COVID-19: Analysis, Statistics, Dangers, Outlook, Conclusions

[Kallie Bloomquist]

to:MG "KB, I said I would clear this up so I will.

No, not the reported INFECTION RATE. In fact, that is WAY WAY WAY too low. As Ioannidis and tons of the other scientists I cited have said the infected number globally is likely upward of 300MN people already. Infected/Recovered (not FATALITIES)

This does not clear it up in any wway. I totally understood that you meant that real infections rates are 5X or 10X reported rates as I ignored your incorrect labeling. My complaint is that on one hand you claim that reported US infection rates are too high, and then you claim that the real number of infections is 5-10X the reported number. It makes it irrational for you to downplay the reported infection rate(per100K population) being higher in the US than elsewhere.

On your page 3 ou post:
"The trouble is none of the data anywhere can explain the difference between the US and UK, or Russia, or Japan, or Sweden, or Germany, or France...... Not in terms of infections, b/c what we now know is that total true infection is PHENOMENALLY higher than just 20Mn global cases."

You seem to be claiming that the statistics (That are merely compilations of infection rates in various countries) do not explain why the US INFECTION rate is 4X higher. Of course those statistics do not explain the higher rate, BECAUSE THOSE STATISTICS ARE SIMPLY A COMPILATION OF REPORTED TOTALs, THEY DO NOT EXAMINE ANY UNDERLYING CONDITIONS THAT CAUSING VARYING RATES IN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES!!! If we had studies that compared the infection rates in countries that have high compliance with social distancing and masking, with infections rates where there is low compliance, then we would have data that would explain why the higher infection rate in the US is higher.

[haveacold1atx]

I read enough of it to know you're full of shit. I'm not listening to anyone try and tell me that THEY know what's really going on and everyone else doesn't. I;m not listening to anyone who tries to say that the death toll is false, driven by panic, and I'd understand why if I just read this psych paper. I'm trusting the professionals with PPE glued to their skin, who are the ones reporting the deaths. I don;t believe, for a second, that they're seeing people dying of something else, and then writing down covid as cause of death. The whole idea is just asinine.

[Kallie Bloomquist]

Actually we do have data that shows lower infections rates in countries where masking is the norm. This is trues in Europe, and you have conveniently overlooked this when you claim the US reported infection rate is invalid. It is exactly the reason why infection rates are higher in the US, and you seem to be on the side of non-masking. Additionally, you do not have to even go to Europe to look at what is casing higher infection rates in the US, all you have to do is go back to April and May when there was shelter in place, and you can see low infection rates. Texas opens up to early at the end of May, and infections spike in June as social distancing is not required, and the governor will not allow localities to require masking. Even the politically conservative governor(and I am trying to leave politics out of the discussion) soiled his pants and realized he made a horrible mistake, because the infection rate spiked.
Your shortsightedness on the cause of high US infection rate is stunning. I am thinking you might have got too deep into the trees(statistics), because you are not seeing this incredibly large forest(pandemic.) Maybe you just judged that the the pandemic was not that serious and just went looking for a mish mash of numbers that would support your viewpoint.

We could debate for several days about whether the Raptors or the Bucks will represent the eastern conference in the NBA finals, and if we pick the wrong side, there is no cost to being incorrect. If you want to avoid social distancing and wearing a mask, you will pay a price if you are incorrect. Your clumsy attempts to convince others that social distancing and masking are unnecessary introduce health hazards into the lives of people that you do not know. If you are wrong and some of those people you have convinced die, it seems like that is morally unacceptable. If some of those people you convince get sick, and infect other people who are masking and playing it safe, then you will have caused great harm to innocent people. If I am wrong, and you wore a mask for nothing, there is little harm done.

In matters of life and death, I would advise you to be more cautious in your postings as the self entertainment benefits you gain from your posts are more than offset by the human costs of being incorrect, by a factor of 1000X

[Kallie Bloomquist]

Lastly, you pontificate on the efficacy of a potential Covid-19 vaccine being only 50%. A vaccine that does not even exist.

Really?

