Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[Ulf Nereng]

Thanks.




A variant of the pink elephant gambit* then.

That occurred to me, but I dismissed it as exceedingly unlikely.

After all, DR, in one post or another, acknowledges the existence of covid-19, accepts that it can cause deaths, and that death and/or infection rates have been rising exponentially.

IOW, we know there are already storms, big or not (unlike zombies or pink elephants).

Perhaps an analogy? Like all analogies it has its strengths and weaknesses.

Astronomers detect an in-coming asteroid and estimate that without counter-measures it will wipe out Beijing (or the Big Apple, or whatever city you choose). Counter-measures, however, are largely untested and uncertain. As a precaution, Beijing is evacuated.

Counter-measures are deployed, Beijing is spared, but Tunguska is wiped out.

In this case, it turns out there was no need for sandbags, but there was a big storm.

*The version I remember goes something like this:
A (standing at a corner, naked, screaming in an obscure language, Hittite say)
B Why are you doing that?
A To prevent pink elephants
B But there are no pink elephants
A Exactly! Proves I'm doing it right!

What about this example: people in Florida are seen building floodbreakers with sandbags.
"Why are you doing this?"
"Because a cathegory five hurricane is coming."
"I don't see any dark clouds on the horizon, so why do you think that?"
"Because they said so on the WeatherChannel".
"You shouldn't listen to scientists. They're all liberals."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I remain appalled the benefit of public worn masks to prevent spread from asymptomatic persons is still being ignored. They just can't admit previous conclusions about asymptomatic spread were wrong. They don't even suggest they may be wrong.

BBC/NPR: Coronavirus: Expert panel to assess face mask use by public

This question is to be assessed by a panel of advisers to the World Health Organization (WHO).

The group will weigh up research on whether the virus can be projected further than previously thought; a study in the US suggests coughs can reach 6m and sneezes up to 8m.

The panel's chair, Prof David Heymann, told BBC News that the new research may lead to a shift in advice about masks....

...Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, US, used high-speed cameras and other sensors to assess precisely what happens after a cough or sneeze.

They found that an exhalation generates a small fast-moving cloud of gas that can contain droplets of liquid of varying sizes - and that the smallest of these can be carried in the cloud over long distances.

The study - conducted in laboratory conditions - found that coughs can project liquid up to 6m away and that sneezes, which involve much higher speeds, can reach up to 8m away.

So 6 feet isn't far enough but nothing about asymptomatic spread.

A spokesperson for Public Health England said there was little evidence of widespread benefit from wearing masks outside clinical settings.

Not one ******* word about preventing asymptomatic persons wearing a mask to prevent spread.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

That depends on where you live. In Australia the flu season should start in another month or so.

Flu season is considered to extend well into May.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

The evidence proves you demonstrably wrong.

I disagree. We shall see.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Or it could be the deaths are scrunched up compared to states where the deaths are spread out. They foolishly went ahead with Mardi Gras.

Why not " And it could be " ..

Do you discount the implications of the story?

The former Health Secratary said :

"We're just sicker," said Rebekah Gee, who until January was the Health Secretary for Louisiana and now heads up Louisiana State University's healthcare services division. "We already had tremendous healthcare disparities before this pandemic – one can only imagine they are being amplified now."

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Then why do you keep introducing material that is not directly relevant to the US?

Or, why do you not present your predictions (or claims or whatever) re covid-19 for China, or Italy, or India, or ...?

Because it can be used as useful information. I don't have any predictions for China or Italy or India, except that for Italy I believe that at the end of 2020 we will see that the overall mortality rate was no different than any other year.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Yeah.

This is - yet another - example of the inconsistencies and amgibuities of so many of DR's posts.

However, if you read closely, I think it's more likely than not that he means the US (and that likely does not include, say, American Samoa).

Out of curiousity, does any reader know what "the flu season" is for places near the equator (Singapore, say)? Or places where the seasons are "wet" and "dry"?

You're correct, when I said flu season I was referring to the US, which has a flu season extending into May.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

You seem to change your story/claim/whatever rather often.

When should we call this "moving the goalposts"?

I didn't change my claim, nor did I move the goalposts.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

More than 60 doctors in Italy have so far died from COVID-19 so far.

The list of doctors killed was not legitimate in terms of demonstrating risk of medical practitioners because it consisted heavily of very old/retired doctors who had nothing to do with the epidemic, some even in their 90s. When this was pointed out, their ages were conveniently removed from the website. I won't claim any nefarious intent was at play, but it certainly was interesting.

