Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Daily life  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12461  
Old 09.09.2020, 14:50
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Geneva
Posts: 30
Groaned at 17 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 94 Times in 24 Posts
sftb has a reputation beyond reputesftb has a reputation beyond reputesftb has a reputation beyond reputesftb has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
The fact is, we have several orders of magnitude more likelihood of spreading because there are several orders of magnitude more cases than we started with in the spring.
Except the people who caught it in the spring (or late June) and recovered are no longer contagious.
Reply With Quote
  #12462  
Old 09.09.2020, 14:52
gaburko's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BL
Posts: 905
Groaned at 144 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 2,232 Times in 850 Posts
gaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
The fact is, we have several orders of magnitude more likelihood of spreading because there are several orders of magnitude more cases than we started with in the spring. It's just a simple fact, simply illustrated and impossible to refute, and all you can answer with is snark. Apparently you think that makes you smart. It most certainly does not.
Sorry, I'll call out your alarmist BS every single time i see it irrelevant of how that makes you feel. Please make sure you read and re-read carefully as your reading comprehension is another weak point.

1. The 'peak' was a massive underestimate. In April, there were days when 6,000 new cases a day were recorded, so the level of infections in the past few days appears to be some way towards that peak (we are around 2000 now).

But at the start of the pandemic, the UK was only largely able to test hospital patients. There was limited testing capacity. Estimates from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine suggest there may have been as many as 100,000 cases a day at the end of March

2. Hospital admissions aren't rising along with cases: As cases have risen in recent weeks, there hasn't been a corresponding rise in hospital admissions.

All from here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54064347

Now do you understand why you are so blatantly wrong about "orders of magnitude"? The fact that you can't even express this or the probabilities in anything that vaguely represents elementary school mathematics is something you should work on.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank gaburko for this useful post:
  #12463  
Old 09.09.2020, 14:55
Axa's Avatar
Axa Axa is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Suhr, Aargau
Posts: 1,458
Groaned at 18 Times in 18 Posts
Thanked 1,892 Times in 883 Posts
Axa has a reputation beyond reputeAxa has a reputation beyond reputeAxa has a reputation beyond reputeAxa has a reputation beyond reputeAxa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Doctor fired for not wearing a mask when attending a patient (patients?) in Zug. https://www.thelocal.ch/20200908/swi...t-wearing-mask

We blame ignorance when people do reckless stuff, but that's putting too much trust in knowledge. Sometimes knowledge is there, a doctor knows, but something else is missing.
Reply With Quote
  #12464  
Old 09.09.2020, 15:00
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,866
Groaned at 181 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 7,366 Times in 2,877 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
Doctor fired for not wearing a mask when attending a patient (patients?) in Zug. https://www.thelocal.ch/20200908/swi...t-wearing-mask

We blame ignorance when people do reckless stuff, but that's putting too much trust in knowledge. Sometimes knowledge is there, a doctor knows, but something else is missing.
The doctor is caught not wearing a mask and fired because of it after having already received a warning about it and then tries to play the victim by claiming to be "a pawn in their game?"

I guess people never have to look very far to find someone else to blame, eh?
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Pancakes for this useful post:
  #12465  
Old 09.09.2020, 15:01
robogobo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Horw (LU)
Posts: 450
Groaned at 54 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 356 Times in 186 Posts
robogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Here's an interesting tool that estimates a range of the number of current infections, specific to country:
https://finbold.com/chance-of-gettin...us-calculator/

It's published by a conservative finance group. At the moment the estimated ratio in Switzerland of infected people to total population is between 1:6 and 2:5. That's pretty sobering.

Let me break that down for my COVID denier friends above: for every thirty people you walk past, between 5 and 12 of them are likely infected. In a room with 10 people? Up to four of them are infected. Or maybe it's only a couple. Spend an hour with them without masks and you've got a pretty good chance of contracting the disease (much higher than you did last April!). Spend an hour in a shop with dozens passing in and out from place to place without masks, well, roll the dice and gamble not only your well being but others' lives as well.

Let's all keep in mind that the same folks who complain about the severity of lockdown measures are also complaining about masks, which are the best chance we have of avoiding yet another lockdown. Now ask yourself if that makes a lick of sense. If you don't want another lockdown, you should be embracing mask rules.

