NBA Season COVID-19 Thread (**No politics or racial/ethnic remarks or personal insults**)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80 ... 128, 129, 130  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:32 pm    Post subject:

Mamba81 wrote:
kikanga wrote:

https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status/1239975682643357696


I think you already posted this


True. And I reposted it because people were misquoting the study.

cal1piggy wrote:
activeverb wrote:


The 2.2 million figure comes from a worse-case model of the number of deaths that could happen over a couple of years if no suppression tactics were used.



actually i dont think the 2 million deaths is anywhere near the worst case scenario.



2.2 million Americans would die from the virus itself.

People with severe COVID-19 need to be put on ventilators. 50% of those on ventilators still die, but the other 50% live. But in an unmitigated epidemic, the need for ventilators would be 30 times the number available in the US. Nearly 100% of these patients die.

So the actual death toll from the virus would be closer to 4 million Americans -- in a span of 3 months.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:15 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Mamba81 wrote:
kikanga wrote:

https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status/1239975682643357696


I think you already posted this


True. And I reposted it because people were misquoting the study.

cal1piggy wrote:
activeverb wrote:


The 2.2 million figure comes from a worse-case model of the number of deaths that could happen over a couple of years if no suppression tactics were used.



actually i dont think the 2 million deaths is anywhere near the worst case scenario.



2.2 million Americans would die from the virus itself.

People with severe COVID-19 need to be put on ventilators. 50% of those on ventilators still die, but the other 50% live. But in an unmitigated epidemic, the need for ventilators would be 30 times the number available in the US. Nearly 100% of these patients die.

So the actual death toll from the virus would be closer to 4 million Americans -- in a span of 3 months.


That is not the Imperial College report. This is an assistant professor of history at Dixie State University interpreting the report. Some parts he got right, some parts he didn't.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:34 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Mamba81 wrote:
kikanga wrote:

https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status/1239975682643357696


I think you already posted this


True. And I reposted it because people were misquoting the study.

cal1piggy wrote:
activeverb wrote:


The 2.2 million figure comes from a worse-case model of the number of deaths that could happen over a couple of years if no suppression tactics were used.



actually i dont think the 2 million deaths is anywhere near the worst case scenario.



2.2 million Americans would die from the virus itself.

People with severe COVID-19 need to be put on ventilators. 50% of those on ventilators still die, but the other 50% live. But in an unmitigated epidemic, the need for ventilators would be 30 times the number available in the US. Nearly 100% of these patients die.

So the actual death toll from the virus would be closer to 4 million Americans -- in a span of 3 months.


That is not the Imperial College report. This is an assistant professor of history at Dixie State University interpreting the report. Some parts he got right, some parts he didn't.


I've read the report since he linked it in his tweet. What exactly did he get incorrect?

And what the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:28 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
That is not the Imperial College report. This is an assistant professor of history at Dixie State University interpreting the report. Some parts he got right, some parts he didn't.


I've read the report since he linked it in his tweet. What exactly did he get incorrect?

And what the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?


He missed the point of most of it, actually. I've discussed the report many times over the past few weeks.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lar9149
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Posts: 2341

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:08 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Quote:
Jeremy C. Young
@jeremycyoung
We can now read the Imperial College report on COVID-19 that led to the extreme measures we've seen in the US this week. Read it; it's terrifying. I'll offer a summary in this thread; please correct me if I've gotten it wrong.

The Imperial College team plugged infection and death rates from China/Korea/Italy into epidemic modeling software and ran a simulation: what happens if the US does absolutely nothing -- if we treat COVID-19 like the flu, go about our business, and let the virus take its course?

Here's what would happen: 80% of Americans would get the disease. 0.9% of them would die. Between 4 and 8 percent of all Americans over the age of 70 would die. 2.2 million Americans would die from the virus itself.

It gets worse. People with severe COVID-19 need to be put on ventilators. 50% of those on ventilators still die, but the other 50% live. But in an unmitigated epidemic, the need for ventilators would be 30 times the number available in the US. Nearly 100% of these patients die.


