esteban wrote:
If you wait until the hard facts are 100% established, the horse has left the barn and you are left with unmanageable situation.
Quite right! Can we just first establish where in the world did thing go horribly wrong caused by Covid-19?
So that we can reasonably worry about it happening somewhere else?
esteban wrote:
If you wait until the hard facts are 100% established, the horse has left the barn and you are left with unmanageable situation.
Where did I actually say that?
esteban wrote:
those model you disparage …
Where did I actually say that?
The problem is the weak political leaders who are afraid/unable to LEAD, but are left dragged along by the events on ground.
Which ones precisely? Can you name them please.
esteban wrote:
The models clearly show that (due to long lag and huge undetected numbers) when the things get measurably worse, it is already too late to stop the wave.
And why is that precisely? The advice was clear. On symptoms detected self isolate, stay off work. The numbers were always going to get worse.
esteban wrote:
I see no point discussing here whether the raise of overall mortality is detectable or not – in two weeks time, it will be a moot point
Why is that precisely?
esteban wrote:
Nobody speaks like that anymore (right now we stand at 15k+ deaths outside China, and still rising sharply).
Is that 15000 deaths with direct Corono virus infection, or with underlying health issues. Or would these people have died anyway? Without FACT we do not know because we do not know who was infected.
esteban wrote:
(including the stock of protective equipment)
It is supposed to be one of the greatest Health Services in the world, run by some of the highest paid individuals in the Healthcare business, and plenty of them at that. This is a UK specific comment.
We have no masks…………
Hmmg: I can’t really follow much of your reasoning, sorry. There were about 4000 deaths in Italy last week due to COVID-19, not 400. Most of them were in Lombardy so there is little point in comparing whole-country mortality to mortality in just a part of it.
You know full well that this is unprecedented on a large scale so there will be no randomised controlled trial to draw on. But we do know about controlling epidemics in other settings and have to work out a course of action based on first principles. There is no randomised controlled trial comparing jumping out of planes with and without parachutes.
Peter wrote:
this thing propagates really fast, and kills a large % of people it infects
We have no data on number of infections, so no % either. As for speed, WHO now says it spreads slower than influenza
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-similarities-and-differences-covid-19-and-influenza
Also pre-symptomatic transmission appears to be much lower with Covid-19 than with influenza
Yes, there is some herd immunity for influenza? Still alarming things said before turn out not to be true after some analysis.
Peter wrote:
there is mayhem in the hospitals because they don’t have the capability for this particular type of “injury”, by a factor of 10 to 100, if nothing is done to slow it down
How much of that mayhem is caused by Covid-19 and how much is the result of hospitals overrun by a panicked population?
Also, how many old and lonely people fel ill precisely because of the isolation and anxiety leading to more chaos? Is it a negligible number?
Why are hospitals in so many other European countries, just days behind Italy, not overburdened?
kwlf wrote:
Hmmg: I can’t really follow much of your reasoning, sorry. There were about 4000 deaths in Italy last week due to COVID-19, not 400.
Latter revision of death certificates indicate that only 12% are directly attributable to Covid-19. That means 400, not 4000. In line with previous (bad) years of influenza deaths.
Yes, it is unprecedented, not disputing it. It’s a tragedy. But what is exactly causing it? Is it an increase in mortality by respiratory diseases? Does the data support that?
kwlf wrote:
There is no randomised controlled trial comparing jumping out of planes with and without parachutes.
You probably know about this one, maybe others will like to read it too: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial”
That’s a great p1sstake of the research paper business.
I am reliably informed that the average readership of most research papers coming out of universities is about 1.5.
Are you just wanting to have the benefit of hindsight with some magical totally reliable consistent dataset. China has remarkably few flu deaths because it just doesn’t record them.
Are you happier with the approach Brazil is taking?
Peter wrote:
I am reliably informed that the average readership of most research papers coming out of universities is about 1.5.
I can believe that, it is my understanding that in some of the artier fields such as gender studies 90+% of the papers go uncited other than by the author to themselves.
Off_Field wrote:
Are you just wanting to have the benefit of hindsight with some magical totally reliable consistent dataset. China has remarkably few flu deaths because it just doesn’t record them.Are you happier with the approach Brazil is taking?
I have not paid much attention to Brazil. Like I said before, I started taking this business as serious after the tragedy in Italy, like, I suspect many others. At the same time, other European countries supposedly just days behind Italy have very different situations.
Not sure what you mean by hindsight, I am asking about current data.
As for China not recording flu deaths, well, that only increases the question if 3000 deaths there are anything different that warrants this panic?
Repeating myself constantly to avoid any confusion: Again, I don’t want anybody, not a single person, to die if that is avoidable. That’s not what I want to discuss at all.
