CDC Revises Coronavirus Guidance To Acknowledge That It Spreads Through Airborne Transmission (cnbc.com) 175
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its coronavirus guidance Monday, acknowledging that it can sometimes spread through airborne particles that can "linger in the air for minutes to hours" and among people who are more than six feet apart. From a report: The CDC cited published reports that demonstrated "limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19-positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise," the CDC said in a statement. "Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles."
The agency added that it is "much more common" for the virus to spread through larger respiratory droplets that are produced when somebody coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. People are infected through such droplets mostly when they are in close contact with an infected person, the CDC said. "CDC's recommendations remain the same based on existing science and after a thorough technical review of the guidance," the agency said. "People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often and staying home when sick."
The agency added that it is "much more common" for the virus to spread through larger respiratory droplets that are produced when somebody coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. People are infected through such droplets mostly when they are in close contact with an infected person, the CDC said. "CDC's recommendations remain the same based on existing science and after a thorough technical review of the guidance," the agency said. "People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often and staying home when sick."
In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit, Sherlock.
Re: (Score:3)
No shit, Sherlock.
In every lawyers immortal defense, lays a Prove It waiting to be triggered by default.
And now you know why the CDC had to actually state the fucking obvious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the man actually directly charged with the defense and safety in the US is being shot up with every fucking treatment anyone even has to a COVID-19 infection and uses his steroid treatments to go on a little escapade, endangering the very people charged with keeping him safe from snipers, bombers and knife wielding lunatics, I guess his cancerous little minions he's spread throughout the Federal Government don't have any reason to suppress the truth any longer.
I'd invoke hubris as an explanation
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:4)
Don't know why this is flamebait. A person who should be in quarantine just endangered more people to go on a pointless joyride. Now everyone in that car has to quarantine.
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are several types of rich people. There are the old bloods. They've been rich for centuries. They are a bit aloof, but they will give money to charities and be polite to the poor and in most aspects have good behavior, because they have learned through their history that if they don't then the masquerade will crack and the vampire hunters will come out
Then there are the nouveau riche. They just got their money. The old bloods think they are boorish, but man of the nouveau rich know that they have it good because they came from a poor or middle class background. They'll give money back to their old schools or towns. They don't intentionally want to be rude, because they still think of themselves as just one of the folks.
Then there's the second and third generation rich. Trump is one of these, and his father was the nouveau riche. He grew up rich and has never been one of the plain people. The family however has not had money for a long enough time that they've learned to have some outward facade of humility or gentilty. So spoiled kids all grown up. Is this or is this not the stereotype that Trump fits into?
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a fourth kind, the one who lies about his wealth and abilities to convince marks to part with their cash for the magic beans he is selling them. The alleged president destroys everything he touches, even his staff now.
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't know why this is flamebait.
Because it is clearly trying to start a political flamewar rather than discuss the topic, which is aerosol spread. The real question is why so many moderators labelled it "insightful".
I do love the fake Biden quote, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
The steroid he was given does have a low chance side-effect of mental instability, including mania. Though in this case I doubt it would have happened so quickly, so it is more likely just more of Trump's baseline mania.
His wife doesn't really like him, his kids don't like him, he doesn't even own a pet. So to get the love he demands he needs to see his fans and absorb their adulation. Now that he's full of their vital essence he feels much stronger and is ready to go back home.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the man actually directly charged with the defense and safety in the US is being shot up with every fucking treatment anyone even has to a COVID-19 infection and uses his steroid treatments to go on a little escapade, endangering the very people charged with keeping him safe from snipers, bombers and knife wielding lunatics, I guess his cancerous little minions he's spread throughout the Federal Government don't have any reason to suppress the truth any longer.
I'd invoke hubris as an explanation, but that would suggest that the current occupant of the Oval Office had the wit or wisdom to even know what he'd been trying to hide from the American people would so ably puncture the fantasy delusions he had obviously convinced himself of. I can understand a leader so callous he doesn't care what happens to the people he claims to serve, but I can't understand a leader so fucking moronic and dense that he doesn't take it seriously even when it comes to his own safety.
Probably the best speech of this entire campaign was given on Saturday night by a comedian playing Joe Biden. "I believe in science, and Karma. Now just imagine if science and Karma could somehow team up to send us all a message about how dangerous this virus can be. Now I'm not saying I want it to happen, but just imagine if it did."