This past summer there was a pretty solid message for implementing the lockdown, which deniers love to forget: flatten the curve. Just kilometers away from our southern border, hospitals were overwhelmed with a shortage of equipment and multiplying numbers of acute cases. Everything that was done needed to be done. Indeed, those measures worked and the curve flattened because people mostly followed the rules. Many didn't, but that of course was factored into the equation. Resistance still needs to be factored in, perhaps more than ever. We see enough knuckleheads right here on this forum denying the obvious right in front of their face, cherry-picking numbers with tunnel vision to prove their shaky, internal panic induced theories that serve only to give them a feeling of normalcy, a luxury not afforded to those in hotspot areas. They are the very reason the measures needed to be more severe in the past and will be in the future if they, ironically, cause that need by not following the rules. They do it to themselves, and the rest of us have to pay the price.

Squabble and snark if you like, but that's the big picture.
__________________

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank robogobo for this useful post:
This user groans at robogobo for this post:
  #12466  
Old 09.09.2020, 15:13
gaburko's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BL
Posts: 905
Groaned at 144 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 2,232 Times in 850 Posts
gaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
Here's an interesting tool that estimates a range of the number of current infections, specific to country:
https://finbold.com/chance-of-gettin...us-calculator/
You're making mistake after mistake. Look at the bottom of the link you provided. It says it's "calculated by multypling confirmed cases by 32 for the lower range and 73 for the upper range". Let me help you out here:

1. "Real range" of people with Covid on 7th Sept. in the UK = confirmed 2032 cases x 73 = 148 336

2. "Real range" of people with Covid on 13th April = confirmed over 6000 cases x 73 = 438 000

3. Please, divide result of 1 by result of 2 and let us know what you get as a ratio. more than 1 would mean there's a higher chance of getting infected now. less than 1 would mean lower chance now.

Mind you, I am not even venturing into explaining to you that MORE testing today logically reveals MORE cases and yet, we're below the peak in April. Look at the BBC article once again, it suggests cases were over 100k per day back in April! But I decided to use the lower figure, just to show you that you're wrong even with artificially low numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #12467  
Old 09.09.2020, 15:48
Elu Elu is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Olten
Posts: 423
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 763 Times in 331 Posts
Elu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
Here's an interesting tool that estimates a range of the number of current infections, specific to country:
https://finbold.com/chance-of-gettin...us-calculator/

It's published by a conservative finance group. At the moment the estimated ratio in Switzerland of infected people to total population is between 1:6 and 2:5. That's pretty sobering.
Why sobering. I would consider that pretty good news. Having already that many people infected while hospitalization and deaths stay low in switzerland would be great news or not?
You just cannot hide from the virus anymore. We need to continue with our efforts to reduce the initial amount of virus recieved, but there is no point in hiding from it.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Elu for this useful post:
  #12468  
Old 09.09.2020, 15:51
22 yards's Avatar
Only in moderation
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel-Land
Posts: 8,856
Groaned at 270 Times in 217 Posts
Thanked 18,206 Times in 7,316 Posts
22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
Tough if you get it, but not a fraction as bad as many people fear.
It seems you're absolutely wrong. Empirical evidence says so. You just can't argue with facts right in your face:

Quote:
View Post
Here is an article from the Washington Post on recovery from Covid in Bergamo.

<snip>

“But we are asking: Are you feeling cured? Almost half the patients say no,” said Serena Venturelli, an infectious-disease specialist at the hospital.

<snip>

Among the first 750 patients screened, some 30 percent still have lung scarring and breathing trouble. The virus has left another 30 percent with problems linked to inflammation and clotting, such as heart abnormalities and artery blockages. A few are at risk of organ failure.

Beyond that, according to interviews with eight Pope John XXIII Hospital doctors involved in the work, many patients months later are dealing with a galaxy of daily conditions and have no clear answer on when it will all subside: leg pain, tingling in the extremities, hair loss, depression, severe fatigue.

Some patients had preexisting conditions, but doctors say survivors are not simply experiencing a version of old problems.

“We are talking about something new,” said Marco Rizzi, the head of the hospital’s infectious-disease unit.

<snip>

The study in Bergamo is one of multiple efforts around the world to examine aspects of covid’s lingering damage. One German study of 100 people found that nearly 80 percent had heart abnormalities several months after infection.
It would also serve us all well to remember, as RufusB points out, that so far, we have ben pretty lucky in Switzerland. In other places, the pandemic has been massively destructive. According to the article quoted, "antibody sampling, according to the government, indicated that one-quarter of Bergamo’s 1.1 million people were infected with the virus."

