Post your Contentious Virus Posts Here

[Johnny_S]

https://fpgeeks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=53425&d=1587137282

[ethernautrix]

That's cute, but the "pen men" and women I know are scientista (at least one, literally, is a rocket scientist), engineers, coders -- you know, people used to dealing with data and facts. One reason I appreciate pen people so much is the opportunity to learn, cos I'm usually the dumbest one at the table. Which is why I have to rely on humor, har har.

I do have a perhaps contentious question, though. Is anyone tracking the data on death rates? I've seen posts on FB about numbers of deaths by other causes than COVID-19 ["C19"] to put C19 deaths in perspective. (Clumsy attempts, usually.) But have the death rates from non-C19 causes been "stable" (that is, as expected given past numbers)? Or have they changed significantly? (Implying, have they gone down, because those deaths are now being attributed to C19?)

And what are those implications?



I will say from the start that I'll read anyone's opinion no matter how it's stated, but for those who want to persuade others to agree with them (i.e., not interested in preaching to the choir), please remember that how you present your argument can help you or hinder you in this goal.

If you just want to yell and rant from lack of control, flail away. It's understandable, given the emotional upheaval of these times, but if you want to be taken seriously by your opponent, try to see your argument from that point of view, or at least the words you use. Would you listen to you if you talked to yourself in that manner?... Your choice.

[Johnny_S]

You have said that in a tactfull and diplomatic manner that I could not have managed, in particular the sentence 'please remember that how you present your argument can help you or hinder you in this goal.'

The most erudite person will have an audience of deaf ears when they start to shout.

[TSherbs]

Animal control just reported in my state that road kill is down.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

https://fpgeeks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=53425&d=1587137282

It is good to see you being so easily amused in these strange times.

Compared to 140 character communication, anonymous forum posts, email blasts siphoned through spam filters, information lost when the format changes, there will be a remnant who preserve the old ways, not simply chasing the next big thing.

There will be those that honor the arts and crafts:
-calligraphy
-hand bound books
-dovetail furniture
-painted, not computer generated, artwork
-contemplative thinking beyond memes.

I neither take offense nor condemn you for your easy laughter. I do suggest that you underestimate all of the old ways to your detriment and peril. Remember: this is a pen place, and pen-necked geeks may lurk here.

[Johnny_S]

https://fpgeeks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=53425&d=1587137282

It is good to see you being so easily amused in these strange times.

Compared to 140 character communication, anonymous forum posts, email blasts siphoned through spam filters, information lost when the format changes, there will be a remnant who preserve the old ways, not simply chasing the next big thing.

There will be those that honor the arts and crafts:
-calligraphy
-hand bound books
-dovetail furniture
-painted, not computer generated, artwork
-contemplative thinking beyond memes.

I neither take offense nor condemn you for your easy laughter. I do suggest that you underestimate all of the old ways to your detriment and peril. Remember: this is a pen place, and pen-necked geeks may lurk here.

With all respect, this is a very odd post, I cannot say that I understand what you are trying to say.

There is some misunderstanding, perhaps mine, I don't know.

The reference is with regards to the number of heated exchanges that have taken place on this forum with regards to the virus, a great deal of misquoting and even some poor quality information. The suggestion that I was looking to make was that if you wanted to know more about Covid 19 and discuss how, what, when and why with regards to the virus you would not automatically go to a Pen Forum for that information.

I take your point with regards to the preservation of the old ways, but I would suggest to you that the interests that you describe have a natural home on FPG and much more so than the aggressive arguments that we have all seen when people have discussed, for example, the virus and the economic consequences.

It was also suggested, by others, that if the Virus had to be discussed on FPG then this sub forum would be a better place to have this discussion rather than the Lounge.

I may have made the wrong decision to have what I thought was a humorous meme as an opening heading for the thread, no offense to pen persons was intended, it was more of a suggestion that pen people may not be the most obvious experts on the Virus to provide the best advice.

Perhaps they are.

[kazoolaw]

No offense made, and none taken.

Be well, and hand write something today.

[Johnny_S]

No offense made, and none taken.

Be well, and hand write something today.


Ok,

I have been handwriting for 60 years and also taught calligraphy in the 80s, collect books with special bindings, especially quarter bound and know my way around a quality piece of furniture.

I feel that I should probably not have used a meme that I thought was humorous as the opening shot to this thread but don't you think it is a very odd situation that anyone would want to come on to a pen forum and produce detailed and researched information on the cause and effect of the virus.

With all due respect to FPG there are a thousand places that are better suited to an enquiring mind on the virus, much better placed than a pen forum and then, these people having made that decision, to be so aggressive in the defence of their views to the point where others who have been the lifeblood of FPG are saying 'we no longer have patience to deal with you, day in, day out'.

Therefore I regret the casual approach in which I try not to take such pompous people too seriously and should just have said here is your new home for your contentious posts, left out any half-amusing pics and allow pople to get on with their fighting and foul language.

[kazoolaw]

Dear John-

Post without regret.

I appreciate your attempt at directing traffic, but can you invite people into a home if you don't live there?

Wish my scrawl had met your teaching: my Palmer Handwriting medals were bought on eBay.

Be well.

[ethernautrix]

You have said that in a tactfull and diplomatic manner that I could not have managed, in particular the sentence 'please remember that how you present your argument can help you or hinder you in this goal.'

The most erudite person will have an audience of deaf ears when they start to shout.

I save my hair-trigger yelling for face-to-face arguments, hahaha. That way all of my non-verbal cues are supposedly OBVIOUS, hahaha, and when they're not, my apologies are immediate.

It's taken years of practice.

[ethernautrix]

Animal control just reported in my state that road kill is down.


So good news then!

[welch]

Here are the latest numbers on cases and on deaths in the US. The data can be broken down by state. Cases might have flattened, but there is no sign that the virus is falling away.

In New York, it has seemed as if people are reluctant to call an ambulance because it would take them to a hospital that is jammed with COVID-19 patients. That might be improving as the state government has expanded hospitals by, for instance, converting state university dormitories. Cases might have peaked below the total number of hospital beds in the state.

Otherwise, I can't find numbers for deaths caused by other diseases. NYT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/?itid=hp_hp-banner-low_web-gfx-death-tracker%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

[Freddie]

https://fpgeeks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=53425&d=1587137282

welcome J_S......Enjoy your time here......

Fred
Close your eyes and tap your heels together three times. And think to yourself..
there's no place like home..........Glinda the good said long ago.......

Whilst I enjoy a White Manhattan:
Monnshine 2 1/2 onnces
Dry Vermount 3/4 ounce Optional Dash of bitters

[mhosea]

I do have a perhaps contentious question, though. Is anyone tracking the data on death rates? I've seen posts on FB about numbers of deaths by other causes than COVID-19 ["C19"] to put C19 deaths in perspective. (Clumsy attempts, usually.) But have the death rates from non-C19 causes been "stable" (that is, as expected given past numbers)? Or have they changed significantly? (Implying, have they gone down, because those deaths are now being attributed to C19?)


I believe the US CDC compiles a report every year, and the delay is considerable. The report on 2018 is out. If it's possible to get more up-to-date data about that sort of thing, I don't know where it could be found. Perhaps some states compile monthly reports? I do not know.

Per CDC guidelines, it is likely that probable COVID-19 deaths in supervised settings are being reported as such. Some causes of death in medically supervised settings, sepsis, for example, would then tend to be replaced by COVID-19 when infection is probable, even though virtually any infection (e.g. an untreated UTI) could have led to the same outcome in short order. Consequently, I would expect to see sepsis deaths reduced from what they would otherwise have been. That's just a "for example". Social distancing and reduction of travel will probably end up changing the accident statistics quite a bit.

[Johnny_S]

There is one UK city where Lockdown is largely ignored by the under 30s.

This city has a population where three generation occupancy of a house is common.

Despite these factors the deaths in hospital figure is low compared to the population count.

The reason is that the deathis outside hospital is substantial, the covid 19 sufferers are reluctant to go to hospital because they have been told that if they are elderly that they will be put to sleep in order that their bed can be given to a younger person. Also they are encourage to stay at home, and die at home. The reason is that there is a second rumour that if they die in hospital the family will not be told and that the body will be
cremated with others and not in accordance with their faith.

[dneal]

I do have a perhaps contentious question, though. Is anyone tracking the data on death rates? I've seen posts on FB about numbers of deaths by other causes than COVID-19 ["C19"] to put C19 deaths in perspective. (Clumsy attempts, usually.) But have the death rates from non-C19 causes been "stable" (that is, as expected given past numbers)? Or have they changed significantly? (Implying, have they gone down, because those deaths are now being attributed to C19?)

And what are those implications?


I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but this site (https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america) seems credible. You can sort by country, etc...

As for the implications, a bunch that are mostly conflicting right now. I don’t know if we have enough information to sort it out. The societal ones will be the most interesting. It seems that people have had enough of “lockdowns”, and want (or need) to get back to work. I don’t doubt there will be a second “curve” once we start getting out and about, or next year, or the next. The Spanish Flu ran for 3 years, for example. This thing is with us now, like influenza or any other contagious virus.

[ethernautrix]

My best friend, an American in Denmark (practically Danish by now, with the Danish wife and kids and job and house and citizenship), is a data head, and he posted in FB some relevant information. I'm going to ask for his permission to copy his post over here.

Thanks to all who are replying.

I also have questions about the potential for mandatory phone apps and a China-style surveillance system (not just faciail recognition, which the face masks undermine, but posture and gait recognition) -- I mean, is anyone else concerned about this trend?

[Johnny_S]

I think that the Chinese system is based, at least in part, on an ID card system which stores information on many different things about you including your health records. You cannot buy a phone without a connection between the phone and your ID.

This is third hand, no personal information but I understand that the chinese authorities can have access to information wherever you are and who is standing next to you. They could for example tell you by text that a person near to you on the bus has tested positive. Logically I guess that if a crime was to occur the authorities would know by phone records who was near to the scene at the time. I assume that the criminal would have the sense not to carry the phone when he is on a job.

A mandatory app for surveillance, I am not sure how that would be enforced. Especially when there are many of us who like the freedom of leaving their phones at home.

[dneal]

My best friend, an American in Denmark (practically Danish by now, with the Danish wife and kids and job and house and citizenship), is a data head, and he posted in FB some relevant information. I'm going to ask for his permission to copy his post over here.

Thanks to all who are replying.

I also have questions about the potential for mandatory phone apps and a China-style surveillance system (not just faciail recognition, which the face masks undermine, but posture and gait recognition) -- I mean, is anyone else concerned about this trend?

That's curious, and China is a specific environment that has implemented Orwell's "1984" about as well as anyone. In the "western" world, I think it depends on the society. The U.K. is very surveillance oriented, for example; and seem relatively accepting of that. Germans kind of have it, mainly for traffic, but they seem to sit somewhere between the U.K. and the U.S. abundance of private surveillance that law enforcement can access with permission or warrant. It would be an interesting contrast between Poland or other former Soviet satellites, who lived for decades with secret police, "informants", and other surveillance. How accepting would they be? I spent 6 months in Złocieniec, and other than the discovery that they like to put ketchup on their pizza I remain relatively ignorant of the people.

To address "implications" further (although I'm not sure what you had in mind), here's an interesting article about post-lockdown life (https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/492514-reentry-after-the-panic-paying-the-health-price-of-extreme-isolation?fbclid=IwAR1o1eK0GHWsH9cbdeM3XDdSdqdegrF xp77ZUAhUDMM4ssZ6-urkgY7PFXM), and Here's one about the negative impact on drug cartels (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/cartels-scrambling-virus-snarls-global-drug-trade-70231435?fbclid=IwAR1HnLCr1uIZ4wl4k0oifhBdoyA2YsMO jTZoLS4_X9-rSCuUPROSs164Mjw). There will be a lot of things we discover, that we had no idea would be the case.

--edit--

A portion of the text from the first link.



With a world-wide sense of relief, progress continues in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Projections have been revised downward for virtually every major negative consequence of the disease. Few doubt that the unprecedented isolation policies and near-total economic lockdowns adopted by most countries had a significant impact on reducing deaths from the virus. And aside from New York, where almost half of the entire country’s deaths and cases have occurred, the vast majority of American hospitals were not overwhelmed beyond capacity. All of this is terrific news.

But we will now pay a big price. Our policy of total isolation involved trade-offs and left a significant problem by endangering the resumption of normal activity.

One important health care trade-off that must be acknowledged is that we will have lost lives, because vital health care for millions of Americans was deferred or skipped to accommodate potential COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Over two-dozen states and many hospitals stopped “non-essential” procedures and surgery. That included delayed or missed diagnoses — cancer screening, biopsies of now undiscovered tumors and potentially deadly brain disorders like aneurysms and arteriovenous malformations. Treatments for known serious illnesses were also missed. In some centers, 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chance for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. Whether right or not, policy decisions had consequences that should not be ignored.

But a bigger price might now be paid from choosing extreme isolation. In the absence of immunization, society needs circulation of the virus, assuming high-risk people can be isolated. Infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — natural antibodies. Given the estimated contagiousness of COVID-19, about 60 percent of people in the community need to have antibodies to stop the spread by “herd immunity.” Remember, medical care is not necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. We also infer from testing in Iceland and Vo, Italy, that half of infected people are asymptomatic. That has been misleadingly portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation; those infected people are an important vehicle for establishing immunity by transmitting the virus to the low-risk group. Preliminary testing in Germany shows that perhaps 15 percent of people are immune; no doubt this varies greatly by region. It is very possible that whole-population isolation prevented natural herd immunity from developing.

We now need to reenter normal life. Yet, instead of having a population protected by a naturally developed immunity, we are faced with a perilous decision — how to prevent a second wave when people are free to mingle. We should not wait for vaccines. America’s amazing private sector health care innovators are working 24/7 inventing nearly half of the world’s 100-plus potential vaccines. But these will take many months to be widely available. Moreover, vaccines might have limited effectiveness; for influenza, a vaccine is only 40 to 60 percent effective, according to the CDC.

Continuing full-population isolation and waiting for a vaccine would be doubling down and yielding to panic. Instead, we could institute the focused strategy that some proposed in the first place — aggressively protecting the vulnerable, strictly self-isolating the mildly sick and, with testing, opening most workplaces and small businesses except very large group activities like concerts and sporting events. This would allow enough socializing for the essential immunity to gradually develop among those with minimal risk of serious consequences, while still saving lives and limiting the massive harms of continued total isolation...

[mhosea]

I never understood the justification for putting off all elective procedures. I’m not sure yet that self isolation was a mistake, but as the initial projections for hospital utilization apart fro NYC have not materialized, it sure looks like it was a mistake to prepare hospitals nationwide for floods of COVID-19 patients. It is laughable to try to justify it by saying that isolation worked. In that case, it should have been an either-or measure, a contingency to initiate when threshold levels of capacity utilization were exceeded. At the very least, hospitals should be able to resume normal activity.

Personally, I doubt the US will tolerate a second “lockdown”.

[ethernautrix]

Thanks, DAVE (dneal) [hahaha!], for the links and the excerpt. I read the excerpt and started reading the cartels article. But here, my friend has replied:

Greg Nagan: "That's fine... you can just refer them all to EuroMomo, where they can see the stats for themselves.
"But be sure to mention I'm a moron. Not a doctor, not a virologist or epidemiologist, nothing of the sort. Just an idiot that has been working with data for thirty plus years."

53460


This all goes to the question of whether re-opening the economy actually will save more lives than the alternative.


ETA: The screenshot cut off the graphs. I suppose I should screenshot those, too. Jeez, I'm so lazy.

[ethernautrix]

The graphs. I'm not sure what language the month is. April po polsku is Kwiecień, and in this form, Kwietnia. Anyway, wanted to clarify that this post is from 14 April 2020.

53461

[dneal]

"Sweden continue[s] flat"

Interestingly, Sweden never implemented any "lockdown" measures.

Oh, and

53465

:)

[mhosea]

Massachusetts has just stepped up its reporting game. The latest update has many graphs, and some of it gives information I have wanted to know, like, what is the hospitalization rate (for tested individuals) by age group.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-april-20-2020/download

[ethernautrix]

@Dave -- Hahaha! Can't fool me! I know you're in there!

Back on topic: I realize that I have a kindv of advantage being an American in Poland during these highly-charged political times. Even if the antenna worked for the TV set, the news would be in Polish. Wystarczająco powiedziane.

I've been "watching" a few YouTube channels on and off (sometimes while multitasking on rote tasks, i.e., not paying full attention), including Dr. John Campbell (it's like Blade Runner or some other Sci-Fi dystopian movie with the talking head with the calm voice on a TV set in the background, weirdly soothing and frightening at once.) and Dr. Pamela Popper (via YouTube's algorithm ).

It was from Dr. Campbell that I learned about vitamin D's role in C19 and how black and brown Americans were at higher risk because of vitamin D deficiency. I paid attention, because my recent blood test showed a super low vitamin D level (probably not surprising during winter, but I was in California. Where I find the sunshine too harsh and so avoid it and wear sunscreen.). My doctor prescribed -- wrote out a prescription -- for vitamin D for me, and so I've been taking at least 2000iu per day, upped to 4000iu after the Dr. Campbell video.

A couple of days after that, I started to see on FB outrage from some friends about the higher risk of C19 infection amongst black Americans, because racism. No mention of vitamin D deficiency.

I'm not saying that racism isn't a problem in American society, but to hang the higher danger of C19 to black and brown Americans on racism and not vitamin D levels -- I'm sorry to admit that a part of my brain just shut down.

...

So here is this video from Dr. Pamela Popper, apparently an expert on nutrition and health:


https://youtu.be/kcNQnEVfesE


I'm saying all this, because -- as I just admitted -- part of my brain shuts down in the face of what I perceive as nonsense or missing the point, and I'm wondering how much of that dynamic is playing out when people can't even question if what countries are doing is the best course. FTR: I like Dr. Popper's presentation, because she urges her audience to seek out the information from the sources for themselves.

Just last night, I saw something -- it's probably everywhere in the USA, so -- "the cure is worse than the disease." And about half the population went or is (?) apoplectic: "You want to sacrifice the elders for money!" (Oh wait. I saw a bit of there here, at fpg.) NO! No one wants to sacrifice anyone! But we have a PROBLEM. And people are going to die whether we shut down or not. The question, to my way of thinking, is... can we mitigate the spread of C19 without destroying the economy, and when I say "economy," read "society."--?

I thought about my family and closest friends. It's an insignificant sample size, but we all have at least one vulnerable beloved person, so we're all vested in measures of protection.

Are we overlooking ways of protecting our vulnerable loved ones? Without destroying society?

Which is why methodology matters when assessing the threat of C19.

But I'm not an expert. Which is why I depend on the experts not to lie (out of embarrassment or ego or political advantage or pathology or whatever). People have to learn to admit when they're wrong so we can get on with the business of solving problems. (Which implies obviously that I believe the experts have been lying to the public. But I don't know. I at least want to ask the question without being attacked for just asking.) (Not that I've been attacked. I'm alluding to all the yelling in here recently -- which, thankfully, has calmed down a bit -- and out there.)

