK paper and prefer to believe this virus is a nothingburger.

No, a COVID Scientist Didn’t Walk Back His Prediction | National Review

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-pandemic-neil-ferguson-did-not-walk-back-covid-19-predictions/

From the beginning he has said that lockdowns work.

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Doctor brings common sense into the picture

Doctor brings common sense into the picture

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Calguns.net Statistics

What's Going On