Coronavirus Pandemic

https://www.theblaze.com/news/stanford_coronavirus_too_high_death

A pair of public health experts from Stanford, Drs. Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, warn Americans in a Wall Street Journal editorial that the current estimates about the coronavirus' fatality rate may be too high by "orders of magnitude."​
...​
The two professors argue that the best evidence of the coronavirus death rate being significantly lower than what is being reported may lie in the Italian town of Vò. On March 6, the town's 3,300 residents were tested. Of these, 90 tests came back positive, indicating a prevalence of 2.7% of the population having the virus.​
If one were to apply this to the entire province where the town is located, which has a population of 955,000, it would mean there were actually 26,000 infections at the time, and not just the 198 that were officially confirmed. This would be 130 times greater than the number of reported cases. Since Italy's case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, Bendavid and Bhattacharya write, "the real fatality rate [of the virus] could in fact be closer to 0.06%."
...​
Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days. An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that's a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.​
A must-watch video by Jay Bhattacharya:


Unfortunately, these are the voices of reason that are doomed to remain "unconventional", and thus largely unheard.
 
A must-watch video by Jay Bhattacharya:


Unfortunately, these are the voices of reason that are doomed to remain "unconventional", and thus largely unheard.
The video is much less convincing to me than the article I posted.

~ 4:19 "Nobody knows the number" and he says there is a wide range of estimates and reiterates shortly afterward that he doesn't know either.

This actually is an argument for stay at home orders because if it's possible that the mortality rate is 1% if you wait until you confirm it, it is too late to prevent large numbers of deaths, and a breakdown in the healthcare system, and social chaos - so you have to act early.

"The should be honest about it" - Fauci published an article saying it could be only as bad as the flu or it could be worse. He was honest about it.

Hopefully he will be right and we can get back to normal sooner.

In a few minutes they are going to have a press conference where they discuss the models the US government is using ...
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, these are the voices of reason that are doomed to remain "unconventional", and thus largely unheard.
This guy isn't unconventional nor is he necessarily THE voice of reason. He's clearly part of the academic/scientific community. He has ways to get his voice heard and is doing so (appropriately it seems to me). Hell, he mentions that he has colleagues for whom he has great respect who disagree with him.

He also never seems to indicate what we should be doing. Very reminiscent of the Ioannidis commentary: We don't have enough data to validate the actions that are being taken. I haven't heard one serious scientist or medical professional debate this specific point. The entire scientific/medical community has been bemoaning the lack of testing and data collection for months. Its a known unknown so to speak.

But again, here's the thing: So what should we do? There's never a detailed, alternative public policy put forth.

I like Jay. Seems like a super smart guy and a super good guy. I'm glad he's working as hard as he is to try and help (mentions he hasn't had a single day off in weeks).

At the 31 minute mark, near the end, he's asked where in the world he'd feel best about his family residing as it relates to medical care/COVID-19. He answers quite quickly: the U.S. However, he makes one interesting point as a caveat: "As long as our healthcare systems don't get overwhelmed, we're going to be okay". Exactly.
 
In a few minutes they are going to have a press conference where they discuss the models the US government is using ...
They are saying if there isn't complete compliance with recommendations to slow the spread then there could be as many as 100-200 thousand deaths.

If people comply there could be fewer and they are showing the graphs from healthdata.org.

The say the peak hospital utilization will occur in about two weeks.
 
Last edited:
Redid my post because I just found the very source just referenced by Dr. Brix -

http://www.healthdata.org/research-...-bed-days-icu-days-ventilator-days-and-deaths

Understand - this is only US centric... but still, some may have interest in this
This is the link with the dynamic graphs - posted here Sunday... an excellent daily reference guide that updates each daily projection based on the new data of the day before.

And later on Sunday I posted my own (optimistic... because that's my nature to be such) worst case...

Here - http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/coronavirus-pandemic.4489/page-14#post-140327

I am going to hang it out there - by mid-June, my prediction for the US is a MAX number of 35K deaths attributed to COVID-19.
 
