COVID-19 (artist formerly known as Wuhan strain novel Corona virus)

That our understanding and insight into science not only does change, but should.

My secondary point is that you can have all of the best science in the world while complimenting each other on how smart you are up in the ivory tower of academic exegesis - but until the Joe Sixpacks (of which there are millions more) understands and synthesizes it’s meaning in his world, it really means [uck fay] all - which is to say, nothing.

 

Your article is of Fauci clarifying comments on push back from a national shut down. We were looking at a possibility of 2 million deaths early. Sheltering in place flattened the curve, projections then showed as low as 60K by summer, but those models were under the assumption that we never opened back up, which simply had no basis in reality. You say you don't have a problem about scientist changing as they know more, but then list Fauci changing his stance as he learns more as him being "all over the place".

Fauci is no deity, he interprets data different than others, but I've not seen his stance be an outlier to others in the field. My impression is that he is more focused on the health side and overly cautious, which is understandable from someone who is closer to a health professional. I think he has an extremely valuable opinion that absolutely should be considered along with experts representing the other affected areas.

My issue is you have one group of people saying "its just the flu" and another group masturbating to the death count. Each side clinging to whatever "study" or "experts" that confirms their biases. I'm in the middle, clearly COVID hasn't been as deadly as initially feared (but we're still not sure why). So opening up a place of business and taking common sense health preparations is ok despite what a bleeding heart liberal asking "how many people are you ok with killing to make a nickel?", wants you to believe. At the same time this is a serious issue so wear a [uck fay]ing mask, be considerate, and give people their personal space.

 

There is definitely a deplorable lack of I formation these days

 

I'd argue it's more of an interpretation problem, but I have no doubt the ivory towers exist in cases. I'd throw government communication in there as a problem, also.

If a group puts a study out right now predicting a range of outcomes based on estimates, it immediately gets interpreted as an absolute. I don't necessarily blame Science for that.

 

I think your take on Joe Sixpack is demonstrably flawed.

Joe doesn't know shit about nuclear power, jet propulsion, RADAR, cryptography or any host of things that have existed in use for 70 years.

And not only are they every day things, that mean much more than [uck fay] all, their grandparents invented them.

 

Again, they don't care. They want their opinion to be validated. They do not care what is right and wrong per se, because they feel they are right whether they are or not.

 

Some, many, most, not all.

 

Sorry for late response but your numbers even if accurate just don't move the needle for me for changing my day to day life. Many other things can keep me up at night worrying about my family but not this any longer.

As to your "cross paths," I am very careful not to cross paths with anyone that is trying to distance themselves. I have even isolated my parents from myself and their grandkids during this period despite my suspicion that this was still low risk. It is also now against my parents' wishes as they really want to have interaction with their grandchildren. Good thing data is now showing kids are not "superspreaders" of the disease anyway (side note, "superspreaders" is another lost catchphrase like "flatten the curve" as it is no longer applicable).

 

I thought the belief was kids were carriers (asymptomatic, positive) not super spreaders. And super spreaders is still very much applicable, as it's just a single person who unknowingly infects a large group.

I let my kid visit one set of his grandparents, and have since March. He goes once or twice a week. But they are both retired, only go to the store (during senior hours) and wear a mask.

His other set of grandparents go everywhere, do everything, and came off a flight two days ago. He has seen them from a distance, and won't again for 12 more days.

Not exactly to protect him, or us, though I would prefer if he never got it... but his other grandparents.

I think this thing can be managed intelligently. And that doesn't mean we won't get it. But we're being as smart as we can be, while still allowing a level of normalcy.

 

super spreaders and flattening the curve are phrases that predate COVID-19 and will continue on. They're part of epidemiology. Just putting that out there. Not sure why one would think they wouldn't be applicable or are just "catch phrases."

 

They were turned into catch phrases by people who aren't epidemiologists

 

There's this pandemic.

 

They became catch phrases when people forgot their meaning.

 

That's exactly what I meant

 

So are the many doctors and patients who stand by the drug cocktail lying or is it all fake news? Does it work or not. Drs seeing patients say it does. Scientists not seeing patients say it doesnt.
https://buff.ly/2TKycCv

 

The doctor's would be more anecdotal than anything. They do not have control groups, or blind sampling. They may be correct, but they may also be too close to the outcomes to actually see the proper pattern.

And the scientists in this field are often MDs, too.

 

From the data I've seen, sounds like it slightly improves outcomes if given early and is slightly harmful if taken late. If the vast majority of people are recovering anyway, you definitely cannot rely on anecdotal evidence.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200522113712.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/chloroquine-study-coronavirus-brazil

It doesn't seem to be a magic bullet, that much is clear. Anecdotal stories to the contrary appear to be just that: anecdotal. And it isn't a harmless thing to just try, there are risks.

I don't know what you mean about scientists not seeing patients saying it doesn't. These studies are conducted by doctors and the treatments are conducted by them. Individual doctors' impressions do not trump studies. Other way around.

 

fair enough but reminds me a little of utilization review in the ortho field. With some insurance claims, Ortho docs have to take "peer" phone calls from a non practicing often retired md, who is also in another state and hasn't been in surgery in 20 years and tells them if they deem it necessary.. Surgeons despise this practice. I tend to go with the ones who have experience with patients in most of these medical situations. Fauci saying it flat out doesn't work seems odd. I'd believe it more if he had treated them and seen for himself.

 

I’ve heard only good things from the doctors around here, but they’ve not treated very many patients.

The risks are pretty overblown. If you’ve got a preexisting arrhythmia they won’t and shouldn’t give it to you. That said, if you’re traveling to an area with malaria, they are just going to give you the drug and won’t even check your heart.