All things Chinese CoronaVirus

[6ftstick]

Devastating article that should be required reading for anyone who wishes to sit in elected office. It should also be required reading by Democrats and NeverTrumpers who have zero idea that the fear they peddle has been horse-hockey.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 43253.html

To put things in perspective, the virus is now known to have an infection fatality rate for most people under 65 that is no more dangerous than driving 13 to 101 miles per day.

Yet we put billions of young healthy people under house arrest, stopped cancer screenings, and sunk ourselves into the worst level of unemployment since the Great Depression. This from a virus that bears a survival rate of 99.99% if you are a healthy individual under 50 years old

China concealed the extent of the viral outbreak, which, if you believed its data, led many scientists to believe that 2% to 5% of all infected patients would die. This turned out to be off by a factor of 10, but academic epidemiologists have a history of wildly-off-the-mark doomsday predictions.

This response is the biggest unforced policy error in the the modern era. And it was committed not by just one advanced nation, but the vast majority. A good reminder of how dangerously dumb groupthink is.


Never put your money with conventional 'wisdom', never.

But we have to stay locked up till there's a vaccine. wimper.

[RedFromMI]

Devastating article that should be required reading for anyone who wishes to sit in elected office. It should also be required reading by Democrats and NeverTrumpers who have zero idea that the fear they peddle has been horse-hockey.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 43253.html

To put things in perspective, the virus is now known to have an infection fatality rate for most people under 65 that is no more dangerous than driving 13 to 101 miles per day.

Yet we put billions of young healthy people under house arrest, stopped cancer screenings, and sunk ourselves into the worst level of unemployment since the Great Depression. This from a virus that bears a survival rate of 99.99% if you are a healthy individual under 50 years old

China concealed the extent of the viral outbreak, which, if you believed its data, led many scientists to believe that 2% to 5% of all infected patients would die. This turned out to be off by a factor of 10, but academic epidemiologists have a history of wildly-off-the-mark doomsday predictions.

This response is the biggest unforced policy error in the the modern era. And it was committed not by just one advanced nation, but the vast majority. A good reminder of how dangerously dumb groupthink is.


Never put your money with conventional 'wisdom', never.

Data based on death rates from a single preprint not yet peer reviewed, averaged over multiple countries (which also means multiple times during the outbreak, and with differing treatment models as those are continuing to evolve). Compared to auto death statistics not in reference - but to truly compare would have to be age based as well.

And claiming a death rate in your own paragraph (claim of 2% to 5%/reality factor of 10) - until you actually have real numbers of infected patients you cannot even get a firm number on the death rate. Best estimate for NYC when they had about 22% infected is about 0.9% - but was only an estimate as the antibody serum tests had only been done on a tiny sample. So big errors. But not .2% either.

I like how they use a log graph (which the average person has no idea of how it is presenting data) to emphasize the survival rate differences for the young while at the same time that presentation suppresses the huge effect the disease has on older people. And I would never accept that graph as any kind of gospel until I saw actual error bars showing a reasonable estimate of the errors involved.

Not very convincing to a trained scientist.

[RedFromMI]

Devastating article that should be required reading for anyone who wishes to sit in elected office. It should also be required reading by Democrats and NeverTrumpers who have zero idea that the fear they peddle has been horse-hockey.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 43253.html

To put things in perspective, the virus is now known to have an infection fatality rate for most people under 65 that is no more dangerous than driving 13 to 101 miles per day.

Yet we put billions of young healthy people under house arrest, stopped cancer screenings, and sunk ourselves into the worst level of unemployment since the Great Depression. This from a virus that bears a survival rate of 99.99% if you are a healthy individual under 50 years old

China concealed the extent of the viral outbreak, which, if you believed its data, led many scientists to believe that 2% to 5% of all infected patients would die. This turned out to be off by a factor of 10, but academic epidemiologists have a history of wildly-off-the-mark doomsday predictions.

This response is the biggest unforced policy error in the the modern era. And it was committed not by just one advanced nation, but the vast majority. A good reminder of how dangerously dumb groupthink is.


Never put your money with conventional 'wisdom', never.

But we have to stay locked up till there's a vaccine. wimper.

If you can suppress superspreader events (I actually posted something about that in the last couple of days) by knocking out about 20% of the infections you can get rid of like 80% of the cases.

So you don't have to stay "locked up" but you have to significantly modify behavior in public (masks, SD, density restrictions, etc). And I would answer that to say this was an unforced policy error by noting that that policy is what limited deaths to the 100K we are basically at today, and if implemented earlier (on time) a drastically lower total.

