| Author | Message | ||
     Court |
——->>> My feel is & pure opinion, that Pooh's Breath is worse in some metrics than average seasonal flu. I'm not married to that view. Pretty much my thoughts. It’s all about attitude. I’m adhering to common sense, common caution and trying to plat smart. My daily schedule has been largely unchanged except for the 30 miles of biking in the compound and 17# I’ve dropped not eating cheeseburgers and BBQ. I’m precluded from returning to NY by company caveat and common sense. Frankly . . . . If I can drag this out until November I’m thrilled. To date. . . It appears most Badweb Folks are safe and sound. | ||
| Hootowl |
Pat, This is the first I’m hearing that zinc lozenges are snake oil. You may want to read this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28515951/ | ||
| Hootowl |
Some good news. I think we all suspected this. https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-antibod y-testing-finds-bay-area-infections-85-times-highe r-reported-researchers Or, facebook makes you a carrier.  I wonder whether they were using G5?  | ||
| Sifo |
Tom, It was a bunch of bloviating. Little to no science. It's commentary on what's going on. He's dealt with the science behind it much more on other videos. It's meant for the masses, not for the few who are epidemiologists. Despite your constant demand for scientific data, lay people simply are not going to understand most of it. There is need to condense it down for the masses. You know, those who may not know what "herd immunity" is.. Science would be the two random population studies and data from the Theodore Roosevelt. But they're from hotspots? So hotspots are no good for doing science concerning a pandemic? Please explain. That's actual hard scientific data. And yet, all you post is commentary dumbed down for the masses. Hypocritical much??? https://www.businessinsider.com/testing-reveals-mo st-aircraft0-carrier-sailors-coronavirus-had-no-sy mptoms-2020-4 The aircraft carrier crew may well also have a number of recovered, crew that no longer have the virus, just the antibody, which apparently has yet to be tests for on the ship. More to the point though, what is your point with this? How do you see this applying to the rest of the world. As I've pointed out, this is a population of young, healthy, very fit people, who are largely by nature, and certainly by training, the type that will ignore a large amount of discomfort and still perform their jobs. They also live, 24/7, elbow to elbow. Trying to apply what is learned here to the typical American seems quite nu-scientific at best. So what point are you trying to make? Not like the article you quoted that talks about high strength dosing of malaria medicine, no indication of the cocktail that doctors all over the planet are now prescribing. HydroxyChloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin or another antibiotic. I'm guess they were only testing the chloroquine on its own. They don't indicate otherwise. That was never the "game changer". That was the cocktail. Yes Blake. You are guessing. Is this not science? Double blind testing to determine if high doses of a drug are safe or effective? Part of that "cocktail" is high doses of hydroxychloroquine. Of course... "Stick to the science." Where is the science that this cocktail works? Where are the double blind tests? Please post them. Oh, wait, they don't exist. Yet you, Mr. Stick To The Science, promote it like it's completely proven. Hypocritical much??? Stick to the hard data. Here's more: https://www.foxnews.com/science/third-blood-sample s-massachusetts-study-coronavirus (Link to original study reporting in the news piece.) It ain't about me or anybody. Stick to the data. I don't have another solution than what the govt is doing. I'm not up on it all. Seems excessive on many counts. And again, you post a news story, as you say "Stick to the data". You say there's a link to the study, but I sure haven't found it. Clearly though, you see value in the dumbed down version presented in the MSM. WHY? Because it promotes your agenda. Of course the video series I've been posting provides links to the actual studies that he discusses. Take for example the one that Ratbuell stopped watching after only 4 minutes... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZI0JJXIRUw Here's the list of sources that he provides in the video description...