So the actual death toll from the virus would be closer to 4 million Americans -- in a span of 3 months. 8-15% of all Americans over 70 would die.
How many is 4 million people? It's more Americans than have died all at once from anything, ever. It's the population of Los Angeles. It's 4 times the number of Americans who died in the Civil War...on both sides combined. It's two-thirds as many people as died in the Holocaust.

Now, of course countries won't stand by and do nothing. So the Imperial College team ran the numbers again, this time assuming a "mitigation" strategy: all symptomatic cases in the US in isolation. Families of those cases quarantined. All Americans over 70 social distancing.

This mitigation strategy is what you've seen a lot of people talking about when they say we should "flatten the curve": try to slow the spread of the disease to the people most likely to die from it, to avoid overwhelming hospitals.

[b]And it does flatten the curve -- but not nearly enough. The death rate from the disease is cut in half, but it still kills 1.1 million Americans all by itself. [/b]The peak need for ventilators falls by two-thirds, but it still exceeds the number of ventilators in the US by 8 times.

That leaves the actual death toll in the US at right around 2 million deaths. The population of Houston. Two Civil Wars. One-third of the Holocaust. Globally, 45 million people die: 7.5 Holocausts, 3/4 of World War II. That's what happens if we rely on mitigation & common sense.

Finally, the Imperial College team ran the numbers again, assuming a "suppression" strategy: isolate symptomatic cases, quarantine their family members, social distancing for the whole population, all public gatherings/most workplaces shut down, schools and universities close.

Suppression works! The death rate in the US peaks 3 weeks from now at a few thousand deaths, then goes down. We hit but don't exceed the number of available ventilators. The nightmarish death tolls from the rest of the study disappear.

But here's the catch: if we EVER relax suppression before a vaccine is administered to the entire population, COVID-19 comes right back and kills millions of Americans in a few months, the same as before.

After the 1st suppression period ends in July, we could probably lift restrictions for a month, followed by 2 more months of suppression, in a repeating pattern without triggering an outbreak or overwhelming the ventilator supply. Staggering breaks by city could do a bit better.

But we simply cannot EVER allow the virus to spread throughout the entire population in the way other viruses do, because it is just too deadly. If lots of people we know end up getting COVID-19, it means millions of Americans are dying. It simply can't be allowed to happen.


https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status/1239975682643357696
[/quote]

Social distance the entire population should work wonders..I am unsure how accurate the simulation is (explained below)

Why? Because if you add the variables of social distancing with the probability of a person getting the virus, you get cumulative and exponential effects.

When you are calculating the probability of 2 low probability events occurring together, you get a exponentially lower probability.

Okay lets take a theoretical example. Lets assume the probability of running into a person with the virus is 1/1000. Lets say you don't social distance and you stay within 6 feet of that person for a good amount of time. Lets say the probability of getting it form that person is 50%

Resultant probability than is the product of these 2

1/1000 X 1/2 = 1/2000

So you have 1/2000 chance of catching the virus without social distancing

Now lets assume everyone practices social distancing, greater than 6 feet away from each other. Assuming still 1/1000 chance of encountering a person with the virus and you encounter a person with the virus, but keep social distance. Now lets say your probability of catching the virus from this person is 1/100

resultant probability 1/1000 X 1/100 = 1/100K

If you say wear a mask or do other stuff, lets say probability drops to 1/1000

resultant 1/1000 X 1/1000 = 1/1 million

And as the curve flattens, the chance of encountering someone with the virus drops also..lets say it drops to 1/10K

1/10K X 1/100 = 1/1 million

So to sum up..assuming chance of encountering someone with a virus is 1/1000, resultant probabilities in my theoretical situations are

without social distancing 1/2000
with social distancing 1/100K
with social and others 1/1 million

reductions off cases over time > 1/1 million


So I don't think social distancing simply halfs the number of deaths.

