guscost

62 ms·

601.
by guscost 7y ago
I'm not a professional and some of this interpretation may be wrong: In the first report, 83% of people who tested positive for viral RNA (an active infection) had immune T cells that seem able to neutralize the virus, possibly withou
602.
by guscost 7y ago
If you're fitting a model to observations, they'll have something of an inverse (but of course non-linear) relationship. So if your virulence estimates are worse than your transmissivity estimates, or vice versa, the bad measureme
603.
by guscost 7y ago
All three could push the true total higher, but number two easily could push it lower instead. And I'm not a microbiologist but I think lack of antibodies only means that we won't be able to test for past infection. The seronegati
604.
by guscost 7y ago
While this is great information, a few facts will still confound attempts to speculate based on this number: - The production of IgG antibodies is mostly delayed until after an infection is cleared. - This is a random sample of people who w
605.
by guscost 7y ago
"Wishful"? You must mean those of us who are still holding out for less than 0.1%...
606.
by guscost 7y ago
Or that women are less likely to need antibodies to clear this infection. Not everyone develops antibodies for every disease, the immune system is super complicated.
607.
by guscost 7y ago
The Imperial College model was also published by press release. That will have ended up doing a whole lot more damage than any of these serosurveys, when all is said and done.
608.
by guscost 7y ago
Ah right, the 0.9% is after adjusting for the age distribution of Great Britain: > These estimates were corrected for non-uniform attack rates by age and when applied to the GB population result in an IFR of 0.9% with 4.4% of infection
609.
by guscost 7y ago
Specifically, the Imperial College model with the "two million deaths" conclusion assumed an IFR of 0.9% (adjusted for age distribution) in every scenario. Maybe not quite a delusion, but the only IFR number they modeled is star
610.
by guscost 7y ago
Facebook is performing an editorial function on the information they distribute by removing content that is not illegal. They're a publisher, it's as clear as day. By stepping into this role they should forfeit any exemption from
611.
Patient-derived mutations impact pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2(medrxiv.org)
1 points by guscost 7y ago|0 comments
612.
by guscost 7y ago
You’re right about mortality rate, but the percent of the population that has been exposed is critical for policy, because it tells us how big any upcoming surge could be. And it’s looking more and more like we got that one badly wrong, s
613.
by guscost 7y ago
You really think that if your numbers don't pan out, it will be because Ireland somehow suppressed this thing (put that "genie" back in the bottle as it were), and not simply because its IFR is (or became) lower than you as
614.
by guscost 7y ago
The ramp-up in testing has an effect on these observations (thinking specifically about the early spikes in many places): > Absolute testing levels should not affect this algorithm much, but a fast ramp or decline in testing will affect
615.
by guscost 7y ago
It could have already passed through all of those communities basically unnoticed, and/or confused with other ILIs. There's no way to rule out that possibility, and when you consider how rare cardiovascular diseases (the most comm
616.
by guscost 7y ago
Especially if the infectious dose also affects severity, as is the case with other respiratory illnesses: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25416753 Basically, if you're in a suburban area and pick up a few vira
617.
by guscost 7y ago
Source? Europe shows excess mortality spiking to a similar level as the 2017-2018 flu season: https://www.euromomo.eu/ And that’s with elective procedures being cancelled and everyone scared to go to the hospital for any re
618.
by guscost 7y ago
Anyone who actually knows this stuff would never say that it’s a matter of “simple math”, that’s absurd. Those people have not been saying that they’re sure about anything at this point, because they’re not. There’s nothing to prove you w
619.
by guscost 7y ago
Well it turns out I'm wrong about this, there are some studies with numbers but they're pretty rare: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655081/ > Twenty-two percent of all subjects wit
620.
by guscost 7y ago
The idea that nobody has thought to do them seems absurd. I'm getting more and more suspicious the longer we see no results from randomized studies in US cities - it's getting more and more likely that either the tests are turning
621.
by guscost 7y ago
There are no numbers. Nobody has ever bothered to measure it separately from pneumonia. It’s hardly ever tested for or listed under cause of death, even when it’s obviously a factor. Once things change in the aftermath of all of this, we wi
622.
by guscost 7y ago
It’s not so much that we enjoy more rights, it’s that the government is powerless to take away those rights which we prefer to keep. You can believe whatever you want, but that’s very true here, and not at all true in many other places.
623.
by guscost 7y ago
It happens all the time, in exactly the same sense that people are dying “from” COVID-19 (i.e. usually combined with other morbidities). How much of this pandemic is due to the disease actually being worse than other coronavirus diseases, a
624.
by guscost 7y ago
The people who were treating that hypothesis as an absurd conspiracy theory last month probably won’t own up to it, but I do hope they are reading.
625.
by guscost 7y ago
Unless there are factors making this population much more susceptible (more hospital visits?) and much more likely to be asymptomatic, this is quite a bombshell: > Between March 22 and April 4, 2020, a total of 215 pregnant women del
626.
by guscost 7y ago
Like from a few weeks back, the conclusion that COVID-19 will kill 10% of people who contract it, based on the testing from one town in northern Italy.
627.
Multiple introductions of SARS-CoV-2 into Northern California (preprint)(medrxiv.org)
1 points by guscost 7y ago|0 comments
628.
by guscost 7y ago
Realistically, I mean symptomatic (coughing and sneezing). It’s not perfect but people are typically most contagious while they have symptoms. Plus, when you don’t need bed rest, you can still do any work that can reasonably be done from a
629.
by guscost 7y ago
I guess so, but you gotta pick your battles!
630.
by guscost 7y ago
It’s odd that the folks picking this apart looking for surveillance risks don’t seem to be one-tenth as bothered by Facebook censoring wackos (and indeed anyone determined to be guilty of wrong-thinking), or you know, the government litera

More ›