DooDiligence Posted April 28, 2020 Posted April 28, 2020 Pence, head of Coronavirus task force: TBF, he has a lot of experience holding his breath with a mouth full of Trumps twig & berries.
Jurgis Posted April 28, 2020 Posted April 28, 2020 Well this speaks for itself: "Some reportage from a Coronavirus Lockdown Protest in Sacramento, California on April 20, 2020." So many Darwin award candidates, so few viruses.
Liberty Posted April 28, 2020 Posted April 28, 2020 https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/2020/4/27/21236270/bill-gates-coronavirus-covid-19-plan-vaccines-conspiracies-podcast Interview with Bill Gates
Guest cherzeca Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 cost of the covid shutdown: "On that point, Casey Mulligan, the University of Chicago economist formerly on the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has calculated in a new paper the real cost of shutting down the economy as the government has done. He estimates about a $6 trillion loss of private market production a year, plus another $2 trillion for the future costs (i.e., higher taxes) of paying for current relief efforts. Subtract for black market effects and other things and he figures a $7 trillion net cost per year of shutdown." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-gop-spending-split-11588115854?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
Guest cherzeca Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 the great Heather MacDonald: "Nursing homes are ground zero for the disease, since their populations are exclusively the elderly infirm. These vulnerable individuals must be intensively protected. But to cancel most of the country’s economy for a problem, however tragic, that is highly localized was a devastating policy blunder that must be immediately corrected. Lives are being lost to the overreaction. The economic bans must be lifted, and any true public-health expert would tell those Central Park joggers and cyclists to tear off their masks and breathe free." https://nypost.com/2020/04/28/central-park-shows-just-how-over-fearful-of-coronavirus-weve-become/
Investor20 Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 That is where good leadership shines. Look at Germany and what Merkel said when cases were exploding. SHe was very somber but firm. They also executed afterwards on a plan. And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but they did follow-up effectively to ramp up testing/tracing and public policy. I think we fail to imagine that good and honest communication followed by effective action builds confidence in general population and is equally important. Sadly, US in not in the same boat yet. It's just unfair to compare Germany, which is led by a former quantum chemist, to the USA which is led by a reality TV persona. You don't have to go to PhDs in quantum chemistry... In general, it's hard to find a country led by someone dumber than the US right now. There's a lot of countries on the planet, so there's probably some out there, but none come to mind. From Worldometer Deaths/Million Taiwan: 0.3 Japan: 3 S. Korea: 5 Germany: 74 Why do you think Germany is doing better than Taiwan, Japan, or S. Korea? Did I say that? No. Who ever said the following which I bolded in my comments "And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but " (comparing to Germany)
LC Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 Let's not forget to add all the relevant data, particularly when the context is a comparison vs. the USA: From Worldometer Deaths/Million Taiwan: 0.3 Japan: 3 S. Korea: 5 Germany: 74 USA: 179
Investor20 Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 February 13, 2020 https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/coronavirus-can-be-spread-by-people-who-dont-show-symptoms-cdc-warns/ Coronavirus can be spread through people who aren’t exhibiting symptoms of the illness, the director of the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention said Thursday. Wow! Who knew? No, I mean literally WHO knew. Here is video from a WHO briefing on February 4th discussing asymptomatic transmission: Can I suggest you save your efforts to scapegoat WHO for your Facebook friends? You do realize that WHO has the budget of one large U.S. hospital? It is a small group of underfunded bureaucrats not a wealthy gang of super-villians? OK...you can go by a briefing where WHO said there is a possibility of asymptomatic transmission and ignore their published guidelines on April 2nd. WHO guidelines on masks: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19. Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing. Wondering if you agree with it?
Investor20 Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 Let's not forget to add all the relevant data, particularly when the context is a comparison vs. the USA: From Worldometer Deaths/Million Taiwan: 0.3 Japan: 3 S. Korea: 5 Germany: 74 USA: 179 Yes...US is better than most European countries except Germany. Eg. France 362 Most South East Asian countries are far better than Europe or US. I think its because of masks policy. Germany made masks compulsory with potential fines few days back in certain crowded places.
