COVID-19 Coronavirus current events

Arugula

Member
The tech world is buzzing about Chloroquine (an common, existing Malaria drug) being a potential treatment for the virus
It appears now that Hydrochloroquine is now facing shortages, and some state pharmacy boards are now limiting the prescriptions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-of-potential-coronavirus-drugs-idUSKBN2190XC

The drug still hasn't been thoroughly tested, but the state of New York just acquired 70,000 doses and will implement drug trials starting tomorrow at some of their new temporary hospital sites. It's good news that we're going to start getting a lot of data on this possible treatment.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/vi...oing-covid-19-pandemic-governor-cuomo-accepts


So while it is technically true that the government is putting Americans in FEMA camps and experimenting with drugs... these are well known, safe drugs that have been successful in treating things like Malaria, Lupus, and Rheumatoid Arthritis, being given to sick people in need.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It appears President Trump is signaling that he favors ending the guidelines put in place on for social distancing and business closures at the end of this month, despite COVID-19 cases still exponentially growing in the US.
He just said something similar in the CV Task Force Briefing.

He seems exhausted. Slow and slurring.

He's pushing anecdotal evidence for that drug he thinks a solution.

It appears now that Hydrochloroquine is now facing shortages,
that one
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Trump just announced a big crack-down on holding and price-gouging. So we may see less of these EBay listings soon. Barr is going to talk about it.
 

Arugula

Member
He's pushing anecdotal evidence for that drug he thinks a solution.
Yes, and it appears that confusion around the drug has led to a man in Arizona's death from self-medicating, with his wife in critical condition. It appears they saw it was an ingredient in a fish parasite treatment, and took a dosage, thinking it could be a preventative medicine.

An Arizona man has died after ingesting chloroquine phosphate — believing it would protect him from becoming infected with the coronavirus. The man's wife also ingested the substance and is under critical care.

The toxic ingredient they consumed was not the medication form of chloroquine, used to treat malaria in humans. Instead, it was an ingredient listed on a parasite treatment for fish.

The man's wife told NBC News she'd watched televised briefings where President Trump talked about the potential benefits of chloroquine. Even though no drugs are approved to prevent or treat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, some early research suggests it may be useful as a therapy.

The name "chloroquine" resonated with the man's wife, who asked that her name not be used to protect the family's privacy. She'd used it previously to treat her koi fish.

"I saw it sitting on the back shelf and thought, 'hey, isn't that the stuff they’re talking about on TV?'"

The couple — both in their 60s and potentially at higher risk for complications of the virus — decided to mix a small amount of the substance with a liquid and drink it as a way to prevent the coronavirus.

"We were afraid of getting sick," she said.

Within 20 minutes, both became extremely ill, at first feeling "dizzy and hot."

"I started vomiting," the woman told NBC News. "My husband started developing respiratory problems and wanted to hold my hand."

She called 911. The emergency responders "were asking a lot of questions" about what they'd consumed. "I was having a hard time talking, falling down."

Shortly after arriving at the hospital, her husband died.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...oroquine-attempt-prevent-coronavirus-n1167166

The Nigeria Center for Disease Control is also warning people against self-medicating, after Lagos hospitals have received people with overdoses:


https://www.thecable.ng/alert-lagos...patients-suffering-from-chloroquine-poisoning


Source: https://twitter.com/NCDCgov/status/1241006420419641345
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Active Member
Pretty much every effective medicine is a poison. It depends on the dosage.
It may turn out that these people were killed by bunk. The prime area for bunk to be harmful has always been medicine.
 

Jan

Member
Professor Sukharit Bhakdi claims that the measures against the corona virus are way too much, irresponsible and even "suicidal". On the internet, some people claim that the Corona virus isn't as harmful as portrayed in the media, see this for example: Source: https://t.me/GFTV_HH/1763

Could somebody refute this, please?
 

Mendel

Active Member
Professor Sukharit Bhakdi claims that the measures against the corona virus are way too much, irresponsible and even "suicidal". On the internet, some people claim that the Corona virus isn't as harmful as portrayed in the media, see this for example: Source: https://t.me/GFTV_HH/1763

Could somebody refute this, please?
The most basic refutation is that doing less gives us situations like Wuhan (emergency hospitals erected, lockdown) and Italy (people over 60 excluded from advanced medical care because the hospitals can't cope). If your opinion is that we needn't stress about that (like Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick), then, sure, we're doing too much; if that is a situation we want to avoid, we need to fight the virus, and that means to stop it from spreading.

