Coronavirus

[alpha]

 

Even Elton John is hurting, to the tune of 75mil: https://canoe.com/entertainment/celebrity/elton-john-lays-off-band-after-losing-us75-million-due-to-cancelled-tour

[DooDiligence]

 

Even Elton John is hurting, to the tune of 75mil: https://canoe.com/entertainment/celebrity/elton-john-lays-off-band-after-losing-us75-million-due-to-cancelled-tour

 

That stinks.

 

He's a brilliant composer / performer & is worth every penny he's ever made.

 

Coincidentally, I started learning Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me last week & had already cued up Rocket Man, Country Comfort, Border Song & Take Me to the Pilot, which officially makes June Elton John month in my house.

 

---

 

On another note (pun intended) I recently watched a documentary called "Hired Guns" which talks about supporting pop/rock musicians & the slivers they get paid in comparison to the branded stars. I hope his long standing band mates are financially prepared.

 

---

 

Back to the virus...

[Cigarbutt]

^The trajectory of this thread and the course of human effects signal dwindling interest which is too bad in a way because we shouldn't let the sun go down on the virus as interesting data continues to come in and this is the time when beginnings of answers can be formulated for many important questions. There has been a lot of noise.

 

Take the chloroquine issue. At first, the medication was heavily recommended with limited data and limited conceptual support and, at some point along the way and during good quality trials, the Lancet publishes a "warning" article (relatively poor method and limited validity) and the medication is declared dangerous, ending several trials prematurely. Disclosure: chloroquine is unlikely to be beneficial but this remains a position based on present knowledge and this interim conclusion could be changed.

 

When a company is affected by (or reports) an unexpected event, the actual price action often has little correlation with the real intrinsic effect on value. It typically takes a while for a more correlated pattern between price and value. When CV started to spread, there was a lot of uncertainty (not necessarily an excuse for poor policy). From January to March 2020, 1,741 COVID-19 focused articles were published across 59 countries and in 447 journals with unusual short times to publication and often a truncated peer review. Somebody came up with a flattened curve infodemic concept with two waves of data. A point has been reached where the proportion of solid data will be higher. If interested:

Looking at the picture for 5 to 10 seconds is probably sufficient.

 

This noise vs signal issue is also found on this Board (IMO). i've been spending time in various threads (historical) {Thank you Sanjeev} and the threads tend to show a pattern where posts with the most "impact" are found in a pattern of spaced (in time) exchanges. There seems to be a lot of noise when discussions are densely packed?

 

Anyways, there's a reference that proposes an acronym that helps to define (validate) an 'expert':

Transparency about conflicts of interest

Resume that supports expertise

Use of high-quality data to support opinions

Strength and reputation of affiliations

Testimonials from other respected experts in relevant field

 

[clutch]

^ interesting observation. Especially regarding the dwindling interest. Sort of shows you the significant effect the media has on people's current focus/interest, even with supposedly highly intellectual people we have on this board. As the racial issue and the protest occupy the people's news feed, both the interest and the fear of COVID-19 seem to have faded away.

 

Reminds me of what Johan Giesecke, the Swedish epidemiologist, said in one of his interviews... "We won't learn anything from this pandemic... we will forget about this [again]." Such is human nature, unfortunately.

[Spekulatius]

First time I hear the term infodemic but it rings very true.

 

Jut went though a pretty good article (in German) about Sweden. Some folks in twitter seem to believe that Sweden is the model for how to deal with en epidemic and it is true - Sweden so far has avoided shutdowns and hasn’t really descended into a disaster like Italy or NYC.

 

However, looking at what actually is happening there, it is obvious that the Swedes did show restraint that is on par what happened in other countries in Europe simply based on recommendation from the government. While this is great, it is not clear to me that the same  would have worked anywhere else in Europe, much less on the US.