I want to repeat this, just in case someone comes along with a hammer, looking for a problem: I don't know. I don't know whom to believe. I don't know who's telling the truth. I don't know the answer(s). That's why I'm asking questions.

[dneal]

Massachusetts has just stepped up its reporting game. The latest update has many graphs, and some of it gives information I have wanted to know, like, what is the hospitalization rate (for tested individuals) by age group.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-april-20-2020/download

If it was in the document, I missed it; but do you know what the “testing” consisted of? Current infections and/or antibodies present? You know, that whole denominator thing...

[dneal]

Here’s a Swedish epidemiologist who worked at the WHO (well that’s awkward)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based

The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only

This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”

The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better

The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact

The paper was very much too pessimistic

Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway

The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown

The results will eventually be similar for all countries

Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.

The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%

At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available

[mhosea]

I believe the testing referred to is only the kind to confirm an existing infection. So, there is no information there on the denominator. Nevertheless, I thought the charts on confirmed cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by age group were striking when taken together. The press has, of course, admitted that the elderly are more at risk, but the risk is more skewed to the right than I had imagined. I think it has been obfuscated by the press highlighting tragic cases of younger victims. While the risk is real, there is no life without risk, and we manage, and implicitly accept, risks in order to live fulfilling lives. No question that we should be asking how to protect the older population, but that just means we need to do something extraordinary, not necessarily the particular extraordinary thing we’re doing.

[dneal]

Apparently the media is abuzz with a California study that suggests the prevalence is 50 to 80 times what we’re actually seeing, and the mortality rate is on par or less than the flu. I’ll see if I can find it this evening. Too nice outside not to be enjoying it (although I’m taking a break from shoveling gravel right now).

—edit—

So it’s 28 to 55 times higher (not 50 to 80 as mentioned above and reported earlier). I haven’t found the actual preliminary results that have been released, and the study still needs peer reviewed, but here are two decent articles summarizing the study. First is from The Hill and the second is from USC.

article from The Hill (https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities/493859-antibody-study-suggests-more-people-in-la-county)

USC news release (https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody-testing-results-covid-19-infections-los-angeles-county/)

[sospiro]

I want to repeat this, just in case someone comes along with a hammer, looking for a problem: I don't know. I don't know whom to believe. I don't know who's telling the truth. I don't know the answer(s). That's why I'm asking questions.


This article refers to figures published by The Office for National Statistics (UK)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

The main points:

— Deaths in England and Wales have nearly doubled above what would be expected, hitting a 20-year high.

— In the week up to 10 April, there were 18,500 deaths, about 8,000 more than is normal at this time of year.

— 6,200 of these deaths were linked to coronavirus / Covid-19


@ ethernautrix — not with a hammer but a whimper (with apologies to TS Eliot)

Stay safe and well everyone

[ethernautrix]

Real quick (posting before reading, cos sometimes I have to act quickly, before the interruptions!):

Here is Dr. Campbell with some statistics. Which reminded me that I watched another doctor's YouTube channel, a retired bariatric surgeon-cum-personal coach (hehe! I don't know why that tickles me.), Dr. Duc C. Vuong, who says that obesity is a risk factor (and is usually associated with the other conditions mentioned most, i.e., heart disease and diabetes).

Here's Dr. Campbell's video:

https://youtu.be/9ZfbtwB9Sb8





And, as I was waking up this morning, I was thinking about how I mentioned "destroying society," remembering my athropology 101 professor's saying (years ago, yeeeears), "Mutation is adaptation." I vaguely wondered about how C19 might be re-booting society, and maybe that isn't, in the long-term, automatically a negative (we just fear it, because we don't know what it is, and we're afraid it'll be the worst outcome (for me, that would be the total surveillance state and personal freedoms a dying memory)... and then, just this morning!, I came across this article:

Ted Chiang Explains th Disaster Novel We All Suddenly Live In [electricliterature.com] (https://electricliterature.com/ted-chiang-explains-the-disaster-novel-we-all-suddenly-live-in/)

Full disclosure: I'm not familiar with Ted Chiang, and I didn't read past his first answer [cos interruptions, from without and within, heh], which was:

"On the panel, I said that traditional 'good vs. evil' stories follow a certain pattern: the world starts out as a good place, evil intrudes, good defeats evil, and the world goes back to being a good place. These stories are all about restoring the status quo, so they are implicitly conservative. Real science fiction stories follow a different pattern: the world starts out as a familiar place, a new discovery or invention disrupts everything, and the world is forever changed. These stories show the status quo being overturned, so they are implicitly progressive. (This observation is not original to me; it’s something that scholars of science fiction have long noted.) This was in the context of a discussion about the role of dystopias in science fiction. I said that while some dystopian stories suggest that doom is unavoidable, other ones are intended as cautionary tales, which implies we can do something to avoid the undesirable outcome."

</drivebyposting>

WIth many thanks to those of you contributing!

[Dave]

Okay, contentious post stumbling over the horizon! Hold on to your hats.

Dystopian stories are obviously based on the assumption that the new state is undesirable. It's in the name.

Imagine if you will that SARS-Cov-2 wipes out half the global population. Is that a bad thing? For whom? For what other reasons? From what perspective? From the point of view of the planet - i.e. a Gaian perspective - this is probably a good thing. From the point of view of someone who is going to die, or has relatives/friends who are going to die, this is likely a bad thing. If it dumps us back into a parochial lifestyle, is this a bad thing? Is the life we (1st world people) live today really all that great? Are we truly realistic about what is important?

Outcomes, values, perceptions. How are these to be measured in any kind of objective way? Maybe they can't, and we are left with measuring stuff in the imagined future against what we think we want now (or have been programmed to want).


For the record, I don't necessarily think in these terms, but find them useful in attempting to understand why things happen (not very good at this bit to be honest).

[ethernautrix]

Hey yo, we got a Dave in the house!

Here's the thing: The world ends everyday... for somebody.

People, especially the eldery, the sick, the sedentary obese alcoholic smokers -- and even young, healthy, beautiful people and babies -- die. I'm going to die. I'm going to die of something. I just keep hoping it won't be a fiery crash (with or without the fire) (probably prefer the crash scenario to the fire scenario, now that I'm thinking about it in words on the screen, unless the smoke inhalation cuts off oxygen to my brain, giving me a sense of euphoria, and then I die before my body starts burning). And, if it's not too much to ask, if I can't have euphoria, I'd like to request the instant, never-knew-what-hit-me, didn't-even-know-I-was-hit death.

Cos I don't want to die of C19 (with its terrifying breathing difficulties) or ebola (blood leaking from unexpected parts) and so on.

Am I being cavalier or ridiculous? I'm just hiding my fear of dying. The d y i n g part.

And the truth is, to echo that Jim Morrison biography title: No one here gets out alive.

Does this mean that I advocate rampant C19 spreading? No. But is C19 the deadly killer it's made out to be? (Again, I'm asking a question, not making pronouncements.)

I wasn't paying attention to the news and was in California for most of February. Then flew to Poland via Frankfurt. Had no idea. I might have heard about yet another bird or swine flu out of China (reports weren't sure), but H1N1 and SARS didn't really affect other countries (and I had been nervous about those outbreaks).

Besides the super long asymptomatic period, what sets this virus apart from the others? I mean, obviously, the threat to those with co-morbidities is frightening (the morbidities themselves are frightening (the cancers, the Alzheimer's, the heart disease..., diabetes, and so on)) without C19 coming in as a kind of closer. Know what I mean? Makes me think that Nature is shaking its head (I know it doesn't have a head, but don't jump off this train yet) and proving to humans that HEY! YOU HAVE TO DIE!

And NO ONE likes that. DUH.

And because no one wants to die, because death is scary, and losing our loved ones hurts so much... what are we collectively willing to do to prevent the inevitable? (IF... if... C19 isn't the Spanish Influenze, isn't the Black Death.)

Well, France is pressuring Apple for its coronavirus-contact-tracing app without first implementing the privacy measures [BBC.com] (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52366129)

And there's this -- in the USA (just saw this today!):
Washington States OKs Facial Recognition Law Seen As National Model - The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/washington-state-oks-facial-recognition-law-seen-as-national-model-11585686897)

Do I have to be a criminal to object to having my movements monitored? Can't I be just a human being moseying along, minding my own business, not hurting anyone, who enjoys a (sense of) privacy and personal freedom (while it lasts)? Can I opt out of being sold to constantly? Who's running this software today? And who will be in charge tomorrow? What recourse do citizens have not to have their faces and gaits and movements and conversations all monitored (as is being done in China today, already a reality for millions of people)? Who are the monitors? What are their motivations? What are their ulterior motives? Are they checked for that?

I don't care who the monitors are, because I don't trust any of them a priori.



So. Um, yeah.

...


Now for something completely different:


https://youtu.be/Uql_5Gj52z4

[ethernautrix]

On the other hand... what if China-style surveillance were implemented all over the world, ostensibly to hinder the spread of infectious diseases? What if the USA started keeping "social scores" for its citizens? What if that is our future?

Just blurting. I'm a blurter.







@Dneal - Yo, D! I'm finally watching the video you posted above. (Laughing cos... oops! Slipped my mind.)


About an hour later -- still watching the video (interruptions and distractions): In case I wasn't clear, I'm not advocating exposing our vulnerable to C19, to let the virus run its course. I want to protect them... while not destroying society (which rampant unemployment and impoverishment surely will, to some uncomfortable degree at least).

[Dave]

Hey yo, we got a Dave in the house!

Is this a local FPG joke or something? Like in the TV show?



My other post was aimed at why people overlook the good in the bad. Removing half the population, for example, may be painful for those who lose friends/family/notable enemies, and it would impact on business/industry for a time. On the other hand, the world as a whole may well be an immeasurably better place to live for the half who remain. Personally I believe we're overpopulated by a factor of 5. We have no natural constraints, or at least hadn't thought so until now. SARS-Cov-2 and other as yet unknown pathogens could well be that constraint.

In another vein, there are many people who cannot function appropriately in a society without constraints and controls imposed on them. Large tranches of community ills can be laid at the feet of these people. Perhaps forgoing some imagined freedoms on all would be a way of reducing these problems to a level where the quality of life for all would be better on average.

Point is that today's world is no utopia, not even close. Maybe we are due a paradigm shifting change?

[mhosea]

But is C19 the deadly killer it's made out to be?

I think it depends on the age group you look at. As of 4/22, in Massachusetts:

Average Age of COVID-19 Cases: 54
Average Age of Cases Reported as Hospitalized (at any time): 68
Average Age of Deaths in Confirmed COVID-19 Cases: 82

Hospitalizations (at any time while confirmed case was active):
0-19: 16 (1.6%)
20-29: 97 (1.9%)
30-39: 205 (3.4%)
40-49: 313 (5.1%)
50-59: 601 (8.1%)
60-69: 797 (13.3%)
70-79: 926 (21.5%)
80+: 1300 (19.5%)

Deaths totals and percentages of confirmed cases within age group (not percentage of all cases)
0-19: 0
20-29: 1 (0.02%)
30-39: 7 (0.12%)
40-49: 15 (0.24%)
50-59: 75 (1%)
60-69: 213 (3.6%)
70-79: 483 (11.2%)
80+: 1388 (20.8%)

Most deaths had some preexisting condition.

[Dave]

How come the percentages don't add up? What (probably obvious) thing am I overlooking?

[mhosea]

How come the percentages don't add up? What (probably obvious) thing am I overlooking?

The data is blocked into age ranges, and the percentage is of that age group only. Let's take 30-39 year-olds for example. 3.4% of 30-39 year-olds with confirmed cases needed to be hospitalized at some point. 0.12% of 30-39 year-olds with confirmed cases died.

I didn't include the total number of confirmed cases, split into the age ranges, but here is that data:
0-19: 1024
20-29: 4979
30-39: 6088
40-49: 6175
50-59: 7408
60-69: 5957
70-79: 4315
80+: 6675

So for 30-39 year-olds we have for hospitalizations: 205/6088 --> 3.4%, and for deaths, 7/6088 --> 0.12% (actually 0.11% correctly rounded to 2 significant digits, but I thought it best to round up).

I should add that a portion of these cases are still active, so an unhospitalized confirmed case may eventually seek hospitalization and may eventually die, so for that reason, and also because the correct denominator for the population is unknown, these are not true hospitalization and mortality rates such as may be apparent at some future date, after the last case in this wave has been resolved and after random sampling produces an estimate of the actual number of cases.

[Dave]

Thanks. That makes more sense. I missed that the rates were set against confirmed cases by groups.


Using the extra data you provided (and I rounded down for the number of persons), and putting aside the unconfirmed cases for the moment, that means, for Massachusetts:


The hospitalization rate is 9.98% of all confirmed cases.
The death rate is 5.12% of all confirmed cases.



Do you concur?*



*my maths may be a little shonky.

[mhosea]

Do you concur?*


That's correct for the data shown. For completeness, to add up to the 42944 confirmed cases that they report at the top of the document, we need to factor in 323 additional confirmed cases that they apparently don't have age data for. Nevertheless, if we want the the overall figures, it would make sense to include them. Apparently none of these have died because the chart for deaths adds up to the reported total of 2182.

[Dave]

Okay, so the next part is reason why I wanted to make sure I understood your data.

Do you think that the number of confirmed cases -for the US, but this also applies to Mass. - and the resultant hospitalization/death rates, are sufficient to allow a generalisation to the wider population?*

In other words, has anyone done a power calculation for the population of the US, and is published anywhere?

Or to put it a third way, are the demographics of the number of confirmed cases representative of the US population as a whole?

*bearing in mind that this sort of thing is never completely accurate.

[ethernautrix]

Hey yo, we got a Dave in the house!

Is this a local FPG joke or something? Like in the TV show?

Are you familiar with the Kids In the Hall, in particular a little ditty that Bruce sings that goes "These are the Daves I know, I know, these are the Daves I know." ?

Well, dneal is not a Dave I know, I know. So, just poking a little fun at myself. And now the inside joke is outside for all to respond with a disinterested "huh" and moving right along to actual topics.




My other post was aimed at why people overlook the good in the bad. Removing half the population, for example, may be painful for those who lose friends/family/notable enemies, and it would impact on business/industry for a time. On the other hand, the world as a whole may well be an immeasurably better place to live for the half who remain. Personally I believe we're overpopulated by a factor of 5. We have no natural constraints, or at least hadn't thought so until now. SARS-Cov-2 and other as yet unknown pathogens could well be that constraint.

In another vein, there are many people who cannot function appropriately in a society without constraints and controls imposed on them. Large tranches of community ills can be laid at the feet of these people. Perhaps forgoing some imagined freedoms on all would be a way of reducing these problems to a level where the quality of life for all would be better on average.

Point is that today's world is no utopia, not even close. Maybe we are due a paradigm shifting change?

Quickly, cos I have to cook up some fried-egg-pepperoni-and-cheese sandwiches to wolf down before a mental-health-restorative bike ride....

I posted a video of Alan Watts telling the parable of the Chinese farmer in one of the other threads. In essence, the farmer did not indulge emotional spikes to events, whether good (a pleasurable event) or bad (a painful event), taking the long view -- how an ostensibly good event (a son is born!) can lead to a bad event (the son has an accident that leaves him with a permanent disability) can lead to a good event (because of the disability, the son is exempt from the military draft) and so on.

I'm thinking of this especially now, because I don't know what the landscape is going to look like once this pandemic ends. What if we end up with a Terminator/Matrix/Soylent Green/Minority Report reality?

Maybe human proliferation has thrown the ecosystem so far out of balance, the only thing Nature can do is unleash these pandemics as a self-defense mechanism every now and again, trying to restore a little balance. (This makes sense only to those who believe that humans are causing grievous injury to the planet. To those who don't, it's a crazy idea.)

I've been checking daily the C19 stats at worldometers.info. The site provides many odometers, such as births today, deaths today, current world population, deaths from water troubles (lack of clean water availability), metric tons of toxins released into the environment today, and much more that my cursory glance didn't note.

Anyway, as Mike says, we can't know the denominator until all those confirmed cases have an outcome, and so we can't know the death rate (which is presumably inflated at the moment). I tend to agree (and hope it isn't just hope) that the death rate from C19 will end up being a tiny fraction, such as we see with seasonal influenza.

[Johnny_S]

There are media reports that elderly residents of care homes and the like are not being sent to hospital on the basis that the hospital may have limited resources and that the elderly have a much reduced chance of a full recovery.

As I understand it the deaths of such persons take some time to appear in the official death figures as do deaths at home.

eta

I have been on some forums today for my other interests, every one of them has some extremely cranky people right now, never seen anything like it before.


Maybe we are not so bad after all

[dneal]

A few thoughts:

We see the rate of confirmed cases rise, and assume it is due to the virus spreading wildly. While contagion is surely part of the equation, as is the fact that more testing should identify more cases; I wonder how much of it is due to worry among the population? "Did I cough? Oh crap, I have a dry cough! Do I have coronavirus? I should go get tested!" The problem of the denominator remains. How many cases exhibited mild to moderate symptoms (or no symptoms), and have not been included in the metrics? Until we get a better handle on this number, we won't know how "deadly" the virus is and what policies are appropriate. I think we are learning that the virus is not nearly as dangerous to the general population as we first thought, and we may have overreacted.

No one wants to die, and survival is a natural instinct. There are many reasons that fear is heightened, but a primary one is our media. They all have an agenda, even if it's simply ratings/profit. Very few "news" pieces are free of opinion (where they used to be clearly labeled as such), and facts are selectively presented to skew public opinion one way or another. This isn't a right or left thing. They all do it. There's certainly some political motive present, and the extent depends on the outlet. Strangely, it's a vicious circle. The media whips the public up into a frenzy, politicians act because they want to stay in office and don't want anything to be used against them, and the media then does the very thing the politicians fear. The public reacts, politicians react, the media reacts. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Actions taken by politicians are now in the spotlight, most specifically the executive or authoritarian "orders" implemented or imposed. Are those going to lead to a dystopian future? A surveillance state? Restrictions on liberty? I don't think there's a blanket answer. Authoritarian regimes, nanny states, and simple "good idea fairies" always try to implement more "rules" which are restrictions on liberty. You can summarize it with the well intentioned idiots clamoring that "there ought to be a law!!!". This is part of the vicious circle, and people will use it as leverage to accomplish whatever their goals are.

The acceptance of this depends on the particular society, and it's impossible to generalize. There are "useful idiots" who think giving government more tools is a good thing. There are authoritarians who are happy to get them. There are people who begrudgingly cede a little of their liberty and conscientious bureaucrats who use their new power(s) benignly. I think the latter is the exception, and one look at the U.S. after 9/11 is instructive. Local police departments now use cell tower spoofers, or "Stingers" for whatever they want. Don't need a warrant if you don't ask for one and don't get caught using it; and then claim to courts that you're not allowed to answer whether or not your department even has one. The NSA sucks in pretty much every bit of internet and telephone traffic - to catch terrorists and certainly not to spy on John Q. Public... until that one authoritarian bureaucrat notes that it sure would be nice to know who that was talking about (pick the topic). Britain is the example that comes to my mind of widespread surveillance that's generally accepted. Many places in the U.S. rebel against even the idea of red light cameras.

