Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-20-2020, 02:42 PM   #4781
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Some of the hardest hit care homes in Canada have lost 30-40% of their residents, so I don't know that 3% means a whole lot. Particularly when over 50% of Sweden's deaths have been outside of care homes (Canada is more like 20%).

And regardless, the whole premise of the most vulnerable dying in the 1st wave is based on the faulty assumption that deaths are not tracking with infections in Sweden in their 2nd wave. They are, and in fact they're rising faster than infections. Their weekly deaths went up about 10x from mid October to early November (up to Nov 10th, which is probably the most recent day we have 90+% complete data for). So far this fall, Sweden is seeing no benefit from their widespread infections and fatalities in the spring.
I believe you're referring to this article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nursi...aths-1.5641266

It states 30-40% dead in a 3 month period. However, it does not state cause of death. Median life expectancy in a care home is less than 6 months. So we don't actually know the impact of Covid. It's likely high, but not the entire 30-40%.

Additionally, not all care homes are equal. Some will be more exposed due to conditions, location, quality of residents, etc... Presumably the most vulnerable of care home would be hit first too.

Given the high death rate from care homes in Sweden, I don't see how you could possibly argue that it's not a factor.
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:46 PM   #4782
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53320155

https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...rsn=96b04adf_4

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...are-have-virus

A lot of these stats are based on people who test positive. There'd be another subset who are exposed, develop immunity, and never become infected enough to test positive.
When citing "current data" it would be advantageous to cite the most current data, not data from March, for example.

Quote:
The new study, published today in PLOS Medicine, reviewed information gathered early in the pandemic to find that most coronavirus infections will show symptoms at some point during infection.

The researchers from the University of Bern in Switzerland reviewed studies conducted in the early weeks of the pandemic using a database of SARS-CoV-2 evidence from March and June of this year.

Their findings suggest only an estimated 20 percent of infections remained symptom-free.

They specifically analyzed 79 studies containing data on more than 6,000 people, with about 1,300 defined as asymptomatic, to determine the proportion of people with an infection who never developed symptoms.

But this didn’t mean the person couldn’t spread the virus.
https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...d-asymptomatic

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1003346

Quote:
Research early in the pandemic suggested that the rate of asymptomatic infections could be as high as 81%. But a meta-analysis published last month1, which included 13 studies involving 21,708 people, calculated the rate of asymptomatic presentation to be 17%. The analysis defined asymptomatic people as those who showed none of the key COVID-19 symptoms during the entire follow-up period, and the authors included only studies that followed participants for at least seven days. Evidence suggests that most people develop symptoms in 7–13 days, says lead author Oyungerel Byambasuren, a biomedical researcher at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Gold Coast, Australia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

And, to the point of Sweden, which I'm still not sure why some posters are continuing to pretend they know a lick about, both their infections and deaths are tracking higher than Canada over recent time on a per capita basis as of today. So, I'm not particularly sure why we're even beginning to pretend they're not in a mess.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:46 PM   #4783
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3 View Post
Source?



(needed to be said again, blankall has been on this thread from the beginning hoping this thing isn't as bad as it is, and there is a point at which hope in the face of danger becomes reckless).
Do you want to go back and see the exaggerated death rates that I was arguing against? Some people were arguing as high as 5% in the general population.

I've stated pretty consistently that the population death rate is around .3%, which is far closer to the truth than the people I've been arguing against.
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:51 PM   #4784
surferguy
Monster Storm
 
surferguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Toronto and Peel region going back into lockdown on Monday.
__________________
Shameless self promotion

surferguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:54 PM   #4785
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
Lol....

I'm just curious what percentage of care home people who get exposed to Coronavirus die? I'm going to help you out here too...because if you say it's too high, then that means that the rest of the population has proportionally lower deaths, which strongly contradicts other points your asserting about the effect of Covid on the population as a whole.

At over 3% of the care home population already dead, that's quite significant. Assuming the fatality rate of care home residents from Covid exposure is 10%, that means that about 1/3 of care home residents have already been exposed. If the fatality rate is 5%, that means almost 2/3 of care home residents have been exposed.

