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

[percyval577]

The only factor I am aware of that might make us question this comparison of flu and coronavirus death rate is the fact that some flu deaths are not actually recorded as a flu, but instead the cause of death may be recorded as whatever underlying health condition the patient had

I have forgotten the source, but to that knowledge the following accounts:

The mortality of flu epidemics is calculated only through excess mortality in a given period over an average (driven from longer time frames).

The other deaths which have occured with being infected with the virus would accordingly not account for
flu mortality.

In contrast to your statement, I think this to be reasonable. Given the course of life, it is inevitable that people die, and this will occur to any time with a certain average. If these deaths are now with flu, heart attacks or whatever is rather unimportant, or you would question the course of life.


---
(Maybe his is how to read the mortality in Gangelt /Heinsberg, that there would have been an excess mortality in the time periode looked at where covid-19 was, and the mortality was given as 0.06%?

If my poor maths have been right, with a given case fatality of 0.37% it would make a percentage of 16.2% of people in the area having been on contact with the virus. Hope it´s right.

This would match up with the antibody test result of 14% of people having been infected - lowest estimation, as they said.

But probably the mortality rate is only an estimation and not already empirically evaluated from local data.
I guess the case fatality has been estimated from cases with positive tests, so regardless of underlying diseases that would lead to death, given also often a certain age. And this would be canceled out on the mortality).

 

[pamojja]

So all these high quality measurements of death rate closely tally, so I think we can be reasonably certain that the death rate is around 0.5%

The Heinsberg study, which till now only have analyzed half of the studied sample at about 500 participants, is the most accurate with 0.36% untill now. However, one has to has in mind this is a still much smaller sample and not at all representative, which Dr. Bhattacharya is about to evaluate for the whole of the US. It is also from the outset apparent that Heisberg as the most affected area in Germany is least repenresentative for the whole of Germany too. So cut that at least to a fraction again, to come to a really representative percentage of the whole population in Germany again. The truth will come and will prevail over such unrelyable data made seem to be representative.

When we reach about 50% infected, that's when you start to see some natural flattening of the curve.

Thus I think the slowdown in growth is likely due to the lockdowns, and not because we are reaching the later stages of the pandemic.

Agree that you are entitled to think what seems most reasonable to you. In the east the flattening already happened with and not after the shutdown. Worldwide the curve already has flattened on April 2th. That already 50% would be infected is vivid immagination, since the only small sample of worse affected its 14% only (or the tests are still too unrelyable).

That graph you posted above in this post, where does it come from? And what is represented on the vertical axis?

As written the sentence just above the graph:

Looking at this wikipedia chart of daily deaths of the 5 major affected nations:

 

[pamojja]

You are wrong.

-The natural sigmoid curve would be much longer to flatten without the lockdown, and will rise much much higher, with many many many more deaths to happen. We actually don't know exactly how long would last a natural curve and how much deaths it would cost.

Again, you can think whatever reasonable to you. But without scientific evidence for your statement - which I gave - it remains your believe.

Very old people in senior home mostly didn't reach any hospital and die very very quickly. So you have two different populations with very different delayed death time.

This is only speculative, these facts despite remain:

