Questioning Conventional Wisdom - The virus

[TSherbs]

This video presents the conventional wisdom; it doesn't question it. The math was basic, and both presenters admitted that no one knows accurate morbidity rates. This is what everyone says, if you pay attention past the headlines and sound bites. Everyone already knows that we are instituting measures now to prevent worst-case scenarios, even while we don't know accurate infection rates. The interviewee did not question the merits of flattening the curve, either. Flattening the curve has never meant that fewer people are exposed in total. I didn't see any unconventional wisdom here at all. Everyone already knows that IF we find out that certain people are immune or that the medical systems can handle the serious case load, then we will ease restrictions. Second and third waves of disease spread are not uncommon, which we also already know. Our restriction lifting will likely be in stages and with purposeful planning. We already know this, too. Many industries will alter how they manage worker and customer space. We already know this too. Some people haven't thought about it all much, but that is just some people.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

In fairness, it's a fast moving train and the article they're discussing was published two weeks ago. The interview was a week ago. Doesn't seem like much, but those are light years of learning about this thing. The conventional wisdom at that time was anywhere from 3-8% fatality rate (or more, depending on who was asked).

You posted it two days ago, right? I'm simply pointing out that there is actually much agreement after you cut through journalistic and political polarity, which revolts me on the television and on these threads. That gentleman doing the interview kept trying to amp up the guy he was interviewing. I was pleased with how the interviewee resisted hyperbole and cheap zingers.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

This video presents the conventional wisdom; it doesn't question it. The math was basic, and both presenters admitted that no one knows accurate morbidity rates. This is what everyone says, if you pay attention past the headlines and sound bites. Everyone already knows that we are instituting measures now to prevent worst-case scenarios, even while we don't know accurate infection rates. The interviewee did not question the merits of flattening the curve, either. Flattening the curve has never meant that fewer people are exposed in total. I didn't see any unconventional wisdom here at all. Everyone already knows that IF we find out that certain people are immune or that the medical systems can handle the serious case load, then we will ease restrictions. Second and third waves of disease spread are not uncommon, which we also already know. Our restriction lifting will likely be in stages and with purposeful planning. We already know this, too. Many industries will alter how they manage worker and customer space. We already know this too. Some people haven't thought about it all much, but that is just some people.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

In fairness, it's a fast moving train and the article they're discussing was published two weeks ago. The interview was a week ago. Doesn't seem like much, but those are light years of learning about this thing. The conventional wisdom at that time was anywhere from 3-8% fatality rate (or more, depending on who was asked).

You posted it two days ago, right? I'm simply pointing out that there is actually much agreement after you cut through journalistic and political polarity, which revolts me on the television and on these threads. That gentleman doing the interview kept trying to amp up the guy he was interviewing. I was pleased with how the interviewee resisted hyperbole and cheap zingers.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Peter Robinson using hyperbole and cheap zingers? Clearly you're unfamiliar with him or the series. He's playing devil's advocate.

Here's a link to the series.

At any rate, there are plenty of "the sky is falling" people out there, particularly in the media. You seem to be offering that we've all agreed that it's not nearly as bad as we've been led to believe initially, or that the scientists have come to some consensus. They haven't, "measures" have been extended, we're still talking about overwhelming the system and trumpeting the death count. Like mhosea has said, they've just drawn a range of severity from all to none, with some dotted line plotted in between. That's not conventional wisdom anymore. It's hedging bets.

[mhosea]

"Doctor Qanta Ahmed, Pulmonologist and Intensive Care Specialist from New York, reveals what it's really like in hospitals right now #Coronavirus. Dr. Ahmed also comments on the promise shown by Hydroxychloroquine."

[Jon Szanto]

Why New York has 12 times as many coronavirus deaths as California
California is not in the clear yet, but its experience so far has some potential takeaways.

[VertOlive]

Why New York has 12 times as many coronavirus deaths as California
California is not in the clear yet, but its experience so far has some potential takeaways.

I have been musing a lot about California. There were thousands of people traveling to and from China from California for the Chinese New Year celebrations. This was the time frame during which the virus was afoot.

I can’t help but wonder if the illness has already run through the population there before we really knew what was going on. That said, it’s just an armchair theory. Besides the subway travel, what else is different about California vs New York?

[Jon Szanto]

I can’t help but wonder if the illness has already run through the population there before we really knew what was going on. That said, it’s just an armchair theory. Besides the subway travel, what else is different about California vs New York?

They did take pains to point out, lacking adequate testing resources and reporting speed (thanks to the poor Federal leadership), that it is difficult to know the exact breadth and depth of the infections here. That said, and with (always) the possibility of secondary peaks, the biggest differences appear to the the relatively quick, pro-active measures put in place statewide and locally. I give a lot of credit to Gov. Gavin Newsome so far, and quite of a bit of what he did was politically risky, but with the needs and concerns of the population paramount. I also think that there has been far better compliance by the citizens here - not perfect, since we are dealing with humans - something that has surprised me a bit. NYC is the densest city in the US, but SF is 2nd, so it was really wise that the mayor there closed things down.

These are all snapshots of the moment; we will all learn much more in the weeks, months and years ahead. I am grateful for the leadership locally and statewide; the news conferences here have been multiple light-years beyond the clown show from the White House, with good, clear directives to the citizens and a lot of information available. Only time will tell, and no matter how small the number of deaths, they are all painful. I wish more states would have gone this route and I am quite concerned about the many that are still playing cavalierly with the lives of their residents. We have become a very ignorant, arrogant nation, and the days of people looking out for the betterment of the population as a whole seem to be shrinking in the rear-view mirror.