How is this different from what you post? The answer I see is that you think it doesn't support your agenda. Of course, if you paid attention to the videos, you might just find that sometimes it does. He actually does cover the good and the bad. He does what you claim should be done; Follow the science. Tom: Infection ratio doesn't need to achieve herd immunity to achieve desirable effects. It's why ALL virulent epidemics slow and decline BEFORE herd immunity is achieved. And again, you have shown you don't understand the basic concept of herd immunity. I'm curious what you think is the cause of ALL virulent epidemics to slow and decline BEFORE herd immunity is achieved. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, if you respond to a single thing in this post, give a comprehensive answer to this. | ||
| Court |
This discussion is akin to having the television going in the other room. . . . You kinda hear the noise . . . Kinda know it’s on. . . .but you’re paying no attention. I hope someone who cares and is really smart is reading some of these scientific articles and watching these “end of the world” videos. Today is Sunday .... I’ve got a Sunday routine that doesn’t include “ YouTube University”. . . Have fun. . . I’ll check back later. | ||
| Ourdee |
I would laugh my hind side off if it was found that colloidal silver was the answer to the CCPV/D. | ||
| Aesquire |
...zinc lozenges are snake oil. And that recent 2017 paper is the first I've heard it's not. Funnier yet, a Bing search on "zinc lozenges side effects" returns several articles, from the Mayo clinic and WebMD, that when clicked on have been erased or moved. The stored Mayo clinic snippet states loss of sense of smell with nasal spray. And I never claimed it was snake oil. Just an unproven nostrum. Magic potion! That it can be "prescribed" as an OTC remedy shows it didn't disappear when the products took a big popularity hit when the sense of smell issue went public. For other subjects where conventional wisdom was wrong see Ignaz Semelweiss, who was flamed to madness and murdered for suggesting doctors wash their hands. And Warren & Marshall's work on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylor i They were also mocked. So I level out at skeptical on zinc. I did have good results, short sick times, as shown by the 2017 study, but not half or less, as frequently claimed. ( The 28% shorter symptom time quoted in the study matches my anecdotal evidence. ) I ended my informal testing long before 2017 when the side effects of ( possible stupid overdose & possible poor QC ) use hit the news. Cost/benefit, eh? The cost/benefit for a potentially fatal disease is a bit different than for the common cold. Even if effectiveness is just a 25% average less time before natural recovery, that can flip thousands from death by ventilator to recovered, as the severe reactions are time related by iron byproducts produced by hemoglobin breakdown. | ||
| Sifo |
Some good news. I think we all suspected this. I think we did all suspect that. I'm confused by those who think that knowing an overall death rate is some sort of game changer though. Some slight adjustments to the ratios in the math and you still have the exact same number of dead, hospitalized, etc. The good news is that it gets us slightly closer to herd immunity. Slightly. The bad news is that the more unknown infections we have, the higher the infection rate is. That there is a higher threshold of immune people needed to achieve that herd immunity. It's helpful information, but certainly not a game changers of any sort. | ||
| Sifo |
I think the thing with Zinc is that it works to prevent the virus from replicating as easily. If you nail the illness early enough, you have less viruses for you immune system to deal with. Once the virus had gotten a foot hold where you are really sick, it's too late to make much difference. I've used it and there have been times where I take it at the first sign of illness and have felt better very quickly. Of course, a short spike in mold spores of pollen does the same thing. I've also gotten bad, long lasting colds despite zinc. Would they have been worse without the zinc? I have no idea. | ||
| Sifo |
One more thing about the Bay area study. When you advertise for people to be tested for a disease, do you get a random sampling of the population. I think it might be reasonable to suspect your sampling might be weighted with people who may recognize that they may have been exposed. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Zinc is a key component of why hydroxychloroquine is supposed to work. Zinc is known to inhibit virus reproduction in the laboratory. However, your body’s cells normally prevent zinc from entering them. That’s why taking zinc on its own isn’t that effective. HCQ seems to be a switch that allows zinc into your cells where it can inhibit the virus from reproducing. The doctor is NY that claims dramatic success with HCQ was prescribing HCQ, zithromicin, and zinc sulfate together and that combo, when administered EARLY, may be the key. Once you’re in the ICU, it seems to be of limited benefit. | ||
| Sifo |
