Leslie

Are you out protesting against the virus? Lock it up! Lock it up! Getting out there and kicking that corona ass, man? No need for social distancing, masks, gloves ... it's all a hoax right? Have you been kissing door handles? Working at Walmart?

No, you're at home hiding under your tinfoil blanket like all of the other bullshit merchants.

Hiro11

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...iously-thought

What if the true infection rate of Covid-19 turns out to be 50x-85x the "confirmed cases" number as this study suggests? What does that mean for headline mortality rates? What would national antibody testing reveal about the spread of Covid-19? Such testing is about to be rolled out, this is going to be fascinating to watch.

Leslie

Agreed. I actually can't believe the tone of privilege and complete disconnection in this thread. I have first hand accounts of how those checks have gone to rent, food, car payments, student loans etc.

Anybody who received a check makes below a certain salary and, therefore, are probably not in quite the catbird seat that they think they are. These are early days. But, if someone received a check who REALLY REALLY doesn't need the money ---

I have 5 young adults in my family who were all laid off in the same week. They've been at home (sheltering as instructed) for a month with no income and no unemployment yet. Their parents have been using all of their extra income to keep them going, which puts the middle-aged folks in my family under financial strain, even those still able to work are having to make huge sacrifices.

For those who can't swallow the idea of actually giving selflessly, there are ways to use the money that are both selfish and helpful to others. Something tells me nobody here will listen though.

Hiro11

So you dismiss my point as I'm a "conservative", but you actually agree with me. Got it.

scrubbedexpat096

"Even with the adjusted rate of infection as found by the study, only 3% of the population has coronavirus – that means 97% does not. To reach herd immunity 50% or more of the population would have to be infected and recovered from coronavirus."


The antibody tests are currently flakey at best by reports Ive seen

Mortality rate is what it is unfortunately

Leslie

The same supreme court that just ruled on Wisconsin? Of course it can be appealed, for the historical record, but they're not going to protect voters.

Hiro11

So we should just ignore this? It's bullshit? Current data is perfect?

My point is no one really knows anything at this point. We absolutely need to get better data.

- the "confirmed cases" number is bullshit because it varies in accordance with testing prevalence. More testing = more "confirmed cases". "Confirmed cases" is in no way representative of true infection rates.
- then you've got the issue of extremely limited antibody testing as this study exposes: who has had Covid-19 and recovered?
- political factors, infrastructure differences, definitional differences etc, etc all are corrupting data quality. How many cases are there actually in Brazil? Do you believe China's numbers?
- the "mortality rate" as being reported is bullshit because the denominator is driven by the above issue and the numerator is influenced but both data collection issues (note the terrible data quality on nursing home deaths) and by complicating medical factors. If you contract Covid-19, but you likely would have died this year anyway, did you "die from Covid-19"?

scrubbedexpat096

No, but even with the headline 38-85 times it still means an incredibly small percentage of the population having or have had covid19, much in line with the modeling here in the UK .


California was trying to make out it had covid19 for a much longer period than anyone else hence being able to suppress the spread, this study proves nothing new unfortunately.



Also we are getting more data on the deaths here in the UK but this lags two weeks behind, the week to April 3rd shows a 6000 increase year on year and that's some way behind current peak. Let's not use flaky data to play this down.

civilservant

I don't agree that the free market (aka corporations) will dig us out of this, no. It's already demonstrated that all it will do is freeze up too. Government is for the greater good, and we need it right now to bail out the citizenry.

Does this mean that money will go to those that don't 100% need it too? Yes, but that's the cost of the system.

Steerpike

I watched 'real time with Bill Maher' last night; always appreciate his show even when I don't agree with him. Last night, he had on a Texas republican that I've never heard of before - Dan Crenshaw - quite an interesting guy to listen to. The above topic came up a bit, and he did mention that Texas allows for 'early voting' in person for 2 weeks prior to the election, suggesting that perhaps anyone who is concerned about voting 'in person' on election day can vote any time in this 2 week period. Did I get that right?

This link covers some of the interview with him:

https://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/ (scroll down to third entry). at minute-marker 12:15, he specifically mentions the early voting.

Steerpike

My gut feeling is, the 'cases' numbers are incredibly incorrect due as you say to poor testing - orders of magnitude incorrect. But the mortality numbers - while there may be complicating factors that damage their accuracy, are they not still a lot more credible? What +/- would you attribute to the quality factors such as nursing home deaths and contributing factors?

Fareed Zacharia was on Bill Maher last night, and mentioned that the infection rate is likely to be way, way higher than any testing is revealing, and that the fatality rate is thus way overstated right now. This is his article in the WSJ - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...094_story.html
I have always had a great deal of respect for Fareed and I find this interesting.

zzrmark

What really gets my goat up is people like my boss. Employer of one, full order book, still working our asses off AND a few weeks ago he told me he was going to claim the SBA forgivable loan that will pay my wages and some of his rent for 8 weeks despite the fact that he has absolutely no intention/danger of laying me off or fuloughing me.

civilservant

Why does that irritate you zz? Just because he doesn't actually need it?

Human nature unfortunately. Everyone likes getting stuff for free.

zzrmark

I appreciate that but there are tens of thousands of small companies and employees that are desparate for a cut of what is/was a very small pot, and I know that he some very unsavoury stereotypes to live up to but he is a rabbi for God's sake.

kimilseung

Dan Crenshaw is a bit of an arsehole, but he ain't stupid. It was amusing to see Maher made to look so poor at his job once again.This new format really does not help Maher, The one to one interviews expose his poor ability as an interviewer, he normally only has to do it once and the show gets raised by the panel section. I am baffled by why they dont have multiple simultaneous guests on the show now. The guests were always the saving grace of his show, and the one on one interactions the low point. Now we just have a series of one on one catastrophes. I am finding I am drawn to the show as car crash TV. It is also exposing his American exceptionalist elitist attitudes more, as there are not those bank of guests to balance it out.