AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Everyone always says: It’s not a lie if you believe it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
Everyone always says: It’s not a lie if you believe it.
MXLRplus
Active Member
It is ironic that Bill Gates is the largest private donor to WHO.
He is responsible for the most destructive virus in history.
It's known as Windows Update.
He is responsible for the most destructive virus in history.
It's known as Windows Update.
You're making the claim that we like our politicians, because their lies are harder to catch? Have you considered the possibility that maybe they simply make the effort to get their facts straight and thus NOT lie? I'm pretty sure that's much easier to do.
As I pointed out earlier, your claim that most politicians are/were lawyers is just plain wrong (in case my earlier statement wasn't clear enough). Do you think its true, because your favorite talking head said it's so? This is the age of the internet, go out and verify the claims yourself. And if you're too lazy to do that, here ya go: Members of the 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia
Now, if your contention is that there are a disproportionate number of politicians who studied law, then that's fair. But just like how I'd like my chiropractor to have some sort of medical background, I would like the people who are making laws to understand the nature of laws to begin with. Otherwise, they'll bumble through with an erroneous idea of how to lead the country, using nepotism and personal favors to get things done.
Despite the fact that there have been outbreaks in places where there is no 5G.
I think he sat at the Cheers bar too long drinking. If he’s serious, this is really sad to hear.
Paragraph 1: That is not correct and you are grossly misinterpretating my comments.
Paragraph 2: Yes, I ignored your cherry pick of a comment that was not essential to the observation, ie you are missing the point (as made clear in paragraph 1). You were trying some of that CNN voodoo magic on me. So maybe either an attempt to deflect or a reading comprehension issue? It is true, historically, so maybe you should do a little more research on the other 110 Congresses that preceded? I mean, this is pretty common knowledge bud. By the way, you pick one governing body of politicians to make the point that "only" half of them have law degrees? Cherry picking again or too lazy to look up all the states? A lot, disproportionate, too many, majority...my god, talk about just completely missing the point. Listen, you gotta focus cuz Sleepy Joe isn't going to be able to focus for you or himself.
Paragraph 3: So you want to have them all be lawyers as a prereq? Literally, the worst idea in the history of mankind. Again, I think you are just deflecting because either you don't like my observation are unable to understand it. That is fine but overall this comment is ignorant and you are overestimating the value of having a JD to govern/understand public policy. You have been culturally brainwashed to think it is that important or that lawyers have some special knowledge only imparted to those that grace the halls of law school. I don't even know what to say about that last sentence except this: sure, a lawyer would never use nepotism and/or personal favors to get things done, lol...world's most trusted profession, lol. Oh my, I just happen to be a lawyer too. Well, I guess I'll run for president now against Trump. At least I know I got your vote.
Last edited:
You do know they call it "Political Theater" for a reason? Just try to ponder that for a bit.
then this should be apropos:
where are the test kits?
your other reply to my post is too full of strawmen to bother with. FYI, i don't watch main stream media for my news and information. 7 years of TSLA investing has taught me not to trust it. But not trusting it isn't the same as not listening.
You can be tested-ok today, lets say, but become infected tomorrow so what is the point esp since US is so monumentally behind in testing. I say just infra-red thermometer every employee coming in the door at the job and triage their asses home if they are too warm. Whether its SARS or Novel they should not be working with a 'temperature' anyway. And use the K-company's daily temperature summaries to spot outbreaks as they occur - what could be more useful!! Forget about testing the general public.
--
--
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Well, @Daniel in SD called it. The specificity of the test is just not certain enough to be able to make the conclusion made above.
As my boss always says, "Everyone sucks at what they do."
For the discerning readers, read through ALL of the below threads and really work through the math - it'll do you well as you analyze these types or results in the coming weeks. There will be many more serology results, and some of them will actually be useful in determining population prevalence, but for now we must continue to wait:
Trevor Bedford on Twitter
"However, if we assume that the test is just slightly worse and has specificity of 98.5%, then, with observed 1.5% positivity, we'd estimate a prevalence of 0%."
Natalie E. Dean, PhD on Twitter
"So, the major reasons why I remain skeptical: - Unstable population weighting - Wide bounds after adjusting for clustering - Is test specificity really that high? - Unavoidable potential for consent bias - Is this consistent with other emerging serosurvey data?"
Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter
"And jeffrey spence levies what I think is a devastating critique. The false positive rate of their test is high enough that most or all of their positives could be false positives. Actual prevalence could be zero or nearly such."
jeffrey spence on Twitter
"This means that not only is their data consistent with the reported number of positive cases, but it's also consistent with all of their positives being false positives and there being 0 positive cases in their sample! (I don't think either of these are actually plausible)."