• The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious previous illnesses. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
• Normal overall mortality in the US is about 8000 people per day, in Germany about 2600 people and in Italy about 1800 people per day. Influenza mortality in the US is up to 80,000, in Germany and Italy up to 25,000, and in Switzerland up to 1500 people per winter.
• Strongly increased death rates, as in northern Italy, can be influenced by additional risk factors such as very high air pollution and legionella contamination, as well as a collapse in the care of the elderly and sick due to mass panic and lockdown.
• In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent Great Britain and the US, a serious overload of hospitals, notably by the flu, is not unusual. In addition, up to 15% of doctors and nurses currently have to self-quarantine, even if they develop no symptoms.
• An important distinction concerns the question of whether people die with or indeed from coronaviruses. Autopsies show that in many cases the previous illnesses were an important or decisive factor, but the official figures usually do not reflect this.
• Thus in order to assess the danger of the disease, the key indicator is not the often mentioned number of test-positive persons and deceased, but the number of persons who actually and unexpectedly develop or die of pneumonia.
• The German virologist Hendrik Streeck is currently conducting a pilot study to determine the distribution and transmission routes of the Covid19 pathogen. In an interview he explains: „I took a closer look at the cases of 31 of the 40 people who died in the Heinsberg district – and was not very surprised that these people died. One of the deceased was older than 100 years, so even a common cold could have led to death.“ Contrary to original assumptions, Streeck has not been able to prove transmission via door handles and the like (i.e. so-called smear infections).
• The German Pharmaceutical Newspaper points out that in the current situation, patients often „fall seriously ill, even die, without having developed respiratory symptoms beforehand“. Neurologists suspect in this regard that the corona viruses could also damage nerve cells. Another explanation, however, would be that these patients, who are often in need of care, die due to the very high stress.
• According to the latest figures from Switzerland, the most common symptoms of test-positive patients in hospitals are fever, cough and breathing difficulties, while 43% or about 900 people have pneumonia. Even in these cases, however, it is not a priori clear whether it was caused by the coronavirus or by other pathogens. The median age of the test positive deceased is 83 years, the range reaches up to 101 years.
• Italy: Russian experts have noticed „strange deaths“ in nursing homes in Lombardy: „According to newspaper reports, several cases have been registered in the town of Gromo in which alleged corona virus-infected persons simply fell asleep and never woke up again. No real symptoms of the disease had been observed in the deceased until then. () As the director of the nursing home later clarified in an interview with RIA Novosti, it is unclear whether the deceased were actually infected with the coronavirus, because nobody in the home had been tested for it. () In the homes, where medical and nursing teams from Russia are working, corridors, bed rooms and dining rooms are disinfected.“

Similar cases have already been reported from Germany: Nursing patients without symptoms of illness die suddenly in the current exceptional situation and are then considered „corona deaths“. Here again the serious question arises: Who dies from the virus and who dies from the sometimes extreme measures?​

• The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports: „Throughout Europe, the pandemic is endangering the care of elderly people at home because nursing staff can no longer visit them – or have left the respective country in a hurry to return home.“

The number of new patients put on respirator may be a better tool to see the effect of the lockdown.

A substitution would be more accurate than the available actual daily deaths? Only if one wants to make the numbers to fit one's believes.

 

[pamojja]

The mortality of flu epidemics is calculated only through excess mortality in a given period over an average (driven from longer time frames).

The other deaths which have occured with being infected with the virus would accordingly not account for
flu mortality.

Maybe that's the case for other countries. In Germany they track all respiratory diseases.

 

[pattismith]

A substitution would be more accurate than the available actual daily deaths? Only if one wants to make the numbers to fit one's believes.

???not sure what you mean, if I don't give my source then my thinking has no value and if I give a graph to backup my thinking, it's my thinking that is weird...No luck for me! Sorry I don't have any time left to play this kind of game

 

[pamojja]

A substitution would be more accurate than the available actual daily deaths? Only if one wants to make the numbers to fit one's believes.

if I don't give my source then my thinking has no value and if I give a graph to backup my thinking, it's my thinking that is weird...

Not at all. You said 'may', I stated 'if', which both isn't factual as well. Nor about you. All hypothetical thinking does have great value, in proceeding to experiment and finding the truth. Or at least come closest to it.

But if hypthesis is presented as facts, one doesn't have to be surprised to be asked for a source. And if unable to give, it still wouldn't mean to be invalid. But just not yet based on clear evidence.

Look, I would love if someone like you would tear apart my sources of evidence and proof me wrong. But simply believing so doesn't make it.

You are wrong.

I don't have any time left to play this kind of game

Then don't start to play games in such important matters.

 

[pamojja]

Also until now only China, Philippines, Hongkong, Spain, Japan, France, Taiwan, Iran, South Korea, Italy, USA, San Marino, Australia, Thailand, Slovenia, Iraq, Switzerland, UK, Netherlands, Egypt, Panama, Argentina, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, Iceland, Morocco, Lebanon, in that order have passed at least 30 days since their respective first covid death. Only up to Iran already 50 days. Tomorrow Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Domincan Repubic, Albania, Bulgaria, Guyana, will follow with 30 days in.

Untill today the 8 red out 27 countries had multiples (~6 times in average) than the average influenzia/pneumonia mortality of all affected countries (San Marino taken out due the low population size, where 34 covid deaths untill now is already 34 times more than usually die there during that time of influenza/pneumonia)

I marked those blue (only 20% deaths to usual) instead of green (40% to usual), which despite not showing abnormal mortality, I wouldn't have any trust in their numbers. Also in countries not far enough in the epidemic, to be able to say anything about.