But let's look at the cited evidence. The cited paper is a an unreviewed preprint at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022434v2. I can't upload the PDF to the forum, if someone else could do that for me, I'd appreciate it.
image.jpeg
The authors establish a simple mathematical model of virus transmission, calibrate it with 4 plane-loads of Japanese evacuees who have all been tested, adjust some parameters and hand-wave away the remaining discrepancies, to arrive at a guess how many people have been infected without becoming "cases". There are various studies attempting to guess this number, but until someone has run an antibody screening on a good population sample, these are all no more than informed guesses. I don't really see any reason to prefer an unreviewed paper to any of the other guesses out there, unless you have an agenda.

Their mathematical model assumes two phases, one with R=5.2 until the lockdown, and afterwards R=0.58. R measures how many people someone transfers the disease to, on average. This model has the effect of the Chinese lockdown built in, and assumes it worked to stop the virus. Using it to argue against lockdowns is a little like a Flat Earther using GPS data to make a point.

The Diamond Princess had 3711 people on board, and the 8th death was reported yesterday. If everyone on that ship had been infected (and not just the 17% cases), that'd be a 0.22% IFR, which exceeds the margins in that paper, and would require making some age group adjustments to get it to fit.

If the low guess turns out to be correct, with the IFR=0.12, and R=5.2, 81% of the population would be infected when the epidemic peaks, and 320 000 people would die in the USA, making Covid-19 the third largest cause of death this year, after heart disease and cancer. A much larger number of people would survive, but have permanent lung damage as a result.

The last argument is the one for flattening the curve. There is no "pure" death rate, as the rate of death varies with the quality of care available. If our health systems are overwhelmed, as is foreseeable, the IFR will obviously go up, which means people will die who could otherwise have survived. Again, maybe you're ok with that, but if we want to keep that from happening, we must raise the capacity of our health system, and slow the spread of the virus. Politics in Germany and other countries is doing both.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Active Member
NY ordered 70,000 doses. so apparently they are hoping the drug might help too. at least until better drugs are available/found.
How much is a dose? This could be enough for 3500 cases:
[Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia].
image.jpeg

A Systematic Review concludes There is rationale, pre-clinical evidence of effectiveness and evidence of safety from long-time clinical use for other indications to justify clinical research on chloroquine in patients with COVID-19, but I believe it still pretty much has the status of an experimental treatment.
image.jpeg
 

Mendel

Active Member
So this is for trials. What exactly is the difference between Hydroychloroquine and Chloroquine? I had assumed these were synonyms.

The Minnesota study Post-exposure Prophylaxis for SARS-Coronavirus-2 uses this dosage:
It's set to complete in May.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What exactly is the difference between Hydroychloroquine and Chloroquine? I had assumed these were synonyms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroquine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine
Metabunk 2020-03-24 07-29-18.jpg
 

Jan

Member
Their mathematical model assumes two phases, one with R=5.2 until the lockdown, and afterwards R=0.58. R measures how many people someone transfers the disease to, on average. This model has the effect of the Chinese lockdown built in, and assumes it worked to stop the virus. Using it to argue against lockdowns is a little like a Flat Earther using GPS data to make a point.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out and going into the detail! In the meantime, I also found a refutation by German news outlet against the downplaying of the virus made by Prof. Sukharit Bhakdi which basically showed that he used wrong numbers (wrong by far!):
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/coronavirus-faktencheck-bhakdi-100.html
(Title: "Why Sucharit Bhakdis numbers are wrong")

I translate a part of it:

"Bhakdi claims that '99% of them [i.e. the infected] have no or only little symptoms". They are infected, but not sick - the latter is less than 1% of the affected.

The Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI) however states in its Coronavirus-flier, by referring to three scientific studies, a manifestation index (portion of the infected that actually got sick) between 51 and 81 percent. Furthermore, the RKI states that about 20% of all diseases procede severely or life-threatening. Both are significantly higher values than given by Bhakdi
[...]
Bhakdi assumes, as the worst-case "horror scenario" a number of 1 mio. infected people in Germany which would mean, according to Bhakdi, 30 deaths per day. Both numbers are set significantly too low and clearly contradict the numbers of countries like Spain or Italy that already have higher death tolls now with hundreds of deaths per day at the moment.