Point is the software simulations can't account for these because it is a variable that is changing over time and the result it gives would be way off as a result. Unfortunately as I tell people simulations do work..provided that the variables stay constant. Once they change, simulations are crappy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:25 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
cal1piggy wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
cal1piggy wrote:
general mitigation efforts - what is that other than the social distancing?


Everything from hand washing to bans on large public events to surgical masks to isolating the elderly. Basically, think of everything you can do without an actual shutdown, and you've got it.


so you think those efforts are achieving the benefits in italy vs the lockdown. and the italians locked down because they are stupid?


I've explained my point. Either you understand it, or you don't.


oh i understand what you are saying. and dont know if u remember italy tried limited measures before going to the lockdown before the cases were exploding. the result, we all know.

as documented by wiki, italy started its initial controls on feb 21. it failed and exponential growth of infections started. on march 8 and 9, quarantine went to all of lombardy and then immediately to all of italy.
and even that was not good enough. on the 21st of march, shutting down all nonessental business and industries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Italy_coronavirus_lockdown#Initial_lockdowns

if you then look at the daily new cases plot for italy, it took almost 2 weeks for daily new cases to get under control and start going down. now italy is clearly headed in the right direction.

so italy did it in many stages. only when it was not enough did they escalate the lockdown. if they had the strict lockdown earlier, they likely would have saved many lives.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:12 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
That is not the Imperial College report. This is an assistant professor of history at Dixie State University interpreting the report. Some parts he got right, some parts he didn't.


I've read the report since he linked it in his tweet. What exactly did he get incorrect?

And what the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?


He missed the point of most of it, actually. I've discussed the report many times over the past few weeks.


Can I get a link or a hint to where to find your thoughts?

And more importntly, what is the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:34 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
That is not the Imperial College report. This is an assistant professor of history at Dixie State University interpreting the report. Some parts he got right, some parts he didn't.


I've read the report since he linked it in his tweet. What exactly did he get incorrect?

And what the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?


He missed the point of most of it, actually. I've discussed the report many times over the past few weeks.


Can I get a link or a hint to where to find your thoughts?

And more importntly, what is the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?

????
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ThePageDude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 2561

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:14 am    Post subject:

Followup to my previous post on testing:
Per covidtracking.com 140,000 tests were conducted on April 2 whereas through March 31 the testing rate was max'ing out around 100,000. So it seems that additional testing capacity has started coming online this past week.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:21 am    Post subject:

ThePageDude wrote:
Followup to my previous post on testing:
Per covidtracking.com 140,000 tests were conducted on April 2 whereas through March 31 the testing rate was max'ing out around 100,000. So it seems that additional testing capacity has started coming online this past week.


If only we could have gotten to this point a month earlier.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:33 am    Post subject:

ThePageDude wrote:
Followup to my previous post on testing:
Per covidtracking.com 140,000 tests were conducted on April 2 whereas through March 31 the testing rate was max'ing out around 100,000. So it seems that additional testing capacity has started coming online this past week.



thanks.
is anyone following those 50000 or so tests that are pending in LA area?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:32 pm    Post subject:

gilead talking about a serious amount of remdesivir - but will it be all available soon? us has 8000 severe cases and probably at least 30000 hospitalized. are all those doses for usa?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-04/gilead-to-donate-experimental-coronavirus-drug-for-140-000-cases?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google


"Gilead Sciences Inc. said it’s donating 1.5 million doses of its experimental anti-coronavirus drug remdesivir, which could treat 140,000 patients.
The drug will be offered for compassionate use, expanded access and clinical trials, and will treat patients with severe symptoms, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Daniel O’Day said in an open letter. The company is also boosting its supply of remdesivir to more than 500,000 treatment courses by October, and to more than 1 million by the end the year. Production time has also been accelerated to six months from one year, he said."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lar9149
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Posts: 2341

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:54 pm    Post subject:

cal1piggy wrote:
gilead talking about a serious amount of remdesivir - but will it be all available soon? us has 8000 severe cases and probably at least 30000 hospitalized. are all those doses for usa?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-04/gilead-to-donate-experimental-coronavirus-drug-for-140-000-cases?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google


"Gilead Sciences Inc. said it’s donating 1.5 million doses of its experimental anti-coronavirus drug remdesivir, which could treat 140,000 patients.
The drug will be offered for compassionate use, expanded access and clinical trials, and will treat patients with severe symptoms, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Daniel O’Day said in an open letter. The company is also boosting its supply of remdesivir to more than 500,000 treatment courses by October, and to more than 1 million by the end the year. Production time has also been accelerated to six months from one year, he said."