[Peter Brown]

Devastating article that should be required reading for anyone who wishes to sit in elected office. It should also be required reading by Democrats and NeverTrumpers who have zero idea that the fear they peddle has been horse-hockey.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 43253.html

To put things in perspective, the virus is now known to have an infection fatality rate for most people under 65 that is no more dangerous than driving 13 to 101 miles per day.

Yet we put billions of young healthy people under house arrest, stopped cancer screenings, and sunk ourselves into the worst level of unemployment since the Great Depression. This from a virus that bears a survival rate of 99.99% if you are a healthy individual under 50 years old

China concealed the extent of the viral outbreak, which, if you believed its data, led many scientists to believe that 2% to 5% of all infected patients would die. This turned out to be off by a factor of 10, but academic epidemiologists have a history of wildly-off-the-mark doomsday predictions.

This response is the biggest unforced policy error in the the modern era. And it was committed not by just one advanced nation, but the vast majority. A good reminder of how dangerously dumb groupthink is.


Never put your money with conventional 'wisdom', never.

Data based on death rates from a single preprint not yet peer reviewed, averaged over multiple countries (which also means multiple times during the outbreak, and with differing treatment models as those are continuing to evolve). Compared to auto death statistics not in reference - but to truly compare would have to be age based as well.

And claiming a death rate in your own paragraph (claim of 2% to 5%/reality factor of 10) - until you actually have real numbers of infected patients you cannot even get a firm number on the death rate. Best estimate for NYC when they had about 22% infected is about 0.9% - but was only an estimate as the antibody serum tests had only been done on a tiny sample. So big errors. But not .2% either.

I like how they use a log graph (which the average person has no idea of how it is presenting data) to emphasize the survival rate differences for the young while at the same time that presentation suppresses the huge effect the disease has on older people. And I would never accept that graph as any kind of gospel until I saw actual error bars showing a reasonable estimate of the errors involved.

Not very convincing to a trained scientist.

Is it convincing to scientists who rank in the top 100 most-cited scientists on Google Scholar, John P.A. Ioannidis of Stanford University School of Medicine?

As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-f ... able-data/

[RedFromMI]

(omitted)


Is it convincing to scientists who rank in the top 100 most-cited scientists on Google Scholar, John P.A. Ioannidis of Stanford University School of Medicine?

As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-f ... able-data/

You mean the guy who had probably one of the MOST criticized publications regarding the pandemic - the Santa Clara antibody tests that have been widely criticized for biased sampling? Where one spouse called up other parents at her kids middle school to get "volunteers" for the study?

Hard pass on him.

[MDlaxfan76]

The headline of this article illustrates just how political this has become. It's a shame...

Without it having anything to do with Trump, I'll wait to see more comprehensive HCQ results based on hopefully more objective and less political interests.

Your WHO comment, typically stated, reminds me of your blind allegiance to the FBI when Crossfire Hurricane and all it's ugly implications was uncovered. You really ought to have a more open mind.

Not for nothing but don't you think the POTUS put himself directly in front of this HCQ debate? He indicated it was a game changer, prior to it being vetted in a comprehensive manner. He bought upwards of 29 million doses. He recently stated he is taking it for prophylactic purposes? The efficacy of this treatment was political from the first studies that implicated it may have promise.

Perception is that it IS the POTUS's preferred treatment option. I certainly perceive that he continues to double down on the treatment. Perception is reality.......don't you think?

Well of course Trump put himself "directly in front of this HCQ debate," you're stating the obvious. Both you and MDlax assume (as usual) I'm giving Trump a pass and that's not the case. I said it's a shame the issue has become so political. In spite of Trump's gratuitous involvement, that headline does not do an important issue just deserts. Leave the cheap political shots for the opinion pages. I prefer objective science without politics, thank you.

I prefer objective science as well. At this point there is no way this HCQ will move forward with out any sort of political bias. Just will not happen in my opinion.

I did state the obvious. It was a result of reading your response and my perception to your response. Bad reading comprehension on my part? Perhaps.

I would think that the recent article published in the Lancet give a cause for pause in regards to the associated adverse side effects using this particular therapy. I am eagerly waiting for the results of a number of double blind studies to be published.

sorry, tech, you did more than make the 'shame' statement.
You then likened it to "blind allegiance" and my need for an "open mind".

HCQ has become political for ONLY ONE REASON, Trump's stupid promotion of it.

It's not the media, including this article's title, that has made reference to HCQ be "Trump's...drug".

You want to assess "shame"?
Lay it on Trump's doorstep.

