Covid-19: Is Any Country Actually Doing Science?

[Giraffe]

The containment measures that have been introduced worldwide are based neither on reliable data nor on sound science.

I created this thread to collect and discuss research that is able to give insights into where we are in the epidemic (this can vary from country to country) and scientifically based estimates of the case fatality rate of covid-19. These questions can only be answered by studies that are done in a representative cohort. Also the role of nosocomial infections belongs here. I wonder if any researcher has looked into this.

All of those latest figures of newly infected and new deaths are only distractions. They can't be interpreted without knowledge of the total numbers of tests. The guidelines on who gets tested are biased towards making covid-19 appear more deadly than it is, since usually only people with symptoms get tested while an estimated (50% to 80%) of the infected is asymptomatic. As long as every death is contributed to covid-19 irrespective of co-morbidities and age of the patient, the reported number of deaths is irrelevant. Please do not post any those data here.

If you want to comment on treatments, predictive models, the latesd number of confirmed cases or deaths, on who gains from a corona hoax and other topics that do not belong here, please chose a thread that fits.

You might want to follow the links below:

models and predictions
all covid-19 threads

...........


Iceland is a sparsely populated country, and it has tested a higher proportion of its population than any other country, and unlike other countries it's offering free screening among the general, non-symptomatic, non-quarantined population.

According to information from the Government of Iceland (date March 15) "About a third (34%) of all cases can be traced to overseas travel, mostly to high-risk areas identified in the European Alps. More than a quarter (32.7%) of cases have been traced to domestic transmission. The rest (33.2%) have not been conclusively traced to a source of transmission." [source]

In the Netherlands like in many other countries in Europe the first covid-19 case has been reported end of February. Short thereafter health care workers were proven to be infected with SARS-CoV-2. In a study they wanted to test the hypothesis of hidden community spread of the virus. So they tested many symptomatic healthcare workers in two hospitals. They found that 6.4% were indeed infected with SARS-CoV-2, and some of them must have been infected two weeks before the first official covid-19 case was reported.

An estimation of the undetected cases:

"According to the German researchers, the data showed that countries have only discovered on average about 6% of all coronavirus infections. They claimed that the true total number of people infected with coronavirus may already have reached some tens of millions of people worldwide."

Millions of coronavirus infections left undetected worldwide – study

Here is a video of one of those researchers from University Göttingen in Germany. [in German]

The point I am trying to make is: Given the high percentage of undetected cases, it's useless to hunt down the contacts of confirmed cases and quarantine them, while the majority of acutely infected is undetected. The effects of social distancing can't be evaluated for lack of reliable data. How dangerous covid-19 is can only be guestimated. How infectious is it really? Does anyone know?

The outbreak on the Princess Diamond is the best data we have so far. Based on those data Dr. John Ioanniddis estimates the infection fatality rate to be "anywhere between 0.05 up to 1%".

What do the data from Iceland tell us?

 

[yerrag]

It tells me that -

- there is a much higher rate of infection from the population taken by the healthcare system than from a random non-quarantined population of asymptomatics , a rate of 10% vs 0.86%. No information available on how the population taken by the healthcare system is chosen, but I can assume these are people who show symptoms.
-another study needs to be taken, spaced a month apart from the last study, from the general asymptomatic population, to get an idea of the rate of infection in a non-quarantined population. This would help them decide whether a quarantine and/or lockdown policy is going to be helpful or not
-given that a third of infection cannot be traced conclusively to the source of transmission, it is hard to make any conclusion as to how significantly other methods of viral transmission contribute to the spread of infection; would be helpful if a population testing negative can be isolated for a month and tested again, at least to see if they can still get infected even without contact with humans and items that are contaminated
-would also be interested in knowing why the healthcare system population tested for higher infection rate, and of those infected, what the co-morbidities are; for example, how many of those infected are hypertensive and use ACE inhibitors, as it's been said that hypertensives using ACE inhibitors show symptoms similar to those infected with COVID-19
- would be interesting to monitor the population of asymptomatic infected to see what characteristics they have that make them unaffected by the infection, e.g. their pulse, temperature, oxygen saturation, the quality of their blood sugar regulation, acid-base balance, hypothyroid status etc (although this would be a difficult ask if medical authoritarians have their say)

The raw data isn't much to work with, so I hope the study can be modified so that more meaningful analysis and conclusions can be gleaned.

