|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 21, 2020 9:27:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 21, 2020 11:40:52 GMT -6
Some interesting, selected data woven into an editorial. Which is of course fine as long as we don't mistake it for objective reporting. The guy's a GOP strategist who writes for the likes of Breitbart so I take his commentary with a grain of salt (same as I would if it were from some heavily political figure on the left). For example, it's totally non-credible to castigate "the media" for reporting higher death rates two weeks ago...when in the next sentence he notes how there were higher death rates two weeks ago. The data available on this pandemic changes hourly. Interpretations of that data have to change too. For that analysis, I personally will always take the advice of researchers/epidemiologists over political strategists. I mean, doesn’t mean he’s wrong either, just means that a guy like that isn’t my go-to for objectivity.
Please note I'm not criticizing posting this blog or necessarily even the guy's take in general, just pointing out what it is and what it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 21, 2020 13:56:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 21, 2020 14:14:44 GMT -6
The impossibility of knowing whether your claim about the economy is true aside, I was just talking about that guy, not the platform (Medium) which anyone can post blogs on. I’m also not claiming to have any great authoritative knowledge on how we should approach the pandemic. Thoroughly uncharted waters and I don’t know what the hell we should do or not do. I’m just saying I look to people with knowledge of relevant stuff and actively avoid political operatives (of any stripe), myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 21, 2020 14:18:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Mar 21, 2020 16:33:01 GMT -6
I think in the absence of familiarity people are just sitting on party lines. In this case, that’s a bad idea.
Im outside the Overton window in the US - consider myself apolitical - but I’m certainly not left leaning. This isn’t a political issue. This is serious.
Near as I can tell here’s the range of outcomes using round numbers. All of these are derived from studies I’ve read myself, not news reports.
Optimistic:
15% of people are flatly immune (similar to seasonal flu)
30% of susceptible will get it
85% of cases are asymptomatic carriers spread evenly across population
Of the symptomatics it breaks down
80% mild (up to pneumonia no hospitalization)
15% severe and require hospitalization
0.3% fatal
Multiply that by 320 million Americans you get 36,000 deaths.
Pessimistic
No immunity (naive population)
70% will get it
85% of cases are asymptomatic, distributed by age with severity
Same breakdown of symptomatic cases
1% fatal
Multiply that and you get north of 2 million.
Obviously with massive intervention those outcomes change significantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 21, 2020 19:12:52 GMT -6
And IMO, we ARE seeing massive intervention. Maybe not enough. Maybe too much. Impossible to know until this is all history.
Me?
I'm going to keep a positive attitude, and do what I can to distance myself from the herd. That means mixing and testing out gear!!!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,086 
|
Post by ericn on Mar 21, 2020 22:04:20 GMT -6
I think in the absence of familiarity people are just sitting on party lines. In this case, that’s a bad idea. Im outside the Overton window in the US - consider myself apolitical - but I’m certainly not left leaning. This isn’t a political issue. This is serious. Near as I can tell here’s the range of outcomes using round numbers. All of these are derived from studies I’ve read myself, not news reports. Optimistic: 15% of people are flatly immune (similar to seasonal flu) 30% of susceptible will get it 85% of cases are asymptomatic carriers spread evenly across population Of the symptomatics it breaks down 80% mild (up to pneumonia no hospitalization) 15% severe and require hospitalization 0.3% fatal Multiply that by 320 million Americans you get 36,000 deaths. Pessimistic No immunity (naive population) 70% will get it 85% of cases are asymptomatic, distributed by age with severity Same breakdown of symptomatic cases 1% fatal Multiply that and you get north of 2 million. Obviously with massive intervention those outcomes change significantly. The question is how valid are these numbers as we see US severe case skewing younger than Europe and Asia? |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Mar 21, 2020 22:18:41 GMT -6
Too early to tell anything. If I see actual publications (like Science, Nature, JAMA, etc) I will update. That's where those numbers came from.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,086
|
Post by ericn on Mar 22, 2020 0:38:53 GMT -6
Too early to tell anything. If I see actual publications (like Science, Nature, JAMA, etc) I will update. That's where those numbers came from. Yeah I did a search and couldn’t find anything, but the one thing I do know talking to a couple of epidemiologist, the fact that the private labs are not reporting negative results will totally screw up any attempts at establishing if an any significant comorbitities and everybody’s studies as to how we approach the next one. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Mar 22, 2020 8:11:19 GMT -6
Here's why people are scared: While people show charts and compare the spread of this Coronavirus to the flu, this virus is more like chronic pneumonia. And nobody wants to drown gasping for air.
