Coronavirus

[ERICOPOLY]

It is not enough for CDC or Fauci to say I told you - you follow.  To convince people to loose their job, shut their business, keep their children off the school, they need to provide much more information.

 

As I said,  "From the very beginning , government officials haven't led by example and this has undermined their own efforts."

 

The CDC didn't get to the present day without previously putting forth a mask campaign that high up public officials did not think was cool enough for their macho image.

 

It undermined their own efforts to reopen the economy.

[Cardboard]

It is obvious you hate Trump and how he didn't push masks. Funny now although, that Biden is nearly always without his...

 

Since you knew these things and would have followed CDC guidelines, prevention, etc. according to your logic then how do you explain that you still caught it?

 

Cardboard

[ERICOPOLY]

It is obvious you hate Trump and how he didn't push masks. Funny now although, that Biden is nearly always without his...

 

Since you knew these things and would have followed CDC guidelines, prevention, etc. according to your logic then how do you explain that you still caught it?

 

Cardboard

 

From participating in an open economy (the part of it that is open).

 

Rate of spread high -> greater total number of infected -> more likely I get it too

Rate of spread lower ->. fewer total number of infected -> lower chance I get it too

 

Imperfect system?  No

[Investor20]

It is obvious you hate Trump and how he didn't push masks. Funny now although, that Biden is nearly always without his...

 

Since you knew these things and would have followed CDC guidelines, prevention, etc. according to your logic then how do you explain that you still caught it?

 

Cardboard

 

From participating in an open economy (the part of it that is open).

 

Rate of spread high -> greater total number of infected -> more likely I get it too

Rate of spread lower ->. fewer total number of infected -> lower chance I get it too

 

Imperfect system?  No

 

Dr. Fauci quoted in last one week about school re-opening:

""If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all."

 

Would you have known that they actually didnt know (apparently) when they advocated school closing how children transmit to adults?  This is what I am talking about.

 

Using Remdesivir that WHO is not supporting.  Having schools closed for a long time and then give statements like above.

 

Why would it give people confidence to follow them?

 

Dr. Flip Flop: A timeline of Fauci's school reopening positions

https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/dr-flip-flop-a-timeline-of-faucis

[ERICOPOLY]

It is obvious you hate Trump and how he didn't push masks. Funny now although, that Biden is nearly always without his...

 

Since you knew these things and would have followed CDC guidelines, prevention, etc. according to your logic then how do you explain that you still caught it?

 

Cardboard

 

From participating in an open economy (the part of it that is open).

 

Rate of spread high -> greater total number of infected -> more likely I get it too

Rate of spread lower ->. fewer total number of infected -> lower chance I get it too

 

Imperfect system?  No

 

Dr. Fauci quoted in last one week about school re-opening:

""If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all."

 

Would you have known that they actually didnt know (apparently) when they advocated school closing how children transmit to adults?  This is what I am talking about.

 

Using Remdesivir that WHO is not supporting.  Having schools closed for a long time and then give statements like above.

 

Why would it give people confidence to follow them?

 

Dr. Flip Flop: A timeline of Fauci's school reopening positions

https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/dr-flip-flop-a-timeline-of-faucis

 

The schools are open for my kids, I agree with Fauci. 

 

I think people are grinding a political axe when they undercut him even when they agree with him.

[clutch]

"Protecting Seniors from COVID At What Cost

 

The restrictions intended to protect seniors against COVID-19 have created other unintended consequences. They've exacerbated the emotional, mental, and physical toll of loneliness and social isolation for which older adults are already more at risk, even when there isn't a pandemic. Is the sacrifice many families are making - to stay apart for the greater good - really the best approach for seniors' health? Geriatrician Dr. Nathan Stall and psychiatrist-in-chief Dr. Lesley Wiesenfeld at Sinai Health weigh in, as does journalist Christina Frangou."

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

For those interested, below is a link to a recent study looking at years of life lost per Covid 'case' leaving in a body bag.

TL;DR version:

They evaluate with some adjustments (mostly guess) that the average years lost per case is about 13. Their work is exploratory but is also deeply flawed from an analytical point of view.

i think their adjustment for co-morbidities is way too optimistic. They have to compare their Covid case group to the general population and they use the typical bias correction tools but, fundamentally, there are essential variables that cause certain people to get sick and die that are simply not captured by reported co-morbidities and related adjustments. There is a massive selection bias risk which suggests that the years lost per case is much less in reality, perhaps something around 50% less. That would happen to fit with local anecdotal experience. And is supported by the NYC inverse pent-up demand pattern that has not shown up so far, see attached.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.18.20214783v2.full.pdf

 

From a pure investment or 'economic' point of view, these years lost are immaterial (unless comfortable with price action and other momentum strategies) and, in fact, from that perspective, reaching for maximum vulnerable mortality would likely add extra few points of return in the next few years.