So no new patients are being admitted to care homes over the course of a year? Because my personal experience with a care home was that new patients were being added almost daily.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:55 PM   #4786
MoneyGuy
Franchise Player
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Strathmore has repealed its mask law but I’m hearing it may be modified and brought back.

https://strathmorenow.com/stories/co...IaWSfrqXL3NNPA
MoneyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:56 PM   #4787
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
When citing "current data" it would be advantageous to cite the most current data, not data from March, for example.



https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...d-asymptomatic

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1003346



https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

And, to the point of Sweden, which I'm still not sure why some posters are continuing to pretend they know a lick about, both their infections and deaths are tracking higher than Canada over recent time on a per capita basis as of today. So, I'm not particularly sure why we're even beginning to pretend they're not in a mess.
Recent study:

https://www.dovepress.com/three-quar...d-article-CLEP

A major issue with your sources is that they deal with "infections". IE people who test positive. Most asymptomatic people are unlikely to test positive.
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:56 PM   #4788
stazzy33
Scoring Winger
 
stazzy33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53320155

https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...rsn=96b04adf_4

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...are-have-virus

A lot of these stats are based on people who test positive. There'd be another subset who are exposed, develop immunity, and never become infected enough to test positive.
All of the articles mention that your asymptomatic group is more likely a pre-symptomatic group that eventually goes on to show symptoms, basically refuting your claims.

The BBC articles says, "So the 78% not reporting symptoms on the day of the test includes "pre-symptomatic" people as well as "asymptomatic"- those who will never develop noticeable symptoms". It does not provide a breakdown of those that eventually develop symptoms.

The WHO briefing says, "For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection,
requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation". So grouping mild and asymptomatic together I could also make the statement that 80% of cases are mild but symptomatic.

The Healthline article repeatedly talks about people who are spreading the virus when they are pre-symptomatic, not that all cases are asymptomatic.
stazzy33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 02:57 PM   #4789
stazzy33
Scoring Winger
 
stazzy33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
Recent study:

https://www.dovepress.com/three-quar...d-article-CLEP

A major issue with your sources is that they deal with "infections". IE people who test positive. Most asymptomatic people are unlikely to test positive.
Wut?
stazzy33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 03:00 PM   #4790
opendoor
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
I believe you're referring to this article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nursi...aths-1.5641266

It states 30-40% dead in a 3 month period. However, it does not state cause of death. Median life expectancy in a care home is less than 6 months. So we don't actually know the impact of Covid. It's likely high, but not the entire 30-40%.

Additionally, not all care homes are equal. Some will be more exposed due to conditions, location, quality of residents, etc... Presumably the most vulnerable of care home would be hit first too.

Given the high death rate from care homes in Sweden, I don't see how you could possibly argue that it's not a factor.
If it was a significant factor, we would presumably see the # of infections rise faster than the # of deaths, since the share of vulnerable people getting infected would be lower. But that hasn't happened at all so far this fall. Deaths over the last month are on just as steep of a curve as new infections.

Additionally, Sweden's share of care home deaths relative to total COVID deaths isn't out of line at all with lots of other places that are seeing massive spikes in deaths. So if it doesn't appear to be a notable factor in other jurisdictions, why would it be in Sweden?

And finally, I'm not sure how you square the bolded with the idea that Sweden's mortality rate should be depressed in the fall because of what happened to the vulnerable in the spring. If the median stay is 6 months and we're about 6 months after the height of mortality in Sweden, wouldn't the majority of the care home residents (and virtually all of the most vulnerable) have been replaced with new people who are now in a similar state of health?
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 03:06 PM   #4791
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
Recent study:

https://www.dovepress.com/three-quar...d-article-CLEP

A major issue with your sources is that they deal with "infections". IE people who test positive. Most asymptomatic people are unlikely to test positive.
What are you even talking about? Did you read your own study? It too deals with "infections."

And the study I presented talks about that specifically, citing that most who cite no symptoms the day of their test develop symptoms afterward, and only 20% remain asymptomatic. The study you presented covers only the day of the test for the people included.

Both the studies I presented and this one here also refute your "most asymptomatic people are unlikely to test positive" line. What in the world is it with nonsense like this?

Understand the studies, read, absorb the knowledge. The rate at which you pull stuff out of your ass and misrepresent things is really alarming, to the point where it comes off as trolling honestly.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 03:09 PM   #4792
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Curious, if people think the only option is for vastly increased deaths in Sweden, how do they explain the similar pattern in New York.

Also, what's the explanation for why Sweden's deaths didn't rise sooner than Belgium's or France's? Sweden had very light restrictions relative to these countries. Why didn't their second wave start sooner?
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Old 11-20-2020, 03:19 PM   #4793
kevman
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
I'm not going to do a statistical analysis on that, but on first glance it looks like 2017 and 2018 were almost as bad. 2019 is more of the anomaly. Were there much better interventions that had done in 2019, that they can't do due to the pandemic?


