Today in Austria:
[ul]
[li] After a 90-day hiatus, Austrian Airlines will resume flights on 15 June.[/li][li] The government is now offering, on application, financial aid to self-employed artists in the amount of €1000 per month for up to six months. Approximately 15,000 applications are expected.[/li][li] Current statistics: 16,544 confirmed infections, 668 deaths, 15,286 recovered.[/li][/ul]
Increased testing might explain the jump in new cases. But it doesn’t explain the jump in deaths. Yesterday our 14-day trend for daily deaths was decreasing. Today it’s increasing.
5,906,202 total cases
362,024 dead
2,579,877 recovered
In the US:
1,768,461 total cases
103,330 dead
498,725 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
nm
NPR reports more people infected, and lower fatality rate than previously thought.
Even if the death rate is .5%, do we need to unpack rates for people based on age, vulnerability, etc?
Yes, we do. In Canada, about 70% of the deaths have been nursing home residents, with a few employees as well. You can’t expect everyone to keep ignoring stuff like that when you’re announcing how deadly the disease is. The general population is significantly less at risk.
Even if the death rate is similar to the flu, they say more people will get coronavirus since there is not any vaccine or existing immunity. With the flu, its progress through the community is impeded because not everyone will be a viable host. That resistance is not there for coronavirus. Coronavirus will infect almost everyone who comes in contact with it. Some people may not have many symptoms, but they still get infected. If 300M people get a virus with a .5% death rate, that’s 1.5M people. The flu will kill fewer people since fewer people would catch it.
Sorry - didn’t intend to introduce debate into this thread. Just thought the NPR report a reasonably written, accessible report from a generally considered reliable source. And I thought there had been varying estimates as to infection/fatality rates.
double post
The problem with using the antibody tests to measure infection rates is the false positives. If the test has a false positive rate of 5%, then results saying 5% of the population was already infected are meaningless. Depending on the test used, I’ve seen false positive rates of 1-40%.
Without knowing details of the accuracy of the test and how the study might have corrected for false positives, it’s difficult to draw conclusions.
Today in Austria:
[ul]
[li] A further relaxation of the lockdown rules has been announced. As of 15 June, face coverings will be required only in three situations: on public transit, in health facilities (pharmacies, hospitals, etc.), and when receiving services (such as haircuts) where it is impossible to keep one metre’s distance. This means it will no longer be required to wear face coverings in supermarkets, in restaurants, and other shops. The mandatory closing time for pubs, cafés, and restaurants will be extended from 23:00 to 01:00, and the rule about no more than four adults sharing a table will be dropped.[/li][li] The government has committed to regular coronavirus testing (65,000 tests per week) for workers in the tourism industry.[/li][li] Results of a localized antibody test study in the city of Oberwart showed that 5% of a random sample of inhabitants (47 out of 879) had coronavirus antibodies—still not remotely close to what is needed for herd immunity.[/li][li] The national R0 has once again sunk below 1.0. As of 27 May it was sitting at 0.9. From 15 to 27 May new infections fell by 2.4% per day.[/li][li] Current statistics: 16,575 confirmed infections, 668 deaths, 15,347 recovered.[/li][/ul]
I believe there were some “at home” antibody strips that were not accurate. However, the higher quality tests are very good. See this summary of government testing of various tests. The Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG test registered 100% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity. Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV02 came in at 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity. Unfortunately, I have no idea what tests are being used where or how often.
For samples taken 14 days or more after symptoms. This seems to be a problem: it seems that some medical authorities really really want an antibody test that can be done immediately after symptoms have come or gone: not to wait 2 weeks and then find out.
Also, with no data for if the tests fails at “much more than 14 days”. So at present, you need to have a good record of “when symptoms first developed” to have a reliable test. And also, the test verification showed that 88 out of 88 cases (where symptoms were more than 14 days) were detected. That’s good, but 88 people isn’t a lot.
A troop of highwaymonkeys (literally) waylaid a lab technician in Meerut India, stealing his rack of COVID-19+ blood samples. What the long-tailed primates intended to do with the vials is not clear, but the four patients will have to be tested again.
Moscow Doubles Last Month’s Coronavirus Death Toll Amid Suspicions Of Undercounting
Lots of people have been dubious of Russia’s numbers regarding coronavirus deaths. Based on the number of cases, they should be way higher. They’ve gone up some in recent days, but are still in the low hundreds per day, which is a very low death rate compared to other countries.
6,033,814 total cases
366,890 dead
2,661,145 recovered
In the US:
1,793,530 total cases
104,542 dead
519,569 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
The number of new cases per day went over 100,000 four days ago and has been increasing steadily and substantially since then. With increases over 100,000 per day, the world could easily see 10,000,000 total cases before the end of June.
I’ve noticed that Brazil has had more new cases the last three days than the US. Their number of new deaths has not yet exceeded the US’s, but it’s getting close.
Brazil is also approaching the U.S. in being the most obese country in the world. Good chance there is a strong correlation.
Somehow I don’t think we gonna get any explanation of causation is we.
CMC fnord!