LongHaul Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 https://www.ft.com/content/97dc7de6-940b-11ea-abcd-371e24b679ed When the history is written of how America handled the global era’s first real pandemic, March 6 will leap out of the timeline. That was the day Donald Trump visited the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Read whole thing... That was a hellava article. Thanks.
Liberty Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 "Neither Fauci or Birx have had interviews in over 11 days. Neither were allowed to speak at press conference- they were told to stand silently behind Trump. Like puppets. Not okay. " https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/16/coronavirus-health-experts-birx-fauci-trump It happens to them all... They think, I have to try to serve my country, I can do more good on the inside than the outside. So they swallow turds for a while, they're told that if they just hang around they'll have some influence, until they have been fully used up by the sociopath, and then they are discarded and blamed. Tillerson, Kelly, Mattis, Cohn... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations
Liberty Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 “Jared [Kushner] had been arguing that testing too many people, or ordering too many ventilators, would spook the markets and so we just shouldn’t do it” ???
Jurgis Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 “Jared [Kushner] had been arguing that testing too many people, or ordering too many ventilators, would spook the markets and so we just shouldn’t do it” ??? So far the "we just shouldn’t do it” has been resounding success in the markets. ::)
Gregmal Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/05/16/staten-island-reopening-rally/ Its funny, who'd have envisioned a scenario where the socialist politicians get to lockdown law abiding citizens but free jailed criminals? NY, NY...
Viking Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 https://www.ft.com/content/97dc7de6-940b-11ea-abcd-371e24b679ed When the history is written of how America handled the global era’s first real pandemic, March 6 will leap out of the timeline. That was the day Donald Trump visited the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Read whole thing... That was a hellava article. Thanks. Yes. It is an incredibly balanced piece and that is what makes it so frightening. It captures in great detail what has happened in the Trump administration. Given we are only at the start of the second inning of this pandemic (according to Scott Gottleib) the US is so screwed moving forward. What is really fascinating to me is it really does not matter what Trump does... he can screw over who ever he wants... his base just does not care what evil he does. Or how incompetent his actions are. Or what the ramifications are. ‘The alternative is worse.’ Amazing. And such complete bullshit. I think that must have been what Germans were saying in Germany back in 1938. And then Hitler proceeded to destroy their country. ————————- Article’s conclusion: “Trump is caught in a box which keeps getting smaller,” says George Conway, a Republican lawyer who is married to Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s senior counsellor. “In my view he is a sociopath and a malignant narcissist. When a person suffering from these disorders feels the world closing in on them, their tendencies get worse. They lash out and fantasise and lose any ability to think rationally.” Conway is known for taunting Trump on Twitter (to great effect, it should be added: Trump often retaliates). Yet without exception, everyone I interviewed, including the most ardent Trump loyalists, made a similar point to Conway. Trump is deaf to advice, said one. He is his own worst enemy, said another. He only listens to family, said a third. He is mentally imbalanced, said a fourth. America, in other words, should brace itself for a turbulent six months ahead – with no assurance of a safe landing.
cwericb Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 It is quite obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of psychology that Trump is mentally ill. So what does that say about those who continue to support him and may vote for him again? It is not much wonder that the “make America great again” has been such a dismal failure. So that is fine from their point of view, but the real problem is that these people are going to take a lot of others down with them.
Liberty Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-15/will-i-get-coronavirus-at-the-grocery-store-unlikely
Liberty Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 “Jared [Kushner] had been arguing that testing too many people, or ordering too many ventilators, would spook the markets and so we just shouldn’t do it” ??? So far the "we just shouldn’t do it” has been resounding success in the markets. ::) Kushner wants to move markets, but he isn’t even at first level thinking yet. He’s at 0.5-level thinking.
