Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate (/thread-19422.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate (/thread-19422.html)
Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - Mick - 04-15-2020
Apologize if this has already been posted. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UO3Wd5urg0
And this was yesterday. Apologies to those who get hives watching Fox News:
https://youtu.be/6NjCitwKJSQ?t=266
And to return your heart rate to normal, Dr. Bhattacharya on CNN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0y0l764S9U
Just thought these were interesting.
RE: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - M T - 04-15-2020
Oh, good, I feel so relieved. With his 0.01% fatality rate, then even if everyone of the 329M people in the US gets the disease, only 32,900 will die. That's only another 4,600 deaths. I believe that's fewer than we'd expect to die of those already hospitalized. Those of us not hospitalized should feel we're safe, right? So, why are we hiding in our houses?
"We have to run studies" Oh good, tell us next year how many people you predict died this year.
It is hard to believe that he was saying this just 17 days ago in the first interview (Mar 29)..... The average time from infection to death is 18 days. A majority of today's 28K dead were infected before the first interview.
"New York has enough ventilators"
"By the end of April, we'll know for the country at large" (know infection rate of the country (as of the time the test was taken))
Maybe that was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's 10 minutes of fame.
How many people here are current NBA players? Don't you feel good that he's willing to use the NBA as a stand-in for you? Now get out there and slam that dunk!
P.S. If you haven't watched these videos, try counting the number of times they touch their faces. Hopefully, their hands were clean. (esp at 16:23 in the earlier interview)
RE: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - Snorlax94 - 04-15-2020
This particular video of this particular person is not a repost, but this topic has been hashed over and over.
The evidence has already proven Covid didn’t circulate widely in CA last November. The evidence thus far points to it widely circulating mid to late february on.
The new rehashed theory is that it’s been circulating so widely the cfr is very low. Some think it will be so low so as to open the economy.
I think everyone here agrees that the testing has been such a failure in the US that there are many more true cases than known.
At least this guy is framing it as, we need to test it and measure.
The San Mateo Public Health Officer thinks the multiple of true cases / known cases will be 20-35.
That seems unlikely to me because of the fairly widespread testing in places like Korea and the fact that only ~10% tests in the US come back positive, so I’d expect a multiple of 3-8x, not 30x or 100x.
And as MT points out, using NBA players as somehow representative of the US is so, so dumb.
Also, there’s another conflation error here. Just because a professor at the school of medicine has a theory, the title should not imply that opinion somehow reflects an official statement by the school of medicine, or the results of a study. I can think of a media company that frequently uses misleading titles like this on their unsuspecting audience, but hopefully the readers at the Cardboard aren’t so gullible.
I hope the multiple is super high — that’ll significantly decrease the odds I die in the next two years, but the multiple is whatever it is. And actual data should start coming in any day now.
RE: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - oldalum - 04-15-2020
well, the good Stanford doctor lost me when he calculated the number of people who are infected in the U.S. by applying exponential growth to the first "seed" in the U.S. which he assumes was planted on January 1, and derived an IFR of 0.01%. The first known case in the U.S. was diagnosed on Jan. 21, in a man who traveled to the U.S. from Wuhan. He may not have been the first infected person to arrive, but no one including the good doctor knows that date, so that's a lot of extra exponenting he just did. Stopped watching at that point. The basic point, which is that we don't know the true IFR, and can't know it without an accurate denominator, is correct. But as other posters have noted, there's a lot of indirect evidence that it is much higher than 0.01%.
RE: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - M T - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 07:54 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: Also, there’s another conflation error here. Just because a professor at the school of medicine has a theory, the title should not imply that opinion somehow reflects an official statement by the school of medicine, or the results of a study.
I hope the multiple is super high — that’ll significantly decrease the odds I die in the next two years, but the multiple is whatever it is. And actual data should start coming in any day now.
