Dodao bih i zbog bijelog luka i krezavih esdeaovaca.L u c i f e r wrote: ↑16/10/2020 17:51 Maske na otvorenom je svakako trebalo propisati zbog aerozagadjenja.
jedan te isti lik iza profila se krije garantheal wrote: ↑16/10/2020 17:00cim mogy posrne, ti ulijeces. jadni oni koji tebi vjeruju.immuno wrote: ↑16/10/2020 16:35 Svima vama Koji svoje komplekse neispunjene snove frustracije I parmake Koji vam faleRadim u najvecoj bolnici u Evropi pred ocima su mi pacijenti zarazeni covidom 19 za " cudo" vasim nebulozama nisu samo stari koje vi ovdje neubrajate u ljude, zive insane, populaciju.... Jezim se od vasih komentara, svjetski sampioni ste u kopiranju kojekavih Statistika, tumacenja istih a o Kojima vecina vas veze nema sa zivotom....
Danas sam izgubila I clana familijevjerovatno su slagali da je covid 19, al eto sin je ljekar pa nesto nesumnjam ili sta vi mislite po Tim vasim tumacenjima...
Ovo je kljucno:Mogy87 wrote: ↑16/10/2020 13:26 @Horke ja ne volim postavljati ovakve linkove ali vise medija u Svedskoj je istrazivalo problematiku
Relatives: We were not involved in life-changing decisions
Ekot's review shows that more than a hundred people reported to the Swedish Health and Care Inspectorate that their relatives with covid-19, either did not receive oxygen or nutrient drops or that they were not allowed to come to hospital.
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.a ... el=7561304
Elderly people are denied hospital care during the pandemic
In a new review, Sörmlands Media can reveal that the National Board of Health and Welfare's guidelines mean that elderly and frail people are denied hospital care. According to the authority, the guidelines should only be used in the event of a lack of space in health care, but the newspaper's sources state that several regions have already begun to refuse elderly care.
But sources claim that in several parts of the country, large groups of patients have already begun to be given priority. They are denied inpatient care completely and should instead be cared for at home. The oldest and most fragile should not be taken to hospital.
In the advice, the CFS (Clinical Frailty Scale) is pointed out as a suitable tool for measuring fragility, or biological age.
Despite the fact that Swedish healthcare has not had problems with a shortage of care places, some regions have thus already begun to apply the guidelines. The CFS scale has proven to be crucial not only for the possibilities of receiving intensive care, but also inpatient care.
https://ekuriren.se/artikel/pr5ne5nr?fb ... gRNrzVkI_A
Kljucno je i ovo da im kapaciteti NISU bili popunjeniHorke wrote: ↑16/10/2020 18:33Ovo je kljucno:Mogy87 wrote: ↑16/10/2020 13:26 @Horke ja ne volim postavljati ovakve linkove ali vise medija u Svedskoj je istrazivalo problematiku
Relatives: We were not involved in life-changing decisions
Ekot's review shows that more than a hundred people reported to the Swedish Health and Care Inspectorate that their relatives with covid-19, either did not receive oxygen or nutrient drops or that they were not allowed to come to hospital.
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.a ... el=7561304
Elderly people are denied hospital care during the pandemic
In a new review, Sörmlands Media can reveal that the National Board of Health and Welfare's guidelines mean that elderly and frail people are denied hospital care. According to the authority, the guidelines should only be used in the event of a lack of space in health care, but the newspaper's sources state that several regions have already begun to refuse elderly care.
But sources claim that in several parts of the country, large groups of patients have already begun to be given priority. They are denied inpatient care completely and should instead be cared for at home. The oldest and most fragile should not be taken to hospital.
In the advice, the CFS (Clinical Frailty Scale) is pointed out as a suitable tool for measuring fragility, or biological age.
Despite the fact that Swedish healthcare has not had problems with a shortage of care places, some regions have thus already begun to apply the guidelines. The CFS scale has proven to be crucial not only for the possibilities of receiving intensive care, but also inpatient care.
https://ekuriren.se/artikel/pr5ne5nr?fb ... gRNrzVkI_A
Elderly people are denied hospital care during the pandemic
In a new review, Sörmlands Media can reveal that the National Board of Health and Welfare's guidelines mean that elderly and frail people are denied hospital care. According to the authority, the guidelines should only be used in the event of a lack of space in health care, but the newspaper's sources state that several regions have already begun to refuse elderly care.
Ovo podebljano je kljucno. Znaci to nije bio zvanican stav Svedske, vec samo u slucaju nedostatka kapaciteta. I u svim ovim izvjestajima se spominje vodic, koji nije obligatoran i koji je neko odlucio da provede, a neko slijepo slusao. Ja bih zaista voljela da vidim svjedocenje ili dokaz da je osoba trece zivotne dobi, sa otezanim disanjem i niskom saturacijom vracena iz bolnice uz obrazlozenje, star si.
Dakle nikako ne mozemo govoriti da je to bio zvanicni stav i politika Svedske.
Dr. Senahid Halilović je odlučio da okonča svoj život nakon što je pročitao ovaj dubokouman odgovor uvaženog forumaša...immuno wrote: ↑16/10/2020 16:54 Ma nista ba samo vi opletite ovdje dokazujte da ste negdje nasli neki clanak, statistiku.... Citav svijet je u zabludi samo vi ste u pravu, NIKO od vas nije ovdje postavio svoj licni Rad, doduse koliko vremena trosite na ovom forumujadne du te firme u Kojima radite I familiju sa Kojima zivite ako ih uopste imate
Naslovnica wrote: ↑16/10/2020 20:36 https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf
Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from
seroprevalence data
John P A Ioannidisa
Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road,
Stanford, California 94305, United States of America.