 

Second, economy (Based on forecasts) is actually not doing better than in other countries in Europe. Actually, if you accept the above, then it’s not really a surprise either. Below charts show two different graphics - GDP forecast for 2020 and google cell data for presence at work. Basically the data for both for Swedes is middle of the pack, which means that the Swedes have done what others European countries did just based on their government recommendations.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/corona-krise-schwedens-sonderweg-eine-zwischenbilanz-in-zahlen-a-c7b3cea2-63be-4072-8df9-afdb765afb54

 

As to whether the same nudging has a chance of working in the US, we can draw our own conclusion.

 

[clutch]

+1

 

Americans should blame themselves (as individuals) first and foremost.

[Investor20]

^The trajectory of this thread and the course of human effects signal dwindling interest which is too bad in a way because we shouldn't let the sun go down on the virus as interesting data continues to come in and this is the time when beginnings of answers can be formulated for many important questions. There has been a lot of noise.

 

Take the chloroquine issue. At first, the medication was heavily recommended with limited data and limited conceptual support and, at some point along the way and during good quality trials, the Lancet publishes a "warning" article (relatively poor method and limited validity) and the medication is declared dangerous, ending several trials prematurely. Disclosure: chloroquine is unlikely to be beneficial but this remains a position based on present knowledge and this interim conclusion could be changed.

 

When a company is affected by (or reports) an unexpected event, the actual price action often has little correlation with the real intrinsic effect on value. It typically takes a while for a more correlated pattern between price and value. When CV started to spread, there was a lot of uncertainty (not necessarily an excuse for poor policy). From January to March 2020, 1,741 COVID-19 focused articles were published across 59 countries and in 447 journals with unusual short times to publication and often a truncated peer review. Somebody came up with a flattened curve infodemic concept with two waves of data. A point has been reached where the proportion of solid data will be higher. If interested:

Looking at the picture for 5 to 10 seconds is probably sufficient.

 

This noise vs signal issue is also found on this Board (IMO). i've been spending time in various threads (historical) {Thank you Sanjeev} and the threads tend to show a pattern where posts with the most "impact" are found in a pattern of spaced (in time) exchanges. There seems to be a lot of noise when discussions are densely packed?

 

Anyways, there's a reference that proposes an acronym that helps to define (validate) an 'expert':

Transparency about conflicts of interest

Resume that supports expertise

Use of high-quality data to support opinions

Strength and reputation of affiliations

Testimonials from other respected experts in relevant field

 

The sad thing about Hydroxychloroquine is the doses and patients proposed to be treated by the proponents were never properly tested in a randomized blinded studies.

 

But for virus which is non-living, and hence cannot be killed unlike bacteria, one would expect it to work when given early before it replicated and spread through the body.

 

Here is a new study that is supporting this:

 

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/4-hydroxychloroquine-hcq-doses-coronavirus-healthcare-workers-icmr-1684112-2020-06-01

 

The National Task Force for coronavirus in India recommended once a week maintenance dose for seven weeks i.e., 400 mg once every week, following the loading dose of 400 mg. Adherence to this recommended regimen is underlined by the findings of the study, researchers said.

 

Scientists who co-authored the study said, "It has been noticed that 4th week onwards there is a risk reduction of contracting the Covid-19 virus if the maintenance dosage is being taken as prescribed for seven weeks. Of course, this doesn't rule out the risk minimisation of those frontline workers who are treating Covid-19 patients while wearing PPEs and taking further precautions."

 

CDC recommended prophylactic dose for malaria:

 

Both adults and children should take one dose of hydroxychloroquine per week starting at least 1 week before traveling to the area where malaria transmission occurs. They should take one dose per week while there, and for 4 consecutive weeks after leaving.

The weekly dosage for adults is 310mg base (400mg salt).

 

How long is it safe to usehydroxychloroquine?

 

CDC has no limits on the use of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of malaria. When hydroxychloroquine is used at higher doses for many years, a rare eye condition called retinopathy has occurred. People who take hydroxychloroquine for more than five years should get regular eye exams.

https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf

 

Comparison with Lancet study:

 

The Lancet study of nearly 100,000 coronavirus patients had shown no benefit in treating them with anti-viral drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and even increased the likelihood of them dying in hospital.

