Coronavirus

[Spekulatius]

it sure as hell would work in the setting if masks were given to these families on a priority basis.

 

what is hard to understand about common sense?

It is obvious that you have never worn a mask. Besides, a mask wouldn’t suffice , you would need to desanitize every touch surface and wear PPE. Think hospital setting and even that doesn’t work as many infections from healthcare workers show. Constant exposure is very hard to mitigate.

 

[Spekulatius]

"But they [epidemiologists] at least know what they're talking about and know what the data means better than laymen...."

 

so lets get beyond the stupid medial reporting and try to understand epidemiologists.  epidemiologists are second rate statisticians plain and simple.  here is their advice.  based upon their assumptions (which have no resemblance to common sense), their models predict with a purported 95% accuracy rate that US deaths will range from 30,000-160,000.

 

feel smarter now?

 

Quite frankly, that’s a third grade comment.

[Liberty]

"But they [epidemiologists] at least know what they're talking about and know what the data means better than laymen...."

 

so lets get beyond the stupid medial reporting and try to understand epidemiologists.  epidemiologists are second rate statisticians plain and simple.  here is their advice.  based upon their assumptions (which have no resemblance to common sense), their models predict with a purported 95% accuracy rate that US deaths will range from 30,000-160,000.

 

feel smarter now?

 

Quite frankly, that’s a third grade comment.

 

That's generous.

[Cigarbutt]

"But they [epidemiologists] at least know what they're talking about and know what the data means better than laymen...."

 

so lets get beyond the stupid medial reporting and try to understand epidemiologists.  epidemiologists are second rate statisticians plain and simple.  here is their advice.  based upon their assumptions (which have no resemblance to common sense), their models predict with a purported 95% accuracy rate that US deaths will range from 30,000-160,000.

 

feel smarter now?

Quite frankly, that’s a third grade comment.

That's generous.

The 95% "accuracy" comment is derogatory. The 95% number is often used in statistical analysis (including epidemiology) as a "confidence interval" number. For example, you could say, given this set of assumptions, the value of GSE preferred shares lies between...and...and there is a 95% chance that the real value lies within this range. Some could suggest that the range is quite large, even if underlying assumptions are considered first-rate.

One of the problems is that a lot of the decisions being applied now require a confidence interval to be lower (precautionary principle) but the range of potential

efficacy (or lack of, on a cost basis) remains very large, because of the underlying weak evidence related to the measures taken. Just last year, there was a good report published about the potential efficacy related to social distancing measures. And there are economic and freedom costs.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995_article

[Viking]

Nice to see politicians are slowly learning to trust science and the facts. It takes some longer than others.

 

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who resisted strict coronavirus measures, says he just learned it transmits asymptomatically

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/02/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-who-resisted-strict-coronavirus-measures-says-he-just-learned-it-transmitted-asymptomatically/

 

After resisting a statewide stay-at-home order for days, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp ® succumbed to the pressure and issued one on Wednesday. Part of the reason, he said, was that he had just learned some new information.

 

Kemp said he was “finding out that this virus is now transmitting before people see signs.”

 

“Those individuals could have been infecting people before they ever felt bad, but we didn’t know that until the last 24 hours,” he said. He added that the state’s top doctor told him that “this is a game-changer.”

 

[Guest cherzeca]

"But they [epidemiologists] at least know what they're talking about and know what the data means better than laymen...."

 

so lets get beyond the stupid medial reporting and try to understand epidemiologists.  epidemiologists are second rate statisticians plain and simple.  here is their advice.  based upon their assumptions (which have no resemblance to common sense), their models predict with a purported 95% accuracy rate that US deaths will range from 30,000-160,000.

 

feel smarter now?

 

Quite frankly, that’s a third grade comment.

 

throwing inventive means you dont have a clue Spek.  I put you in the Dalal pile

[Guest cherzeca]

"But they [epidemiologists] at least know what they're talking about and know what the data means better than laymen...."

 

so lets get beyond the stupid medial reporting and try to understand epidemiologists.  epidemiologists are second rate statisticians plain and simple.  here is their advice.  based upon their assumptions (which have no resemblance to common sense), their models predict with a purported 95% accuracy rate that US deaths will range from 30,000-160,000.

 

feel smarter now?

Quite frankly, that’s a third grade comment.

That's generous.

The 95% "accuracy" comment is derogatory. The 95% number is often used in statistical analysis (including epidemiology) as a "confidence interval" number. For example, you could say, given this set of assumptions, the value of GSE preferred shares lies between...and...and there is a 95% chance that the real value lies within this range. Some could suggest that the range is quite large, even if underlying assumptions are considered first-rate.

