Jump to content

The Flu


mysfit

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

1.  Have to read a variety of folks who are knowledgable.  Reading and sharing data does not constitute agreement, just demonstrates an open mind
 

And yet we know you didn't read/watch this one, in the unlikely event you subscribed to it.  You're just shitposting.  "Here, you read this, and give me klout."  You're like an old, shriveled man with a millennial impulse to be listened to regardless of what you know.

38 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

2.  The folks Capable of studying the data do not need to be epidemiologists.  Most of those doing so are not.
 

Sure.  But the epidemiologists are ALL saying shit that diametrically opposes the idea that we should curtail social distancing or open the economy in any way.

38 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

3.  You and misfit are the only ones on this board to say it’s less dangerous than the flu.

In late January and February, asshole.  In fucking APRIL you were floating the idea of sending everyone except old people out into the world.  Disingenuous prick.

38 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

4.  The article made no recommendations, it merely demonstrated that in some nations there was a flattening of the curve where there was no “shutdown” and discussed possible cultural and social behaviors as well as climate and geography that may have contributed to that phenomenon.

Like which countries?  Sweden?  They have the worst infection rates in all of Scandinavia, and they were wrong.

38 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

5.  Every sane person is looking at data, seeking to expand available data and making judgments about risk/reward flowing from various behaviors and conditions on/for which data is available.

6.  Your practiced ignorance on this and other topics is not enlightening or entertaining.

"Practiced ignorance"?  Again, you're floating debunked bullshit from non-experts a mere couple weeks after you suggested we should let this virus burn through the non-at-risk population, with absolutely no clue that hospital capacities are the reason we're doing this.  Practiced ignorance is your fucking life's work.  Go vote for Trump again, asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
post_arrow.png
Video
12:41

Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never exponential

As he is careful to point out, Professor Michael Levitt is not an epidemiologist. He’s Professor of Structural Biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, and winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for “the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems.” He’s a numbers guy — as he told us in our interview, his wife says he loves numbers more than her — but then, much of modern science is really about statistics (as his detractors never tire of pointing out, Professor Neil Ferguson is a theoretical physicist by training).

With a purely statistical perspective, he has been playing close attention to the Covid-19 pandemic since January, when most of us were not even aware of it. He first spoke out in early February, when through analysing the numbers of cases and deaths in Hubei province he predicted with remarkable accuracy that the epidemic in that province would top out at around 3,250 deaths.

His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”.

This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The ‘unmitigated’ scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt’s point is that that hasn’t actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.

He takes specific issue with the Neil Ferguson paper. “In a footnote to a table it said, assuming exponential growth of 15% for six days. Now I had looked at China and had never seen exponential growth that wasn’t decaying rapidly.”

The explanation for this flattening that we are used to is that social distancing and lockdowns have slowed the curve, but he is unconvinced. As he put it to me, in the subsequent examples to China of South Korea, Iran and Italy, “the beginning of the epidemics showed a slowing down and it was very hard for me to believe that those three countries could practise social distancing as well as China.” He believes that both some degree of prior immunity and large numbers of asymptomatic cases are important factors.

He also observes that the total number of deaths we are seeing, in places as diverse as New York City, parts of England, parts of France and Northern Italy, all seem to level out at a very similar fraction of the total population. “Are they all practising equally good social distancing? I don’t think so.” He disagrees with Sir David Spiegelhalter’s calculations that the totem is around one additional year of excess deaths, while (by adjusting to match the effects seen on the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship) he calculates that it is more like one month of excess death that is need before the virus peters out.

More generally, he complains that epidemiologists only seem to be called wrong if they underestimate deaths, and so there is an intrinsic bias towards caution. “They see their role as scaring people into doing something, and I understand that… but in my work, if I say a number is too small and I’m wrong, or too big and I’m wrong, both of those errors are the same.”

He believes the much-discussed R0 is a faulty number, as it is meaningless without the time infectious alongside.

