Covid-19
- Iniciador de Tópicos ixnay
- Data de início
São 2 parâmetros que nos dizem como estava a progredir a epidemia há 2 \ 3 semanas atrás mas não nos dizem nada sobre a evolução dos novos casos na última semana. Principalmente as pessoas em UCI, cuja taxa de crescimento tem vindo a cair há 4 ou 5 dias e agora até é negativa. Permite dizer que a taxa (real) de novos infectados estabilizou há 3 semanas (que coincide com as medidas de emergência).PO disse:
Por isso se fala que, se calhar, o pico já foi ultrapassado.
https://twitter.com/slvdrmalheiro/status/1248218067928260608
Pelo segundo dia consecutivo, desceu o número de pessoas internadas e em Cuidados Intensivos. É um bom sinal.
Sempre dá para separar o trigo do joio, e ver a hipocrisia de algumas celebridades, há milhares de artistas que faziam vida de romaria em romaria que estão sem trabalho, sem ordenado e que são pessoas que vivem de mês a mês, e o estado apoia com 1M de euros quem não precisa..tripeiro_de_gema disse:Depois os holandeses é que são os maus da fita.
https://twitter.com/ojeconomico/status/1248019173541728256
então esse senhor tão vertiginoso a defender medidas que protegessem o seu concelho no começo, tão interessado, tão preocupado com "calamidade" que lá estava a acontecer, disse há pouco tempo ( citando ); "Defendo que, depois da Páscoa, na próxima terça-feira, mantendo-se este cenário de tendência positiva dos novos casos [de covid-19], toda a indústria no município de Ovar deve poder trabalhar.sirmister disse:
francamente, é uma personagem que desde o início me causa um certo nojinho.
Concordo com a ultima parte do teu post, sobre Gondomar.hawkeyes disse:
Continuo sem entender como, estando ainda longe da nossa capacidade máxima de testes diários, há/haviam zonas chave e centrais (como o distrito de Aveiro), que têm/tinham falta de testes para poderem realizar quando necessário.
E gostava de ver os números que falavas uns posts atrás e que eram fáceis de aceder (e solicito isto, sem qualquer critica oculta ou sarcasmo). O que me foi transmitido foi que estávamos esta semana a diminuir o numero de testes realizados relativamente à semana anterior o que, a meu ver, seria inadmissível tendo em conta os relatos de falta de testes que já mencionei.
Gostava de ver esses dados dia a dia num período de 15 dias. Se tiveres, agradeço.John Wick disse:
Sim, há muita coisa que foi bem decidida. A questão das escolas e das fronteiras. Entre outras.
Houveram outras que aquilo que relatavam não correspondia/corresponde à realidade "na rua", nomeadamente, a disponibilidade dos EPI´s e dos testes. Este ultimo caso, continuo a achar que desvirtua os resultados.
Não era expectável? Quando resolveram seguir uma estratégia diferente, já não sabiam que iam ter mais contagiados (que era o objectivo) e consequentemente mais mortos?John Wick disse:
Quem optou por este caminho estava no fundo a "trocar", conscientemente, piores números agora por melhores números no futuro.
Não é a altura para tirar qualquer conclusão.
tripeiro_de_gema disse:Depois os holandeses é que são os maus da fita.
porque será que os "eurosaosmilhoes" tocam sempre aos mesmos, deve ser sina.
Esta crise está a levar ao aproveitamento de muitos autarcas.katatonia10 disse:
Alguns dos quais muito duvidosos.
É demasiado fácil fazer populismo nestas alturas, especialmente nas autarquias, em pessoas às quais não é imputada a mesma responsabilidade que ao poder central.
Para mim, gajos como este e outros levam logo um x.
Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk
Open Letter from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel
Dear Chancellor,
As Emeritus of the Johannes-Gutenberg-University in Mainz and longtime director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology, I feel obliged to critically question the far-reaching restrictions on public life that we are currently taking on ourselves in order to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
It is expressly not my intention to play down the dangers of the virus or to spread a political message. However, I feel it is my duty to make a scientific contribution to putting the current data and facts into perspective and, in addition, to ask questions that are in danger of being lost in the heated debate.