The excess mortality data broken down for European countries compared to just the last 4 years untill now, for the most part confirms my own calculations:

Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finnland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Northern Ireland, Scottland, and Wales are mostly far below the eccess mortality seen already during the last 4 years.

Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and England have either reached or exceeded those peaks of the last 4 years with the week 14 of 2020.

 

[Hip]

As written the sentence just above the graph:

I was looking for a web link to the article for that graph in your earlier post. I finally found it here. So Y-axis of the graph represents daily deaths.

Looking at that graph, the number of daily deaths in Italy (green line) starts to level out around 19 March. In Italy, the lockdown was put in place on 9 March 2020. So clearly the flattening of the curve started around 10 days after the lockdown.

In the east the flattening already happened with and not after the shutdown.

I have asked before for references to this flattening "in the east" (whatever that means) that you say occurred before lockdown, but you have not yet provided them. Please provide some links to graphs or data, so that we can look at the data.

 

[Hip]

It is also from the outset apparent that Heisberg as the most affected area in Germany is least repenresentative for the whole of Germany too.

Exactly, so the infected rate in other countries may be even less that 15%, which shows that we are still in the very early stages of the pandemic, where exponential growth is normally expected to continue, and where you will not yet see any natural flattening of the curve.

So this 15% infected figures suggests your argument is wrong. There cannot be any natural flattening of the curve yet, because we are still in the very early stages of the pandemic.

 

[percyval577]

Exactly, so the infected rate in other countries may be even less that 15%, which shows that we are still in the very stages of the pandemic, where exponential growth is normally expected to continue, and where you will not yet see any natural flattening of the curve of daily deaths.

Given a case fatality of 0.37% (in an well acting health care system), Germany would have 641.350 people having been in contact with the virus, by yesterday (2373 official deaths). There are about 83.000.000 inhabitans, so 0.77% of the population would have been in contact with the virus.

Sweden ... 147.026 .......................... having about 10.000.000 inhabitians -> 1.47%
Czechia .......33.243 ..................................................... 10.000.000 ........................-> 0.33%
UK ..........2.668.916 ...................................................... 66.000.000 ........................ ->4.04%


Hope my maths are right.

 

[Hip]

The data from Gangelt in Germany, that 15% of the population is currently infected, gives us a good opportunity to test Tomas Pueyo's equation for estimating the number currently infected in each county.

Gangelt has hit hard by coronavirus, so the percentage infected in Germany as a whole is going to be lower than 15%.


Tomas Pueyo's formula is:

Number currently infected = D * (100/P) * 2^(17/T)

Where:
D = number of deaths to date
T = death number doubling time in days
P = percentage of infected people who die



Let's see what this equation predicts for the number currently infected in Germany:

In Germany over the last week or so, the average death doubling time T has been 7 days. And the number of deaths D in Germany to date is 2736. See Germany Worldometer. And we can set P = 0.37%.


So placing these values into Pueyo's equation, we get:

Number currently infected in Germany = D * (100/P) * 2^(17/T)

= 2736 * (100/0.37) * 2^(17/7)

= 4 million people currently infected in Germany


The population of Germany is 83 million, so that means the current percentage infected in Germany predicted by Pueyo's equation is: 100 * 4 / 83 = 4.8%

 

[Bergkamp]

I am trying to get a clue in the effect of lockdown in different countries (looking at the new cases and new deaths on the worldometer).

One problem is of course that the measurements will hardly be comparable. But at least a tendency of a common pattern should be visible. Until now I havn´t noticed it (admittedly with my slow computer I am a bit restricted).

I don’t think that’s the right way to look at it.

It doesn’t make sense to just look at the output data of official cases/deaths (which are heavily flawed in any case) and draw conclusions from that, since you miss a lot of crucial information.

To assess the effect of a lockdown, or any other restrictive measure, what you ideally want to do is compare the actual numbers (after taking measures) with what you would have gotten if you didn’t take said measures. Obviously the latter is a scenario, and those scenarios are made with models, which are extremely complex and depend on thousands of variables.

For example, say a virus outbreak is in an exponential stage (and if it is, no measures other than strictly isolating every person in a country in their own room will immediately reverse that), the country is in lockdown, and the daily growth rate of cases is 15% (and this is modelled new cases, not the numbers we see, which are only tested new cases). However, the models of the national health institute of that country say that if the lockdown wouldn’t have been imposed, the growth rate would be 33%.