LC Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 Frankly there are lots of unknowns to explain such divergent results. NYC has a tremendous casualty percentage, was this because they refused to wear masks while other areas (e.g. California) wore masks from the start? The evidence does not support that. Educated guesses would point to differences in population density. But even using pop.density is difficult. Look at Taiwan, for example. Extremely dense, very low casualties. There is most likely not one major factor. Rather a variety of factors (travel, density, masks, quarantine/social distancing, viral evolution, weather, demographics, etc.) that formed in deadly combinations in some areas rather than others. Knowing this is probably impossible. What is possible is to control what we are able to control - wearing facemasks, quarantine procedures, and such. We can debate how large the effect these factors play, but they are easier to control compared to the weather.
Guest cherzeca Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 "There is most likely not one major factor. Rather a variety of factors (travel, density, masks, quarantine/social distancing, viral evolution, weather, demographics, etc.) that formed in deadly combinations in some areas rather than others. Knowing this is probably impossible." being poor is a good explanatory factor. having to take subway, live in crowded apartment. not having gone to primary care doctor for god knows how long. eating happy meals for dinner. this is life in bronx Brooklyn and queens. the most interesting datum that we will never have is the socio-economic spectrum of covid fatalities. you may have heard that covid doesnt discriminate among class, but the harshest effect of covid likely does.
LC Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 the strongest link between poverty and known factors of respiratory disease transmission is population density. and critics of that link will point to Taiwan which has one of the highest population densities in the world but a very low infection rate. how would you resolve this? perhaps you can argue there is a link between poverty and ability to get tested/go to a doctor if you present severe symptoms. however again critics would argue this has a low impact overall as (1) most cases are not severe and would not require a hospital visit; and (2) of these severe cases which would require a doctor, age is a much, much better predictor of outcome.
Investor20 Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 the strongest link between poverty and known factors of respiratory disease transmission is population density. and critics of that link will point to Taiwan which has one of the highest population densities in the world but a very low infection rate. how would you resolve this? perhaps you can argue there is a link between poverty and ability to get tested/go to a doctor if you present severe symptoms. however again critics would argue this has a low impact overall as (1) most cases are not severe and would not require a hospital visit; and (2) of these severe cases which would require a doctor, age is a much, much better predictor of outcome. Taiwan was from January onwards recommending masks, washing/sanitizing hands and social distancing. NY, started in March for social distancing. Masks from two weeks back.
LC Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 the strongest link between poverty and known factors of respiratory disease transmission is population density. and critics of that link will point to Taiwan which has one of the highest population densities in the world but a very low infection rate. how would you resolve this? perhaps you can argue there is a link between poverty and ability to get tested/go to a doctor if you present severe symptoms. however again critics would argue this has a low impact overall as (1) most cases are not severe and would not require a hospital visit; and (2) of these severe cases which would require a doctor, age is a much, much better predictor of outcome. Taiwan was from January onwards recommending masks, washing/sanitizing hands and social distancing. NY, started in March for social distancing. Masks from two weeks back. Right - So we can conclude that population density (or its weak proxy: poverty) is not a great predictor Next, in terms of social policy response: Are you aware of other refuting cases, i.e where we have two areas with similar policy suggestions and timeframes, but very different viral infection patterns? Or does every city with a similar density to NYC, and similar March timeframe for masks/distancing, show the same viral pattern? I don't know the specifics for each city globally, but this is the analysis needed to show a causal relationship. The point I am driving at is that contagious respiratory illness is difficult to manage and there is a danger of setting unrealistic expectations by attributing viral spread solely to the factors which we are able to easily measure, while ignoring other factors mainly because they are too difficult to measure.