We don't want to get to that point in Switzerland. The last thing we should be doing is saying "phew, we dodged a bullet there, now let's return to normal", when letting our guard down now could let everything that's been done so far collapse in a heap.

Once again, death numbers are one measure of the impact of the coronavirus. We're still finding out (more and more of the new knowledge is rather depressing) about the long-term effects of the morbidity.

Some of you will cry "oh, you're afraid, stay at home then!" and one in particular will probably neg-rep me with a "tinfoil hat" comment again. I'd much rather everybody understand the far-reaching implications of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and work together to keep Switzerland relatively safe, since we can't do much for the rest of the world. Is it really so much to ask, to maximize the chances of people here to live without these crippling effects of the virus?
Reply With Quote
The following 10 users would like to thank 22 yards for this useful post:
  #12469  
Old 09.09.2020, 15:57
Motorschweitz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bassersdorf
Posts: 407
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 737 Times in 264 Posts
Motorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
Here's an interesting tool that estimates a range of the number of current infections, specific to country:
https://finbold.com/chance-of-gettin...us-calculator/

It's published by a conservative finance group. At the moment the estimated ratio in Switzerland of infected people to total population is between 1:6 and 2:5. That's pretty sobering.

Let me break that down for my COVID denier friends above: for every thirty people you walk past, between 5 and 12 of them are likely infected. In a room with 10 people? Up to four of them are infected. Or maybe it's only a couple. Spend an hour with them without masks and you've got a pretty good chance of contracting the disease (much higher than you did last April!). Spend an hour in a shop with dozens passing in and out from place to place without masks, well, roll the dice and gamble not only your well being but others' lives as well.

Let's all keep in mind that the same folks who complain about the severity of lockdown measures are also complaining about masks, which are the best chance we have of avoiding yet another lockdown. Now ask yourself if that makes a lick of sense. If you don't want another lockdown, you should be embracing mask rules.

This past summer there was a pretty solid message for implementing the lockdown, which deniers love to forget: flatten the curve. Just kilometers away from our southern border, hospitals were overwhelmed with a shortage of equipment and multiplying numbers of acute cases. Everything that was done needed to be done. Indeed, those measures worked and the curve flattened because people mostly followed the rules. Many didn't, but that of course was factored into the equation. Resistance still needs to be factored in, perhaps more than ever. We see enough knuckleheads right here on this forum denying the obvious right in front of their face, cherry-picking numbers with tunnel vision to prove their shaky, internal panic induced theories that serve only to give them a feeling of normalcy, a luxury not afforded to those in hotspot areas. They are the very reason the measures needed to be more severe in the past and will be in the future if they, ironically, cause that need by not following the rules. They do it to themselves, and the rest of us have to pay the price.

Squabble and snark if you like, but that's the big picture.
Your analysis is incorrect - you aren't really estimating current infections. The tool is taking the total number of cases starting from the beginning, and then using this to estimate the total number of infections. Just do a simple cross check of the numbers it is using.

The real number we want for a proper estimation of current risk level is active cases, which is [total cases] - [recoveries] - [deaths]. This tool doesn't factor in recovered cases or deaths. Therefore, Swiss patient zero is still infectious, many months after infection and even the deaths, which were once confirmed cases, are still infectious, according to your analysis.

Here's what you should have done. Go to worldometer, and find the number of active cases for Switzerland: right now, it's 5188. Then, you can use the range of multipliers given (32 and 73) and get a real estimate: ~166,000 to ~379,000. This means, according to your analysis above, that your chances of being infected are between 1:20 and 1:50.

Still a risk to consider, but Covid isn't necessarily waiting for you in room with 10 people.
Reply With Quote
The following 7 users would like to thank Motorschweitz for this useful post:
  #12470  
Old 09.09.2020, 16:00
gaburko's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BL
Posts: 905
Groaned at 144 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 2,232 Times in 850 Posts
gaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
We don't want to get to that point in Switzerland. The last thing we should be doing is saying "phew, we dodged a bullet there, now let's return to normal", when letting our guard down now could let everything that's been done so far collapse in a heap.
I don't think anyone is saying that. At least what I am saying is that we overestimated in the spring and, agreed, it would be detrimental if we underestimate it now. The last thing I personally want is another lockdown. Wearing a mask is a negligible price to pay for the freedom to go to work as a normal human and for my kids to go to school.

