"Facts about COVID-19": Swiss Propaganda Research Article

[Wayne]

in the US not even a test is needed anymore, only the suspicion to be included into the covid mortality rate. Totally against any common sense.

I ran across an account that's contrary to this. Apparently, the normal "death at home" rate for NYC is around 20-30/day. These days, it's closer to 200, although none of these extra deaths are being counted as COVID-19 related.

 

[pamojja]

These days, it's closer to 200, although none of these extra deaths are being counted as COVID-19 related.

Do you have a link? Could it be those extra-deaths are from other urgent diseases that don't get treated at the moment because of covid?

 

[Wayne]

Do you have a link?

I couldn't find the original article I ran across, but THIS ARTICLE has some similar numbers (snippet below). Here's some more SEARCH RESULTs.

Introduction:

"New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio acknowledged Wednesday that the city’s official coronavirus statistics have missed hundreds of people who died at home without ever being tested for the virus, and said the city would start including such victims in its COVID-19 tally.​

​

“The blunt truth is coronavirus is driving these very tragic deaths,” de Blasio said on CNN’s “New Day.” He added, “We’re not talking about, you know, 10 people, 20 people. We’re talking about something like 100, 200 people per day.”​

​

The city’s Fire Department has recorded as many as 200 deaths at home daily in recent weeks, far more than the average 25 deaths at home before the pandemic..."​

 

[percyval577]

I see people in this thread pointing to overreporting of deaths, while it’s more likely that deaths are heavily underreported (by a factor of 2 or more) because many, especially elder, people die before ever being able to do a test.

See this article for example

The situation is still unclear - including that an exponential growths of a dangerous pandemic still might be possible -, therefore under- and overreporting can be discussed, and even should ...

If you want to assess how many people so far have died from Covid-19, and would otherwise not have died, you need to have clear parameters to determine it. Otherwise you could also say that somebody who had died had in fact died, say, from a bar of chocolate. As far as I see parameters are

• forensics, determination by mechanism of actions of the virus (and other diseases)
• statistics (this will show up only later because now there are only the previous months documented)

I would also think the assuming/presuming knowledge of some people (obviously e.g. me) not to compare with the uncertain subject of knowledge (the reported deaths).

 

[Hip]

Statisticians talk about excess deaths: there are lots of people in the population who are very ill, and these would have died anyway within a year or two. Coronavirus just kills them a bit earlier.

But then there are other people who are dying of coronavirus, but if they had not caught it, might have lived for decades longer. When these die, they are called excess deaths, because their death is in excess of the number of people who would have died anyway quite soon.


However, for the hospitals dealing with the coronavirus outbreak, it does not matter whether the death is an excess one or not: the hospitals are overloaded with patients, because everyone is getting very sick or dying now.

 

[percyval577]

@Hip This I do mainly agree with.

And as it is the case that the virus is new, we may expect some more deaths than on some average (excess rate), how long the period to look at ever may be.

It seems that in the USA many die who suffer from obesity and are often classified as belonging to the lower class.

One should also discuss the possibility that the initial viral load people are faced with, say within a certain time frame, may determine the severity of illness. Countries which refused to try any mitigation might do worse then.


And then there is still the possibility that the virus is a catastrophe, and a real pandemic. I think, apart from the US, the numbers of the last days may rather not provide this view, as far as I have looked at countries.

It rather looks more as if the virus takes over vulnerable people. I do not say, of course, to stay away from treating the uncomfortable disease, which obviously asks for huge efforts.

 

[Wayne]

I've been getting COVID-19 emails from Chris Masterjohn which I generally consider quite good. This is his latest:

The Coronavirus May Circulate in a Community For 4-6 Weeks Before Detection [COVID-19 Updates]

Two days ago, Seattle-based public health researchers released a new study as a preprint* suggesting that COVID-19 cases spread throughout communities within Washington state for 4-6 weeks before the first community-acquired case had been identified.

This is deeply concerning, because it suggests that by the time the first case is identified in a community it has already gained too strong a foothold to stop the spread through self-isolation of the people who have been diagnosed or have symptoms.