Bhakdi ascribes the high death toll in Italy solely to external environmental influences. He explicitly names the high amount of air pollution in North Italy and China. 'The lungs of the people in these areas are very differently pre-burdened than our lungs.'

OECD statistics about the health consequences of air pollution put this thesis into doubt: 2017 died 450 per 1 mio people in Germany from the consequences of air pollution. In Italy, there were 436, in the much Corona-affected Spain only 289 people. [...]"
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
This was encouraging
But then you get horror stories like this
"Coronavirus Ravages 7 Members of a Single Family, Killing 4"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-family-coronavirus.html
 

Mendel

Active Member
Well, sure. That the virus doesn't normally aerosolize means you can isolate someone in your household if you're cautious -- separate bathrooms (or cleaning well after use), separate bedrooms, 6 feet physical distance -- if the virus aerosolized, this would be impossible. If you're not cautious enough, the whole family gets infected, or they got infected by the same person at the same time.
 

Mendel

Active Member
National Geographic says the social media messages about animals reclaiming cities are hoaxes:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...andemic-fake-animal-viral-social-media-posts/
 

Arugula

Member
Quite a striking graph, showing claims for unemployment benefit in the US since the late-60s:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-52044452
That's a lot of Americans losing their employer-sponsored healthcare programs during the middle of this public health crisis. I feel like this will exacerbate the issue, with cost & uncertainty prohibiting people with mild symptoms from seeing a doctor.

Not every American will qualify for COBRA (which is also expensive) and there hasn't been an indication that the government will subsidize it, like they did in the 2008 financial crisis. Only 11 states have fully opened ACA enrollment so far, and there hasn't been an indication that there will be a federal open enrollment.

So if you or someone you know loses their job in America, they may only have 60 days to enroll in a new marketplace health plan - you can see if you're qualified at https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage-outside-open-enrollment/special-enrollment-period/
 

derwoodii

Senior Member
some info & pictures from in bound Hong kong travelers below




91235147_10219784971147469_2937879598945271808_n.jpg91238238_10219784971667482_3477776959650398208_n.jpg91171487_10219784972027491_2848209529437421568_n.jpg90639767_10219784972307498_3954672540307161088_n.jpg91094672_10219784972587505_6435474851959406592_n.jpg91006683_10219784972827511_849337324746571776_n.jpg
 

Agent K

Active Member
Comedian Kathy Griffin says
Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/B-K0Znug9O0


Would a hospital place her in a ward room with COVID-19 patients without testing her first? What if she doesn't have COVID-19, but contracts it from the other patients? What do hospitals do with patients who need treatment right away, and there's no time to test them for COVID-19? Treat them as if they have it?
 

Mendel

Active Member
Would a hospital place her in a ward room with COVID-19 patients without testing her first? What if she doesn't have COVID-19, but contracts it from the other patients? What do hospitals do with patients who need treatment right away, and there's no time to test them for COVID-19? Treat them as if they have it?
From her instagram pictures, it looks to me like she as placed in a single room in the isolation ward, which would isolate her from Covid-19 patients.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kathy-griffin-coronavirus_n_5e7c7fa1c5b6cb9dc19ae204
The current CDC guidelines say:
https://radiopaedia.org/cases/covid-19-pneumonia-ct-abdomen-2?lang=us
https://www.masslive.com/coronaviru...tom-for-some-confirmed-cases-of-covid-19.html
Griffin had clear lungs and an abdominal infection, so the Covid-19 symptom she's left with is just the cough. If she was hospitalized "properly", CDC guidelines say she needs to be tested at top priority, but if they already plan to discharge her, she'd be gone when the result comes in, so that wouldn't apply?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member
One already exists debunking the idea that it was intentionally made using sequences from HIV, but I suppose there could be more to discuss. @deirdre what do you think?
I did move his claim into your thread(expanded title) since these claims are basically just speculation claims and not "claims of evidence", we can put them all in the same thread for now. we can split the thread up later if for example anyone wants to look up the sequences (if that is even possible) for the experiment corona vs. the covid-19 sequence for a simple to understand clear debunk on that particular topic.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...drawn-by-authors-other-man-made-claims.11103/
 