Great news Cal1..I have heard they are also expanding its uses in Europe..if this drug ends up working, I hope they have enough for both US and Europe because I don't want it to be like with 3M where the Trump administration starts trying to tell the company to only make its for the US and no exporting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:56 pm    Post subject:

good job gilead! lets hope trials results are good.

more definitive info on remdevisir production: https://seekingalpha.com/news/3558442-gilead-ramps-up-remdesivir-production-ahead-of-approvals

Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ:GILD) has been working with regulatory authorities to start additional expanded access programs for remdesivir, its investigational medicine for COVID-19, Chairman and CEO Daniel O'Day wrote on the company's website.

Such programs allow hospitals or physicians to apply for emergency use of the treatment for multiple severely ill patients at a time.

Even though the medicine isn't yet approved for use by any regulatory authorities, Gilead is taking the step of of expanding production to increase supply.

"As a result we have reduced the end-to-end manufacturing timeline from approximately one year, to around six months," O'Day wrote.

Its existing supply, including finished product and investigational medicine in final stages of production, amounts to 1.5M individual doses, which could equate to more than 140,000 treatment courses for patients.

Gilead is providing all of its existing supply at no cost to treat patients with the most severe symptoms of COVID-19.

Sets a goal of producing more than 500,000 treatment courses by October and more than 1M treatment courses by the end of the year.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has recommended that in order to be prepared for COVID-19 becoming a seasonal occurrence, drug manufacturers should take the risk to ramp up production of therapeutics before phase 2 trials begin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:25 pm    Post subject:

lar9149 wrote:
cal1piggy wrote:
gilead talking about a serious amount of remdesivir - but will it be all available soon? us has 8000 severe cases and probably at least 30000 hospitalized. are all those doses for usa?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-04/gilead-to-donate-experimental-coronavirus-drug-for-140-000-cases?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google


"Gilead Sciences Inc. said it’s donating 1.5 million doses of its experimental anti-coronavirus drug remdesivir, which could treat 140,000 patients.
The drug will be offered for compassionate use, expanded access and clinical trials, and will treat patients with severe symptoms, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Daniel O’Day said in an open letter. The company is also boosting its supply of remdesivir to more than 500,000 treatment courses by October, and to more than 1 million by the end the year. Production time has also been accelerated to six months from one year, he said."


Great news Cal1..I have heard they are also expanding its uses in Europe..if this drug ends up working, I hope they have enough for both US and Europe because I don't want it to be like with 3M where the Trump administration starts trying to tell the company to only make its for the US and no exporting.


i dont know if the entire remdevisir stock to treat 140k patients is enough assuming it is the preferred antiviral.
if it works, i am sure they want to give it to all the hospitalized patients.
currently there are 22k hospitalized patients in usa.
there may not be any more until oct
so it has to last 6 months

it may be combined with an il6 blocker for the most serious cases if there is enough il6 blocker.

please work!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:35 am    Post subject:

elisa based antibody test results will start rolling in. through a private donation, telluride co is offering all residents a free tests.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-tests-everyone-tiny-colorado-county/608590/


santa clara county is also offering free antibody testing to 2500 volunteers this weekend.

soon we will have an idea of how many % of people are really infected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lar9149
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Posts: 2341

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:27 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
That is not the Imperial College report. This is an assistant professor of history at Dixie State University interpreting the report. Some parts he got right, some parts he didn't.


I've read the report since he linked it in his tweet. What exactly did he get incorrect?

And what the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?


He missed the point of most of it, actually. I've discussed the report many times over the past few weeks.