 

"This apparent disparity with the findings of the current investigation could be explained by the two different application contexts. While the observational study involving registry-analysis focussed on the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, our emphasis was on the prevention of infections among healthcare workers. In treatment settings, severe COVID-19 patients are likely to have a very high viral load and cytokine levels, which may not be improved by HCQ therapy," the study said.

 

"Biologically, it appears plausible that HCQ prophylaxis may inhibit the virus from gaining a foothold," the study said. In the absence of clinical trial results on safety and efficacy of HCQ chemoprophylaxis in healthcare workers, this study offers evidence of public health importance.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/icmr-says-hcq-reducing-risk-among-healthcare-workers-even-as-lancet-study-questions-drug-benefits-2647007.html

 

How effective HCQ is in prophylactic use:

 

Fifty % of those not on HCQ tested positive and upto 70% of those who’d taken a weekly dose of 400 mg of HCQ for three week tested positive. However, only 40% of those who’d taken 4-5 doses tested positive and—only 10% of those on the drug for six weeks or more reported testing positive.

 

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-with-ppe-reduces-odds-of-covid-19-in-health-workers-icmr-researchers/article31724680.ece

[Cigarbutt]

First time I hear the term infodemic but it rings very true.

Jut went though a pretty good article (in German) about Sweden. Some folks in twitter seem to believe that Sweden is the model for how to deal with en epidemic and it is true - Sweden so far has avoided shutdowns and hasn’t really descended into a disaster like Italy or NYC.

...

Sweden is interesting on many levels. Yes, the social measures have been applied, in practice, to similar degrees (despite the first level impression) but there are differences. For instance, daycares and schools (age 16 and under) have remained open. Potential bias: the house is full now and i may overestimate the downside to school closures...They have reported higher numbers in relation to a slightly different application of measures but it is interesting to note that this appears to be a (collective) decision made consciously and with a fair degree of consensus. Also, it appears that keeping schools open may have been a good decision because there is good evidence showing that 1-young individuals don't tend to become COVID+ even with exposure which may be related to a relative absence of receptors (specific to entry of CV) on the surface of cells of their respiratory tracts, 2-even when COVID+, young people tend not to become sick and 3-asymptomatic COVID+ kids don't seem to spread very well (for example, there's this reported case of a young (European) person who turned out to be both influenza+ and CV+, who happened to travel places and the person was quite efficient at spreading the flu but not CV).

 

Sweden shows the potential inter-geography outcomes from different application of measures but there's also the inter-temporal differential outcomes. The 1957 flu in the US occurred in waves (two or three in 1957-8, also came back (maybe a new virus) significantly in 1968). In 1957-8, the US population was about half of what it is now and the estimated excess mortality (numbers vary) came to about 100K for the 1957-8 period and the mortality included younger age groups. At that time, the President and the people were different:

From 1957 (before the fall wave and the vaccine came around the first peak):

"In addition to the steps mentioned above [vaccine distribution related], President Eisenhower has asked for a $500,000 special appropriation from Congress (raised by Congress to $800,000), as well as for authority to transfer about $2,000,000 of public health funds for use in the event of a widespread outbreak. Specifically, the additional $800,000 would be used to develop diagnostic sera to detect the disease, prepare educational material to encourage the use of the vaccine, and to make 10 specialists in epidemic control available for work with state authorities."

Then, the US demographic profile was different and so were the relative absence of comorbidities as well as some cultural differences perhaps.

i guess it's reasonable to affirm that we have improved in some areas but this very statement paints an incomplete picture.

In 1958 (year 2 of the partnerships era), Mr. Buffett was investing in the Sanborn Map Company but he felt that the market was expensive.

[DooDiligence]

^The trajectory of this thread and the course of human effects signal dwindling interest which is too bad in a way because we shouldn't let the sun go down on the virus as interesting data continues to come in and this is the time when beginnings of answers can be formulated for many important questions. There has been a lot of noise.