Jurgis Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 “Jared [Kushner] had been arguing that testing too many people, or ordering too many ventilators, would spook the markets and so we just shouldn’t do it” ??? So far the "we just shouldn’t do it” has been resounding success in the markets. ::) Kushner isn’t even at first level thinking yet. He’s at 0.5-level thinking. It's not the level of thinking, it's who your father(-in-law) is.* * First axiom of any banana republic
John Hjorth Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 It is quite obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of psychology that Trump is mentally ill. So what does that say about those who continue to support him and may vote for him again? It is not much wonder that the “make America great again” has been such a dismal failure. So that is fine from their point of view, but the real problem is that these people are going to take a lot of others down with them. cwericb, I personally consider your post - generally & on overall basis - in line with what Vinod has posted in [as far as I remember] this topic not so long ago. The real question - at least to me - is : Who has the burden on their shoulders of the responsibility to actually act on the situation, if the incumbent POTUS - for reasons of mental illness is not fit & proper? -What does i.e. the US Constitution [or other legislation] say? [Personally, I don't know.]
cubsfan Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 It is quite obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of psychology that Trump is mentally ill. So what does that say about those who continue to support him and may vote for him again? It is not much wonder that the “make America great again” has been such a dismal failure. So that is fine from their point of view, but the real problem is that these people are going to take a lot of others down with them. You get the prize for the most idiotic post of the month. "Trump is mentally ill" - sure and so are his supporters. No exaggeration there...
LC Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 Thanks for posting, Liberty. Good article to summarize criticism of America's response. In April, Rick Bright, the federal scientist in charge of developing a vaccine – arguably the most urgent role in government – was removed after blocking efforts to promote hydroxychloroquine. In a whistleblower complaint, he said he was pressured to send millions of dollars worth of contracts to a company controlled by a friend of Jared Kushner. When he refused, he was fired. The US Department of Health and Human Services denied Bright’s allegations. During the Ebola outbreak in 2014, when Obama’s administration sent 3,000 US military personnel to Africa to fight the epidemic, the CDC held a daily briefing about the state of progress. It has not held one since early March Trump has Made America the Greatest (victim of coronavirus)
cwericb Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 "You get the prize for the most idiotic post of the month. "Trump is mentally ill ..." And you don't agree? And where did I say "so is his supporters?"
Viking Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 It is quite obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of psychology that Trump is mentally ill. So what does that say about those who continue to support him and may vote for him again? It is not much wonder that the “make America great again” has been such a dismal failure. So that is fine from their point of view, but the real problem is that these people are going to take a lot of others down with them. cwericb, I personally consider your post - generally & on overall basis - in line with what Vinod has posted in [as far as I remember] this topic not so long ago. The real question - at least to me - is : Who has the burden on their shoulders of the responsibility to actually act on the situation, if the incumbent POTUS - for reasons of mental illness is not fit & proper? -What does i.e. the US Constitution [or other legislation] say? [Personally, I don't know.] John, my view is the Senate Republicans are the key enablers of Trump. The problem is they are too afraid. So what the US essentially has right now resembles a version of an absolute monarchy. Trump is in the process of re-making the Presidency in his image. Loyalty is the only requirement. The interesting thing is the man is only getting started...
