When did I say right wing? This isn't a political issue. I have no idea what either of their aims are, I'm just pointing out their not infectious disease wonks, they're policy wonks.
I didn't conveniently leave anything out - not intentionally anyway - I just took a blurb from his bio.
The point is, we don't have to limit ourselves to any one particular opinion. It's good to read op-eds, but keep in mind these guys are coming from a certain point of view that's about public policy, and not necessarily infectious disease. Then you've got the other side, who is maybe doing it from the complete opposite end. The difference is when you publish in a journal you're subject to peer review and you have to show your work. An op-ed doesn't. That means in an op-ed you can say a lot more stuff off the cuff.
Op-eds are there to sway your opinion. Journal papers are there to present information. Both should come with a grain of salt, but maybe an op-ed with two.
Also - these are EXACTLY the people we should be listening to at times like these. Are they right? I have no idea, but to discount their opinions because it doesn’t fit your narrative is mind boggling.
Why? because they agree with you?
What if they're wrong? Why is their op ed more powerful than any other? NYT could publish an opinion piece tomorrow 180 degrees out - should we listen to that? How do you know which one is the one we should be listening to?
Hey John - sorry if that came out a bit harsh. I have family who is convinced that the whole thing is a total hoax and isn't even real because they think they heard Rush say something like that last month. I know that's not you, and I probably am projecting some of that on you.
(FWIW I am not a liberal or a democrat. I don't think this is a political issue).
There’s a thing in academia/research that maybe not everyone is aware of.
Sometimes when an academic has a pet view/project/ideology/whatever, they run off to commercial publications and publish there because, like dogears mentioned, they don’t have to “show their work”.
Blind peer review is harsh. Other experts in your field will evaluate your analysis and conclusions and flag anything that isn’t scientifically sound and challenge it. When you submit an article for a big journal there will be several of these co-experts analyzing your work. You don’t submit to those journals unless you’ve done serious, rigorous research and are prepared to be scrutinized.
It *can be* an indicator that an academic is speaking more out of personal opinion and passion than solid scientific standing when they go publish in something like the WSJ or NYT or whatever.
I have zero idea if that’s the case here, just giving some background context.
The problem is nobody has a good model of what this will be like when it hits the hospital’s, NY MD’s are saying where are the heart attacks ect? If we have sick people staying away they get sicker, then they end up in an ER where there is a high number of COVID-19, they catch it they end up on a vent. Add the stress of 24/7 COVID-19 coverage and this population ends up even worse.
You have to understand the US medical system has done a brilliant job of keeping those of us that shouldn’t be here, being here ( I’ll take the job of poster boy if I make it through this). Our strength is our Achilles heal in a situation like this.
Now as a left leaning moderate I’ll rant at the Dems ! Why can’t the senate get together and do there Fing job? Talk about essential workers!!
Both sides are guilty of major screw ups in this, but there is one simple fact you have to remember. Bodies and death play big on the news, people are morbid, but scared people don’t spend money. You don’t even begin a real recovery till people feel safe! So some how you have to balance that. Wait 2 weeks, in NY it won’t be the shortage of MD’s and Nurses it will be all the low wage unskilled health care workers who say I don’t make enough to deal with this.
Speaking via video link, Professor Ferguson explained that while there was some uncertainty, if current measures work as expected, then intensive care demand would ‘peak in approximately two to three weeks and then decline thereafter’.
He told the committee current predictions were that the NHS would be able to cope if strict measures continued to be followed.
So ...which current measures, which strict measures?
Considering both sides of the spectrum will almost certainly leave you closer to the truth when all is said and done. There has been nothing like EXPONENTIAL growth in my state. Yes, it's growing. No, it's not exponential. Yes, I think the US is doing a fairly good job at containing the problem. Yes, there is a problem. No, I don't think that 12 days from now it will be "hell on earth" in our hospitals. There is only 1 confirmed case in our town. (Maybe NYC will be like hell on earth, but isn't it that way normally there? )
Not sure which state you're in Bill, but outbreaks grow exponentially almost by definition. Any growth is exponential, because its a reproductive rate (each new virus produces new viruses). I think we reacted quickly enough here to avoid something like Bergamo, except unfortunately maybe NYC and New Orleans. I have very much appreciated Pres. Trump's strong emphasis on Federalism in this approach, leaving it up to governors (and my governor here in Texas leaving it up to county and local officials). For a nation as large and diverse as the US a one-size-fits-all approach would be a disaster of overreaching in some places, under-reacting in others.
I don't think that's correct. The original was extreme do-nothing case. If I understand it correctly now he's saying, with the measure's we've currently got in place we can limit it to 20,000.