When those of us who were actually listening to the scientists suggested that there needed to be controlled studies to explore efficacy and safety for HCQ (and a myriad of other potential therapies) we were lambasted on here for being naysayers, for being 'political'. The 'studies' and anecdotal stories were touted again and again as 'proving' efficacy and the claims were that we already knew it was 'safe'.

This was entirely wrongheaded and downright ignorant, but that was the hill the Trumpists were choosing to die on because Der Leader told them so...

We tried again and again to explain that those of us listening to the scientists actually would love for HCQ or another therapeutic to be proven to work and be safe, but Trumpists would have none of it. Blind allegiance to Trump or nothing...

Sorry, you own the blind allegiance to our bureaucracies and institutions (starting with the IRS) despite how they became a political weapon under Obama's admin. TDS has destroyed your ability to see...

really, I have a blind allegiance to the IRS???

As a Republican, I was concerned at the time and watched the reporting pretty carefully to understand what was done and what was not done. There's been zero credible evidence of a White House coordinated use of the IRS for political purposes, but there was indeed some de facto bias in the selective auditing of orgs claiming to be non-profit. Of particular issue were orgs with clearly political purposes and activities clothed in non-profit status, and this concern did have a 'conservative' bent more than not (though both did so) and it's likely that those who were 'concerned' about it had their own bias about why it needed to be curtailed. Dem leaning political appointees didn't like what they thought was aggressive behavior by 'non-profit' conservative groups. And they let this political interest muddle their behavior.

That all said, IMO, regardless of party affiliation, political activities shouldn't get a non-profit tax break.

But this goes to exactly why independent IG's and whistle blower protections are SO important to maintain. People will do things they shouldn't with the powers entrusted to them. We need checks on abuse...not because of some pollyannish view that purity is possible, but rather because we know it isn't.

But this is a complete distraction from the Trump BS about HCQ. That's on him.

[MDlaxfan76]

Devastating article that should be required reading for anyone who wishes to sit in elected office. It should also be required reading by Democrats and NeverTrumpers who have zero idea that the fear they peddle has been horse-hockey.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 43253.html

To put things in perspective, the virus is now known to have an infection fatality rate for most people under 65 that is no more dangerous than driving 13 to 101 miles per day.

Yet we put billions of young healthy people under house arrest, stopped cancer screenings, and sunk ourselves into the worst level of unemployment since the Great Depression. This from a virus that bears a survival rate of 99.99% if you are a healthy individual under 50 years old

China concealed the extent of the viral outbreak, which, if you believed its data, led many scientists to believe that 2% to 5% of all infected patients would die. This turned out to be off by a factor of 10, but academic epidemiologists have a history of wildly-off-the-mark doomsday predictions.

This response is the biggest unforced policy error in the the modern era. And it was committed not by just one advanced nation, but the vast majority. A good reminder of how dangerously dumb groupthink is.


Never put your money with conventional 'wisdom', never.

But we have to stay locked up till there's a vaccine. wimper.

snowflakes, wear a damn mask and get to work, knuckleheads.

Wash your hands, stay 6ft apart, don't congregate in large groups, be outside not in whenever possible, get good ventilation if inside.

Test and trace and isolate.

Do that and we can all get back to work and some play.

[CU88]

Trump’s “Game-Changer” Drug Hydroxychloroquine Associated with Increased Mortality in a Study of 96,000 COVID-19 Patients; WHO Suspends Testing of Hydroxychloroquine Due to Safety Concerns

Hydroxychloroquine, President Trump’s “game-changer” drug – which he announced he was taking as a preventative measure last week and now says he has finished (Bloomberg) – does not appear to offer any benefit in treating COVID-19 patients and is associated with higher risk of death and abnormal heart rhythms, reported a study of almost 100,000 patients published Friday in the medical journal The Lancet (Nature, MIT Technology Review). In light of the new information, the Word Health Organization (WHO) has suspended their testing of hydroxychloroquine, pending further safety information (Bloomberg). Cardiovascular side-effects are particularly important because COVID-19, which first appeared to be mainly a respiratory disease, now turns out to attack multiple organ systems, including the heart and cardiovascular system, and can create severe blood clotting. Hydroxychloroquine is approved to treat malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, but at lower doses and in patients who are generally otherwise healthy (WaPo).

The study found that those given hydroxychloroquine had “a 34 percent increase in risk of mortality and a 137 percent increased risk of a serious heart arrhythmias. For those receiving hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic — the cocktail endorsed by Trump — there was a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias,” writes the Washington Post. “Those given chloroquine had a 37 percent increased risk of death and a 256 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias. For those taking chloroquine and an antibiotic, there was a 37 percent increased risk of death and a 301 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias.”

