Jump to content

Coronavirus


Xd the great

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

So now all we need is a Buffy antibody

Buffy-1 or Buffy-2?

https://www.enzolifesciences.com/ALX-804-128/baff-human-monoclonal-antibody-buffy-1/

https://www.enzolifesciences.com/ALX-804-131/baff-monoclonal-antibody-buffy-2/

I love the internet :D

Spoiler

theyre nothing to do with fighting viruses though

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that this paper uses a CFR in the 1-1.5% range. The CFR is based on detected cases, not total cases, so this is not showing the number of actual cases, the idea is that presumably if the deaths are in the CFR rate (1-1.5%), and 100% of deaths are recorded, then there should be more like fatalities/0.015 cases in that country (vs the % who are actually listed as positive in that country. Ie: symptomatic people tend to get tested, so testing might be expected to be able to test 100% of symptomatic people theoretically.

If 50% of cases were so mild no one ever sought testing, then the total fatality rate would be more like 0.5% - 0.75%. If its more like the "at least 59%" the Chinese said, then the TFR is more like 0.4 to 0.6. If even more have ild disease it drops more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This video has been making the rounds on FB Messenger. I don't know where it's from, nor how accurate it is. Wasn't even sure how to get a proper link for it, so I ended up uploading it to youtube myself. If anyone knows the source, please let me know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sheer amount of virtuous schadenfreude is probably worth a 1/16th of the supplies sent to Italy.

Edit: it's an An-124, so make that about 3/16ths.

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kommersant just did a beautiful article on PPEs in Russia. All of them - we now run daily inventory.

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4390361

Hospitals: 64 million masks (down 17,1% day-on-day), 747 000 respirators (down 4%), 592 500 hazmat suits (down 18,3%). Some regions have months of supplies, while Sverdlovsk oblast burnt through 89% of reported stock on March 29-30.

Pharmacies: 1 273 862 masks, 3100 respirators, and exactly one hazmat suit.

We're currently at 2337 infected (1613 of them in Moscow) and 26 dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

This video has been making the rounds on FB Messenger. I don't know where it's from, nor how accurate it is. Wasn't even sure how to get a proper link for it, so I ended up uploading it to youtube myself. If anyone knows the source, please let me know.

There are a few quite serious error in the video, the easiest one to point out would be the heat resistance. The claim that the virus will be killed by 26-27° (presumably C) is just wrong. If that was the case the virus would die as soon as touch a human, not to mention we have outbreaks in quite a few countries that are currently and during the past few week significantly warmer than that.

I would not put much stock into other stuff in the video.

In other news, USS Theodore Roosevelt, which is currently in Guam has an outbreak. That's going to get messy if they don't manage to spread the crew out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/us/politics/coronavirus-aircraft-carrier-theodore-roosevelt.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

 The claim that the virus will be killed by 26-27° (presumably C) is just wrong. If that was the case the virus would die as soon as touch a human, not to mention we have outbreaks in quite a few countries that are currently and during the past few week significantly warmer than that.

 

 

It saves me a lot of time to just ignore videos and suchlike from social media, so I havent and wont watch the video. Not like a "I wONT" kind of way but in a "why would I bother" kind of way.

But oh my no, that information is incredibly bogus, from what you describe.

Perfect example.

 

Rough guide - if one has a question on something that is making the rounds on social media, google it. Just google the question and pick the link that looks most like a scientific journal. Put "pubmed" or "ncbi"in the search terms. Ignore anything from any kind of site that people want "clicks" from or any other kind of potential income. When people are paid based on the popularity of their videos, accuracy is FAR from their top motivation. Save yourself some time.

 

For the record - much is still unknown specifically about SARS-cov-2, there just hasnt been enough time for studies to complete yet, but similar coronaviruses (and SARS-cov-2 is not expected to diverge significantly) start to get deactivated at a high rate around 55-56degC.

https://www.who.int/csr/sars/survival_2003_05_04/en/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DDE, that seems scarily prone to false positives and confirmation bias. 

However, having eaten the leftover refried beans from the fridge yesterday, I can confirm that my sense of smell works all too well.

————

I’m currently waiting in the car outside a hospital while my wife attends a routine prenatal checkup. I was supposed to go along but the hospital isn’t allowing guests in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So IHME's model is being used by the government in decision making (cool), but the predictions are certainly off some by State.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Look at NY in the above link, then look at this:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/new-york-coronavirus-cases-updates.html

IHME say 50,639 beds needed, and 9,969 ICU beds.

Actual beds used are 12,226, and ICU beds are 3,022.

It's actually fitting the curve, but from what the projection expected 7-8 days ago. The deaths per day, OTOH, is pretty close, so what gives that the resource usage is not even in the uncertainly (not even close)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is odd. That model has NY predicted to be grossly overburdened already (4X more patients than hospital beds, and 3X more ICU patients than ICU beds), yet it's using ~1/3 of ICU beds, and most hospital beds.

Since deaths lag hospitalizations, maybe interventions have been more effective than estimated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tater said:

So IHME's model is being used by the government in decision making (cool), but the predictions are certainly off some by State.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Look at NY in the above link, then look at this:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/new-york-coronavirus-cases-updates.html

IHME say 50,639 beds needed, and 9,969 ICU beds.

Actual beds used are 12,226, and ICU beds are 3,022.

It's actually fitting the curve, but from what the projection expected 7-8 days ago. The deaths per day, OTOH, is pretty close, so what gives that the resource usage is not even in the uncertainly (not even close)?

 

I posted this here a few days ago (friday), but here it goes again.

I took that projection from https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections and started inputting actual number of deaths. Real numbers seem to track between mean and high estimates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tater said:

It really is odd. That model has NY predicted to be grossly overburdened already (4X more patients than hospital beds, and 3X more ICU patients than ICU beds), yet it's using ~1/3 of ICU beds, and most hospital beds.

Since deaths lag hospitalizations, maybe interventions have been more effective than estimated?

Maybe NY has more hospital beds than the national average?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nightside said:

Maybe NY has more hospital beds than the national average?

No, pull-down to look at just NY state.

It lists the total number of beds available (available is minus beds in normal use because people are still sick with "not COVID-19", so actual beds higher), ~13k, and the total ICU beds "available" as ~700 (this is what should be empty ICU beds, as ICU beds are used year round, so the actual number of ICU beds is higher as well).

The model predicted 50k beds used today, the actual number is ~12k used (per NY press conf today).

 

 

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

I posted this here a few days ago (friday), but here it goes again.

I took that projection from https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections and started inputting actual number of deaths. Real numbers seem to track between mean and high estimates.

Yeah, I saw that.

This is just for NY state, I didn't look anywhere else. For some states it has been using an average value until they get real data, they have real data for NY, though (and a lot).

The NY deaths are on track for their predction, but the utilization of facilities is not even close. Since death predictions are based on a combination of typical outcomes (% hospitalized—>ICU—>death) and projected case growth, it makes sense that all the numbers go up in step with case growth.

Since for actual deaths, they lag hospital admission by some number of days, and admissions should be exponential, if the curve was flattened 2 weeks ago, the utilization should in fact be blow predictions, while the deaths should lag.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...