At least we know now that the virus is less deadly than feared. Is it because it mutated, because lots of cases wen't undetected, because of something else? We'll probably know at some point, but we don't know now. The fact is, it's less lethal. There's SPECULATION, unconfirmed by any substantial study that there's long-term effects on a vast percentage of the infected. What percentage? From what sample size? What is "long-term"? what are the actual symptoms? Too many unknowns as of now and this is what leads many to make the assumption that it's super-scary. The fact is, we don't know
Reply With Quote
The following 8 users would like to thank gaburko for this useful post:
  #12471  
Old 09.09.2020, 16:19
22 yards's Avatar
Only in moderation
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel-Land
Posts: 8,856
Groaned at 270 Times in 217 Posts
Thanked 18,206 Times in 7,316 Posts
22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
I don't think anyone is saying that. At least what I am saying is that we overestimated in the spring and, agreed, it would be detrimental if we underestimate it now. The last thing I personally want is another lockdown. Wearing a mask is a negligible price to pay for the freedom to go to work as a normal human and for my kids to go to school.

At least we know now that the virus is less deadly than feared. Is it because it mutated, because lots of cases wen't undetected, because of something else? We'll probably know at some point, but we don't know now. The fact is, it's less lethal. There's SPECULATION, unconfirmed by any substantial study that there's long-term effects on a vast percentage of the infected. What percentage? From what sample size? What is "long-term"? what are the actual symptoms? Too many unknowns as of now and this is what leads many to make the assumption that it's super-scary. The fact is, we don't know
Happy to read this. I see lots of common ground between you and me:
  • Wear a damn mask. It doesn't hurt anybody and it can only help others.
  • Mortality is down, that's great, let's keep it that way!
  • Wear a damn mask.
  • There are real risks with regard to morbidity. Long-term effects just aren't known yet, but anecdotal (actually a bit more than just anecdotal) evidence shows that the effects can be very serious and very long-lasting.
  • We just don't know all we need to know about COVID-19 yet.
  • We don't want another lockdown but we all need to remain careful and respectful of others. We need to maintain behaviours that reduce the possibility of transmission.
  • Wear a damn mask.
I hope we can all pull together in the same direction from now on.
Reply With Quote
The following 10 users would like to thank 22 yards for this useful post:
  #12472  
Old 09.09.2020, 16:38
robogobo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Horw (LU)
Posts: 450
Groaned at 54 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 356 Times in 186 Posts
robogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
You're making mistake after mistake. Look at the bottom of the link you provided. It says it's "calculated by multypling confirmed cases by 32 for the lower range and 73 for the upper range". Let me help you out here:

1. "Real range" of people with Covid on 7th Sept. in the UK = confirmed 2032 cases x 73 = 148 336

2. "Real range" of people with Covid on 13th April = confirmed over 6000 cases x 73 = 438 000
Nice pivot. Switzerland. We don't live in the UK. Not sure why you'd use those numbers. Ah yes I do. Smokescreen and snark.

Quote:
View Post
Your analysis is incorrect - you aren't really estimating current infections. The tool is taking the total number of cases starting from the beginning, and then using this to estimate the total number of infections. Just do a simple cross check of the numbers it is using.

The real number we want for a proper estimation of current risk level is active cases, which is [total cases] - [recoveries] - [deaths]. This tool doesn't factor in recovered cases or deaths. Therefore, Swiss patient zero is still infectious, many months after infection and even the deaths, which were once confirmed cases, are still infectious, according to your analysis.

Here's what you should have done. Go to worldometer, and find the number of active cases for Switzerland: right now, it's 5188. Then, you can use the range of multipliers given (32 and 73) and get a real estimate: ~166,000 to ~379,000. This means, according to your analysis above, that your chances of being infected are between 1:20 and 1:50.

Still a risk to consider, but Covid isn't necessarily waiting for you in room with 10 people.
Got it. Thanks for pointing that out. Between 1:20 and 1:50. So we have to attend a few different meetings without a mask or go shopping a bit longer. Ditto everything else I said above.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank robogobo for this useful post:
  #12473  
Old 09.09.2020, 16:49
gaburko's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BL
Posts: 905
Groaned at 144 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 2,232 Times in 850 Posts
gaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
Nice pivot. Switzerland. We don't live in the UK. Not sure why you'd use those numbers. Ah yes I do. Smokescreen and snark.
No, i just used the numbers pointed out in the BBC article. The result is still the same. You're wrong. Again. Using your (wrong, as so eloquently pointed out by Motorschweitz) methodology, in Switzerland and using daily cases and hence adjusting for your methodology:

1. April 3rd: confirmed 1774 cases x 73 = 129 502

2. September 3rd: confirmed 370 cases x 73 = 27 010

3. Please, divide result of 2 by result of 1 and let us know what you get as a ratio. more than 1 would mean there's a higher chance of getting infected now. less than 1 would mean lower chance now.

Do you realize now why it's nowhere near "orders of magnitude" more likely to get infected today vs. the spring, but actually exactly the opposite?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank gaburko for this useful post:
  #12474  
Old 09.09.2020, 16:58
robogobo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Horw (LU)
Posts: 450
Groaned at 54 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 356 Times in 186 Posts
robogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post

Do you realize now why it's nowhere near "orders of magnitude" more likely to get infected today vs. the spring, but actually exactly the opposite?
I realize you've forgotten the point I was making when I first said that, that it started with one person, and the chances of spreading today are orders of magnitude greater than they were on day one ("It all started with one person" that's what I said, go back and read it). I realize you still refuse to see that the chances of a virus spreading double when two people have it, triple when three have it, and so on. That's the dead simple math you refused to see and proceeded to find snarky ways of ignoring. I don't really care what numbers you try to eek out now, because they aren't relevant to the point. That's what doesn't matter to you. You've bent and twisted my original point to fit your narrative and then try to pretend you're so smart doing it. Sorry chum but the doesn't fly.
__________________

Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank robogobo for this useful post:
  #12475  
Old 09.09.2020, 17:08
robogobo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Horw (LU)
Posts: 450
Groaned at 54 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 356 Times in 186 Posts
robogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond reputerobogobo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

I'll leave you guys with this
https://elemental.medium.com/a-super...d-31cb8eba9d63
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank robogobo for this useful post:
  #12476  
Old 09.09.2020, 17:30
Blueangel's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Küsnacht, Switzerland
Posts: 3,888
Groaned at 105 Times in 96 Posts
Thanked 10,610 Times in 4,679 Posts
Blueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
What is this word "projecting"? Is this an opinion one doesn't agree with?

I was fearful at the beginning, which I think is a natural reaction given what we were told, however not I'm not anymore due to what we now know and have known for months. I never panicked though.
'Projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else. A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful.' https://www.healthline.com/health/projection-psychology

It's a very common defence mechanism and in this instance, is recognisable by the alarmist language a few people have used regarding this subject. At no point during this, have I felt fearful, but I've definitely felt concerned, cautious, wary and protective, which manifested into being pro-active regarding the possibility of an extended second lockdown. I've grown veg for years, but not on the scale I have this year. I bought a second freezer because we only had a little 2 drawer freezer section before. When tinned tomatoes were on rabatt, I stocked up because we use them almost daily, etc...

Within my frame of reference, fearful was how my partner's cousin felt when she was admitted into ICU in the same hospital where her brother had died of covid 2 weeks earlier. That's entirely justified and understandable under those circumstances, but as long as I have an element of control over my surroundings, I'm never fearful.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Blueangel for this useful post:
  #12477  
Old 09.09.2020, 17:40
Motorschweitz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bassersdorf
Posts: 407
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 737 Times in 264 Posts
Motorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
I don't think anyone is saying that. At least what I am saying is that we overestimated in the spring and, agreed, it would be detrimental if we underestimate it now. The last thing I personally want is another lockdown. Wearing a mask is a negligible price to pay for the freedom to go to work as a normal human and for my kids to go to school.
I mostly agree with this, but I say that the lockdown "could have" been an overreaction - I put the quotes on "could have" because I want to see the studies that prove it was the wrong choice. I think there have been some studies already, so it could be worth it to check them out. Overreaction or not, at the time and based on the information we had, it was the right thing to do, and I'm glad that the Swiss government did it.

I completely agree about masks. A miniscule infringement upon our rights compared to their benefit.

