coronavirus

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
qwerty said:
Irvinehomeseeker said:
Just heard from someone in neighborhood  tried the antibody test and found they had the antibodies for this virus. The family had flu in Nov. and then again Jan, so they all went for this test and found they had the antibodies. So it looks like virus was here much earlier.

Do you know where they went?

There?s also a place in Mission Viejo, one my wife?s friends went here (they also thought they had it in Jan but tested negative), but the yelp reviews here are much better than what I?m seeing for xurgentcare locations.
http://www.rjclinicalinstitute.com

Let us know if you get it Q.  I?m interested in getting one as well.
 
It?s very tempting to go get it, but I don?t want to arrive at the testing site corona free and leave positive :-)

May just wait for whenever an at home antibody testing is released. I?ll let you guys know if I get one though
 
Irvinehomeseeker said:
Just heard from someone in neighborhood  tried the antibody test and found they had the antibodies for this virus. The family had flu in Nov. and then again Jan, so they all went for this test and found they had the antibodies. So it looks like virus was here much earlier.

Have a buddy (firefighter) just got his antibody test and tested positive for having had it. He says he was sick in November, before thanksgiving. Is sure that was when he had it.  This thing has been around for quite awhile, think a lot of us has already had it. I am pretty sure I did and my son in December. We are further along with this thing then they say.
 
morekaos said:
Irvinehomeseeker said:
Just heard from someone in neighborhood  tried the antibody test and found they had the antibodies for this virus. The family had flu in Nov. and then again Jan, so they all went for this test and found they had the antibodies. So it looks like virus was here much earlier.

Have a buddy (firefighter) just got his antibody test and tested positive for having had it. He says he was sick in November, before thanksgiving. Is sure that was when he had it.  This thing has been around for quite awhile, think a lot of us has already had it. I am pretty sure I did and my son in December. We are further along with this thing then they say.

MK get tested this coming week and let us know.
 
aquabliss said:
I don?t trust anything CBS news puts out after the fake nurse video.

There are more picture and a video of the 4 year old coughing. Some are same pictures, but there are some that are different. In the pictures, you can see him in the hospital.

Daily Mail Article: Mama, I'm not gonna go home': Doctor shares shocking video of her four-year-old son struggling to breathe after contracting coronavirus as she warns parents to take the virus seriously

Part of the article that list the events:
March 12: Last day of school and Lincoln?s quarantine begins.

March 16: Colorado State closes schools

March 21: Lincoln begins sneezing has a stuffy nose and slight cough. His mother has left the house once to go to Target and his father has left once to go to Costco since March 12.

March 27: Lincoln had a high fever of 104.5

March 28: Lincoln goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with pneumonia after a viral illness. They begin antibiotics and oxygen treatment at home.

March 28: Lincoln goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with pneumonia after a viral illness. They begin antibiotics and oxygen treatment at home.

March 30: Lincoln needs more support and oxygen and is admitted to hospital.

He needs 2l of oxygen and by that night 4l.

March 31: He needs 6l of oxygen then 9l. He develops seesaw breathing, nasal flaring, grunting, retracting, tachypneic and has to use muscles in his chest, abdomen, and neck to help him breathe

His labs and X-ray don?t look like Coronavirus but that night he tests positive.

April 4: Hospital day 6. He is starting to eat better, IV fluids are turned off and he?s on less than 1L of flow.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ruggling-breathe-contracting-coronavirus.html

So you are discrediting the story about the 4 year that caught the covid virus. Here is another article relating to the 4 year old named Lincoln. I came across this article and I thought it would be a good idea to share it with others on TI. Because there is a stigma that the covid virus only effects really old people.

I am grateful and thankful that Dr. Anna Zimmermann shared the story about her  4 year old. Also, I am pleased to see that the 4 year old recovered.
 
Increase the denominator and the problem dissipates....

L.A. County Antibody Tests Suggest the Fatality Rate for COVID-19 Is Much Lower Than People Feared
The tests indicate that the number of infections in the county is around 40 times as high as the number of confirmed cases.
Preliminary results from antibody tests in Los Angeles County indicate that the true number of COVID-19 infections is much higher than the number of confirmed cases there, which implies that the fatality rate is much lower than the official tallies suggest. "The mortality rate now has dropped a lot," Barbara Ferrer, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said at a press briefing today. In contrast with the current crude case fatality rate of about 4.5 percent, she said, the study suggests that 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of people infected by the virus will die, which would make COVID-19 only somewhat more deadly than the seasonal flu.