On January 19, 2020, one individual was identified in Washington state who had traveled to Wuhan and contracted the disease.

The first community-acquired case was not identified in Washington state until February 28.

SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, develops a genetic mutation about once every fifteen days. This allows researchers to compare the genomes of different samples and build an evolutionary tree.

They analyzed 326 genomes, and found that 85% of them fell into a closely related group known as a “clade” that most likely shared the January 19 case as a common ancestor.

When calculated based on the evolutionary tree alone, the median estimate for the first spread from the common ancestor is February 1, with 95% confidence that it occurred some time between January 18 and February 9. This is consistent with the January 19 case being the common ancestor, but it cannot rule out other possibilities. For example, the January 19 case could have been closely related to a different unknown case that arrived in Washington in the weeks that followed and began the spread.

Their results also suggest that in the weeks before the first community-acquired case was detected, the number of cases doubled every 2.4-5.1 days, with a median estimate of doubling every 3.4 days.

Seven genomes from the Grand Princess cruise ship were sampled, and all fall into the same clade. Their results cannot rule out that someone from the cruise ship started the Washington outbreak, but the authors consider it more likely that someone from the Washington outbreak brought it to the cruise ship.

These results suggest that by the time COVID-19 is identified in a community, it has already been spreading for 3-4 weeks and doubling every few days. This is particularly concerning because, as a Vox article from ten days ago pointed out, rural communities are likely to get hit later, but harder. The virus will spread much more quickly in somewhere like New York City, but NYC has lots of hospitals, health care workers, organizational infrastructure, and political clout. Many small communities have none of these things.

This makes a strong case for being proactive about hygiene and social distancing (and, in my opinion, antiviral nutrition and immune support) even if you live in a community that doesn't appear to have been hit yet, or that was hit recently but where things don't seem to be that bad.

Stay safe,
Chris

 

[Bergkamp]

Though I can't verify, I read John Hopkins has such a high-security bio-weapons laboratory as also existing in Wuhan. Of course only for developing vaccines. Can anyone rectify?

I don’t understand what you mean with this. Are you trying to discredit John Hopkins University as a source?

The above graph seems to leave out all pneumonia deaths. And is in justaposition to this monitoring-system: https://healthweather.us/?mode=Trend

Why would you want to include pneumonia deaths? It’s just a comparison of influenza and Covid-19

My own daily updated calculations from the accessible mortality data confirms both, in that until now in theUS from the first covid death till today (1 month and 7 days ago) hasn’t exceeded its usual influenzia and pneumonia deaths (including usual fluctuations) in this time period at all.

You mean on a cumulative basis? So adding the first C19 death on day 1, to the C19 deaths on the next day, etc,, up until now, and comparing that to the influenza deaths in that same period?

If yes, that comparison is not like-for-like, as you are comparing a widespread disease with one that is just new, and spreads on a person-to-person basis, so hasn’t spread at all. The chart that I posted exactly shows how both your statement and the statement that C19 is far more lethal than influenza can be true. Because it hasn’t spread yet, and particularly not in the beginning of the period you are using.

That article is in complete opposition what the Italian ministry of health announced: In Italy not only those deaths are counted caused by the virus, but also all with the virus dying of their comorbitities. Even worse, in the US not even a test is needed anymore, only the suspicion to be included into the covid mortality rate. Totally against any common sense.

Do you have a source on that claim regarding Italy? Also, your claim on the US seems false, at least in NYC, where most cases are located, as mentioned here, i.e., the US also does not count deaths that are not tested as C19.

 

[percyval577]

These results suggest that by the time COVID-19 is identified in a community, it has already been spreading for 3-4 weeks and doubling every few days.

This is particularly concerning because, as a Vox article from ten days ago pointed out, rural communities are likely to get hit later, but harder. The virus will spread much more quickly in somewhere like New York City, but NYC has lots of hospitals, health care workers, organizational infrastructure, and political clout. Many small communities have none of these things

This could also be encouraging (in some sense), because

• The virus would have spread already much further and even the initial rate of complications would be lower
• It allows for the interpretation that a dense community is more vulnerable (asking more for a mitigation). Interpretation can be wrong of course.