What is your obsession with just throwing around numbers? A non-epidemiologist should not even begin to comment on that subject, and if they did comment on that subject, there is little value to that comment, and certainly no useful information conveyed. That kind of statement makes me look at all of your postings with a jaundiced eye.
Maybe a vaccine will have 30% efficacy, maybe it will be 70%. We cannot know since they are just beginning trials on a vaccine. I am confident that with all of the money chasing a vaccine, that we will have something in 6-9 months, but I have to leave open the possibility that we might never have a vaccine(not because I am an epidemiologist, but because there is no sure thing.)

[mathguy]

This does not clear it up in any wway. I totally understood that you meant that real infections rates are 5X or 10X reported rates as I ignored your incorrect labeling. My complaint is that on one hand you claim that reported US infection rates are too high, and then you claim that the real number of infections is 5-10X the reported number. It makes it irrational for you to downplay the reported infection rate(per100K population) being higher in the US than elsewhere.

I don't understand the confusion about it being irrational. Unless you think I mean *ONLY* the US? I haven't meant that through any of this (my essay arguments are worldwide - that's why my data is from various global epicenters and institutions).

What I'm saying is the infection rate (confirmed infections) all over the world, everywhere, is far too low compared the the real infection rate. (Premise #1)

Additionally, the infection fatality rates, worldwide are artificially high for 2 primary reasons:
1. diagnostic cause of death is errant in many cases
2. naturally, if infection rate worldwide is way higher than
we realize (or recoveries) the obviously fatality rate
goes down. (Premise #2)

Disagreeing with the premises is one thing. Totally fine. But I don't see where you are not okay with the logic of premises (disregarding if you believe them or not)?

[mathguy]

Lastly, you pontificate on the efficacy of a potential Covid-19 vaccine being only 50%. A vaccine that does not even exist.

Really?

What is your obsession with just throwing around numbers?

It came from an article on the efficacy of vaccines and what biologic scientists hope to achieve initially. Guys I linked this stuff. I'm not going to keep going & finding it or taking time to relink it. It's in the essay and scientific links & docs.

A non-epidemiologist should not even begin to comment on that subject, and if they did comment on that subject, there is little value to that comment, and certainly no useful information conveyed.

Well, sorry, KB, I like you, and think you're a smart guy, we've talked before, I do believe that, but I think this is naive. I would say a "non-scientist" shouldn't attempt it. I think anyone who is analytical and a scientist should look at anything with a critical eye to make their own determination, particularly something very new and still unknown in certain areas. Even more so when the person is extremely well versed and educated in biosciences.

Also, remember, unless you haven't been privy to my lengthy post history, my best childhood friend is someone I talk to all the time and he is an epidemiologist (biochemist & geneticist at Max Planck working on this virus - we talk about it all the time - as much as his time allows).

I say that bc it's part of where I get some of my data, opinions, and also is partly to do with my biological sciences education (continued education that is).

You are right though we don't know what the vaccine efficacy will be. I never said that. It's just highly highly likely that it won't be anywhere near even 90%. The flu has had decades of development and averages only 65%.

I'm not just throwing numbers. I gave links to everything. I'm not going to do it everytime. It's already posted. Some of it twice at least.

I do wish you would post some links to your data. I do tind your disagreement. I don't. I just wish you would read the data and I wish you would produce some of your own (links at least).

No I didn't look for information to support my argument. I discussed this with my colleagues, also the best friend I mentioned, and I've been following this research for months and months. I look at it objectively. As any scientist should. If you don't you are by definition a quack scientist (or at the very least a bad one).

The problem I have is that the arguments you have about moral acceptance of killing people. Guys, again, read, there is TONS AND TONS of data about this viewpoint - this NOT some esoteric off the wall.

Anyway, the problem is it's a bit like saying: "if you believed in heaven and god all your life and found out at the end it was wrong what would you have done wrong with your life?". Well that's great and all however it's a syllogistic fallacy and faulty logic when trying to prove is religion is worthy or real. Just because you question something does not give you reason to consider it a valid or even proper postulation, premise, or form of mental evaluation. None of those are correct.

Fear induces that kind of thinking (i.e. fear of burning forever in the my hypothetical argument). Btw no no no this is not religious or about religion. I hate to use that one but it serves the purpose to show invalidity of believing in something *just* b/c it's the safer option in the end. If you never hit a baseball or played baseball it probably means you will never break a bone. Is that a valid reason for no one to ever pursue sports or baseball? For fear of a sprain or bruise or broken leg?