The reason for my concern lies above all in the truly unforeseeable socio-economic consequences of the drastic containment measures which are currently being applied in large parts of Europe and which are also already being practiced on a large scale in Germany.
My wish is to discuss critically and with the necessary foresight the advantages and disadvantages of restricting public life and the resulting long-term effects.
To this end, I am confronted with five questions which have not been answered sufficiently so far, but which are indispensable for a balanced analysis.
I would like to ask you to comment quickly and, at the same time, appeal to the Federal Government to develop strategies that effectively protect risk groups without restricting public life across the board and sow the seeds for an even more intensive polarization of society than is already taking place.
With the utmost respect,
Prof. em. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi
1. Statistics
In infectiology founded by Robert Koch himself a traditional distinction is made between infection and disease. An illness requires a clinical manifestation. [1] Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases.
In other words, a new infection as measured by the COVID-19 test does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed. However, it is currently assumed that five percent of all infected people become seriously ill and require ventilation. Projections based on this estimate suggest that the healthcare system could be overburdened.
My question: Did the projections make a distinction between symptom-free infected people and actual, sick patients i.e. people who develop symptoms?
2. Dangerousness
A number of coronaviruses have been circulating for a long time largely unnoticed by the media. [2] If it should turn out that the COVID-19 virus should not be ascribed a significantly higher risk potential than the already circulating corona viruses, all countermeasures would obviously become unnecessary.
The internationally recognized International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents will soon publish a paper that addresses exactly this question. Preliminary results of the study can already be seen today and lead to the conclusion that the new virus is NOT different from traditional corona viruses in terms of dangerousness. The authors express this in the title of their paper SARS-CoV-2: Fear versus Data. [3]
My question: How does the current workload of intensive care units with patients with diagnosed COVID-19 compare to other coronavirus infections, and to what extent will this data be taken into account in further decision-making by the federal government? In addition: Has the above study been taken into account in the planning so far? Here too, of course, diagnosed means that the virus plays a decisive role in the patients state of illness, and not that previous illnesses play a greater role.
3. Dissemination
According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, not even the much-cited Robert Koch Institute knows exactly how much is tested for COVID-19. It is a fact, however, that a rapid increase in the number of cases has recently been observed in Germany as the volume of tests increases. [4]
It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the virus has already spread unnoticed in the healthy population. This would have two consequences: firstly, it would mean that the official death rate on 26 March 2020, for example, there were 206 deaths from around 37,300 infections, or 0.55 percent [5] is too high; and secondly, it would mean that it would hardly be possible to prevent the virus from spreading in the healthy population.
My question: Has there already been a random sample of the healthy general population to validate the real spread of the virus, or is this planned in the near future?
4. Mortality
The fear of a rise in the death rate in Germany (currently 0.55 percent) is currently the subject of particularly intense media attention. Many people are worried that it could shoot up like in Italy (10 percent) and Spain (7 percent) if action is not taken in time.
At the same time, the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death regardless of other factors. This violates a basic principle of infectiology: only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may a diagnosis be made. The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany expressly writes in its guidelines: In addition to the cause of death, a causal chain must be stated, with the corresponding underlying disease in third place on the death certificate. Occasionally, four-linked causal chains must also be stated. [6]
At present there is no official information on whether, at least in retrospect, more critical analyses of medical records have been undertaken to determine how many deaths were actually caused by the virus.
My question: Has Germany simply followed this trend of a COVID-19 general suspicion? And: is it intended to continue this categorisation uncritically as in other countries? How, then, is a distinction to be made between genuine corona-related deaths and accidental virus presence at the time of death?
5. Comparability
The appalling situation in Italy is repeatedly used as a reference scenario. However, the true role of the virus in that country is completely unclear for many reasons not only because points 3 and 4 above also apply here, but also because exceptional external factors exist which make these regions particularly vulnerable.
