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

You mean me conflating cases and infections? That’s fair.

I assume he was meaning 100,000 new infections a day but maybe not. Ultimately I don’t care if there’s 50k or 100k cases. Infections are what matter. Making a call on number of cases seems kind of silly which is why I assumed he really meant infections.

In my post I was really talking infections.

 

In layman's terms, is ethicalskeptic saying the majority of this is BS and no reason to be scared?

 

Yes and TennTradition has been keen if you follow along.

 

I wouldn’t characterize it completely that way.

A lot of deaths occurred and a ton of those were due to COVID. He isn’t arguing that didn’t occur.

He is saying that compared to what we have experienced, the current cases are not a big deal. And when you correct for lockdown deaths that the excess deaths occurring now are essentially zero. So the “BS” part would be sounding big alarm bells if they aren’t necessary. And he acknowledges infections are rising now, but he thinks they aren’t to the degree testing would suggest. I worry a bit that his technique of using hospitalization data to normalize state reported cases is causing him to underestimate true case count now. But that’s just an idea I’m batting around.

I’ve done similar math to his excess death work and I will add that because you are calculating excess deaths by taking current weekly deaths (~50,000) and comparing that to average weekly deaths (~50,000) and getting ~0, there is no cancellation of error. The average is the average but you are having to correct a lagged figure to project where it will end up for the current weekly deaths and that causes issues all embedded in that ~0 number.

I do a more simple analysis each week and my excess deaths have tracked very well with reported COVID deaths and is still tracking well while his are diverging rapidly. He’s putting more work into his so I tend to give it a good look. But I think he’s a little more sold on that piece of his work than I would be.

 

Thank ye. That helps.

 

What would be cause of such, logically?

I see the options as:

A weakened virus, which seems unlikely this early. The vulnerable are staying protected (meaning the alarm bells worked, to keep them wary). Or we treat it better and earlier.

Which route is he saying is causing deaths to be lower... because 1 of those 3 can quickly fall off, if the vulnerable start running around thinking this is "BS."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html

 

The above is more i line with what ive heard from a handful of doctors at st thomas and vanderbilt. They are tired of being told they dont know wtf they are talking about.

 

did you read the whole article?

 

This is something they allude to in the article, but I wonder if

More Testing -> Earlier Detection -> Earlier Treatment -> Lower Death Rates

 

That article doesn't say as much about hydroxychloroquine as it does about how doctors using it are performing care, in addition to, that, and a whole bunch of other drugs.

Meaning they are looking at protocols that include the drug, not the drug itself.

Which, again, is fine. As long as the side effects warrant the use, fire away.

 

I don’t think his answer of 0 excess deaths is right, but I do think it’s just a few hundred a day.

His work mainly makes the case that total deaths are much lower now because 1) infections are much lower than they were and 2) right now the infections are among younger people (is that just a precursor of at risk infections is my big question).


He’s a big believer that at least this wave will play out as a 20 week season. Which would have just ended. The death curve matches that decently well but he had a sharper tail and we haven’t seen that. He has contended that is due to legacy data stuffing but I don’t totally agree with him on that.

 

I guess I don't see the logic in looking at this in waves.

But I guess we can have a "lockdown wave" and a "post lockdown wave."

I would think the post lockdown wave, at least people, is and are strongly influenced by the lockdown wave, using social distance and masks.

Which means he isn't necessarily measuring the impact of the disease... but the impact of our strategy toward the disease.

And that could be a difficult message to convey to the average person.

 

But what is the right response by the individual, seek treatment early.... or tough it out until it's time to go to the hospital?

If an oral drug, early, helps, should those with an initial positive, even if not symptomatic take them? And if not, then why?

 

I recently saw a piece on 60 Minutes about climate change/environmental issues featuring a scientist who stated his biggest challenge is attempting to convince people that "physical reality is real," that it exists independent of their wishes and internal reality, and it cannot be negotiated with.

This reaches to the heart of our unique ineptitude among civilized nations in addressing the pandemic. We are proudly ignorant, we imagine our thoughts as causal agents, our desires as grievances the universe must balance, our bodies as non-biological entities free from the terminal consequence of death. The law of attraction, Christianity, the idea that democracy means "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" as Asimov put it. This is the beginning of the end of the American Empire.

 

Of the 3 places I've had to go in the last 24 hours, only the home Depot crowd seems to not be taking mask wearing seriously. Was pleasantly surprised of the % in grocery store with masks on today.

 

I call this the "Dog Effect." Dogs will eat anything, right then and there. And it might make them sick as a... dog... in 48 hours. But they'll still eat it, and eat it again. Because it doesn't immediately impact them. Anything that slowly impacts someone, does not generate aversion. That's a psychological law.

 

Hcq has been working for some patients for awhile now. Doctors treating these patients with it dont give a [uck fay] what fauci or some no patient seeing scientist says. Avg hospital stay has dropped dramatically due to its use, along with other drugs and protocol as float mentioned.
At least its helping some people. I cant fathom rooting against it for political reasons but some want it to fail. They arent hard to find.

 

Never has the phrase, "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" been more applicable.

 

As i mentioned, not hard to find.