I do agree with you though, absolutely, about the fact that we don't know yet. We don't. Not about the vaccine nor about the final outcome of this virus. That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye or simply listen to a media that is hyper fixated on doom and fear (and especially on the election - even though I too worry about that immensely and hope hope hope we don't have a huge mistake AGAIN). I still don't want that to come at the expense of science or introducing poor & rushed science. I *AM* a scientist. A very, very good one. A very educated one. If you don't believe my arguments about this then fine. I don't have a problem with that. I do wish any of you disagree would stop living in fear, would read the data I posted, research your own, and finally post some of your own when you disagree with mine.

I do think anyone should read the data and you should stop to take a look at what's happening with the poor science around this virus along with the harmful psychological effects that are already in play within our society. However, I do not have a problem with anyone disagreeing.

The few of you who are vocal here are elderly and you are scared. I get that. It doesn't mean you should buy into the nonsense hysteria nor should you be mad at as a scientist (among hundreds and thousands of others) who disgree with the party line given by crazy scientists like Ferguson or Fauci/Birx (who are just sycophantic political puppets anyway).

BTW: No, I'm not against masks. Even my kids use them. We use hand sanitizer and wipe things down. I'm not doing anything dangerous.

I won't walk into a crowd of coughing or sick looking people or let my kids do it. I wouldn't do that any other time though as well (pandemic or not). That's really the larger issue here. The flu is essentially a yearly pandemic infecting >1-1.5Bn ppl (estimated) but we don't go crazy b/c we expect it.

[Greented]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This post is the epitome of a smoke and mirrors tactic, a total shell-game.. that isn't based on years of study in infectious diseases. It is merely the summation of a lot of confirmation bias fueled google searches.

I feel sorry for anyone that reads this and believes that this is much less deadly than the flu and extra sorry for those of us who have suffered with it and lost coworkers, friends, and family members to it.

Shame on you.

Thank you very much for that. Confirmation bias is a helluva thing to witness, isn't it?

And yes, I've had friends and coworkers test positive, and one co-worker who died back in May. He had a wife and kids. Very, very sad.

[mathguy]

^ Yes that is sad what happened to your co-worker and their family. Very said indeed. However, it still didn't prove the Fauci/Birx party line assessment whatsoever. Not in the least bit. Even 100k, even 200k, deaths doesn't do that.

Confirmation bias? Seriously? Did either of you just Google that to find a nifty little psychological term to fit your own argument? Confirmation bias is EXACTLY the problem here with the science and the panic and public opinion. Do you two realize that what you did with both of those quotes is to PROVE and support my own point even further?

Look guys, you don't have to believe me (though I am a scientist & have both postdoc epidemiologist/geneticist colleagues & friends). But put that aside. you don't need to even care about that. I'm just asking you to read the data out there. Don't listen to some damn sycophantic quack publicity "docs" who are just trying to cover their own ass (and NOW have to continue in order to not ruin their careers for this horrible situation they caused).

I meant to discuss this earlier too: someone talked about how "pappy" dying (or some such) is morally unacceptable to promote this alternate scientific theory (and psychtheory - b/c it's really both) if the other one happens to be true (i.e. the absolutely absurd idiotic doom & gloom "Fauci", Ferguson precipitated, theory).

Ok, let's just say it was really super duper deadly to elderly, severely, and would kill 3-4MN people worldwide eventually (I think that's silly AF but for argument sake let's say it's true). Ok so IF that was true? Then what about this aspect here? By some estimates the anxiety toll, the significant increase in suicides (I believe last stat I saw was an ~14-16% increase post pandemic - iirc), due to foreclosures, lost businesses that have been built for 20yrs, divorces, increased medication usage for depression, starvations, homelessness, etc etc etc will affect over 10Mn people. And that's not even discussing the issue to children's health, both physical (no exercise - no school, PE) & mental, improper education (parents can't properly home school, social alienation (more depression, mental issues), and so on....