-----

 

The following is only if one's empathy reservoir is above zero. What is a life worth anyways (expressed per years lost or whatever)? There are several answers and sometimes one needs a number. In the 80s, in various developed places including the US, it was shown that increasing the speed limit on a highway resulted in economic benefits for some (reaching destination faster and more 'productive' output) while resulting also in an increased number of deaths (from vehicle accidents). While a speed limit has clear individual implications, there's also a collective thought process since humans have decided to band together for a while. The issue: the people gaining ($) from higher speed limits are not exactly the same losing (life, reported in $). So what to do? Whatever one does decide, one has to 'decide' what is the value of one's life, preferably another. Maybe that's a specific area where the one has to be tempered by the we. In the sense that 'we' can trust.

[Spekulatius]

Thats all one needs to look at imo and it can’t be ignored. My wife is working overtime as I type this in various hospitals, as  COVID-19 patients are back in our area. The problem with seniors getting isolated is a real problem, but it’s not lockdowns that are causing this, but the virus running rampant. Lockdowns don’t prevent visits to seniors unless in special circumstances.

[KCLarkin]

“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.

[Investor20]

“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.

 

KCLarkin, if you want to discuss who is a child, we can do that.  But its difficult to differentiate Dr. Jay Bhattacharya position almost 6 months back to present day Fauci position. 

Why it took six months for Fauci to come to same conculsion, I will let you speculate.

 

Jay Bhattacharya almost since Iceland study in May:

"“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.”"

 

Fauci since last week:

""If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all."

 

 

 

[Investor20]

For those interested, below is a link to a recent study looking at years of life lost per Covid 'case' leaving in a body bag.

TL;DR version:

They evaluate with some adjustments (mostly guess) that the average years lost per case is about 13. Their work is exploratory but is also deeply flawed from an analytical point of view.

i think their adjustment for co-morbidities is way too optimistic. They have to compare their Covid case group to the general population and they use the typical bias correction tools but, fundamentally, there are essential variables that cause certain people to get sick and die that are simply not captured by reported co-morbidities and related adjustments. There is a massive selection bias risk which suggests that the years lost per case is much less in reality, perhaps something around 50% less. That would happen to fit with local anecdotal experience. And is supported by the NYC inverse pent-up demand pattern that has not shown up so far, see attached.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.18.20214783v2.full.pdf

 

From a pure investment or 'economic' point of view, these years lost are immaterial (unless comfortable with price action and other momentum strategies) and, in fact, from that perspective, reaching for maximum vulnerable mortality would likely add extra few points of return in the next few years.

-----

 

The following is only if one's empathy reservoir is above zero. What is a life worth anyways (expressed per years lost or whatever)? There are several answers and sometimes one needs a number. In the 80s, in various developed places including the US, it was shown that increasing the speed limit on a highway resulted in economic benefits for some (reaching destination faster and more 'productive' output) while resulting also in an increased number of deaths (from vehicle accidents). While a speed limit has clear individual implications, there's also a collective thought process since humans have decided to band together for a while. The issue: the people gaining ($) from higher speed limits are not exactly the same losing (life, reported in $). So what to do? Whatever one does decide, one has to 'decide' what is the value of one's life, preferably another. Maybe that's a specific area where the one has to be tempered by the we. In the sense that 'we' can trust.

 

The debate on easing or extending lockdown restrictions in the wake of Covid-19 is a matter of “lives versus lives”, and not of “lives versus livelihoods” as it is currently being framed, Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, tells Govindraj Ethiraj, journalist and founder of Boom, a fact-checking initiative

 

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/coronavirus-is-a-matter-of-lives-versus-lives-says-jay-bhattacharya-120050201025_1.html  May 2020

[Cigarbutt]

...

The debate on easing or extending lockdown restrictions in the wake of Covid-19 is a matter of “lives versus lives”, and not of “lives versus livelihoods” as it is currently being framed, Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, tells Govindraj Ethiraj, journalist and founder of Boom, a fact-checking initiative

...

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/coronavirus-is-a-matter-of-lives-versus-lives-says-jay-bhattacharya-120050201025_1.html  May 2020

i'm open to such views and even sympathetic to some aspects. For example, the 'costs' related to school closure (contributing to ignorance) are significant and i've pushed and rooted for maintenance and re-openings especially for younger cohorts. In my area, which is a typical example of collective individual massive failure, schools have contributed to the spread and there has been a 'price' to pay but it is true that younger children don't contribute to the spread in a major way and school 'cases' have been typically fed and nurtured from the community to the school and not the other way around.

BTW 'isolation' of the vulnerable, frail and old is not a 'new' phenomenon with Covid. It's just that people talk more about it these days. If there's something that has become clear IMO, it's the fact that mortality and hospitalizations in a big way have occurred after rampant and persistent community spread and wishes to protect those at-risk have systemically failed to a large degree. In my area, January is typically a difficult month for healthcare in general, including hospitals and i just adjusted expectations taking into account evolving trends and January looks bad. i would offer the opinion that, for my area, there has been a massive failure of cost-effective collaboration and cooperation. This has been compensated partly (for the direct, indirect effects) by public entities going into debt but people, at large, again are wasting another crisis. i realize there is a critical mass and that critical mass is composed of ignorants (this is an interesting challenge) and of stupids (..).

i was listening to a Sweden MD a few days ago and she explained that vaccine hesitancy and outright hostility is on the rise in Europe in correlation to how countries failed to control a relatively simple virus and she included her own country. People, in general, are losing confidence in a self-fulfilling way. Disinformation and misinformation are root causes.

 

To show a degree of openness, here's a modified text from Mr. Bhattacharya:

 

Lockdowns, of course, are not all that prevents the global economy from thriving now. People the world over have also changed their behaviour out of fear of the virus, with less trade and — therefore — less wealth spread. But mandatory lockdowns have costs. That they are not the only source of economic pain is not a reason to ignore their impact. Ending "lockdown" is the objective and the best way to achieve that is through sensible and cost effective collaboration and cooperation. The reason why my area is doing so poorly overall is not because of variable levels of 'lockdowns'. My regional hospital just set up a large tent outside and winter is coming.

 

 

[KCLarkin]

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%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Investor20]

...

The debate on easing or extending lockdown restrictions in the wake of Covid-19 is a matter of “lives versus lives”, and not of “lives versus livelihoods” as it is currently being framed, Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, tells Govindraj Ethiraj, journalist and founder of Boom, a fact-checking initiative

...

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/coronavirus-is-a-matter-of-lives-versus-lives-says-jay-bhattacharya-120050201025_1.html  May 2020

i'm open to such views and even sympathetic to some aspects. For example, the 'costs' related to school closure (contributing to ignorance) are significant and i've pushed and rooted for maintenance and re-openings especially for younger cohorts. In my area, which is a typical example of collective individual massive failure, schools have contributed to the spread and there has been a 'price' to pay but it is true that younger children don't contribute to the spread in a major way and school 'cases' have been typically fed and nurtured from the community to the school and not the other way around.

BTW 'isolation' of the vulnerable, frail and old is not a 'new' phenomenon with Covid. It's just that people talk more about it these days. If there's something that has become clear IMO, it's the fact that mortality and hospitalizations in a big way have occurred after rampant and persistent community spread and wishes to protect those at-risk have systemically failed to a large degree. In my area, January is typically a difficult month for healthcare in general, including hospitals and i just adjusted expectations taking into account evolving trends and January looks bad. i would offer the opinion that, for my area, there has been a massive failure of cost-effective collaboration and cooperation. This has been compensated partly (for the direct, indirect effects) by public entities going into debt but people, at large, again are wasting another crisis. i realize there is a critical mass and that critical mass is composed of ignorants (this is an interesting challenge) and of stupids (..).

i was listening to a Sweden MD a few days ago and she explained that vaccine hesitancy and outright hostility is on the rise in Europe in correlation to how countries failed to control a relatively simple virus and she included her own country. People, in general, are losing confidence in a self-fulfilling way. Disinformation and misinformation are root causes.

 

To show a degree of openness, here's a modified text from Mr. Bhattacharya:

 

Lockdowns, of course, are not all that prevents the global economy from thriving now. People the world over have also changed their behaviour out of fear of the virus, with less trade and — therefore — less wealth spread. But mandatory lockdowns have costs. That they are not the only source of economic pain is not a reason to ignore their impact. Ending "lockdown" is the objective and the best way to achieve that is through sensible and cost effective collaboration and cooperation. The reason why my area is doing so poorly overall is not because of variable levels of 'lockdowns'. My regional hospital just set up a large tent outside and winter is coming.

 

Regarding Dr. Bhattacharya, he has a unique background of both being a doctor but also an economist.  His profile says

"Dr. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Dr. Bhattacharya’s peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. He holds an MD and PhD in economics from Stanford University."

 

He writes regarding lockdowns along with Harvard & Oxford epidemiologists:

 

"Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed."

https://gbdeclaration.org/

 

The above should matter when considering a lockdown.  Taking Australia, a big island with small population with marathon lockdowns as basis of how to control virus and saying why dont everyone just do it as if there is no down side is just inexplicable.

[RichardGibbons]

Strangely, the outcome with this virus has made me more optimistic. The fact that we've been able to create a vaccine in 10 months is impressive, and gives me confidence that we could deal with an equally contagious disease with higher fatality levels. That's a pretty great realization.

 

And, I've got to say, Trump deserves some credit for the fast vaccine. By minimizing the impact of the disease, discouraging people from wearing masks and other preventative measures, and generally helping the virus along, he's helped the number of cases to explode. Without that massive number of new infections, Phase 3 trials would've taken far longer-- to determine whether a vaccine is working, you need people to catch the disease, and he did his part to achieve that. So, credit where credit is due.

[Morgan]

Strangely, the outcome with this virus has made me more optimistic. The fact that we've been able to create a vaccine in 10 months is impressive, and gives me confidence that we could deal with an equally contagious disease with higher fatality levels. That's a pretty great realization.

 

Agreed.

 

 

And, I've got to say, Trump deserves some credit for the fast vaccine. By minimizing the impact of the disease, discouraging people from wearing masks and other preventative measures, and generally helping the virus along, he's helped the number of cases to explode. Without that massive number of new infections, Phase 3 trials would've taken far longer-- to determine whether a vaccine is working, you need people to catch the disease, and he did his part to achieve that. So, credit where credit is due.

 

Lol wut. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. Trump should be praised because his policy allowed more people to be infected and die so more studies could be done? Seriously? If ten times more people died would that be ten times better?

 

Don’t you think we could have come to the same conclusion had only half or a quarter of the people got infected and died? By your logic, Mao should be praised for reducing the population in China so there’s be enough food to eat after the cultural revolution and famines? Have a famine, millions die. Now the little food we have is enough for the smaller population. Thanks Mao! /s

 

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic? or I simply don’t know enough about vaccine development...

[Investor20]

Strangely, the outcome with this virus has made me more optimistic. The fact that we've been able to create a vaccine in 10 months is impressive, and gives me confidence that we could deal with an equally contagious disease with higher fatality levels. That's a pretty great realization.

 

And, I've got to say, Trump deserves some credit for the fast vaccine. By minimizing the impact of the disease, discouraging people from wearing masks and other preventative measures, and generally helping the virus along, he's helped the number of cases to explode. Without that massive number of new infections, Phase 3 trials would've taken far longer-- to determine whether a vaccine is working, you need people to catch the disease, and he did his part to achieve that. So, credit where credit is due.

 

Richard what evidence is there regarding this statement?  There are two studies published in November. One is well publicized Danish mask randomized study.  The second one less publicized is below:

 

https://www.aier.org/article/even-a-military-enforced-quarantine-cant-stop-the-virus-study-reveals/

Even a Military-Enforced Quarantine Can’t Stop the Virus, Study Reveals

 

"We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infections among U.S. Marine Corps recruits who underwent a 2-week quarantine at home followed by a second supervised 2-week quarantine at a closed college campus that involved

mask wearing,

social distancing, and

daily temperature and symptom monitoring.

Study volunteers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of quantitative polymeras e-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay of nares swab specimens obtained between the time of arrival and the second day of supervised quarantine and on days 7 and 14. "

An more...see below*

 

"Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine."

 

That is 2% became infected in 2 weeks after all of the above.  Do you call that a success?

 

*All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating;

practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet;

were not allowed to leave campus;

did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and

routinely washed their hands.

They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms.

All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten.

Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors.

All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons.

All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening.

Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures.