I heard over here in TV about the situation in rural America, I hope that a strategy to deal with the virus can be found.

 

[ljimbo423]

Two days ago, Seattle-based public health researchers released a new study as a preprint* suggesting that COVID-19 cases spread throughout communities within Washington state for 4-6 weeks before the first community-acquired case had been identified.

These results suggest that by the time COVID-19 is identified in a community, it has already been spreading for 3-4 weeks and doubling every few days.

When I caught it, there were only 4 cases identified in my whole state at the time and none in my county. Yet I caught it, most likely, from my neighbor. She was coughing quite a lot, I was only a few feet away from her and 2-3 days later I was sick.

So I do think the testing, at least here in the states, was well behind the viral infections covid was causing.

 

[pamojja]

Are you trying to discredit John Hopkins University as a source?

No. But if it is true their in the highly profitable vaccine business, than that would mean a conflict of interest that should be transparent rather earlier than later.

Why would you want to include pneumonia deaths? It’s just a comparison of influenza and Covid-19

Because influenzia and pneumonia deaths are already accounted for in worldwide statistics as one main cause of deaths after stroke and CVD. Additionally influenza and pneumonia equally are particularly deathly to already immune compromised individuals. And covid is treated - maybe wrongly - as pneumonia too. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza-pneumonia/by-country/

If yes, that comparison is not like-for-like, as you are comparing a widespread disease with one that is just new,

Not when it does show - as it does in my calculations of countries where it most advanced - that in the majority of them it either never took off, or is already declining. Definitely a multitude of other factors at play, which the unwillinglness to investigate anything but a virus wont particularly helps to uncover.

Do you have a source on that claim regarding Italy?

Regarding the situation in Italy: Most major media falsely report that Italy has up to 800 deaths per day from the coronavirus. In reality, the president of the Italian Civil Protection Service stresses that these are deaths „with the coronavirus and not from the coronavirus“ (minute 03:30 of the press conference). In other words, these persons died while also testing positive.

The german Robert Koch Institute (CDC of Germany) as well as the Austrian health ministry also announced that all patients which die with a possitive covid test, are counted in the death statistic. Without further pathological or medical history investigation.

The source of the same statement form the CDC I have to find again, also one straight from the WHO. Will post them later.

 

[pamojja]

This could also be encouraging (in some sense), because

• The virus would have spread already much further and even the initial rate of complications would be lower

Remember the cummunity of Vo, where after the first death 3% of the whole community tested positive, few days later retested 0.3% positive only.

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-mass-testing-experiment-italian-town-covid-19-outbreak-1493183
Italy's first death from COVID-19 was recorded in the northern town of Vò, a 3,300-strong community in the Province of Padua 30 miles (50 kilometers) from Venice. Scientists involved say it was an experimental initiative that enabled them to create a full "epidemiological picture" of COVID-19, Financial Times reports.

Since the start of the outbreak, authorities have been testing and retesting each of the town's inhabitants. The tests were performed on people whether or not they were displaying symptoms of the disease. By some reports, between a half and three-quarters of carriers in Vò, were asymptomatic.

Anyone who was found to be infected with the new coronavirus was then put into quarantine—as was everyone they had come into contact with.

Testing began in late February when roughly 3 percent of Vò residents were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. Half were asymptomatic—therefore displayed no symptoms like fever, cough and shortness of breath typical of the disease. A second round of testing days later revealed the infection rate had fallen to 0.3 percent.

"On the second testing that was carried out, we recorded a 90 percent drop in the rate of positive cases. And of all the ones who were positive in the second testing, eight people were asymptomatic," said Professor Andrea Crisanti, an infections expert at Imperial College London on sabbatical at the University of Padua in Italy, Sky reports.

Which again shows how urgent Antibody testing is needed. If after a few days already 90% test negative on the PCR test already again.

 

[pamojja]

Which again shows how urgent Antibody testing is needed. If after a few days already 90% test negative on the PCR test already again.