One of these factors is the increased air pollution in the north of Italy. According to WHO estimates, this situation, even without the virus, led to over 8,000 additional deaths per year in 2006 in the 13 largest cities in Italy alone. [7] The situation has not changed significantly since then. [8] Finally, it has also been shown that air pollution greatly increases the risk of viral lung diseases in very young and elderly people. [9]
Moreover, 27.4 percent of the particularly vulnerable population in this country live with young people, and in Spain as many as 33.5 percent. In Germany, the figure is only seven percent [10]. In addition, according to Prof. Dr. Reinhard Busse, head of the Department of Management in Health Care at the TU Berlin, Germany is significantly better equipped than Italy in terms of intensive care units by a factor of about 2.5 [11].
My question: What efforts are being made to make the population aware of these elementary differences and to make people understand that scenarios like those in Italy or Spain are not realistic here?
References:
[1] Fachwörterbuch Infektionsschutz und Infektionsepidemiologie. Fachwörter Definitionen Interpretationen. Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin 2015. (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[2] Killerby et al., Human Coronavirus Circulation in the United States 20142017. J Clin Virol. 2018, 101, 52-56
[3] Roussel et al. SARS-CoV-2: Fear Versus Data. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2020, 105947
[4] Charisius, H. Covid-19: Wie gut testet Deutschland? Süddeutsche Zeitung. (abgerufen am 27.3.2020)
[5] Johns Hopkins University, Coronavirus Resource Center. 2020. (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[6] S1-Leitlinie 054-001, Regeln zur Durchführung der ärztlichen Leichenschau. AWMF Online (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[7] Martuzzi et al. Health Impact of PM10 and Ozone in 13 Italian Cities. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. WHOLIS number E88700 2006
[8] European Environment Agency, Air Pollution Country Fact Sheets 2019, (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[9] Croft et al. The Association between Respiratory Infection and Air Pollution in the Setting of Air Quality Policy and Economic Change. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2019, 16, 321330.
[10] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Living Arrangements of Older Persons: A Report on an Expanded International Dataset (ST/ESA/SER.A/407). 2017
[11] Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Überlastung deutscher Krankenhäuser durch COVID-19 laut Experten unwahrscheinlich, (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
https://swprs.org/open-letter-from-professor-sucharit-bhakdi-to-german-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel/
Dear Chancellor,
As Emeritus of the Johannes-Gutenberg-University in Mainz and longtime director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology, I feel obliged to critically question the far-reaching restrictions on public life that we are currently taking on ourselves in order to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
It is expressly not my intention to play down the dangers of the virus or to spread a political message. However, I feel it is my duty to make a scientific contribution to putting the current data and facts into perspective and, in addition, to ask questions that are in danger of being lost in the heated debate.
The reason for my concern lies above all in the truly unforeseeable socio-economic consequences of the drastic containment measures which are currently being applied in large parts of Europe and which are also already being practiced on a large scale in Germany.
My wish is to discuss critically and with the necessary foresight the advantages and disadvantages of restricting public life and the resulting long-term effects.
To this end, I am confronted with five questions which have not been answered sufficiently so far, but which are indispensable for a balanced analysis.
I would like to ask you to comment quickly and, at the same time, appeal to the Federal Government to develop strategies that effectively protect risk groups without restricting public life across the board and sow the seeds for an even more intensive polarization of society than is already taking place.
With the utmost respect,
Prof. em. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi
1. Statistics
In infectiology founded by Robert Koch himself a traditional distinction is made between infection and disease. An illness requires a clinical manifestation. [1] Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases.
In other words, a new infection as measured by the COVID-19 test does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed. However, it is currently assumed that five percent of all infected people become seriously ill and require ventilation. Projections based on this estimate suggest that the healthcare system could be overburdened.
My question: Did the projections make a distinction between symptom-free infected people and actual, sick patients i.e. people who develop symptoms?