Correspondence to John P A Ioannidis (email: [email protected]).
(Submitted: 13 May 2020 – Revised version received: 13 September 2020 – Accepted: 15 September 2020
– Published online: 14 October 2020)
Abstract
Objective To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
from seroprevalence data.
Methods I searched PubMed and preprint servers for COVID-19 seroprevalence
studies with a sample size 500 as of 9 September, 2020. I also retrieved additional results
of national studies from preliminary press releases and reports. I assessed the studies for
design features and seroprevalence estimates. I estimated the infection fatality rate for
each study by dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths by the number of people estimated
to be infected in each region. I corrected for the number of antibody types tested
(immunoglobin, IgG, IgM, IgA).
Results I included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national
estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates
ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations,
the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was
0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average
(< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people
and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years,
infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of
0.05%.
Conclusion The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across
different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-
mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The inferred infection fatality rates
tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.
olating across age groups.
Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project
that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September, 2020, far more than the
approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have
an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological
measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection
fatality rate may be brought even lower.
Auuuuu
Auuu sad ce mogy87 da dodje i da kaze da je ovaj sto je radio istrazivanje kad je bio mladji krao bombone iz skole i kao takav nema nikakav kredibilitet. Ovo je logicno, valjda je i budalama jasno da brojevi koje nam serviraju bemaju veze sa realnoscu.Naslovnica wrote: ↑16/10/2020 20:36 https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf
Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from
seroprevalence data
John P A Ioannidisa
Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road,
Stanford, California 94305, United States of America.
Correspondence to John P A Ioannidis (email: [email protected]).
(Submitted: 13 May 2020 – Revised version received: 13 September 2020 – Accepted: 15 September 2020
– Published online: 14 October 2020)
Abstract
Objective To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
from seroprevalence data.
Methods I searched PubMed and preprint servers for COVID-19 seroprevalence
studies with a sample size 500 as of 9 September, 2020. I also retrieved additional results
of national studies from preliminary press releases and reports. I assessed the studies for
design features and seroprevalence estimates. I estimated the infection fatality rate for
each study by dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths by the number of people estimated
to be infected in each region. I corrected for the number of antibody types tested
(immunoglobin, IgG, IgM, IgA).
Results I included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national
estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates
ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations,
the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was
0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average
(< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people
and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years,
infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of
0.05%.
Conclusion The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across
different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-
mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The inferred infection fatality rates
tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.
olating across age groups.
Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project
that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September, 2020, far more than the
approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have
an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological
measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection
fatality rate may be brought even lower.
Auuuuu
Za pocetak mali problem s konfliktom interesa:Naslovnica wrote: ↑16/10/2020 20:36 https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf
Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from
seroprevalence data
John P A Ioannidisa
Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road,
Stanford, California 94305, United States of America.
Correspondence to John P A Ioannidis (email: [email protected]).
(Submitted: 13 May 2020 – Revised version received: 13 September 2020 – Accepted: 15 September 2020
– Published online: 14 October 2020)
Abstract
Objective To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
from seroprevalence data.
Methods I searched PubMed and preprint servers for COVID-19 seroprevalence
studies with a sample size 500 as of 9 September, 2020. I also retrieved additional results
of national studies from preliminary press releases and reports. I assessed the studies for
design features and seroprevalence estimates. I estimated the infection fatality rate for
each study by dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths by the number of people estimated
to be infected in each region. I corrected for the number of antibody types tested
(immunoglobin, IgG, IgM, IgA).
Results I included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national
estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates
ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations,
the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was
0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average
(< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people
and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years,
infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of
0.05%.
Conclusion The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across
different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-
mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The inferred infection fatality rates
tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.
olating across age groups.
Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project
that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September, 2020, far more than the
approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have
an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological
measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection
fatality rate may be brought even lower.
Auuuuu
“I think the authors owe us all an apology… not just to us, but to Stanford,” wrote Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University.
Kad prije izvuče ovo, sve redom relevantne i ugledne web stranice. Nedostaje Faktograf na spisku.daddy-kool wrote: ↑16/10/2020 21:15 Ruku na srce Ioannidis se nije proslavio sa dosadašnjim radovima na ovu temu.
https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioan ... e-critics/
https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of- ... ontrarian/
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/20/f ... n-apology/
“I think the authors owe us all an apology… not just to us, but to Stanford,” wrote Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University.
Sta cemo s revidiranom studijom bukvalno na istu temu?Naslovnica wrote: ↑16/10/2020 21:16
Da, da...
I pored svega što je Mogy objasnila, WHO ipak objavio ovo smeće od studije na svojoj zvaničnoj stranici.
Radim u najvecoj bolnici u Evropi pred ocima su mi pacijenti zarazeni covidom 19 za " cudo" vasim nebulozama nisu samo stari koje vi ovdje neubrajate u ljude, zive insane, populaciju.... Jezim se od vasih komentara, svjetski sampioni ste u kopiranju kojekavih Statistika, tumacenja istih a o Kojima vecina vas veze nema sa zivotom....
vjerovatno su slagali da je covid 19, al eto sin je ljekar pa nesto nesumnjam ili sta vi mislite po Tim vasim tumacenjima...
jadne du te firme u Kojima radite I familiju sa Kojima zivite ako ih uopste imate