Quoted against the censorious trolls. A much more interesting comment than the FP, and I agree with the review of the SNL opening.
Peripheral issue, but I keep thinking about solutions. SNL was focused on the problem of the debates, but the solution of freezing Trump with the remote control isn't realistic. But how about a kind of chess clock for the mic? Only one mic can be active at a time, and when the moderator pushes the button for one candidate, then it's only that candidate's mic for the allocated tim
Re: (Score:2)
I think the SNL metaphor was bigger than that. It's pretty clear that the writers of that skit want US voters to hit the mute on Trump. Now nothing will ever shut the man up, but there's a mad bugger tweeting insanity with the power of the Executive Branch behind him, and then there's just a mad bugger making a dime spouting bullshit on Fox and Friends. Fox has lots of room for ignorant halfwits. I think the US Government is running out of room for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Just to not hear his voice for one goddamned second..."
Yes, it was a moment when you could almost imagine that someone of dignity and presence might actually take the blowhard's place. Biden isn't perfect, but no one who has ever occupied the White House has been perfect. Some have been slaveholders, some have been racists, some have been crooks, some have even suffered some sort of mental illness. But even the worst of them had some sense of the awesome responsibilities, trust and faith that comes with the office. Just to imagine, for a moment, that someone like even the more flawed of his predecessors might actually occupy that office next January felt like a moment of calm.
"Let's make America not actively burn again" seems as good a promise as any.
Re: (Score:2)
Peripheral issue, but I keep thinking about solutions. SNL was focused on the problem of the debates.... But how about a kind of chess clock for the mic? Only one mic can be active at a time, and when the moderator pushes the button for one candidate, then it's only that candidate's mic for the allocated time.
I like it.
Side effect is that it would make it much more of a debate, and less of competing monologues.
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, go fuck yourself. You're just mad because its not your guy.
If it was your guy you'd be say how because he is POTUS its critical he reassures the world he is healthy, able to run the country, and will soon be recovered or something similar - any you'd be right.
By the way set you Trump derangement syndrome aside for a moment if you can. The president really is fairly well off or there is no way they would have done this little "stunt" if you want to call it that. If there was some real risk of him having a respiratory episode and them having to cut it short that would have look so bad its unfathomable, not to mention risking the presidents life. They would have instead release a video or something which they could just keep re-recording until he could get thru without a coughing spell what have you. They fact that they put him out there live and in person pretty much confirms he and his actual caregivers are very very confident - hate to disappoint you!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I cannot imagine any of the other possible 2016 POTUSs; Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or whoever, being as fundamentally ridiculous and monumentally awful and just plain jaw droppingly stupid as Donald Trump. Donald Trump isn't a bad President because he's a Republican. He's a bad President because he's an egomaniacal halfwit with the emotional maturity of a five year old and a grasp of the world that isn't much more advanced than his emotional age.
I don't even think he's a bad man. He's just an
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah. I'll take warmongers over an immature simpleton. Warmongers would almost certainly have killed less Americans than the contemptible idiot occupying the White House. But you just keep telling yourself the 2016 lies. I guess that's how you sleep at night, by repeating bullshit made up by a man who has never told the truth in his entire life, and is incapable of stringing two coherent thoughts together.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that ill douche has been trying hard to start a war with Iran, I'd say right now you have the worst of both worlds - a stupid warmonger clown.
Comedian... (Score:2)
... That was Jim Carrey!
Re: (Score:3)
As a matter of fact it's one of the two sides who has had their guy in charge of things for almost 4 years now.
If it was Clinton who won the election, we could now complain about her.
But it wasn't Clinton. It's Trump who is in charge and it's incredibly disingenuous to put the side that isn't in charge on the same level or responsibility here. Like complaining that Biden didn't issue a national mas
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you get when you're in charge. You get the power, but you also get the responsibility. Which includes being scrutinized and taking all the shit people throw at you.
Yup, you sure do. Not arguing that one bit, or the shitty job that's been done by all so far, to include an entire Congress seemingly hell-bent on starving out American citizens stuck in dead industries as millionaire "Representatives" ruthlessly point fingers at each other and then ask you to cheer them on with memes and empty promises.