Last thought is the "nature unleashes" or "defense mechanism" comment. I think it's a combination of Darwin's theory of natural selection and Hobbes' state of nature (state of war). Although there are examples of complimentary or symbiotic sub systems, the bottom line is that life on the planet is in constant struggle. One thing's survival is always at the expense of another. We're just conceited about our place in it all.

[ethernautrix]

Although there are examples of complimentary or symbiotic sub systems, the bottom line is that life on the planet is in constant struggle. One thing's survival is always at the expense of another. We're just conceited about our place in it all.

So much agreement.

[Dreck]

A few thoughts:

We see the rate of confirmed cases rise, and assume it is due to the virus spreading wildly. While contagion is surely part of the equation, as is the fact that more testing should identify more cases; I wonder how much of it is due to worry among the population? "Did I cough? Oh crap, I have a dry cough! Do I have coronavirus? I should go get tested!" The problem of the denominator remains. How many cases exhibited mild to moderate symptoms (or no symptoms), and have not been included in the metrics? Until we get a better handle on this number, we won't know how "deadly" the virus is and what policies are appropriate. I think we are learning that the virus is not nearly as dangerous to the general population as we first thought, and we may have overreacted.

Indiana typically loses about 154 people yearly to the flu and flu-related complications. Since March, we have over 700 confirmed COVID-19 deaths (Indiana State Department of Health (https://www.coronavirus.in.gov/2393.htm)). These are people who tested positive for COVID-19 and subsequently died. That is not to say that these patients didn't have some underlying comorbidity, but the virus was severe enough to exacerbate their medical condition to the point of death. Regardless of the number infected versus the number who die as a result of infection, I think it's safe to say this coronavirus is extremely dangerous.

I don't know about other states, but here the resources are stretched thin enough that you can't just go get tested if you cough and think, "Oh, crap! I should get tested." There are a rigorous course of criteria that must be satisfied before anyone gets tested for COVID-19.

[dneal]

I thought that seemed low, and the CDC shows about 1,100 deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/flu_pneumonia_mortality/flu_pneumonia.htm) from flu/pneumonia in Indiana. That was 2018, but previous years are similar.

[Dreck]

I thought that seemed low, and the CDC shows about 1,100 deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/flu_pneumonia_mortality/flu_pneumonia.htm) from flu/pneumonia in Indiana. That was 2018, but previous years are similar.

Oops! I misspoke. Or rather, mistyped. What I meant to type was 154 dead this month last year due to the flu, and so far several hundred more than that in one month to COVID-19. Out of 13,039 confirmed positive cases, 706 deaths comes out to about a 5% fatality rate.

[mhosea]

Do you think that the number of confirmed cases -for the US, but this also applies to Mass. - and the resultant hospitalization/death rates, are sufficient to allow a generalisation to the wider population?*


Well, New York's numbers are substantially worse insofar as they can be compared.

Testing rates make for a wildcard that is difficult to account for because the decision to test introduces bias. And then there's the impact of being in the middle of a wave rather than having completed it--lots of patients still hospitalized. Some will die, some will not. Case fatality rates may rise across the board from their current levels because of this. OTOH, more testing "on a whim" will tend to add mild and asymptomatic cases to the confirmed bin, which will push case fatality rates lower. Short answer: who knows?

[dneal]

Out of 13,039 confirmed positive cases, 706 deaths comes out to about a 5% fatality rate.

Yes, but that’s with a denominator that might not be accurate. If the low end of actual infections is 25 times your number, the denominator is 325,000 and a fatality rate of 0.2%.

[dneal]

53532

[dneal]

New York has begun preliminary antibody testing, and initial estimates are that 14% have already been infected. That brings the fatality rate to 0.5%

Reuters link (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-new-york/new-york-test-of-3000-people-finds-14-with-coronavirus-antibodies-idUSKCN2252WN)

Note that the New York Times is reporting Cuomo as saying the number is 21%.

[Johnny_S]

53532


....and that would apply to me also.

Perhaps to add a much smaller circle of concern on how is the world going to move back to what we knew in the past.

[ethernautrix]

53532


....and that would apply to me also.

Perhaps to add a much smaller circle of concern on how is the world going to move back to what we knew in the past.

#MyVennToo


Plus a circle for concern about post-pandemic society. Whatever it is, I'm sure we'll manage, but I hope it won't require heroic lengths of "management."

[ilikenails]

53532

People stupid enough not to realise that "Me" equals "Most people" in the above = You and some other nuts...

Where you differ from sane opinion is that your definition of "seriously" isn't that of anyone who has actually considered reality. The US has already hit 50,000 deaths with lockdown measures in place most states. It's probably going to hit a total of 250,000. Without a lockdown, things would have been much, much worse - not least because as deaths among medical personnel climbed, care would have broken down. At which point you'd be looking at something like the early stages of the epidemic in Wuhan, where the death rate was about 3 times higher than when proper care was provided through the expansion of medical facilities.

The other reason sane people have contempt for you is that you're fantasizing about an authoritarian state on the grounds that - teh horrors! - public health legislation is being enforced during a pandemic. Just as it has been before during US history -eg 1918. But the same nuts have been fine while President Bleach's lawyers claimed the constitution no longer applied to him-

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/trump-us-constitution-coronavirus-covid-19/index.html
This week, he said he had "total" authority over states to determine when businesses, schools and other entities reopen across the country and, separately, threatened to invoke never-before-used or tested authority to shut down Congress so he could push through his appointees without a Senate vote.

Obviously, you're ridiculous.

[Johnny_S]

53532

People stupid enough not to realise that "Me" equals "Most people" in the above = You and some other nuts...

Where you differ from sane opinion is that your definition of "seriously" isn't that of anyone who has actually considered reality. The US has already hit 50,000 deaths with lockdown measures in place most states. It's probably going to hit a total of 250,000. Without a lockdown, things would have been much, much worse - not least because as deaths among medical personnel climbed, care would have broken down. At which point you'd be looking at something like the early stages of the epidemic in Wuhan, where the death rate was about 3 times higher than when proper care was provided through the expansion of medical facilities.

The other reason sane people have contempt for you is that you're fantasizing about an authoritarian state on the grounds that - teh horrors! - public health legislation is being enforced during a pandemic. Just as it has been before during US history -eg 1918. But the same nuts have been fine while President Bleach's lawyers claimed the constitution no longer applied to him-

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/trump-us-constitution-coronavirus-covid-19/index.html
This week, he said he had "total" authority over states to determine when businesses, schools and other entities reopen across the country and, separately, threatened to invoke never-before-used or tested authority to shut down Congress so he could push through his appointees without a Senate vote.

Obviously, you're ridiculous.


There is something seriously wrong with you, you need help.

Just when this forum sees a return to people being civil and showing respect you come along with abuse and derogatory comments.

Either you are a malicious bastard with too much time on his hands or there is something wrong with your mind, whatever it is, we don't care.

Ignore him and without an audience this offensive man will just fade away.

[dneal]

53553

[mhosea]

without an audience this offensive man will just fade away.

Unfortunately, while some trolls only get off if you join in, I fear his type only needs to believe he is being seen to be self-gratified. When he speaks to us, he really believes that he has humiliated us with an attack that we can have no reasonable response to and that, by itself, our humiliation is a service to the greater good. Even when ignored, this type will be back at intervals to grace us with superior insight and pre-teen reading comprehension. I don't think it is in our power to prevent that by any means, but tolerating it without response will result in the most welcoming environment possible under the circumstances.

[dneal]

without an audience this offensive man will just fade away.

Unfortunately, while some trolls only get off if you join in, I fear his type only needs to believe he is being seen to be self-gratified. When he speaks to us, he really believes that he has humiliated us with an attack that we can have no reasonable response to and that, by itself, our humiliation is a service to the greater good. Even when ignored, this type will be back at intervals to grace us with superior insight and pre-teen reading comprehension. I don't think it is in our power to prevent that by any means, but tolerating it without response will result in the most welcoming environment possible under the circumstances.

I genuinely get a kick out of the absurdity. I don't have a problem letting them know that.

I envisage the smug liberal chick meme. So "stunning and brave", but one small trigger away from a meltdown - which is why we usually see multiple consecutive posts. Raging on the internet is a way to feel empowered, I suppose.


53556

[mhosea]

I genuinely get a kick out of the absurdity. I don't have a problem letting them know that.


Just for the record, I don't have a problem with anybody doing that. If I'm not actually entertained, I am at least ambivalent to the back-and-forth. I kind of see it in the same light as when my wife stays on the phone with a scammer to give them false hope. I don't see it as bickering or fighting, rather as manipulating the manipulator, turnabout being fair play. I just sense that it makes some people uncomfortable.

[dneal]

Back on topic, there are two more antibody tests finding that roughly 25% (France) and 30% (Massachusetts) of the tested population has antibodies (i.e.: has been infected). Of course these are initial, small sample studies and they also require peer review; but there seems to be a trend...


French study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20071134v1)

MA study (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/nearly-a-third-of-coronavirus-antibody-test-participants-show-exposure-in-massachusetts)

[ilikenails]

Back on topic, there are two more antibody tests finding that roughly 25% (France) and 30% (Massachusetts) of the tested population has antibodies (i.e.: has been infected). Of course these are initial, small sample studies and they also require peer review; but there seems to be a trend...


French study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20071134v1)

MA study (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/nearly-a-third-of-coronavirus-antibody-test-participants-show-exposure-in-massachusetts)

Apparently you can't read. No, the French study does NOT claim that there is evidence that 30% of the French population have had C19. As you link says, the study was conducted entirely in one small region (Oise) where C19 hit "heavily." You can't deduce a national infection rate for the USA from NY or for China from Wuhan. It's as stupid as deducing a national rate for hypothermia deaths from Alaska or drowning deaths from Hawaii...

Even more pathetically, you failed to understand what this means:

we conducted a retrospective closed cohort study among pupils, their parents and siblings, as well as teachers and non-teaching staff of a high-school located in Oise


...This isn't even an attempt at obtaining representative data for Oise! It isn't a random sample of the local population - it's the freaking OPPOSITE of that! It's an examination of what happens when a large % of group is infected. Saying "this is a small sample" misses the point - you're apparently too ignorant to understand what it's a sample of. It's like deducing the number of Americans who are convicted criminals by sampling people held by the police... This isn't the researchers' fault: they're not making the idiotic claim that they've deduced an infection rate for the whole of France - they were doing something else and dneal isn't smart enough to understand what that is and is arrogant enough to make claims based on a level of comprehension that he doesn't possess.

(Again: you're the guy who claimed to be a "scientist", yes? As in Christian Scientist perhaps?)

[ilikenails]

...Honestly, it's no wonder people like this elect presidents who suggest injecting bleach as a medical treatment...

[dneal]

Sad little troll, mhosea is right. Your reading comprehension is pitiful. The post clearly says that the French found 25%, not 30%. Massachussets was 30%. How is anyone supposed to respond when you can't grasp the simplest bits of information? I already told you in a response to another of your silly posts that I'm not a scientist, and never claimed to be. You're clearly confused about many things.

Here's what's really pitiful though: your "arguments". Normally I enjoy playing with you kool-aid drinkers, but you've proven yourself an exception. At least you're novel in one aspect! Aside from the fact that you can't follow along (maybe because you're so busy trying to formulate those lame attempts at insult) your posts are so full of strawmen and tortured logic that it's not even worthwhile to rebut them.

So run along, the grown-ups are having a conversation.

Clearly you're still

53575

[dneal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTYYk3HxOc&fbclid=IwAR0J1DWftYqC0VVOXaT3n-WAUFfW58i-0jZgLTmnc6umcvbCdFqzrynYwuQ

Some notes (not a pure transcript):

Does this make sense? Are we following the science?

Our volumes have dropped significantly. We're shutting down floors and furloughing doctors.

People with heart disease, cancer, hypertension, and other critical issues are choosing not to "come in" based on fear. There are lots of secondary effects of COVID that aren't being talked about.

Typically you quarantine the sick. We've never seen where we've quarantined the healthy. This doesn't mesh with what we've known.

6.5% of the population indicates that there's a wide spread of viral infection, similar to the flu. We think it's ubiquitous in California. We'll go over some of the numbers, it's prevalence, and how we should be dealing with it.

The initial models were woefully inaccurate. They predicted millions of deaths. That is not materializing.

What is materializing in California is 12% positives. Simple math indicates there are about 4.7 million cases throughout California. It's widespread.

We've seen 1,227 deaths. With a possible prevalence of 4.7M, you have a 0.03% chance of dying of COVID in California. Does that necessitate sheltering in place? Does that necessitate shutting down medical systems. Does that necessitate people being out of work?

96% of people who contract COVID recover. [I think this needs clarification. 96% of people who seek treatment? 96% of people who are hospitalized?]

The more you test, the more positives you get; which means the prevalence goes up but the number of deaths stays the same.

39% of over 640k people tested in New York, tested positive. They've had 19,410 out of 19M residents, which is a 0.1% chance of dying of COVID.

So is this significantly different than Influenza, and if not why has our response been what it is?

802,590 cases, and we've tested over 4M. That's a 19% positive rate for COVID, which extrapolated to the entire population is about 64M. That's a similar infection rate as the flu. The deaths are also corresponding to the flu. Every year we have between 37k-60k deaths from the flu. No pandemic talk, no shutting down business, no sheltering in place.

We have a vaccine for the flu, and many people don't even get it.

Span has 22% positive rate for COVID, a 47M population, which is about 10M cases. 21k deaths is a 0.05% chance of dying from COVID and a 90% chance of recovering without being on a vent and without being in a hospital [again, he needs to clarify the criteria for recovery because this one is different]

That's the first 15 minutes or so. He's goes on to talk about other effects of isolation like child molestation, domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, anxiety, depression, etc...; what we should be doing, what we should expect, and so forth.

There are some "gotcha" questions from journalists, "are you saying Dr. Fauci and other world experts are wrong..." and so forth; and clear responses.

Worth a watch.

[Dreck]

dneal, its clear that ilikenails is a bored teenager who doesn't know how to behave with unrestricted internet access and is using the current lockdown to cause trouble on the internet because school closures mean that he can't bully middle schoolers and the neighbors are onto him torturing animals. Chances are he'll get a virus on his mum & dad's computer from surfing porn sites and soon be gone from here. If you stop feeding the troll and put him on your ignore list, we can just carry on with a rational, reasonable discussion without interruptions.

[Dreck]

So is this significantly different than Influenza, and if not why has our response been what it is?

This one, at least, I think I can answer based on what I've heard from our state director of health: It's novel coronavirus. There's been nothing like it. The information coming out of China was (and is) not at all reliable *cough* *cough* much like the overpriced PPE they're selling *cough* *cough* and fear filled in the gaps where we would prefer to have knowledge.

[grainweevil]

The WHO, as of 24th April, sez:


There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Link. (https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19)

To me, this seems rather an important thing.

[dneal]

dneal, its clear that ilikenails is a bored teenager who doesn't know how to behave with unrestricted internet access and is using the current lockdown to cause trouble on the internet because school closures mean that he can't bully middle schoolers and the neighbors are onto him torturing animals. Chances are he'll get a virus on his mum & dad's computer from surfing porn sites and soon be gone from here. If you stop feeding the troll and put him on your ignore list, we can just carry on with a rational, reasonable discussion without interruptions.

I see it differently. I see an attention whore who will continue to interrupt depending on how emotionally volatile they are at a given period of time; so I'll just do what I always do: comment or ignore at my leisure. I don't need buttons to ignore things that don't bother me in the first place. ilikenails is amusing to me, not bothersome. Sometimes I like to pull the string and see the monkey dance... It's a character flaw I readily admit.

Often these kind of comments tend to cause as much disruption, because they create yet another "sidebar" topic.

[dneal]

So is this significantly different than Influenza, and if not why has our response been what it is?

This one, at least, I think I can answer based on what I've heard from our state director of health: It's novel coronavirus. There's been nothing like it. The information coming out of China was (and is) not at all reliable *cough* *cough* much like the overpriced PPE they're selling *cough* *cough* and fear filled in the gaps where we would prefer to have knowledge.

He was posing a rhetorical question, to later argue that it's really no different (in terms of prevalence and mortality) than the flu.

[dneal]

The WHO, as of 24th April, sez:


There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Link. (https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19)

To me, this seems rather an important thing.

Yes, but the same is true for influenza, rotaviruses and noroviruses.

[mhosea]

The WHO, as of 24th April, sez:


There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Link. (https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19)

To me, this seems rather an important thing.

It is rather important in the context of trying to contain the virus if you still believe that is possible. There's hardly much evidence that isolation is working, either. You might think the way the model predictions have changed is evidence, but no. Models are useful for understanding and making predictions. They do not confer evidence. That's not what mathematical models do.

Despite our best efforts, we're getting some indications that the virus has penetrated a much larger percentage of the population than the current mathematical models assume. If the models are tracking deaths and hospitalizations now, and I can tell you that in Massachusetts it is doing reasonably well, it can only be because they are tuned with incorrectly pessimistic parameters, i.e. predicting much worse outcomes than would be realistic from a much more limited range of infection.

If we do widespread randomized antibody testing and find that a significantly larger percentage of the population has been infected than the models assume, we would be forced to conclude that the models have no predictive value for what would happen if isolation were lifted. The conservative way out of this is to wait for widespread antibody testing and, with that data in hand, re-tune the models to correctly describe what has actually happened with the correct penetration data. Then perhaps the models will have some predictive value. While that might make some people happy, others might complain that it was a mistake to let mathematical models dictate extraordinary policy measures in the first place, and maybe we ought to stop doing that here.

[Dreck]

Nevermind...

[dneal]

Nobody has yet cited the Santa Clara or Los Angeles studies. Please don't. I've just scanned their "white papers." I've led and conducted research studies before, and these 2 are (sadly) worthless. Not only are they fundamentally unsound, the statistical extrapolations are extremely suspect. Researchers like the ones who conducted these sloppy studies give the rest of us a bad name

Which studies? The one done by USC and L.A. County?

--edit--

I assume you are talking about the same study. Jay Bhattacharya (who is an M.D. and has a Ph.D. in Economics) was part of the study, and talks about it in this interview. I have seen a lot of statisticians pontificating on their blogs on how the study is flawed, although they're just speculating since they don't have the data and arguing about numbers is just what statisticians do.

There seem to be some demands for certainty that I think are unreasonable given the amount of time that has been spent on this. Most of these studies are small (which is it's own target for the statisticians), but there seems to be a similar trend in the results.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=220&v=k7v2F3usNVA&feature=emb_logo

[Dave]

Read the report - HERE (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable) - and the pre-print abstract - HERE (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1).

At this time I would be hesitant to criticize as there is insufficient information to do so.


Edited because the video above was posted before I could hit send, and it explains well the reasons why I believe there is not enough information in the reports/abstract for anyone to criticise at this stage.

[mhosea]

I doubt small-scale studies will resolve the question to everyone's reasonable satisfaction. I wonder what the CDC's timeline is ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/serology-testing.html ) .

[ethernautrix]

Whoa. Scanning the posts since my last peek and wanting to quickly post this video (which I see not-Dave has already posted it, or something from the same press conference):


https://m.facebook.com/bayanwang23abc/.