Liberty Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 Ha! normies: this virus is SO WEIRD virologists: yes, it is weird, just like every virus viruses are weird HIV: insane asymptomatic period, insane lethality polio: p normal gut virus+BRAINS for absolutely no good reason flu: has CHROMOSOMES?? effectively yellow fever, every other arbovirus: wtf is wrong with you guys stick to one host rhinovirus: eighty five billion strains because fuck you thats why smallpox: environmentally stable enveloped virus what the hell; also how on earth are you so lethal *and* transmissible holy cripes and why is your genome so stupid large oronaviruses: proofreading RNA??? absolutely haram herpesviruses: also absurdly large genomes stop it you're a virus plus your egress strategy is stupid and i hate it and latency is weird noroviruses: indestructable wtf rabies: host range lol whats that i just infect everything papillomaviruses: what if?? i caused cancer? for no good reason?? like seriously it doesn't help me at all? morons baculoviruses: CRYSTALLINE ENTITY adenoviruses: actually adenoviruses are p normal i guess hepatitis B: lol what isn't weird about hepatitis B adenoviruses are weird because they are normal which is weird, for a virus Also, “Here's the transcript of the president's response when he was asked if he's spoken with the families of anyone who has died in the pandemic other than the family of his friend:” No need for commentary. If you just read it, you'll see.
Guest cherzeca Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 the strongest link between poverty and known factors of respiratory disease transmission is population density. and critics of that link will point to Taiwan which has one of the highest population densities in the world but a very low infection rate. how would you resolve this? perhaps you can argue there is a link between poverty and ability to get tested/go to a doctor if you present severe symptoms. however again critics would argue this has a low impact overall as (1) most cases are not severe and would not require a hospital visit; and (2) of these severe cases which would require a doctor, age is a much, much better predictor of outcome. no. covid is particularly dangerous in a population where many people have underlying conditions (obesity being an important one, leading to hypertension and heart disease, that I dare say Taiwan does not have as much of). the poor in US and in the outer boroughs of NYC are particularly at risk because of this, their lack of good nutrition generally, and failure to see a primary care physician on a regular basis. density causes transmission, but underlying conditions (the most prevalent one being poor) causes enhanced risk.
Liberty Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/29/gottlieb-slavitt-coronavirus-plan-white-house/ The White House should back a $46.5 billion effort to hire an army of 180,000 contact-tracers, book blocks of vacant hotel rooms so Americans sick with Covid-19 can self-isolate, and pay sick individuals to stay away from work until they recover. The plan, outlined Monday in a letter to Congress first reported by NPR, is among the most aggressive visions for a national program to conduct testing and contact tracing so that the U.S. can reopen its economy even as the coronavirus continues to spread. And given its backing from high-ranking health officials spanning the last three presidencies, it could also prove to be the most viable. Beyond Gottlieb, the coalition includes Mark McClellan, the former FDA chief; Andy Slavitt, the Obama administration’s acting Medicare and Medicaid director; Leana Wen, the former Planned Parenthood president and Baltimore health commissioner; and Bill Frist, a physician and former GOP lawmaker who served as Senate majority leader from 2003 to 2007.
Jurgis Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 Ha! normies: this virus is SO WEIRD virologists: yes, it is weird, just like every virus viruses are weird HIV: insane asymptomatic period, insane lethality polio: p normal gut virus+BRAINS for absolutely no good reason flu: has CHROMOSOMES?? effectively yellow fever, every other arbovirus: wtf is wrong with you guys stick to one host rhinovirus: eighty five billion strains because fuck you thats why smallpox: environmentally stable enveloped virus what the hell; also how on earth are you so lethal *and* transmissible holy cripes and why is your genome so stupid large oronaviruses: proofreading RNA??? absolutely haram herpesviruses: also absurdly large genomes stop it you're a virus plus your egress strategy is stupid and i hate it and latency is weird noroviruses: indestructable wtf rabies: host range lol whats that i just infect everything papillomaviruses: what if?? i caused cancer? for no good reason?? like seriously it doesn't help me at all? morons baculoviruses: CRYSTALLINE ENTITY adenoviruses: actually adenoviruses are p normal i guess hepatitis B: lol what isn't weird about hepatitis B adenoviruses are weird because they are normal which is weird, for a virus OK, so we are living in computer simulation. And whoever runs the simulation is having fun dickering with the viruses. Maybe the whole point of simulation is dickering with viruses and humans are just test subjects or sideshow.