Sit here and bash Trump all you want. Just don't try and convince me that "your" idiot, is or will be any better. We the People are rather fucked no matter what happens w
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're referring to scientists, they told us what they knew. In the early days, they only had SARS and MERS to go by, and used those coronaviruses as proxies for their models. Sadly, COVID-19 is a lot more communicable than its cousins, but early on, it was a perfectly reasonable base line for the models. Science is self-correcting, but sadly the only way with pathogens to self-correct is to see the virus in action. The scientists acted in good faith. We have a recording of Donald Trump showing he did not. I'll pick the guys that can be wrong, and have the wisdom to correct prior mistakes, and not the guy who seems to actually believe he can never be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The alleged president: We have become the swamp.
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the thing. His message resonated precisely because at least that part of it wasn't wrong. The problem was that you can't drain the swamp by pumping in industrial waste and sewage. Instead of choosing qualified people, he picked cronies. This makes him materially no different than the swamp he wanted to drain.
We really should seriously consider random selection for POTUS. Pick ten people at random, run them in the primaries, then pick the top two and run them in the general. Not politicians, not people from public office, just randomly chosen people who meet the eligibility requirements, i.e. ten people randomly pulled from all natural-born U.S. citizens who will be over 35 on inauguration day.
If you're really paranoid, pick twenty, and run the top three with an instant runoff. Either way. It's really the only way to prevent the people who rise to power from being people who seek power for power's sake.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you pick the CEO of a company that way? Head of an engineering department?
The problem is that the US Constitution was built as a partial replication of the British model as it stood in the late 18th century, when the King still held significant authority over his government, when Parliament and the Sovereign were in competition. But even in the time of the American Revolution, the fundamental features of a new constitutional arrangement were coming in to view as the Sovereign more and more often picke
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a better way to pick then what we have. Every 4 years we get two horrible choices. The choices have been getting worse every time. Last time, Dems ran hillary, someone so disliked that TRUMP won. Wow.
Now we have Biden who looks like he's about to die and Trump is still Trump.
Enjoy voting for Harris despite the fact she couldn't even get more then 10% of her own party to support her in the primaries. DNC still got what they wanted though. A woman of color (any woman of color) to be on the ticket.
Re:In Someone's Immortal Words.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That she didn't win the 2020 nomination is hardly a statement as to whether she'd win the 2024 or 2028 nomination. Democrats wanted a reliable centrist in the center seat, and yes, they wanted a male. They wanted to remove any of the possible conditions that lead to the 2016 Clinton defeat. Right or wrong, Biden is the person best poised to win against Trump. But let's presume Biden only makes it one term before dying, becoming incapacitated or just plain doesn't want the job anymore. Harris will have had four years as VP, Donald Trump won't be there waiting in the wings, and in the meantime, the GOP is likely to be tearing itself true shreds between the Trump and Lincoln Project factions. By 2024, the economy will probably be recovering from the shit kicking the pandemic is giving it right now.
Biden had to be the Dem's pick. The political calculus lead purely in that direction. Sanders would have been to vulnerable to attacks that he was a socialist. Harris would be vulnerable simply because she's a woman, and we all saw the kinds of crap Trump and his team through at her over that. But Harris was a calculated pick by Biden; he is clearly picking his heir, and gambling that in four years the political landscape will be different. Obama pulled off an extraordinary victory in 2012 that Clinton's team completely squandered, but Biden clearly thinks that's achievable again. He knows that winning against someone as outrageously awful as Trump, even in a electoral college as favorable to the Republican candidate as the modern one is, is the easy part, but this screams of longer term plans.
Like it or not, on the ground, the Democrats are the dominant party. It's just that the way states are carved up and the EC functions right now, the Dems have a handicap. But with even states like Texas having shown the first signs of going purple, this is about long term strategy.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but I'll wager the Democrats are betting on 2016 being a bizarre outlier; a combination of shitty Democratic pick and a wild card Republican candidate. In other words, Trump's victory in 2016 is more of a combination fluke and campaign blunders on Clinton's part, but that it doesn't change the trend lines. I'm wagering the Republicans see the same damned thing. Party strategists don't just think about the next election, they think about the mid-terms after that, and the long term trends.
Re: (Score:3)
A child's view of the world. So typical, so naive, so sad, and so stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only hubris here is believing a demented senile old fool can somehow command the tides. He is a child, and so are you
Re: (Score:2)
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
- Doug
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing. His message resonated precisely because at least that part of it wasn't wrong. The problem was that you can't drain the swamp by pumping in industrial waste and sewage. Instead of choosing qualified people, he picked cronies. This makes him materially no different than the swamp he wanted to drain.