2. Dangerousness
A number of coronaviruses have been circulating for a long time largely unnoticed by the media. [2] If it should turn out that the COVID-19 virus should not be ascribed a significantly higher risk potential than the already circulating corona viruses, all countermeasures would obviously become unnecessary.
The internationally recognized International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents will soon publish a paper that addresses exactly this question. Preliminary results of the study can already be seen today and lead to the conclusion that the new virus is NOT different from traditional corona viruses in terms of dangerousness. The authors express this in the title of their paper SARS-CoV-2: Fear versus Data. [3]
My question: How does the current workload of intensive care units with patients with diagnosed COVID-19 compare to other coronavirus infections, and to what extent will this data be taken into account in further decision-making by the federal government? In addition: Has the above study been taken into account in the planning so far? Here too, of course, diagnosed means that the virus plays a decisive role in the patients state of illness, and not that previous illnesses play a greater role.
3. Dissemination
According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, not even the much-cited Robert Koch Institute knows exactly how much is tested for COVID-19. It is a fact, however, that a rapid increase in the number of cases has recently been observed in Germany as the volume of tests increases. [4]
It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the virus has already spread unnoticed in the healthy population. This would have two consequences: firstly, it would mean that the official death rate on 26 March 2020, for example, there were 206 deaths from around 37,300 infections, or 0.55 percent [5] is too high; and secondly, it would mean that it would hardly be possible to prevent the virus from spreading in the healthy population.
My question: Has there already been a random sample of the healthy general population to validate the real spread of the virus, or is this planned in the near future?
4. Mortality
The fear of a rise in the death rate in Germany (currently 0.55 percent) is currently the subject of particularly intense media attention. Many people are worried that it could shoot up like in Italy (10 percent) and Spain (7 percent) if action is not taken in time.
At the same time, the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death regardless of other factors. This violates a basic principle of infectiology: only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may a diagnosis be made. The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany expressly writes in its guidelines: In addition to the cause of death, a causal chain must be stated, with the corresponding underlying disease in third place on the death certificate. Occasionally, four-linked causal chains must also be stated. [6]
At present there is no official information on whether, at least in retrospect, more critical analyses of medical records have been undertaken to determine how many deaths were actually caused by the virus.
My question: Has Germany simply followed this trend of a COVID-19 general suspicion? And: is it intended to continue this categorisation uncritically as in other countries? How, then, is a distinction to be made between genuine corona-related deaths and accidental virus presence at the time of death?
5. Comparability
The appalling situation in Italy is repeatedly used as a reference scenario. However, the true role of the virus in that country is completely unclear for many reasons not only because points 3 and 4 above also apply here, but also because exceptional external factors exist which make these regions particularly vulnerable.
One of these factors is the increased air pollution in the north of Italy. According to WHO estimates, this situation, even without the virus, led to over 8,000 additional deaths per year in 2006 in the 13 largest cities in Italy alone. [7] The situation has not changed significantly since then. [8] Finally, it has also been shown that air pollution greatly increases the risk of viral lung diseases in very young and elderly people. [9]
Moreover, 27.4 percent of the particularly vulnerable population in this country live with young people, and in Spain as many as 33.5 percent. In Germany, the figure is only seven percent [10]. In addition, according to Prof. Dr. Reinhard Busse, head of the Department of Management in Health Care at the TU Berlin, Germany is significantly better equipped than Italy in terms of intensive care units by a factor of about 2.5 [11].
My question: What efforts are being made to make the population aware of these elementary differences and to make people understand that scenarios like those in Italy or Spain are not realistic here?
