Sweden - is the rest of the world dumb, blind or worse ?

[steelepulse]

18 minutes ago, chessman said:

WHO are already walking this back.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/world/coronavirus-updates.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage#link-452d2061

 

 

Looks like he's been taking his queues from things that happen here " it's just a misunderstanding"

 

>>Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, who made the original comment at a W.H.O. briefing on Monday, said on Tuesday that it was based on just two or three studies and that it was a “misunderstanding” to say asymptomatic transmission is rare globally.

 

Love how it " was just two or three" to reinforce the misunderstanding.  Pathetic......

Edited June 9, 2020 by steelepulse

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, steelepulse said:

Looks like he's been taking his queues from things that happen here " it's just a misunderstanding"

 

>>Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, who made the original comment at a W.H.O. briefing on Monday, said on Tuesday that it was based on just two or three studies and that it was a “misunderstanding” to say asymptomatic transmission is rare globally.

'Yes the misunderstanding was he wasn't supposed to tell the truth.'

[vermin on arrival]

25 minutes ago, chessman said:

WHO are already walking this back.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/world/coronavirus-updates.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage#link-452d2061

 

 

wow farcical...

[chessman]

3 minutes ago, vermin on arrival said:

wow farcical..

Have spent the last 20 minutes reading about this. 
 

There are a couple of slightly confusing tweets from Maria Van Kerkhove,

 (From WHO) then it seems some people in the media have made assumptions from those tweets.
she is saying asymptomatic transmission is rare but she is also making a distinction between people who are truly asymptomatic, Pre-symptomatic, and mildly-symptomatic. People may not have symptoms at the time but then develop them later are classed as pre-symptomatic and a lot of the spread may come from these people. Thus people with no symptoms at all may be pre-symptomatic and still pose a risk.

 

anyway, it’s not that clear what she’s saying and a lot of people seem to disagree with it and even more people than that think the subsequent articles are quite misleading.

[Sheryl]

21 minutes ago, chessman said:

Have spent the last 20 minutes reading about this. 
 

There are a couple of slightly confusing tweets from Maria Van Kerkhove,

 (From WHO) then it seems some people in the media have made assumptions from those tweets.
she is saying asymptomatic transmission is rare but she is also making a distinction between people who are truly asymptomatic, Pre-symptomatic, and mildly-symptomatic. People may not have symptoms at the time but then develop them later are classed as pre-symptomatic and a lot of the spread may come from these people. Thus people with no symptoms at all may be pre-symptomatic and still pose a risk.

 

 

 

Indeed, it seems viral loads are highest just before symptoms appear.

 

This is an important issue. School closures, for example, are largely based on the assumption that asymptomatic children and youth can infect others.

 

 

[yuyiinthesky]

18 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Indeed, it seems viral loads are highest just before symptoms appear.

Is there any source for that statement, especially the “highest just before”?

[vermin on arrival]

24 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

Indeed, it seems viral loads are highest just before symptoms appear.

 

This is an important issue. School closures, for example, are largely based on the assumption that asymptomatic children and youth can infect others.

 

 

Many sources I have read say that school closures were unnecessary with covid since the children are not infectious and the reopening of schools in places which had them closed led to no spike in cases.

[steelepulse]

Edit, sorry to forget the quoted post "Is there any source for that statement, especially the “highest just before”?

 

Indeed, I love to see actual facts and research backed up with numbers now that the data is in and the fear mongers "models" have been shown to not being even close to actuality.

Edited June 9, 2020 by steelepulse

[vermin on arrival]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 

Indeed, it seems viral loads are highest just before symptoms appear.

 

This is an important issue. School closures, for example, are largely based on the assumption that asymptomatic children and youth can infect others.

 

 

Actually I found evidence conflicting here. One recent article said people with symptoms are the most infectious "While people without symptoms do seem to be capable of infecting others, current evidence still suggests people with symptoms are the highest risk. " https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52977940

 

Another agreed with the presymptomatic being the highest risk "And coronavirus patients are most infectious two to three days before symptoms begin, less so after the illness really hits." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/health/coronavirus-transmission-dose.html

 

And then this one: "Presymptomatic individuals, who develop a higher viral load just before the onset of symptoms, maybe infectious", she added. https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/30/16084/chances-of-sars-cov-2-carrier-not-showing-symptoms-is-very-low-says-who.html

 

So it's all over the place. Apologies for straying from Sweden.