John Cherian on Twitter
"By upweighting first by demographics, they artificially increased the number of positive tests observed. With this larger number, suddenly the specificity issues raised earlier (a possible false positive rate of 1.7%) didn't matter quite so much."
Hopefully this follow-up post gets just as many (17!!!) informative ratings as the original! We need to be careful about posting unfiltered information here, at least not without editorializing a bit, or adding some comments about likely reliability of the study being posted. In this case it was pretty easy to identify the weaknesses, rather than posting them naively as "useful data."
In situations like this, the reliability index in your mind about the first author (and the other authors) on this paper needs to be adjusted downwards dramatically. Or just put them on a "sh*t list." People make mistakes, but they shouldn't make them repeatedly. Stanford as an institution also takes a hit here (though this is a pre-print, so presumably there will be dramatic manuscript modifications before actually publishing it, though the damage is done here, and it will almost certainly cost some lives, and significant economic output as well - this is the last thing we need right now!).
These are extraordinary times, and work has to be rushed, but scientists working on these sorts of studies also need to put extraordinary effort into making sure the conclusions are sound before they receive public airing.
Note that the last author on the paper is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya - that's a name we've seen before recently in the Hoover Institution video. Inexplicably, he used an impossible start date of January 1st to claim that the IFR could be as low as 0.01%. Skip to the 4:00 mark in the video in this silly post.
Hoping for better information being posted here in future, as we go forward and really try to drill down on the true population prevalence (which is likely 10x to 20x the known infections, based on knowledgeable, rational epidemiological estimates - but we shall see). It really is a key question, as it's really going to impact where the markets (and TSLA to some extent) settle out in the next couple months (medium term).
Related: for future reference, NPR has put together a little calculator for determining whether or not your serology test is wrong in a specific instance: Antibody Tests For Coronavirus Can Miss The Mark
Last edited:
deonb
Active Member
It somebody shows up with a fever, they've already been infecting the rest of your office for 5 days - sending them home at that point does very little. After the fever is discover, you need to send everybody close to him home, and then run tests on them. That's the point where having the tests become crucial. If another case gets discovered that way, rinse and repeat.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
From the Seattle Times, the predictions of allowable reopening time from the (much-maligned) IHME model, in a single picture. Looks like for the most part, we'll be waiting a while!
"We are now using estimates from our COVID-19 death models and estimates of infection fatality ratio (IFR) to produce estimates of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence. We then use these estimates to identify the date after which the number of COVID-19 infections is predicted to fall below 1 per 1,000,000 people in each location. This date can be viewed as the earliest time that locations could consider easing social distancing restrictions – conditional on containment measures already in place to avert potential resurgence of the virus. Such necessary containment efforts include extensive testing, robust contact tracing and isolation of new cases, and maintaining restrictions on mass gatherings of people."
COVID-19 Estimation Updates
"We are now using estimates from our COVID-19 death models and estimates of infection fatality ratio (IFR) to produce estimates of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence. We then use these estimates to identify the date after which the number of COVID-19 infections is predicted to fall below 1 per 1,000,000 people in each location. This date can be viewed as the earliest time that locations could consider easing social distancing restrictions – conditional on containment measures already in place to avert potential resurgence of the virus. Such necessary containment efforts include extensive testing, robust contact tracing and isolation of new cases, and maintaining restrictions on mass gatherings of people."
COVID-19 Estimation Updates
This is of course the answer to a question everyone wants to know. And the IMHE model has been incorporating some pretty solid changes under the hood since it was first released that should give me more confidence.
But I still find the speed of their drawdowns to be the least believable part of the model. Their most likely trend line is under 100 deaths per day for US on May 14. Uncertainty drops below 100 per day May 21. European countries have generally seen a slow linear trend down in deaths per day and I expect the US to look more like that than China.
So I hope that we can reopen and also keep R0 below 1, because I think many spots in the US will not wait make it to a low case number if it takes too long
[
Indeed. It really is what is says: A collection of propaganda, principally aimed against restrictive protective measures. Like all good propaganda it contains sufficiently verifiable data to let you swallow the rest."Swiss Propaganda Research" sounds like a name of a troll farm...
deonb
Active Member
1 per1,000,000 people in each location... per what?
Per day? Per month? Active cases?
deonb
Active Member
Preliminary report of remdesivir treatment on monkeys. The report actually came out on March 21st, but the NIH only picked it up yesterday.
Not sure if this was posted before, I couldn't find "monkey" in this thread. Apologies if this is a duplicate.