He describes indiscriminate lockdown measures as “a huge mistake,” and advocates a “smart lockdown” policy, focused on more effective measures, focused on protecting elderly people.

 
I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn’t practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity. I see the standout losers as countries like Austria, Australia and Israel that had very strict lockdown but didn’t have many cases. They have damaged their economies, caused massive social damage, damaged the educational year of their children, but not obtained any herd immunity.

 

“There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.

 
- PROFESSOR MICHAEL LEVITT

He is philosophical about the future and sees this as a generational mistake:

 
I think this is another foul-up on the part of the baby boomers. I am a real baby boomer — I was born in 1947, I am almost 73 years old — but I think we’ve really screwed up. We’ve caused pollution, we’ve allowed the world’s population to increase threefold in my lifetime, we’ve caused the problems of global warming and now we’ve left your generation with a real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people. 
 
- PROFESSOR MICHAEL LEVITT

————-

For those as dumb as Davis who don’t know how to navigate the Internet, this article was available without paying.  This is the first time I’ve come across this source and know nothing about its credibility.  The professor’s experience is noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:
post_arrow.png
Video
12:41

Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never exponential

As he is careful to point out, Professor Michael Levitt is not an epidemiologist. He’s Professor of Structural Biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, and winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for “the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems.” He’s a numbers guy — as he told us in our interview, his wife says he loves numbers more than her — but then, much of modern science is really about statistics (as his detractors never tire of pointing out, Professor Neil Ferguson is a theoretical physicist by training).

With a purely statistical perspective, he has been playing close attention to the Covid-19 pandemic since January, when most of us were not even aware of it. He first spoke out in early February, when through analysing the numbers of cases and deaths in Hubei province he predicted with remarkable accuracy that the epidemic in that province would top out at around 3,250 deaths.

His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”.

This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The ‘unmitigated’ scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt’s point is that that hasn’t actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.

He takes specific issue with the Neil Ferguson paper. “In a footnote to a table it said, assuming exponential growth of 15% for six days. Now I had looked at China and had never seen exponential growth that wasn’t decaying rapidly.”

The explanation for this flattening that we are used to is that social distancing and lockdowns have slowed the curve, but he is unconvinced. As he put it to me, in the subsequent examples to China of South Korea, Iran and Italy, “the beginning of the epidemics showed a slowing down and it was very hard for me to believe that those three countries could practise social distancing as well as China.” He believes that both some degree of prior immunity and large numbers of asymptomatic cases are important factors.

He also observes that the total number of deaths we are seeing, in places as diverse as New York City, parts of England, parts of France and Northern Italy, all seem to level out at a very similar fraction of the total population. “Are they all practising equally good social distancing? I don’t think so.” He disagrees with Sir David Spiegelhalter’s calculations that the totem is around one additional year of excess deaths, while (by adjusting to match the effects seen on the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship) he calculates that it is more like one month of excess death that is need before the virus peters out.

More generally, he complains that epidemiologists only seem to be called wrong if they underestimate deaths, and so there is an intrinsic bias towards caution. “They see their role as scaring people into doing something, and I understand that… but in my work, if I say a number is too small and I’m wrong, or too big and I’m wrong, both of those errors are the same.”

He believes the much-discussed R0 is a faulty number, as it is meaningless without the time infectious alongside.

He describes indiscriminate lockdown measures as “a huge mistake,” and advocates a “smart lockdown” policy, focused on more effective measures, focused on protecting elderly people.

 
I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn’t practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity. I see the standout losers as countries like Austria, Australia and Israel that had very strict lockdown but didn’t have many cases. They have damaged their economies, caused massive social damage, damaged the educational year of their children, but not obtained any herd immunity.

 

“There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.

 
- PROFESSOR MICHAEL LEVITT

He is philosophical about the future and sees this as a generational mistake:

 
I think this is another foul-up on the part of the baby boomers. I am a real baby boomer — I was born in 1947, I am almost 73 years old — but I think we’ve really screwed up. We’ve caused pollution, we’ve allowed the world’s population to increase threefold in my lifetime, we’ve caused the problems of global warming and now we’ve left your generation with a real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people. 
 