This is encouraging for the critically ill. Israeli COVID-19 treatment with 100% survival rate tested on US patient Only six patients in this study, but they were bad off and all survived. OTOH, I've been told by the experts here that a study of only six people is useless. Or is that only when it's not the news you want to hear? | ||
| Tpehak |
NY doctor treated more than 500 patients with 100% success month ago but nothing changed since then, people still die at alarming rate. (Message edited by TPEHAK on April 19, 2020) | ||
| Ebutch |
Keep Safe !!!!!!  | ||
| Tpehak |
Make sure you protect your Buell  | ||
| Hootowl |
Tom, “works to prevent the virus from replicating” That’s my understanding as well. Re the fox article about the bay area study, if you read to the end they say the testing was advertised on facebook, so the sampling was (massively) skewed toward facebook users and (somewhat toward) females. I guess the lesson here is that if you want to stay healthy, you’d best sign up for facebook and a sex change. Neither of those appeal to me. One of them isn’t even possible. | ||
| Hootowl |
Your dog thinks you look silly.  | ||
| Ebutch |
No he thinks I have a Treat ! S2 has protection !  | ||
| Ratbuell |
Only six patients in this study, but they were bad off and all survived. OTOH, I've been told by the experts here that a study of only six people is useless. Or is that only when it's not the news you want to hear? That wasn't what I said about the autopsy reports at all, and you know it. My comment about the autopsies was, "isn't it funny how everyone focuses on those six bodies - where's the information on all (or any) of the other bodies??" My comment was about the horrid, bullshit sensationalism that surrounds this whole situation, as opposed to good ol' common sense and objective information. People are obsessed about the gloom and doom and horror of this whole thing, but nobody looks at ANY of the positive points; nobody pays any attention to ANY of the possible treatments. The excuse has been "they're only small / unauthorized / non-scientific studies so they don't count". And, nobody looks at any of the actual NUMBERS - such as, survival/recovery rates. Let's all focus on the body counts...but how many people are actually HEALING? I've asked before, and I'll ask again - where's the focus on THOSE numbers?? I'm glad to see you posted some positive results for a change. It's also nice to see you admitting to what I've been saying all along - that there are FAR MORE people with this disease than anyone suspected, thus lowering the percentage of fatalities from the disease based on people who actually HAVE it. Hence, my push for more global testing - so we can see the TRUE numbers, or something closer to it, rather than simple "they have symptoms, we'll test them...yep, they're positive", which skews the fatality rate to crazy-high (false) percentages. I've been saying all along - this is more widespread than anyone will admit. The flipside of that - which I've ALSO been saying all along - is that given the true number of people with the disease, compared to the actual number of dead...it's not anywhere NEAR "kill western society in the name of protecting everyone" deadly. Per the article: Our data imply that, by April 1 (three days prior to the end of our survey) between 48,000 and 81,000 people had been infected in Santa Clara County. The reported number of confirmed positive cases in the county on April 1 was 956 956 confirmed cases, to "between 48,000 and 81,000 people" who actually have the virus. Yeah. Shutting down western society did a LOT of good on this one. Tanking EVERY aspect of society definitely kept people from catching the virus, eh? As I have been saying ALL ALONG: Either: this isn't as infectious as they say it is, or: this isn't as deadly as they say it is. You can't have both. When I did concert rigging for a living, there were three kinds of rigging: 1, fast. 2, safe. 3, cheap. You get to pick two. Fast and cheap? I won't walk under it. Fast and safe? Gonna cost ya. Cheap and safe? Hope you don't have a deadline coming up anytime soon, 'cause we'll get to it when we can. This disease...either it's super-contagious, OR it's super-deadly. Pick one, because none of the numbers support both. They've been touting the overwhelming transmission rate, and projecting hundreds of thousands of dead...but...where are all those bodies? We were supposed to have a quarter-million dead Americans by...what was it...last week? But according to the covidtracker.com site, WORLDWIDE deaths to date are 164,716. But, we may have 85 TIMES the infected people we thought we did? Where's all the bodies, from this purported human-race-threatening uber-disease that made us shut everything down? I ask. Again. Is this worth crashing western society over? Potentially 85 TIMES the infected people (who, presumably, were presymptomatic or asymptomatic - funny, how'd they test positive without symptoms? I thought one of the experts here said that was impossible??), with nowhere near the projected body count...and we've killed our entire economy over it. | ||
| Sifo |
That wasn't what I said about the autopsy reports at all, and you know it. OK, here's a direct quote.