NIH summary:
Antiviral remdesivir prevents disease progression in monkeys with COVID-19
Actual report is available on the "Download PDF" link under:
Respiratory disease and virus shedding in rhesus macaques inoculated with SARS-CoV-2
Not sure if this was posted before, I couldn't find "monkey" in this thread. Apologies if this is a duplicate.
NIH summary:
Antiviral remdesivir prevents disease progression in monkeys with COVID-19
Actual report is available on the "Download PDF" link under:
Respiratory disease and virus shedding in rhesus macaques inoculated with SARS-CoV-2
Last edited:
3 thresholds
1, CFR finaly went over 1.0, unlikely to go back down as new cases have almost ceased.
2, a 42 yr old died, in Australia, (although he was a Philipino national working on a German chartered ship, flying the Bermuda flag) so it doesn't feel like he had any connection to Australia except as final treatment place.
3 recovered stat is up to 63%.
Note that on a per capita basis new infections are greater than 1 per million per day but less than 2 per million per day. So a 1% of 2 per million per day seems kinda like winning the lottery jackpot?
This will completely fail for a few reasons:
1) If someone has a fever with COVID-19 they have most likely been contagious for several days.
2) The Icelandic study found that around 35% of COIVD cases are asymptomatic (no fever) and a German study found that people with asymptomatic cases may be more contagious than people who have symptoms.
3) The virus can also linger on many surfaces for a long time after contamination.
By the time someone in an office has a fever, at least some others in the office have been infected unless it's the guy in the office everyone avoids (the Milton guy).
The only way to be sure if someone has the virus (and is contagious) is to give the virus test to everyone frequently. Not even the countries that are doing the most testing have enough test kits for that, which is why it hasn't died out in those countries and some have seen cases start to rise again in the last week or two.
This virus is almost the perfect storm for an infectious disease. About 20% of the population get a life threatening case, and a large percentage of those who get mild cases never know it. And those who don't have symptoms are the most contagious. Because this is a new virus, there is no herd immunity at all (except possibly those few who had SARS, but that has not been proven one way or the other).
The only weapon we have to slow it down right now is social distancing. If we don't social distance, 80% of the population will get a mild case and will be fine, but 20% of the population will need hospitalization in a very short period of time or they die. At that point somebody at the hospital needs to decide who lives and who dies.
Before this pandemic the US had about 900,000 hospital beds. That has been expanded with emergency measures, but it's maybe enough to double or triple the number of beds available. 20% of the population is 64 million people. If even 1/4 that number (16 million) need hospitalization or die all at the same time, it's going to result in millions dead. Some of those who are life or death cases will end u recovering despite the lack of care, but it won't be that many. I know someone (in his30s) who was so ill with this he would have been hospitalized in normal times, but they gave him an inhaler and sent him home without admitting him. He was touch and go for a few days but he managed to recover. He probably had permanent lung damage though.
That's what anyone with a brain in power and/or public health is trying to prevent this sort of catastrophe.
So far the death toll in the US has been less than the yearly flu, but that's only because a huge percentage of the population is isolated from one another. Seeing what's coming and jumping on isolation early has kept the case load in California manageable. Some other states have been spared bad outbreaks because of social distancing too.
New York City was almost impossible to prevent a bad outbreak because it's a high density city and people need to use mass transit or cram into other spaces with other people on a regular day. Social distancing is easier on the west coast because people are more spread out and most people drive their own cars everywhere. Mass transit use is less common in the west.
The protests in several states to stop the lock down were mostly done by rural conservatives who protested in the capital then went back to their small town, and many of them are now carriers. We're going to see a big spike in cases in rural parts of those states in about 2 weeks. We're already beginning to see an increase in rural cases due to Palm Sunday and Easter church services in rural areas.
The places that locked down first and have had good compliance may see some easy of isolation in about a month, but there will be large areas of the country that will be in lock down for most of the summer. The conundrum is which takes the bigger hit the economy or lives lost? Some monsters who don't know what they are talking about are proposing opening the economy and let people die. They would probably change their tune if someone close to them died, or they get seriously ill with this.
What this thing is capable of is difficult to imagine for people who have good imaginations, and it's impossible to comprehend how this goes pear shaped with the wrong policy decisions among those with no imagination. This is a situation that has no complete parallel in human history. The 1918 flu epidemic is the closest example and that was 102 years ago. The only people alive who were alive then were small children. And the flu epidemic happened in a world with some herd immunity from the start. The state of medicine was much more primitive so people died then who would have been saved now, but this thing is more lethal than that flu to about 20% of the population.
Similar threads