DocSnowball Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 This looks pretty bad: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower Liberty, I am not sure what sounds bad. In this times while the world is shut down, a test that takes $200K, a professor from Stanford had to take 5000$ to do the test which everyone agrees needs to be done? They didn't have any funds from the 2 trillion dollars to do the study? The plan was to keep making decisions without knowing the real extent of spread and who is getting how much? That is what sounds bad. Many studies (and I posted recently on this) confirmed Stanford result. The studies confirmed the Stanford study results, that there are lot of asymptomatic carriers and the infection fatality rate is much lower than thought before. The buzzfeed is an attack article because it fails to mention I believe a dozen more studies done since then by different teams across world, many of them are reputed hospitals or professors. Buzzfeed "forgets" to mention this and goes on attacking a scientist for doing his job which frankly, the task force should have done long back. We are really going back to Galileos times attacking the scientist rather than looking at the result and its confirmation in multiple studies and its consequences of this new information. This attitude of Buzzfeed can take us to medieval ages and it is really shameful article. I respectfully disagree. Maybe there are more perspectives to this. For starters, the people doing the study had very publicly stated what they were looking for find. Confirmation bias did the rest. A lot of flaws are valid. First, funding from anyone is ok. What's not ok is the funder first going through various indirect channels to fund the study, and then directly being in touch with those conducting the study and even their collaborators trying to push things along. Second, not entirely the scientists fault but something that changes interpretation, is how participants were selected and who would opt in. There is an inherent bias in who will want to show up to get a blood test in the middle of a pandemic shelter in place order. Those who may have had mild symptoms or someone sick in their family and want to know if they had SAR CoV-2 are more likely especially given the way participants were recruited by email here, rather than random sampling. Third, if the test was showing a lot of false positives, this means the true %positive likely is lower than what they suggest. Lastly, look at who the lead investigator is, someone I and many others revered before reading this article. Only the highest standards are expected from someone like this. It would be standard in the industry to carefully do the basics I'm noting, make sure the test is valid, randomly sample the population etc. This is why collaborators are sour. And while we're at it, let's throw in going all over town to talk about the results before properly peer reviewing them. Seems par for the course nowadays. As they say, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation, but 15 minutes to destroy it.
Liberty Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 Fired by Trump: May 15, 2020 Steve Linick, State Department Inspector General May 1, 2020 Christi Grimm, HHS Inspector General April 7, 2020 Glenn Fine, Defense Department Inspector General April 3, 2020 Michael Atkinson , Intelligence Community Inspector General Steve Linick, State Department Inspector General - Reportedly looking into Pompeo’s “misuse of a political appointee” to perform personal tasks Christi Grimm, HHS Inspector General - Warned of “widespread” and “severe” shortages of testing supplies and PPE Glenn Fine, Defense Department Inspector General - Oversaw $2 trillion in coronavirus emergency funds Michael Atkinson , Intelligence Community Inspector General - Told Congress about whistleblower complaint that led to Impeachment https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-ramps-up-retaliatory-purge-with-firing-of-state-department-inspector-general/2020/05/16/8f8b55da-979a-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html
Investor20 Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 This looks pretty bad: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower Liberty, I am not sure what sounds bad. In this times while the world is shut down, a test that takes $200K, a professor from Stanford had to take 5000$ to do the test which everyone agrees needs to be done? They didn't have any funds from the 2 trillion dollars to do the study? The plan was to keep making decisions without knowing the real extent of spread and who is getting how much? That is what sounds bad. Many studies (and I posted recently on this) confirmed Stanford result. The studies confirmed the Stanford study results, that there are lot of asymptomatic carriers and the infection fatality rate is much lower than thought before. The buzzfeed is an attack article because it fails to mention I believe a dozen more studies done since then by different teams across world, many of them are reputed hospitals or professors. Buzzfeed "forgets" to mention this and goes on attacking a scientist for doing his job which frankly, the task force should have done long back. We are really going back to Galileos times attacking the scientist rather than looking at the result and its confirmation in multiple studies and its consequences of this new information. This attitude of Buzzfeed can take us to medieval ages and it is really shameful article. I respectfully disagree. Maybe there are more perspectives to this. For starters, the people doing the study had very publicly stated what they were looking for find. Confirmation bias did the rest. A lot of flaws are valid. First, funding from anyone is ok. What's not ok is the funder first going through various indirect channels to fund the