Except mine is from a public Facebook post, cos I didn't easily see another share option.

What with the news of face-recognition software's being legislated in Washington state and the push to force free citizens to download a health-assessment app so that everyone will be monitored... I can't believe that people will accept this. I question my imagination (cos of the messes I've gotten myself into for lack of foresight and pathological compassion), but... this trend appears obvious to me.

Controlling the herd.

...


Why do people to an alarming degree not realize that, for the most part, no matter how free-thinking and tolerant we believe ourselves to be, we are the herd. We are the ones that restrictions are imposed upon. (See: Polish leaders laying a wreath on a memorial recently, after strick lockdown measures were instituted on the herd, practicing none of the measures the hoi polloi would be subjected to fines up to 30,000 zł for breaking: more than five persons, no distancing, no masks, no special precautions taken.)

Is taking precautions necessary or not (public officials)?




COVID-19 doesn't scare me so much as the measures being taken to turn the U.S. into a Chinese-type surveillance state....


Meanwhile, as Randy Newman sings, you gotta roll with the punches....

[dneal]

I doubt small-scale studies will resolve the question to everyone's reasonable satisfaction. I wonder what the CDC's timeline is ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/serology-testing.html ) .

Good question.

I suspect it’s an issue of test availability initially, and as production increases testing will also increase. There’s the point made in the video on whether or not the Federal government is funding studies (and if so, how much). I would also suspect that the CDC will collect and correlate data, like they do for other diseases (i.e.: data and/or actual samples will be sent to the CDC).

[dneal]

COVID-19 doesn't scare me so much as the measures being taken to turn the U.S. into a Chinese-type surveillance state....

I think it’s a big leap to get to a Chinese type surveillance apparatus, and it’s a matter of time before facial recognition being employed by a/the government faces legal challenges from civil libertarians on 4th amendment grounds. The appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in particular have pushed the court to a Scalia-esque constitutionalist/originalist view.

I also think the intelligence community and NSA in particular, in the wake of 9/11, have already done more to create a “surveillance state” than this outbreak will - we’re just not that aware of it or don’t really care. Facebook, Google, etc... already know more about “you” than the government could ever hope to.

[dneal]

From Scott Atlas M.D., published in The Hill (https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation)

Here are some snippets from the piece.

The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation.

The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

[mhosea]

I have often pondered the constitutionality of shut down and stay-at-home orders in light of the unprecedented damage they have done to citizens. What we have seen in Massachusetts with gun control is that the state can do what it wants if it carefully navigates the backlash, resolving individual cases that could result in a slap down by the SCOTUS and generally hiding behind the difficulty getting a challenge to the Supreme Court in any case.

I’m not too worried about the US turning into a surveillance state. What worries me is destruction of small businesses essentially by decree. The justification for it is “saving lives” but unlike many tribulations, we can’t soothe our consciences by claiming that it has been a sacrifice made for the benefit of future generations. If the shutdowns only last as long as necessary to avoid overwhelming the system and to learn how to sustainably avoid overwhelming it in the future, then that is one thing. Extending them indefinitely so that we can supposedly get to containment is the biggest gamble ever.

[dneal]

Perspective. Gratuitously stolen from somewhere else on the interwebz...

“ For a small amount of perspective at this moment, imagine you were born in 1900. When you are 14, World War I starts, and ends on your 18th birthday with 22 million people killed. Later in the year, a Spanish Flu epidemic hits the planet and runs until you are 20. Fifty million people die from it in those two years. Yes, 50 million. When you're 29, the Great Depression begins. Unemployment hits 25%, global GDP drops 27%. That runs until you are 33. The country nearly collapses along with the world economy. When you turn 39, World War II starts. You aren’t even over the hill yet. When you're 41, the United States is fully pulled into WWII. Between your 39th and 45th birthday, 75 million people perish in the war and the Holocaust kills six million. At 52, the Korean War starts and five million perish. At 64 the Vietnam War begins, and it doesn’t end for many years. Four million people die in that conflict. Approaching your 62nd birthday you have the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tipping point in the Cold War. Life on our planet, as we know it, could well have ended. Great leaders prevented that from happening. As you turn 75, the Vietnam War finally ends. Think of everyone on the planet born in 1900. How do you survive all of that? A kid in 1985 didn’t think their 85 year old grandparent understood how hard school was. Yet those grandparents (and now great grandparents) survived through everything listed above.

Perspective is an amazing art. Let’s try and keep things in perspective. Let’s be smart, help each other out, and we will get through all of this. In the history of the world, there has never been a storm that lasted. This too, shall pass.”

[dneal]

UNICEF SAYS THE GLOBAL RISK POISED BY SHUTDOWNS “FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY THREAT PRESENTED BY THE CORONAVIRUS”
by Kevin Ryan

Dr. Stefan Peterson, chief of health at UNICEF, the U.N. agency responsible for providing humanitarian aid to children, said the consequences of “stay-at-home” restrictions could kill more than a million children worldwide and be more dangerous than the virus itself. He points to:

• Resources being diverted away from other serious health problems to focus on the coronavirus.

• Shutdowns taking a heavy economic toll, leading to an increase in poverty and malnutrition.

• Food supply chains being disrupted.

• Vaccination campaigns against diseases like the measles being disrupted - at least 117 million children worldwide are likely to miss routine immunizations this year.

• People avoiding hospitals out of fear.

“We need to lift our eyes and look at the total picture of public health,” Dr. Peterson said. The risk to children in developing countries is spiraling due to shutdown-related factors and “far outweighs any threat presented by the coronavirus”.

According to a dire report published by researchers from Johns Hopkins University on Wednesday, up to 1.2 million children could die in the next six months due to the disruption to health services and food supplies caused by coronavirus restrictions. It found that child mortality rates could rise by as much as 45% due to coronavirus-related disruptions, while maternal deaths could increase by almost 39%.

The research looks at the consequences of disruption in 118 middle and low income countries:

Best-case scenario: Access to health services drops by 15% and child malnourishment rises by 10%, leading to the deaths of 253,500 children and 12,200 mothers.

Worst-case scenario: Access to health services drops by 45% and child malnourishment rises by 50%, resulting in 1.16 million additional child fatalities and 57,000 maternal deaths in just six months.

“That’s not from COVID - COVID is not a children's disease. Yes there are rare instances and we see them publicized across the media. But pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, death in childbirth, these are the reasons we will see deaths rise,” he said. In low and middle income areas “These threats far outweighs any threat presented by the coronavirus.”

Dr. Peterson urged governments not to impose draconian lockdowns, but to focus on identifying hotspots so that regional restrictions less damaging for public health can be introduced.

“We cannot allow almost a decade of progress on ending preventable child deaths to become undone on our watch.”

SOURCES: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/unicef-warns-lockdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576549
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/covid-19-could-reverse-decade-developing-world-progress-uk-government/

[mhosea]

I don't want to put too much emphasis on it, because I frankly don't think there has been enough random antibody testing with reliable tests to know, but recently in Massachusetts they conducted some antibody testing and concluded that about 10% of those tested were positive for antibodies. Now, in Boston, they took that to mean that they should be afraid to open up, insofar as the vast majority of the people, they think, have not yet been exposed. Another way of looking at it is that, supposing 10% of the people in Massachusetts have already had it, that means that the actual case count is more than 80 times the confirmed case count. The current confirmed case hospitalization and case fatality ratios in Massachusetts are

Ages 0-19 Hospitalized at any point = 1.66% Died = 0.00%
Ages 20-29 Hospitalized at any point = 1.78% Died = 0.07%
Ages 30-39 Hospitalized at any point = 3.10% Died = 0.13%
Ages 40-49 Hospitalized at any point = 5.02% Died = 0.42%
Ages 50-59 Hospitalized at any point = 8.45% Died = 1.46%
Ages 60-69 Hospitalized at any point = 14.01% Died = 4.97%
Ages 70-79 Hospitalized at any point = 22.91% Died = 16.13%
Ages 80+ Hospitalized at any point = 20.64% Died = 27.88%

Hospitalizations are falling, so I think these are asymptotically near to their correct magnitudes. If you like, fudge them a bit higher. The hospitalization rates might be overstated, anyway, as I have divided by the confirmed case count in each age bracket, and I think the hospitalization counts include suspected cases, whereas the confirmed case counts do not. Anyway, if the denominators in these percentage calculations are supposed to be 80x larger, then we can easily see that the overall hospitalization and fatality rates are brought into a range where we most likely would never have conceived of a comprehensive lock down.

[TSherbs]

How many hospitals could handle a 1000% increase in hospitalizations? (Assuming 10% was increased to 100%)? The overall mortality rate is not the only concern. Secondly, there are deaths and medical consequences that are the result of hospital beds being needed for quarantined patients. A wider spread of the disease would further complicate this. This all is much more complicated than these fractional reductions because this virus is more lethal to the compromised than the flu. And, further note, we still don't know if prior exposure protects one through immunity.

I live you in a small town, and many of the businesses are open. Not all but many. Every restaurant is open for curbside pickup. Every grocery store. The doctor's offices. The pharmacy. The schools (remotely). The banks. The naval yard. The gas stations. The garden center. The local butcher is selling curbside from his farm. Maybe it's the advantage of living in a small town (<9000): lots of places can be run by the owners and a couple of staff. But yeah, the bigger places are in much more trouble, and all the mass entertainment venues are shut, and many places have reduced their staff. But it is not a "shutdown" and never was. It seems, in retrospect, exactly the right thing to have done in the circumstances when public safety is threatened by an unknown contagion, particularly when we got a late start in policymaking and decision-making. In a year from now, we may develop a different strategic plan, but if the next pandemic as another novel virus form, I would expect a similar set of concerns and safeguards. I think that there should be a new cabinet-level department for bio-environmental threats. We need to learn something about preparedness from this.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[mhosea]

The key word was “comprehensive”, and it’s a very important word. You have basically responded with a false dichotomy. I must choose between doing nothing and doing exactly what we have done. This is ridiculous. Furthermore, there is always this implicit suggestion that people who are vulnerable would change nothing, and hence be exposed, nor would anyone who can stay home and do their work just as well. I’m not suggesting to have done NOTHING. I’m suggesting that, if it turns out that 10% of the population has been infected and we had known what we know now, we would have chosen a more targeted response.

[TSherbs]

I didn't mean that choice at all. I didn't ask you to choose anything. And I know what you were suggesting.

I asked a question to introduce an issue that you weren't addressing: hospital capacity and collateral "damage" to health care and emergency services. We closed things down in part to not overwhelm hospitals. The fatality rate is not the only consideration. I am not sure what you are calling "ridiculous," but it seemed like an unwarranted reply.

I'll spare everyone my inside hospital stories (I have 2) about hospital services that were denied to family members because of COVID overloads. Besides, argument is not strong from anecdote (nor from thin statistics). My only point was to say that the issue is far more complicated than any of us is able to understand or convey in this thread, and, personally, I disagree with you (Mike) that if we were to again confront a novel (hitherto not encountered) corona virus, our current understanding does not indicate to me that in the first two months (where we are now) we should do anything different from what we have (given the same lack of preparation and planning). We were f**d. And we are a democracy, where every citizen counts equally (in theory). To suggest a policy that likely would increase the number of hospitalizations and deaths of the more elderly or immune compromised for the financial gain of others is, usually, anathema and political suicide. (Our current president is trying to suggest it and not suggest it at the same time). If you are saying that we know enough--at this point--to show that a different approach would not overwhelm hospitals or increase deaths, then I also disagree with this. I don't think that we know this in any certain way at all. I suggest that we don't know jack squat yet. It's only been two months of restrictions. And as of today, the news is that Germany is beginning to tighten restrictions again because of an uptick in cases since loosening up a bit. We are still neophytes in this situation, I would suggest.

So, again, I simply disagree with conclusion that given the same conditions, what we know now would change our approach. And again, I will restate, what this needs is a Cabinet level priority and task force permanently in place to study and plan and prepare for future "novel" viruses and other biological or natural threats.

[dneal]

We have a department (and cabinet level secretary) of health and human services, and a center for disease control. Isn't that already a cabinet level position and task force permanently in place?

If they haven't been studying, planning and preparing for future and novel viruses, I doubt building a bigger bureaucracy will help.

[mhosea]

I didn't mean that choice at all. I didn't ask you to choose anything. And I know what you were suggesting.

I asked a question to introduce an issue that you weren't addressing: hospital capacity and collateral "damage" to health care and emergency services. We closed things down in part to not overwhelm hospitals. The fatality rate is not the only consideration. I am not sure what you are calling "ridiculous," but it seemed like an unwarranted reply.

These are things that I have addressed at other times, in other posts, and I quite agree that hospital capacity is and should be the driving issue where public policy is concerned. If you will observe, my post contained case hospitalization ratios which clearly indicate that, at face value, the hospitalization rate of COVID-19 is high, even in the lower age brackets. I have never intended to second guess the initial response, as a 15 day "lock down" seemed quite prudent to me at the time. But in case you hadn't noticed, officials are no longer speaking of hospital capacity as the driving factor in their decisions. Even with all the measures taken, the cases in Massachusetts keep coming. The same people who were tested for antibodies in Massachusetts were also given antigen tests, which yielded a 2.6% positive rate, this after nearly two months of what we are currently doing. Tests in general are biased towards positives because they are not delivered randomly, but the rate of positives has been relatively flat for two weeks, generally wandering in the 10-14% range, occasionally with a spike to a higher percentage. It seems reasonable to ask what is the true magnitude of the effect our extreme efforts are actually having. Naturally, if effective therapeutics are weeks away, and a vaccine merely months, the optimal strategy might involve some extreme measures, but it's rather looking like the keel of our leaking boat could be resting on the epidemiological bottom before a vaccine arrives.

It was your 1000% remark that implied a false dichotomy. I think you overreacted to the "this is ridiculous" remark because I think we agree that doing nothing would be ridiculous, even setting aside that it could not achieve a full 10-fold effect on hospitalizations. There are entire industries that transitioned relatively quickly and easily to WFH with little or no loss of productivity or revenue. I work in one of them. This is a switch we can throw almost at will. My place of work did it prior to being required to by the governor. Clearly those who are vulnerable should isolate if possible. Anybody who can self-isolate and is willing to do so for their own benefit and as a public service should do so. Social distancing needs to be baked into some industries like meat packing, which apparently puts workers far too close together. But of what benefit was closing retailers deemed "nonessential" for more than a few weeks? Of what benefit was it that people could not visit a Bass Pro Shop for fishing tackle, for example? Much has been made about social distancing outdoors, but my understanding is that the fraction of transmissions that have been traced back to outdoor exposure is negligible. Might we have overreacted where parks and beaches are concerned? Of necessity we have explored the alternatives to shutting retailers down in our essential businesses. I posit that it never should have been a question of being "essential". I can understand that restaurants, theaters, and classrooms would be impacted. Meetings and conventions would get canceled. The bottom would fall out of the travel industry. I do not think the government could even have prevented that. But retail shopping? Why would we go as far as we did for as long as we did knowing what we know now?

Be all that as it may, in Massachusetts the curve flattened far more than anticipated based on mathematical modeling, and we never came close to running out of hospital capacity. While some would be content to pat themselves on the back for a job well done, to use this as justification for all the actions we took ignores the possibility that the curves were a lot flatter than we thought to begin with. I cannot speak to your locale, which apparently had some issue with hospital capacity, but here we could easily have accommodated a moderate increase if healthy younger people had gone about their lives in a more normal fashion. Again, extrapolating from the hypothetical 10% penetration rate, if hospitalizations for those who are under 50 were to have increased 6-fold or so, Massachusetts would not have run out of suitable COVID-19 beds if the more vulnerable people, principally the elderly, were isolated from these more mobile people.

You mentioned that


And, further note, we still don't know if prior exposure protects one through immunity.

Well "exposure" per se would not. That would be extraordinary, but it would also be extraordinary if contracting the infection and clearing it did not. I refer you to an interview with Dr. Fauci which can be found here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfcJecd6jtE).



Dr. Varshavski: There's been some talk about the possibility of reinfection with COVID-19. Now do you think that this is a more an issue with testing, that the test remains positive, or are they truly being infected for a second time with the virus?

Dr. Fauci: You know, I don't know the answer to that 100%, but I would be willing to bet on my experience, and I'll bet your experience, that any virus that you have, if you do well, recover, and clear the virus, if it acts like any other virus, you're going to have lasting immunity. You're not going to get reinfected, you're just not.

Dr. Varshavski: The way that I've thought about it is, there's certain illnesses where you get lifelong immunity, chicken pox, measles with your two vaccinations, so maybe this won't be lifelong immunity, but to say there's none, where you can get reinfected in two weeks, something seems off.

Dr. Fauci: No, that's inconceivable to me that that's the case. I mean, you're going to have some degree of durable immunity. You're right, it may not be 50 years, but it's certainly going to be a matter of a few years.


Note that there's some wiggle room there about "clearing" the virus, but I think the tone of the conversation there is probably a good indication of how much weight we should be giving to the concern.

[TSherbs]

So, if our isolation methods have worked, why second guess them now with such limited data?

Here is just one large unknown: how many people of the elderly (lets say 70+ years old) and everyone else in chemotherapy or otherwise compromised immune or respiratory systems still live in homes outside of professional residences for aging in place? What percent of that age group? I have no idea, but I would wager that it is the majority of the less-fortunate (less wealthy) of that cohort. How many of them live in homes with younger generations, who, with a more relaxed policy, would be more likely to bring the virus into their home? I don't know how many of these people there are living in multigenerational homes in America, but my guess is many many. It is my opinion that a relaxing of our approach after just 15 days (your suggestion) or even after just one month would put those people in direct and predictable jeopardy. I think the Mass numbers are showing that something like 20% of the positive cases of those 80+ years of age have died. In my father's facility, the fatality rate has been 50% of positive test cases. Is that every actual positive case? Probably not (although they have tested everyone twice over 8 weeks). But still, with these kind of high mortality rates, who is willing--BY POLICY--to sacrifice a higher number of these persons for the expediency of some aspects of commerce and industry? If the virus spreads into more homes holding these elderly persons or compromised persons, it will kill more of them. There is no doubt about this. And the impact will be felt disproportionately by the poor and underclasses who do not have access to high quality residential care and protection. I'll make this clear: I am opposed to all aspects of this that would have the predictable effect of killing more elderly or vulnerable (of any class). I have a bias: death is the worst outcome of any civic policy. If we can't find a way to do something different that will NOT result in more death, then we should change nothing at all from this extreme approach. And right now, no data is comprehensive enough to suggest a loosening up would protect those vulnerable in family dwellings in communities where people might go back to work or children to school, etc. If you wish to sacrifice more human lives for commerce, than just say so straight up. At least our disagreement will be clear.

[mhosea]

So, if our isolation methods have worked, why second guess them now with such limited data?

I'm not convinced that they are working so very well that we cannot afford to look at our circumstances holistically. I think we're sprinting. I sense that you would have me believe that we can sprint all day and into the night because there's some place we need to be and we're making good time. Looking forward, resource availability for all of the government's activities, including welfare programs, and overall system stability are my principal concerns.


If you wish to sacrifice more human lives for commerce, than just say so straight up. At least our disagreement will be clear.