Agent K

Active Member
From her instagram pictures, it looks to me like she as placed in a single room in the isolation ward, which would isolate her from Covid-19 patients.
Looks like a big room for one patient, but even if it's a single room, the medical workers treat multiple patients. There's a reason why they separate COVID-19 patients from other patients. So, where do suspected COVID-19 patients receive treatment before they're tested? Next to COVID-19 patients who might infect them with COVID-19, or next to patients who don't have COVID-19 and might be infected by the suspected COVID-19 patient?
Fortunately, the FDA just approved a rapid coronavirus test that can deliver "positive results in as little as five minutes and negative results in 13 minutes." Hopefully it's more accurate than the rapid flu test that's "only 50 to 70 percent accurate."
 

Mendel

Active Member
Fortunately, the FDA just approved a rapid coronavirus test that can deliver "positive results in as little as five minutes and negative results in 13 minutes." Hopefully it's more accurate than the rapid flu test that's "only 50 to 70 percent accurate."
The FDA Emergency Use Approvals are listed on https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices...-medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations and include e.g. the ventilator splitters that the Gov. of NY talked about, as well as permissions to use PPE approved in other countries. Quite a few testing apparatuses are also listed, including the ID-NOW.
image.jpeg
The site also offers the instruction sheets (IFU) for download; these typically include a section about the performance of the test, which will specify the LoD (level of detection) as a measure of when the error rate is still >= 95%; basically, the test is reliable when LoD amount of virus is present in the sample and becomes more reliable the more virus there is.
For the ID-NOW, the performance data includes this table:
What they did there was prepare a few samples where they knew how much virus was on them and checked that everything works as expected.

If you compare that with the performance section for this Chinese RT-PCR kit I picked at random (top of the list), you see that that device has a lot more documentation, including tests with actual clinical samples, and a 20/20 success rate at a third of the 2xLoD concentration that Abbot was using in their test. The drawback is that it takes more than an hour and requires some lab training to use.

So, is this test the answer to our prayers?
a) There are a lot of different tests approved there, with different characteristics and purposes.
b) This machine tests single samples, it can't test large numbers of people. It looks designed to e.g. screen patients admitted to an ICU as they arrive.
c) Because it tests single samples, I expect it uses more material per sample than the big lab tests. A lab in Germany had to throw out 4000 samples because they couldn't get the materials delivered in time to perform the tests. There is a shortage. Also, the ID-NOW materials include custom plastic parts. I expect this stuff won't come cheap.
d) Like all Covid-19 tests I know, It will reliably detect this virus and no other. Since SARS-nCoV-19 is new, all strains are closely related and can be detected from the same set of markers, unlike flu tests. All Covid-19 tests I have looked at are very unlikely to generate false positives (if the operator takes care not to cross-contaminate the samples).
e) All Covid-19 tests using nasal swabs may be false negative if the test is done too early (not enough virus) or too late (virus is in the lungs, but no longer in the throat/nose). That is obviously independent of the procedure used, but lower LoD is better here.

tl;dr This device can answer the question "is the person before me infectious for Covid-19" with reasonable reliability. It seems badly suited to economically test large numbers of people.
 

Mendel

Active Member
The FDA Emergency Use Approvals are listed on https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices...-medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations and include e.g. the ventilator splitters that the Gov. of NY talked about, as well as permissions to use PPE approved in other countries. Quite a few testing apparatuses are also listed, including the ID-NOW.
They have an EUA out now to disinfect N95 masks with Hydrogen peroxide vapor, which makes them reusable up to 20 times. Hopefully that helps with the NY face mask shortage.

I want to talk about test again. Germany is doing close to 500 000 test per week, and those tests are done by big labs on existing equipment. The method, the PCR test, is not new: all you need is some RNA that you can identify this virus with, and you're good to go. Since we had that back on Jan 13th, all of the existing PCR test machines have had that detection capability added. These machines can test about 100 samples at a time, the example machine pictured takes about 2.5 hours do process one batch.
image.jpeg
If you run this in shifts (and some labs do, or did), you can process 800 samples a day, which is the current testing capacity of Scotland. (I wish that was a joke.)
image.png
You also only need a few quality test samples for the whole batch (to ensure the test ran right), so you're mostly actually using the machines and the chemicals to test actual clinical samples. This is a concern because it is relatively easy to produce and install new machines: 10 machines up your capability by 50 000 test per week, and a single worker can probably supervise a few of these since they run by themselves for most of the time. The problem is actually getting the chemical supplies to run these machines.