[dneal]

The last two Hoover Institution videos have been with economists. One With Kevin Warsh (who is an economist that served on the Federal Reserve board of governors), is pretty good.

I like this one a little better, and think it's slightly more relevant to the thread. It's shorter too...

[TSherbs]

Peter Robinson using hyperbole and cheap zingers? Clearly you're unfamiliar with him or the series. He's playing devil's advocate.

No, I watched this interview, beginning to end. I thought Robinson smarmy. You may like him. The guy he interviewed was measured and not smarmy, despite Robinson's invitations to join in.

At any rate, there are plenty of "the sky is falling" people out there, particularly in the media. You seem to be offering that we've all agreed that it's not nearly as bad as we've been led to believe initially, or that the scientists have come to some consensus.

I did not say the former. I did say the latter, and then elaborated. But not how you have depicted it. There is no empirical consensus about actual population infection rates. The consensus is that they don't know. Most epidemiologists say exactly that, just how the guy interviewed said it too. That's the consensus. The rest is hype-journalism or political spin-doctoring, or FPG clickbait.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Jon Szanto]

From the Annals of Internal Medicine:
Use of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Every Clinician Should Know

[dneal]

No, I watched this interview, beginning to end. I thought Robinson smarmy. You may like him. The guy he interviewed was measured and not smarmy, despite Robinson's invitations to join in.

At any rate, there are plenty of "the sky is falling" people out there, particularly in the media. You seem to be offering that we've all agreed that it's not nearly as bad as we've been led to believe initially, or that the scientists have come to some consensus.

I did not say the former. I did say the latter, and then elaborated. But not how you have depicted it. There is no empirical consensus about actual population infection rates. The consensus is that they don't know. Most epidemiologists say exactly that, just how the guy interviewed said it too. That's the consensus. The rest is hype-journalism or political spin-doctoring, or FPG clickbait.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

So you don’t like it then. Cool with me. Here’s the even cooler thing - there are a whole bunch of other threads on all sorts of topics scattered across the forum. You might like one of those.

[Chrissy]

From the Annals of Internal Medicine:
Use of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Every Clinician Should Know

That was an interesting article. Thanks.
I'm sure that a suitable vaccine will be developed following information gleaned from many sources.

[mhosea]

From the Annals of Internal Medicine:
Use of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Every Clinician Should Know

That was an interesting article. Thanks.
I'm sure that a suitable vaccine will be developed following information gleaned from many sources.

Be sure to read the comments attached to the article.

[dneal]

This link was posted in another virus thread. I can't vouch for the accuracy, but they seem to have been thorough in their citing of sources.

Currently, they show 1,448,534 total cases and 83,416 deaths. Using the "measured case fatality rate", we arrive at:

83,416
------- = .05 or 5%
1,448,543

[Jon Szanto]

Be sure to read the comments attached to the article.

I.E. other people have differing opinions on the matter. Not a surprise.

[dneal]

Be sure to read the comments attached to the article.

I.E. other people have differing opinions on the matter. Not a surprise.

Did you read them? For me, they appeared to be behind a subscription wall.

[mhosea]

Be sure to read the comments attached to the article.

I.E. other people have differing opinions on the matter. Not a surprise.

Did you read them? For me, they appeared to be behind a subscription wall.

It auto-scrolls you back to the top to talk about a subscription. Just scroll back down.

[Jon Szanto]

Did you read them?

Yes. I wouldn't have commented if I hadn't. They were in plain sight when I clicked on "Comments" near the top. I don't have a subscription.

[mhosea]

Be sure to read the comments attached to the article.

I.E. other people have differing opinions on the matter. Not a surprise.

Rather than come at it as a question of opinions, I was more interested in the technical points. For example, one of them discussed the dosage problem, i.e. it is possible that higher dosages are required to elicit desired effects, and while accepted dosages for other "on label" purposes may be safe, it is uncertain whether dosages required to for the effect we are seeking here would be safe, at least for some patients. It's an even-handed comment, not simply disagreeing but rather adding substance to the discussion of what inconclusive prior studies actually imply.

To some extent the discussion of the inconclusive support for hydroxychloroquine use is a digression, as are the potential side-effects of hydroxychloroquine. The authors make these arguments (and end up overstating them, I suspect) because they are primarily concerned that hydroxychloroquine is effectively being taken from many patients who certainly benefit from it. They're trying to influence their colleagues' behavior in the hope (probably the vain hope) that it will help solve the supply problem for on-label users. At any rate, I fully agree with them that we should not allow this deprivation to continue. If hydroxychloroquine is not effective for COVID-19 treatment, then the deprivation is obviously not justified. If it is, then it still would not be justified. I'm not informed on the hydroxychloroquine supply chain, but what is needed for these on-label uses should come off the top, and what is left over is what we have to play with. If we're not happy with that, then we need to work on the supply problem just like we're working every other supply problem we have.

[Jon Szanto]

The number of scientific papers on the novel coronavirus is doubling every 14 days

[Jon Szanto]

Rather than come at it as a question of opinions, I was more interested in the technical points.

Whatever the nomenclature you choose, it is an article followed by a number of comments offering varying viewpoints on, as you say, the technical matters of the discussion.

I am not a scientist or medical professional. I am not going to fake trying to be on top of the science aspect of all of these developments (note my next article submission on the amount and profundity of papers), that would be folly. I'm trying to listen to the voices that seem to be most viable and considered in their course of action. I also am hyper-aware, in the discouraging state of our society, of how this has all been diminished and politicized as partisan proponents push conspiracy theories and other absurdities.

I do quick reads of some of the alternate viewpoints and try to have a somewhat broader take on things. I don't ever fool myself into thinking I completely understand the science and pathology, at the deepest levels necessary, to make overt pronouncements on any of this.