 

Take the chloroquine issue. At first, the medication was heavily recommended with limited data and limited conceptual support and, at some point along the way and during good quality trials, the Lancet publishes a "warning" article (relatively poor method and limited validity) and the medication is declared dangerous, ending several trials prematurely. Disclosure: chloroquine is unlikely to be beneficial but this remains a position based on present knowledge and this interim conclusion could be changed.

 

When a company is affected by (or reports) an unexpected event, the actual price action often has little correlation with the real intrinsic effect on value. It typically takes a while for a more correlated pattern between price and value. When CV started to spread, there was a lot of uncertainty (not necessarily an excuse for poor policy). From January to March 2020, 1,741 COVID-19 focused articles were published across 59 countries and in 447 journals with unusual short times to publication and often a truncated peer review. Somebody came up with a flattened curve infodemic concept with two waves of data. A point has been reached where the proportion of solid data will be higher. If interested:

Looking at the picture for 5 to 10 seconds is probably sufficient.

 

This noise vs signal issue is also found on this Board (IMO). i've been spending time in various threads (historical) {Thank you Sanjeev} and the threads tend to show a pattern where posts with the most "impact" are found in a pattern of spaced (in time) exchanges. There seems to be a lot of noise when discussions are densely packed?

 

Anyways, there's a reference that proposes an acronym that helps to define (validate) an 'expert':

Transparency about conflicts of interest

Resume that supports expertise

Use of high-quality data to support opinions

Strength and reputation of affiliations

Testimonials from other respected experts in relevant field

 

I like very much the concepts embodied in this acronym.

I truly am out of my depth in the discussions surrounding high finance, the pandemic & politics.

I know my posts would be more appropriate on a forum related to my areas of expertise; all things nautical & musical.

 

 

I'm just a silly liberal artist who mourns the death of truth, and enjoys hobnobbing, virtually, with people who resemble its embers.

 

 

Nail #1 in the coffin of trust:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

 

Nail #2:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

 

Nail #3:

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-to-address-the-epidemic-of-lies-in-politics/

 

We the sheeple of the United States,

in Order to form a more dubious Union,

establish Justice for some,

ensure domestic Disturbances,

provide fences for the common people,

which promote the general Entitlement,

and secure the Blessings of Lipservice

to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this

Constipation for the

United Hates of America.

 

Over & out

[mcliu]

Odds of second wave due to recent protests globally?

[RichardGibbons]

Bonnie Henry, British Columbia's pandemic leader--who's likely the single person most responsible for BC's success against COVID-19--has said that there hasn't been a pandemic in recorded history that hasn't had a second wave.

 

I have no idea if that's hyperbole, or something built into the definition of pandemic (like, if it doesn't have a second wave, it isn't problematic enough to be called a pandemic). But I'm inclined to believe her.

[Spekulatius]

Sweden is interesting on many levels. Yes, the social measures have been applied, in practice, to similar degrees (despite the first level impression) but there are differences. For instance, daycares and schools (age 16 and under) have remained open. Potential bias: the house is full now and i may overestimate the downside to school closures...They have reported higher numbers in relation to a slightly different application of measures but it is interesting to note that this appears to be a (collective) decision made consciously and with a fair degree of consensus. Also, it appears that keeping schools open may have been a good decision because there is good evidence showing that 1-young individuals don't tend to become COVID+ even with exposure which may be related to a relative absence of receptors (specific to entry of CV) on the surface of cells of their respiratory tracts, 2-even when COVID+, young people tend not to become sick and 3-asymptomatic COVID+ kids don't seem to spread very well (for example, there's this reported case of a young (European) person who turned out to be both influenza+ and CV+, who happened to travel places and the person was quite efficient at spreading the flu but not CV).

 

Cigar but, interesting that you bring up that kids (and probably young people) are not very good spreaders of COVID-19. I’d have looked a fair amount and couldn’t come up with an example where a kid (through school or otherwise) was identified as a superspreader. In Germany, the schools have reopened again a couple of weeks ago, but the superspreader events that did occur were in churches and restaurants involving older people. The absence of evidence is not proof ,but somewhat telling.