If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

[Guest cherzeca]

Strangely, the outcome with this virus has made me more optimistic. The fact that we've been able to create a vaccine in 10 months is impressive, and gives me confidence that we could deal with an equally contagious disease with higher fatality levels. That's a pretty great realization.

 

And, I've got to say, Trump deserves some credit for the fast vaccine. By minimizing the impact of the disease, discouraging people from wearing masks and other preventative measures, and generally helping the virus along, he's helped the number of cases to explode. Without that massive number of new infections, Phase 3 trials would've taken far longer-- to determine whether a vaccine is working, you need people to catch the disease, and he did his part to achieve that. So, credit where credit is due.

 

Richard what evidence is there regarding this statement?  There are two studies published in November. One is well publicized Danish mask randomized study.  The second one less publicized is below:

 

https://www.aier.org/article/even-a-military-enforced-quarantine-cant-stop-the-virus-study-reveals/

Even a Military-Enforced Quarantine Can’t Stop the Virus, Study Reveals

 

"We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infections among U.S. Marine Corps recruits who underwent a 2-week quarantine at home followed by a second supervised 2-week quarantine at a closed college campus that involved

mask wearing,

social distancing, and

daily temperature and symptom monitoring.

Study volunteers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of quantitative polymeras e-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay of nares swab specimens obtained between the time of arrival and the second day of supervised quarantine and on days 7 and 14. "

An more...see below*

 

"Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine."

 

That is 2% became infected in 2 weeks after all of the above.  Do you call that a success?

 

*All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating;

practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet;

were not allowed to leave campus;

did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and

routinely washed their hands.

They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms.

All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten.

Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors.

All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons.

All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening.

Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures.

If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

 

and this...

 

"Here are four actual media headlines about the study that miss the point entirely:

 

CNN: “Many military Covid-19 cases are asymptomatic, studies show”

 

SciTech Daily: “Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission Revealed Through Study of 2,000 Marine Recruits”

 

ABC: “Broad study of Marine recruits shows limits of COVID-19 symptom screening”

 

US Navy: “Navy/Marine Corps COVID-19 Study Findings Published in New England Journal of Medicine”

 

No national news story that I have found highlighted the most important finding of all: extreme quarantine plus frequent testing and isolation among military recruits did nothing to stop the virus."

[KCLarkin]

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?

 

 

[Investor20]

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?

 

People dont live together at home?  Eat together at home?  Here even indoors they practiced distancing.  They practiced cleaning bathrooms and dining areas after each use.  They used masks indoor or outside while not eating or sleeping. They tested them weekly already after a two weeks of quarantine at home and tested them before the study.

 

Whats the difference between a family at home and recruits sharing a room to sleep?

 

And of course one could consider if there is no downside.  But as I posted earlier, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya listed the downside besides economics but on public health of these measures. 

[KCLarkin]

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.

[Investor20]

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.

 

You are mis-representing the data.  Here are quotes from the study:

 

"A total of 1848 recruits volunteered to participate in the study; within 2 days after arrival on campus, 16 (0.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2"

 

Then they removed them and supposedly starting with recruits with no Covid

 

"An additional 35 participants (1.9%) tested positive on day 7 or on day 14."

 

"Therefore, 35 participants who had had negative qPCR results within the first 2 days after arrival at the campus became positive during the supervised quarantine.

"

KCLarkin, it went up or down?

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

 

[Investor20]

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.

 

Actually it is a 4 week study

2 weeks of home quarantine

zero day: test and remove positives

Enforce supervised quarantine procedures

seventh day: test and remove positives

Enforce supervised quarantine procedures

Test on 14 day which still gave 0.6% positives.

 

The result as given by authors

 

"At the time of enrollment, after 2 weeks of home quarantine, approximately 1% of study participants had positive qPCR results, and approximately 2% subsequently became infected during the 2-week supervised quarantine period."

 

 

[Spekulatius]

^ big surprise if you live in crowded quarters m use the same bathrooms (that was one way infections were found in the study) and have roommates bunking together (I bet they do t wear mask when they sleep, how could they).

 

My only conclusion for a civilian setting is that I wouldn’t  rely on mask preventing infections in a setting like a cruise ship (the closest equivalent). As for the general conclusion of the reference (not the study ) that mask don’t work, I wouldn't agree.

 

If you refer to the often cited danish mask study, check out Taleb’s posts on Twitter. He concluded that the design and even the math of the study is incorrect and that the results actually infer that the mask cohort did show lower infection rates.

 

Edit: corrected for typos.