Now, any hobbyist could look at the numbers on worldometer, see that the cases are still growing, and say: ‘hey, the lockdown isn’t working’. But it is working, because if the lockdown wouldn’t have been imposed it would grow at a much higher rate.

Another example: Since a few days, the daily number of new cases in The Netherlands are suddenly quickly growing. Why? Because we have quadrupled testing since a few days ago. Or, in Belgium in the past days the # of deaths is suddenly skyrocketing. Why? Because they decided to include deaths in caretaker homes and are now including deaths of multiple weeks ago.

we have such extremely limited information and we have no clue what the alternative would be if the measure wouldn’t have been taken, since we don’t have the models or any of the inputs.

Our national institute of health did a technical briefing some days ago, which was quite interesting, and they showed R0 significantly went down because of the lockdown, all backed with numerous charts and data. Is he, 30 years of experience in epidemiology, and a full team of top epidemiologists behind him, wrong, or lying?

If people on here want to argue that some countries are overreacting, fine. If they want to say the media is creating panic, cool with me. If they think the attention for this is disproportionate compared with the flu, or other illnesses, sure. We can debate that.

 

[pamojja]

So Pueyo's equation is looking reasonably reliable.

Only if one forgests that Gangelt is very small, with only half the sample size till now analysed, and most severe affected population, and reliyablity of new antibody test still evaluated = still inreliable at this point.

So this 15% infected figures suggests your argument is wrong. There cannot be any natural flattening of the curve yet, because we are still in the very early stages of the pandemic.

So an still unreliable study (too small size, to much affected, too litle prepresentative, testing just invented) makes my argument wrong, that on April 2nd worldwide the pandemic plateaued? How comes?

I have asked before for references to this flattening "in the east" (whatever that means) that you say occurred before lockdown, but you have not yet provided them. Please provide some links to graphs or data, so that we can look at the data.

I've privided the source already 3 times in this thread. At one point also I do get tired of being taken for endless cycles for an unwillingness to even look at the provided evidence due to preconceptions about its scientist. Nothing to do with his data.

The video you refused to see. The abstract with the title leading to all the already analyzed data, you considered not worth to click. Here it is again: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ng_and_implications_for_prevention_strategies

Found now a not yet peer-reviewed abstract with all the data and graphs:

The first three months of the COVID-19 epidemic: Epidemiological evidence for two separate strains of SARS-CoV-2 viruses spreading and implications for prevention strategies

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?

Please do tear it apart.

 

[pamojja]

(There are however targeted lock-downs which really protect and don't cause even more harm, if well thought-through) The alternative was shown year after year in fromer yearly respiratory infection pandemics to work and well documented by epidemiologists.

The problem is: it is not only my calculations being confirmed by various international monitoring systems and expert of various fields, getting absolutely no mentioning in the mass-media (which is a criminal negligence, considering the duty to investigate each site in such uncertainty and potentially so much harm). Even Fauci himself anounced on February 28th already:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387#article_introduction

If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2

You're welcome to argue, but not my right to voice my opinion. Which happens to be based in extensive science.

 

[Hip]

I've privided the source already 3 times in this thread. At one point also I do get tired of being taken for endless cycles for an unwillingness to even look at the provided evidence due to preconceptions about its scientist. Nothing to do with his data.

You link to this paper, which contains 19 pages of text and graphs.

If there is something in this paper which you say supports your view that the pandemic curve began flattening even before the lockdowns, you will have to quote the paragraph and graphs that you think demonstrate this.

 

[pamojja]

Since a few days, the daily number of new cases in The Netherlands are suddenly quickly growing. Why? Because we have quadrupled testing since a few days ago. Or, in Belgium in the past days the # of deaths is suddenly skyrocketing. Why? Because they decided to include deaths in caretaker homes and are now including deaths of multiple weeks ago...

Our national institute of health did a technical briefing some days ago, which was quite interesting, and they showed R0 significantly went down because of the lockdown, all backed with numerous charts and data. Is he, 30 years of experience in epidemiology, and a full team of top epidemiologists behind him, wrong, or lying?

The R0 at this point is a hypothetical size, every scientist worth his salt would concede. And now every Government of course have to justify whatever meassures taken or missed. Here the daily deaths data on wikipedia from the Netherlands:

23 March: stricter social distancing rules were announced in a press conference.[44]

Already 1 week later the daily deaths plateaued. If there was an effect by the strict lock-down it only could have shown 3 weeks later. The average time from infection to death by covid (if not remaining asymptomatic). The outlying later peak was sufficiently explained by you.