We really should seriously consider random selection for POTUS. Pick ten people at random, run them in the primaries, then pick the top two and run them in the general. Not politicians, not people from public office, just randomly chosen people who meet the eligibility requirements, i.e. ten people randomly pulled from all natural-born U.S. citizens who will be over 35 on inauguration day.
If you're really paranoid, pick twenty, and run the top three with an instant runoff. Either way. It's really the only way to prevent the people who rise to power from being people who seek power for power's sake.
I have a better idea. Pick 10 random people to stay in your home overnight, who meet those basic qualifications. If you're really paranoid, pick twenty during the day, and let the top three stay overnight. No background checks. No immunizations. Just natural-born U.S. citizens you will entrust with your home and your life.
Let's stop pretending, the person we vote for, doesn't have that kind of power. The person holds two titles; President and Commander in Chief.
And this is simply factual. Go talk to
Re: (Score:2)
No shit, Sherlock.
Um.. Not to disagree with a "5 insightful" post, but it's not like this specific thing is for which they have changed their guidance is exactly obvious.
Yea, sneezes and coughs, talking and even signing can *obviously* lead to airborne virus transmission though small droplets (the sort of thing that masks are good for), but this is about how long the virus can last airborne on it's own (not with water, mucus or anything else). This kind of transmission is NOT generally helped much by masking, unless you ar
Re: (Score:2)
They never thought it *couldn't* be spread by aerosols. The problem has always been how to give advice to a public that has the attention span of a squirrel and about the same grasp of probability.
What people need to understand is that while aerosol transmission of COVID-19 is physically possible, it's not like the measles where you can get sick walking through a room an infected person left hours earlier. If it were, then social distancing and wearing masks other than N95 respirators would have little e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Trump's infection has lung involvement (and the use of oxygen is a pretty strong indicator that it has), then even if somehow he comes out of the isolation period with no further major complications, he's not going to be able to pull off rallies of the kind he's become so used to. He simply won't have the lung capacity for it. Other than carefully managed appearances and video appearances, Trump's campaign is pretty much over.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no credible sources of information. The president's condition and/or treatment is not publicly known. Everything is pure speculation
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! You just won the intertubes prize for believing that bozo. Just because he can demand to be released doesn't mean he's cured or won't go down later.
Re: (Score:2)
No reason to feed the troll. We already know there is something wrong with anyone who is still clinging to Trump. My theory is that the paid trolls probably get bonus payments for replies, so I recommend ignoring them, no matter how flamboyantly stupid their comments are.
Or it might be sarcasm in that post. Surreality is pretty rampant these days. I see Trump as the creature that escaped from Surreality TV.
STOP BREATHING YOU INFECTORS!!! (Score:5, Funny)
The agency added that it is "much more common" for the virus to spread through larger respiratory droplets that are produced when somebody coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes.
Enough with the breathing. If someone near you is doing that, ask them politely to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be honest, this puts them in line with Green Parties everywhere and the Green New Deal that sees human exhalations as pollutants.
Double Blind [Re:STOP BREATHING...] (Score:3)
I would like to see the double blind studies on the efficacy, or lack thereof, of masks such as people are wearing.
1. Such a study would violate medical ethics.
2. How can such an experiment be "double blind"? How do you propose having people not know whether they are wearing a mask?
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, you also misread my post. I didn't claim that masks are ineffective, rather I suggested that mask
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to see the double blind studies on the efficacy, or lack thereof, of masks such as people are wearing.
You may have more luck asking Google instead of Slashdot:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
One quote:
"Can masks protect other people from you?
The current evidence, direct and indirect, says yes."
https://examine.com/topics/cor... [examine.com]
More links, just because:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020... [ucsf.edu]
https://www.mayoclinic.org/dis... [mayoclinic.org]
Note that I didn't include your term 'double-blind', because there really isn't
Re: (Score:2)
1. As noted in other replies, a double blind trial of mask wearing is not possible, and abundant evidence of mask efficacy already exists.
2. Wearing a mask is not difficult. Please just do it, even if you personally believe the probability of efficacy is small.
3. The endpoint for mask wearing is when an effective coronavirus vaccine is produced and widely distributed.
4. Facts are not political. In my experience, it is those who question obvious facts who are politically motivated.
Re: (Score:2)
1. As noted in other replies, a double blind trial of mask wearing is not possible, and abundant evidence of mask efficacy already exists.