 

In any case, the main risk with opening schools is not that the kids get infected, it’s them serving as a vector for transmission to more vulnerable people (teachers, parents ). If that risk is low, than opening the schools starting with smaller kids (who likely have younger parents and teachers ! ) should be strongly considered now.

 

I am likely biased as well, since I have a teenage son at home and we noticed  ( despite seemingly taking the quarantine well) a noticeable degradation in academic performance as well as some psychological issues at home. Not sure what to make of it sample size =1), but our small School district is now trying to hire “emotional coordinator” and based on some hints from other parents, they have similar issues as well. In any case,I believe they if we close the schools for another semester and try to continue online only, we are likely creating a disaster here for the kids. As a parent, I would rather take my (fairly good) chances with the Virus, based on what I know.

[samwise]

The spread is now in Brazil and Russia. Even in India, despite an early lockdown, cases are spreading and they are considering opening up. Bill Gates was despondent about the chances of emerging markets to contain the virus. Seems he was right again.

[John Hjorth]

The spread is now in Brazil and Russia. Even in India, despite an early lockdown, cases are spreading and they are considering opening up. Bill Gates was despondent about the chances of emerging markets to contain the virus. Seems he was right again.

 

Yes samwise,

 

The daily WHO sit reports are to me heartbreaking reads [even taking into consideration that they are the aggregations/consolidations/sums of local reports, of which some may be deemed unreliable]. To me, they read like we haven't seen the worst yet globally.

[John Hjorth]

Jyllandsposten [June 3^rd 2020] : Sweden's state epidemiologist: We should have done more against corona.

 

[original source : Ritzau, ref. lower part of the article.]

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Personally, I'm not sure about what to think about this. Is this just rear mirror wiewing [, that is basically useless, unless used for swift changes of prior decisions made as the situation elvolves over time], or is this a public admittal that the Swedish Corona approach has failed [, where the only logical action for Mr. Tegnell - at least to me - would be to turn in his resignation] ?

[mattee2264]

 

My understanding is that the lockdowns have been pretty effective in getting the R rate well below 1 so even with relaxation of lockdowns and mass protests there is not going to be a deluge of new cases.

[Liberty]

https://www.ft.com/content/dae6d006-9adc-46d5-9b4e-79a7841022e8

 

“ Swedish expert admits country should have had tighter coronavirus controls

Shift comes as Stockholm promises a commission to investigate approach to pandemic”

[Spekulatius]

https://www.ft.com/content/dae6d006-9adc-46d5-9b4e-79a7841022e8

 

“ Swedish expert admits country should have had tighter coronavirus controls

Shift comes as Stockholm promises a commission to investigate approach to pandemic”

 

The problem with the Swedish approach is that it still takes a long time to get the herd immunity. Stockholm was at only 7-8% (if Remember correctly) with the rest of the country far behind.

 

They also have no the problem they the rest of Europe or at least the part who have contained the Virus to very low levels may not allow free border movement from states like Sweden or the UK out of concern of importing cases. They probably need to way of testing everyone coming in.

 

I posted already upstream that the Swedish economy is not doing any better than the rest of Europe anyways. I do think there is a large benefit fit of keeping the schools open and we have to find a way to do this too.

 

Anyways, the Swedish way is sort of a success because they avoided total disaster like Italy, NYC or Spain and their citizens followed the guidelines from the government voluntarily. Their approach seems to be supported by their citizens, so who are we to judge. However, their path Forward seems to be as murky as anyone else’s with a huge economic tolls to pay.

[Cigarbutt]

Jyllandsposten [June 3^rd 2020] : Sweden's state epidemiologist: We should have done more against corona.

[original source : Ritzau, ref. lower part of the article.]

- - - o 0 o - - -

Personally, I'm not sure about what to think about this. Is this just rear mirror wiewing [, that is basically useless, unless used for swift changes of prior decisions made as the situation elvolves over time], or is this a public admittal that the Swedish Corona approach has failed [, where the only logical action for Mr. Tegnell - at least to me - would be to turn in his resignation] ?