Which also makes the cruise ship a useless sample. Worse, the Austrian study of 2000 representative of the whole population results, which will be announced on Friday will be useless as well.

Hot of the press for all who rather go with models than with hard mortality numbers, till we get Antibody test representative studies:

COVID-19: On average, only 6% of actual infections detected worldwide

...
Insufficient and delayed testing may explain why some European countries, such as Italy and Spain, are experiencing much higher casualty numbers (relative to reported confirmed cases) than Germany, which has detected an estimated 15.6% of infections compared to only 3.5% in Italy or 1.7% in Spain. Detection rates are even lower in the United States (1.6%) and the United Kingdom (1.2%)—two countries that have received widespread criticism from public health experts for their delayed response to the pandemic.

In sharp contrast to this, South Korea appears to have discovered almost half of all its SARS-CoV-2 infections.

 

[pamojja]

Why would you want to include pneumonia deaths? It’s just a comparison of influenza and Covid-19

Scientist do it all the time:

SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data

ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus from China, is spreading around the world, causing a huge reaction despite its current low incidence outside China and the Far East. Four common coronaviruses are in current circulation and cause millions of cases worldwide. This article compares the incidence and mortality rates of these four common coronaviruses with those of SARS-CoV-2 in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It is concluded that the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably being overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.

...From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019, 21 662 samples were tested by the IHU Méditerranée Infection diagnostic laboratory. Among these, 770 samples were positive for coronavirus, with eight deaths (mortality rate 1%). Among identified coronaviruses, 63 were identified as HKU1 (one death, mortality rate 1.6%), 74 were identified as NL63 (two deaths, mortality rate 2.7%), 92 were identified as E229 (one death, mortality rate 1.1%) and 160 were identified as OC43 (four deaths, mortality rate 2.5%). Three hundred and eighty-one coronaviruses, diagnosed before 2017, were not assigned to any of these four strains (Table 2).

Also interesting, look at the names of the authors of this study..

 

[pamojja]

What can happen in an epidemic is that those who are most at risk will die early on. So once this happens the virus has no more easy targets and the death rate goes down. Not heard this mentioned in the UK media.

Would you have a reference for that, because it does not seem plausible?

 

[andyguitar]

One of the most interesting parts of the video starts around minute 14. It's about when the rate of infection slows in relation to when social distancing and school closures begin.

 

[pamojja]

Dr John Ioannidis of Stanford University

 

[Hip]

@pamojja , can you please give a timecode for the point you are making in the video you posted; it is a 41 minute video, and I don't really want to watch all of it.

 

[pattismith]

Remember the cummunity of Vo, where after the first death 3% of the whole community tested positive, few days later retested 0.3% positive only.



Which again shows how urgent Antibody testing is needed. If after a few days already 90% test negative on the PCR test already again.

a "few days" later seemed to be in fact 7/10 days later. Unfortunately I can't find any original study published on the web (Pr Sergio Romagnani, Dr Crisanti). too bad...
Remember that the village was locked down before the study began and that they asked positive people to stay home 14 days.
edit:
In the Italian press:
"In Vò, in fact, with the isolation of infected subjects, the total number of patients fell from 88 to 7 (i.e. about 10 times) within 7-10 days."

 

[JES]

Which again shows how urgent Antibody testing is needed. If after a few days already 90% test negative on the PCR test already again.

It looks light antibody testing might not be that helpful either, one third of the discharged patients in China tested with very low antibody levels (source). On top of that you have the issue of the test sensitivity and specificity, which knowing how useless antibody tests are to detect Lyme and several other chronic infections, it brings even more uncertainty. The only situation I see where antibody testing could provide reliable results would be for the cases that do produce high antibodies, in that case it's obviously a very useful test as that person can actually resume normal activities without fear of infecting others.

Anyway, I still thinking counting deaths is probably the most reliable way to track the progress in most countries. Once the virus will start to penetrate to larger parts of the population, the death numbers should start converging towards a scenario where the whole population is infected. That will obviously not happen very quickly as long as everyone keeps isolated, but we'll probably see some smaller countries where a majority of the population will become infected not in the too distant future.