Based on a representative sample of 863 adults tested early this month, researchers at the University of Southern California (USC), working in collaboration with the public health department, found that "approximately 4.1% of the county's adult population has antibody to the virus." Taking into account the statistical margin of error, the results indicate that "2.8% to 5.6% of the county's adult population has antibody to the virus?which translates to approximately 221,000 to 442,000 adults in the county who have had the infection." That is 28 to 55 times higher than the tally of confirmed cases at the time of the study.

As of noon today, Los Angeles County had reported 617 deaths out of 13,816 confirmed cases, which implies a fatality rate of 4.5 percent. Based on that death toll, the new study suggests the true fatality rate among everyone infected by the virus is somewhere between 0.1 percent and 0.3 percent(without taking into account people infected since the study was conducted). The lower end of that range is about the same as the estimated fatality rate for the seasonal flu.
[url]https://reason.com/2020/04/20/l-a-county-antibody-tests-suggest-the-fatality-rate-for-covid-19-is-much-lower-than-people-feared/
[/url]
 
I think we understand the math that the number of a cases is higher than what has been tested and that will lower the fatality rate but at the same time, we need to understand that the social distancing/stay at home lowered the infection rate which could have made the fatality rate higher.

It's all variables, just like the models had flawed math in overshooting the numbers, this new math with a flattened curve also has flaws.
 
Eyephone I didn't even click the link or read the story.  I'm not saying that the story about the 4 year old is untrue (I have no idea), I've just chosen not to read anything from CBS news after some of their editors and producers have shown themselves to be completely unethical and not trustworthy. 

Assuming the story is true, I agree it's an awful unbearable situation for the child and his family.  No family should have to see their child suffer like that - I wish them well and hope he can come out of this with no long lasting health issues. 
 
eyephone said:
aquabliss said:
I don?t trust anything CBS news puts out after the fake nurse video.

I came across this article and I thought it would be a good idea to share it with others on TI. Because there is a stigma that the covid virus only effects really old people.

While true that COVID infects and kills people of ALL ages including children, those who are at highest risk for complications / death are still the elderly and those with chronic medical conditions. There has been only a handful of pediatric deaths in the US and China among the tens of thousands of adults who died.
 
aquabliss said:
Eyephone I didn't even click the link or read the story.  I'm not saying that the story about the 4 year old is untrue (I have no idea), I've just chosen not to read anything from CBS news after some of their editors and producers have shown themselves to be completely unethical and not trustworthy. 

Assuming the story is true, I agree it's an awful unbearable situation for the child and his family.  No family should have to see their child suffer like that - I wish them well and hope he can come out of this with no long lasting health issues.

I get it, it does not fit your agenda. As you said assuming the story is true. All I got to say I do not have a reputation on TI or real life spreading fake news or misinformation.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I think we understand the math that the number of a cases is higher than what has been tested and that will lower the fatality rate but at the same time, we need to understand that the social distancing/stay at home lowered the infection rate which could have made the fatality rate higher.

It's all variables, just like the models had flawed math in overshooting the numbers, this new math with a flattened curve also has flaws.

Not sure this is right. If you infected all of the population at once, X number of people would die. The flattening if the curve was to space out the infection rate as you said, to avoid overwhelming the medical system (which seems to have had the unintended consequence of hospitals being empty and lay-off/furloughs happening) but the number of deaths in theory would be the same.

If you are a bad genetic match for the virus you are dying either way. Today or next week, next month, etc.

So the death rate is fixed. We just don?t know what the number is. It?s probably much closer to the .1-.2% death rate vs the 4% that is published.
 
qwerty said:
irvinehomeowner said:
I think we understand the math that the number of a cases is higher than what has been tested and that will lower the fatality rate but at the same time, we need to understand that the social distancing/stay at home lowered the infection rate which could have made the fatality rate higher.

It's all variables, just like the models had flawed math in overshooting the numbers, this new math with a flattened curve also has flaws.

