Is Data Proving Covid19 Concerns To Be Overblown
With all the high level scientists and health professionals in this MGOBLOG community, I'm curious to hear you opinions on what these two doctors' data shows. It's a press briefing from two doctors in California that breaks down the data they have accumulated locally, and then also on a national and global scale. If you have time to listen, I recommend it. Interested to hear all of your thoughts.
https://youtu.be/xfLVxx_lBLU
You can find data to support either side. That's what I've concluded.
The truth is if you would have spoken with any real data scientist worth their salt, BEFORE any of this happened, and suggested this very situation we are currently in as a hypothetical, besidee they would tell you that given the absolutely miniscule amount of data (although it may "seem" like there is a lot), poorly gathered, inconsistently reported, and complexity of scenarios (not to mention fundamental personal bias/aesthetics), they would LAUGH at the idea of any real model, or the naivete of trying to make any real predictive outcomes, and how unethical it was.
But, in the heat of the moment, you find out who are the bullshitters (almost everyone) and who leads with emotion/what-they-want-to-see (literally everyone--as humans are emotional-animals-who-have-rationalizations rather than rational-animals-who-have-emotions).
Tyson's quote is my favorite because although I love theory, it completely bypasses it and gets to the point, everyone got a plan until they get hit in the mouth.
Everyone says how calmly, cooly, and rationally they would act, but if you put a big ass chocolate cake in front of them, they are eventually going to eat the cake.
Given the complete uncertainty of the matter, the massive lockdown/quarantine still was and is the best course of action.
Not because we know quarantine is right, but precisely because we DON'T know what we are risking by not quarantining.
If it ain’t gluten free, I’m not eat in’ the fuckin’ cake.
I still haven't found anything gluten free that tastes as good as the real thing.
gluten free t-bone steak.
I thought that until I sampled a flourless chocolate cake my daughter ordered at a restaurant. Delicious.
Those are delicious because they were developed long before gluten free was a thing.
I have found a few places that make very good, very dense chocolate brownies.
I have found a handful of decent gluten free beers. I usually drink red wine, though (and the occasional cider if it’s dry enough).
April 24th, 2020 at 11:14 PM ^
I’ll take some beer recommendations. Whatcha got?
Potato chips are gluten free
Keep looking. I make my own bread, fried chicken, cornbread, pancakes, waffles, etc. They all taste just as good. It takes work, but when you don't have a choice, you make shit work.
Try this page if you are serious about eating GF:
The truth you speak of is not truth at all. Any real data scientist (I'm a statistician) is absolutely, giddily creating models of this. The difference between data scientists and what everyone with an agenda is doing is that the professionals 1) know their models are only as good as the assumptions and they know those assumptions are just that: assumptions and 2) know their models have a wide range of possibilities even with a given set of assumptions.
They aren't laughing at the idea of model, they'd laugh at anyone taking a model as truth.
Regular people argue the models are either "right" or "wrong". Modelers know the models are wrong, but we use them to stress-test scenarios. Play "what if" because that's the only way to properly prepare. It is only unethical to claim a model is correct, and no data scientist is doing that. They're just saying, it could be anywhere in this range of outcomes with 95% certainly given this set of assumptions. That's it.
Sanity!
Unfortunately, even the most ethical data scientist is having the message blurred by the time it gets to the public. The press always take the most extreme scenario that fits their narrative and say that the "study proves" it or the "study suggests" it.
Of course any modeler who works in public policy also knows that most policy makers and the general public will fixate on specific scenarios and start treating them as fact. Unless you’ve actually done modeling, you don’t realize that much of the value of a model is in creating it and determining what assumptions, then running it and refining/changing assumptions as you learn more. Models are as much about better understanding what assumptions have the biggest impacts and how different parameters interact as it does in the end results you actually end up sharing.
April 24th, 2020 at 10:44 PM ^
They're also laughing (or crying) at how many governments are purposefully skewing and hiding data to make themselves look better.
A smart man once told me all models are wrong, but some models are useful.
If your job is to actually provide useful information to decision makers in a timely way, you have no option but to use the best data you have at the time. What would be unethical would be to not explain all of the uncertainties.