Can I get a link or a hint to where to find your thoughts?

And more importntly, what is the hypothetical better alternative to suppression?

????


To put the report of 2.2 million American's will die without any "migration effects" in perspective it is based on simulation and mathematical modelling.

The link below explains this modeling which is based off 2 general assumptions

1. Rectangular and stationary age distribution
2. Homogeneous mixing of the population, i.e., individuals of the population under scrutiny assort and make contact at random and do not mix mostly in a smaller subgroup. This assumption is rarely justified because social structure is widespread

Assumption 1. Hard to tell at least in Italy is thought to have a higher proportion of older people so the distribution of age isn't exactly even or following a so-called normal distribution

Assumption 2.

Also hard to tell. Here the the assumption for the virus is lets say at a certain point in time, the probability of encountering someone with the virus is 1/1000. So lets say everyone has 5 contacts in a given day..than after 200 days, that person on average would get the virus.

Will social structure aren't necessarily homogenous with people making contact at random. Some people and even groups have much higher points of contact than others. For example this could explain why a higher proportion of government, sports stars, actors have been reported to be positive. These people interact with a lot of different people and, thus, if the probability of encounter someone with a virus is 1/1000, they may have 100 contacts a day..meaning after 10 days, they get the virus (compare to above where it took 200 days on average). And this doesn't have to be stars..as any number of people can have a high number of social contacts that aren't stars or anyone famous.

This was explained by Malcolm Gladwell in "Tipping point"

So the issue with the simulation is the 2nd assumption may in fact not be true and, thus, making the numbers inaccurate.

However, the report does serve a purpose in emphasizing the seriousness of the situation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_of_infectious_disease
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lar9149
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Posts: 2341

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:47 pm    Post subject:

Guys checked worldometer and it seems US had big drop in daily cases today of about 9k And I think global cases have dropped for 3 days straight. Hoping the peak of cases and decline will come soon if not already.

April 5 gmt

25316 new cases and 1165 new deaths in the United States.

NOTE: Tennessee Department of Health official Twitter account acknowledges a reporting error [source] [source] [source]
NOTE: the 5:00 PM New York City daily report [source] contains lower numbers than those provided at 11:00 AM (6 hours earlier) by Governor Cuomo [source] [source]. Therefore, the increase between the 9:30 AM and the 5:00 PM daily report by the City of New York shall not be taken as an indication of a change occurring after the previous report. In order to keep the reporting criteria consistent, we have adjusted the figures accordingly.
April 4 (GMT)

34196 new cases and 1330 new deaths in the United States [source]
April 3 (GMT)

32284 new cases and 1045 new deaths in the United States
April 2 (GMT)

29874 new cases and 974 new deaths in the United States


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mamba81
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Nov 2019
Posts: 2027

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:25 pm    Post subject:

lar9149 wrote:
Guys checked worldometer and it seems US had big drop in daily cases today of about 9k And I think global cases have dropped for 3 days straight. Hoping the peak of cases and decline will come soon if not already.

April 5 gmt

25316 new cases and 1165 new deaths in the United States.

NOTE: Tennessee Department of Health official Twitter account acknowledges a reporting error [source] [source] [source]
NOTE: the 5:00 PM New York City daily report [source] contains lower numbers than those provided at 11:00 AM (6 hours earlier) by Governor Cuomo [source] [source]. Therefore, the increase between the 9:30 AM and the 5:00 PM daily report by the City of New York shall not be taken as an indication of a change occurring after the previous report. In order to keep the reporting criteria consistent, we have adjusted the figures accordingly.
April 4 (GMT)

34196 new cases and 1330 new deaths in the United States [source]
April 3 (GMT)

32284 new cases and 1045 new deaths in the United States
April 2 (GMT)

29874 new cases and 974 new deaths in the United States


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/


Lets gooo
_________________
Kobe Forever
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21064
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:36 pm    Post subject:

Mamba81 wrote:
lar9149 wrote:
Guys checked worldometer and it seems US had big drop in daily cases today of about 9k And I think global cases have dropped for 3 days straight. Hoping the peak of cases and decline will come soon if not already.