A study that is perfectly double blind in every respect may be impossible, however one must perform double blind studies in some fashion and to some degree in order to make confident claims about the science here. You simply can't get away from it.
2. Wearing a mask is not difficult. Please just do it, even if you personally believe the probability of efficacy is small.
What if almost everybody is wearing masks that do basically zilch to slow the spread, because people's breath goes in and out the sides of the mask instead of any significant filtration happening? What if I believe the likelihood of mask-induced problems is higher
Re: (Score:2)
however one must perform double blind studies in some fashion and to some degree in order to make confident claims about the science here. You simply can't get away from it.
That's nonsense. The vast majority of science is built on experiments that are not double-blind.
Ugh (Score:2)
Exceptions to the rule (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Part of keeping the hospitals in good shape is slowing down the infection rate, so that means maintaining physical distancing rules. Nothing is going to save movie theaters, live venues and restaurants. Most of these businesses just simply cannot guarantee physical distancing.
Insurance sales from the future? (Score:2)
What? You again? You some kind of agent provocateur?
Actually I've been thinking about a different kind of solution approach. Obviously the fire hoses of money aren't working very well.
The root problem is that pandemics are not insurable risks. No insurance company could survive the damage claims for something this disastrous. The insurance business needs some people to pay premiums without filing claims, but almost every business would file a claim for losses triggered by Covid-19.
*GASP* Could this be a job
Re: (Score:2)
Under your scheme, the government uses taxpayer money to keep an inferior firm in business, so it can fail again in the future and hurt the taxpayer again, all the while giving worthless government employees unearned wages and prestige.
In a capitalist system, the inferior firm fails and its assets are bought be a firm that can make better use of them. No government theft involved.
Re: (Score:2)
So after a period of immense suffering, things self correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Viruses don't care about the free market.
Re: (Score:3)
Parent's Username says it all.
This is not a time for Onion like sarcastic humor... because it's too close to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, seriously, what all do you dispute with the OP's statements?
The idea that the market will take care of this. I'm in BC, the government has generally had a light touch compared to other jurisdictions with the Provincial government having a very high rating.
Problems like people not following rules in restaurants and stores are bad, with the minimum wage workers getting all kinds of abuse trying, in the case of restaurants, enforce the 5 people at a table rule and other stores that have decided to enforce mask wearing, up against people not wearing masks and not practi
Re: (Score:2)
and seem to have done little beyond
watch out everybody, RightwinNutjob can see what happens in parallel timelines
I guess that's the nutjob part
Re: Whoop-dee-doo (Score:4, Insightful)
Viruses don't care about Communism either. They don't care about you, your delusions, your fantasies and your irrational fears. The universe doesn't care about your ideology. It's time for you to grow up. We've come through other pandemics, and it works the same way; you limit the ability for idiots to get themselves and others sick.
Re: (Score:2)
COVID-19 has killed at least three times as many people *thus far* than influenza did in the 2019-20 flu season.
You're fear and denial are leaking out. Again, I must repeat, the universe doesn't care about your fake skepticism. It cannot be altered by pounding your fist and making bleating noises. You are utterly irrelevant in a 13.7 billion year old universe or in a biosphere that has been evolving in trillions of biological arms races throughout the eons.
You need to learn some humility, wisdom, and accept
Re: (Score:2)
My Provincial government (they're in charge of most of this stuff besides the borders) has had a very light touch. Stores have decided to enforce mask rules, and there's all these idiots who think they have a right to enter a private business and ignore the rules. It's hell on the minimum wage workers too.
Similar with restaurants, where the government has mandated a 5 person per table rule, which the restaurants are generally happy with. idiots who think they have a right to push tables together, scream at
You keep using that word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Viruses don't care about the free market.
Nor do they care if they're being used as an excuse to push communism.
I want to declare a ban on use of the word "communism," because apparently nobody in the U.S. has any idea what the word actually means.
The lockdowns as implemented in the US were an unmitigated failure.
The lockdowns as implemented in the US were not communism.
"Communism" is not a synonym for "actions taken by the government."
Re: (Score:2)
Actual Communism includes not having a government. One of the reasons that it fails once you have a group of perhaps a 100+ people.