I find it hard to believe that health scientists who have devoted years to studying and working were not well aware that if something like this happened they would be working under tremendous pressure to provide useful information with limited and often conflicting data. I certainly doubt they would laugh at the idea of trying their hardest to do just that.
Your post needs more poorly worded cliches to really get the point across.
April 24th, 2020 at 11:52 PM ^
Reacting in fear is never right. Even a brief look at history proves this. It is possible to maintain civil rights and the economy while addressing the pandemic at the same time.
sure, two urgent care doctors' opinions based on their 'unpublished non peer reviewed data' is equal to the opinions of international experts of the field.
Sure, crom80’s thoughts as a random message board poster matters more than two urgent care doctors when it comes to medical knowledge.
lol. can't even burn correctly.
When is the last time we lost 50,000 to a virus in four weeks and 60,000 in five weeks which is where we are heading? If you say infuenza, I'd say you are looking at yearly totals, not a bit more than a month and then you are not talking about the details of the disease itself which is nasty on a whole lot of levels that you don't see with infuenza.
Herd immunity is the other argument. It would be nice to know how long the herd will have immunity because no one yet knows that answer. A week, a year, a month? None?
Seems like that supports one side fairly well. What is the position for the other side beyond the other obvious and very painful economic argument? How many deaths would you tolerate?
First reported case was Jan 21. Isn't that 12 weeks?
The first deaths were few and far between for quite some time. Take a look at some of the graphs with logarithmic depictions of deaths as a function of time. Look at how long it took us to get to 1,000 deaths and then go from death 1,001 to date.
We lost 112,000 to the flu in the 1957-58 flu season, which is comparable to twice that many today as a percentage of the population. We may not get to 224,000 with this event (or we might).
Problem is numbers are much higher then what is reported. Numbers show only those who have been tested not actual numbers of how many have been infected and how many have actually died. USC released a study they did which shows infection rate could be 50 times higher then what is really reported. This is not the flu and those who keep comparing it to the flu are sadly mistaken
April 24th, 2020 at 10:51 PM ^
Other than the Spanish Flu in 1918, 1957-58 was the worst flu season on record. So, yes, that one was bad. Using it as evidence that "COVID is analogous to the flu" is not a winning debate move.
We are going to exceed 100k this year. And even still it’s not useful to compare these numbers to Covid numbers for a couple reasons. First, for the sake of argument let’s just say we end up at 100k this year or before treatment starts to help. That’s WITH all of these draconian measures. So you can’t use the number produced with the draconian measures to justify not needing them.
second, as has been explained to people this isn’t just about deaths. It’s about how many critical cases come along with that. And while the DEATH rates of more middle aged folks are much lower than the elderly. There are plenty that need the week or two on the ventilator before recovering. If we don’t have ventilators first those people, obviously more people are going to die. So you’d have a much higher number not only for spread but compounded by the overwhelming of the health care system.
no one knows for sure what it would have done without any lockdowns but I thought NYC was a good indication. And I thought when as the other user said 50k people die in 5 weeks, WHILE under lockdown that would make it clear
WRONG!
I’d say you aren’t real sure on how influenza totals are gathered if you think it’s over 12 months. You also aren’t real sure on just how many deaths are counted as Covid-19 deaths just because someone with the virus died while having it, or in many cases in New York, didn’t have it at all. The flu killed 60,000+ in a matter of a few months two years ago, and if we were as prepared for that as we were for this the total would have probably doubled.
Theres a reason this virus is devastating some countries and not others, and it’s not because the virus itself is selective.
The flu killed 60,000+ in a matter of a few months two years ago, and if we were as prepared for that as we were for this the total would have probably doubled.
Huh? If we were social distancing like we are now, it definitely would have been a lot lower. Asking the vast majority to stay home all day will reduce infection.
Incidentally, that 60,000 figure - like all flu season numbers - is an extrapolation from the data, not a literal count.
You serious right now? You think social distancing is to keep people from getting it? Considering there won’t be a vaccine for a year and a half that’s a dumb assumption. People are gonna get it. Staying 6 feet away from your neighbor doesn’t make the virus any less deadly when you do get it. Social distancing is to keep the hospitals from becoming overwhelmed, nothing more.
Bottom line is 60,000 people died from a virus we actually had a vaccine for in a few short months. Explain it away any way you want.
omg make it fucking stop.