April 5 gmt

25316 new cases and 1165 new deaths in the United States.

NOTE: Tennessee Department of Health official Twitter account acknowledges a reporting error [source] [source] [source]
NOTE: the 5:00 PM New York City daily report [source] contains lower numbers than those provided at 11:00 AM (6 hours earlier) by Governor Cuomo [source] [source]. Therefore, the increase between the 9:30 AM and the 5:00 PM daily report by the City of New York shall not be taken as an indication of a change occurring after the previous report. In order to keep the reporting criteria consistent, we have adjusted the figures accordingly.
April 4 (GMT)

34196 new cases and 1330 new deaths in the United States [source]
April 3 (GMT)

32284 new cases and 1045 new deaths in the United States
April 2 (GMT)

29874 new cases and 974 new deaths in the United States


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/


Lets gooo

I agree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
poppies
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 08 Nov 2019
Posts: 808

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:27 am    Post subject:

lar9149 wrote:
Guys checked worldometer and it seems US had big drop in daily cases today of about 9k And I think global cases have dropped for 3 days straight. Hoping the peak of cases and decline will come soon if not already.

April 5 gmt

25316 new cases and 1165 new deaths in the United States.

NOTE: Tennessee Department of Health official Twitter account acknowledges a reporting error [source] [source] [source]
NOTE: the 5:00 PM New York City daily report [source] contains lower numbers than those provided at 11:00 AM (6 hours earlier) by Governor Cuomo [source] [source]. Therefore, the increase between the 9:30 AM and the 5:00 PM daily report by the City of New York shall not be taken as an indication of a change occurring after the previous report. In order to keep the reporting criteria consistent, we have adjusted the figures accordingly.
April 4 (GMT)

34196 new cases and 1330 new deaths in the United States [source]
April 3 (GMT)

32284 new cases and 1045 new deaths in the United States
April 2 (GMT)

29874 new cases and 974 new deaths in the United States


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/


We could easily be surprised by a big uptick either globally or domestically, but yes, the latest numbers offer a measure of encouragement. If any realistic treatment option hits in the middle of a downward trajectory, things look really positive indeed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ThePageDude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 2561

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:43 am    Post subject:

lar9149 wrote:
Guys checked worldometer and it seems US had big drop in daily cases today of about 9k And I think global cases have dropped for 3 days straight. Hoping the peak of cases and decline will come soon if not already.

April 5 gmt

25316 new cases and 1165 new deaths in the United States.

NOTE: Tennessee Department of Health official Twitter account acknowledges a reporting error [source] [source] [source]
NOTE: the 5:00 PM New York City daily report [source] contains lower numbers than those provided at 11:00 AM (6 hours earlier) by Governor Cuomo [source] [source]. Therefore, the increase between the 9:30 AM and the 5:00 PM daily report by the City of New York shall not be taken as an indication of a change occurring after the previous report. In order to keep the reporting criteria consistent, we have adjusted the figures accordingly.
April 4 (GMT)

34196 new cases and 1330 new deaths in the United States [source]
April 3 (GMT)

32284 new cases and 1045 new deaths in the United States
April 2 (GMT)

29874 new cases and 974 new deaths in the United States


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/


Be careful and factor in how many new tests were performed compared to previously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:43 pm    Post subject:

wow boris johnson is in icu
has something like this ever happened before
guess there was fdr in ww2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:00 pm    Post subject:

according to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

"An estimated additional 180 - 195 deaths per day occurring at home in New York City due to COVID-19 are not being counted in the official figures. "Early on in this crisis we were able to swab people who died at home, and thus got a coronavirus reading. But those days are long gone. We simply don't have the testing capacity for the large numbers dying at home. Now only those few who had a test confirmation *before* dying are marked as victims of coronavirus on their death certificate. This almost certainly means we are undercounting the total number of victims of this pandemic," said Mark Levine, Chair of New York City Council health committee"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:09 pm    Post subject:

remdesivir study results in china may be announced this week. these studies seem to be more to the level of acceptance by fda than most studies in china

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/06/gilead-remdesivir-data-coming-soon/
______________________________________________
----- from article -----
What’s being announced?