What of those issues? To save a very small percentage of extremely advanced in age (IF that were even the case - it's not but for argument sake lets keep saying it is). Don't go on about how young people die too guys. I posted the data, even from the CDC, those are all edge cases. I posted this stuff. If you don't read it you are just being stubborn AF. The total risk to those under 70 puts the flu at 2-3.7 times as deadly as this virus. The data is there. I linked it. GO READ IT. SHEESH MAN. Stop being so damn panicked and read please! Sheesh. I know you are scared. But look man, even if your precious Fauci/Birx party line were true (and I'd bet my own progeny it's not given data I've researched, followed, as well as been presented by my buddy & friends at Max Planck Institute) it STILL would be the MUCH lesser of two evils. Is it tragic for elderly people in their 80s and beyond? Absolutely. But you can't compare the damage. It's a no-brainer even IF that ridiculous apocalypse scenario were correct.

I am telling you now, mark my words, even if it takes 6mos or significantly longer for the data to get validated, those fuckers are covering their ass now b/c if (not if... WHEN) it comes out finally, meaning when all this study data I've linked is fully confirmed and is also too overwhelming in number to 'pretend' anymore, and the "dissenting" group of us scientists who are skeptical for numerous reasons, those political sycophantic "docs" are DONE. Careers over after what they caused this world over a [relatively] insignificant infection.

When I say 'pretend' an example, just one of many, is the constant discussion if lag times in the news, it's coming, it's coming, oh wait now some docs think this, oh wait now we decided it's this theory, the lag is gonna catch up, yadda yadda, it was delayed by blah blah.... I mean jesus dudes how many times do you have to listen to that nonsensical journalistic hyperbole and politico doc speak, and then when it never materializes you finally start to do some critical thinking for yourself? How many times?? Seriously. I ask my dad this crap all the time. He is every single bit as hard headed as some of you older dudes. Stop being so damn scared. Just read. I gave you the information. Read. I'm trying to help you. Sheesh. You act like I'm trying to hurt you. :/

That's why they have to beat that horse for all it's worth just like all the other smaller time docs have to do too (though admittedly they are at less career risk, but still, anyone wants to save themselves from egg on their face - human nature). That's another reason the "confirmation bias" comments are funny too. Do you really understand what confirmation bias is or did you just Google and read the summary from Wiki? As opposed to investigating it if you really wanted to use it in a valid sense? Because all you did there is prove my point further from two different angles.

I don't know why you few guys are so hard headed or why you are so disrespectful to me and/or hurt by this. If you would actually read the data and critically think for yourself, instead of relying on journalists, and instead of trying to decide whether or not I'm Stephen Hawking/Einstein or the equivalent in biosciences (btw lemme give you a hint - I'm damn close.... lol ) you would be doing yourself a world of good. I promise you.

Mark my words. Stay here long enough, on these boards, and the 2-4 of you guys will owe me an apology. Guaranteed. Okay not guaranteed. I concede I could be wrong. But I'm not (seriously).

Either way people I just want what is best for our society. And what's happening now is not it... very sadly

[ProSlacker]

I can't find the line now, but I think in one of the first few posts there was a quote about having more infections would have been better than slowing the rate of infection.

This overlooks what the impact on the mortality rate would have been. Hospitals would have run out of ventilators and ICU beds, and gone into triage mode (something we may see in Hidalgo county if that hasn't already been happening). When NY was the epicenter, 80% of people on ventilators died. I think that is down to 50% now. You can probably assume 100% of the people who would have needed to be intubated and were unable to, would have died had there been a higher infection rate and hospitals at capacity.

I haven't seen the mortality for those in ICU beds, but I think we can assume that the mortality rate would have been higher for people who were sent home due to lack of ICU beds than the ones who did receive care at hospitals.

I don't think this would have been better if the virus was permitted to run unabated. Sweden tried that - protecting the elderly/vulnerable and letting others continue business as usual. I don't think it worked out very well there.

[Kallie Bloomquist]

Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Bloomquist View Post
Lastly, you pontificate on the efficacy of a potential Covid-19 vaccine being only 50%. A vaccine that does not even exist.

Really?

ME-What is your obsession with just throwing around numbers?
It came from an article on the efficacy of vaccines and what biologic scientists hope to achieve initially.

MG "Guys I linked this stuff. I'm not going to keep going & finding it or taking time to relink it. It's in the essay and scientific links & docs."