EDIT: Also, to say caused by the lockdown, rather than pandemic, is adding a narrative to the data. The data doesn't show the lockdown caused deaths to increase.
I'm looping back a bit here on the ODs in Vancouver but I just listened to As It Happens from earlier this week and the mayor of Vancouver said, among other things, that the lockdown is leading to additional deaths.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...tion-1.5806884

The lockdown in conjunction with the stigma of drug use has resulted in more addicts using on their own. The problem with social distancing measures is that you no longer have a support person by your side to be able to administer naloxone if you need it. These users are ODing and dying alone at an increased rate because of the lockdown.
kevman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kevman For This Useful Post:
Old 11-20-2020, 03:20 PM   #4794
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
What are you even talking about? Did you read your own study? It too deals with "infections."

And the study I presented talks about that specifically, citing that most who cite no symptoms the day of their test develop symptoms afterward, and only 20% remain asymptomatic. The study you presented covers only the day of the test for the people included.

Both the studies I presented and this one here also refute your "most asymptomatic people are unlikely to test positive" line. What in the world is it with nonsense like this?

Understand the studies, read, absorb the knowledge. The rate at which you pull stuff out of your ass and misrepresent things is really alarming, to the point where it comes off as trolling honestly.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26...fs/20-1620.pdf

The data is clearly all over the place. In this study which states that of people who had a viral load enough to test positive, 58.7% remained asymptomatic through the entire course of their stay. And on top of that, the study only dealt with people who had been submitted to testing, presumably that group will skew more towards symptomatic.
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 03:21 PM   #4795
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stazzy33 View Post
Wut?
Quote:
Q: When is it indicated to test asymptomatic individuals for COVID-19?
A: Almost never. Negative results are not informative, and will represent the vast
majority of results. Positive results will be very rare and potentially misleading.
Negative results are not useful. A person who is exposed to COVID-19, and who may develop the infection, will test negative for most of their incubation period.
https://physicians.northernhealth.ca...ic-testing.pdf
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Old 11-20-2020, 03:35 PM   #4796
puckedoff
First Line Centre
 
puckedoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
This is what I found surprising about AHS recommending getting tested within 24hrs of being notified you are a close contact. Maybe they are assuming incubation period is over, but I would think it would be more useful to isolate for a couple days then go get tested so there is lots of virus in your boogers.

Obviously if you already test positive right away that is most helpful in order to inform other close contacts, so thats probably why.
puckedoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 03:36 PM   #4797
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
Curious, if people think the only option is for vastly increased deaths in Sweden, how do they explain the similar pattern in New York.

Also, what's the explanation for why Sweden's deaths didn't rise sooner than Belgium's or France's? Sweden had very light restrictions relative to these countries. Why didn't their second wave start sooner?
That's a PhD level question, what kind of answer are you hoping for and what do you hope to achieve with an answer?

Restrictions, COVID spread, culture, geography, politics, genetics, population density, seasons, etc. all play factors in this.

What's your explanation for why second wave cases and deaths per capita in Sweden are tracking well above Denmark, Norway, and Finland? Especially after a first wave that hit Sweden harder than the rest combined (per capita) and especially given that Sweden is still behind testing compared to the others?
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 03:40 PM   #4798
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
So your point is that people without COVID do not have COVID?

Astounding, brilliant. But we're talking about people WITH COVID who are asymptomatic.

Slight, but important difference.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
#-3
Old 11-20-2020, 03:41 PM   #4799
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
So your point is that people without COVID do not have COVID?

Astounding, brilliant. But we're talking about people WITH COVID who are asymptomatic.

Slight, but important difference.
He's making reasonable points, but you have backed yourself into a weird stance where all you can do is be condescending in your responses. You can do better than this.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-20-2020, 03:44 PM   #4800
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
That's a PhD level question, what kind of answer are you hoping for and what do you hope to achieve with an answer?

Restrictions, COVID spread, culture, geography, politics, genetics, population density, seasons, etc. all play factors in this.

What's your explanation for why second wave cases and deaths per capita in Sweden are tracking well above Denmark, Norway, and Finland? Especially after a first wave that hit Sweden harder than the rest combined (per capita) and especially given that Sweden is still behind testing compared to the others?

I would say Denmark is the outlier there. I have no explanation for why they would have so fewer infections and deaths than the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Sweden, etc...

A quick looks at a population density map, in combination with the insular nature of their economies, is the likely explanation for Finland and Norway:

blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:06 PM.

Calgary Flames
2019-20




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016