Like saying - if we jump with no parachute, we'll die. But our parachute is working, maybe better than we thought, so we won't even break our ankles.
I'm watching his testimony now, it starts at 6 mins or so here.
It's possible some of the early models were overblown. Or, they were spot on and what we're doing is working that dramatically. Honestly, I don't care I just want us all to get through this as unscathed as possible.
Overblown in the media, I agree. There's a world of difference between what studies actually say, and how they're usually represented in the news media. Almost always the error bars and caveats get stripped out...
Alright, few thoughts. Sorry if I'm a babbling idiot. Just a bunch of different things in my head. I'll try to section off a bit. All of my posting is just op ed. I have no background in anything useful and no real political affiliation (but don't really trust the government to do what's right for the masses).
Definitely interesting and I'm sure the conspiracy theorists are all over it like white on rice. This biggest takeaway that I see from the article is this comment though...
Although at first some countries are able to control it, it continues to spread and be reintroduced, and eventually no country can maintain control.
We are all taking measures to contain this virus now, but what about when these measures stop? We'll be right back at square 1 with the hospitals being over capacity again. The government won't shut the economy down for 3 weeks, reopen for 3 weeks, and rinse/repeat. Eventually, we are going to get overwhelmed.
Right now, some sick people are being tested for the virus. This doesn't give us sufficient data to project from. There needs to be a significant selection of population tested at random. Sick, healthy, whatever, to obtain data about the actual current state of the virus. We could already be at a massive outbreak with 50% of the population infected, but non-symptomatic.
Also, how many people died in October from this virus and doctors just didn't know they were infected. Or 2 years ago. Or whenever. Doctors just chalked it up to seasonal flu. Or Pneumonia. Or old age. Or whatever. It's a new virus. When was a test even developed?
Again, just spitballing thoughts.
Everything is fucked. I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm a paycheck to paycheck guy. Everyone in my shoes (or worse shoes since I at least still have my main job) is in disaster mode right now. I don't understand how widespread shutdowns are going to work. We are crippling the economy and people are going to lose everything. My local coffee shop is shut down and had to start a gofundme in hopes that they'll be able to reopen.
This woman is about to lose everything she's worked for.
I've still had a couple in studio sessions and have some mixing projects right now, but I can only survive with my studio through April. If I can't get bookings, I'll have to close. I've seen some stuff floating around about small business loans etc, but if I have to pay back some business loan to keep me afloat, I won't be able to stay afloat because I was barely floating before. Add in a shutdown loan that I need to pay back and I can't survive.
All of the full time musicians are out of work. All service people are out of work. Good luck collecting in those industries. My mom and girlfriend have both been laid off during the shutdown. GF can't afford her mortgage payments with the layoff and being between tenants in her rental unit (new tenant is supposed to move in May 1 if she survives the apocalypse).
Then, once the economy is totally tanked and the shutdown is lifted, businesses will open back up and won't have patrons because everyone lost all of their extra income during this lockdown. At that point, the virus will start spreading again and we're back to the same cycle.
We're supposed to just trust that the government is going to help us out through this? I would guess that the number of government officials who have lived paycheck to paycheck in their lifetime is close to 0. I don't think they truly understand the dire situation that a lot of us are in right now. I also think that many of the officials are probably happy to see the lower class being exterminated.
Again, sorry to be a babbling idiot and bleak.
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2020 12:08:06 GMT -6 by jcoutu1
I think people who aren't used to staring at functions and graphs all day sometimes hear "EXPONENTIAL" and think of it casually as just meaning, like, incredibly fast or uncontrollable or something (which is totally reasonable since that's how that word is used colloquially). It really just means that the output isn't linearly related to the input. The total number of cases increases every day but so does that rate of overall increase.
This virus is most definitely spreading exponentially everywhere because that's just how the numbers work when any given infected person infects a couple more people. But the function for exactly how it's spreading varies from community to community. And (obviously) we have a lot of impact on that curve when we take measures to slow its rate of increase.
As a differing viewpoint from the general thrust of this thread.....
I think in current times, we tend to elevate Science to the position of God. Wrongly IMO.
As a kid, I remember being terrified of many "end of the world" scenarios put forth by legit "scientists". (Much of which would no doubt be debunked by current science, but there's a good possibility that current science will be debunked by future science in 50 years.....)
#1 - the new ice age was/is coming - we're all going to freeze to death #2 - and a polar (sorry, couldn't resist - a tribute to Chris) opposite - the polar ice caps would be melted by the late 60's early 70's and all costal cities would be underwater #3 - Mt. Shasta in CA would blow, and the resultant destruction would forever re-shape CA #4 - yes, this was real - a huge earthquake would hit CA and much of So Cal would be lost into the ocean
There were others. None of which ever happened BTW. And that was just old school, conservative media on the 1 TV that most households had.