LC Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 the strongest link between poverty and known factors of respiratory disease transmission is population density. and critics of that link will point to Taiwan which has one of the highest population densities in the world but a very low infection rate. how would you resolve this? perhaps you can argue there is a link between poverty and ability to get tested/go to a doctor if you present severe symptoms. however again critics would argue this has a low impact overall as (1) most cases are not severe and would not require a hospital visit; and (2) of these severe cases which would require a doctor, age is a much, much better predictor of outcome. no. covid is particularly dangerous in a population where many people have underlying conditions (obesity being an important one, leading to hypertension and heart disease, that I dare say Taiwan does not have as much of). the poor in US and in the outer boroughs of NYC are particularly at risk because of this, their lack of good nutrition generally, and failure to see a primary care physician on a regular basis. density causes transmission, but underlying conditions (the most prevalent one being poor) causes enhanced risk. Hospitalization i.e. symptom severity is most certainly best explained by age, not underlying conditions: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm Among 1,482 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 74.5% were aged ≥50 years, and 54.4% were male. The hospitalization rate among patients identified through COVID-NET during this 4-week period was 4.6 per 100,000 population. Rates were highest (13.8 ) among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 178 (12%) adult patients with data on underlying conditions as of March 30, 2020, 89.3% had one or more underlying conditions; the most common were hypertension (49.7%), obesity (48.3%), chronic lung disease (34.6%), diabetes mellitus (28.3%), and cardiovascular disease (27.8%). These findings suggest that older adults have elevated rates of COVID-19–associated hospitalization and the majority of persons hospitalized with COVID-19 have underlying medical conditions. Underlying health conditions is not a better predictor. Only 12% of observed patients had data showing an underlying condition. But let's play devil's advocate. Let's take obesity. Per CDC analysis, 5.75% of COVID hospitalizations exhibited obesity (12%*.483) Also per CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html) in 2017-18: The prevalence of obesity was 40.0% among young adults aged 20 to 39 years, 44.8% among middle-aged adults aged 40 to 59 years, and 42.8% among older adults aged 60 and older If obesity were a good predictor of COVID hospitalizations, we would see (1) a much higher rate of COVID patients exhibiting obesity, and (2) more COVID patients in the 40-59 age group vs. other age groups. Yet there is zero evidence of either.
KCLarkin Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 OK...you can go by a briefing where WHO said there is a possibility of asymptomatic transmission and ignore their published guidelines on April 2nd. I'm not ignoring the WHO "guidelines" (spoiler: not guidelines) from April 2nd. I am saying you have either not read it or don't understand it. They do not say what you claim they say. It is very easy to take a few words out of context to give them a different meaning: WHO said there is a possibility of asymptomatic transmission See how easy this is? You are either easily fooled or you are trying to fool us. Either way, you don't have any credibility on this subject so I will ignore any future replies.
Guest cherzeca Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 "If obesity were a good predictor of COVID hospitalizations..." I am focused on covid mortality. very high concentration of covid mortality in outer boroughs of NYC. density would be a better indicator for transmission--->hospitalization.
Guest cherzeca Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 link to this, please: "Only 12% of observed patients had data showing an underlying condition. But let's play devil's advocate. Let's take obesity. Per CDC analysis, 5.75% of COVID hospitalizations exhibited obesity (12%*.483)" just musing, data showing an underlying condition may mean notations on a medical record...which most poor patients wouldn't have. as for obesity, I simply find it hard to believe that a US population that is >40% obese yielded covid hospitalizations of 6% obesity.
LC Posted April 29, 2020 Posted April 29, 2020 You're going in circles. Density alone is not a strong predictor as Taiwan has shown. I provided both sources in my previous post. Data collection is surely a problem. Here, I'll make the opposing argument on your behalf: https://www.sciencealert.com/more-than-70-of-americans-hospitalised-with-covid-19-had-at-least-1-underlying-health-condition-the-cdc-says For the 7,162 cases in which patients' underlying health data were available, the CDC said 71 percent of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and 78 percent of those admitted to intensive care units had preexisting conditions or risk factors. The agency also cautioned that its findings are still preliminary and that the analysis was constrained by factors like missing health data for nearly 95 percent of patients, as well as the limited availability of coronavirus testing, and a lack of information about longer-term outcomes of the disease. I have no problem acknowledging this because as the (2) point in my earlier post alludes, pre-existing conditions will not model well vs. observed sample of hospitalized cases.
Recommended Posts