 

[Pompadour]

Here in Germany they tested people in one area and discovered that 15% were infected. Mortality rate 0,37%
Das sind die ersten Ergebnisse der Heinsberg-Studie

Coronavirus-Studie Heinsberg: 15 Prozent immun, erste Lockerungen möglich - WELT

 

[Giraffe]

Austria is going to do a study in a representative cohort. They want to find out how many are acutely infected with SARS-CoV-2 and how many are immune already. In a previous study they found that there is a high number of undetected cases, but the sample size was chosen too small to produce robust numbers.

The wording here is strange:

In absoluten Zahlen: Es gab, zusätzlich zu den Erkrankten in Spitälern, in der Periode 1.-6. April mit 95%-iger Wahrscheinlichkeit zwischen 10.200 und 67.400 akut COVID-19-Infizierte.

They say that they estimate that there are between 10,200 and 67,400 acutely infected people, on top of the hospitalized covid-19 patients.

What does this mean? Did they normally only test people in hospital? Did they hospitalize everyone who was tested positive?

 

[David PS]

Austria is going to do a study in a representative cohort. They want to find out how many are acutely infected with SARS-CoV-2 and how many are immune already. In a previous study they found that there is a high number of undetected cases, but the sample size was chosen too small to produce robust numbers.

The wording here is strange:


They say that they estimate that there are between 10,200 and 67,400 acutely infected people, on top of the hospitalized covid-19 patients.

What does this mean? Did they normally only test people in hospital? Did they hospitalize everyone who was tested positive?

It sounds like they are just boosting the numbers (for whatever reason). This site indicates that Austria currently has 6865 active cases and 246 critical cases. In addition, there at 13,806 total cases and 6,604 total recovered.

Adding the numbers
6865 active cases
6,604 total recovered - totals 13,469

13,469
+ 246 critical cases - totals 13,717 The number do not quite add up to 13,806.
Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,797,512 Cases and 110,075 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

This suggests to me the the "10,200 and 67,400 acutely infected people, on top of the hospitalized covid-19 patients" are additional suspected cases that guesstimated to be lurking in their cities and countryside.

 

[Giraffe]

Another study from Austria compared the deaths attributed to covid-19 to the normal death rate. They found that the age distribution was strikingly parallel. [ -- Not many here will be surprised, I hope. -- ] The only exception is the lack of children among the 'covid-19' deaths.

Since the number of undetected cases can't be estimated at the moment, they say that it's impossible to say if covid-19 raises the risk to die this year. [In other words: If those people would have died anyway this year can only be answered at the end of the year, when excess mortality can be calculated.]

Erste Analysen Österreichischer Covid-19 Sterbezahlen nach Alter und Geschlecht

 

[Giraffe]

It sounds like they are just boosting the numbers (for whatever reason). This site indicates that Austria currently has 6865 active cases and 246 critical cases. In addition, there at 13,806 total cases and 6,604 total recovered.

Adding the numbers
6865 active cases
6,604 total recovered - totals 13,469

13,469
+ 246 critical cases - totals 13,717 The number do not quite add up to 13,806.
Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,797,512 Cases and 110,075 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

This suggests to me the the "10,200 and 67,400 acutely infected people, on top of the hospitalized covid-19 patients" are additional suspected cases that guesstimated to be lurking in their cities and countryside.

They wanted to find out how many undetected cases they have. That was the aim of the study.

This is not "boosting the numbers" but an attempt to estimate the true number of acutely infected people based on sound scientific data. Political decisions should be based on solid data. For example, you can't estimate the case fatality rate if you don't know how many got infected. -- Please read the first post of the thread.

It's the wording "on top of the hospitalized covid-19 patients" that I found strange. Even when only people with symptoms are tested (as is done in Germany) I would not expect more than 20% of them to be in hospital.

 

[David PS]

They wanted to find out how many undetected cases they have. That was the aim of the study.

This is not "boosting the numbers" but an attempt to estimate the true number of infected based on sound scientific data. Political decisions should be based on solid data. For example, you can't estimate the case fatality rate if you don't know how many got infected. -- Please read the first post of the thread.

It's the wording "on top of the hospitalized covid-19 patients" that I found strange. Even when only people with symptoms are tested (as is done in Germany) I would not expect more than 20% of them to be in hospital.

Okay, I think I understand. First estimate the number of cases and then multiply that estimate by the estimated fatality rate for a true number (based on sound scientific estimates).

