Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#64,901
#64,901
I’ve worked in a hospital for the last 5 years in maintenance. In April, when all of this really started becoming the center of attention, I changed an exhaust fan over a room that was holding a patient with COVID. Due to the lack of PPE, all I had was a surgical mask. Once you wire the exhaust fan up you have to turn the switch on before putting the cover on because the switch sits under the cover. Needless to say, even after that extreme exposure, I don’t think I contracted it but would almost guarantee that I have the antibodies. If it’s as contagious as “they” say, I don’t see how I wouldn’t of contracted it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and Wireless1
#64,902
#64,902
Grudenator said:
I’ve worked in a hospital for the last 5 years in maintenance. In April, when all of this really started becoming the center of attention, I changed an exhaust fan over a room that was holding a patient with COVID. Due to the lack of PPE, all I had was a surgical mask. Once you wire the exhaust fan up you have to turn the switch on before putting the cover on because the switch sits under the cover. Needless to say, even after that extreme exposure, I don’t think I contracted it but would almost guarantee that I have the antibodies. If it’s as contagious as “they” say, I don’t see how I wouldn’t of contracted it.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the maintenance guys having to change out filters in those icu rooms the other day to NGV and what all you guys come in contact with . I feel bad for you .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grudenator and tntar heel
#64,904
#64,904
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, Wireless1, volfanjustin and 2 others
#64,906
#64,906
volbeast33 said:
I love studies lol..... can we claim that volnation did a study and found no link to coronavirus and the game of football.
Click to expand...
Actually we just need to cancel the games, call them a "Protest" and have a little football played at the same time!
"We haven't seen any links to protests" said Knox County Health Department Director MArtha Buchanan
 
#64,910
#64,910
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#64,912
#64,912
Velo Vol said:
If Florida is publishing bad data, whose problem is that?

Hint: Not @evillawyer's.
Click to expand...

Maybe EL should wait and see instead of biting on the negative twitter posts 100% of the time . When something sound either too good or too bad to be true .. it usually is . 🤷‍♂️
Oh who am I kidding we all know better than to expect anything more .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Wireless1 and 508mikey
#64,913
#64,913
Ec5gfNAWoAAkTrF
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Smokey'sHandler, Volsfaninva917 and 3 others
#64,917
#64,917
allvol123 said:
I figured it was their mismanagement of the elderly given we have seen a population of 300 million plus making 50-60k new cases a day can barely produce daily death totals that matched NY at their peak.
Click to expand...

New York's handling of elderly was not unique to any of the other peak states at that time as far as I can tell. And, though I still don't know if I have captured ALL of the nursing home patient deaths (because they stopped including those that died in hospitals at one point), my analysis of the deaths that were reported suggested that the relative risk of nursing home death to the general population (of a similar age demographic) wasn't higher in NY than other peak pandemic states. In fact, it was lower - but I also know I was missing NY deaths due to how they were reporting them at the time.

The real issue, IMO, is that New York is one of our most densely populated cities with a huge population and a lot of European travel. The virus ripped through the city before they even knew it was there - no social distancing, no masks, etc. And they paid a high price.

That isn't to say that protecting the elderly wouldn't have improved the situation. It would have. However, no one figured out how to do that during the peak of the pandemic with huge fractions of active infection in the general population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol and ChattaVolMD
#64,918
#64,918
TennTradition said:
New York's handling of elderly was not unique to any of the other peak states at that time as far as I can tell. And, though I still don't know if I have captured ALL of the nursing home patient deaths (because they stopped including those that died in hospitals at one point), my analysis of the deaths that were reported suggested that the relative risk of nursing home death to the general population (of a similar age demographic) wasn't higher in NY than other peak pandemic states. In fact, it was lower - but I also know I was missing NY deaths due to how they were reporting them at the time.

The real issue, IMO, is that New York is one of our most densely populated cities with a huge population and a lot of European travel. The virus ripped through the city before they even knew it was there - no social distancing, no masks, etc. And they paid a high price.

That isn't to say that protecting the elderly wouldn't have improved the situation. It would have. However, no one figured out how to do that during the peak of the pandemic with huge fractions of active infection in the general population.
Click to expand...

Why would the rate it ripped thru skew death Disproportionately? Density affecting rate of transmission makes sense. Why would density affect death rate differently?
 
#64,919
#64,919
allvol123 said:
Why would the rate it ripped thru skew death Disproportionately? Density affecting rate of transmission makes sense. Why would density affect death rate differently?
Click to expand...

It just affected the total number of people infected - it spread so quickly there with the dense population and in a period that we were doing little to no testing. No one checked it during that period with hand washing, distancing, masks, etc. So the very high infection rates led to the high deaths we saw.

The iFR in New York came out to be about 0.3-0.4%, which is fairly consistent with what we are seeing from antibody studies around the world. I'll admit there are decently large error bars from those studies conducted back in April because timing was very significant in calculating the rates because we were still coming out of peak deaths. So, we'll see what later AB studies reveal. But, it wouldn't surprise me if the iFR isn't that different in NY than other places.
 