I consider it, rather, an obscenity. I am disheartened that you would request clarification on such a thing.

[TSherbs]

It's only been 8 weeks, Mike. That's a sprint against the virus.

I never suggested that we should do this for two years (or whatever).

My point repeatedly has been that I don't think we know anything AT THIS POINT that makes me think that we should have responded over the first 8 weeks any differently.

And I asked the humans versus money question not to insult you but simply to keep the human cost clear.

Of course things are not at this point holistically balanced. It's a crisis.

Did you understand my point about households and elderly vulnerability? I was trying to be specific about how difficult these decisions are for governors and city leaders when changes can mean, say, thousands of more deaths. What civic leader would want, after 8 weeks, that on his/her head? I was declaring that I would not to make my position clear.

Ask me 6 months from now, when more data is clearer, and I may have a different sense of risk/benefit. We are all also worried about national stability and economic stability. I am worried about depression, suicide, other health problems being neglected, undetected, or untreated. The problem is complex, but we don't even know (confirmed) about immunity yet (I know that it is expected). It's just too early to say that we should have initially responded differently. It's only been 8 weeks, and we had our priorities right.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

I spent a career literally calculating the cost of human life. How many lives would be lost, how many would be wounded, severity of wound, and how to mitigate it. How many would die due to not being able to evacuate them quickly enough, and how many would die because of not enough medical capacity. How many body bags would be needed and how to store the corpses. What to do with the corpses that exceeded capacity or were contaminated with persistent nerve agent. There's more, but that's enough; so I'll be the bad guy and say what needs to be said. If the argument is a variation of "if it saves one life", it's not realistic. The hard truth is that lives are lost from all sorts of causes. This virus is merely one new cause.

The vulnerable were already vulnerable to many other potential causes of death. People with compromised immune systems are not solely vulnerable to coronavirus. We didn't shut down the economy for them pre-coronavirus. They took measures to mitigate their risk. They still bear that responsibility primarily. There are many common sense measures that others can employ that will help with that, particularly in the context of this virus.

The emotional argument is an accusation of selfishness. People are selfish for valuing the money above the aged or otherwise vulnerable. It's also an argument of false choice. Here's the opposite, just as emotional and invalid, also presenting a false choice: people are selfish for sacrificing the future of the young out of their own fear.

There are incredibly serious consequences to the economic damage we're inflicting on ourselves, and those consequences include diminished quality of life and loss of life. That cannot be dismissed out of hand if there is to be a rational discussion about how to deal with this issue, and the issue should be how to most effectively and efficiently mitigate risk. That's not just risk to the elderly or vulnerable. It's also risk to the economy.

[TSherbs]

That's not just risk to the elderly or vulnerable. It's also risk to the economy.

Of course, but I put life before economy. We are not ethically or Constitutionally guaranteed work. We are not promised nor guaranteed easy or comfortable living. We are not guaranteed success. We desire these things, but we have no rational or ethical or religious claim to them. If we did, the poor of the world would rise up in rebellion and claim what was rightfully theirs.

We do have several valid claims to life,and we are under no expectation legally, religiously, or ethically to give this claim up for the comfort or ease of others. That one group by the nature of their health has been vulnerable in the past is no ethical requirement that they bear the majority of the burden for the next bio threat. Even in war it is considered a moral wrong to prey upon the most vulnerable of a society (it can be tried as a war crime and punished with execution). This is not an "emotional" argument. It is from commonly shared ethics of humanity. I have to delay my retirement plans now because of what has happened to the economy and the market. I feel this; it is real (yes, others are suffering more, for sure). I may not have a job next year (I only have a job through June 30, presently). It effects me and my family. But I can't imagine ever claiming that, say, 10,000 more Americans need die for my retirement, whenever it comes, to be more comfortable or secure. I was never guaranteed this, nor did I ever presume it (I do want it, real bad).

This, too, is not an "emotional" claim: I consider it true that a country that does not protect its elders has lost its soul. In times of crisis, sometimes we have to work hard not to lose our souls.

That you did these calculations for matters of war or battle is not surprising (it is expected of the military). And as I said, I want more time than 8 weeks to do the real numbers analysis for this war on COVID. But military war is an act of volition with, mostly, a group of volunteers engaged in their own acts of volition. The equivalent would be to have a volunteer army of the elderly and otherwise health-compromised lead the calculus and decision-making of this war on COVID.

[TSherbs]

And Mike, don't get me wrong. I respect your contributions and presence on this site. We can disagree, I hope, and show some others that a quality debate on some fundamental principles can occur without devolving into personal animosities. I have none toward you. I am only engaging in the topichere. It's actually a debate over principles that we should all be asked to think hard and deep about. We in America tend too often to be shallow consumers of shallow news and satisfy ourselves with shallow thinking, knee-jerk reactions, and bingeing Netflix (I sure do, sometimes). And in some of these threads personal pique has ended up poisoning the exchanges. This one, I hope, can be salvaged.

[dneal]

We are not Constitutionally guaranteed life. In fact, the word only appears four times. Once, in regard to treason, and three other times in regards that you can't be deprived of life without due process. But that, like not being Constitutionally guaranteed work, is a reductio ad absurdum.

If we want to look at another founding document, one that expresses the ideas behind liberty rather than specifying the makeup of government and a non-comprehensive enumeration of certain rights; we would look at the Declaration. All men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Work, or the earning of a living, is a key component of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


We do have several valid claims to life,and we are under no expectation legally, religiously, or ethically to give this claim up for the comfort or ease of others.

Indeed, and people are not obligated to sacrifice their and their family's livelihood for people who should and could take precautions or avoid contact because of their vulnerabilities. People are not obligated to suffer the additional pressure that causes or results in depression, alcohol and drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, malnutrition, poverty, etc... to ensure the minority of the vulnerable find it easier to avoid the possibility of infection. Your argument would take the boy out of the bubble and put everyone else in it. The economy is integral to life.

[TSherbs]

The economy is integral to life.

What does this mean? The collection of manufacturing and service industries has not been erased or removed or cancelled. It has not been excised or killed. The "economy" is not even an entity except in the vaguest of terms.

And what does "integral" mean?

Commerce and industry have been weakened. The market is down, after one of its longest bull runs in history. All sorts of political and military decisions occasionally contract the markets, sometimes precipitously. What is your point about "life" and these contractions? That those decisions are all in error because they cause some pain to workers or holders of capital?

Are you arguing that governments should not assist in protecting the welfare of its elderly or sick in times of crisis if it costs too much? Or do you mean we should never do it at all?

The right to one's life is a premise running through all of our legal code and the parts of the Bill of Rights having to do with protection of the self (body and liberty). A word search for "life" isn't the best way to go on that route. It is a fundamental of ethics and religion around the world. I really don't want to be sidetracked by a question over the ethics or legal right to the protection of one's life. It is of course not a guarantee from illness or from death (these are inevitable). But, I would argue, it should protect one from the purposeful sacrifice of the elderly for the financial comfort of others. Especially over as short a time as these 8 weeks. Again, this to me is still a short time in the big picture (which had also been my point repeatedly here).


Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

What does this mean? The collection of manufacturing and service industries has not been erased or removed or cancelled. It has not been excised or killed. The "economy" is not even an entity except in the vaguest of terms.

And what does "integral" mean?

What is livelihood? What does it mean to earn one? Why is there an etymological relationship between that word and "life"? Is that relationship integral - essential or necessary for completeness; constituent?


Are you arguing that governments should not assist in protecting the welfare of its elderly or sick in times of crisis if it costs too much? Or do you mean we should never do it at all?

Of course not. Why do you persist in these false dichotomies?


The right to one's life is a premise running through all of our legal code and the parts of the Bill of Rights having to do with protection of the self (body and liberty). A word search for "life" isn't the best way to go on that route.

I agree with the first sentence. You're the one who asserted what Constitutional rights there are and aren't. To argue that there's no right to work in the Constitution is, again, a reductio ad absurdum. How would you demonstrate that it's not there other than pointing out it's not in the text. I'm just pointing out that there is also no explicit right to life either, and I believe I'm the one that pointed out to you that the notions you are now addressing are in the Declaration (not the bill of rights). Work, or earning a living, or attempting to secure the requisite means for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


It is a fundamental of ethics and religion around the world. I really don't want to be sidetracked by a question over the ethics or legal right to the protection of one's life. It is of course not a guarantee from illness or from death (these are inevitable). But, I would argue, it should protect one from the purposeful sacrifice of the elderly for the financial comfort of others. Especially over as short a time as these 8 weeks. Again, this to me is still a short time in the big picture (which had also been my point repeatedly here).

You address ethics to bolster your argument, declare you don't want to get sidetracked by a question of ethics, and then argue an ethical issue. Asking one to sacrifice in some form for another is precisely an ethical question.

From 1984: DOUBLETHINK: "...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, ...to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself."

[TSherbs]

What? Orwell? Really, dneal?

Look, why don't you just state how we should have done anything different for the first 8 weeks, even knowing exactly what we know today.

That is mhoseas topic that brought me into this. I say we did things exactly right in the circumstances of our lack of knowledge and lack of supplies and lack of preparedness. If you believe otherwise, what policy would you have done differently and why? I think governors and mayors did exactly what they should have. You?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Yes, Orwell.

Anyway, I think the initial social distancing / stay at home policy was prudent. The justification was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, and "flatten the curve" while we acquired more resources (masks, ventilators, etc...). We did that. We took the economic hit for the benefit of society at large, particularly for the vulnerable. I couldn't care less whether or not that was the right choice or wrong one. Again, it seemed prudent given the lack of information.

Some politicians, and people, want to extend that policy. They aren't able to articulate a clear reason, nor a rational one, IMHO. They're already deciding to not send children back to school this fall. They're already determining that we need to remain shut down for another 6 months or more. I have a problem with that. It doesn't seem prudent, since we are learning that the prevalence of the virus is much greater than we knew and the risk to the majority of the population is much less than we believed. The models were wrong.

Now we're being told that we're doing this to prevent a second wave, but previously we were told that there would be one - one that we would be prepared for because of the initial actions implemented. The goal posts continue to move, and now some are saying we need to stay separated until there's a vaccine. Of course we don't know when that will be or how effective it will be (if at all).

The proposed "cure" is more harmful than the disease, one of many examples noted above in post #83.

[TSherbs]

.... We took the economic hit for the benefit of society at large, particularly for the vulnerable. I couldn't care less whether or not that was the right choice or wrong one. Again, it seemed prudent given the lack of information....

Well, this point that you don't care about was exactly what mhosea was talking about and I was responding to.

I do care, and I was telling Mike what I thought. You actually agree with me (that it was prudent given the circumstances). That is exactly what I said. I only added that we still know very little from an epidemiological point of view. Mike's stats were interesting but limited in scope and power of prediction.


Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

You seem to be as selective in the reading of my posts as you are in the quoting.

I don't "actually agree with you" that the initial response was prudent, as if I'm unaware that we share that view. I've always thought so and I've never said otherwise, although I have expressed concern over the economic impact. I couldn't care less if it was the right choice because that water is under the bridge, and it's easy to armchair quarterback.

The topic is not what how we initially chose to act. The topic is what we should do in the way ahead, based on data we have (and continue to) accumulate.

[TSherbs]

Well, you can have that conversation with someone else. I responded to Mike's claim about decisions up to this point, "knowing what we know now." That's all that I was interested in. And he seems to have stopped responding, so I am done as well.





Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Scott Atlas, M.D., writing for The Hill (https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/498180-were-risking-national-suicide-if-we-dont-adjust-our-pandemic-response)

Adding to Dr. Fauci's diagnosis: The critical case for ending our shutdown

Basic science underlying a viral pandemic is absolutely critical. But now is the time for the design of sound public policy — and that involves a far broader formulation than a single-minded focus on stopping COVID-19 at all costs.

Policymakers and the public have not received several key messages that are critical to alleviate fear and guide a safe reopening of society. That has led to a gross failure in policy at the state level:

- There has been a failure to remind everyone that the stated goal of the policy — total lockdown and whole-population isolation — has been accomplished in most of the United States, including the epicenter of New York.

- There has been a failure to reassure everyone that we fully anticipate more cases will occur, whether we test or not, with continuing relaxation of today’s isolation.

- There has been a failure to educate the public that the overall fatality rate is not only far lower than previously thought but is extremely low in almost everyone other than the elderly.

- There has been a failure to clarify to parents the truth about the extremely low risk to children, and that has accompanied a gross failure to offer a rational medical perspective regarding schools reopening.

- We must not forget that total lockdown — not the virus — is generating catastrophic harms.
Restricting other medical care and instilling fear in the public is creating a massive health disaster, in addition to severe economic harms that could generate a world poverty crisis. In the U.S. alone, 150,000 new cancer cases arise every month among patients, and most have not been seen; of the 650,000 U.S. cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, an estimated half are missing their treatments. Half of urgent-care patients are not seeking medical attention; two-thirds of physical therapy is not being administered. Transplants from living donors are down almost 85 percent. Emergency stroke evaluations are down 40 percent. And that doesn’t include the two-thirds to three-fourths of people who are skipping cancer screenings, and the more than half of children who are failing to receive vaccinations, all pointing to a massive future health disaster.

Here’s the real failure: Public policy must never be one-dimensional. It can never be foisted on people without careful consideration of its consequences, including the harms from the well-intentioned attempt to solve the initial problem. True leadership demands far more than empathy and caution. Leaders are expected to rationally integrate the evidence, even if complicated, and then apply policies using common sense and a knowledge-based perspective. Conveying rational thinking is how to reassure the public and instill confidence in a chosen pathway.

The total lockdown may have been justified at the start of this pandemic, but it must now end — smartly, without irrational, unnecessary requirements contrary to medical science, common sense and logic. The goal of the strict isolation was accomplished in the overwhelming majority of places. We have direct data on risk and extensive experience, individually and as a nation, with managing it, even as new cases arise. We know that gradually relaxing total isolation will lead to more infections, but that’s acceptable, given that we know whom to protect and this disease is not harmful to the vast majority of infected people.

[Dave]

The only really sensible thing that's been said here thus far has come from TSherbs, to whit that we don't have enough information at this time. I totally agree with this. My own work intersects in part with what's going on, and it is clear that the information released is very far from being comprehensive, and a lot of it has been highly simplified for public digestion. I wouldn't, in simple honesty, expect anyone to be able to critically appraise a scientific article outside of their area of expertise. I know I cannot rely on my own education to reliably lead me through other subject fields. The Dunning-Kruger effect, of which we are all (without exception) prone to, thrives in environments such as the current situation.

[dneal]

The only really sensible thing that's been said here thus far has come from TSherbs, to whit that we don't have enough information at this time. I totally agree with this. My own work intersects in part with what's going on, and it is clear that the information released is very far from being comprehensive, and a lot of it has been highly simplified for public digestion. I wouldn't, in simple honesty, expect anyone to be able to critically appraise a scientific article outside of their area of expertise. I know I cannot rely on my own education to reliably lead me through other subject fields. The Dunning-Kruger effect, of which we are all (without exception) prone to, thrives in environments such as the current situation.

The only sensible thing, or the only thing you happen to agree with? What exactly is it you're referring to?

No one has comprehensive information, not even the CDC. Certainly there are many things they (and others) haven't released. I don't think anyone here is pretending to be an expert on epidemiology. It's a discussion forum. Are we only to talk about things we're experts on? If so, what exactly are you an expert on that should lead us to give your opinion any credence? When even the experts disagree, what are we to do then? What about the limitations of experts? Is Dr. Fauci an expert in economics, sociology, or psychology? If he's not, why should we follow blindly his recommendations when he's not an expert on many other key issues his epidemiology recommendations impact?

We're sharing information and opinions. We're (well, some of us) are trying to discuss the topic and the ramifications. We are (again, some of us) voters, and have an election in 6 months or so. We will be retaining or choosing new leadership. The decisions they made and might make, particularly in regard to this topic, are worth discussion.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is about low ability people overestimating their ability, and high ability people underestimating their ability; from their paper "Unskilled and Unaware". I think you're confused in your cite, because your reference makes no sense. Are you insinuating all of us are unskilled and unaware? Are some of us underestimating our skill or knowledge? How would you know? Do you personally know any of us or our backgrounds? Have you tested us? Please explain how we are all prone to it.

Lastly, the experts were wrong. Their models were wrong. Are they unskilled and unaware? If so, why should we be listening to them?

[Dave]

You are missing a key definition in interpreting D-K.

The D-K effect relates to how people assess their ability at a specific task. It is not a test of intelligence per se. For example, I am not a nuclear physicist. Although I am a scientist in a different field, I may well (and likely do) overestimate my ability to understand a paper on nuclear physics. This does not mean I am stupid, or lacking the ability to learn, only that at this time I do not have a high ability for this specific task.

We are all NOT experts on everything. Thus, by simple logic, attempting to critically read information that is not within our sphere of learned skills automatically places us in the 'low ability at this specific task' category.

[Dave]

As far as the situation with SARS-CoV-2 is concerned this is my current opinion.


The initial response was most likely the best response under the information that was available at that time. (The virus was novel and fast moving. Pick a plan quickly)
As time passes we are collecting more data on a number of factors related specifically to the virus - such as its structure, mode of transfer, 'life' cycle and so on.
As even more time passes we are collecting more data on how the initial response is impacting on incidence, among other things.
Also, as more time passes under the initial response pattern, we are collecting data on how the response itself is impacting on two other major areas: non-SARS-CoV-2 health and wellbeing, and the economy.




Do I think that the initial response should evolve? Of course! The most pressing question of 'how' does kind of pivot (for now) on avoiding flare. Over time, if the incidence and survival rates fall, then someone is going to have to make a calculation about what level of health risk is acceptable. And naturally this will have to be adjusted to contain data on health risks that are not biologically associated with the virus, but rather from socioeconomic pressures. Not an easy task.

What would I do? Hard to say. Given the limited information I have (and paying attention to the D-K effect of course) it would seem that some kind of re-opening is a must. This is in agreement with what others have said here. Looking around at some of the efforts made in other countries, it seems perfectly possible to get back to work if some strict conditions are satisfied (i.e. maintaining social distancing, contact tracing and so on), though caution still needs to be exercised as we are not that far into this pandemic (which is why I mentioned TSherbs earlier with regard to the insufficiency of data). In addition, not all industry needs to start up at the same time. Some industries are likely to be less 'essential' than others, so a phased restart is indicated.

Unfortunately, our response to the pandemic in the US over the first 4-6 weeks has been total rubbish. Not talking about the government bodies, but rather the people on the street. The lack of any cohesive discipline population is appalling, and may well have been one of the biggest contributing factors to the near 90,000 deaths here so far. On the other hand, maybe it is much easier in smaller countries with populations under a certain threshold. Again, hard to say, though certainly possible.


That's my opinion. Not really divergent from others on this thread. As with a lot of stuff in life, the devil will no doubt be in the details.

[dneal]

I didn't miss that part of D-K, nor try to say it was an intelligence measurement. The actual experiment tested several skills. The point of it was about self-awareness (it was a psychological study, after all). To crudely summarize, stupid people thought they were smart. They were actually too stupid to know they were stupid. Anyway, you weren't clear and frankly it was bordering on the absurd given the level of generalization (but hey, I do that sometimes too... ;) ). Thanks for the follow up. Paraphrasing Socrates "all I know is my own ignorance..." If you're there (and I certainly am aware that there are things I don't know), you've avoided a big cognitive hurdle. I try to avoid confirmation bias. I look for what I don't know.