 

[meatbag]

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. on Twitter

 

[David G]

Official numbers clearly show there is NO pandemic. The official estimates went from "millions dead!" in the US to 60K (a 97% reduction). Sources:
1. IHME - COVID-19 Projections
2. Bloomberg - Fauci Slashes U.S. Death Projection, Raising Hope for Reopening

According to the CDC this is no higher of a death rate than in previous flu seasons. Source: Burden of Influenza
So to be as clear as possible -- there is and never was a pandemic. But many people seem to have missed this. I'm sure the sensationalist media overlooked mentioning it.

Pandemic by common-sense definition means people are dying in significantly larger numbers than in previous years. That is NOT happening. Once people are made aware of this they then might starting paying more attention and it might then occur to them to ask why there is a lockdown, etc...

Additional info:
Facts about Covid-19
Why Central Planning by Medical Experts Will Lead to Disaster | Gary Galles
How the World Health Organisation (WHO) Created a 'Pandemic' of a Disease
Open Letter to NZ MPs – the Lockdown is a Disastrous Error

 

[Entropy]

So articles are going around showing the total deaths in NYC are higher than previous years.

"The overall rise in deaths suggests that the combination of crowded hospitals, an overtaxed ambulance system and a fearful population could have resulted in more deaths among people with heart attacks, strokes or other ailments who might have survived in normal circumstances."

Plus we know the treatment for critical cases of COVID are not helping.


Deaths in New York City Are More Than Double the Usual Total

 

[meatbag]

 

[mujuro]

I do wonder how many hospital resources are being taken up by people who are in the hospital solely due to the fear and panic. People who, if it were any other year, would deal with the illness at home and shrug it off as a nasty flu. People who are being given shonky diagnoses of COVID-19 and the additional immunosuppressive stress and anxiety along with it because this thing looks like the 2011 film Contagion if all you’re watching is the mainstream media, which the bulk of the bell curve do.

 

[meatbag]

“This is not a major threat for the people in United States, & this is NOT something the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about”- Dr Fauci , January 21, 2020
Femme Fatale on Twitter

Fauci Estimates That 100,000 To 200,000 Americans Could Die From The Coronavirus
-March 29, 2020

 

[Giraffe]

@Entropy @mujuro @meatbag , please do not derail this thread.

There are lots of other threads where you can discuss these things.

covid-19 | Ray Peat Forum

 

[Giraffe]

Study tested antibody-based rapid test for SARS-CoV-2.

While rapid point-of care testing is critically needed, the current evaluation of an antibody-based system demonstrates only low sensitivity and is therefore not recommendable to detect potential infections as a stand-alone test. Indeed, studies demonstrated that seroconversion occurred sequentially for IgM and then IgG with a median time of 11 and 14 days, respectively. The presence of antibodies was <40% among patients in the first 7 days of illness and then rapidly increased to 100% at day 15 after onset of symptoms, which appear to be too late from a public health perspective.

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

 

[Giraffe]

Here in Germany they tested people in one area and discovered that 15% were infected. Mortality rate 0,37%
Das sind die ersten Ergebnisse der Heinsberg-Studie

Coronavirus-Studie Heinsberg: 15 Prozent immun, erste Lockerungen möglich - WELT

Here is the study: Infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a German community with a super-spreading event

And here is an interview: German virologist: Covid-19 is less deadly than we thought

He discusses something that does not get the attention it deserves though it's known for a hundred years: The dose makes the poison.

• small viral load (being outdoors or short contacts) >> no or mild symptoms
  
• bigger viral load (poor hygiene; crowded, poorly ventilated rooms; long. contacts) >> more severe outcome

The infection fatality rate they calculated was 0.37 percent, but he explains that it's probably lower. Plus it was a superspreading event: horny drunken people, singing and dancing indoors.

Even among old people with lung disease were asymptomatic cases. Second attack rate quite low (= not everyone in a household gets infected). No clusters in schools.

Another interview in German: Virologe Hendrik Streeck - Jung & Live #23

 

[thomas00]

Researchers find new coronavirus strain 'more contagious', potentially impacting COVID-19 vaccine search

 

[rei]

At this point "covid19" is as descriptive of a diagnosis as "brown hair" Since it does not seem to have anything to do with a disease or it's progression. All populations blanket-tested show more than half being positive with less than 1/100 even having a mild fever.

 

[boris]

At this point "covid19" is as descriptive of a diagnosis as "brown hair" Since it does not seem to have anything to do with a disease or it's progression. All populations blanket-tested show more than half being positive with less than 1/100 even having a mild fever.

Streeck's study found that 1 in 5 cases is asymptomatic.