#64,921
#64,921
TennTradition said:
It just affected the total number of people infected - it spread so quickly there with the dense population and in a period that we were doing little to no testing. No one checked it during that period with hand washing, distancing, masks, etc. So the very high infection rates led to the high deaths we saw.

The iFR in New York came out to be about 0.3-0.4%, which is fairly consistent with what we are seeing from antibody studies around the world. I'll admit there are decently large error bars from those studies conducted back in April because timing was very significant in calculating the rates because we were still coming out of peak deaths. So, we'll see what later AB studies reveal. But, it wouldn't surprise me if the iFR isn't that different in NY than other places.
Click to expand...

Quoted from a trusted source that I have followed since early March:

"As I predicted 6 weeks ago and again last week, the CDC finally realized their infection fatality rate estimate of 0.4% (for symptomatic infections) and 0.25% for all infections including asymptomatic, which is the one everyone uses was too low and they've adjusted their "best guess" estimated overall IFR (including asymptomatic) to 0.65%, with an estimated range of 0.5-0.8%, which is very close to the 0.5-1.0% I've been predicting for months (since the NY antibody testing was done in early April, at least, revealing their IFR of about 1.1%, and this was before most epidemiologists were saying it - they're mostly estimating 0.5-1.0% now, as per the 2nd linked post below). I'd rather they were right, but they simply weren't factoring in the antibody testing data properly, IMO.

This is likely the last "inherent" IFR estimate, as we're now starting to see (I think) the impact of improved medical procedures and treatments on the IFR and we should expect the effective IFR to come down from here on out and especially once we have engineered antibodies and, of course, vaccines. But the 0.5-1.0% IFR range provides a good "worst case" planning tool for death estimates should we not practice interventions (like masking/distancing and testing, tracing and isolating) or if treatments/vaccines don't pan out as planned. And that is what gives us the crazy high potential of 0.9MM-2.6MM US deaths eventually, if 55-80% become infected with an IFR of 0.5-1.0%."

This dude has been prescient on all things Covid throughout....

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Scientists Say New, Lower CDC Estimates For Severity Of COVID-19 Are Optimistic
 
Last edited:
#64,923
#64,923
"On Tuesday, Thomas File, Jr., president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, released a statement on behalf of his colleagues throwing their support behind Fauci. “The only way out of this pandemic is by following the science, and developing evidence-based prevention practices and treatment protocols as new scientifically rigorous data become available. Knowledge changes over time. That is to be expected. If we have any hope of ending this crisis, all of America must support public health experts, including Dr. Fauci, and stand with science.”

“As 12,000 medical doctors, research scientists and public-health experts on the front lines of COVID-19, the infectious diseases community will not be silenced nor sidelined amidst a global pandemic,” he said. “Reports of a campaign to discredit and diminish the role of Dr. Fauci at this perilous moment are disturbing. Despite the nation’s vast resources and abilities, more than 135,000 people in America have died from COVID-19, more than any other country,” he said, adding, “This is a full-blown crisis unlike any America has ever faced and it needs to be treated as such.”

# # #

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Donald.
 
#64,924
#64,924
TennTradition said:
It just affected the total number of people infected - it spread so quickly there with the dense population and in a period that we were doing little to no testing. No one checked it during that period with hand washing, distancing, masks, etc. So the very high infection rates led to the high deaths we saw.

The iFR in New York came out to be about 0.3-0.4%, which is fairly consistent with what we are seeing from antibody studies around the world. I'll admit there are decently large error bars from those studies conducted back in April because timing was very significant in calculating the rates because we were still coming out of peak deaths. So, we'll see what later AB studies reveal. But, it wouldn't surprise me if the iFR isn't that different in NY than other places.
Click to expand...

If there is no cure or treatment advances, and it runs thru a population at different rates depending on things like density, transportation modes, etc I still dont see why you would have vastly different deaths per million numbers.

I get IFR can be a bad comparison because the first site wasnt as geared up for testing as opposed to the second site which is able to do massive testing. So you get massive misses on infected at the first site.
 
#64,925
#64,925
MontyPython said:
"On Tuesday, Thomas File, Jr., president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, released a statement on behalf of his colleagues throwing their support behind Fauci. “The only way out of this pandemic is by following the science, and developing evidence-based prevention practices and treatment protocols as new scientifically rigorous data become available. Knowledge changes over time. That is to be expected. If we have any hope of ending this crisis, all of America must support public health experts, including Dr. Fauci, and stand with science.”

“As 12,000 medical doctors, research scientists and public-health experts on the front lines of COVID-19, the infectious diseases community will not be silenced nor sidelined amidst a global pandemic,” he said. “Reports of a campaign to discredit and diminish the role of Dr. Fauci at this perilous moment are disturbing. Despite the nation’s vast resources and abilities, more than 135,000 people in America have died from COVID-19, more than any other country,” he said, adding, “This is a full-blown crisis unlike any America has ever faced and it needs to be treated as such.”

# # #

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Donald.
Click to expand...
Posting something like this is useless in a forum full of anti-science types and uninformed, simpleton dumbasses
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard and k-town_king
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top