I have been seeing reports mentioning that social distancing and stay at home orders have been reducing deaths from flu. That's said to explain why some European countries have a lower than normal death rate at the current time.

When the data is in and people start calculating the benefit of social distancing etc, they are going to include the lives saved from covid-19 and flu.

Also the current situation may bring about changes that will reduce flu deaths in the future. So a cost benefit analysis of lives saved vs economic cost might include future deaths from flu that are prevented because of what is happening now.

I think they are also going to point out that even if covid-19 is not more deadly than flu, because it is more contagious, cases occur in a narrower time period which could over burden the healthcare system leading to increased deaths from other causes due to insufficient capacity of hospital resources. The fact that we are not having covid-19 instead of the flu we are having it in addition to the flu is another reason officials are concerned about preventing hospitals from being swamped.
 
Last edited:
What happens after the hospital resource crisis is passed? If we go back to normal, covid-19 will start spreading again and we are back where we started unless there is a vaccine or it is hampered by warm weather or some other factor comes into effect such as a drug treatment or the fatality rate is found to be lower than expected.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/prof...about-what-happens-after-lockdowns-are-lifted
A recently posted op-ed by two professors — an associate professor of Mathematics at Carnegie Mellon University and an assistant professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Pittsburgh — calls for greater “honesty in pandemic modeling,” which, they suggest, too often conceals the fact that after lock-downs and other extreme social distancing measures are lifted, the number of infections will rapidly rise again.​

Here is the article.
https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b
 
This is exactly why I am firmly convinced that no one does anyone any good by presenting anything in any medium (including conversation) that promotes fear.

Having said that, I am finding it quite interesting to observe how others respond to the situation... its like, in so many cases I feel I am getting a truer glimpse into the state of the soul of each individual. And I am finding this unexpected result quite fascinating.

Specifically with regards to those who claim there's a (third party) God. In some cases, I am observing those who hold that primary assumption to be demonstrating a controlled panic. Yet, in each of these cases, there appears to be the possibility that the individual could reach a breaking point. Sometimes, personal breaking points can be excellent opportunities for growth and sometimes the result is a dark one.

It's also interesting to observe some who hold to the idea there's a (third party) God who loves each of us and cares for us and that we should have faith and trust in that God. And what I find fascinating within this group is the wide range between those who hold this view yet also appear well grounded in science and those who appear to emulate a sort of "evangelical" view and they seem to range from "comfortable regardless" to "holdouts to their fears" and thus susceptible to breaking points.

With regards to those who believe in a third party God (who they can rely on... truly rely on) and who also hold to science as to what science can help us with as physical beings in a physical universe at a time such as this... they seem to be super stable and super reliable/good for others. And it is my conclusion that the difference between this group and myself (for example) is that I have studied the perennial philosophy, understand the deep metaphysics at the heart of the philosophy, equate what the philosophy calls "one's personal god" with the above mentioned group's view of a "third party God" as one and the same where those of this group have no more need to explore (much less understand) the deeper, more inner regions of the exploration of the nature and science of being whereas in my case, my curiosity of such had to be satisfied.

Bottom line - I am at peace with whatever outcome emerges from all this though there are potential outcomes I would likely not like. Yet, because I hold to the possibility individual conscious agents (like you and me and others) co-create their reality experience and thus, for the life of me, I cannot imagine what good it does to play the "what if" game where all the "what if" scenarios are worse, indeed sometimes far worse than the projected outcomes viewed within the framework of all the efforts being accomplished to minimize the expanse of "bad outcomes."
 
Interesting perspective
My wonder is... what would be the actual load on hospitals (specific region by region) if the world had refrained from psychologically weaponizing this "phantom" or "real" virus (or allowing the weaponization of it)... if this had not been done?

Because the hard thing to refute is things like New York City and the massive load they experienced related to the virus begging the question above.
 
At the daily corona virus press conference Dr. Fauci was asked about how long social distancing would be necessary. It seems to me he says by late June or early July there won’t be any new cases and they will by then have the means in place to isolate any that come up so that things can start to get back to normal. He says, I think, a vaccine is a year or a year and a half away.