Sometime this month, Chinese scientists will share results from two trials in that country, one looking at patients with severe Covid-19, and one with patients with mild and moderate infections.

The severe Covid-19 trial enrolled 453 patients, and is expected to read out results first, perhaps as early as this week. The patients were allowed to enter the study up to 12 days from the onset of Covid-19 symptoms. Once enrolled, the patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion and were treated with daily infusions of remdesivir or a placebo for 10 days.

The primary goal is to show that the drug is better than placebo at improving symptoms within 28 days. That improvement is measured with a six-point scoring system ranging from hospital discharge (a score of 1) to death (a score of 6). In order to count as someone who responded to the drug, a patient must improve by at least two points. Patients can remain hospitalized at the end of the 28-day period of the clinical trial but still improve enough clinically — no longer needing intubation or supplemental oxygen, for example — to count as a responder.

What are the possible outcomes?

Handicapping the results of the severe Covid-19 study requires some deep-in-the-weeds modeling of biostatistics. Thankfully, Umer Raffat, a biotech analyst at Evercore ISI, has done the heavy lifting for his investor clients.

If people who take the placebo show clinical improvement after 16 days, remdesivir would have to track at 13 days to demonstrate superiority with statistical significance, Raffat said. This would be described in what researchers call a “hazard ratio.” The magic number would be 1.2, meaning that patients do 20% better on remdesivir than placebo.

There is already one red flag. The investigators running the severe Covid-19 study in China have already taken an interim look at the data, but they did not stop the study early. This suggests remdesivir isn’t working as well as hoped, and dampens optimism for an overall positive outcome, Raffat said.

It’s also possible the trial will produce mixed results.

Related: The biotech scorecard for the second quarter: 18 stock-moving events to watch
What do you mean, “mixed”?

If the data from the remdesivir trials show the drug did not have clear benefits overall, experts will still look to see what kind of impact it had for patients who were treated early in the course of their illness. Remember, patients were allowed to enter the severe Covid-19 study even 12 days after they started showing symptoms.

Generally, antivirals are most effective if they are given soon after a person is infected. This allows them to slow the replication of the virus while it is still at low levels. If a treatment is given too late, and the virus has had a full chance to proliferate, it’s possible that the cascade of health consequences cannot be stopped.

So a key question for the remedesivir data will be if the timing of treatment had an impact on its performance.

What’s the status of the other remdesivir clinical trials?

As mentioned above, there is a second study of remdesivir underway in China that enrolled just over 300 patients with mild or moderate Covid-19. That study is also expected to read out results this month. The patients will be treated with remdesivir or a placebo for 10 days and then followed to determine how quickly they show signs of “clinical recovery” — defined as normal readings for fever, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and alleviation of cough.

At least four additional clinical trials of remdesivir are underway, including two sponsored by Gilead, both of which are expected to read out in May. Another comes from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The World Health Organization is also running the “Solidarity” trial that is testing remdesivir as well as other drugs and drug combinations. So this is not the final word on remdesivir’s potential to fight Covid-19.

If it’s approved, would remdesivir be recommended for all patients with Covid-19?

It depends on what the data from the clinical trial show, but there’s a sense that there’s a sweet spot for remdesivir. The drug is given intravenously, and because of that, there’s the thought that it only makes sense for patients who are sick enough that they wind up in the hospital. Others seem to be able to fight the infection off on their own at home, even if they feel very ill for a few days.

But the patients who are so sick they need hospital care might not progress to that point for perhaps a week after showing symptoms. There’s a concern that by that time, remdesivir won’t be as effective as it would have been if given earlier. So experts will be looking closely at the data to try to parse out how and when to give the drug.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80 ... 128, 129, 130  Next
Page 79 of 130
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB