KCLarkin
-
Posts
2,302 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by KCLarkin
-
-
KCLarkin, it went up or down?
That's the magic of cumulative data. It can only go up!
According to your logic, the measles vaccine doesn't work, since every year the cumulative number of measles infections goes up.
--
0.9% tested positive on Day 0 and only 0.6% tested positive on Day 14. Seems like effective infection control, but given the 14 day incubation period, you'd need a longer study to be sure.
-
I am guessing you didn’t read the actual journal article, since the results are opposite of what you are claiming.
On day 0, 16 tested positive
On day 14, 11 tested positive
So the interventions worked. Not surprising given how successful the NBA and NHL bubbles were.
-
They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms.
Under these conditions, only 2% became infected? And this is your “evidence” that these measures don’t work?
-
But its difficult to differentiate Dr. Jay Bhattacharya position almost 6 months back to present day Fauci position.
Bhattacharya “The risk that kids pose to adults is very very small, even if they’re positive.”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6944e1.htm
In this study, the SAR within households was 53%. If the index patient was a child (<12), the SAR was also 53%.
-
“The main finding from that literature is that kids do not pass the disease on to adults at any appreciable rate,” Bhattacharya “The risk that kids pose to adults is very very small, even if they’re positive.”
This is a myth. Kids, especially older kids (10+), do spread the disease. I personally know a 10 year old kid who got it and passed it onto at least three other kids and at least one parent. This is an area with very low transmission, so it was easy to trace the spread. There is ample literature that shows older kids spread the disease at similar rates to adults.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't reopen schools.
-
We will have potentially 20m vaccine doses available by the end of December. Assuming there is a means of distributing and administering the doses...
We have 28m Americans over the age of 70.
Most of the dying are age 70+.
If we first vaccinating the age 70+ the death tool should drop by over 90%. Right?
Vaccines will go to med staff first, but regardless remember two doses per person.
-
For those that think that cloths masks may be or may not be effective think about whether or not you can smell your own fart or someone else fart when they pass gas.
And then think about whether fecal diseases (typhoid, cholera, etc) are spread by farts.
-
Large enough sample : "4862 completed the study."
Yes, but most of them didn't get infected over this short period.
Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.
So, a mask likely reduces your risk of infection by -46% to +23%. We'd need more data to reduce that range. Matches the general consensus that masks are primarily source control but provide some protective benefit.
NOTE:
There are important caveats to this study. For example, this study started during the first lockdown, so most of the transmission is likely within households.
-
Masks prevent people from transmitting the coronavirus to others, scientists now agree. But a new trial failed to document protection from the virus among the wearers.
Shows a 20% reduction in transmission but the study wasn't large enough to get a significant result.
-
Scientists are very much like analysts. An analyst is good for compiling data and doing research, but should not be trusted to make and form final conclusions and take action. Because any analyst who is any good at it, would be managing money and not writing book reports if that were actually true.
Greg, you can't even get your tortured analogies right:
Scientists -> Quants
Bureaucrats > PM/Analysts
Politicians -> DIY investors
-
For some reason 20%, 50%, 90% of people wearing masks all have the same outcome and you seem to get increasing cases.
Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just spewing B.S.?
Yes there was ......and were posted before, including by myself.
Sorry, I was looking for evidence not polling data. For example, you could do something like this:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.11.20192971v1.full.pdf
The results indicate that reported mask-wearing could play an important role in mitigating the growth of COVID-19. Widespread mask-wearing within a country associates with an expected 7% (95% CI: 3.94% — 9.99%) decline in the growth rate of daily active cases of COVID-19 in the country. This daily decline equates to an expected 88.5% drop in the growth of daily active cases over a 30-day period when compared to zero percent mask-wearing, all else held equal. -
For some reason 20%, 50%, 90% of people wearing masks all have the same outcome and you seem to get increasing cases.
Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just spewing B.S.?
-
Which one of the below are you saying?
- (a) 100% certainty that Covid-19 coronavirus will not mutate, unlike the flu coronaviruses, or
- (b) 100% certainty that the same vaccine we get once for Covid-19 coronavirus will be able to provide immunity against all mutations of Covid-19 coronavirus, unlike the vaccine for flu coronaviruses.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.15.383323v1
100% certainty that Covid-19 will mutate but at a much slower rate than influenza viruses (we should be grateful this isn't "just the flu").
To simplify, let's assume the rate of mutation is related to mutations during the following:
1. Replications within a host (human or animal)
2. Jumping between hosts
3. Jumping between species
This suggests that rate of mutation will be highest at the peak of the pandemic when the virus is replicating rapidly in people and jumping rapidly between hosts. We've had perhaps trillions of replications, yet vaccines are showing 90% efficiency. This shows that the virus is not mutating rapidly (which is also shown in genetic tracing).
You could foresee some random mutation that allows Covid-19 to evade the vaccine, but the probability is related to the number of mutations. So the likelihood of a dangerous mutation occurring after June 2021 is much lower than one occurring in 2020.