Edited June 9, 2020 by vermin on arrival

[Bkk Brian]

7 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

Actually I found evidence conflicting here. One recent article said people with symptoms are the most infectious "While people without symptoms do seem to be capable of infecting others, current evidence still suggests people with symptoms are the highest risk. " https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52977940

 

Another agreed with the presymptomatic being the highest risk "And coronavirus patients are most infectious two to three days before symptoms begin, less so after the illness really hits." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/health/coronavirus-transmission-dose.html

 

And then this one: "Presymptomatic individuals, who develop a higher viral load just before the onset of symptoms, maybe infectious", she added. https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/30/16084/chances-of-sars-cov-2-carrier-not-showing-symptoms-is-very-low-says-who.html

 

So it's all over the place. Apologies for straying from Sweden.

Its confusing because the scientists themselves are confused, plenty of studies but no hard evidence either way.

 

For instance this one in Time: Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any Symptoms https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/

 

Study Paper : https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3012

 

We don’t actually have that answer yet’: WHO clarifies comments on asymptomatic spread of Covid-19 https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/09/who-comments-asymptomatic-spread-covid-19/

 

 

[Peter Denis]

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its confusing because the scientists themselves are confused, plenty of studies but no hard evidence either way.

That's the way science works.

A scientist looks at the data and the facts, and then postulates a theory that 'fits' those data and facts.  He then goes on collecting additional facts and data, to check whether his theory is still supported, otherwise he must conclude that his theory is incorrect or incomplete.

Therefore scientists are reluctant (or should be) to claim that their theory - even if it is supported by all the available data/facts at the moment - as the one and only truth.

Hence my respect for Anders Tegnell, the chief Swedish epidemiologist, who is willing to admit he was surprised by some of the later data that became available and has the decency to propose additional and different measures when the data don't fit his initial theory anymore.

Because of this honest scientific approach he is of course attacked by those not understanding how science works, claiming that he is making a 'U turn.

And I am far less charmed by prof Neil Ferguson who refused to consider the comments he got on some of the errors in his 'prediction' model by people like Nobel-prize winner Michael Levitt.

As the predictions made by Michael Levitt have turned out to be the most accurate, it is fair to assume with he currently available facts/data that his model got it right (until new facts/data emerge that cannot be explained by the model, and will trigger the search for a new model that fits all the available evidence).

 

 

[Logosone]

Here is one of the very detailed studies which most likely led Kerkhove to make the assertion that asymptomatic carriers rarely spread the virus. It found an asmptomatic carrier and traced 455 of his contacts. Not a single one was infected with the virus.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/

 

There is a small grey area in that asymptomatic carriers can become symptomatic, they were thus arguably never true asymptomatic but merely pre-symptomatic at a certain time. 

 

A study in Germany by one of the main virologists, Christian Droosten, has caused major uproar also in the mainstream media. He initially produced the paper which said that there is no evidence that asymptomatic children can not spread the virus. However statisticians then heavily criticised the numbers used. Droosten reworked the paper and they are happy now but it still says children could possibly spread the virus. That paper has not been peer-reviewed.

 

Droosten also said that the viral load in symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers was roughly equal.

 

https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/kinder-und-coronavirus-ansteckend-virenschleudern,RxS8KbL

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

 

Because of this honest scientific approach he is of course attacked by those not understanding how science works, claiming that he is making a 'U turn.

And I am far less charmed by prof Neil Ferguson who refused to consider the comments he got on some of the errors in his 'prediction' model by people like Nobel-prize winner Michael Levitt.

As the predictions made by Michael Levitt have turned out to be the most accurate, it is fair to assume with he currently available facts/data that his model got it right (until new facts/data emerge that cannot be explained by the model, and will trigger the search for a new model that fits all the available evidence).

Indeed it is normal in science to change one's mind, whereas in politics a 'U-turn' is considered sacrilege in science it is the norm and a requirement.

 

 

[TTSIssues]

On 5/16/2020 at 3:28 PM, CanadaSam said:

Has anybody realized, that we are treating this covid thing as worse than the walking dead, but, I know nobody who got the virus, nor do I know anybody who got very sick and/or died from it, and I know a lot of people!

 

I believe the transmission rate of the virus is off the charts, basically unstoppable.

 

I know that most or all countries can not test everybody, and certainly not the ones who are not showing any symptoms.

 

Therefore, now, after a few long months, I have come to the conclusion that a LOT of people have been exposed to it, have not fell ill seriously, and certainly have not died.

 

But countries have.  Died.  Financially, and in many other ways, from these extremely drastic measures.

 

Personally I know over 20 people who have had it, in UK, USA and France. 2 of those have died. Have other friends of mine had it and not broadcast it around? Absolutely. Either your friends are not telling you - or you don’t know many people.

[yuyiinthesky]

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Droosten reworked the paper and they are happy now but it still says children could possibly spread the virus. That paper has not been peer-reviewed.

Yes, a lot of research and the result is still “we don’t know yet” and “possibly”.

Nevertheless there is data available from Professor Streeck’s Heinsberg study showing that in a household where one person is infected the likelihood of infecting the other family members is quite small.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Yes, a lot of research and the result is still “we don’t know yet” and “possibly”.

Nevertheless there is data available from Professor Streeck’s Heinsberg study showing that in a household where one person is infected the likelihood of infecting the other family members is quite small.

In terms of whether children can be contagious that is exactly right.

 

Indeed Streeck's findings are borne out by the study I posted above.

 

This study traced 455 contacts of one asymptomatic carrier and not a single one had the virus.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/

 

I strongly suspect the WHO's pronouncement is correct, that asymptomatic spread is extremely rare. Studies like the one above are hard evidence, and van Kerkhove also said they are working with a lot of contact tracers who find little or no spread from asymptomatics. Some of that data is not even published yet she said.

 

That would explain why schools in Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Germany and Sweden had no virus clusters.

[yuyiinthesky]

On 5/16/2020 at 2:28 PM, CanadaSam said:

Therefore, now, after a few long months, I have come to the conclusion that a LOT of people have been exposed to it, have not fell ill seriously, and certainly have not died.

 

But countries have.  Died.  Financially, and in many other ways, from these extremely drastic measures.

I know many which had typical symptoms, between November 2019 and March 2020, but were never tested. Symptoms including loss of taste and smell, and flu like symptoms, only one of them (a 40 years old man) more seriously, but not enough to get hospitalized. Nobody got hospitalized, which is why nobody got tested. And nobody died.
 

And asking around, I always here the same. 

 

If the virus is indeed that contagious as claimed, then most around me, including me, had been exposed to it and should have been infected. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by yuyiinthesky

[Bkk Brian]

45 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

That's the way science works.

A scientist looks at the data and the facts, and then postulates a theory that 'fits' those data and facts.  He then goes on collecting additional facts and data, to check whether his theory is still supported, otherwise he must conclude that his theory is incorrect or incomplete.

Therefore scientists are reluctant (or should be) to claim that their theory - even if it is supported by all the available data/facts at the moment - as the one and only truth.

Hence my respect for Anders Tegnell, the chief Swedish epidemiologist, who is willing to admit he was surprised by some of the later data that became available and has the decency to propose additional and different measures when the data don't fit his initial theory anymore.

Because of this honest scientific approach he is of course attacked by those not understanding how science works, claiming that he is making a 'U turn.

And I am far less charmed by prof Neil Ferguson who refused to consider the comments he got on some of the errors in his 'prediction' model by people like Nobel-prize winner Michael Levitt.

As the predictions made by Michael Levitt have turned out to be the most accurate, it is fair to assume with he currently available facts/data that his model got it right (until new facts/data emerge that cannot be explained by the model, and will trigger the search for a new model that fits all the available evidence).

 

 

Absolutely, you can summarize it simply by saying that you learn from experience and act accordingly to get better outcomes avoiding past mistakes. Or as many people who attended Uni, when formulating a theory, writing an essay or thesis on it then you need to cite your sources as evidence and it then gets the equivalent of peer reviewed by way of marks.

Michael Levitt made an accurate prediction on the China situation but not all his predictions were inline with that. His theory on Iran and Italy was way off the mark.

 

On the 22nd March he said the situation in Iran “is past the halfway mark.” However look at the attached chart for Iran. It was just the start of their pandemic and they have now already entered their second wave.

 

Also on the 22nd March he said the situation in Italy "looks like it’s still on the upswing" infact it had already reached its peak

 

Having a study to test his theories is essential, without it its just that theories. 

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate

[Logosone]

16 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Absolutely, you can summarize it simply by saying that you learn from experience and act accordingly to get better outcomes avoiding past mistakes. Or as many people who attended Uni, when formulating a theory, writing an essay or thesis on it then you need to cite your sources as evidence and it then gets the equivalent of peer reviewed by way of marks.

Michael Levitt made an accurate prediction on the China situation but not all his predictions were inline with that. His theory on Iran and Italy was way off the mark.

 

On the 22nd March he said the situation in Iran “is past the halfway mark.” However look at the attached chart for Iran. It was just the start of their pandemic and they have now already entered their second wave.

 

Also on the 22nd March he said the situation in Italy "looks like it’s still on the upswing" infact it had already reached its peak

 

Having a study to test his theories is essential, without it its just that theories. 

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate

Very interesting.

 

Levitt is clearly not right on everything and can not be. If he has a prediction success rate of 60-70% he'd be doing extremely well.

 

His main contention however that the planet will beat coronavirus faster than most other experts predict looks to be coming true in a spectacular manner.

 

He also predicted 50,000 deaths for the UK, which looks spot on.

 

So not right on evertying, but in the main right on a lot of things.

[yuyiinthesky]

22 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Having a study to test his theories is essential, without it its just that theories. 

You don’t need studies to verify models, but data, more data, fresh data, and hopefully accurate data.

 

Especially with SARS-CoV-2 positive cases the data is nowhere accurate, but a function of how much testing is done. And that changed a lot over time in these and other countries.
 

I don’t think anyone, even not Professor Levitt, has a crystal ball showing him such changes in advance. 
 

However what I see without needing such a crystal ball is that Professor Levitt seems to be continuously updating his models as new data becomes available.
 

Also, more interesting than predictions of positive cases are predictions of (real) death rates, and so far there Professor Levit is astonishingly spot on.

Edited June 10, 2020 by yuyiinthesky

[Logosone]

11 hours ago, mommysboy said:

'Yes the misunderstanding was he wasn't supposed to tell the truth.'

Maria von Kerkhove clearly embarassed the WHO by telling the truth, because the WHO had just reversed its position on masks.

 

However, as von Kerkhove has now made clear that many studies and data from contact tracers indicate that asymptomatic carriers do not spread the virus in significant numbers of course the WHO looks extremely foolish now in changing its stance on masks.

 

If asymptomatics do not spread the virus, then mandatory mask wearing for everyone is clearly unnecessary.

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, TTSIssues said:

Personally I know over 20 people who have had it, in UK, USA and France. 2 of those have died. Have other friends of mine had it and not broadcast it around? Absolutely. Either your friends are not telling you - or you don’t know many people.

Or he is just not from a place that was badly hit.

 

My view is certainly affected by the fact that I am from NYC. So my frame of reference is a grim scenario. There are many places where that did not, at least as yet, occur. In same cases due to more timely meadures, in others just luck or a combination of the two.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

37 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

You don’t need studies to verify models, but data, more data, fresh data, and hopefully accurate data.

Yes you do

[Logosone]

Here is a scientific review of four asymptomatic transmission rate studies.

 

Two found asymptomatic transmission was 0%.

 

One found 0.3%

 

One found 2.2%

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.10.20097543v2.full.pd

 

 

[utalkin2me]

Another unanswerable question for you lockdown proponents. 

 

There have been thousands of huge protests in the US with people getting physical, in close proximity and are screaming in each other's faces, social distancing be damned. 

 

Symptoms start to show about five days after exposure. Protests started May 26, two weeks ago. 

 

Where are the mass infections? Where is the end of the world? 

[utalkin2me]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Absolutely, you can summarize it simply by saying that you learn from experience and act accordingly to get better outcomes avoiding past mistakes. Or as many people who attended Uni, when formulating a theory, writing an essay or thesis on it then you need to cite your sources as evidence and it then gets the equivalent of peer reviewed by way of marks.

Michael Levitt made an accurate prediction on the China situation but not all his predictions were inline with that. His theory on Iran and Italy was way off the mark.

 

On the 22nd March he said the situation in Iran “is past the halfway mark.” However look at the attached chart for Iran. It was just the start of their pandemic and they have now already entered their second wave.

 

Also on the 22nd March he said the situation in Italy "looks like it’s still on the upswing" infact it had already reached its peak

 

Having a study to test his theories is essential, without it its just that theories. 

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate

Wrong yet again. Be careful, if you keep posting you may break your perfect record and actually get something right just by chance once here soon. 

 

Levitt has said very early on, based on assuming Diamond Princess as a worst case scenario, countries would have a month's worth of natural deaths caused by coronavirus. In other words, he said the number would be about 1/10 of those of Neil Fergueson. What has actually happened?...

 

Fergueson was predicting 200,000 deaths or so for countries the size of Iran.

Levitt was predicting 1/10 of that, so about 20,000

 

Iran currently has 8,500 coronavirus deaths. 

 

Who's your daddy? 

 

The irony here is you could argue Levitt to be a fear mongering alarmist. But, he did base his numbers off a "worst case", which he communicated to Professor Fergueson, to no avail. In other words, if he was forced to guess deaths it looks like his number would have been almost right on the money, as he was guessing high. 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by utalkin2me

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Wrong yet again. Be careful, if you keep posting you may break your perfect record and actually get something right just by chance once here soon. 

 

Levitt has said very early on, based on assuming Diamond Princess as a worst case scenario, countries would have a month's worth of natural deaths caused by coronavirus. In other words, he said the number would be about 1/10 of those of Neil Fergueson. What has actually happened?...

 

Fergueson was predicting 200,000 deaths or so for countries the size of Iran.

Levitt was predicting 1/10 of that, so about 20,000

 

Iran currently has 8,500 coronavirus deaths. 

 

Who's your daddy? 

 

 

Did you look at the link where Michael Levitt was interviewed and where I quoted him on his specific predictions for Iran and Italy? Did you then compare that to the graphs I attached?

 

You're certainly not my daddy, he passed away many years ago

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Did you look at the link where Michael Levitt was interviewed and where I quoted him on his specific predictions for Iran and Italy? Did you then compare that to the graphs I attached?

Actually looking at that interview again he did not really make a specific prediction for Iran. He said the numbers still contained noise and conceded in Iran the new cases were still "a lot of cases". He just ventured a guess that based on the pattern it could be the half way mark was reached. That was not the case.

 

However, Levitt's statement "“Numbers are still noisy, but there are clear signs of slowed growth.” was of course totally correct.

 

His main thrust that the numbers would not be as high as many like Ferguson had predicted was correct.

 

His prediction on China was correct. His prediction on the UK is on course.

 

Overall certainly Levitt's predictions were the best, and more accurate than anyone else's.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Logosone

[utalkin2me]

17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Did you look at the link where Michael Levitt was interviewed and where I quoted him on his specific predictions for Iran and Italy? Did you then compare that to the graphs I attached?

 

You're certainly not my daddy, he passed away many years ago

A person's daddy is anyone who consistently owns another. 

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

A person's daddy is anyone who consistently owns another. 

Hence why I said you're not my daddy ????

Edited June 10, 2020 by Bkk Brian