thank you.
False negatives. I think false positives were around 1%?
1 Like
Thanks for the correction. Which is worse?
1 Like
The real question, to get an accurate comparison of the effect of COVID-19 and traditional flu on society are:
- How many people would die of COVID 19 if we did not shut down the economy, global travel and issued stay at home orders? You are comparing a number attained only after we told a huge chunk of america to stay at home.
Would be interesting to see how many flu deaths we have had since the lockdownsâŠand compare that to last year.
Your point about therapeutics is moot. We have therapeutics for the flu. We currently donât for COVID-19. This is just the reality of the day. This is an important difference and dictates why we must react differently to one than the other. It may change one day, and that will change our reaction to COVID 19. It does not somehow suggest that they are more similar than we realize.
Unknowable. Counterfactual. We didnât.
Has anyone here gotten a test?
From what Iâve heard, itâs not a pleasant experience. A swab is inserted up your nose. (Which, in itself isnât usually so bad.) But they have to insert it quite far, apparently. If not far enough, they often get a false negative if you actually do have the virus. The required depth is what makes the test an unpleasant experience.
Of dubious benefit at best.
The last figure I saw was that 50% of patients who are put on a ventilator still die.
The illusion of control.
Good thing we didnât run out of ventilators.
1 Like
Good question. I would go with false negatives for purposes of testing and tracing. Thatâs 30% slipping through the cracks.
1 Like
Newer testing doesnât require this.
Trump has explained this at his briefing.
I have seen as high as 80 percent not making it.
That would be my surmise as well.
Iâd seen that as well. Ventilators are basically a death sentence. Youâd have better results rolling them on their stomachs.
Actually I believe survival rate is like 30 percent.
Trick is to keep them from going on ventilators. Thatâs why I said while back give me the drugs first.
This is what Iâve heard as well from my sister and cousin.
given the information that approximately 50X more people have been infected than reported it seems to me that all that staying at home did not stop many infections. there are something like 300K people running around LA that have already had the virus, how many more do you think may have gotten it since those 300K were not quarantined?
comparing flu deaths might be interesting, but not telling. different strain every year. some are bad, some ainât.
the therapeutics is not moot, its key. what dictates our actions is not a lack of therapy, its virulence. if this thing ends up in the .1% range, its no worse than a flu season with or without therapies. at .3 or higher a bad flu. if 50X more people have already had it, then virulence will lesson over time as immunities build.
right now, its worse. it wonât be as bad in round 2, and going forward it will become the âlesserâ flu.
Iâm not sure the way forward should not be to end restrictions for those under 45. let the virus run its course and target mitigation toward those over 45. those under 45, especially under 19, are very low risk
Someone else said that newer testing isnât so invasive. Might be true. But whatâs already rolled out in the pipeline is what will get used where itâs available. Maybe over time the newer tests will supplant the ones that have to mine your sinuses.
By the logic of some other than myself, yes.
Personally Iâm tired of having my health care choices pushed by a desire to avoid problems that affect a minority of the human population.
The vast majority of babies arenât born with problems like anancephaly or Downâs Syndrome. I did not want a blood test that is strictly a probability & statistics type screening and most pregnant women with abnormal results donât even have babies with these defects
Am opposed to the HPV vaccine. How did women in the post menopausal years live with normal Pap histories when the vaccine is only about 20 odd years old? Only a small percentage of those HPV positive develop cervical cancer.
Itâs bad enough when individual health care decisions are pushed to prevent problems that occur in a minority of individuals. Shutting down an entire economy for a virus from which most positive recover at home?!
Feh!!!
No, but a family friend said the same exact thing: it was a thoroughly invasive & unpleasant experience (man was running a fever).