It's also nice to see you admitting to what I've been saying all along - that there are FAR MORE people with this disease than anyone suspected, thus lowering the percentage of fatalities from the disease based on people who actually HAVE it. Slow down sparky. First, there's never been any doubt that there have been undiagnosed cases. The big question is how many. I seem to recall you claiming that far more had already been infected than not. This study doesn't come close to supporting anything of the sort. I will say the reporting on this seems quite unclear, but this provides some insight...
Current confirmed cases in Santa Clara County, according to John's Hopkins is 1,870, so that sounds about right for Santa Clara County having 956 confirmed cases on April 1. That confirms the geographic area we are dealing with. A quick google search shows the county to have about 1.928 million people in it. So on the high side, that puts the infection rate as of April 1 at around 4.2%. Am I still admitting to what you've been saying all along - that there are FAR MORE people with this disease than anyone suspected, thus lowering the percentage of fatalities from the disease based on people who actually HAVE it? Absolutely not to the degree that you have been claiming. No where near it. Hears the funny part. And I actually mean ha, ha funny, not odd funny. From the start of all of this, I've not been advocating the mitigation that's going on, just explaining why. I've pointed out many times that I'm glad I'm not the one who has to put dollar figures on human lives. I've simply been telling you what's coming, and why so that people can be better prepared for it. A bunch of that info, that has largely been right on target, has come from the videos that you couldn't make 5 minutes for. Yes, I told you to be prepared for lock downs BEFORE they happened. I don't like it, you don't like it, yet here we are. At least I saw it coming. Did you? Do you see what's coming next? I don't think you do. I don't think you see where we are at right now. | ||
| Sifo |
Back to Blake's "note" for a moment... Rebuts argument by Dr. Phil about danger of economic shutdown by picking on one mis-statement about swimming pool deaths. Gossips about the Dr's credentials. (This jerk is a class A gossipy, narcissistic turd.) Yes he did slam Dr. Phil for the blunder on the swimming pool data. It was a huge blunder. Dr. Phil provided other forms of death to compare to though, and he did explain how each is a very poor choice to compare to deaths from a virus. Not only are you engaging in ad hominem attacks, but the "facts" you claim are falsehoods to the point of dishonesty. Here it is all queued up to the explanation for the one or two individuals who care about the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=863&v= kCiDCBLpjZg&feature=emb_logo Back it up to about the 12:15 mark if you want the lead in to the explanation. BTW, I'm just curious. When you took those "notes", did you actually write blah blah blah blah all the time? You really can do better Blake. Very disappointing to deal with this sort of dishonesty. | ||
| Sifo |
 And here's the admission from Dr. Phil himself, that his comparisons sucked. Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz aren’t coronavirus experts. So why are they talking about it on TV news?
Think Dr. Phil watched that video? Sure seems like the criticism was spot on to me. And Dr. Phil! | ||
| Ratbuell |
Yep, and my direct quote says nothing about the validity (or lack thereof) of the study of six bodies. It simply calls attention to the sensationalism surrounding all this. Again - where's the stories about SURVIVORS?? God forbid there be any GOOD news in any of this...God forbid we have any HOPE. That...doesn't fit the narrative. (by the way - covidtracker.com shows more people in the USA recovered, than dead...and nearly five TIMES as many recovered worldwide, than dead. For perspective. Which is what that study of six bodies, lacked. Perspective. It's what this whole situation lacks.) I know exactly where we are right now. Locked down, watching our economy go down the shitter, because of a pandemic that hasn't lived up to the hype. Not even close. We've simply bent over and handed our rights over to elected officials, with zero promise that we'll EVER get them back again. Sure, we ASSUME we will...but look at what they're doing, pulling more and more individual rights as this goes on whether they have any purported effect on this thing at all, and trying to pack as much bullshit pork into the spending bills as they can because a tiger can't change its stripes. THAT's where we are. CDC was predicting, even WITH the shutdown/mitigation, that we'd have a quarter million bodies here in the USA. They keep revising that number. Down. With actual testing showing how actually invasive this virus is, both here and abroad (when you test asymptomatics, you CAN get positive results), it just backs up the fact that slamming the door on our economy didn't do shit for slowing this thing down. And, with the lack of bodies (relative to what the "models" predicted)...that all shows this thing