16 March: In the evening Prime Minister Mark Rutte addressed the nation about the coronavirus. It was the first time a prime minister had addressed the nation since the 1973 oil crisis.[34] In his speech he announced that the government chooses not to resort to population confinement measures, but to rely on the measures taken earlier in order to try to assert maximum control over the spread of the virus. Reasoning that the virus is here to stay, the preferred approach would be to tackle the epidemic by building population immunity.[35]

Of course, because that until now was the only way to outlife such pandemics. I'm in agreement.

 

[andyguitar]

Of course, because that until now was the only way to outlife such pandemics until now. I'm in agreement.

Me too.

 

[Hip]

Already only 1 week later the daily deaths plateaued. If there was an effect by the strict lock-down it only could have shown 3 weeks later.

No, the effects of lockdown can appear faster than 3 weeks.

Although the average time to death for coronavirus is 17 days (2½ weeks), the range of time to death is from 6 to 41 days. Ref: here.

So the first effects of lockdown on the death rate can appear after 6 days.

 

[percyval577]

Our national institute of health did a technical briefing some days ago, which was quite interesting, and they showed R0 significantly went down because of the lockdown, all backed with numerous charts and data. Is he, 30 years of experience in epidemiology, and a full team of top epidemiologists behind him, wrong, or lying? Should I tell him: ‘hey man, you can say whatever you want but I’ve got pamojja here on PR who looked at output data on worldometer for Eastern countries and says a lockdown isn’t working’? Come on.

In all countries - as it seems - a corona case is everybody who tested positive for corona. A corona death is similarily evaluated.

In view of this, the German Director of the CDC was asked if he doesn´t think that the fatality rate would be too high estimated, given that the people who died typcally have comorbidities and are on average more than 80 years old. This logic applies also to the flu and is indeed commonly applied, to my knowledge:

The mortality of flu epidemics is calculated only through excess mortality in a given period over an average (driven from longer time frames).

The other deaths which have occured with being infected with the virus would accordingly not account for
flu mortality.

In contrast to your statement, I think this to be reasonable. Given the course of life, it is inevitable that people die, and this will occur to any time with a certain average. If these deaths are now with flu, heart attacks or whatever is rather unimportant, or you would question the course of life.

Now what did the director (Wieler) answere? No, he thinks that it should be too low, because a lot of people infected with corona would die without having been detected. I couldn´t believe it.

Same thing, but this time with an empirical background: Yesterday in Dutch news (NOS) they said that there is a higher mortality observed in the last month, presumably coming from corona deaths "which havn´t been diagnosed and died at home". So, same thought, but I would have thought that they give the percentage, so that the viewer can know how much people have died more than usually within a month ( ... or within a three month time, or within a half year).

On top of this omission they even didn´t make clear if there was any excess at all with the already known covid-19 deaths, having died in hospitals. From the words they used I´d say: No (and then we would have so far indeed no really severe problem). This is wishi washi, as it is what Wieler said. In German its called verdummung, dom maken/ houden, making/keeping dump so to say, and indeed, "never critisize me" is the next step.

Why not admit that "we not aleady know"?.


After this dump director-answere there was a press conference. Speaker of the Ministry for Health said that they don´t plan to investigate how many people have already come in contact with the virus (which could be done with an antibody test, which wasn´t that available, though now clearly is). I was speechless.

 

[pamojja]

At one point also I do get tired of being taken for endless cycles for an unwillingness to even look at the provided evidence due to preconceptions about its scientist.

You link to this paper, which contains 19 pages of text and graphs.

If there is something in this paper which you say supports your view that the pandemic curve began flattening even before the lockdowns, you will have to quote the paragraph and graphs that you think demonstrate this.

Ok, one more deep breath..

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.

..agree with andyguitar, minute 13:40 is where the most compeling argument is placed. However, it is basically the observation of pandemics during his whole life as an epidemiologist, that resperiatory infection pandemics behave that way every year.

No, the effects of lockdown can appear faster than 3 weeks.

Although the average time to death for coronavirus is 17 days (2½ weeks), the range of time to death is from 6 to 41 days. Ref: here.

So the first effects of lockdown on the death rate can appear after 6 days.

I don't follow. If the average is 17 days, there should be a clear plateau around that time. Not that much before or after. Unless the average is indeed 1 week only. Which as far as we know isn't.