Socialism simply means that the means of production are owned by the people or workers. Could be through the government or could be things like Credit Unions, CO-OPs and other worker owned enterprises. Can also operate in a free market if such a beast actually existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any examples of actual Communist groups that were also authoritarian? I don't mean countries where the State owned everything and one day would achieve Communism with the government withering away, which of course is a fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no saving anything when everybody is afraid of a virus that kills less than the last 4 out of 5 year's flus have done. From 2015 to today, only 2016 was more deadly of a year. Talk about yelling fire in a crowded theater!!!
What the f**k are you talking about? There have already been more deaths from coronavirus in the U.S. this year than the last several years worth of influenza seasons COMBINED. A typical U.S. flu season kills O(30,000) people. We're approaching a quarter MILLION coronavirus deaths so far, which is in line with the total WORLDWIDE flu deaths in most flu seasons.
Talk about yelling "derp" in a crowded forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the confusion is the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19. I've read that roughly 12,000-13,000 deaths so far are without a comorbidity, which would have to be compared with Flu-deaths with comorbidity.
Death ratae: was undercounted, about right now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the confusion is the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19. I've read that roughly 12,000-13,000 deaths so far are without a comorbidity, which would have to be compared with Flu-deaths with comorbidity.
The way to determine how bad the death rate from COVID-19 has been, and whether deaths are overestimated or underestimated, is to look at the overall death rate, and see by how much it is higher than the average rate for that time of year.
Doing this tells us that in the beginning of the epidemic, the COVID-19 death rate was significantly underestimated (due to the shortage of tests), and at the moment it seems about correct (that is, if you subtract the deaths attributed to COVID-19 from the total death rate, the remaining death rate is very close to average for this time of year.)
Data is here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/... [cdc.gov]
(note the footnote that says the most recent two weeks is undercounted, since the CDC hasn't received all the death certificates yet)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't to say there is not a likely increase in total
Re: (Score:2)
>"The way to determine how bad the death rate from COVID-19 has been, and whether deaths are overestimated or underestimated, is to look at the overall death rate, and see by how much it is higher than the average rate for that time of year. "
No it isn't. That would assume that NOTHING ELSE unusual was happening. But that is certainly NOT the case this year. Lockdowns have caused an increase in deaths in many ways- from dug use to suicide and also people who are NOT seeking medical treatment for other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except the flu deaths, unlike the coronavirus deaths, are just an estimate. There are maybe a couple of thousand confirmed flu deaths each year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're feeding a troll. It doesn't matter if he's sincerely stupid, proudly ignorant, or paid to fake it. At this point in time there is clearly something wrong with anyone who is spewing the GOT Bolshevik Party Line. (There is no GOP now. It's the Gang Of Trump.)
But I think Trump is toast. Now even his fanatics have to wear masks. And every time they put on their masks, or even when they see their fanatical friends wearing masks, there's a horrible danger that a few of them will realize "But Trump lied to
Re: (Score:2)
The guy is out to troll. In the last week alone he's excused vaccine deniers by suggesting the vaccine industry is out to hide something nefarious and has suggested that others should stop complaining about "this great world that white man has made [for] you", before referring to the alleged complainers in a derogatory manner. Just ignore him.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you have to sum up multiple years of flu deaths (the US had between 24000 and 62000 deaths last year attributed to the flu) to try to make your point. I get trying to cherry pick statistics to win an argument, but dumping three years with the apples to compare against this years crop is as moronic an exercise as I can imagine.
For reference, this year, thus far, there have been 210,000 deaths from COVID-19.
Re:Whoop-dee-doo (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no saving anything when everybody is afraid of a virus that kills less than the last 4 out of 5 year's flus have done. From 2015 to today, only 2016 was more deadly of a year. Talk about yelling fire in a crowded theater!!!
Pure imaginary BS, unless you can cite reputable, and verifiable, sources.
Contagian Live and other websites put the estimated USA influenza death toll in 2019 at between 24,000 and 62000.
CDC shows 23,000 estimated flu deaths in 2016.
USA COVID-19 deaths is over 210,000 and still rising. It's already killed many more people than influenza did the last 5 years COMBINED,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The flu killed at most 62,000 for the last season. https://www.contagionlive.com/... [contagionlive.com].
We're over 200,000 deaths for Covid now. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Your dismissal of a few hundred thousand deaths is so ridiculous here I can only assume you're one of the "won't-happen-to-ME" ignorant ones. Let me guess, no one in your family has gotten sick or died, right?