One of the problems is that a lot of the decisions being applied now require a confidence interval to be lower (precautionary principle) but the range of potential

efficacy (or lack of, on a cost basis) remains very large, because of the underlying weak evidence related to the measures taken. Just last year, there was a good report published about the potential efficacy related to social distancing measures. And there are economic and freedom costs.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995_article

 

my post is to put into perspective the stupid media reporting, which just goes to the high number to garner clicks...and the devoted attention of many on this thread

[Dalal.Holdings]

"But they [epidemiologists] at least know what they're talking about and know what the data means better than laymen...."

 

so lets get beyond the stupid medial reporting and try to understand epidemiologists.  epidemiologists are second rate statisticians plain and simple.  here is their advice.  based upon their assumptions (which have no resemblance to common sense), their models predict with a purported 95% accuracy rate that US deaths will range from 30,000-160,000.

 

feel smarter now?

 

Quite frankly, that’s a third grade comment.

 

throwing inventive means you dont have a clue Spek.  I put you in the Dalal pile

 

[Liberty]

"But they [epidemiologists] at least know what they're talking about and know what the data means better than laymen...."

 

so lets get beyond the stupid medial reporting and try to understand epidemiologists.  epidemiologists are second rate statisticians plain and simple.  here is their advice.  based upon their assumptions (which have no resemblance to common sense), their models predict with a purported 95% accuracy rate that US deaths will range from 30,000-160,000.

 

feel smarter now?

Quite frankly, that’s a third grade comment.

That's generous.

The 95% "accuracy" comment is derogatory. The 95% number is often used in statistical analysis (including epidemiology) as a "confidence interval" number. For example, you could say, given this set of assumptions, the value of GSE preferred shares lies between...and...and there is a 95% chance that the real value lies within this range. Some could suggest that the range is quite large, even if underlying assumptions are considered first-rate.

One of the problems is that a lot of the decisions being applied now require a confidence interval to be lower (precautionary principle) but the range of potential

efficacy (or lack of, on a cost basis) remains very large, because of the underlying weak evidence related to the measures taken. Just last year, there was a good report published about the potential efficacy related to social distancing measures. And there are economic and freedom costs.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995_article

 

my post is to put into perspective the stupid media reporting, which just goes to the high number to garner clicks...and the devoted attention of many on this thread

 

Nah, you just don't understand how this works. We don't know the R value of this virus, and we don't know how well the measures in place so far will affect it. A tiny change in R value in a daily exponential process can have HUGE impacts down the line, which is why the probability distribution is wide. It's still the best data that we have, and I'd rather be guided by it and an understanding of what each variable does and what interventions best work to best mitigate impacts rather than by someone's gut feeling (see where that has gotten us so far).

[cobafdek]

Looks like thousands of American citizens are going to be crucified at the alter of one persons narcissism. A "war time" president who should be facing war criminal charges of epic incompetence.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/31/coronavirus-latest-news/

 

The White House coronavirus task force on Tuesday presented a grim picture of where the U.S. could be heading over the next couple of months, even with interventions like physical distancing. The task force projects 100,000 to 240,000 deaths from the virus, with mitigation.

 

Deborah Birx and Anthony S. Fauci, the leaders of the task force, emphasized that although the projections were likely based on the data that they have seen from the hardest hit locations so far, they were hopeful that they could prevent such a high number of deaths.

 

“Whenever you’re having an effect, it’s not time to take your foot off the accelerator, and on the brake, but to just press it down on the accelerator,” Fauci said of the mitigation efforts. “And that’s what I hope. And I know that we can that do over the next 30 days.”

 

Spot on. The lack of basic understanding shown in early stages of this is beyond belief. I still believe they are downplaying the true possible numbers here. Two more weeks and we will know, by tomorrow US will likely have 200K+ infections.

 

Question for the Hindsight Geniuses on this thread:

 

Which one(s) of the anti-pandemic measures in the following article should the President have done in January?  Which ones should he do now?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/world/europe/coronavirus-governments-power.html

[Liberty]

Video showing the Czech Republic's experience with masks (home-made), going from highly unusual to almost universal in 10 days, and the impact in slowing the virus:

 

 

Their curves on a log chart:

 

[Gregmal]

To be fair, I do think it’s reasonable for our liberal lecturers to criticize Trump for not trying to close the borders or ban international travel. It’s such an obvious and easy precaution to take. I’m actually shocked I have not heard more about this from them.

