Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Coronavirus

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
lie about an easily verified statistic

1) Your statement that the number of deaths did not yet exceed deaths from flu in 2017-2018 was false (the current number of COVID-19 deaths is 3106). Source: Pennsylvania Department of Health Archives
As you know, based on the flu data, this is likely an undercount (though I very much doubt it will be anywhere near a factor of 10 like it was for flu!)

2) I asked a legitimate question and wanted to know your source. I asked this after searching for a source. All of the first Google hits for Pennsylvania were 258 deaths (this was not a typo). I found the CDC website, but I was unable to find the breakdown by state. Fortunately someone else provided it and resolved the confusion.

Speaks to the mindset of the replying poster I guess.

I have tried to demonstrate here that I am always interested in sources, and I will correct myself if I am wrong. I'm sorry I did not search more broadly to try to find your source, but I assumed that you would help me out. I have to admit, the number of flu deaths that year DID surprise me - it was a bad flu season.

But it's amazing that COVID-19 is so much worse; way worse than even that bad flu season (see numbers in my prior post).

This isn't my mindset - it's a fact.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KG M3
I'll let someone else do the math here, figure out all the delays, etc., since I don't have time right now, but all the information is here now - seroprevalance in each age bracket and deaths in each age bracket. And the demographic pyramid for Switzerland (which is required for figuring out IFR for a particular population once you determine mortality risk in each category).

Looks to me like the IFR is going to exceed 1%!

Key points:
1) Above 50 has 2.3x less seroprevalence than the younger group (non-children).
2) Above 50 dominates the deaths (basically all of them)

There is a different post in the thread that EinSV quoted, that made those calculations.
Quote from that post:
Infections is seroprevalence times the estimated age-strata population. Multiplying the age weights by the age-specific IFR, the pooled estimate is (0.0182x0 + 0.429x0.0011 + 0.379x3.38) = 1.29
(My emphasis)

Funny enough, an IFR of 1.29% is exactly what I have been calculating from the NYC numbers. (Note: That poster doesn't want his number to be taken as exact, just as a crude calculation.)

(EDIT: Just noticed Alan found that post as well, above.)
 
This will likely dwindle down toward .2% when all is said and done just like SARS.
I don't think it's a coincidence the only two countries that tested properly are inducating a mortality rate on par with the .2% we ended up with for SARS. Everyone spouted 2-4% just like SARS, then it ends up 1/10 of that.
It's insulting. As a person who would never pop on a message board and blatantly lie about an easily verified statistic, it's insulting to my character. Speaks to the mindset of the replying poster I guess.
:rolleyes:
 
Your entire argument, which you make VERY CLEAR, is that us doctors are sell-outs to big pharma and we just do their bidding to up their profit margins.
So @bkp_duke displays the tragic behavior of tribalism -- a tendency we humans all have (for evolutionary reasons), which is strengthened by the training that conventional doctors endure. @bkp_duke passionately defends his tribe, despite claiming to have left it, and takes any challenge to his tribal beliefs as a personal attack on him. (My jabs in response to his insults also didn’t help.)

I never said doctors are sellouts, or evil, or gullible. I believe the opposite: most doctors sincerely want to help their patients, and do the best they know how to do. But like their patients, they are victims of a powerful corrupt system (the "medical-industrial complex"). I suggested this before, but not clearly enough:
...conventional doctors are condemned to watch their patients slowly worsen on drugs prescribed for the rest of their lives, instead of getting off the drugs and fixing disease causes instead of symptoms.
Conventional medical training (during and after med school) focuses mostly on drugs and surgery, and very little on nutrition or other alternatives less profitable to Big Pharma and Big Surgery. This really isn't debatable (although some here disputed it). Early in his career, Michael Greger MD tried to change the system from inside by lecturing on nutrition at medical schools, but he encountered so much resistance that he gave up and decided to bypass doctors, and educate the public directly about the new science of nutritional medicine.
NutritionFacts.org | The Latest in Nutrition Related Research

Now another conventionally trained doctor who taught himself nutrition, Michael Klaper MD, is again trying to change the system from inside by lecturing at medical schools. But he said in a recent webinar that he generally is invited by the medical students, not the school administrators. Only the students are interested.
https://www.doctorklaper.com/moving-medicine-forward

Why would that be? Because Dr. Klaper is a quack? Is Dr. Greger a quack with no solid science behind him? Only the ignorant and/or brainwashed would claim that.

I believe resistance to changing mainstream medicine is due partly to obvious economic incentives, and partly to ordinary tribalism, and partly to the extraordinary thought-control methods employed during medical training. These methods include many described in the classic text by Robert Jay Lifton, such as sleep deprivation, isolation from outside influences, sacred jargon that confounds outsiders, the appeal of elitism, and intense social pressure to conform.
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism - Wikipedia

The result is doctors like @bkp_duke (and the clickers of Disagree below), who deny the established science of vitamin C, even after I quoted journal-referenced statements by specialists in the science, and by scientist-doctors applying the science to patients every day.
ONCE A DIAGNOSIS IS MADE, "standard of care" dictates how I treat that condition. Anything deviating from standard of care, without EXCELLENT documentation and reasoning, is sub-par, inadequate, puts the patient at risk, and opens oneself up for a malpractice lawsuit.
Very true. Deviation from the standard of care also opens you up to censure by your medical board, revocation of your medical license, destruction of your career and life, even being driven from your State as happened to my former dentist who dared to deviate from the standard of care of implanting mercury in his patients' teeth.
Standard of care is not something made up or dictated by pharma companies, the AMA, or even the medical schools at which we train. Standard of care is based up on the FULL evidence for treatment of a condition (not cherry-picked crap that the news is tossing out daily right now).
Tragically false.