Not sure this is right. If you infected all of the population at once, X number of people would die. The flattening if the curve was to space out the infection rate as you said, to avoid overwhelming the medical system (which seems to have had the unintended consequence of hospitals being empty and lay-off/furloughs happening) but the number of deaths in theory would be the same.

If you are a bad genetic match for the virus you are dying either way. Today or next week, next month, etc.

So the death rate is fixed. We just don%u2019t know what the number is. It%u2019s probably much closer to the .1-.2% death rate vs the 4% that is published.

No, the number of death would not be the same when comparing everyone infected at once vs slowly.

Proper care by medical staff with enough energy and enough ventilator affect the chances of someone surviving.

Look at Italy for example, when the doctor has to choose who to unplug from the ventilator, there is no way the death rate is going to be the same as not overwhelmed medical system.
 
@qwerty:

Yes, what Innosint said.

I already addressed an earlier post where you said the same thing that flattening the curve just extends the same number of deaths out. It does not, it prevents deaths as we are able to treat those at risk better due to not having a lack of beds, equipment and staff.

Additionally, by extending the time to deal with the infection, science comes up with better treatment options and you also increase the antibody plasma donor pool add more help in treating the infected.

But we shouldn't make the assumption that the flattened curve numbers would be the same as if we didn't do anything... the variables change everything. Just look at NY... imagine if CA didn't take the measures we did, we would be dealing with the same scenarios.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
@qwerty:

Yes, what Innosint said.

I already addressed an earlier post where you said the same thing that flattening the curve just extends the same number of deaths out. It does not, it prevents deaths as we are able to treat those at risk better due to not having a lack of beds, equipment and staff.

Additionally, by extending the time to deal with the infection, science comes up with better treatment options and you also increase the antibody plasma donor pool add more help in treating the infected.

But we shouldn't make the assumption that the flattened curve numbers would be the same as if we didn't do anything... the variables change everything. Just look at NY... imagine if CA didn't take the measures we did, we would be dealing with the same scenarios.

it would be worse for both states actually.

Califonia sent ventilators to New York during their peak to help out their shortage.

Imagine Cali has an outbreak trailing NewYork and two of the richest states are now on full force competing for ventilators and PPEs, it won't be pretty for everyone involved.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
@qwerty:

Yes, what Innosint said.

I already addressed an earlier post where you said the same thing that flattening the curve just extends the same number of deaths out. It does not, it prevents deaths as we are able to treat those at risk better due to not having a lack of beds, equipment and staff.

Additionally, by extending the time to deal with the infection, science comes up with better treatment options and you also increase the antibody plasma donor pool add more help in treating the infected.

But we shouldn't make the assumption that the flattened curve numbers would be the same as if we didn't do anything... the variables change everything. Just look at NY... imagine if CA didn't take the measures we did, we would be dealing with the same scenarios.

I don?t disagree with why either of you are saying, way to many factors to consider.  I guess what I was trying to say, putting the healthcare thing aside, is if every one got it at the same time, it would probably result in a death rate of .1% to .2%, it sounds like half the people don?t even get symptoms. And then the ones that do are relatively mild.

So if you throw in the lack of proper healthcare, does the death rate double .2 to .4? In all likelihood it stays under 1%. Nowhere near the reported 4%.

You know what the real death rate is in the US, 54,000/330,000,000 = 0.016%. Can?t argue that one :-)
 
qwerty said:
I don?t disagree with why either of you are saying, way to many factors to consider.  I guess what I was trying to say, putting the healthcare thing aside, is if every one got it at the same time, it would probably result in a death rate of .1% to .2%, it sounds like half the people don?t even get symptoms. And then the ones that do are relatively mild.

Are you willing to take that chance and find out? As you saw with Italy and NY, with delayed protocols put into place, the rate was pretty high. So imagine if there are no protocols?

So if you throw in the lack of proper healthcare, does the death rate double .2 to .4? In all likelihood it stays under 1%. Nowhere near the reported 4%.

That's the scenario we are trying to avoid and yes, we can't be sure how bad it would have really been. But who is willing to gamble on how severe it can be? I think you posted that you sanitize your takeout food and groceries? Why? If you don' think it's that bad, why take the precautions?

You know what the real death rate is in the US, 54,000/330,000,000 = 0.016%. Can?t argue that one :-)

That's the "current" death rate. We have no idea what the "real" death rate could be.