[vinod1]

Looks like thousands of American citizens are going to be crucified at the alter of one persons narcissism. A "war time" president who should be facing war criminal charges of epic incompetence.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/31/coronavirus-latest-news/

 

The White House coronavirus task force on Tuesday presented a grim picture of where the U.S. could be heading over the next couple of months, even with interventions like physical distancing. The task force projects 100,000 to 240,000 deaths from the virus, with mitigation.

 

Deborah Birx and Anthony S. Fauci, the leaders of the task force, emphasized that although the projections were likely based on the data that they have seen from the hardest hit locations so far, they were hopeful that they could prevent such a high number of deaths.

 

“Whenever you’re having an effect, it’s not time to take your foot off the accelerator, and on the brake, but to just press it down on the accelerator,” Fauci said of the mitigation efforts. “And that’s what I hope. And I know that we can that do over the next 30 days.”

 

Spot on. The lack of basic understanding shown in early stages of this is beyond belief. I still believe they are downplaying the true possible numbers here. Two more weeks and we will know, by tomorrow US will likely have 200K+ infections.

 

Question for the Hindsight Geniuses on this thread:

 

Which one(s) of the anti-pandemic measures in the following article should the President have done in January?  Which ones should he do now?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/world/europe/coronavirus-governments-power.html

 

I understand you think Trump is a genius. Anything and everything he does must be really great. Why argue?

 

Vinod

[Liberty]

To be fair, I do think it’s reasonable for our liberal lecturers to criticize Trump for not trying to close the borders or ban international travel. It’s such an obvious and easy precaution to take. I’m actually shocked I have not heard more about this from them.

 

Look, if you do one thing right (early China travel ban -- which was probably a fluke done because with the trade war he was looking for any reason to pressure China) but then turn around and call it a hoax and no big deal and it'll go away on its own and airtight controlled and give rallies in arenas and and give no clear direction to states and don't mobilize federal agencies for weeks and have incompetents in those agencies (the war on experts for the past 3 years in favor of loyalists/cronies), pre-announce possible quarantines making sure people flee those areas and spread the virus, contradict experts on TV within the very same press conference, etc, you don't get to pretend that you did the right thing early. You still did WAY more damage than good.

 

The first thing to have done would be to have had smart people able to understand the warnings and react rationally to them in the first place, rather than convince millions of people it wasn't a big deal, which by the time that was turned around, you had daily exponential compounding for weeks.

[Liberty]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/02/metro/boston-hospitals-getting-game-changer-machine-that-sterilizes-80000-protective-masks-day/

[Viking]

To be fair, I do think it’s reasonable for our liberal lecturers to criticize Trump for not trying to close the borders or ban international travel. It’s such an obvious and easy precaution to take. I’m actually shocked I have not heard more about this from them.

 

Look, if you do one thing right (early China travel ban -- which was probably a fluke done because with the trade war he was looking for any reason to pressure China) but then turn around and call it a hoax and no big deal and it'll go away on its own and airtight controlled and give rallies in arenas and and give no clear direction to states and don't mobilize federal agencies for weeks and have incompetents in those agencies (the war on experts for the past 3 years in favor of loyalists/cronies), pre-announce possible quarantines making sure people flee those areas and spread the virus, contradict experts on TV within the very same press conference, etc, you don't get to pretend that you did the right thing early. You still did WAY more damage than good.

 

The first thing to have done would be to have had smart people able to understand the warnings and react rationally to them in the first place, rather than convince millions of people it wasn't a big deal, which by the time that was turned around, you had daily exponential compounding for weeks.

 

If a politician does something well = praise.

If a politician does something wrong = criticism

 

If they do one thing right = 1 praise

If they do 10 things wrong = 10 criticisms

 

Assuming each of the ‘things’ are of roughly equal importance.

[Liberty]

If a politician does something well = praise.

If a politician does something wrong = criticism

 

If they do one thing right = 1 praise

If they do 10 things wrong = 10 criticisms

 

Assuming each of the ‘things’ are of roughly equal importance.

 

Yeah, except it's worse than that in these situation. If the situation had been reversed (by competence), 9 things right and 1 thing wrong might have meant that this had been controlled early (think South Korea) and the result would be VERY different in magnitude. So it's not 9 to 1, but maybe a million-to-one or more in impact.

[Ross812]

To be fair, I do think it’s reasonable for our liberal lecturers to criticize Trump for not trying to close the borders or ban international travel. It’s such an obvious and easy precaution to take. I’m actually shocked I have not heard more about this from them.