Edit to add: So that suggests you won't need a yearly vaccine solely due to mutations. You might still need one for waning immunity, but the preprint above suggests immunity could be reasonably long-lived.
- (a) 100% certainty that Covid-19 coronavirus will not mutate, unlike the flu coronaviruses, or
-
Preprint released today suggests long-term immunity for 90% of people. Perhaps for decades as seen with SARS.
Comparisons with flu are misplaced on all levels.
So, in summary:
1. Covid is certain to become endemic
2. Between vaccines and acquired immunity this virus will not be material beyond 2022
-
And Sweden hasn't been spared despite their herd immunity approach.
-
some promising results from Slovakia’s widespread testing scheme. Infections cut in half?
-
KCLarkin, if you believe at all in your answer and are intellectually honest then you will redo the same exercise between Norway and Sweden which you have ignored from my post.
The comparison between Sweden, Finland, and Norway is more valid (even though n=3). Culture and climate are similar AFAIK. And the sample is chosen based on geography.
But I don't think there is evidence that Sweden's strategy is better than Finland or Norway. On balance, the evidence seems to favour Finland's approach.
And even if the strategy worked in Sweden, there is no evidence that it would work in other places. For example, places that don't have so many single-person households. And there is ample evidence in Spain, NY, UK, Israel, etc. that the Swedish strategy would not work in many places.
-
while its efficacy can be seriously questioned looking at Sweden statistics vs its neighbors
???
Swedens neighbours are Finland and Norway. I haven't seen any statistics (health or economic) where Sweden is significantly better than Finland or Norway. At best, you can say that Sweden has more fatalities and any economic benefit was small or non-existent. But you could make the case that Finland has both lower fatalities and better economic performance.
Edit to add: Most people who cite Sweden as an example, are using it as a mythical approach without actually understanding anything about Sweden or its actual approach. I'm reluctant to comment on things I don't fully understand. So here is a comment from a Swedish newspaper:
Minister for Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren responded on Monday by saying that, while the term 'lockdown' can be used to describe several different scenarios, Sweden is already "on the way to shutting down large parts of our society" by the implementation of the new local restrictions.
-
These partial lockdowns being implemented are sure to fail because they do not catch all infected and transmission remains a factor.
This is mathematically incorrect. You don’t need to catch all infections. In most places, you would only need to reduce transmission by about 20% to get the epidemic under control.
yes between New York State and Florida.
No. It is not valid to compare death rates between a state that was hit early in the pandemic before any controls or medical treatment To one that was hit in summer. All those deaths in NY were already baked in before the lockdown.
The Florida vs NY comparison is especially flawed because of the climate and cultural differences. You might be able to compare Florida to Georgia or Louisiana. But even then, Florida is pretty unique.
And even if they were comparable, n=2 is not exactly rigorous. It is especially wrong when you are deliberately biasing your sample.
-
https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/what-florida-can-teach-new-york-about-handling-covid/
FL vs NY. Sure, bring politics in to it. Because thats the difference.
This is exactly the rigorous scientific journalism I would expect from an intern at the Post.
-
Interesting, a country with 90M people and 0 deaths...
My point wasn’t about Vietnam. It was about you blatantly lying when you said I considered Europe a successful model.
And if it is so easy for you to lie about my positions when there is a written record, how easy is it to lie to yourself?
-
Physdude makes an excellent point. Almost nobody is talking about Vietnam. A country with 90MM people and 0 Covid deaths.
Europe and the Americas failed to control the virus. And they paid the price with heavy lockdowns, deaths, and staggering economic and social costs.
Greg, lying about my opinions is part of your delusion.
-
You have consistently danced from one "example" of "success" to the next and consistently exaggerated the severity of the "virus".
Greg, this is 100% false but lying about my opinions helps feed your delusion. The "success" countries include Vietnam, SK, Japan, Singapore, NZ. With one or two minor exceptions, the list has stayed the same since March.
People want nothing to do with this...outside of the extreme liberals who want the politicians to control everything.
The virus doesn't care about what the people think. Ask Boris Johnson.
-
Greg, the nice thing about self-delusion is that you get to ignore any facts you don’t like. But in the real world, countries have tried your approach and it failed.
Countries that acted aggressively have succeeded in reopening safely (or avoiding lockdowns in the first wave).
Nobody wants this second round of lockdowns. They are forced upon places that didn’t do the work to put other containment strategies in place.
Coronavirus
in General Discussion
Posted
The incubation period is 14 days. The false negative rate is extremely high in the first 4 days of infection. So it is not possible to say how many people became infected during the quarantine period. Many of those who tested positive on Day 7 were likely infected on or before Day 0.
Only ~half the recruits were tested on Day 0 and Day 7. Untested and tested recruits were intermixed. So a recruit could be sharing a room with an untested roommate.
But the main reason why your assertions are wrong is the lack of a control arm. This is an infectious disease with a doubling time of ~3 days in a general population. Doubling time is even worse in congregate settings like military camps. If you start with 16 infected people and no controls, you'd expect more than 500 infected marines by the end of two weeks. So these interventions stopped ~90% of the expected infections.