Coronary heart disease has been known for decades to be reversible by diet and lifestyle, after Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial was published in The Lancet in 1990. That peer-reviewed, randomized, controlled trial has been confirmed many times, including by published studies by Caldwell Esselstyn MD, former President of the Staff of the Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Ornish's Lifestyle Medicine Program is now covered by Medicare. Yet the standard of care for heart disease remains highly profitable drugs and surgery.
Ornish Lifestyle Medicine | Ornish Lifestyle Medicine
Dr. Esselstyn's Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease Program | Make yourself heart attack proof

Type 2 diabetes has been known for decades to be reversible by diet and lifestyle, after peer-reviewed studies by many researchers, including Neal Barnard MD, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Yet the standard of care for diabetes remains highly profitable drugs and high-tech medical devices such as glucose monitors and insulin pumps.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

I could go on for all the common chronic diseases (obesity, hypertension, stroke, common cancers, depression, autoimmune disorders, etc.), because all are now known to be preventable and/or reversible by diet and lifestyle. This is not surprising, since unnatural diet and lifestyle damages the body in various ways. Yet the population of most countries grows sicker every year, and nearly 70% of Americans aged 40-79 now take one or more drugs prescribed by their doctors, generally for the rest of their lives.
Products - Data Briefs - Number 347 - August 2019

What does all this have to do with coronavirus?

If you trust the medical-industrial complex to treat COVID-19 "based upon the FULL evidence," you are trusting a system proven to be untrustworthy. Your doctor means well, but he is likely ignorant about non-drug treatments, and brainwashed against them. And tragically, he might watch you die rather than question his training and prejudices.
Vitamin C Saves Dying Man - Jeffrey Dach MD

You should also know that Big Pharma is quite aware of the threats to their profits. They are not dumb, and like other industries (tobacco, oil, autos), they have a history of defending themselves with all their considerable power, including regulatory capture, media censorship, and disinformation. They are sophisticated and extremely well-funded, so I advise skepticism of both sides of treatment debates.

Far less well-funded is Dr. Greger (whose website is free and book-profits donated to charity), but he claims that his staff reads every peer-reviewed nutrition paper in the world every year "so you don't have to." His free webinar, How to Survive a Pandemic, is scheduled for May 27. I don't know what he'll say about vitamin C, but he likely has some helpful info.
COVID-19 Resources | NutritionFacts.org
 
Last edited:
CNBC is reporting another study failure for Hydroxycloroquine(sp).

edit link added

Hydroxychloroquine fails to help hospitalized coronavirus patients in US funded study
HCQ fans just say this study wrongly focused on hospitalized patients when "everybody knows" HCQ only works on early-stage patients who don't yet need oxygen.

The weekly ramp in the Geneva seroprevalence study is pretty crazy. I realize the confidence intervals are wide, but going from 3% to 6% to almost 10% in successive weeks? That's amazing timing - they tested just after the virus took off in Geneva, or at least one section of Geneva.
 
It is bizarre to see the emphasis on how we haven't "proven" in some bank-vault-world-of-absolute-certainty fashion immunity from covid-19 antibodies. There is the South Korean study which does show reinfection does not happen although my recollection of that is that it had a rather small N. I'm not sure why we keep hearing over and over again that immunity has not been proven. I suppose it could emerge from some desire to squash overconfidence and reckless behavior. But it's still in my estimation a mis-emphasis.
May be because WHO is still staying that ? May be they are running some studies that prove one way or another … and are waiting for the study to be completed ?
 
May be because WHO is still staying that ? May be they are running some studies that prove one way or another … and are waiting for the study to be completed ?

What the WHO is saying is standard scientific fare - emphasizing what we don't know until it's been proven repeatedly. It has not been proven repeatedly in several studies. That does not mean it is not highly probable particularly after the South Korean study that antibodies confer immunity. We don't know for how long. I think you're missing the forest for the trees with all due respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerry33
What the WHO is sang is standard scientific fare. It has not been proven repeatedly in several studies. That does not mean it is not highly probable particularly after the South Korean study that antibodies confer immunity. We don't know for how long. I think you're missing the forest for the trees with all due respect.
I'm just trying to figure out why WHO would say that. Personally if I had anti-bodies I'd be going out more often / shopping without too much fear.
 