just isn't as deadly as we were led to believe. So, we slammed the door on the best economy this nation has seen in decades...for naught. For a disease that I still hold, once all the numbers are in and we have a handle on the reality of all this, won't be any worse for the human race than the flu. The numbers are already leaning that way. THAT, is where we are right now. THIS: https://www.covidtracker.com/ is where we are right now. 165,000 dead, GLOBALLY. Despite "models" that said we'd have nearly twice that dead here just in the USA, as of last week. And, that number includes all those who have "other" ailments, but since they show some symptoms that are "in line" with COVID symptoms...their death certificates list COVID-19 as the cause of death, even without verification. (Why, by the way, are governors allowing and even encouraging this practice??) So. We have inflated death counts due to questionable/unverified COD's, with inaccurate (low) case counts due to lack of asymptomatic testing. We still locked down everything to "flatten the curve". And it STILL isn't the apocalypse they were predicting. It STILL hasn't lived up to the hype. And...we STILL flushed our economy down the shitter for it. How about some comparison numbers? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-i n-season-estimates.htm This year's influenza numbers. USA numbers. 39-56M flu illnesses. 18-26M medical visits. 410,000-740,000 hospitalizations. 24,000-62,000 flu deaths. With medicine. From COVIDtracker, USA numbers: nearly 3.9M tests. 755,000 cases confirmed. 115,792 hospitalized. 40k deaths. (the death number is from a USAToday page, the COVIDtracker only shows NYC deaths for some reason) With NO medicine. And - as we're finding out - woefully inept estimates of how many people actually HAVE this thing. Just pandering to people who think any of these estimates are wrong...if we take the "85 times as many" number and cut it in HALF, we still have over thirty million cases of this stuff wandering around the USA. 64 million, if the "85 times" number is accurate for more than just the small sample area. Let's look at that, with the assumption that "85 times" is accurate (just to indulge me - but I honestly suspect even THAT number is low): COVID - 64M cases. 116k hospitalized. 40k dead. FLU - 39-56M cases. 410-740k hospitalized. 24-62k dead. Looks pretty similar, eh? There's a big delta between number infected / number hospitalized, so yes, if you're hospitalized with COVID (and not accounting for any of the questionable COD's), you are more likely to die from it (the flipside being, flu appears more likely to land you in the hospital in the first place)...but that could simply be due to the fact that we have decades of experience treating flu, and precisely zero experience treating COVID. Yet. But...total cases to total dead? Looks pretty damned similar to me, if we take the "85 times" number as accurate. (To note: I don't assume 85x is necessarily "the" number...but I have believed all along, and still do believe, that there are FAR MORE cases out there than we possibly suspect). Lets look at total California cases, before you throw the calendar at me ("COVID has only had a half a season compared to a full season of flu", etc). IF the "85 times" number is even remotely true, that goes to further support my suspicion that this thing hit our shores LONG before Christmas. Before Thanksgiving, probably. Cali has heavy Chinese tourism and shipping...and since we started "tracking" this thing, Cali shows quite a small number of cases, especially compared to a similarly-dense population center called NY. 4,700 hospitalized, compared to 55 THOUSAND in NY. Perhaps your favorite at work here, herd immunity? Started long before we even thought this thing was here on our shores? Like I've said, this thing had four months to wander the globe at will, before anyone even thought to shut anything down (and that's based on when the lying Chinese ADMITTED to its existence). If it's THIS contagious? It was here earlier than January. Guaranteed. And yet, the body count still doesn't live up to the hype. And while I know the technical definition of "herd immunity" includes medication...I can't help but think there are some antibodies at work if THIS many people have it, and show zero symptoms. While they may still be carrying, and passing...they are not succumbing. Something, in that MANY people...is simply beating this thing. Maybe we haven't just identified what "it" is yet...but it's there. Worldwide. Five TIMES as many people have recovered from this thing, as have died from it. Where's the press coverage on THAT?? Nah..."this many dead people" makes for scarier headlines. The fact remains, though, that although people are dying from this thing (or, more likely, it is the "last straw" for many otherwise-ill people), and having people die sucks...this is not the extinction-level event that has instilled all this fear and terror into society. Does it suck? Absolutely. But, I still hold that the "cure" was far more damaging than the virus itself. Our economy will be paying for this for decades. We're fu(ked. Not by the virus...but by the "mitigation". FEAR, and HYPE, did this. Not a virus. | ||
| Sifo |
CDC was predicting, even WITH the shutdown/mitigation, that we'd have a quarter million bodies here in the USA. Can't speak to that. I have my doubts. I know I posted this on March 26... http://www.badweatherbikers.com/cgibin/discus/show .cgi?tpc=4062&post=2689991#POST2689991
I've not been hyping those kind of numbers. Certainly not with the mitigation that's going on. But we have passed the lower end of that range in less than a month. With actual testing showing how actually invasive this virus is, both here and abroad (when you test asymptomatics, you CAN get positive results), it just backs up the fact that slamming the door on our economy didn't do shit for slowing this thing down. And, with the lack of bodies (relative to what the "models" predicted)...that all shows this thing just isn't as deadly as we were led to believe. It seems utterly irrational to believe that these proven mitigation measures (yes, there are also many very stupid examples) had no effect on the spread of this disease. It's like you just don't believe what we know about the spread of disease. I honestly don't get it. I've asked numerous times for examples of these estimates you claim were out there. I'm not familiar with them. Link? We have inflated death counts due to questionable/unverified COD's, with inaccurate (low) case counts due to lack of asymptomatic testing. And without a doubt we have people dying in their homes, never getting diagnosed. I still fail to see the worth of focusing on an extremely accurate infection count. It seems to be all about just trying to get a lower death rate. It doesn't change the death count though. I know there have been individual cases of COD being pretty questionable for Covid-19, but those really are the exceptions. Most have gone into the hospital because they have gotten pneumonia from the effects of the virus, and eventually died. How about some comparison numbers? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-i n-season-estimates.htm This year's influenza numbers. USA numbers. 39-56M flu illnesses. 18-26M medical visits. 410,000-740,000 hospitalizations. 24,000-62,000 flu deaths. And this is where it gets humorous. The demand for near perfection on the Covid-19 numbers, but look at the ranges for the seasonal flu for this year. BTW, we are currently in the upper end of that extremely large range, and still adding deaths at a very good clip. It is slowing down though, but not due to any sort of herd immunity. Most likely from the mitigation strategies and/or it's a seasonal fluctuation. If it's from the mitigation, it will spike up again as people go back to normal life. If it's seasonal, then next year we get to experience a full season of it, not just the second half. Looks pretty similar, eh? There's a big delta between number infected / number hospitalized, so yes, if you're hospitalized with COVID (and not accounting for any of the questionable COD's), you are more likely to die from it (the flipside being, flu appears more likely to land you in the hospital in the first place)...but that could simply be due to the fact that we have decades of experience treating flu, and precisely zero experience treating COVID. One more difference. Flu victims who get hospitalized typically spend 1-3 days in the hospital. Covid-19 victims are spending weeks and months in the hospital. A single Covid-19 hospitalization will easily take more than 10x the resources of a flu hospitalization. And it STILL isn't the apocalypse they were predicting. It STILL hasn't lived up to the hype. It's in the range I've been talking about. Still not sure who "they" are. And...we STILL flushed our economy down the shitter for it. On that point, I agree. It's a shame we weren't on top of it earlier. South Korea looks like they got it right... South Korea controlled its coronavirus outbreak in just 20 days. Here are the highlights from its 90-page playbook for flattening the curve. The videos that people love to trash nailed it on that one. 100% nailed it. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I don't look for - or expect - perfection in COVID numbers. Just honesty and perspective is all. FIVE TIMES the people survive, as die. And, that's just based on the CONFIRMED cases, which I think we can all agree, is a bogus number. We aren't anywhere CLOSE to knowing how many people have it. If 85 TIMES the number of people we think have it, actually have it? Mitigation did precisely dick, to stop or slow the spread. But it did a spectacular job tanking our economy, and pushing unemployment through the roof. If you look at the hospitalization numbers (between 4 and 7 TIMES the number of patients for flu, as for CV19)...the resource usage is not such a huge gap after all. "They" are: Imperial College (UK) model, predicting 2.2M USA deaths: https://www.dailywire.com/news/epidemiologist-behi nd-highly-cited-coronavirus-model-admits-he-was-wr ong-drastically-revises-model IHME model, predicting more than 80k USA deaths at their latest revision but originally causing the White House to predict (Brix and Fauci) between 120k and 240k USA deaths...as recently as 10 days ago. http://www.healthdata.org/research-article/forecas ting-covid-19-impact-hospital-bed-days-icu-days-ve ntilator-days-and-deaths Here's Fauci, on NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-upda tes/2020/03/29/823517467/fauci-estimates-that-100- 000-to-200-000-americans-could-die-from-the-corona virus How about the CDC, on March 13? Between 160 million and 214 million people in the United States could be infected over the course of the epidemic, according to a projection that encompasses the range of the four scenarios. That could last months or even over a year, with infections concentrated in shorter periods, staggered across time in different communities, experts said. As many as 200,000 to 1.7 million people could die. } I could keep going, but those are some pretty prominent "they"s....and some pretty epic fails as far as the numbers go. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't look for - or expect - perfection in COVID numbers. Just honesty and perspective is all. Something good to strive for. FIVE TIMES the people survive, as die. And, that's just based on the CONFIRMED cases, which I think we can all agree, is a bogus number. Bogus? Not at all. It's exactly what it says, "confirmed" cases. I thought we were striving for honesty and perspective? We're off to a bad start. Like it or not, it's the best data we have to work with. NOBODY that I've seen is claiming this represents all cases. We aren't anywhere CLOSE to knowing how many people have it. Which is why we have to work with the best data point we have - confirmed cases. If 85 TIMES the number of people we think have it, actually have it? Mitigation did precisely dick, to stop or slow the spread. Please do explain how you know mitigation did nothing. That's a ludicrous position to take. It implies that we have no clue how viruses are transmitted. We do similar things for the flu pretty much every year, such as closing schools. We just tend to be a bit more surgical about that normally. I wish were were with this too. I've mentioned it numerous times. Do you think that closing schools when the flu gets out of hand does nothing to stop the flu? You are making a very odd logical jump that the number of people actually infected (a number that isn't really focused on BTW) somehow means mitigation had zero impact. More than anything, it just means we didn't know how many people were infected in total. No surprise there though. That was a known unknown. "They" are: Imperial College (UK) model, predicting 2.2M USA deaths: That was based on zero mitigation.
IHME model, predicting more than 80k USA deaths at their latest revision but originally causing the White House to predict (Brix and Fauci) between 120k and 240k USA deaths...as recently as 10 days ago. That would be very odd considering that was published on March 30, predicting 80K. Certainly a reasonable number given where we are now. Here's Fauci, on NPR: It's unclear what model Fauci based his remarks on but that seems like a perfectly plausible number by the end of this. As many as 200,000 to 1.7 million people could die. No link for the CDC? I'm assuming that was assuming no mitigation. True? March 13 was prior to most states taking any real actions. So as near as I can tell, the estimates with mitigations are very plausible in the coming months, and the estimate without mitigation is much higher. Would that be an honest assessment? Yet you claim that based on an "if" about a questionable study, that mitigation has zero effect. I just don't get it. The really funny thing though, is that the questionable study would still put the total number infected much, much lower than you were certain of prior to that. It's actually much closer to the confirmed numbers than what you have claimed to believe. Yet, in light of changing facts, your position does not change. It reminds me of the climate change folks. | ||
| Blake |
I'm interested in the topic. I'm not interested in personal critiques of people here, or about debating about how we debate. If we can't disagree without turning into insulting jerks, then best to avoid posting. | ||
| Blake |
Except for Court. He's fair game for insulting. Remind me sometime to tell you why. | ||
| Blake |
Tom, I think the line is crossed when people pretend to be offering scientifically justified conclusions when they are no such thing. Feel free to bloviate all you like. You're interesting enough even when you're wrong. But don't pick on me for picking on conclusions that are just speculation. Deal? | ||
| Blake |
Tom, What is statistically comparable between the following case studies?: 1) A total study population of six with a 100% correlation (six treated, six cured). 2) A total study population of 125,000 with a 0.005% correlation (125,000 treated, six with the bad reactions). The first is a study that suffers from a small population which hurts the confidence factor for it's results being representative for larger real world populations. The second is a study with a very tenuous almost nonexistent correlation at a very low, almost negligible rate. |