I'm a planner. A "here's a big ass problem we know little about but need a plan now" planner. I've worked at two theater armies (Europe and South America). You don't get to wait until you have all the data, and you certainly don't always have (or receive) the expertise. That's not a D-K issue when you know there are things you don't know (cue the Rumsfeldian "known-knowns, known-unknowns, unknown-knowns, etc...). You do your best to mitigate risk. You know the "first report from the scouts" will be mostly wrong. You plan, execute and adjust anyway. You learn as much as you can as fast as you can. You don't have to understand all the technical minutiae. No General knows how to replace a #10 seal in an M1 tank engine, and they don't need to. The expert's job is to convey the key relevant information. "Hey General, the #10 seal keeps the oil inside the forward module. They're important and we need more." is enough.

I don't disagree that we did what we thought was best given the circumstances and limited information. Italy's experience in particular was cause for extreme caution. We still don't have the complete picture, but we have gathered an enormous amount of data. That seems to indicate that the models were wrong, the virus is much more widely spread than we believed, and that it's not nearly as life-threatening as we believe. That's not opinion. That's doctors and medical researchers current understanding of the trends. You don't have to read an article in JAMA to listen to doctors speak plainly to the public. Dr. Fauci is one of many, and he's slowly becoming a minority opinion in a sea of Dr.'s seeing and treating patients. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong, but I put more faith in the Dr. that is successfully treating the virus than a bureaucrat looking at a model.

I believe the economic risk is being enormously underestimated, and have held that view from the beginning. When it's severe, like Argentina's 2001 collapse, there are no government services. There are no commodities available. Money has no value and people revert to barter. Hobbes' State of Nature reveals itself. Less extreme, but still serious, look at New Orleans during Katrina. Not the levee failing, the societal environment. I can continue with all types of examples. Hyperinflation in particular is near catastrophic.

It's not a matter of which businesses are essential, and which aren't. It's looking at those businesses and understanding that they consists of jobs which constitute people's livelihoods. Those corporate profits and employee paychecks are also the source of the government's revenue. People cannot go six months without an income. The government cannot replace their incomes without monetizing the debt. We just charged another $3 trillion to cover what was supposed to be a few (six?) weeks. That $1200 people received is long gone.

We can imagine a severe pandemic - like Spanish flu or small pox - and the consequences. Imagine the Weimar Republic and the price of bread increasing exponentially daily (sometimes hourly). Imagine if there were shortages of food instead of toilet paper, and imagine it in NYC or Los Angeles. Imagine if police stopped getting paid, or their checks were worthless; and they just quit showing up to work. That's the "pandemic" equivalent of catastrophic economic damage. Society is a very fragile thing, and the economy can send it spinning just as quickly as a virus.

[Dave]

I have no doubt that the models, in the light of additional and ongoing data input, were not accurate at the beginning. That is only to be expected when dealing with an unknown. So as we go along the model gets updated, revised, refined. All totally normal. As an aside, I am appalled by, though somewhat insulated from, Trump's repeated trashing of the WHO, CDC et al, who were doing what they could with what they had.

I also have no issues siding with the scientists over the bureaucrats. It would be ironic if I did, given my current work.

When positing the idea of a phased business restart perhaps my use of the term 'essential' was misplaced. What I was really trying to say was that I don't believe that restarting everything at once is a good idea. In my opinion phased introduction is indicated in some form, but if there is a phased restart then a decision would need to be made on who goes first and so on. That's presumably where the policy makers come in, supported by independent economists and public health bodies.

I am aware of the economic impact of various disasters - real and manmade - but only at the remove of having read some history. It's really not my field, so I cannot claim any insight to it.

Society is a very fragile thing... indeed it is, but there are examples of societies that held together during times of duress. Britain in WW2 springs to mind. Vaguely remember reading something somewhere about the fall of nations being due to them becoming complacent, soft, and non-reactive to threat. Something like that. Again, I am only an amateur in this area.

Anyway, what would your plan be?




Ps. Regarding the D-K disagreement. We probably read different nuances in the theory and its interpretation. From my own background reading, some years ago now, it wasn't a crude 'stupid people thought they were smart' thing, but something much more subtle. The paper cited below points to how we are all prone to the D-K effect at times. I include it here for anyone who has an interest in delving a little further. It's really quite interesting.

Also, just to clarify. I brought it into the discussion because many of the posts in this thread are not written in a manner that I associate with people exploring a subject, but rather by those asserting their statements as unquestionable. Perhaps that is a matter of style, and of how I read the posts. My apologies to anyone who thought the raising of the D-K effect suggested that anyone here was stupid. It should be obvious from what I wrote that I do not consider D-K as a measure of stupidity.





Burson KA, Larrick RP, & Klayman J. Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: How perceptions of difficulty drive mis-calibration in relative comparisons. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006:90 (1): 60–77. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.60.

[dneal]

"My plan" (well, not really mine - but the one I agree with), briefly...

- Return to "normalcy". Lift restrictions. Open businesses. All of them.
- Continue to reinforce the importance of prudent preventative measures. Wash your hands, avoid touching your face, don't go to work if you feel sick, etc... Just like you do for influenza or other seasonal disease.
- Implement measures to protect the vulnerable, particularly those in concentrated populations who are unable to make their own choices (e.g.: nursing homes). Grandma in her own home can choose whether or not to let people come visit. Grandma in a nursing home gets no say in who comes to visit other residents.
- Individuals with compromised immune systems will need to manage their own risk, just as they did before the coronavirus.
- Continue / expand testing (particularly for antibodies / previous infection) to improve situational awareness and understanding of the virus.
- Establish a metric that triggers the implementation of restrictions, based on hospital capacity and considering the ability to shift or surge capacity.

These type of actions are being recommended by other epidemiologists, Knut Wittkowski and Johan Giesecke for example. Contact tracing is pointless now. The virus is too widespread and isn't going to be contained. We're all going to get it, if we haven't already (said my wife's doctor...). People can carry on with the theater of home made masks if they like.

RE: Dunning-Kruger. I just finished the paper you posted. Interesting, but it's not the D-K paper. It's further experimentation based on results published from D-K. If we're going to talk about the D-K effect, it seems that should be the paper we reference. Certainly additional study from other researchers is helpful, but using it to misrepresent the original conclusions drawn is problematic. You're saying I'm getting D-K wrong because here's another study based on D-K's research. D-K's abstract begins with precisely what my cruder version said. "...people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." They then quote Miller's 1993 paper Humiliation, with "It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent."

Here's the original paper in .pdf (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/654d/e896dddeaf5f8b2bc1c633f28ec519c653c7.pdf)

Of course people over and under estimate their skill all the time. How many times does an "easy recipe" turn out better than anticipated, or end up in a total disaster? for example. That's not really what D-K were getting after. My familiarity with D-K's paper goes back to the early 2000's, when it was read and discussed in the context of leadership and a leader's competence. There are all sorts of variables involved with being selected for promotion in the Army. Generally, the bottom performers who are not selected can't understand why; and that's an example of the D-K effect. I've had my share of subordinates I tried to mentor - to no avail because they truly were unskilled, unaware, and incapable of being enlightened; and I've seen plenty of outstanding people who didn't realize how good they were and how much potential they had.

--edit--

I'd like to hear the plan of those who advocate extending "lock down" measures...

[Dave]

Perhaps this is the best plan going forward. As I am far removed from what is going on, I only have a theoretical feel for it. Anyway, as the saying goes, we will see what we will see.


Oh, one other thing. Returning to D-K, theories and their interpretation evolve, and this is the case with D-K. Ongoing research clearly demonstrates this evolution. Here's a popular blog from a neuroscientist on the subject of misinterpreting the D-K: HERE (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/misunderstanding-dunning-kruger/#disqus_thread)


This is my last post for a while as we have finally got the camp packed and ready to move out. Not sure when I will be able to get back online. Certainly the next few weeks are going to require my focus elsewhere. Interesting discussion, I've enjoyed a lot of it.

[dneal]

Letter from 500+ Doctors to the President (https://www.scribd.com/document/462319362/A-Doctor-a-Day-Letter-Signed)

May 19, 2020

Dear Mr. President:

Thousands of physicians in all specialties and from all States would like to express our gratitude for your leadership. We write to you today to express our alarm over the exponentially growing negative health consequences of the national shutdown.

In medical terms, the shutdown was a mass casualty incident.

During a mass casualty incident, victims are immediately triaged to black, red, yellow, or green. The first group, triage level black, includes those who require too many resources to save during a mass crisis. The red group has severe injuries that are survivable with treatment, the yellow group has serious injuries that are not immediately life threatening, and the green group has minor injuries.

The red group receives highest priority. The next priority is to ensure that the other two groups do not deteriorate a level. Decades of research have shown that by strictly following this algorithm, we save the maximum number of lives.

Millions of Americans are already at triage level red. These include 150,000 Americans per month who would have had a new cancer detected through routine screening that hasn’t happened, millions who have missed routine dental care to fix problems strongly linked to heart disease/death, and preventable cases of stroke, heart attack, and child abuse. Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%.
Tens of millions are at triage level yellow. Liquor sales have increased 300-600%, cigarettes sales have increased, rent has gone unpaid, family relationships have become frayed, and millions of well-child check-ups have been missed.

Hundreds of millions are at triage level green. These are people who currently are solvent, but at risk should economic conditions worsen.

Poverty and financial uncertainty is closely linked to poor health.

A continued shutdown means hundreds of millions of Americans will downgrade a level. The following are real examples from our practices.

Patient E.S. is a mother with two children whose office job was reduced to part- time and whose husband was furloughed. The father is drinking more, the mother is depressed and not managing her diabetes well, and the children are barely doing any schoolwork.

Patient A.F. has chronic but previously stable health conditions. Her elective hip replacement was delayed, which caused her to become nearly sedentary, resulting in a pulmonary embolism in April.

Patient R.T. is an elderly nursing home patient, who had a small stroke in early March but was expected to make a nearly complete recovery. Since the shutdown, he has had no physical or speech therapy, and no visitors. He has lost weight, and is deteriorating rather than making progress.

Patient S.O. is a college freshman who cannot return to normal life, school, and friendships. He risks depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, trauma, and future financial uncertainty.

We are alarmed at what appears to be the lack of consideration for the future health of our patients. The downstream health effects of deteriorating a level are being massively under-estimated and under-reported. This is an order of magnitude error.

It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown. Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.

The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

Because the harm is diffuse, there are those who hold that it does not exist. We, the undersigned, know otherwise.

Please let us know if we may be of assistance.

Respectfully,

Simone Gold, M.D., J.D. & >500 physicians (attached)

[mhosea]

I responded to Mike's claim about decisions up to this point, "knowing what we know now." That's all that I was interested in. And he seems to have stopped responding, so I am done as well.


Chalk it up to a combination of me being busy and not really feeling the need to clarify further, not to mention the fact that my own governor and state was revealing our policy on Monday, and I was keenly aware that nothing I might say or think about it was going to make one jot of difference, even if I had really wanted it to.

Anyway, I thought I'd expressed the hypothetical nature of my suggestion, i.e. if the prevalence is that much larger and the true rates are correspondingly lower, I didn't think there would have been as comprehensive a shutdown as we saw, rather something more targeted to protect the more statistically vulnerable portion population, and this came at the end of a post that started with me admitting that there wasn't enough information yet to know. I don't think it was the sort of claim that could sensibly be regarded as a putative fact. It was just something I was thinking and said. And you disagreed. Fine. Neither of us question the propriety of the response given what we actually did know. We just disagree about the hypothetical, i.e. whether the additional information added since then, about how the virus spreads and the rates of hospitalization and death, would have changed anything had we known it at the time. Granted a conclusion on that score could have some application to reopening strategy, which is really why it was on my mind. I have some idea of the information we would need to explore the matter. Some of it might be available, some not, but this is where the reality of the Massachusetts governor impinged. I didn't really feel like putting in the effort to debate in that area. The king of Massachusetts was set to decree what our reopening strategy would be, and my agreement or disagreement with any of it was a non-issue. There are times when it is good to debate things, but there are times when an individual is better off seeking the peace to accept the things he cannot change. Or so I think, anyway. I don't really feel like debating that just now, either.

[TSherbs]

Up here in less populated NH and Maine, gradual reopenings have been occuring. I haven't heard so much about Mass. NH restaurants have reopened with outdoor table service. Maine beaches are opening (but no sitting or congregating). Indiv cities and towns in Maine get to decide this, and so far the gov has not overridden, in part because the measures have been gradual. My guess is that it would take about a month for the effects of these changes to show up in testing result statistics. My guess also is that we won't wait that long to find out. But we'll see. Three quarters of the NH deaths are in long term care. Very likely, the staff bring it in because they live and function otherwise out in the messier world. Maybe the elderly could be served by robots.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Ray-VIgo]

Here it was and remains a very "bi-polar" thing. The governor proclaimed a shut-down, but exempted a wide array of businesses and it was unclear who did or did not qualify. After a couple of weeks, people just started to ignore the order and move about. By the start of May, the roads were as busy as any other, normal May. You'll see motorcyclists wearing masks but no helmets. Businesses were supposed to reopen on May 20, but then some of the businesses got an 11th hour cut and pushed back to June. The workers and business owners protested but no effect. Then the governor said that it was the businesses that requested the delayed re-opening and that just pissed them off more.

Meanwhile, the nursing homes are warehouses of the dead and dying. The governor needed a task force aided by the national guard to go in and confirm the extent of the deaths. A close family member of mine died. His death was initially attributed to a non-specific infection, but testing and the state's intervention led his (and many other) death certificates to be altered because they all had COVID-19. The caseload at that nursing home jumped from 5 people with COVID-19 to half the population because of institutional cover-ups. Of course access to the nursing homes is restricted. And all the while the outside world is pulled in every direction but together.

A respiratory nurse at a local hospital stopped by the other day and we talked. It's all guesswork there. People show up with diarrhea and don't know why - turns out they have COVID-19. This is only confirmed when imaging is done, and the doctor just happens to see opacities at the bottom of the lungs that happen to have been caught by the digestive tract imaging. People show up coughing and sneezing - turns out they have allergies. Another person thinks he has allergies but actually has COVID-19. There's no cure, just treatment to support people and see if they recover.

Flocks of people from New York turned up early on. Mostly very wealthy Manhattanites going to second homes. Everyone "loves New York" until there's a plague, then it's, "every banker for himself!". Others show up just looking to park themselves anywhere, and propose to rent properties at $5,000 per month. If your lease is coming up for renewal and you're a local, a New Yorker could swoop in and propose to your landlord an obscene rent, and suddenly you have no home. Or the landlord could put up relatives from New York in your home and you have no place to stay anymore. You better have family local to stay with in case this is you. If your local officials complain or act on it, the Governor of New York threatens to sue them.

Meanwhile everyone who was out of work apparently owns a Harley and rides around with no muffler and the radio on, full blast. Other people go to the park and then congregate, causing the park to close. They leave garbage around and hungry black bears move in.

Business is picking up lately, no large cases that are new, but mainly people wanting little things done to straighten up small matters. People are anxious to move about and start to do things again so they are asking what we can do to meet and help them out. We use masks and meet outside in a private place on the porch. People are trying to carry on as best as is possible, well reasonable people are at least.

[dneal]

Not terribly promising news.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=289NWm85eas

[mhosea]

I am not arguing for policy here. I am most certainly not advocating the extension of any draconian policies until a vaccine is available. I just want to discuss how vaccines were covered in that last installment.

My understanding is that the principal reason there have been no corona virus vaccines has been the near complete lack of need. This is, after all, not the world of Star Trek, where countless researchers have virtually unlimited resources to pursue "good" things for which there is no commercial reward. One can point to failures in the past to produce vaccines for viruses of note, but past failures on unrelated viruses are no more relevant than past successes on unrelated viruses. For one thing, "failure" is a subjective determination. In the early days of COVID-19, I heard Zika being listed as an example of something there remains no vaccine for, but what does the lack of a Zika vaccine really imply? That we could not produce one? As of December (https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(19)30483-5/fulltext), there were 18 known candidates in various stages of development, but the fact that Zika outbreaks have subsided without a vaccine has surely resulted in limited investment. Nobody is predicting anything like that for COVID-19. Indeed, have those scientists and companies in position to develop vaccines for anything ever been seen a greater opportunity? And the high transmissibility of the COVID-19 implies something else, i.e. the expectation that, absent a vaccine, the vast majority of us are going to get it sooner or later, anyway. For such a virus volunteering for a human challenge study starts to appeal to people who want to make a difference, to be real heroes of the sort that puts their well-being at risk for the benefit of others, and they may be reasonably emboldened if there a few therapeutics that might help their chances if they receive the placebo or get sick anyway. Clearly individual vaccine candidates will fail for one reason or another, but all of them?

[dneal]

Watch some of Dr. Knut Wittkowski’s interviews. There’s no question he’s an expert in the field, although that doesn’t mean he’s right (Dunning-Kruger be damned). He is advocating letting the virus run it’s course, and he’s not alone in that idea.

What strikes me is how such an orthodoxy has been created around this topic. Dr. Wittkowski, for example, is being denigrated in some circles as a “Coronavirus Truther’s Expert” for his ‘heresy’. If we can’t discuss complicated or ‘contentious’ topics without resorting to ad-hominem attacks, ridicule, or other irrational methods of shutting down differing ideas (not to mention social media’s deleting of expert opinion that runs counter to the orthodoxy’s approved narrative...); we’re moving backwards instead of progressing.

[rocl]

Nobody is predicting anything like that for COVID-19.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

https://unherd.com/thepost/professor-karol-sikora-fear-is-more-dangerous-than-the-virus/

[dneal]

Nobody is predicting anything like that for COVID-19.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

https://unherd.com/thepost/professor-karol-sikora-fear-is-more-dangerous-than-the-virus/

I’m not really sure what “that” is, that nobody is predicting. Could you clarify what you’re referring to?

Thanks for the links BTW. I’ve seen the one with Gupta, but not Sikora.

[mhosea]

Well, those are precisely the words I used to refer to the notion that COVID-19 would subside like Zika, without infecting the vast majority of the population and without a vaccine. Absent clarification, I interpret it as a response to me on that point, because I was wrong--some people are predicting that, more or less, with a substantially larger-than-worst-case percentage of the population being naturally immune or having cleared or being able to clear the virus without experiencing significant harm. If we don't need a vaccine because we aren't in the pickle most people think we're in, so much the better. The context of my remarks was in response to the dismissive treatment of a vaccine in the Bhattacharya video, which was, you will admit, rather gloomy in outlook. Having said that, I might further argue that, especially if many people are naturally immune and/or don't produce specifically detected antibodies to clear the infection, we probably won't know that soon enough for economics to put the brakes on vaccine development for COVID-19. We'll be watching with bated breath into the late fall, wondering whether seasonality explains reduced incidence.