 

Look, if you do one thing right (early China travel ban restriction (fixed it for you) -- which was probably a fluke done because with the trade war he was looking for any reason to pressure China) but then turn around and call it a hoax and no big deal and it'll go away on its own and airtight controlled and give rallies in arenas and and give no clear direction to states and don't mobilize federal agencies for weeks and have incompetents in those agencies (the war on experts for the past 3 years in favor of loyalists/cronies), pre-announce possible quarantines making sure people flee those areas and spread the virus, contradict experts on TV within the very same press conference, etc, you don't get to pretend that you did the right thing early. You still did WAY more damage than good.

 

The first thing to have done would be to have had smart people able to understand the warnings and react rationally to them in the first place, rather than convince millions of people it wasn't a big deal, which by the time that was turned around, you had daily exponential compounding for weeks.

 

The administration is saying it was a travel ban over and over, but it only restricted non-resident aliens who were in China in the last 14 days.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/

 

I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

 

Section 1.  Suspension and Limitation on Entry.  The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the People’s Republic of China, excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States is hereby suspended and limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation.

 

Sec. 2.  Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.

 

(a)  Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:

 

(i)    any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

 

(ii)    any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;

 

(iii)  any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21;

 

(iv)    any alien who is the sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that both are unmarried and under the age of 21;

 

(v)    any alien who is the child, foster child, or ward of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, or who is a prospective adoptee seeking to enter the United States pursuant to the IR-4 or IH-4 visa classifications;

 

(vi)    any alien traveling at the invitation of the United States Government for a purpose related to containment or mitigation of the virus;

 

(vii)  any alien traveling as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)© or (D) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)© or (D), as a crewmember or any alien otherwise traveling to the United States as air or sea crew;

 

(viii)  any alien seeking entry into or transiting the United States pursuant to an A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 (as a foreign government official or immediate family member of an official), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-4, or NATO-6 visa;

 

(ix)    any alien whose entry would not pose a significant risk of introducing, transmitting, or spreading the virus, as determined by the CDC Director, or his designee;

 

(x)    any alien whose entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees based on a recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee; or

 

(xi)    any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their designees.

 

 

[Liberty]

 

A prediction we made this morning:

"Interestingly, we also predict that the virus may invade multiple brain tissues, which may help explain to the loss of taste and smell in infected individuals. Has anyone seen evidence of further brain damage in COVID-194patients?"1/3

 

Tonight the NYT has an article on this: "Doctors have observed neurological symptoms, including confusion, stroke and seizures, in a small subset of Covid-19 patients."

 

Why did we suggest  the brain?

Because the COVID-10 protomodule is  expressed in:

Frontal Cortex

Cortex

Hippocampus

Hypothalamus

Spinal cord

Anterior cingulate cortex

that is, virtually all brain tissues could be invaded by the virus.

3/4

 

How much longer until the NYT writes about the virus being in the reproductive system as well (another key prediction of our methods)?

See all predictions here:

 

https://covid.barabasilab.com/2020/04/network-based-embedding-of-all-human.html

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

A prediction we made this morning:

"Interestingly, we also predict that the virus may invade multiple brain tissues, which may help explain to the loss of taste and smell in infected individuals. Has anyone seen evidence of further brain damage in COVID-194patients?"1/3

 

Tonight the NYT has an article on this: "Doctors have observed neurological symptoms, including confusion, stroke and seizures, in a small subset of Covid-19 patients."

 

Why did we suggest  the brain?

Because the COVID-10 protomodule is  expressed in:

Frontal Cortex

Cortex

Hippocampus

Hypothalamus

Spinal cord

Anterior cingulate cortex

that is, virtually all brain tissues could be invaded by the virus.

3/4

 

How much longer until the NYT writes about the virus being in the reproductive system as well (another key prediction of our methods)?

See all predictions here:

 

https://covid.barabasilab.com/2020/04/network-based-embedding-of-all-human.html

 

Meh. Unlikely to be significant. A lot of URI/Sinus infections cause anosmia (taste/smell impact) and not due to brain involvement.

 

Covid-19 binds ACE2 to gain entry in cells. ACE2 as far as I know is primarily expressed in upper respiratory tract and lungs.

 

"neurological symptoms, including confusion, stroke and seizures". You know what else can cause these symptoms? Hypoxia.

[Liberty]

 

A prediction we made this morning:

"Interestingly, we also predict that the virus may invade multiple brain tissues, which may help explain to the loss of taste and smell in infected individuals. Has anyone seen evidence of further brain damage in COVID-194patients?"1/3

 

Tonight the NYT has an article on this: "Doctors have observed neurological symptoms, including confusion, stroke and seizures, in a small subset of Covid-19 patients."