- PROFESSOR MICHAEL LEVITT

————-

For those as dumb as Davis who don’t know how to navigate the Internet, this article was available without paying.

It's an even fucking dumber article now that I've read it.  He's cherrypicking examples and using cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.  Apparently he's also taking the Chinese government at their word, too.  The countries that actually did this right  (S. Korea, for example) did physical distancing AND got a rapid testing apparatus in place.  Instead of preaching the need for that, you idiots are preaching medieval theory of "herd immunity" by millions of deaths.

 

I'll take the word of epidemiologists, thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Orange said:

And yet we know you didn't read/watch this one, in the unlikely event you subscribed to it.  You're just shitposting.  "Here, you read this, and give me klout."  You're like an old, shriveled man with a millennial impulse to be listened to regardless of what you know.

Sure.  But the epidemiologists are ALL saying shit that diametrically opposes the idea that we should curtail social distancing or open the economy in any way.

In late January and February, asshole.  In fucking APRIL you were floating the idea of sending everyone except old people out into the world.  Disingenuous prick.

Like which countries?  Sweden?  They have the worst infection rates in all of Scandinavia, and they were wrong.

"Practiced ignorance"?  Again, you're floating debunked bullshit from non-experts a mere couple weeks after you suggested we should let this virus burn through the non-at-risk population, with absolutely no clue that hospital capacities are the reason we're doing this.  Practiced ignorance is your fucking life's work.  Go vote for Trump again, asshole.

The question I posed in April was could we have done a better job with more protection for seniors and less restrictions on some others.  That question, and it was a question not a recommendation, is begged by the available data.  I noted my skepticism about seeing relatives despite posing the question.  You sir are as dumb as anyone who has ever posted on this site and you continually demonstrate that.

As an example, and only as an example, in my two County region of about 400,000 people there are now about 1,000 confirmed or probable cases, roughly half the cases are attributable to rest homes and associated healthcare workers.  Roughly 1/4 of the cases were accounted for in two businesses where a large number of people worked relatively close together, A nuclear clean up facility and a meat packing plant.  No deaths for people under 60.  The daily number of new cases outside of the noted facilities had been constant at between 20 and 30 all during March and April.  Covid 

Interestingly, In the last few days the county health department ceased reporting the locations at which the case developed. The cites reason was A fear that the data was causing a false sense of security in the community. A classic example of censoring data.  Covid 19 cases accounted for less than 10% of the total hospitalized.

In every location nationwide politicians are going to be looking at ways to lessen restrictions based on available data.  It is important to be familiar with the data in order to make decisions about the behavior of oneself and loved ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

The question I posed in April was could we have done a better job with more protection for seniors and less restrictions on some others.  That question, and it was a question not a recommendation, is begged by the available data.

The question is "Why is the federal government STILL not using the Defense Production Act to make tests, ventilators, masks and other PPE?"  

YOUR president is fucking this up in a MASSIVE way, and your only question is "wHy aRe wE socIaL diStAncInG sO muCh?" 

This shit was only supposed to take 6-8 weeks, and in the meantime the federal government and the states were supposed to work together effectively to create a test-and-track infrastructure that allowed us to go back to work without crashing the healthcare system and further destroying the economy.  Trump has completely squandered Feb/March/April.  How will he fuck up May?  Probably the same way he has been, by abdicating all responsibility in a vain attempt to convince mouthbreathers like you that the governors are to blame for this wretchedly horrible response.  Hell, if Trump had been doing this in February, we may not have had to close the economy at all!

The manner in which your ilk REFUSES to understand this continues to be mind-boggling.  You're truly a blind member of a rabid, ignorant cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

As an example, and only as an example, and my two County region of about 400,000 people there are now about 1,000 confirmed or probable cases, roughly half the cases are attributable to rest homes and associated healthcare workers.  Roughly 1/4 of the cases were accounted for in two businesses were large number of people worked relatively close together, A nuclear clean up facility and a meat packing plant.  No deaths for people under 60.