Chances of fit guys with huge calves of dying early are pretty low too... so why buy life insurance?  :)
 
@iho - i would rather not get it if given the choice, but we generally don?t have much if a choice with diseases/virus.  The cost/benefit of staging purchases for 3 days, buying take out, transferring it to our own containers and zapping it isn?t much of a cost. But I still got to the grocery once or twice a week. I go to Costco and target once a week. I?m not going to stop living. The mask and gloves isn?t that big of a deal, etc.

If schools were open I would send my kids to school. I would not keep them at home, the distance learning is a joke. We have to work during the day and do our best to teach the kids. If they bring home the virus then we hope for the best. Like I said before, if you get it and you die then that is the card you were dealt. But people die every day for reasons behind their control. And I think I had this shit in December. Had what appeared to be the flu, fever for a couple of days. It was the worst flu, if it was the flu I?ve had in a while and I get the flu shot every year. I didn?t have aches or trouble breathing so maybe it was just the flu, or maybe I was one of those who get the more mild cases of covid due to my calves being ripped :-)

To me it all comes down to the cost/benefit. I was never a fan of the shutdown and it never made sense to me. I knew the economic damage  would be terrible and could end up being worse than the virus itself.  The practical approach would have been to have just said, everyone?s should stay six feet apart, wear masks, wash your hands, etc. and let life continue. Yes perhaps more people would have died but like I have said before, we have always put a price on life. Alway have always will.

Our public schools need money, our healthcare system is a joke. We have tons of homeless people. We just threw 2 trillion down the drain. We would have been better off spending that 2 trillion on a true educational/healthcare overhaul. From a long term perspective that would have been more impactful on society.

It always amazes me how we Are willing to open up the government checkbook in ?crisis? but never open up the checkbook to fix what really needs fixing. The 2 trillion we just spent isn?t going to much. People will still come out much worse When this is over because of the genius idea to lock things down.

I still have a job and my wife?s company is doing just fine. I think the folks who advocate for the shutdown are those who are still collecting a paycheck while working from home. Once that paycheck is gone I?m guessing those folks will start singing a different tune.

I think I may have gone on a tangent there
 
qwerty said:
@iho - i would rather not get it if given the choice, but we generally don?t have much if a choice with diseases/virus.  The cost/benefit of staging purchases for 3 days, buying take out, transferring it to our own containers and zapping it isn?t much of a cost. But I still got to the grocery once or twice a week. I go to Costco and target once a week. I?m not going to stop living. The mask and gloves isn?t that big of a deal, etc.

If schools were open I would send my kids to school. I would not keep them at home, the distance learning is a joke. We have to work during the day and do our best to teach the kids. If they bring home the virus then we hope for the best. Like I said before, if you get it and you die then that is the card you were dealt. But people die every day for reasons behind their control. And I think I had this shit in December. Had what appeared to be the flu, fever for a couple of days. It was the worst flu, if it was the flu I?ve had in a while and I get the flu shot every year. I didn?t have aches or trouble breathing so maybe it was just the flu, or maybe I was one of those who get the more mild cases of covid due to my calves being ripped :-)

To me it all comes down to the cost/benefit. I was never a fan of the shutdown and it never made sense to me. I knew the economic damage  would be terrible and could end up being worse than the virus itself.  The practical approach would have been to have just said, everyone?s should stay six feet apart, wear masks, wash your hands, etc. and let life continue. Yes perhaps more people would have died but like I have said before, we have always put a price on life. Alway have always will.

Our public schools need money, our healthcare system is a joke. We have tons of homeless people. We just threw 2 trillion down the drain. We would have been better off spending that 2 trillion on a true educational/healthcare overhaul. From a long term perspective that would have been more impactful on society.

It always amazes me how we Are willing to open up the government checkbook in ?crisis? but never open up the checkbook to fix what really needs fixing. The 2 trillion we just spent isn?t going to much. People will still come out much worse When this is over because of the genius idea to lock things down.

I still have a job and my wife?s company is doing just fine. I think the folks who advocate for the shutdown are those who are still collecting a paycheck while working from home. Once that paycheck is gone I?m guessing those folks will start singing a different tune.

I think I may have gone on a tangent there

No need to stress, you can inject Lysol if you have the covid virus according to Trump. Lol
 
Back
Top