References:
[1] Fachwörterbuch Infektionsschutz und Infektionsepidemiologie. Fachwörter Definitionen Interpretationen. Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin 2015. (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[2] Killerby et al., Human Coronavirus Circulation in the United States 20142017. J Clin Virol. 2018, 101, 52-56
[3] Roussel et al. SARS-CoV-2: Fear Versus Data. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2020, 105947
[4] Charisius, H. Covid-19: Wie gut testet Deutschland? Süddeutsche Zeitung. (abgerufen am 27.3.2020)
[5] Johns Hopkins University, Coronavirus Resource Center. 2020. (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[6] S1-Leitlinie 054-001, Regeln zur Durchführung der ärztlichen Leichenschau. AWMF Online (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[7] Martuzzi et al. Health Impact of PM10 and Ozone in 13 Italian Cities. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. WHOLIS number E88700 2006
[8] European Environment Agency, Air Pollution Country Fact Sheets 2019, (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
[9] Croft et al. The Association between Respiratory Infection and Air Pollution in the Setting of Air Quality Policy and Economic Change. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2019, 16, 321330.
[10] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Living Arrangements of Older Persons: A Report on an Expanded International Dataset (ST/ESA/SER.A/407). 2017
[11] Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Überlastung deutscher Krankenhäuser durch COVID-19 laut Experten unwahrscheinlich, (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)
https://swprs.org/open-letter-from-professor-sucharit-bhakdi-to-german-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel/
Também não morro de amor por ele. As pessoas que conheço de Ovar, referem que esta faceta dele, de zelador, de reivindicador, não lhe era reconhecida.katatonia10 disse:
No entanto é importante entender: É verdade o que ele afirma? Se sim, como é que é possível esta discrepância? Se não é, é importante que seja esclarecida pela DGS.
A verdade é que esta situação até agora é claramente justificada e ajustada à realidade, apesar das restrições não terem sido tão elevadas como noutros paises, o porblema vai ser com o passar da Pascoa, quando as pessoas perceberem que esta pandemia veio para ficar e muitas atividades ficarem comprometidas por muito tempo, apesar do hipotético aligeirar das restrições e temos várias situações:
a) Temos os funcionários publicos, que querem ficar em casa, mas não podem, mesmo com filhos.
b) Temos outros funcionários públicos que estão em casa, a ganhar a 100% e não pretendem ir trabalhar nos próximos meses, com ou sem filhos, com o exemplo dos porfessores!
c) Temos alguns funcionários públicos, em TeleTrabalho a ganhar a 100%, com ou sem filhos.
d) Trabalhador Empresas privadas encerradas, que não sabem se têm trabalho ou salário.
e) Trabalhado Empresas Privadas que trabalham, mas não querem, face ao medo da pandemia.
f) Donos de empresas encerradas ou com grandes perdas de produção qu enfrentam a falência!
g) Empresas que nunca ganharam tanto e vão sair desta Crise mais ricos.
Eu pergunto, quanto mais tempo isto pode durar?
a) Temos os funcionários publicos, que querem ficar em casa, mas não podem, mesmo com filhos.
b) Temos outros funcionários públicos que estão em casa, a ganhar a 100% e não pretendem ir trabalhar nos próximos meses, com ou sem filhos, com o exemplo dos porfessores!
c) Temos alguns funcionários públicos, em TeleTrabalho a ganhar a 100%, com ou sem filhos.
d) Trabalhador Empresas privadas encerradas, que não sabem se têm trabalho ou salário.
e) Trabalhado Empresas Privadas que trabalham, mas não querem, face ao medo da pandemia.
f) Donos de empresas encerradas ou com grandes perdas de produção qu enfrentam a falência!
g) Empresas que nunca ganharam tanto e vão sair desta Crise mais ricos.
Eu pergunto, quanto mais tempo isto pode durar?
Era e é uma pessoa que sempre zelou pelos seus..DECO-10 disse:
https://observador.pt/2018/01/24/diretor-de-campanha-de-rio-promoveu-obras-de-22-milhoes-que-beneficiaram-dirigente-do-psd/
E alguém sabe responder quanto mais tempo isto vai durar?blueangel79 disse:
Temos o exemplo de Whuan que começou a entrar numa certa normalidade mas debaixo de um cenário de responsabilidade e de muitas obrigações. Estarão os outros Países dispostos a fazer igual depois de os números baixarem drásticamente como baixaram lá? Ou vamos apelar à liberdade individual de cada um?
Esta é a questão.