The Lancet study is an observational study that analyzes past records, not a clinical trial that randomly assigns the treatment or placebo to patients and can offer stronger evidence about a drug’s safety or efficacy. However, the study’s extremely large set of patients and its design, which focused on earlier treatment in patients with less severe cases, make it a convincing addition to the existing data on risks of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 (In the Pipeline). Several clinical trials are ongoing, and their results should answer any remaining questions (STAT).

[DocBarrister]

As a result of one of the most criminal failures of presidential leadership, more than 100,000 Americans have died from Covid-19 ... an unspeakable tragedy and crime.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Devastating article that should be required reading for anyone who wishes to sit in elected office. It should also be required reading by Democrats and NeverTrumpers who have zero idea that the fear they peddle has been horse-hockey.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 43253.html

To put things in perspective, the virus is now known to have an infection fatality rate for most people under 65 that is no more dangerous than driving 13 to 101 miles per day.

Yet we put billions of young healthy people under house arrest, stopped cancer screenings, and sunk ourselves into the worst level of unemployment since the Great Depression. This from a virus that bears a survival rate of 99.99% if you are a healthy individual under 50 years old

China concealed the extent of the viral outbreak, which, if you believed its data, led many scientists to believe that 2% to 5% of all infected patients would die. This turned out to be off by a factor of 10, but academic epidemiologists have a history of wildly-off-the-mark doomsday predictions.

This response is the biggest unforced policy error in the the modern era. And it was committed not by just one advanced nation, but the vast majority. A good reminder of how dangerously dumb groupthink is.


Never put your money with conventional 'wisdom', never.

But we have to stay locked up till there's a vaccine. wimper.

There isn't a single State that isn't in the process of opening up, 6ft. There's plenty to complain about without making stuff up.

For starters, complaint to the Trump Administration. They are the ones who issued guidelines telling States to limit citizens' movements until conditions improve.

You going to complain about how Trump is doing this? Or are you going to pretend that Trump didn't publish those guidelines? It would be the first time you complained about something your President has done in 3 1/2 years.

[seacoaster]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

[njbill]

And they wonder why they got called deplorables.

[Peter Brown]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

[njbill]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

Apples and oranges. One is a health regulation applicable to everybody.

The other violates laws against discrimination. If you are open to the public, you have to serve members of the public.

So you are OK with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks? No difference between that and the baker.

[Peter Brown]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

Apples and oranges. One is a health regulation applicable to everybody.

The other violates laws against discrimination. If you are open to the public, you have to serve members of the public.

So you are OK with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks? No difference between that and the baker.

I'm quite libertarian in my approach to businesses and regulations. I don't care whom a companies serves or doesn't serve. You'll always lose at business if you discriminate, so if your choice is to discriminate, best of luck paying the rent. Capitalism rewards good citizens, in spite of your fears otherwise.

[DocBarrister]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

Apples and oranges. One is a health regulation applicable to everybody.

The other violates laws against discrimination. If you are open to the public, you have to serve members of the public.

So you are OK with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks? No difference between that and the baker.

I'm quite libertarian in my approach to businesses and regulations. I don't care whom a companies serves or doesn't serve. You'll always lose at business if you discriminate, so if your choice is to discriminate, best of luck paying the rent. Capitalism rewards good citizens, in spite of your fears otherwise.

Capitalism rewarded slavery and racial segregation for centuries. Shows why libertarianism was out of date even in the 18th century.

You basically want to re-legalize racial segregation. I suggest you take your views back to the 1950s, where they belong.

DocBarrister

[Peter Brown]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

Apples and oranges. One is a health regulation applicable to everybody.

The other violates laws against discrimination. If you are open to the public, you have to serve members of the public.

So you are OK with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks? No difference between that and the baker.

I'm quite libertarian in my approach to businesses and regulations. I don't care whom a companies serves or doesn't serve. You'll always lose at business if you discriminate, so if your choice is to discriminate, best of luck paying the rent. Capitalism rewards good citizens, in spite of your fears otherwise.

Capitalism rewarded slavery and racial segregation for centuries. Shows why libertarianism was out of date even in the 18th century.

You basically want to re-legalize racial segregation. I suggest you take your views back to the 1950s, where they belong.

DocBarrister

If you weren't so blind to basic economics, you'd understand that when a company utilizes discrimination to deny any class of citizen its products or services, that only opens the door for a very entrepreneurial minority CEO to fill the void and grow to greatness!