[rocl]

My apologies. Yes, it was an attempt at quoting mhosea and removing everything but the relevant part and I managed to remove the quotation marks too. I have also heard many say that it was reasonable to assume that Covid 19 would become more benign over a longer period (years) as that happens commonly with many viruses.

[Johnny_S]

I am not sure that I will ever feel particularly safe again whilst mixing with the public or even people that I know, there will always be the question in my mind, does this person have a bug that could kill me or my family, they want to shake my hand/kiss my cheek/give me a hug and I am thinking 'back off sunshine'.

Schools are reopening for no strong reason other than child minders to allow parents to return to work, many parents who can work from home ae saying we do not want to go to an office because this means travelling on public transport and putting ourselves at risk, we work more effectively from home and we want to continue. house prices are falling by 14% but a strong demand for houses with gardens and office space. People are relauctant to get onto an aircraft and sit in close proximity with 200 others of unknown health, travel and hotel companies say we may never recover, restaurants and hospitality say that opening and complying with social distancing means that we cannot make money, we would rather stay shut until this is fixed please, not sure that the economy will recover in my lifetime and still my government is handing out money like its going out of fashion. a man I know cleans windows for two days a week, he earns £300 a month, he couldn't work for 3 weeks and he applied for assistance, £2500 appeared in his bank account , 8 months money, a friend of his did the same and obtained £10,000. The world has gone nuts and I cannot see that it will recover in my lifetime.

[TFarnon]

I am a scientist. More specifically, I am a medical laboratory scientist. I've been doing this for 7 years now. Before that, I spent 9 years as a staff research associate (molecular biologist/lab manager/technician) in a university research laboratory. And before that, I was working on dual bachelor's degrees in biology and chemistry. I'm not just a B.S.--I'm a triple B.S :)

I started collecting fountain pens less than a year ago.

What I want to say to the population at large is: Stay the heck home, don't go out unless you must, wear your gosh-durned mask when you do go out, wash your hands properly and frequently and if one hand grenade could injure two of you, you are too close!

Not everyone gets ill with COVID-19, and not everyone who gets ill gets seriously ill. However, for the unlucky ones, this thing is worse than influenza. And I don't think influenza is wonderful, either. I realize my perspective is skewed from what I do for a living--I work in the transfusion services section of a hospital laboratory. That means that the patient population I issue blood to is often grievously ill or injured. And in the course of anticipating a patient's needs for blood and blood products, sometimes I end up combing through patient's records. It can be horrifying. Trust me--you don't want to be that ill or injured. You just don't. Even the best care possible is horrifying. I am still haunted by some influenza and COVID-19 cases.

Staying in lockdown and taking appropriate precautions are the only things that are going to get this virus under control right now. I know there is hope for a vaccine, but we aren't there yet. And until that time, old-school controls are all we have. It's only going to be worse if we keep messing around with this re-opening nonsense before we have the virus under control.

And finally, we as a species were about due for a pandemic of some sort. That's what viruses and other pathogens do. They find a host and they proliferate. And no, we aren't really smarter than microbes. We could be, but we aren't.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

As someone who spent 19 years working in med lab sciences, I totally endorse the post by TFarnon.

On a related note, I recently read an article about why people refuse to adopt safety measures that are encouraged or even mandated by governments. Turns out, in the main and heavily summarised, that this reactionary stance has little to do with reason or science, and everything to do with push back against authority. A bit of an obvious conclusion I suppose, but there it is.

BBC article link (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200902-why-people-object-to-laws-that-save-lives)

[dneal]

Finally we get real examples of the DK effect.

[Morgaine]

My evening was spoiled the other day when I had a conversation with someone I had considered a friend. She says that the virus does not exist, and that the MMR vaccine causes autism. She thinks Boris Johnson is doing a better job than Nicola Sturgeon. I should have walked away, as there is no point in trying to argue with that sort of person.

I do not mind diversity of views, but when those views could threaten people's existence...

[welch]

My evening was spoiled the other day when I had a conversation with someone I had considered a friend. She says that the virus does not exist, and that the MMR vaccine causes autism. She thinks Boris Johnson is doing a better job than Nicola Sturgeon. I should have walked away, as there is no point in trying to argue with that sort of person.

I do not mind diversity of views, but when those views could threaten people's existence...

A bit west of you, we call that person "a Trumpist". Useless to talk with them, except to marvel at the way they defend Trump's "policies" as he twitches, turns, reverses himself week after week. Good luck, Wales and Scotland.

[dneal]

There's Still No Evidence that Either Lockdowns or Masks Are "Game Changers" (https://mises.org/wire/theres-still-no-evidence-either-lockdowns-or-masks-are-game-changers?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=ec16f95c97-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-ec16f95c97-228770231&fbclid=IwAR3IpBrUMCTj5mYCkuDLactq2y4rgX5jgBVkUJLJi mTORh7pbuS3y06GKdU)


Not only have the lockdowns played no role in disease mitigation, they come with deadly costs. You would think that the prolockdown health officials informing public health decisions would have entertained the potential costs of disrupting global supply chains and forcing hundreds of millions of people to remain shuttered in their homes. No matter. When nations around the globe are at "war" with a virus, immediate action is the only option. Damn the consequences.

What follows are some of the most alarming costs of the lockdowns, costs that are hardly eclipsed by the plethora of anecdotal sob stories floating around on social media. The establishment media and public health officials were doomed to look past these potential consequences because of their monomaniacal fixation on “cases,” a fixation that elevated short-term economic thinking and feel-good policies above all else.


The New York Times predicts 1.4 million excess tuberculosis deaths alongside nearly 1 million excess malaria and HIV deaths.
The UN estimates that as many as 130 million people will be at risk of starvation thanks to the lockdown's disruption of global food supply chains.
The CDC reported just under 200,000 excess deaths, a 26.5 percent jump from previous years, attributable to covid-19 over a ten-month period; a majority of these deaths affected 25–44-year-olds.
UNICEF predicted an excess of 1.2 million child deaths (ages 5 and under) over a six-month period
The Associate Press linked virus-related hunger to 10,000 child deaths per month for the first year of the pandemic
The CDC conducted a week-long survey in June finding that 25 percent of young adults between 18–24 years of age have considered suicide because of the pandemic.
CBS cited a study indicating the potential for 75,000 excess deaths of despair: deaths due to drug and alcohol abuse or suicide
A CDC report found a 31 percent increase in mental health–related emergency room visits for children between the ages of 12 and 17 over a three-month period.


Even The Atlantic now admits that asking people in low- to middle-income countries to stay home is, in many cases, asking them to starve. There is simply no way to justify the claim the lockdowns save lives with a knowledge of their costs.

[Cyril]

In Recent two gun crimes has been revealed the two persons had beed "deceased with Corona" and it is legal to say so as they have found (by coronary Autopsy ) that they have a connection to Corona. This Old disease cells is in our body and it has been revealed on 1960-1970. They are like just other cells as cancer, red cells, white cell, braincells, bone cells. You name it from many more trillion cells of bacterials cells of our body. this cells are the most profitable cells to Pharma so the corona has a Patent owner too.
They are the foster parents of the vaccine for Passing this corona to another heathy body.
When some one dies in an accident or suecide or any type of death it is normal to have mention it in the Autopsy as death with Corona. It is a very smart disease found in our time of course by an AMERICAN VIRUS DR.

Many doctors in Uk are changing their Long servisces of carriers into Gardners and Plumbers. It is due to the inability of continuation of being their heart-felt profession under profit controlled Big Pharma. Working with with conceptual lies forceful misled education and knowledge under the Pharma guidelines only to promote profits but not to help improving the public heath being the least is the case and reason for them to quit.

[Cyril]

Interesting Video show here what is VACCINE MEANS!!

https://davidicke.com/2020/12/23/informed-consent-ickonic-original-film-2020-are-vaccines-safe-in-this-film-we-hear-from-some-of-the-greatest-minds-from-the-world-of-medicine-and-science-who-tell-a-very-different-story-to-one/

[Chuck Naill]

I feel like saying, wear a mask if you want or get a vaccine if you want. Both represent the same attempt.

[Fermata]

China denies entry to the World Health Organisation investigating Covid outbreak.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55555466


Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?

[dneal]

China denies entry to the World Health Organisation investigating Covid outbreak.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55555466


Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?

It's not surprising, but it prompts a discussion on the party's worldview and strategic goals.

In short, it's just their nature to not allow investigation by outsiders; and they can't risk the global repercussions (or retribution) if the blame is laid at their feet.

[Fermata]

Personally, I think it is an outrage that China can deny entry to the WHO who are looking at lessons to be learned from a disease that has killed thousands and affected millions, some may wish to hold China to account, I would like China to address the issue and ensure that there cannot be a repeat if we are talking about wet markets, a much bigger problem if the are looking at chemical weapons.

[dneal]

World leaders are stuck between appeasing their constituents and appeasing the behemoth that it the Chinese economy. Gordon Chang is the author of many insightful perspectives on Chinese goals, and worth consideration.

[Johnny_S]

https://fpgeeks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=58624&d=1611497752

[Chuck Naill]

I am hear to remind you to:
"Respect Science, respect nature, respect each other"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/opinion/biden-trump-respect.html

[kazoolaw]

China denies entry to the World Health Organisation investigating Covid outbreak.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55555466


Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?

Can anyone be surprised?

[Chuck Naill]

China denies entry to the World Health Organisation investigating Covid outbreak.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55555466


Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?

Can anyone be surprised?

Surprised or not, choosing to not sit at the table and be a part of the conversation helps no one and only hinders yourself.

[Chuck Naill]

Since I work with a healthcare agency and have contact with families and patients, I got an email in late December to get a COVID-19 vaccine. My first dose was January 6 and the booster or second February 4th. I received the Moderna brand. The first dose was uneventful. The second I had injection site pain and later soreness and felt tired. These events went away by Saturday morning. The people I know who had contracted COVID-19 experienced more adverse events from the first and second doses. All of this anecdotal and you may not have any post injection events.

For the first dose I waited about an hour in a long line outside a large convention center. I had an appointment for the second dose and was in and out including the post injection 15 minute wait for about 30 minutes.

Someone actually said they would rather have the virus than the vaccine. While they are very welcome to not take the vaccine, I would prefer 36 hours of adverse events than take the risk of being on a ventilator. Here is seems so many want it but can't get it and those who could refuse. As with all medical interventions, its a risk vs benefit.

I was listening to an interview where back in the '80's AID was killing so many and people were asking for medical research. Now the research was performed and so many refuse the help. And, they even refuse to wear a mask. I am personally starting to wear two mask at times like the grocery. I see mask wearing the same as wearing gloves or a respirator. Why it become such an issue is beyond me

Just read that the same people who demonstrated over being asked to wear a mask, were critical of the election, are now demonstrating where vaccines are being provided. Besides everything else, these folks sure have a lot of time on their hands.
.

[RobJohnson]

Since I work with a healthcare agency and have contact with families and patients, I got an email in late December to get a COVID-19 vaccine. My first dose was January 6 and the booster or second February 4th. I received the Moderna brand. The first dose was uneventful. The second I had injection site pain and later soreness and felt tired. These events went away by Saturday morning. The people I know who had contracted COVID-19 experienced more adverse events from the first and second doses. All of this anecdotal and you may not have any post injection events.

For the first dose I waited about an hour in a long line outside a large convention center. I had an appointment for the second dose and was in and out including the post injection 15 minute wait for about 30 minutes.

Someone actually said they would rather have the virus than the vaccine. While they are very welcome to not take the vaccine, I would prefer 36 hours of adverse events than take the risk of being on a ventilator. Here is seems so many want it but can't get it and those who could refuse. As with all medical interventions, its a risk vs benefit.

I was listening to an interview where back in the '80's AID was killing so many and people were asking for medical research. Now the research was performed and so many refuse the help. And, they even refuse to wear a mask. I am personally starting to wear two mask at times like the grocery. I see mask wearing the same as wearing gloves or a respirator. Why it become such an issue is beyond me

Just read that the same people who demonstrated over being asked to wear a mask, were critical of the election, are now demonstrating where vaccines are being provided. Besides everything else, these folks sure have a lot of time on their hands.
.

It doesn't make a sod of difference to me, I am as close to being a sociopath that you will find outside of an institution but for a man in a caring profession do you think that you show your best side when it comes to posting on here?

As I said, I stopped caring some years ago but I am just aware of an apparent dichotomy in your case, others are constant pricks when they are not talking about pens but for you, good man one day..........

[Chuck Naill]

Since I work with a healthcare agency and have contact with families and patients, I got an email in late December to get a COVID-19 vaccine. My first dose was January 6 and the booster or second February 4th. I received the Moderna brand. The first dose was uneventful. The second I had injection site pain and later soreness and felt tired. These events went away by Saturday morning. The people I know who had contracted COVID-19 experienced more adverse events from the first and second doses. All of this anecdotal and you may not have any post injection events.

For the first dose I waited about an hour in a long line outside a large convention center. I had an appointment for the second dose and was in and out including the post injection 15 minute wait for about 30 minutes.

Someone actually said they would rather have the virus than the vaccine. While they are very welcome to not take the vaccine, I would prefer 36 hours of adverse events than take the risk of being on a ventilator. Here is seems so many want it but can't get it and those who could refuse. As with all medical interventions, its a risk vs benefit.

I was listening to an interview where back in the '80's AID was killing so many and people were asking for medical research. Now the research was performed and so many refuse the help. And, they even refuse to wear a mask. I am personally starting to wear two mask at times like the grocery. I see mask wearing the same as wearing gloves or a respirator. Why it become such an issue is beyond me

Just read that the same people who demonstrated over being asked to wear a mask, were critical of the election, are now demonstrating where vaccines are being provided. Besides everything else, these folks sure have a lot of time on their hands.
.

It doesn't make a sod of difference to me, I am as close to being a sociopath that you will find outside of an institution but for a man in a caring profession do you think that you show your best side when it comes to posting on here?

As I said, I stopped caring some years ago but I am just aware of an apparent dichotomy in your case, others are constant pricks when they are not talking about pens but for you, good man one day..........

There is a cognitive dissonance I suppose. On the one hand one can go along to get along and on the other be an absolute horses rear in attempting to provide an alternative perspective.

I can't speak for anyone besides myself.

I am not an unhappy person, but I have survived much loss, disappointment, and BS from others. For me I decided to live in the present and love my family and friends.

There is a concept in health care called "informed consent". If you decide to do some, at least get yourself informed.

[welch]

Atlantic Magazine article on why the second vaccine shot might feel so bad, at least for a few days. As best I understand, the first shot sets up; second shot fully activates protection.

Details here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/02/second-vaccine-side-effects/617892/

[Chuck Naill]

Atlantic Magazine article on why the second vaccine shot might feel so bad, at least for a few days. As best I understand, the first shot sets up; second shot fully activates protection.

Details here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/02/second-vaccine-side-effects/617892/

For me, that was the exact reasoning I was expecting some events to occur. No pain, no gain.

[fountainpenkid]

I just got my second shot on Friday (2/5)--I had an unconfirmed case back in March (with long-term symptoms incl. heart palpitations, chest pain, sweaty palms, fatigue, loss of muscle control...), but did not have anything past a sore arm with both shots of the Moderna vaccine. My arm was actually less sore this second shot! Lots of variance in the extent of side effects--but at least we know they clear up in a couple days. And no one loses their sense of smell!

[Pendragon]

Someone actually said they would rather have the virus than the vaccine. While they are very welcome to not take the vaccine, I would prefer 36 hours of adverse events than take the risk of being on a ventilator.
Having the virus is nature's vaccine, nearly 100% effective. I had it a year ago, and it was like a really bad case of the flu. Everyone except one or two people in the office had it, and it does spread quite readily. We had all recovered before the quarantines even started. For most people, it was more a huge annoyance than anything else. Some people even took sick days. Nobody I know who had it has caught it again.

What some folks fail to realize is that there are plenty of people who will die from a bad case of the flu. Saying COVID is like the flu is not trivializing its effects. I will get the vaccine when it is available to ordinary people. Why not? It is the en vogue thing to do. Sure it might kill me, just like COVID might have, but that won't turn me into an anti-vaxxer. The only thing certain about life is that it ends in death. Fretting about it does little good.

[fountainpenkid]

Someone actually said they would rather have the virus than the vaccine. While they are very welcome to not take the vaccine, I would prefer 36 hours of adverse events than take the risk of being on a ventilator.
Having the virus is nature's vaccine, nearly 100% effective. I had it a year ago, and it was like a really bad case of the flu. Everyone except one or two people in the office had it, and it does spread quite readily. We had all recovered before the quarantines even started. For most people, it was more a huge annoyance than anything else. Some people even took sick days. Nobody I know who had it has caught it again.

What some folks fail to realize is that there are plenty of people who will die from a bad case of the flu. Saying COVID is like the flu is not trivializing its effects. I will get the vaccine when it is available to ordinary people. Why not? It is the en vogue thing to do. Sure it might kill me, just like COVID might have, but that won't turn me into an anti-vaxxer. The only thing certain about life is that it ends in death. Fretting about it does little good.

Previous infection does almost always confer immunity for some period of time (at least a few months, it seems we can safely say) to the antigens your body was presented with; unfortunately, we are now dealing with new variants, most concerningly the South African 501.V2, which render people's immunity, in a significant number of cases, less than effective. Even if these reinfections are mostly asymptomatic, this complicates the picture of moving past this, because the virus will continue to kill and mame those who remain susceptible. This is what happens when diseases fester: they evolve.

[TSherbs]

...For most people, it was more a huge annoyance than anything else.

What a disgusting simplification of one of our most deadly pandemics of all times.

"Most people"..."inconvenience"

On behalf of the 467, 000+ dead Americans and 2.3 million world-wide (12th deadliest pandemic world-wide all time and in just 12 months and still growing), on behalf of every person over 45 for whom this has become one of the top 5 deadly killers, fuck you. The CDC lists twice as many references to COVID19 as contributing to death as to flu and pneumonia COMBINED, AT EVERY AGE GROUP. Are you really this stupid? And ADULT?

You're a moral and empathetic imbecile You all seem to collect here in these back threads of this pen site. What a fucking cesspool.

[dneal]

What a disgusting simplification of one of our most deadly pandemics of all times

LMAO!!! That one really takes the cake.

Thank god you teach english and not history.

[fountainpenkid]

...For most people, it was more a huge annoyance than anything else.

What a disgusting simplification of one of our most deadly pandemics of all times.

"Most people"..."inconvenience"

On behalf of the 467, 000+ dead Americans and 2.3 million world-wide (12th deadliest pandemic world-wide all time and in just 12 months and still growing), on behalf of every person over 45 for whom this has become one of the top 5 deadly killers, fuck you. The CDC lists twice as many references to COVID19 as contributing to death as to flu and pneumonia COMBINED, AT EVERY AGE GROUP. Are you really this stupid? And ADULT?

You're a moral and empathetic imbecile You all seem to collect here in these back threads of this pen site. What a fucking cesspool.

I don't mean to be charitable to those who dismiss this thing, but I think Pendragon was clearly just talking about their colleagues in their office, not the population as a whole. Your reaction seems out of proportion with the anecdote.

That said, COVID is no flu! As you do point out, it is far more deadly than the flu across all age groups. And the way it attacks multiple types of human tissue, and causes long-term effects with surprising frequency is not something seen with the flu.