The Point-Of-Care 15 minute machine I talked about in my previous post is different. It processes a single sample, so it could maybe do 100 samples a day if operated in shifts, and someone would have to keep feeding it. The test cartridges are big, each one contains its own control samples, so you'd need a lot of machines and a lot of supplies and a lot of personnel to even approach the throughput that the bigger lab equipment can do. And it's easier for a few big labs to source chemicals and get them delivered than to supply a multitude of machines spread all over the country.

So while these Point-Of-Care machines do have a use, they are not the solution to ramping up a country's testing capacity quickly.

What we need is a reliable test that works quickly, scales up, and can be mass-deployed and affordibly supplied and operated. That means using a different process that is tailored to this virus, ideally one that reliably detects antibodies so we can tell weeks or months later if a person had Covid-19 and is now immune. These are being developed and being produced and may be ready for a wide-spread rollout in a few weeks if all goes well. That'll be the breakthrough.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Another horror story
"A choir decided to go ahead with rehearsal. Now dozens of members have COVID-19 and two are dead"
Alternative headline in other outlets: "Choir practice turns fatal. Airborne coronavirus strongly suspected"
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak
If 45 participants had COVID-19 and two of them died - both in their 80s - that's a 4.4% case fatality rate so far, but like the Diamond Princess cruise ship and the nursing homes, the sample skews older than the general public.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Active Member
If 45 participants had COVID-19 and two of them died - both in their 80s - that's a 4.4% case fatality rate so far
"Sixty singers showed up." "Health officials said all 28 choir members who were tested for COVID-19 were found to be infected. The other 17 with symptoms never got tested, either because tests were not available or — like Comstock and Owen — the singers were under the impression that only people in dire condition were eligible." This means that [the remaining] 15 choir members were asymptomatic and never got tested. Since we know (from the Diamond Princess) that Covid-19 manifests in ~50% of the cases, I'd assume these 15 were also infected. (Although some say that you always have some symptoms, but they could be very mild -- a roughness in the throat, perhaps.)

"Cushioned metal chairs extended in six rows of 20, with about a foot between chairs and one aisle down the center." "At one point the members broke into two groups, each standing around separate pianos to sing." "After 2½ hours, the singers parted ways at 9 p.m." They're bound to have had a break and would have socialized then.
I was going to say, prolonged exposure with close physical contact means high risk of droplet transmission, but if there was just one or two people who were infected in that group, how did they manage to infect everyone? Some choir exercises involve people moving around the room at random while singing, and they certainly moved around to gather around the pianos, but still, aerosolization would best explain it. Hmmm.

Definitely add regularly airing out the rooms to your Covid-19 prevention regime!
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
"Sixty singers showed up." "Health officials said all 28 choir members who were tested for COVID-19 were found to be infected. The other 17 with symptoms never got tested, either because tests were not available or — like Comstock and Owen — the singers were under the impression that only people in dire condition were eligible." This means that [the remaining] 15 choir members were asymptomatic and never got tested. Since we know (from the Diamond Princess) that Covid-19 manifests in ~50% of the cases, I'd assume these 15 were also infected. (Although some say that you always have some symptoms, but they could be very mild -- a roughness in the throat, perhaps.)

"Cushioned metal chairs extended in six rows of 20, with about a foot between chairs and one aisle down the center." "At one point the members broke into two groups, each standing around separate pianos to sing." "After 2½ hours, the singers parted ways at 9 p.m." They're bound to have had a break and would have socialized then.
I was going to say, prolonged exposure with close physical contact means high risk of droplet transmission, but if there was just one or two people who were infected in that group, how did they manage to infect everyone? Some choir exercises involve people moving around the room at random while singing, and they certainly moved around to gather around the pianos, but still, aerosolization would best explain it. Hmmm.

Definitely add regularly airing out the rooms to your Covid-19 prevention regime!
When was the previous practice? They could have been exposed then when they were not taking all of those "precautions."
 

Mendel

Active Member
When was the previous practice? They could have been exposed then when they were not taking all of those "precautions."
They seem to not have taken any precautions except not shaking hands. Sitting in chairs a foot apart isn't proper distancing. I had a small event that week with 30 people, we were mildly cautious, standing further apart than normal and not shaking hands, but it probably wouldn't have stopped many infections either.