Yes, hundreds of healthcare workers sick.

How many more would be sick without social distancing?  20% hospitalization rate.  If people had not been sheltering in place, the healthcare system would've crashed, and people with mild heart attacks would see death rates soar.  And by the way, the COVID death rates, by all accounts from all experts, are undercounted.  

You done editing yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hundred of cases of healthcare workers in resthomes with poor practices and low skilled/knowledge/compensated workers which have received civil penalties and will be sued and incur large losses.  The hospitalization rate for non rest home patients was below 10% of those cases.  One might guess 2 or 3% if one included the number of unconfirmed milder or asymptomatic cases that additional testing reveals where available.

You are correct in noting that the burden on healthcare workers is an important data point in making decisions.

Without over relying on it, One must also acknowledge the societal benefit Of younger healthier people having contracted the virus without serious implications.  They developed antibodies that may be useful in treating others and are building herd immunity.  Risk/reward analysis that is painful but necessary especially if the time to vaccine remains indeterminable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to admit to a mistake.  I said your posts We’re not enlightening and entertaining.  They are both. Anyone reading this thread will note my reliance on data and asking questions raised by the data while you are spitting, stuttering and foaming at the mouth.

Wholesale Loosening of social distancing practices is foolish.  Incremental changes based on data is necessary.  Social distancing has high economic, educational and mental health costs.  Much analysis must be done to lower those costs how, when and as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

I will have to admit to a mistake.  I said your posts We’re not enlightening and entertaining.  They are both. Anyone reading this thread will note my reliance on data and asking questions raised by the data while you are spitting, stuttering and foaming at the mouth.

A Trump supporter citing data is HILARIOUS.

Trump refuses to use the DPA to assist healthcare workers that you insult as "low skill and knowledge" merely because they aren't given proper PPE.  Yet Trump uses the DPA to force meatpacking plants open so workers can continue to get sick like they did in SD.

You enable and support the outright dishonestly, cruelty, and ineptitude of this administration, while ignoring the data points and facts and science that support all of my points.  

I used to think you were an okay guy who had a different viewpoint.  Now I know you're a dishonest prick who genuinely has no empathy for people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, there is a some chance I’ve already had Covid 19.  I was in international Airports in Seattle, Denver and Atlanta a total of 12 times in January. I developed the dry cough symptom that was severe and lasted about three weeks.  

The cough was so hard and consistent that I had severe pain in chest and back.  Some fatigue but no noticeable fever.  As is my general practice, did not seek medical care.  Expectorants did not loosen anything up, cough always remained dry.  
 

At some point I’ll get tested for anti-bodies and donate blood if I had it.  Really hope I did as it might provide immunity from the second wave undoubtedly coming in the fall.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN reporting 42 states lessening social distancing measures this week.  One can only hope it’s data driven.

Washington loosening restrictions on construction and elective medical procedures.  Seems smart.  California allowing retail shops such as florists and clothing stores to open Friday.  Middle ground, but probably going too far.  Georgia opening bars and restaurants, seems stupid.  Hopefully moderation dominates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2020 at 1:48 PM, KUGRDON said:

From Fareed, that crazy Trump supporter

 

This is an interesting comparison, and if the herd immunity theory works (Do we even know that yet?) then maybe for Sweden this is a good course of action. It's likely to be over more quickly. But Sweden has roughly the population of North Carolina, and its death rate per million since March 15 is more than double that of the U.S. If the U.S. had followed that model, we might have more than 150,000 deaths today, which even for Trump would seem to be political suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides population, Sweden also differs greatly from the U.S. in its national healthcare system & unified public trust of government and institutions.   They were able to take a different approach because they are a different animal.

Even then, the Swedes admit they failed their senior citizens .... this is a good look:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/world/europe/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Donate

    Please donate to support this community. We appreciate all donations!

    Donate Sidebar by DevFuse
×
×
  • Create New...