Huge study out of the UK looking at risk factors for death from COVID-19. They actually correct for prevalence in the population and correlations between all these factors.
Age is by far the biggest risk factor. Being male is also really bad.
Most surprising finding is that, even after correcting for all other (known) factors, all non-white ethnicities are at significantly higher risk (I would note that this may or may not be true in the US since the genetics of "white" people and "black" people are different than in the UK).
Simply being poor is a large factor as well, not sure why this would be.
Current smokers are at slightly lower risk (might take up smoking to calm my nerves!).
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999v1.full.pdf
Screen Shot 2020-05-07 at 1.13.20 PM.png
 
HCQ fans just say this study wrongly focused on hospitalized patients when "everybody knows" HCQ only works on early-stage patients who don't yet need oxygen.

The weekly ramp in the Geneva seroprevalence study is pretty crazy. I realize the confidence intervals are wide, but going from 3% to 6% to almost 10% in successive weeks? That's amazing timing - they tested just after the virus took off in Geneva, or at least one section of Geneva.
Yeah who needs that pesky cardiac monitoring. Just take the pill and see if it works or you die.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Doggydogworld
I'm just trying to figure out why WHO would say that. Personally if I had anti-bodies I'd be going out more often / shopping without too much fear.

See edit on previous post. I think you're being very concrete. It is standard operating procedure in science to always emphasize that something is unknown until it has been repeatedly confirmed several times. The default in this case would be to assume antibodies confer immunity, although the interval on that is uncertain. The uncertainty is amplified by the fact that some viruses mutate so the window of immunity is very short. This one does not mutate that quickly unlike influenza. If the virus does not present a shifting epitope - the attachment point for the antibody - this means that the window of immunity in all probability lengthens.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jerry33
Huge study out of the UK looking at risk factors for death from COVID-19. They actually correct for prevalence in the population and correlations between all these factors.
Age is by far the biggest risk factor. Being male is also really bad.
Most surprising finding is that, even after correcting for all other (known) factors, all non-white ethnicities are at significantly higher risk (I would note that this may or may not be true in the US since the genetics of "white" people and "black" people are different than in the UK).
Simply being poor is a large factor as well, not sure why this would be.
Current smokers are at slightly lower risk (might take up smoking to calm my nerves!).
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999v1.full.pdf
View attachment 539608

Being poor is a risk factor in epidemiology for just about everything. Heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes, you name it. Poverty can be thought of as something akin to the animal model in behavioral Neuroscience (my area) of chronic social defeat. In chronic social defeat animals undergo a maladaptive upregulation of innate immunity and chronic elevation of corticosteroids, chronic dysfunction of circadian regulation, and with that and presumably related also to the corticosteroids and inflammatory signal issues, a chronic down-regulation of numerous neurotrophic factors, along with dysphoric mood, and deterioration in a general sense of well-being. Animals subjected to chronic social defeat paradigms (even the milder versions that now pass ethical review) also show poorer immunity and poorer transition from innate to adaptive immunity specifically. This also connects to aging because in an over simplified way that's part of what's going on as the immune system ages the adaptive branch is falling off while the innate branch is being over driven.

At least from everything we can understand, being poor is very much like this animal model (chronic social defeat). So it's not surprising in that sense that they have poorer outcomes in relationship to covid-19. Some of this of course is poorer access to care but the evidence is overwhelming that even when you equalize access to care as much as possible, poverty has some kind of basic, global and frankly severe effect on health. Obviously this is multifactorical - some of it is also poorer diet, more addiction issues, lack of exercise, and poor health literacy (understanding of what's healthy and what's not). In any case, all this is part of what's really wrong with our Healthcare System and our society. Short form of a long story is that when you make people feel pervasively helpless and perhaps also hopeless and like a failure, this is very bad for their health. The extremes of poverty and wealth in this country are literally killing people.
 
Last edited:
I don't see this as bad framing. If you want to control the disease, what are the other options ?

so reading this again, the way I wrote it is unclear. Rogan and Musk and frankly much of the media conversation are saying the choice is between endless lockdown till vaccine and opening up. Where as me or you know that the re-opening can be done safely if test+trace+isolation is feasible. Other countries have re-opened without an uptick.
 
Looks like someone on Reddit is tirelessly trying to stem the tide of misinformation and irresponsible behavior.

They made the same point I did, and calculate an IFR of 1.3%. Not surprised.

The IFR will of course depend on the population and inherent attack rates. But, 1% seems like a good ballpark number we should ALL proceed with at this point. It seems like the data is becoming increasingly clear on that. Finally.
If we take other risk factors into account (obesity etc) - in US it might be even more. Someone in 40 to 60 age group with risk factors will be more at risk than someone 60 to 70 but in good health.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
I don't see this as bad framing. If you want to control the disease, what are the other options ?

Most of the people present it as lockdown or open up as the two options. But even this framing isn't great.

He (Rogan - I haven't listened though so not sure what he has said) is presenting an option which isn't actually the proposed option (lockdown until we can test & trace is not really what anyone is proposing). First, we aren't locked down. Second, the actual option is to ramp up test & trace capacity and phase in resumption of normal activity in parallel, as allowed by the test & trace capacity. This is doable as long as you can keep Rt less than 1. You need to be able to track down enough contacts to prevent the number of cases from growing (and you really want it to shrink a little, as that will allow more effective test & trace and you can convert the gains to increased mobility).
 
  • Like
Reactions: deonb