I think the specificity of the infection reveals its origin: if they'd been infected at the Sunday service, the congregation should've been infected as well; if it was a week earlier, symptoms should've showed up earlier in many people, and it should have affected choir members who turned up for that rehearsal but not the one we're looking at now (and vice versa, in a choir as large as that with 60 out of 120 potential singers attending, you always have a few who are there one week and absent the next).
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
They seem to not have taken any precautions except not shaking hands. Sitting in chairs a foot apart isn't proper distancing. I had a small event that week with 30 people, we were mildly cautious, standing further apart than normal and not shaking hands, but it probably wouldn't have stopped many infections either.

I think the specificity of the infection reveals its origin: if they'd been infected at the Sunday service, the congregation should've been infected as well; if it was a week earlier, symptoms should've showed up earlier in many people, and it should have affected choir members who turned up for that rehearsal but not the one we're looking at now (and vice versa, in a choir as large as that with 60 out of 120 potential singers attending, you always have a few who are there one week and absent the next).
If the infection point was first introduced by a choir member then it makes sense the choir would get sick first before the rest of the congregation.
 

Agent K

Active Member
"Sixty singers showed up." "Health officials said all 28 choir members who were tested for COVID-19 were found to be infected. The other 17 with symptoms never got tested, either because tests were not available or — like Comstock and Owen — the singers were under the impression that only people in dire condition were eligible." This means that [the remaining] 15 choir members were asymptomatic and never got tested. Since we know (from the Diamond Princess) that Covid-19 manifests in ~50% of the cases, I'd assume these 15 were also infected. (Although some say that you always have some symptoms, but they could be very mild -- a roughness in the throat, perhaps.)
Very little underreporting in that group. Even if all sixty were infected, the case fatality rate would be 2/60=3.3%
The CDC said the following about the Diamond Princess on March 26. No mention of airborne spread, just fomites.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm
 

Rory

Senior Member
Received this video from a few different friends today, about the benefits of wearing face masks in the Czech Republic:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhNo_IOPOtU

It seems nice, and I'm not arguing with the sentiment, but I have doubts about some of the statements. The actress presenting the information says:
I guess I'm skeptical that the Czech Republic has succeeded in "significantly slowing the spread of the virus". Their figures appear a bit up and down - though not increasing exponentially, and with their worst day four days ago, there were still 123 more cases today than yesterday, and 50% more than a week ago - and their number of deaths - though too few to really deduce anything from - has been on the rise:


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_Czech_Republic

Also, the ban on movement outside the home without covering the mouth or nose has only been in effect for twelve days. It seems a little early to be declaring both victory and the method of how this victory was achieved.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Active Member
It seems a little early to be declaring both victory and the method of how this victory was achieved.
A little scepticism is probably warranted.
Czechia03-31.png
The red curve is Czechia up to march 21st, and the dashed regression curve is based on that data. The green part extends that data over the past 10 days. I've put Spain and France in to compare Czechia's rate of spread to a baseline, and I've put Japan in because that country had similar dips like Czechia is having, but still returned to what looks like exponential spread, albeit at a much lower rate. Note that mask use is very widespread in Japan as well.

The death rate has a lot of delay built in, since the deaths occur weeks after the infection; that makes the death rate an unsuitable source for timely assessment of public health measures.

It's true that masks limit the spread of the virus in public, but the message in Germany is that most infections occur in close settings (<1.5m) with prolongued exposure (> 15 minutes). These are typically private settings, so a measure that is only effective in public settings is likely to have a limited effect on the spread. It should prevent "super events" like the infection cluster around a religious service in Korea; maybe mandating masks could be a way to have big public events again, once we have a better handle on the situation.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Active Member
Very little underreporting in that group. Even if all sixty were infected, the case fatality rate would be 2/60=3.3%
You can say with 90% confidence that the case fatality for the population that this group is a sample of ranges from 0.6% to 10.1%.

The CDC said the following about the Diamond Princess on March 26. No mention of airborne spread, just fomites.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.ht
Well, the fomite quote is, "these data cannot be used to determine whether transmission occurred from contaminated surfaces", which means it's not clear whether they found actual fomites. (By definition, a fomite must be infectious. If we have no evidence of infection from these surfaces, we do not know whether they are fomites.)