study, and then directly being in touch with those conducting the study and even their collaborators trying to push things along. Second, not entirely the scientists fault but something that changes interpretation, is how participants were selected and who would opt in. There is an inherent bias in who will want to show up to get a blood test in the middle of a pandemic shelter in place order. Those who may have had mild symptoms or someone sick in their family and want to know if they had SAR CoV-2 are more likely especially given the way participants were recruited by email here, rather than random sampling. Third, if the test was showing a lot of false positives, this means the true %positive likely is lower than what they suggest. Lastly, look at who the lead investigator is, someone I and many others revered before reading this article. Only the highest standards are expected from someone like this. It would be standard in the industry to carefully do the basics I'm noting, make sure the test is valid, randomly sample the population etc. This is why collaborators are sour. And while we're at it, let's throw in going all over town to talk about the results before properly peer reviewing them. Seems par for the course nowadays. As they say, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation, but 15 minutes to destroy it. The Buzzfeed article says the money was given to a fund in Stanford which in turn was given to the investigators. It was a pool of money. The allegation is Newman gave 5000$ and Stanford professors put their reputation at stake for 5000$. On the surface of this, it looks ridiculous. From Buzzfeed article "Neeleman confirmed that he made a $5,000 donation to Stanford to be given to these researchers " Your second allegation is that the authors had pre-disposed idea about the result. Any scientist has a hypothesis and they test it by an experiment. That is the way they design an experiment. An experiment is to test a hypothesis. Scientists just dont go around doing random experiments hoping to find something. This is respectfully quiet a weird accusation because that is the way every scientist works. For example, when a vaccine is tested, they design to see if the vaccine works. But of course they hope it succeeds. Otherwise, why would they even test it? And they would test something that they hope succeeds. Not every random thing is tested to see if it works against Covid infection. Lastly, no one depends on one test. So irrespective of John Ioannidis did or did not design the test well is not as important as you and these allegations are making it out to be. The real test if an experiment result is correct is if it is replicated by other teams and other data collected by alternate methods. I have posted in this thread several antibody tests since done (Eg. Denmark, Miami-dade county, NY state). All of them came to same conclusion. The number of infected is at least a magnitude (10 fold) higher than the official confirmed cases. When the denominator is 10 fold (or even more), the Infection fatality rate would be 10 fold+ smaller. I also posted several other data such as prison data where they found when randomly tested (as opposed to general practice of testing symptomatic patients), a lot of asymptomatic carriers are found. So, without quibbling about the exact design, the fundamental finding that the infected are at least 10 fold higher than confirmed cases is established IMO. So, I do not understand what is that the complaint is about when multiple antibody tests and random PCR tests gave the same result. To add one more data point. There was a large outbreak in Tennesse prisons. So, mass testing was done. One of the major out break is at Trousdale Turner Correctional facility. They had second death out of 1300 infected with 98% asymptomatic. That gives 0.15% fatality rate. The 2% symptomatic gives 50 fold higher total infected, not just 10 fold. https://www.newschannel5.com/news/more-than-1k-at-trousdale-turner-correctional-center-test-positive-for-covid-19 More than 1,300 individuals at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center have tested positive for COVID-19. analysis of the test results confirmed that 98% of those who tested positive are asymptomatic. https://www.wsmv.com/2-deaths-reported-at-trousdale-turner-corrections-center/article_0a9df156-9480-11ea-b9f7-1bf51c57343a.html The Tennessee Department of Correction is reporting a second inmate who tested positive for COVID-19 at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville has died. I will also refer to posting number 5426 in this thread where I posted Ohio prisons for old and sick (a nursing home of prisons) had 1.4% fatality rate. If you read John Ioannidis or his collaborator Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, they expected a high asymptomatic cases NOT from ideology as you are making it out but because of data from Cruise ships, Iceland, Repatriated from China in US airports, small Italy town, where most of the people (not just symptomatic) were tested. Like the prison data above, they calculated a high level of asymptomatic carriers and hence expected the same in the antibody test. So, overall I am not clear what the worry is. Dr. John Ioannidis said there are lot of asymptomatic carriers (at least 10 fold higher than confirmed cases), and every other test is giving the same and that is the gold standard of testing a study. If you dont like Dr. John Ioannidis study, ignore it. But the result won't change.
Liberty Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25410/20200421/austria-90-drop-coronavirus-cases-requiring-people-wear-face-masks.htm "Austria Has 90% Drop in Coronavirus Cases After Requiring People to Wear Face Masks" If only the US could do the same rapidly and effectively and masks hadn't been politicized by imbeciles... Sad!