I have no idea how shutting down the economy for a period of time would kill more people, but I'm all all ears of how long the economy would have to shut down for that to happen. I suppose this scenario also presumes that, after the government does all it can to keep businesses and taxpayers afloat, that cash rich companies- like Microsoft, who has in the past paid a $32 BILLION special dividend that equated to about $300 per American household, and Apple, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway, Google and other cash heavy companies who could step up and do the same- would do nothing to help the country. So, floating these ideas about economic Armageddon leading to a worse death rate without any analysis is pure speculation imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Mar 22, 2020 8:29:03 GMT -6
The medium article got pulled. That kind of censorship certainly isn’t helping with the fear element of this whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 22, 2020 8:49:01 GMT -6
The medium article got pulled. That kind of censorship certainly isn’t helping with the fear element of this whole thing. Anything that doesn't 'sit well' with the alt-left is doomed. We've never had this amount of censorship before . . .and oh yeah, orange man bad. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Mar 22, 2020 8:55:54 GMT -6
The medium article got pulled. That kind of censorship certainly isn’t helping with the fear element of this whole thing. Anything that doesn't 'sit well' with the alt-left is doomed. We've never had this amount of censorship before . . .and oh yeah, orange man bad. Here's the article Ward. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 22, 2020 9:56:57 GMT -6
The problem is the numbers aren’t accurate. The best numbers that we have access to are from the cruise ships, which are like floating controlled experiments, but those are also not a good representation of the population. A lot of older folks and people in assisted living ride cruise ships. So you can do your own math there if you want, knowing it’s skewed a little negative, IMO that’s been better than figures the WHO and CDC are displaying, and esp better than China’s numbers which are in full coverup up mode turning youtubers into ghosts. The cruise ships haven’t played out all the way, on Friday a local patient on the cruise ship just passed away sadly. So it’s taken this long to find out the result. The take-away is.. we will be fine if we take it seriously, heed the advice and slow the spread which won’t rush the hospitals. The economy will resume if we do this, because we won’t suffer the nightmare scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Mar 22, 2020 13:40:57 GMT -6
Cruise ships have an important difference. When the experiment Petri dish we were watching got too bad we stopped the experiment. On Diamond Princess that was at 19% infected. What are we gonna do when our cities / states hit 20%?
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 22, 2020 17:49:05 GMT -6
Medium.com has also withdrawn the article pending investigation of its reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 23, 2020 20:22:06 GMT -6
The medium article got pulled. That kind of censorship certainly isn’t helping with the fear element of this whole thing. Anything that doesn't 'sit well' with the alt-left is doomed. We've never had this amount of censorship before . . .and oh yeah, orange man bad. Please stop politicizing things. Things are bad enough without gratuitous hate and divisiveness.
United we stand. Divided we fall. Please remember that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 24, 2020 6:20:07 GMT -6
Anything that doesn't 'sit well' with the alt-left is doomed. We've never had this amount of censorship before . . .and oh yeah, orange man bad. Please stop politicizing things. Things are bad enough without gratuitous hate and divisiveness. United we stand. Divided we fall. Please remember that.
Pointing out gratuitous hate and divisiveness and the politicization of such catastrophic events is not hateful or divisive. It is reflective and informative only. We have never been this censored and it is dangerous!! |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 24, 2020 8:23:23 GMT -6
Please stop politicizing things. Things are bad enough without gratuitous hate and divisiveness. United we stand. Divided we fall. Please remember that.
Pointing out gratuitous hate and divisiveness and the politicization of such catastrophic events is not hateful or divisive. It is reflective and informative only. We have never been this censored and it is dangerous!! Medium is a private company. The right of a private company to do/promote or not do/not promote what they see fit is lauded by the right as heroic patriotism when they agree with the company. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 24, 2020 13:32:16 GMT -6
I should add too that it’s not just the right that’s hypocritical in this sense. The left might cheer Medium for exercising their authority here but they’ll be up in arms tomorrow when some conservative company does the same thing.
As far as the blog in question here, after Fox News starting pumping it up, it got the attention of some actual scientists and it looks like there was some heavy skewing of the data in there but I think Medium probably should have left it up. It’s well within their rights to say ‘nope, this is BS, pulling it down’, but it looks bad and provides fodder for the (misguided in my view) “CENSORSHIP!” line of attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 24, 2020 14:28:12 GMT -6
Please stop politicizing things. Things are bad enough without gratuitous hate and divisiveness. United we stand. Divided we fall. Please remember that.
Pointing out gratuitous hate and divisiveness and the politicization of such catastrophic events is not hateful or divisive. It is reflective and informative only. We have never been this censored and it is dangerous!! The "censored" post was made by a professional political operative with an axe to grind, not a scientist.
I know of ZERO cases of any real scientist being censored.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 24, 2020 14:35:15 GMT -6
I should add too that it’s not just the right that’s hypocritical in this sense. The left might cheer Medium for exercising their authority here but they’ll be up in arms tomorrow when some conservative company does the same thing. As far as the blog in question here, after Fox News starting pumping it up, it got the attention of some actual scientists and it looks like there was some heavy skewing of the data in there but I think Medium probably should have left it up. It’s well within their rights to say ‘nope, this is BS, pulling it down’, but it looks bad and provides fodder for the (misguided in my view) “CENSORSHIP!” line of attack. No.
It is highly irresponsible to spread uncorroborated political propaganda masquerading as real scienific data in a situation such as this.
This is a good example of the strong case for fact-checking of media purporting to provide "news".
That USED to be the standard until a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by saltyjames on Mar 24, 2020 14:54:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 24, 2020 14:55:16 GMT -6
I should add too that it’s not just the right that’s hypocritical in this sense. The left might cheer Medium for exercising their authority here but they’ll be up in arms tomorrow when some conservative company does the same thing. As far as the blog in question here, after Fox News starting pumping it up, it got the attention of some actual scientists and it looks like there was some heavy skewing of the data in there but I think Medium probably should have left it up. It’s well within their rights to say ‘nope, this is BS, pulling it down’, but it looks bad and provides fodder for the (misguided in my view) “CENSORSHIP!” line of attack. No.
It is highly irresponsible to spread uncorroborated political propaganda masquerading as real scienific data in a situation such as this.
This is a good example of the strong case for fact-checking of media purporting to provide "news".
That USED to be the standard until a few years ago.
Certainly a solid case to be made for what you're arguing. I guess I'd say that anyone that's gonna take the word of a political operative over scientists and docs isn't likely to have their mind changed by any amount of good data and certainly not from taking down the political operative's blog. What it does do is pump (hot) air into the "CENSORSHIP!" trope, ill-founded as it may be. |
|