But the CDC do have an explanation for the infections, in a paper they referenced in the one you quoted: Initial Investigation of Transmission of COVID-19 Among Crew Members During Quarantine of a Cruise Ship — Yokohama, Japan, February 2020
I agree that they don't mention aerosols, but droplets are "airborne spread", I believe.
 
Last edited:

TheWacoKid

New Member
I'm hoping for some help from the metabunk community on this one. As I think it could be easy to disprove.

A couple of FB friends of mine have been circulating this and passing it off as evidence of a hoax. Proof that the media is lying. Basically, that the government is grossly exaggerating the severity and inflating numbers in order to "control" us. Why? I don't know. However, these particular FB friends are very entrenched into this world. So, it's no surprise.
92000302_10158176486325365_1962579043844882432_n.jpg
So, the top picture is a screenshot of an ABC broadcast showing a hospital room with the caption "horrifying scenes in Italian hospitals"

The bottom is undoubtedly the same photo from a different broadcast. However, it talks about the "center of the NYC epidemic".

The claim is that this is proof that they're using a staged hospital room. Or it could possibly be that they're using on room. Then, passing it off as the other as well. Hoping people won't catch it.


A few initial thoughts/easy explanations:

- The broadcast could have the caption about Italy and then cut away for a moment to the NYC hospital room to touch on how things are going in the states hot spots. Doing a comparison.

- I used to work in broadcasting. Sometimes you see stuff, believe it is one thing for some reason. Then, you find out it is another but you have already spliced it in. They also could be lazy producers and known... but decided to roll with the footage anyway. Or... their program director told them to simply "find hospital footage" without clarification.

I was hoping to find the broadcasts themselves for proper context. I cannot locate them, though. I believe this could rather easily be explained away if we just got a hold of the broadcast clips themselves. There is a reason these were screen shot out of context, IMO. They could have easily shown parts of the clips themselves if they wanted.

Anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member
I was hoping to find the broadcasts themselves for proper context
this article links both videos. the start timestamps are embedded so you just click play. https://pluralist.com/cbs-this-morning-coronavirus/

basically coumo is complaining the feds won't send him all the ventilators he wants. so it's possible the news agency is using Italy footage to show what happens once you run out of ventilators. OR they didn't have cool ventilator footage from NY so just used Italy... they did that with some shootings too early on, they would use Sandy Hook shooting footage since they didn't have [emotionally] illustrative footage from the shooting they were covering at the time.

im not linking all the info/video directly here because im sick and my head hurts, but the vids are easy to find in the above link.

edit add: tutorial.. I just googled the topic then scrolled a bit through images until I saw the one matching your pic. 1585786319386.png
 

Rory

Senior Member
At 2:05 the narrator says "the mayor of Los Angeles says New York could be a preview of what's to come" over images of an old man receiving breathing assistance; the footage is actually from Bergamo, Italy, as originally broadcast in the Sky News report Deirdre linked to:

1585790417960.png
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51&v=_J60fQr0GWo

I guess there must be a thing in US news (and elsewhere?) that means it's okay to do something like that.
 

Rory

Senior Member
I wonder where the footage at 1:47 is from, when the narrator is talking about New Jersey? You can hear someone speaking at 1:51, but it doesn't sound like English.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mendel The E-PAI report on the Origins of COVID-19 Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 30
omaehamoushindeiru Claim:Natural Covid-19 broke out of Wuhan lab (not man-made) Coronavirus COVID-19 51
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 31
Mick West Local Perspectives on Coronavirus re-openings Coronavirus COVID-19 6
TEEJ Fake Coronavirus Detector in Iran Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Boris Johnson in ICU with Coronavirus Symptoms Coronavirus COVID-19 8
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
deirdre Coronavirus and Younger people Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Coronavirus Related Shortages in Shops Coronavirus COVID-19 109
Leifer Coronavirus Statistics: Cases, Mortality, vs. Flu Coronavirus COVID-19 259
Mick West TFTRH #32 - The Skeptic of the North: Former Conspiracist, Current Skeptic Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West 2017 Westminster attack Current Events 23
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
Bfahome ElectroBOOM debunks "Current Mohan" (History Channel) General Discussion 8
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
Mick West Edward Current: I was a Deluded 9/11 Truther Escaping The Rabbit Hole 3
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2
Related Articles























Related Articles

Top