[dneal]

...For most people, it was more a huge annoyance than anything else.

What a disgusting simplification of one of our most deadly pandemics of all times.

"Most people"..."inconvenience"

On behalf of the 467, 000+ dead Americans and 2.3 million world-wide (12th deadliest pandemic world-wide all time and in just 12 months and still growing), on behalf of every person over 45 for whom this has become one of the top 5 deadly killers, fuck you. The CDC lists twice as many references to COVID19 as contributing to death as to flu and pneumonia COMBINED, AT EVERY AGE GROUP. Are you really this stupid? And ADULT?

You're a moral and empathetic imbecile You all seem to collect here in these back threads of this pen site. What a fucking cesspool.

Just quoting what a douche you are for posterity.

[Pendragon]

...For most people, it was more a huge annoyance than anything else.

What a disgusting simplification of one of our most deadly pandemics of all times.

"Most people"..."inconvenience"
That is the way it was, whether you like it or not. It is not a simplification at all. We were all hella sick, but still able to show up to work. Nobody even knew COVID had arrived in the US at the time. Do you realize how many people are killed by influenza each year? For most people, though, it is more an uncomfortable nuisance than anything else.


On behalf of the 467, 000+ dead Americans and 2.3 million world-wide (12th deadliest pandemic world-wide all time and in just 12 months and still growing), on behalf of every person over 45 for whom this has become one of the top 5 deadly killers, fuck you.

But you don't speak for them, and are simply offering your opinion, albeit in a rather triggered way.


The CDC lists twice as many references to COVID19 as contributing to death as to flu and pneumonia COMBINED, AT EVERY AGE GROUP. Are you really this stupid? And ADULT?

You're a moral and empathetic imbecile You all seem to collect here in these back threads of this pen site. What a fucking cesspool.
You act like a badly behaved child with a potty mouth and ask whether I am stupid and an adult? LOL Then again, this is a post your contentions posts thread, so perhaps that is to be expected. Anyways, assuming a mortality rate of 2%-4%, that is still a 96+ percent survival rate. So for the overwhelming majority, the disease is not fatal. I never said that those who perished were unimportant or that their lives did not matter. Of course everything should be done to save as many lives as possible. And also to limit the tremendous economic damage resulting from the pandemic.

[fountainpenkid]

Pendragon, you seem to forget we do live in the 21st century. That is really the key to ALL of this--not the least TSherbs' slightly overdone righteous indignation. What I mean is that we no longer think it is remotely acceptable for a couple percent of the population to suddenly be wiped out by the latest disease. Perhaps at our own peril, we have become sure, societally-speaking, that infectious disease should be relegated to a new human-engineered status at margins of human suffering.

And also, 4% odds--who would take them? If there's anything I've learned from personally having the disease, it's that this best of all possible words has never been about the individual--on the individual level, it is never wise to discount the unlikely.** That goes for everyone right now: even those who have almost no chance of dying from it. I thought hell, I'm 23, I didn't have it that bad, I'll be fine. And then it stayed with me for months. It still does, as I wrote earlier. And there are now millions of people in my boat, most with even worse symptoms. Postviral syndromes are not unique to COVID, but this will multiply the problem many times over. And if we want to get all utilitarian here, do not discount the loss of human productivity this causes. Do not discount the scars of mass grief.



**I of course want to make a clear distinction between the unlikely and the rare. Recently-recovered people becoming reinfected after a month--let's just forget about the South African variant curveball for now--is not unlikely, it is profoundly rare. Of course those recently-recovered people can reasonably spare themselves COVID-specific precautions. Of course a 20-year-old w/ no underlying issues should not fret about dying from the virus. But an 80-year old should--there's a 1-in-10 chance they would. This is an orders of magnitude thing.

[Pendragon]

Pendragon, you seem to forget we do live in the 21st century. That is really the key to ALL of this--not the least TSherbs' slightly overdone righteous indignation. What I mean is that we no longer think it is remotely acceptable for a couple percent of the population to suddenly be wiped out by the latest disease. Perhaps at our own peril, we have become sure, societally-speaking, that infectious disease should be relegated to a new human-engineered status at margins of human suffering.
Did we ever think that it is acceptable? I doubt it, and I certainly don't think that it is today. The majority being only temporarily affected does not imply that measures should not be taken to save the remaining few percent, and to treat those with lingering symptoms. Few in percentage, large in absolute numbers, each of which counts. Or better yet, to prevent them from getting infected in the first place. Also, ranting and cussing up a storm is far from being a slightly overdone righteous indignation. Regardless of what we might want to believe, COVID-19 and its variants might be here to stay, flu's more evil twin. Hopefully, the current vaccinations will wipe it out in 2021.

Attention is focused on COVID itself right now, but much less on the small businesses that are being wiped out. At some point, people's need for food and shelter will outweigh their fear of the disease and the penalties for breaking quarantine. They can't do that without jobs, and the economic pain is both severe and real. A very large number of people have been thrown out of work and many businesses shuttered for good. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that is not a good situation. The authorities had better figure out how to handle this dilemma soon. Their self-serving and politically infused approaches need to change.

[fountainpenkid]

I meant by "remotely acceptable" that for most of human history, we could do little to nothing to stop plagues tearing through populations.* Of course, the elites, then as now, could shutter themselves away for a long while, and fare better. *And let's not forget how this conveniently set the stage for European takeovers of the Americas.

I agree wholeheartedly with the absolutely unsustainable nature of shutdowns. Complete shutdowns are in many cases too extreme and have tragic impacts of their own. Businesses, yes (we lost our favorite restaurant to this pandemic, like many), and children too: remote learning is a terrible setback in their education. Lower schools should be opened and governments need to suck it up and put the work in to make them more safe (ventilation, capacity, schedule design etc.) I don't think the current administration is doing enough--getting more vaccines made by suspending patents and giving them to teachers, making N95 masks and distributing them to the population (that would do a TON if most people wore them, and wore them properly), funding treatment research, which was overlooked during The Apricot's term....

[Johnny_S]

Man prefers prison to living with his family in Lockdown

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/18/wanted-man-quits-lockdown-at-home-for-peace-and-quiet-in-prison

[Chuck Naill]

I was never in a lock down mode. I simply began wearing a mask the first of April 2020 and keeping my distance. I would go to youth sporting events and be the only person attending with a mask. Yes, I got some strange looks. As someone in healthcare, I went into homes and healthcare facilities and always wearing gloves, face mask and plastic sheild. I cannot believe I test negative each Monday, but I have.

I have now had both the intial and booster Moderna vaccine.


Had Americans simply followed the CDC guidlines as information evolved or understood the aerosolized nature of COVID-19, many would not have died and shut downs and lock downs would have become unnecessary.

My experience to date is that those testing positive were the same that didn't remain physically distanced or choose to wear a mask or well it constantly. Of course there are exceptions and in crowded areas staying a part was not as easy.

[adhoc]

I was never in a lock down mode. I simply began wearing a mask the first of April 2020 and keeping my distance. I would go to youth sporting events and be the only person attending with a mask. Yes, I got some strange looks. As someone in healthcare, I went into homes and healthcare facilities and always wearing gloves, face mask and plastic sheild. I cannot believe I test negative each Monday, but I have.

I have now had both the intial and booster Moderna vaccine.


Had Americans simply followed the CDC guidlines as information evolved or understood the aerosolized nature of COVID-19, many would not have died and shut downs and lock downs would have become unnecessary.

My experience to date is that those testing positive were the same that didn't remain physically distanced or choose to wear a mask or well it constantly. Of course there are exceptions and in crowded areas staying a part was not as easy.

We had covid. Me and my wife were very careful, masks, disinfectant, for first 6 months I even kept potentially contaminated surfaces under control to remove possibility of cross contamination with disinfectant.

My 1.5 years old daughter brought it from kindergarten. Wife is a primary school psychiatrist or whatever you call it in English, so that was deemed "necessary work profile" and had to work as required by our government. I could theoretically stay at home, but as a substantial bread winner in our household, it just wasn't financially feasible, so we needed the kindergarten.

What I'm trying to say is, it's not so clear cut. Some of us simply had to put ourselves at risk. Perhaps even majority of the infected ones. So you're completely reliant on people around you. I work as a researcher / r&d engineer, I have several exams in fluid mechanics. I understand aerosols very well. The institute I work at did very detailed simulations of spread of aerosols depending on distance, type of mask, materials, etc. Nobody believed us. Several months later university of Vienna in Austria basically confirmed our findings and some people believed it then, but most people still didn't. These are the people you're depending on with your health and potentially even life. A dozen of us have studied years upon years in mechanics, even specialized in fluid dynamics, but we knew less than people who "feel" that's not how it works. It is what it is.

We were luckily fine, because we're in early 30s and healthy. My daughter was fine as well, luckily. We didn't infect anyone, because I was ready with 2 months worth of food stockpiled home (I prepared this in January already, because I knew the virus will reach Europe sooner or later). My friend wasn't so lucky. His parents infected his grandmother, because they didn't believe in the virus. The grandma is dead, and my friend loved her a lot.

I just needed to vent a little and I know you didn't mean to accuse people, but I guess I just wanted to say that more people had to risk an infection, because having the financial means to not work for several years is a luxury the vast majority simply can not afford.

[Ray-VIgo]

No choice here either - we were "essential" the entire time, and in any event the bills must be paid. Several of our business's clients died from COVID, including individuals who engaged in strong self-isolation measures. They got COVID through close family contacts, despite precautions. In each case, there was at least one person exposed outside the family circle, then it came in through that contact before the contact knew it. Some people were sickened, but some also died.

No vaccination for me yet. My parents qualify but there's a 1-month lag between getting an appointment and getting a shot. My grandmother is 91, but they cancelled her appointment. She's trying again. My grandfather is already lost to COVID: one of many people in nursing homes who died when infected patients were mixed into the population. Originally they denied anything to do with COVID, and only when the National Guard went into the homes locally did they find the true extent of the cover-up regarding COVID patients in nursing homes. The Governor ran as far away from that as he could, once it came to light.

There are all these photo opts and videos of people going to vaccine stations. The evening news is there every day. The government is touting how many people are vaccinated. Yet of the people I talk to, there are only a couple who have been vaccinated. The closest analogy is the Soviet Union or the iron curtain in the 1970s-80s. Many people have had appointments cancelled in our area because of low vaccine supply, though the excuses always given for the cancellation are vague. Sometimes no excuse is even attempted. I know one couple who were vaccinated before their group was set to go. They got vaccinated by waiting around Walgreen's all day, and at the end of the day there were a couple left-over doses. I know another couple people who went early because they knew a person involved in local social services, who then hooked them up with appointments. Of course, the politicians got vaccinated first, of course. The commissars always go first. In the eastern bloc, and the late Soviet Union it was a car, or washing machine, or even food at the end. Here it's vaccine doses. In a way, we became what we used to disdain.The posters and slogans the politicians put out are sickening in themselves. Slogans, posters, and reporters don't deliver vaccine and don't treat the dying any more than they could deliver washers, food, and cars in the iron curtain.

[TSherbs]

Ray, I hear your frustration and understand it. And share it. I am 61, and my state is now "open" to vaccinations for 60+, but, well, let's just say that I can't even get someone to call me back. And all the online vax slots are full for 100 mile radius from where I live.

But privilege and elite access to specialized health care is not new for this country and is not limited to Communist era societies. Capitalism has abused the idea of equity in health for centuries. Capitalism and our modern version of it needs no analogy outside of itself for inequity. The USA has never distributed health care equitably, and certainly won't do so under the stress of a pandemic.

I actually consider modern health care to be a human right, and the USA's approach to this I consider to be an immoral shame. If there is a God, he/she/it is likely appalled with our failure, in one of the richest countries on the planet, to care for each other equitably. We don't even try.

[kazoolaw]

But privilege and elite access to specialized health care is not new for this country and is not limited to Communist era societies. Capitalism has abused the idea of equity in health for centuries. Capitalism and our modern version of it needs no analogy outside of itself for inequity. The USA has never distributed health care equitably, and certainly won't do so under the stress of a pandemic.


Was it private enterprise which manufactured the vaccine so quickly: Operation Warp Speed?
Isn't it government that's in control of the actual vaccination process?

[Ray-VIgo]

Ray, I hear your frustration and understand it. And share it. I am 61, and my state is now "open" to vaccinations for 60+, but, well, let's just say that I can't even get someone to call me back. And all the online vax slots are full for 100 mile radius from where I live.

It's not easy to get an appointment. My parents got theirs after trying for quite a number of days. At first, it was by desktop computer. But the website moved slowly and did not always list all the slots available. So it turned out a phone app had more slots, for whatever reason. I assume they'd be accessing the same bank of appointments, but apparently not. My mother went onto the app and found a couple of appointments available that were not on the computer. She began to fill out the app, but because of the small screen it was slow. By the time she hit "submit" the slot was already taken by someone else. This actually happened to my parents each 3 times - appointment available on the app, but it's gone by the time you finish the form. Finally they got appointments about a month, maybe 5 weeks out from their submission. They're both over 70 and still not vaccinated... this weekend hopefully it will happen.

All you can do is keep trying, eventually, hopefully it will happen.

I fully agree with age-based priorities for the vaccination and with nursing home and health care worker vaccination priorities. The issue seems to be that once the process goes into motion, chaos and opaque excuse-making come into play. Someone who is 50 and hanging around at Walgreen's gets a vaccine because they happen to have a couple left at the end of the day, but someone who is 75 or 91 falls into the abyss of online appointment-making that may or may not actually pan out. Someone who is 60 and has a "friend" in the right place gets a vaccine, but others who are over 60 continue to struggle with finding an appointment, and even that may fall through. It's really frustrating.

[TSherbs]

Ray, I hear your frustration and understand it. And share it. I am 61, and my state is now "open" to vaccinations for 60+, but, well, let's just say that I can't even get someone to call me back. And all the online vax slots are full for 100 mile radius from where I live.

.....

All you can do is keep trying, eventually, hopefully it will happen.

.....



Agreed. Hang in there.

I am a teacher, and a younger colleague (different department) tested positive a week ago, and has now declined and been admitted to the hospital. Getting people vaccinated as quickly as possible will, in fact, save lives, at all ages.

[kazoolaw]

Vaccine withheld: moving too fast?


https://sentinelksmo.org/kelly-admin-calls-withholding-vaccines-enforcement-mechanism/

[NumberSix]

My sister and her husband (mid-30s) got vaccinated the other day. It turns out that volunteering at their church's youth camp makes them essential childcare workers, or something. I was pissed at first that they should get to jump the line for such a flimsy excuse. But I can't blame them, really. And as someone else said upthread, the more people vaccinated, the better for all of us.

My dad got his first shot recently - second in about 2 weeks. He went through the VA. My stepmom got her first shot yesterday, through one of the local health insurance conglomerates.

I think I qualify when the next tier opens up. I am in "virtual" line with my health insurance company and with another local provider.

We would all like it to be much faster, to be sure. But it is moving.

[Chuck Naill]

I've had the inital and booster Moderna.

[Ray-VIgo]

My parents finally received their first vaccinations. The little things are heavily regimented, but the grand scheme is chaos. The site itself is highly-regimented: you're told where to stand, when to move up in line, etc. There was a woman counting off the orders- "move forward", "wait", "stand here", etc... like a mixture of the DMV and a Soviet breadline. But the gears inside the machine are not so organized. They check that you are at the site on the correct day, but they do not pay attention to the time of your appointment. As long as you show up on the correct day, they take you. My parents were among the last to be vaccinated around 10:00 AM or so. They waited behind someone with a 9AM appointment and then someone with a 1:30pm appointment. Show up early if you plan to get the vaccine.

There was only enough vaccine to last a couple hours, then they ran out and turned away everyone left in line. They were told to go home and re-book. I'm glad my parents got their first shots finally, but if I had been one of the people turned away, I would have been pretty mad. There was a good bit of grumbling from the people sent away. The ironic thing is some had shown up on-time for their appointments, but there simply was no vaccine to be had. I talked to a colleague yesterday who had the same -- pick your day and show up early. Don't mind the time you are given.

The young doctor my parents saw was very nice. He admitted they were not receiving enough vaccine to handle the appointments made. It was nice to hear what everyone seems to be experiencing rather than the usual propaganda about "relief packages", "operations" and "plans". I suppose this doctor has to deal in facts for a living. After just a couple hours of functioning, things shut down because of shortages. The rest of the people in line... turned away and told to go back on the phone app or computer to re-book. Of course, there's the chance the same thing could happen again. A couple of the people turned away complained this was the second time this had happened to them: get an appointment, show up, be regimented closely in line, then sent home. I'm glad my parents made it through vaccination 1 and were not among those turned away still. So there's a chance you'll be vaccinated if you are eligible, but there's a chance you get right up to the end of the process, and then sent home with nothing at all. It's better to be in front of the cut-off point rather than behind it.

I suppose it always "can be worse". I saw a set of clients the other day who tried to get vaccinated in a neighboring state, and they found it even worse there.

[TSherbs]

Still trying to book a date for me. All sites w/50 miles of me are booked up in minutes each day. I am on wait lists, but who knows if anyone is using them.

[Ray-VIgo]

The way we found appointments was to go onto the app right when the appointments would hit - this was like at 11 at night.

[TSherbs]

Yeah, might be midnight for me. Middle of the night for me....

[TSherbs]

I stayed up past midnight and *almost* got a spot...

But then this morning, rather randomly, both my wife and I were able to book vaxes for next week in the same location at the same time! Weirdly accommodating! 20 mile drive to the nearest Walmart pharmacy. Do some shopping there before I head home. The system in Maine isn't entirely broken, but if you're elderly, alone, and not computer savy, you are shit out of luck thus far.

[Ray-VIgo]

It was probably a spot that opened up at random. We found that open appointments often would hit in a bloc late at night (11 PM in our case), or would appear at random, one or two here and there. According to the doctor we talked to, people will make an appointment, but then luck out and get the vaccine sooner, causing a release of that person's later appointment, and thus causing the one-off opening to hit the database. A one-week lag time is actually a very good result. Several weeks or a month is common to wait.

It's really, really tough if you aren't good with a computer. My grandmother is 91 and still not vaccinated. She has never used a computer, so still waiting on her appointment that was set up through my parents (who at least use and own a computer, though are by no means expert). Eventually... hopefully it will all happen.

[Chuck Naill]

It's good the hear you guys are getting an opportunity to get your vaccines. It would be nice if they came with tags we could wear around our necks.

[blopplop]

I just want a chip inserted into my forehead. That way I don't have to carry anything around. Seems easier to me. :)

[TSherbs]

Interesting small study from the CDC of a classroom and the consequences there of having an unmasked, unvaccinated teacher:

[URL=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/unvaccinated-unmasked-teacher-spreads-covid-19-elementary-school-students-cdc-n1277852[/URL]

[TSherbs]

Latest from my state.

Come on, Maine!

Bangor Daily News: Maine now has the highest COVID-19 case rate in New England.

https://bangordailynews.com/2021/09/07/news/maine-leads-new-england-in-covid-19-case-rates-ahead-of-labor-day-weekend/

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk