OT: Coronavirus 3 - wait but Covid 19 is SARS-CoV-2

[MinJaBen]

Hmmmm.

This is an interesting read. I'll reserve judgement as yet.

Check the source. This guy is an prominent anti-vaxxer.

Edit: you already did.

 

[Unsustainable]

And here's the rebuttal:

J.B. Handley’s unthinking person’s guide to the COVID-19 pandemic

The fact that Handley is an autism antivaxxer doesn't do much for his credibility.

Anyway, we'll know in a few weeks. Death rates are a trailing indicator of infection rates. If death rates go back up, we'll know that he's full of shit. If they don't, then maybe some of what he says has merit.

he does a good job of listing all of his sources from studies.

it is a wait and see now

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

he does a good job of listing all of his sources from studies.

it is a wait and see now

It’s not always the data, it’s how data is used, what pieces of data is left out and what conclusions one draws from said data.

I didn’t read it, but any prominent anti-Vaxxer / conspiracy theorist throws up a red flag immediately for me. I don’t know the guy, is he a medical professional or virologist by training?

 

[Navin R Slavin]

He's a venture capitalist.

 

[A Star is Burns]

There could be some truth to what the guy is saying, but he's just pushing some agenda. He doesn't have training or background in this stuff. And he chooses one study or person as his source for any given point (or perhaps a couple) in spite of the fact that (like in Hank's article) it'd be easy to find articles and people that have opposite opinions or science on their side.

Time certainly will tell, but he seems to be pushing a little too hard to convince that he's the smartest person in the room.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I mean, he says that it's basically almost over. Fine. If he's right, the next month will bear his argument out. If he's wrong, a bunch of the people currently getting infected will die.

He makes an argument that we should be looking at death rates rather than infection rates, because the definition of infection can be highly variable. That's a valid argument, I think.

He then argues that the IFR is actually more like 0.3% (as opposed to the 1.0% everyone else seems to think) and the herd immunity threshold is actually more like 15-20% (as opposed to the 50-60% that everyone else seems to think).

If he's right, great! That means the death rates will continue to drop despite the elevated infection rates, and we're close to done.

The chances are very high that he's not right, and we'll know within the next two weeks.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Death rates are a trailing indicator of infection rates. If death rates go back up, we'll know that he's full of shit. If they don't, then maybe some of what he says has merit.

I didn’t read the article, but I suspect death rates won’t rise as dramatically for a few non-conspiracy/non agenda reasons. 1. State and local government “should” be better prepared and equipped to take care of those most at risk (assisted living facilities). Something like 50% of deaths in NC (and someone mentioned other states were similar) occurred in assisted living facilities. Also, I suspect many of these facilities have already been hit hard. Maybe I’m being naive, but I would hope we are better prepared now. 2. at least some of the data I saw is saying in many states the uptick in infected is occurring in younger people (going to bars/restaurants, protests, etc..) who are less at risk of dying from this. Thus a higher infection rate won’t have as high of a death rate. Death rate by age group data already shows that. I’m assuming that the data about infections on younger people is valid and pervasive, and it may not be. 3. Medical professionals are better prepared now and there are some treatment options like Remdesivir to help minimize mortality rates.

I could be way off base here, but those seem like reasons why (hopefully) the death rate won’t spike.

 

[Unsustainable]

I didn’t read the article, but I suspect death rates won’t rise as dramatically for a few non-conspiracy/non agenda reasons. 1. State and local government “should” be better prepared and equipped to take care of those most at risk (assisted living facilities). Something like 50% of deaths in NC (and someone mentioned other states were similar) occurred in assisted living facilities. Also, I suspect many of these facilities have already been hit hard. Maybe I’m being naive, but I would hope we are better prepared now. 2. at least some of the data I saw is saying in many states the uptick in infected is occurring in younger people (going to bars/restaurants, protests, etc..) who are less at risk of dying from this. Thus a higher infection rate won’t have as high of a death rate. Death rate by age group data already shows that. I’m assuming that the data about infections on younger people is valid and pervasive, and it may not be. 3. Medical professionals are better prepared now and there are some treatment options like Remdesivir to help minimize mortality rates.

I could be way off base here, but those seem like reasons why (hopefully) the death rate won’t spike.

He mentions that about the assisted living places, just don’t do what NY Gov did.

 

[Unsustainable]

here’s another look at using data analysis

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

He mentions that about the assisted living places, just don’t do what NY Gov did.

But are NYs assisted living numbers worse than other states? When accounting for population density?

 

[bobbyking]

Coming back around to this. There were definitely some weak minded, but probably not the ones you were referring to.

Confirmed coronavirus cases are rising in 40 of 50 states :: WRAL.com

Imo I believe the second wave is due more to the protests then anything. covid has slowed significantly in other parts of the developed world with similar or less populations from what I have seen so far even though i have not been keeping a close eye on it

 

[raynman]

Imo I believe the second wave is due more to the protests then anything. covid has slowed significantly in other parts of the developed world with similar or less populations from what I have seen so far even though i have not been keeping a close eye on it

Bars/restaurants/beaches opening and an overall sense of out of sight out of mind happened about the same time.

 

[Joe McGrath]

The answer is bars. It’s not that difficult to figure out. They are a germ factory with drunk ass hosts during normal times.

 

[the halleJOKEL]

Imo I believe the second wave is due more to the protests then anything. covid has slowed significantly in other parts of the developed world with similar or less populations from what I have seen so far even though i have not been keeping a close eye on it

there is no second wave since we are still in the midst of wave one

what you "believe" is not really relevant. experts (such as this paper from the national bureau of economic research: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf) who study these things for a living have shown that reopening too early and lack of social distancing/mask use are the main cause of this increase in cases.

one of the primary issues we are facing is lack of understanding of data/statistics. the united states is not one giant pandemic. it is dozens of smaller pandemics. when you lump all of this data into one global data set, it is very easy to misinterpret (or intentionally mislead others) what is going on. new york getting their situation under control is happening as the rest of the country is beginning to fall apart. in statistics, this is called simpson's paradox: Simpson's paradox - Wikipedia

 

[Lempo]

in statistics, this is called simpson's paradox: Simpson's paradox - Wikipedia

 

[AD Skinner]

The rdrr joke always bugged me in this episode because like wouldn't you just say (3r)(d)?

 

[MinJaBen]

The answer is bars. It’s not that difficult to figure out. They are a germ factory with drunk ass hosts during normal times.

Relevant

 

[Joe McGrath]

Relevant

The idea that this has to be put in an article and not just be the most obvious thing in the world is just stunning to me.

 

[AD Skinner]

The idea that this has to be put in an article and not just be the most obvious thing in the world is just stunning to me.

Study shows that water indeed wet

 

[Lempo]

Why are those people not drinking home alone in misery?

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Study shows that water indeed wet

Is water indeed wet? Or can water make other things wet, but is not wet on it’s own? Always wondered that.

 

[MinJaBen]

Is water indeed wet? Or can water make other things wet, but is not wet on it’s own? Always wondered that.

My kids love this question. My logic to them is that something with water on it is wet. If water is touching other water (molecules) then it is indeed wet. Only a single water molecule can be dry.

 

[bleedgreen]

Makes me think of “Particle Man” by They Must Be Giants.

 

[AD Skinner]

Makes me think of “Particle Man” by They Must Be Giants.

 

[bleedgreen]

Awesome. My Grandmother had five sisters, and listening to that brought me immediately back to playing under the table while they all chattered back and forth to each other. Including her accent.