Can anyone even fathom the mayhem we're causing our children in 2020? The mental illness, quirkiness, hyper-anxiety and paranoia that we are inflicting on the current generation of kids is unfathomable from compared to what we got 50 years ago. Sad. REAL. And ultimately, avoidable.
#1 - the new ice age was/is coming - we're all going to freeze to death
My Dad has mentioned this one to me several times. In the 70s was it?(I was born in '79 so don't remember). That's amazing considering where we are now. I agree with your point about science overall. We should definitely use the best science we have but we also have to understand things can change as new information is available. If not, we end up with science zealots which could be equally as dangerous as a religious or any other kind of zealot.
Post by christopher on Mar 26, 2020 13:53:08 GMT -6
Thats the good news, 1.4%, about 1 death per 100. They were worried it was 10%-50% when it first broke out, since in the hospital only about 1/2 were surviving. Flu is 2 per 100,000 (edit: thought about it and thats wrong.. that's per population (everyone), mortality of those who get flu is more like .1% or 1 in 1000)
edit: its really not worth getting worked up over. I think they say 80% of people will get mild symptoms, which means not even flu just a little cold and its gone! Most won't even feel it! This about helping out the 20% who will have a very extremely opposite experience. That's 1 in 5, so yeah we are saving our own loved ones from a lot of crappy times by doing this. And I mean potentially deadly times, or even lung scarring and losing some future fun times, so yeah, it sucks to stay home, but breathing is sort of fun. haha.
Post by chessparov on Mar 26, 2020 14:11:02 GMT -6
Many thanks again guys, for this thread. FWIW my "situation viewpoint" is I'm solidly within the "Dr. Bill Camp". Just like my taste in Audio Gear. (well except maybe only regarding getting a AKG B-ULS microphone )
I also appreciate all the other intelligent perspectives here, even though I know they're totally wrong. (I keed I keed)
IMHO a good litmus, will be the possible return of children, in to the US School system. My intuitive assesment, in my area of Orange County Ca... Is that this will happen by September, not the May 1st possibility. Chris P.S. Yes,mentioning "polar opposites" did remind me of why I broke up from my last girlfriend. We first met at the Klondike Bar. Luckily, they still serve food there, but had to start a hiring freeze.
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2020 14:15:25 GMT -6 by chessparov
This is kinda OCD but whenever I see a new piece of data I have to calculate the fatality rate. It's almost always around 1.4% for U.S. figures. Lines up with something someone posted above about what kind of death rate we seem to be honing in on as we start actually having testing available.
Lots of fluctuation and uncertainty in this whole thing because the data has been a moving target. That's the good thing about science, it lives for self-correction. New data? Assumption turn out to be wrong? Sweet. An opening for newer/better research. Scientists are champing at the bit to poke holes in other peoples' and their own work in the hopes of perfecting it. It's never perfect, of course, nor is it immune from the things that plague humanity in every other area (pride, vanity, corruption, etc). But it's a worthy pursuit and it's our best bet for gaining insight into the physical world.
It's of course a totally separate thing the way science is presented to the public. My wife teaches science communication at the university I go to and one of her areas of research is scientific controversy. The stuff that happens between the researcher and the headline. All the weird intersections where activist groups meet curriculums or policy decisions. Often times a well-organized group of lawyers/parents/lobbyists/etc are way, way more successful in shaping public thought than the scientists themselves (who never thought they were signing up for court cases or publicity campaigns or whatever). The lawyers/parents/activist group/whatever may be completely full of shit but they'll move the needle on public opinion.
It's a big mess as far as what impressions/information make it to the eyeballs of the average media consumer.
Post by christopher on Mar 26, 2020 15:45:06 GMT -6
The data CAN be misleading. Perfect example: I took a break and thought about the numbers in the link I posted above and realized it can't be right.. CDC must be using FLU mortality for the whole population,-not just the flu patient sample- which many sources Ive seen is around .1%, even Dr Fauci supposedly says its .1% ... so the real number.. if you believe it, 1 in 1000 of FLU cases die. Why can't they just put that? Compare to this thing, 1.4 in 100 die. 10 times more is a gigantic difference. From the info they've been sending to healthcare community, its highly contagious because we basically have zero exposure and zero immunity. If that is true (probably is, but slightly possibly might not be IMO) what that means: if flu spreads like wildfire, this spreads like fire & gasoline. This does seem to be happening everywhere.