Seriously. As for a few more detailed thoughts from me (an MGoBiochemist and MGoM.D.):
- this talk begins with a number of red flags. Scientists who want to be taken seriously so rarely discuss their credentials through listing the courses they’ve taken and the books they’ve read, that I might as well admit I’ve never experienced that before. Also, their emphasis on their experience as entrepreneurs falls somewhere between irrelevant and self-defeating. As such, we should be approach with skepticism that they are leaders of their field.
- a multi-hour lecture without visual aids is neither helpful nor conventional.
- and, finally, Erickson falsely claims that SARS-CoV-2 is similar to seasonal influenza in mortality rate, which does not in fact “follow the science” (a trite “means nothing” clause that the speaker uses to give himself false authority without data to support that clause). The only studies I’ve seen that disagree about mortality rate have come from UCLA, we’re not peer-reviewed and are thoroughly discredited for their study’s misleading selection bias and the fact that they misunderstood their antibody tests’ high rate of false positives.
He's a doc at an urgent care clinic who was immediately refuted by the county public official he claimed was in agreement with him:
When Dr. Erickson explained why he believes the data supports his statements about reopening he also said that the Kern County Public Health Department agrees with him,"I've talked to our local head of the health department and he's waiting for that, even though they are in agreement with me, their waiting for the powers that need to lift.."
However, in a press briefing Thursday Public Health said Director Matt Constantine was not in agreement with Dr. Erickson on that issue, "Our director has not concurred with the statements that were made yesterday about the need to reopen," Kern County Public Health Department Public Information Officer Michelle Corson said.
"I would start slowly I think that we need to open up the schools start getting kids back to the immune system" is just such a ridiculous claim coming from a doctor.
"I would start slowly I think that we need to open up the schools start getting kids back to the immune system" is just such a ridiculous claim coming from a doctor.
Other countries have taken this exact approach. You may not agree, but to say it is a ridiculous statement as though you know is stupid.
Other countries have opened schools because they've seen a decreased amount of community spread, have much better testing coverage than we do, can provide much smaller class sizes than are possible in the US, and/or have year round classes that aren't coming up on a summer break anyways. No country is opening up the schools to "start getting kids back to the immune system" because that is a gibberish statement so nonsensical it's worthy of coming from our president.
I'm an Epidemiologist, but please tell me what I do and don't know some more.
That’s the point. His viewpoints aren’t supported and he doesn’t bother to expertly interpret data and evaluate tests/pitfalls, anyway. He’s a wannabe infomercial doctor - his point is to be on the screen and “succeed” by getting some people to nod along to what they want to hear and not notice the data suggests an entirely different story.
April 24th, 2020 at 10:21 PM ^
You're certain you know this doctors intentions ?
And what about all the other DOCTORS who agree with this doctor?
Are they all just attention whores who want to be famous?
You're an idiot
April 24th, 2020 at 10:34 PM ^
Unfortunately for you, [ Carrismyhomeboy] even with all you're credentials.
Big pharma has deep pockets and many spokesmen.
So its unclear if you have a deeper agenda in discrediting these doctors.
No. It spreads quickly and you can be an asymptomatic carrier. Thanks for the question.
No comments since 2018 and this is what you bring to us OP?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
April 24th, 2020 at 10:28 PM ^
Hatter sit down and shut up.
OP did something good by puting this video up.
This conversation is not going to be ending ANYTIME soon. This debate will be back and forth for the next few months.
It's only a matter of time before you start seeing a lot more videos of doctors and other professionals talking about ending the quarantines.
As the days go by the "pro-lockdown" crowd will only get smaller and smaller.
April 25th, 2020 at 12:00 AM ^
Listen up turdburgler, this isn't 4 Chan, although you seem to think it is.
You know what I haven't seen? People that have recovered from covid clamoring to open things back up.
But I have seen several obituaries of people that thought this was a hoax, or "just the flu".
So go get infected to do your part for herd immunity. And three weeks later, I'll listen to everything you say and watch hours of whatever insane videos you post.
Or I'll turn your obituary into a meme.
wait, what pandemic?
No. Fuck off.
If you are curious to hear opinions on this - in here - I will assume you celebrate your birthday each year by getting a new scrote piercing.
Duh. Yes.