That was interesting (the article and your comment). FWIW, i have distant connections to people working in public health who, these days, tend to have difficulty sleeping and who sometimes watch evolving morbid statistics in the middle of the night. From some limited interactions with the Swedish posture, a recurring comment is that their relatively contrarian approach has created "tensions" with their neighbors. Sometimes the best way to get together is to converge. If i'd be the leading figure in Sweden (i'm just a noob though), i'd hope the head of the independent policy office to tender his resignation but would still refuse it by writing "Keep at it" on it.

[John Hjorth]

Cigarbutt,

 

Thank you for your contributions to this topic over time. As an almost total ignorant person in this scientific space it's to me a pleasure and a privilege to read your stuff on the matter at hand.

 

Perhaps my personal opinion about the Swedish Corona approach did shine through in my last post, however I tried to phrase it as carefully as I could, taking my own ignorance into consideration.

 

Today I took the time to actually read the Danish Doctor's Pledge, also ending reading about the WMA Declaration of Geneva, the Hippocratic Corpus & the Hippocratic Oath.

 

Based only on common sense - and with my personal ignorance as basis - I was surprised to see, that just by reading the Danish Doctors Pledge literally and straight out, the application of the Swedish Corona strategy here in Denmark would not be in non-compliance with the Danish Doctors Pledge. [The Danish Doctors Pledge does not mention potential patients, only "patients" [, which I understand as "actual patients"].

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

So based on my limited understanding of World Wide ethics among health care professionals I dare ask for some comments and considerations from you - and certainly comments and considerations from the other doctors who have been active in the discussions in this topic are most welcome - on the ethical dimensions of the Swedish Corona strategy.

 

Perhaps needless to post it, but as a layman, I consider it problematic, ref. "Do not do any harm." I sincerely hope this post does not appear as rubbish among the doctors here on CoBF.

[Investor20]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/influential-hydroxychloroquine-study-used-suspect-data-from-company-run-by-pornographic-model-and-sci-fi-author

 

A study showing that the anti-malaria drug touted by President Trump, hydroxychloroquine, harmed COVID-19 patients is likely based on fabricated data.

 

An investigation by the Guardian found that the study, published in the Lancet (a prestigious medical journal), relied on data from a company called Surgisphere that appears to be highly suspect. The Lancet released an "expression of concern" about the study during the investigation.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company

 

Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies

 

.........................................

 

While proper studies by NYU Grossman using HCQ, Zinc and Azithromycin showing 44% less deaths in certain Covid patient population and Indian ICMR studies of prophylactic use of HCQ have been ignored.

 

[Cigarbutt]

Perhaps my personal opinion about the Swedish Corona approach did shine through in my last post, however I tried to phrase it as carefully as I could, taking my own ignorance into consideration.

 

Today I took the time to actually read the Danish Doctor's Pledge, also ending reading about the WMA Declaration of Geneva, the Hippocratic Corpus & the Hippocratic Oath.

 

Based only on common sense - and with my personal ignorance as basis - I was surprised to see, that just by reading the Danish Doctors Pledge literally and straight out, the application of the Swedish Corona strategy here in Denmark would not be in non-compliance with the Danish Doctors Pledge. [The Danish Doctors Pledge does not mention potential patients, only "patients" [, which I understand as "actual patients"].

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

So based on my limited understanding of World Wide ethics among health care professionals I dare ask for some comments and considerations from you - and certainly comments and considerations from the other doctors who have been active in the discussions in this topic are most welcome - on the ethical dimensions of the Swedish Corona strategy.

 

Perhaps needless to post it, but as a layman, I consider it problematic, ref. "Do not do any harm." I sincerely hope this post does not appear as rubbish among the doctors here on CoBF.

As likely inferred already, i’ve taken that Pledge and often failed miserably. One of the revelations was how much people understand when you do your best and how, especially when suffering, ordinary people spontaneously recognize the difference between human and humane.