Quote:
View Post
IAt least we know now that the virus is less deadly than feared. Is it because it mutated, because lots of cases wen't undetected, because of something else? We'll probably know at some point, but we don't know now. The fact is, it's less lethal. There's SPECULATION, unconfirmed by any substantial study that there's long-term effects on a vast percentage of the infected. What percentage? From what sample size? What is "long-term"? what are the actual symptoms? Too many unknowns as of now and this is what leads many to make the assumption that it's super-scary. The fact is, we don't know
I'm interested in why the hospitalizations and deaths remain so low. Some point out the average age of the infections is on the lower and therefore less lethal side, and some talk about a possible mutation (although I think that's been checked). I tend to think it is because of the relationship between viral load and disease severity. We have adapted our behavior (with masks and physical distance) so that people just receive lower viral loads upon infection, at least in this hypothesis. There's at least one (and probably more) epidemiologist who is investigating the question of viral load and severity. I'm interested in knowing what they find out.

Finally - I'm quite concerned about the long-term effects. You're right, we really don't know, and I haven't seen any real studies or hard data on it. But there's probably enough anecdotal evidence to take it seriously, at least in my point of view. But here is a point where maybe the potential tradeoffs really need to be debated.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Motorschweitz for this useful post:
  #12478  
Old 09.09.2020, 17:56
Motorschweitz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bassersdorf
Posts: 407
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 737 Times in 264 Posts
Motorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond reputeMotorschweitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

This is a super cool article, and I'm glad it's been linked.

One of the things that come out of this is that vitamin D could be used as a treatment based on its action in a couple different pathways. I think you'd mentioned something about vitamin D earlier in the thread too.

Indeed, a proper study demonstrated the benefit of calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) in reducing the probability of ICU admittance.

Quote:
Results
Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%) p value X2 Fischer test p < 0.001. Univariate Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol treatment versus without Calcifediol treatment: 0.02 (95%CI 0.002-0.17). Multivariate Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol treatment vs Without Calcifediol treatment ICU (adjusting by Hypertension and T2DM): 0.03 (95%CI: 0.003-0.25). Of the patients treated with calcifediol, none died, and all were discharged, without complications. The 13 patients not treated with calcifediol, who were not admitted to the ICU, were discharged. Of the 13 patients admitted to the ICU, two died and the remaining 11 were discharged.
Vitamin D is incredibly easy to obtain (doesn't cost anything when done properly), and while overdosing is possible while supplementing, it's not very easy to overdose on it. Whatever the case, it's worth it to check your vitamin D level and anyway to supplement. Obviously, check with your doctor to make sure.
Reply With Quote
  #12479  
Old 09.09.2020, 17:57
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 816
Groaned at 280 Times in 178 Posts
Thanked 1,824 Times in 889 Posts
TonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
It seems you're absolutely wrong. Empirical evidence says so. You just can't argue with facts right in your face:
That's not empirical evidence though, is it? It's a newspaper article. There may be something to it, in fact there probably is something to it, however it still needs to be observed and measured in the correct manner.

Articles like this only stir up fear. You hardly ever read "bloke catches Covid, has mild symptoms and is back to work within 10 days", which the vast majority who catch it are. It all comes back to selling papers, stirring fear and peoples inherent inability to be able to judge risk.
Reply With Quote
  #12480  
Old 09.09.2020, 17:57
gaburko's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BL
Posts: 905
Groaned at 144 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 2,232 Times in 850 Posts
gaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
View Post
I'm glad that the Swiss government did it.
I've said it back in this thread: I trusted the Swiss government a lot before this whole thing. I trust it now even more. The cool-headed approach and the balancing act they performed between known unknows and unknown unknowns was probably the best in the world. Let's not forget, that while across the border in France they could go out for an hour a day, we could still go jogging, walking around, go to Coop for another bottle of wine as soon as the 4th bottle was over in the early afternoon


Quote:
View Post
I'm interested in why the hospitalizations and deaths remain so low.
That's for me the most interesting question indeed. As usual, there's probably many factors at play, as you pointed out, but one that you didn't point out and I have it as my personal major hypothesis is that earlier there were many cases that went completely un-diagnosed due to limited testing. As we now test more, we see more cases, but it's not real growth, it's confirming what was happening already anyway. Hence, death rate is now with a larger denominator and the same numerator.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank gaburko for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
cold, corona, coronavirus, covid, covid-19, flu, health, medical, virus




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0