Germany's 16 federal states make their own decisions on coronavirus testing because each of them is responsible for their own health care systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan89
moar laughs
Printable View
Germany's 16 federal states make their own decisions on coronavirus testing because each of them is responsible for their own health care systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan89
moar laughs
and we are basically at the heavy rain bands phase of f the stormQuote:
Originally Posted by TimDunkem
when the hurricane strength gales start showing up shit will get real
and lets not even talk about the eye of the storm
Probably so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelicans78
But the older patients that might need a checkup or are feeling poorly with other problems are being told to stay put.
The waiting rooms for bigger PC practices cant have the same number of people waiting.
This means the ordinary patient may be missing blood work etc... cant do that over the phone. So primary care sucks right now as well. I imagine its the same for the doc in the boxes owned by larger private groups.
try not to get too excited tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by hater
Even Fox "news" know that Trump is sounding like an idiot and they are semen shielding when he goes off the rails. They had to cut Trumps audio when he went off on a rant about ratings, to make him seem less like an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan89
Skip ahead to about the 2 minute mark
https://youtu.be/dWIKBYYMc2M
:rollin
.
Called it.
At the top of the hour the dude comes on and passes it off to the next show. Been that way every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Exaggerate some?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelicans78
:lol Germans have done MORE government involvement in tracking cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Hunting
That isn't what happened here. They didn't cut away to the next show. They just specifically talked over his rant on the ratings. You can even see where the anchor was told to keep stretching as Trump went on about ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAustex
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/healt...ate/index.htmlQuote:
The research, published in the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases, estimated that about 0.66% of those infected with the virus will die.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...243-7/fulltext
And thus the initial Imperial projection can be rendered to the dust bin.
https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...78&oe=5EA657BC
Over 390kdeaths by hiv and all on tv ads about Sex
I think there's some cognitive dissonance on this whole Imperial projection stuff... this is something I read, from here:
https://politics.slashdot.org/story/20/03/30/0327217/what-happens-when-epidemiologists-are-undermined-by-politics
Earlier this month Slashdot covered the Imperial College in London forecast of "what happens if the U.S. does absolutely nothing to combat COVID-19," which predicted 2.2 million deaths just in the U.S. and another 510,000 in Great Britain. The paper was co-written by Neil Ferguson, one of the world's leading epidemiologists, and "launched leaders in both countries into action," according to the Washington Post.
Earlier this month Ferguson posted on Twitter that Microsoft and GitHub are working to "document, refactor and extend" the thousands of lines of C code written over 13 years ago to run pandemic simulations, "to allow others to use [it] without the multiple days training it would currently require (and which we don't have time to give)."
But the Washington Post's national health correspondent and senior political reporter look at a new twist this week: In recent days, a growing contingent of Trump supporters have pushed the narrative that health experts are part of a deep-state plot to hurt Trump's reelection efforts by damaging the economy and keeping the United States shut down as long as possible. Trump himself pushed this idea in the early days of the outbreak... After Ferguson gave new testimony to British officials Wednesday...Fox News host Laura Ingraham wrongly stated that in his testimony Ferguson's projection had been "corrected." The chyron on her show Thursday night stated, "Faulty models may be skewing COVID-19 data...."
But in fact, Ferguson had not revised his projections in his testimony, which he made clear in interviews and Twitter. His earlier study had made clear the estimate of 500,000 deaths in Britain and 2.2 million in the United States projected what could happen if both took absolutely no action against the coronavirus. The new estimate of 20,000 deaths in Britain was a projected result now that Britain had implemented strict restrictions, which this week came to include a full lockdown...
[O]ne factor many modelers failed to predict was how politicized their work would become in the era of President Trump, and how that in turn could affect their models.
And I think it makes sense...
This virus is nastier than the flu, and the reason the total death count is well below the flu at this point is because of the massive effort of the entire world to social distance, stay-at-home, test and trace, lockdown, and so on. We don't do these things for the flu.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
390k about hiv and they shove sex
Ads
Done our throats nothing about safe sex
I like reading all the dirt you all throw around but really do not want to get in the middle of all this except to say each day I watch at the top of the hour the dude comes on to transition from one show to the next.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I disagree with your statement that it was on purpose but save ur breath cause my foray into this morass called the political forum is done except from afar.
Notice killing babies is highest on list
Not that you would know, but hiv is sexually transmitted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
It's just basic math. The Imperial Model assumed a 3.4 percent mortality rate (2.2 million dead from 60 million infections). The Lancet paper I posted is the most thorough examination yet of what the true CFR might be, and they're estimating .66. So even if we were to do "nothing," it would result in about 400K, which is still really bad, but not the apocalyptic amount projected in the Imperial study. That initial projection, again, should be rendered to the dustbin. And I'm not saying this because "I'm an optimist" or playing "armchair epidemiologist." I'm echoing what the Lancet paper found. But yeah, my intuition was always that the 3.4 percent CFR was a very high estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
^ and the horse's mouth was a co-author/sponsor of the Lancet paper:
Quote:
Prof Neil M Ferguson, DPhil
Well, there's a point there that the modeling software might be outdated at this point, and something is being done about it. Again, I don't see anything there to point out that there was a willful intent to mislead or anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
No shiit because they weren’t bogged down by bureaucrats telling their providers who to test and who not to test. They were ahead of the game on testing and easier to track and quarantine.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Indeed. You can only work with the data you have (even if you intuitively know there's variables that will probably make that initial projection moot when they're discovered), but the media has pounded the number into our heads. And I've been brow beaten for not blindly accepting its projections while I was posting many contrary opinions from "experts" that the CFR is likely below 1 percent. If certain people here wonder why there's a "distrust of experts," that is why. There's this Ivory tower assumption that us little people can't use reason to puzzle together differing arguments and facts to arrive at a logical conclusion ourselves. I didn't come to my conclusions vis a vis the Imperial study out of Dinning-Krueger arrogance, but because I researched contrary expert point-of-view, and those arguments made a lot sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
But certain posters kept telling me I just need to blindly trust the Imperial model because "I'm not an expert."
I think some people misunderstand models. A result from a model is a snapshot based on information at a given time. Better weighted information comes along all the time, and you adjust your model to take advantage of that, and have a better result.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
Sometimes people think such changes in results are somehow contradictory, and thus the whole thing can be obviated, or that the initial result was wrong, but there's no such a thing. It's simply that situations evolve, information comes along that makes the model more robust and you get updated results.
So getting married with any one specific model or result is also nonsense. It's an ever evolving situation, and those models will give you some parameters to be able to take action, but they won't give you a silver bullet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by your provided quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
(edit) Went back an re-read it.
They used those six flights of people as the basis for their global estimate. Not a great data set.
The "infection fatality ratio" is pretty hard to pin down at this point. They did a fair job of it. Good enough for some math.Quote:
Our estimate of an infection fatality ratio of 0·66% in China was informed by PCR testing of international Wuhan residents returning on repatriation flights.