Good thing you weren't around when they were hashing out priorities and budget dollars for a Polio vaccine....I mean after all, that solution took a little more than a couple of financial quarters to figure out...about five decades more.
I wonder if Greed could at least catch COVID and die quietly in a
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't you demanding we ban cars? How dare you dismiss all those deaths!!!
To be fair, to say that death by car accident is "contagious" is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.
Excess deaths, however, is a reasonable comparison. I read that Germany is taking this approach (I don't have a link handy).
Re: (Score:2)
My government spends millions on flu vaccine to make cheaply or freely available, all to prevent those deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't you demanding we ban cars? How dare you dismiss all those deaths!!!
I dismiss those like the average citizen dismisses any legislation that may come down that seeks to lay down harsher (felony) charges on people caught texting and driving. Where were you on that vote? Do you own children text and drive? Do you?
Enforcement is part of the problem with automobile safety, but so is the utter lack of punishment (yeah, I do want to put texting junkies in jail.) And we have plenty of (autonomous) solutions coming forth to solve the problem of 40,000 vehicle deaths per year. W
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is going to be re-elected because of crazies like you. You realize that right?
Keep up the great work!
Go ahead. Keep on dismissing what got us President Trump. The only Swamp to Drain, is the GOP, right?
Give me a fucking break. We the People, deserve so much better than any of those chosen to lead our country. Instead, We the People still find value in slinging shit at each other, which is exactly what the Red and Blue political gangs want you to be distracted with.
Fucking wise up already. We do not have a two-party system anymore. There is only one, and you better keep an eye on what they're doing wh
Re: (Score:2)
In case you haven't noticed, there are (badly) enforced rules of the road, things like drunk driving and now, distracted driving are heavily discouraged, with the force of law. And car manufacturers have been forced to build safer and safer cars.
Re:Whoop-dee-doo (Score:5, Insightful)
universal masking can only slow it, but can't stop it
You say this as if slowing it isn't an important factor in limiting the spread of the virus. Until we have a cure or vaccine, nothing stops the virus. Slowing it is our best course of action until those cures or vaccines are developed. Slowing it has already saved millions of lives worldwide, and likely already a million lives in the US alone.
PCR testing won't catch it early enough to contain it
Which is why the world is researching and starting to use better tests. There are antigen tests which return results very quickly but are not in mainstream use yet (at least in the US). It is clear by now that we should be using quick but less accurate tests instead of slow and more accurate ones, since the more accurate ones are too slow to be of much use in opening society anyway.
If test results are instantaneous and supplied in sufficient quantities, we could start testing people who are asymptomatic in volume. This is what is expected when you hear figures like we should be performing 200 million tests per month in the US (we currently do about 20 million). This is the rate of testing which actually lets things start getting back to normal without a cure or vaccine.
And given that no country has managed to stamp it out, no matter how strict their lockdowns
Some countries have been able to stamp it out, but generally only very small countries. But most developed countries have been able to keep it under control. Germany for instance is sitting at about 1 death per 8 million population per day, nearly 20 times less than the US's 1 death per 450 thousand people. This is the level of control wealthy countries could be targeting, which would have saved well over 100,000 people in the US if our federal government had taken this seriously at the beginning.
Germany has seen its death rate more than double in last the few months, but that is far more acceptable when it is rising from 4 per day to 10 (or 16 per day to 40 if adjusted to US population). No matter what the US does we won't see zero deaths per day until there is a cure, but 50 per day would be a significant and reachable target. It would mean 100's of thousands of lives saved while we are working on the cure, which would be on the scale of preventing dozens if not hundreds of 9/11 attacks.
Re: Whoop-dee-doo (Score:5, Informative)
People didn't stop living and cocoon themselves away because of polio.
Polio killed 1879 people per year in the US in the five years preceding the vaccine. That is about 4000 people per year when adjusted for 2020 population. Its obvious from your post that you don't know how irrelevant comparing Covid-19 to polio is, so I wanted to illustrate how wildly different they are.
There are acceptable levels of death which people are willing to accept to live our lives. No one is banning cars over 40,000 deaths, or locking down society to prevent 40,000 deaths from the flu. But we are talking about 4 million deaths here (in the US alone). We are talking about hospitals so overrun that heart attacks and other more preventable deaths increase dramatically. If a few years go by without a vaccine or better remedies then we will probably lose that many anyway, but the medical industry finds that very unlikely.