There was no link whatsoever to the potential efficacy of a covid-19 vaccine. The vaccine does not exist, so any discussion of the efficacy would be pure speculation. Your claim to have knowledge about the vaccine efficacy, if believed by a reader, might lend weight to your other posts. You do talk about an article, and that the biologists goal is to achieve an efficacy of at least 50%, but the goal does not mean that is the outcome,(and you acknowledge that in about 20 words, after writing several hundred words about the efficacy of the vaccine.)

Maybe you have posted an excessive amount of words, and that is causing confusion.

[Kallie Bloomquist]

"This will be an essay on SARS-COV-2 and the resulting COVID-19 sickness. It will be one of the most comprehensive and lengthy pieces of data available on this site regarding COVID-19. I am doing this here, just as I do in other places, online forums, news outlets, etc... b/c I believe it's imperative that people begin to understand the truly phenomenal nature of the perfect storm of events that lead us to this point, which has become rather absurd in totality."

In your best case scenario, the death rate is .25%, or 2.5/1000, x 320million US citizens=750-800,000 US deaths if everyone is infected. I am going to go out on a limb and say that being concerned about Covid-19 is not absurd.

[Kallie Bloomquist]

"Anyway, the problem is it's a bit like saying: "if you believed in heaven and god all your life and found out at the end it was wrong what would you have done wrong with your life?". Well that's great and all however it's a syllogistic fallacy and faulty logic when trying to prove is religion is worthy or real. Just because you question something does not give you reason to consider it a valid or even proper postulation, premise, or form of mental evaluation. None of those are correct."

What I am saying is there is a lot of uncertainty about Covid-19. I am not asking anyone to believe in a "religion" of masking for all your life, and then at the end you realize there is no god in your religion. What i am asking is that people believe in the "religion of masking for the next six to nine months" and then when things are safe you can return to being a pandemic pagan, or as asymptomatic agnostic. it seems like a very simple thing to ask for.

[Kallie Bloomquist]

from MG-BTW: No, I'm not against masks. Even my kids use them. We use hand sanitizer and wipe things down. I'm not doing anything dangerous.

So i am not sure what all of this essay is about. You want to inform us of the absurdity of the excess response to the pandemic, but then you seem to be in favor of masking and social distancing. If what you say is true about the pandemic not being so bad, how does that supposition change the way we live our daily lives? If the pandemic response is absurd, what should we be doing different?

[Kallie Bloomquist]

Admittedly, I am a lay person. Anyone else that posts on this anonymous board is not presenting any credentials, and is not more qualified(on ourhome2) than a lay person to discuss Covid-19.

An olive branch for MG would be for him to post link to two sites that post discussions from credentialed experts in the field. One site would support the idea that there is a dangerous pandemic out there, the other site would argue that there is just an average flu going around. Interested readers could follow up as they wish.

[Kallie Bloomquist]

"It's likely that the SARS-COV-2 vaccine, particularly initially, will have at best 50-60% efficacy if we are lucky."

So i did some searching on this issue, and i found an article the Scientist that reported the FDA will not approve any vaccine that is not at least 50% effective, so maybe that is where you got your info. Given that the FDA will not fund anything less than 50% effective, your statement about the efficacy is pure speculation. It is possible you have some credentials that allow you to make an educated guess on the efficacy of a vaccine that does not exist, but I would urge you to exercise some restraint here.

There are about 40 vaccines in various stages of development

The vaccines in development:

The US government is choosing three vaccine candidates to fund for Phase 3 trials under Operation Warp Speed: Moderna’s mRNA-1273 in July, The University of Oxford and AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 in August, and Pfizer and BioNTech's BNT162 in September. Members of ACTIV have suggested developing safe controlled human infection models (CHIMs) for human trials could take 1-2 years. A sponsor would need to provide data from placebo-controlled trials indicating their vaccine is at least 50% effective against COVID-19 in order to be authorized for use, according to FDA guidance issued and effective 30 June.

This tracker lists COVID-19 vaccine candidates currently in Phase 1-3 trials, as well as major candidates in pre-clinical stages of development and research. Information will be updated weekly. If you notice an issue with this data or wish to submit an update, please email Focus at news@raps.org.

The site has a listing of 43 vaccines in various states of development, and of course no one is conjecturing on their efficacy.