[DocBarrister]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

Apples and oranges. One is a health regulation applicable to everybody.

The other violates laws against discrimination. If you are open to the public, you have to serve members of the public.

So you are OK with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks? No difference between that and the baker.

I'm quite libertarian in my approach to businesses and regulations. I don't care whom a companies serves or doesn't serve. You'll always lose at business if you discriminate, so if your choice is to discriminate, best of luck paying the rent. Capitalism rewards good citizens, in spite of your fears otherwise.

Capitalism rewarded slavery and racial segregation for centuries. Shows why libertarianism was out of date even in the 18th century.

You basically want to re-legalize racial segregation. I suggest you take your views back to the 1950s, where they belong.

DocBarrister

If you weren't so blind to basic economics, you'd understand that when a company utilizes discrimination to deny any class of citizen its products or services, that only opens the door for a very entrepreneurial minority CEO to fill the void and grow to greatness!

What you don’t seem to understand is that there are many racists, and especially a lot of white supremacists, in America today.

If racial segregation were re-legalized, there would be large markets specializing in whites-only housing, dining, hotels, schools, churches, mass transit, stores, and services. Indeed, entire municipalities could market themselves as whites-only “havens”.

Your approach doesn’t work. It’s why there was a civil rights movement that focused to a large measure on racial desegregation.

Your views are literally 70 years behind the times.

Seriously, I don’t know why we should have to put up with this kind of racist nonsense on this forum.

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

Apples and oranges. One is a health regulation applicable to everybody.

The other violates laws against discrimination. If you are open to the public, you have to serve members of the public.

So you are OK with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks? No difference between that and the baker.

I'm quite libertarian in my approach to businesses and regulations. I don't care whom a companies serves or doesn't serve. You'll always lose at business if you discriminate, so if your choice is to discriminate, best of luck paying the rent. Capitalism rewards good citizens, in spite of your fears otherwise.

Capitalism rewarded slavery and racial segregation for centuries. Shows why libertarianism was out of date even in the 18th century.

You basically want to re-legalize racial segregation. I suggest you take your views back to the 1950s, where they belong.

DocBarrister

If you weren't so blind to basic economics, you'd understand that when a company utilizes discrimination to deny any class of citizen its products or services, that only opens the door for a very entrepreneurial minority CEO to fill the void and grow to greatness!

Only a very entrepreneurial “minority” CEO will fill the void? That’s how you see things?

[Peter Brown]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264197952270106625

If a private company insists you wear a mask to enter, so be it. Either you do, or you can't enter. I am good with that.

Also, private companies should not be forced to bake cakes for gay couples.

Deal?

Apples and oranges. One is a health regulation applicable to everybody.

The other violates laws against discrimination. If you are open to the public, you have to serve members of the public.

So you are OK with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks? No difference between that and the baker.

I'm quite libertarian in my approach to businesses and regulations. I don't care whom a companies serves or doesn't serve. You'll always lose at business if you discriminate, so if your choice is to discriminate, best of luck paying the rent. Capitalism rewards good citizens, in spite of your fears otherwise.

Capitalism rewarded slavery and racial segregation for centuries. Shows why libertarianism was out of date even in the 18th century.

You basically want to re-legalize racial segregation. I suggest you take your views back to the 1950s, where they belong.

DocBarrister

If you weren't so blind to basic economics, you'd understand that when a company utilizes discrimination to deny any class of citizen its products or services, that only opens the door for a very entrepreneurial minority CEO to fill the void and grow to greatness!

What you don’t seem to understand is that there are many racists, and especially a lot of white supremacists, in America today.

If racial segregation were re-legalized, there would be large markets specializing in whites-only housing, dining, hotels, schools, churches, mass transit, stores, and services. Indeed, entire municipalities could market themselves as whites-only “havens”.

Your approach doesn’t work. It’s why there was a civil rights movement that focused to a large measure on racial desegregation.

Your views are literally 70 years behind the times.

Seriously, I don’t know why we should have to put up with this kind of racist nonsense on this forum.

DocBarrister

Seems like it is you who are "literally 70 years behind the times". The world has changed, most Americans are really good decent people.

Only libs live in this permanent era of Jim Crow etc.

I did notice a very Twitter story of an NYC Obama and HRC donor ("Amy Cooper") being fired from Franklin Templeton this morning because she falsely accused a black guy of accosting her in Central Park yesterday; maybe it's your party you're worried about when it comes to racism? White, closeted racist Democrats are a scourge and we must deal with it.