Spekulatius Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 Here are the antibody numbers from some harder his neighborhoods in Boston. Roughly 10% have antibodies, 2.6% were COVID-19 positive. I thought the antibody numbers would be a bit higher by now - we did have higher numbers in Chelsea (~30% and they’d a few weeks back - Chelsea is hardest hit in MA). https://www.boston.com/news/coronavirus/2020/05/15/boston-coronavirus-antibody-testing-results Herd immunity certainly a long way off. Here in the boonies, 35 miles from Boston, we haven’t even started yet. MA is in no man’s land as far as the epidemic is concerned - no herd immunity in sight, but also case numbers aren’t coming down quick enough to do control the disease, if we open up. The leaky shelter in place that we are having doesn’t really get anywhere. There probably is no choice but open up, can’t be shut down forever. Governor Baker will announce his plans tomorrow.
Investor20 Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25410/20200421/austria-90-drop-coronavirus-cases-requiring-people-wear-face-masks.htm "Austria Has 90% Drop in Coronavirus Cases After Requiring People to Wear Face Masks" If only the US could do the same rapidly and effectively and masks hadn't been politicized by imbeciles... Sad! https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19. Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing." -WHO still has this on their website. Not my opinion to be clear.
Spekulatius Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 Biergarten in Bavaria are opening up again. I have been to that on on the picture. https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/biergaerten-oeffnen-wieder-corona-lockerungen-in-bayern-ab-montag,RyrdS5C Regulations differ from state to state, but the basic rules are the same. Interesting, my mom told me yesterday that cafe’s and restaurants in her town are opened up last week, but every customer one needs to leave a short form with address and contact information. Likely for contact tracing if any outbreak were to occur.
Liberty Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 Face shields do seem more comfortable... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765525 Face shields have many advantages - cheap, widely available, effective, and preserves communication, according to JAMA paper. Let’s talk thru the compelling evidence. “Face shields offer a number of advantages. While medical masks have limited durability and little potential for reprocessing, face shields can be reused indefinitely and are easily cleaned with soap and water, or common household disinfectants.” They are comfortable to wear, protect the portals of viral entry, and reduce the potential for autoinoculation by preventing the wearer from touching their face. People wearing medical masks often have to remove them to communicate; this is not necessary with face shields.” 4) “The use of a face shield is also a reminder to maintain social distancing, but allows visibility of facial expressions and lip movements for speech perception.” 5) “Most important, face shields appear to sig reduce amount of inhalation exposure to influenza, another droplet-spread respiratory . In a simulation study, face shields were shown to reduce immediate viral exposure by 96% when worn by a simulated HCW w/in 18 inches of cough.” 8) “Face shields require no special materials for fabrication and production lines can be repurposed rapidly. Numerous companies, including Apple, Nike, GM, and John Deere, have all started producing face shields; can be made from materials found in craft or office supply stores. No burden of 100% efficacy should be placed on face shields or any containment policy because this level of control is both impossible to achieve and unnecessary to drive SARS-CoV-2 infection levels into a manageable range.”
Liberty Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25410/20200421/austria-90-drop-coronavirus-cases-requiring-people-wear-face-masks.htm "Austria Has 90% Drop in Coronavirus Cases After Requiring People to Wear Face Masks" If only the US could do the same rapidly and effectively and masks hadn't been politicized by imbeciles... Sad! https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19. Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing." -WHO still has this on their website. Not my opinion to be clear. Yeah, that was a lie (likely with the good intention of stopping a run on scarce PPE in the early days). Now do Trump’s lies instead of cherry picking. He’s in charge in the US, not the WHO. No other competent countries have been stopped by this.. because they’re trying to defeat the virus rather than look for others to blame.
Spekulatius Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 COVID-19 death likely undercounted (Nate Silver): https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1262026365907410949?s=21
Recommended Posts