 

Why did we suggest  the brain?

Because the COVID-10 protomodule is  expressed in:

Frontal Cortex

Cortex

Hippocampus

Hypothalamus

Spinal cord

Anterior cingulate cortex

that is, virtually all brain tissues could be invaded by the virus.

3/4

 

How much longer until the NYT writes about the virus being in the reproductive system as well (another key prediction of our methods)?

See all predictions here:

 

https://covid.barabasilab.com/2020/04/network-based-embedding-of-all-human.html

 

Meh. Unlikely to be significant. A lot of URI/Sinus infections cause anosmia (taste/smell impact) and not due to brain involvement.

 

Covid-19 binds ACE2 to gain entry in cells. ACE2 as far as I know is primarily expressed in upper respiratory tract and lungs.

 

"neurological symptoms, including confusion, stroke and seizures". You know what else can cause these symptoms? Hypoxia.

 

They're not looking at symptoms, they're predicting this based on the virus itself and where it gets expressed:

 

https://covid.barabasilab.com/2020/03/covid-19-and-network-medicine.html

 

Might be nothing, but I'm glad some people are looking at this too in case it turns out to be something.

[Viking]

 

A prediction we made this morning:

"Interestingly, we also predict that the virus may invade multiple brain tissues, which may help explain to the loss of taste and smell in infected individuals. Has anyone seen evidence of further brain damage in COVID-194patients?"1/3

 

Tonight the NYT has an article on this: "Doctors have observed neurological symptoms, including confusion, stroke and seizures, in a small subset of Covid-19 patients."

 

Why did we suggest  the brain?

Because the COVID-10 protomodule is  expressed in:

Frontal Cortex

Cortex

Hippocampus

Hypothalamus

Spinal cord

Anterior cingulate cortex

that is, virtually all brain tissues could be invaded by the virus.

3/4

 

How much longer until the NYT writes about the virus being in the reproductive system as well (another key prediction of our methods)?

See all predictions here:

 

https://covid.barabasilab.com/2020/04/network-based-embedding-of-all-human.html

 

This is one of the (kind of) reasons i am doing what i can to not get the virus. And my wife/kids. There is simply so much we do not understand about what the virus does to the body longer term (lungs scarring, brain etc). Maybe nothing. Maybe something. So why not be cautious until more is known :-)

[cubsfan]

To be fair, I do think it’s reasonable for our liberal lecturers to criticize Trump for not trying to close the borders or ban international travel. It’s such an obvious and easy precaution to take. I’m actually shocked I have not heard more about this from them.

 

Of course it's not - it's the typical armchair quarterback crap. Trump was the first world leader to close the borders, The WHO criticized him, the opposition party criticized him - since they love the Chinese Communist Party. Turns out, the President was correct - and just about EVERY major country followed suit.  Any of them ROLL BACK their travel bans?  NO

 

These geniuses have all the answers.

[Viking]

To be fair, I do think it’s reasonable for our liberal lecturers to criticize Trump for not trying to close the borders or ban international travel. It’s such an obvious and easy precaution to take. I’m actually shocked I have not heard more about this from them.

 

Of course it's not - it's the typical armchair quarterback crap. Trump was the first world leader to close the borders, The WHO criticized him, the opposition party criticized him - since they love the Chinese Communist Party. Turns out, the President was correct - and just about EVERY major country followed suit.  Any of them ROLL BACK their travel bans?  NO

 

These geniuses have all the answers.

 

Agreed. With hindsight, that decision by Trump was a good one. I wish Canada had done the same thing at that time. I also think that his recent decision to extend ‘social distancing’ for 30 days was also a good move. I also like how he is being aggressive in removing government barriers to moving quickly with medical innovations (testing, medical equipment, vaccine etc). 

[mcliu]

It's fairly easy to criticize the US response by comparing it to Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, but they are very different countries compared to the US with very different populations and politics and mistrust of China.

 

Obviously, the US federal government did some appropriate things like travel ban and some inappropriate things like failing to ramping up testing, screening, PPE protection.

 

But even Deborah Birx said that when Wuhan happened she was still in Africa and based on the Chinese data and WHO guidance, scientists thought it was a much more contained epidemic like the original SARS.

 

Also, although the lockdown of Wuhan in China was effective, there are many reports on Chinese social media (obviously cannot be verified) of various rolling lock-downs and flare-ups. That's with everyone wearing masks. So it might not be the best long-term strategy.