 

The Oath itself (and its interpretations) is not so clear. You may be interested in the fact that the origin of the “first do no harm” principle is relatively disputed. Hippocrates did write about ethics of the practice and most of the substance related to the principle can be found in Of The Epidemics (!). Specifically: "The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future — must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm." The risk? obviously is to do nothing and somehow the process is very similar to investing. Didn't Mr. Buffett suggest that the first rule was not to lose?

 

Think about that when somebody offers potentially lethal chemotherapy or mutilating surgery. It’s not so easy to reconcile in real life.

 

I like the way you are engaging this discussion and i’m in no way defending Sweden’s strategy but people involved in devising and applying policy in my area often use the analogy that it’s like building a plane while it’s flying. I’d say that’s beyond what even the Musks of this world could achieve gracefully.

 

In addition to the beneficience and non-maleficience potential conflicts inherent to individual patient encounters, public health policy needs to integrate concepts such as efficiency, population health maximization (‘social’ beneficience), justice and proportionality. So it depends on values which are subjective. Think of the general who may need to lose a few battles (sacrifice) in order to win the war. For example, concerning the issue of proportionality (balance or tension between individual rights and collective good, an obvious point of contention in the numerous above posts), i understand that Denmark (just used as an illustration) has the legislative balance tilted most towards the collective side of the argument which brings the topic of the last item: respect of autonomy at the individual and collective level. The first duty is to inform and, ideally, individuals should usually be able to take decisions that minimize failures and collective interventions have to be initiated with care (first, do no harm?). A way to mitigate this at the society’s level is to provide a unified and educated message to gather essential elements of society and reach a critical mass in order to move in the right (civilized) direction. Do i need to say more?

 

That was pretty much useless verbal inflation so to compensate, here’s a link that provides interesting data and analysis as well as some economic correlation. The whole thing has been very humbling.

https://lipperalpha.refinitiv.com/2020/05/fathom-recovery-watch-29-05-2020/?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=00008DL_NewsletterLipperAlphaInsightWeekly&utm_content=Newsletter_InvestmentWeekly_02June2020&elqTrackId=c6126a5396e1467887c07718c78c1120&elq=398d29cf74ab456f97e170b788f4a4c5&elqaid=67000&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=165

 

[jamesmadison]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/influential-hydroxychloroquine-study-used-suspect-data-from-company-run-by-pornographic-model-and-sci-fi-author

 

A study showing that the anti-malaria drug touted by President Trump, hydroxychloroquine, harmed COVID-19 patients is likely based on fabricated data.

 

An investigation by the Guardian found that the study, published in the Lancet (a prestigious medical journal), relied on data from a company called Surgisphere that appears to be highly suspect. The Lancet released an "expression of concern" about the study during the investigation.

 

All true, except for describing the Lancet as a Prestigious Medical Journal.  They haven't been for a very long time - say going back to publishing that absolute crap about Vaccines causing Autism, which they needed to retract and which caused untold negative consequences.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company

 

Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies

 

.........................................

 

While proper studies by NYU Grossman using HCQ, Zinc and Azithromycin showing 44% less deaths in certain Covid patient population and Indian ICMR studies of prophylactic use of HCQ have been ignored.

 

 

All true except the comment about Lancet being a prestigious medical journal.  They lost that title many years ago when they published that garbage about Vaccines causing Autism, which they had to retract and which caused untold misery

[jamesmadison]

The cognitive dissonance occurring now that millions have decided to say "screw the lockdowns" but for the politically correct reasons is mind blowing.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/not-the-same-question-de-blasio-says-businesses-churches-to-remain-closed-even-as-demonstrators-flout-lockdowns/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

 

And of course, they don't even realize their own massive hypocrisy.  The lockdowns are either needed to prevent a massive pandemic or not.  In what insane alternate universe is there an exception for massive gatherings for just causes???

[jamesmadison]

Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies

 

 

Some more details:

 

 

Make sure to turn volume up to hear the appropriate sound effects.

 

Lancet and NEJM covering themselves in glory.  It's almost like they wanted the results to be true so much that they didn't want to actually check the source out too carefully.