And forgive me, but the line between slowing the spread and stopping the spread has been a moving target from the start. If masking can only slow it, but a complete ban on anything except food production can slow it further, what are you doing not hiding in your basement?
For the first couple months every culture which took this seriously was effectively hiding in their homes. This is why most developed countries have deaths rate more than 10 times lower than the US. Once you control the outbreak, society can start to open up in a limited fashion. Those same developed countries are almost all seeing resurgence, but from a low enough starting level that they have plenty of time to take corrective action (plenty of time is relative here though).
It's not hyperbole to say that your two options are to be sick, or to be sick and out of work.
It isn't really hyperbole, it is just wrong. One option is for our national agencies like the CDC to be allowed to do their job so we could have had hundreds of thousands of cases and tens of thousands of deaths, instead of millions of cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths. We could realistically have had under a million total cases in the US at the start of October and perhaps 25-30,000 deaths. We chose to go the other way, which horrifies anyone who really understands the situation and the decisions we have made.
The countries who took it seriously even had less economic fallout. The reality is if you handle virus well you also are able to keep your economy more open. Germany saw a 11.3% GDP drop in Q2 while the US saw a 32.9% drop. You have literally no leg to stand on with your crack-pot views on how the US should have handled the Covid virus. Our national response did just about everything wrong, leaving states without the resources or organizations like the CDC to make it up as they went along, with mixed results. States unlucky enough to get hit early were hit hard, and states which didn't take it seriously brought a second resurgence in the summer. Just horrible all around.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's airborne, has a long incubation period, results in a large fraction of asymptomatic cases who are nonetheless contagious. That is to say, universal masking can only slow it, but can't stop it;
Do recall that to stop a virus, you don't need to stop 100% of transmission; you only need to drop R (the number of people that each infected person infects) to below 1.
PCR testing won't catch it early enough to contain it,
Do recall that to stop a virus, you don't need to stop 100% of transmission; you only need to drop R (the number of people that each infected person infects) to below 1. Yes people can be infectious sometimes before you can verify they have it from PCR testing (although with contact tracing you can test and find it before symptoms show), bu
Re: (Score:2)
They will be changing the CDC's logo to a picture of a squirrel trying to run across traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost as if it took many controlled and verified tests to verify the behavior of a brand new virus...
Re: (Score:3)
So, they're still guessing. Okay, gotcha.
While every organization worldwide is at best working with the information we know so far, the primary thing the CDC is guessing at is what the administration will allow them to say. Let's just hope the damage which has been and is being done to one of the most respected government agencies in the world is short lived after this disaster of an administration is over.
Re: (Score:2)
...when they said it was unlikely to spread via airborne transmission?.
But they didn't say it was unlikely to spread via airborne transmission last week.
They took down a statement saying that it was likely, with the explanation that it had not correctly gone through the approval process to be put on the CDC page. Well, apparently now it has gone through the process.
Re: (Score:2)
The approval process is pictures of the Rose Garden event, then the picture of all the Republican big wigs taken out by it, followed by a video of the President looking like someone had drained the blood out of him. That's what I love about the Universe; you can fool people, but the laws that govern the natural world are immutable. Reality always crashes these denial parties.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:More politics... (Score:5, Insightful)
(the daily death rate signals we are effectively keeping those actually vulnerable relatively protected), makes any demands or laws that we wear masks in general public complete bullshit politics, not science.
Over 1000 people a day in the US, dying is a miserable fucking failure, and an absolute disgrace. Not to mention a much worse outcome than most of the rest of the world. The United States is a textbook example of what an uncontrolled pandemic looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an unfortunate misplaced comma...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those "useful [sic] idiots" are probably screaming "listen to the SCIENCE!!!" because, I don't know, maybe you should actually try that fatwilbur? It's not hard to find the evidence (Lancet journal) [thelancet.com] that masks work. The probability of airborne transmission appears to be low, yes, but the probability of droplet transmission is very high, and that what masks are designed to help with.
Also, I'm not sure where your idea of "extremely low probability of serious health impacts" is coming from. 22,000 Americans [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unlikely, it has happened and is relatively common. No, it's not as absurd as in the movie Outbreak. But you do not need the water droplets to transmit covid and we've known that all along.
Re: (Score:2)