I will say that just because someone proposes a theory that turns out wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that the theory is dumb. All (perhaps only almost all) theories should be heard out. This MD+economist certainly deserved that. IMO, what he (& WSJ & the vlog & CNN) missed would be the cost (in lives) of waiting for his study to be done before acting. The study is useful, once it is done. But the disease doesn't stop to wait for you to run trials. (Who knows? Maybe the WSJ coverage of the hypothesized 0.01 fatality rate has helped convince the South Dakota governor to delay issuing a stay at home order.)
I hope the multiple is super low, low enough that we can actually squish the infection rate to near zero with test & trace & quarantine based on exposure. If it is high you have to hope for herd effects or to be young. If high, I can't see how I won't be exposed to it if I ever come out of my house. If I get it and have symptoms, I expect to be in the roughly 15% death rate based on age (once the final numbers are in), and probably more like 30-50% if you factor in two comorbidities. In a decade, that'll be closer to 100% if some way isn't found to counter the damage the virus does.
P.S. Everyone here seems to know that the German expert on coronaviruses, Christian Drosten, is wrong when he said on April 9, that he believes that the asymptomatic cases are rare. TWIV-601 37:04 He believes that people are just not recognizing the symptoms.
By the way, in South Korea, the death rate for 80+ is now at 22%; 70-79 is 9.7%. Both continue to climb. (Granted, for all I know, they are just testing in the ICU)
RE: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - IdCard83 - 04-16-2020
(04-15-2020, 09:44 PM)M T Wrote:Sorry M T that you are in the leaky boat in this sea of pandemic. Do you think we should continue to destroy the economy to protect the most vulnerable? Or should we have the most vulnerable shelter in place, let the average joe worker (average age 42) go back to work, and continue practicing social distancing and other mitigating practices until a vaccine or immunity is reached?(04-15-2020, 07:54 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: Also, there’s another conflation error here. Just because a professor at the school of medicine has a theory, the title should not imply that opinion somehow reflects an official statement by the school of medicine, or the results of a study.
I hope the multiple is super high — that’ll significantly decrease the odds I die in the next two years, but the multiple is whatever it is. And actual data should start coming in any day now.
I will say that just because someone proposes a theory that turns out wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that the theory is dumb. All (perhaps only almost all) theories should be heard out. This MD+economist certainly deserved that. IMO, what he (& WSJ & the vlog & CNN) missed would be the cost (in lives) of waiting for his study to be done before acting. The study is useful, once it is done. But the disease doesn't stop to wait for you to run trials. (Who knows? Maybe the WSJ coverage of the hypothesized 0.01 fatality rate has helped convince the South Dakota governor to delay issuing a stay at home order.)
I hope the multiple is super low, low enough that we can actually squish the infection rate to near zero with test & trace & quarantine based on exposure. If it is high you have to hope for herd effects or to be young. If high, I can't see how I won't be exposed to it if I ever come out of my house. If I get it and have symptoms, I expect to be in the roughly 15% death rate based on age (once the final numbers are in), and probably more like 30-50% if you factor in two comorbidities. In a decade, that'll be closer to 100% if some way isn't found to counter the damage the virus does.
P.S. Everyone here seems to know that the German expert on coronaviruses, Christian Drosten, is wrong when he said on April 9, that he believes that the asymptomatic cases are rare. TWIV-601 37:04 He believes that people are just not recognizing the symptoms.
By the way, in South Korea, the death rate for 80+ is now at 22%; 70-79 is 9.7%. Both continue to climb. (Granted, for all I know, they are just testing in the ICU)
RE: Stanford school of medicine and the COVID death rate - M T - 04-16-2020
Does Joe Worker want to imprison his parents? And support them? But never visit them?
There are 55 million people in the high risk group, based on age alone.
(That's nine times 6 million.)
Want Grandma to help babysit your kids so you can take that vacation?
Sorry, you're on your own. You locked her away, with no contact, lest you kill her.
P.S. Hospitalization rate in a NYC study of those that tested positive for the virus for 42yo Joe Worker. was at least 18% (more like 22% because he's male). For his big brother, Bill, age 45-54, it was at least 36% (roughly 43% as a male). That may impact their back to work plans and budget.