Question​
1:03:15​
Looking beyond when we're on the other side of this curve, are we looking at living with some sort of social distancing guidelines essentially, essentially until there's treatment or a vaccine. For example people looking forward to the summer talk about you know going to baseball games going to concerts we have political conventions over the summer are things like that possible or safe without a vaccine or treatment place?​
Dr. Fauci:​
1:03:39​
Yeah, I think if we get to the part of the curve that dr. Birx showed yesterday when it goes down to essentially no new cases no deaths at a period of time,​


[I think this is the graph he is referring to, they showed it yesterday https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections Facui didn’t give a date but to me it looks like by late June or early July there are no new cases.]


fau.JPG
I think it makes sense that you're gonna have to relax social distancing. The one thing we hopefully would have in place, and I believe we will have in place, is a much more robust system to be able to identify someone who's infected isolate them and then do contact tracing. Because if you have a really good program of containment that prevents you from ever having to get into mitigation - we're in mitigation right now that's what the social and physical distancing is.​
The ultimate, the ultimate solution to a virus that might keep coming back would be a vaccine. In fact I was on the weekly conference call with the WHO sponsored group of all the health leaders in the world who are dealing with this, and we all came to the agreement that we may have cycling with another season. We'll be much better prepared we likely will have interventions, but the ultimate game changer in this will be a vaccine, the same way a vaccine for other diseases that were scourges in the past that now we don't even worry about.​
I mean the vaccine is, is as I said, it's on target. We're still in phase one. There were three doses that we had to test. We've been through the first two doses. We're on the highest dose now. When we get that data, it'll take a few months to get the data, to, we feel confident to go to the Phase two and then a few months from now we'll be in Phase two and I think we're right on target for a year to a year and a half.​
 

Attachments

Last edited:
At the daily corona virus press conference Dr. Fauci was asked about how long social distancing would be necessary. It seems to me he says by late June or early July there won’t be any new cases and they will by then have the means in place to isolate any that come up so that things can start to get back to normal. He says, I think, a vaccine is a year or a year and a half away.


Question​
1:03:15​
Looking beyond when we're on the other side of this curve, are we looking at living with some sort of social distancing guidelines essentially, essentially until there's treatment or a vaccine. For example people looking forward to the summer talk about you know going to baseball games going to concerts we have political conventions over the summer are things like that possible or safe without a vaccine or treatment place?​
Dr. Fauci:​
1:03:39​
Yeah, I think if we get to the part of the curve that dr. Birx showed yesterday when it goes down to essentially no new cases no deaths at a period of time,​


[I think this is the graph he is referring to, they showed it yesterday https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections Facui didn’t give a date but to me it looks like by late June or early July there are no new cases.]


View attachment 1590
I think it makes sense that you're gonna have to relax social distancing. The one thing we hopefully would have in place, and I believe we will have in place, is a much more robust system to be able to identify someone who's infected isolate them and then do contact tracing. Because if you have a really good program of containment that prevents you from ever having to get into mitigation - we're in mitigation right now that's what the social and physical distancing is.​
The ultimate, the ultimate solution to a virus that might keep coming back would be a vaccine. In fact I was on the weekly conference call with the WHO sponsored group of all the health leaders in the world who are dealing with this, and we all came to the agreement that we may have cycling with another season. We'll be much better prepared we likely will have interventions, but the ultimate game changer in this will be a vaccine, the same way a vaccine for other diseases that were scourges in the past that now we don't even worry about.​
I mean the vaccine is, is as I said, it's on target. We're still in phase one. There were three doses that we had to test. We've been through the first two doses. We're on the highest dose now. When we get that data, it'll take a few months to get the data, to, we feel confident to go to the Phase two and then a few months from now we'll be in Phase two and I think we're right on target for a year to a year and a half.​
Did anyone hear about this in the news or anywhere else?

It seems like it should be big new but I don't see it being discussed.
 
Is this covid psy-op to divert attention from the implanting of the 5-G machining apparatus?

Then, is 5-G a "rolling back" into a primarily electric kind of environment?


The game-makers are creaming their pants.
 
Top