Edit: I found a source that still lists their dates of birth. You can see that most were in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, most of whom were exposed to coronavirus through nothing to do with practice in the medical field.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020032...ci-caduti-nel-corso-dellepidemia-di-covid-19/

 

[a_unique_person]

569 people died in the UK yesterday bringing the total to 2921.

1000 of these in the last two days.

I shudder to think what it is like in those hospitals. The staff must be totally overloaded.

 

[marting]

I remain appalled the benefit of public worn masks to prevent spread from asymptomatic persons is still being ignored. They just can't admit previous conclusions about asymptomatic spread were wrong. They don't even suggest they may be wrong.

Well, the National Academy of Science just put out a short opinion on the subject.

Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol
Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic (April 1,
2020) (2020)

After describing current information the following sentence concluding is germane

"While the current SARS-CoV-2 specific research is limited, the results of available
studies are consistent with aerosolization of virus from normal breathing."



.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Not one ******* word about preventing asymptomatic persons wearing a mask to prevent spread.

Czech Republic has almost 2 weeks behind it of mandatory masks in public. And so far we're doing ok. But there might be other factors, hard to tell.

Btw. basically all masks people use are home made, here is czech facebook group related to making masks https://www.facebook.com/groups/641038750030418/

If nothing else, people feel united and useful.

 

[Trebuchet]

I remain appalled the benefit of public worn masks to prevent spread from asymptomatic persons is still being ignored. They just can't admit previous conclusions about asymptomatic spread were wrong. They don't even suggest they may be wrong.

BBC/NPR: Coronavirus: Expert panel to assess face mask use by publicSo 6 feet isn't far enough but nothing about asymptomatic spread.



Not one ******* word about preventing asymptomatic persons wearing a mask to prevent spread.

We have a couple of N95 masks but they're the type with an exhalation valve. Will those do any good to protect people from us? At least by directing the flow downward?

Guess I'll wear one next time out regardless. I didn't today.

 

[William Parcher]

At least by directing the flow downward?

If this virus is viable in aerosols then no, it will go everywhere even if initially directed downwards.

 

[Arcade22]

.

You seem to be mixing up two different things:

What happened in Wuhan, back in January, February (and maybe some of March).

What is happening now, throughout China.

Copying the content of my #1263:

Up until 15 March, the WHO's daily situation report had a "Table 1. Confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 acute respiratory disease reported by provinces, regions and cities in China".

The last column is "Cumulative Deaths". Ranked these are (for "Data as of 15 March 2020")*:
Hubei 3085
Henan 22
Heilongjiang 13
Guangdong, Beijing 8 (each)
Shandong 7
Anhui, Chongqing, Hebei, Hainan 6 (each)
Hunan, Hong Kong 4 (each)
Sichuan, Shanghai, Tianjin, Xinjiang 3 (each)
Guangxi, Shaanxi, Yunnan, Guizhou, Gansu 2 (each)
Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Fujian, Liaoning, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan 1 (each)
Jiangsu, Shanxi, Ningxia, Qinghai, Macau, Tibet 0 (each)

There certainly are good reasons for doubting the accuracy of the number for Hubei; the SCMP, for example, has articles/anecdotes about people dying and being cremated without any testing being done, especially in the early days.

But the fact that the numbers for three independent places (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau) are consistent with those for most provinces (other than Hubei) suggests that it's only Hubei where the numbers might be wonky.

More: Henan borders on Hubei, leaving Heilongjiang as the only apparent possible outlier.

*I hope I didn't make any transcription errors

Hong Kong and Macau are not independent and their leaders are beholden to the Chinese government.

Notionally these territories are supposed to have "significant autonomy" but in practice the situation has deteriorated enough for Chinese secret police to be able to kidnap people from these areas and bring them to the mainland without the local government making any effort to protect their residents legal rights or even acknowledge what happened.

That is not to say that the numbers are false, but since the Chinese government wants to portray the pandemic as a mainly foreign problem after they successfully limited its spread, we can assume that they would underreport the true extent of the situation in China.

 

[Dr.Sid]

We have a couple of N95 masks but they're the type with an exhalation valve. Will those do any good to protect people from us? At least by directing the flow downward?

Guess I'll wear one next time out regardless. I didn't today.

You can take fabric mask over it. It's recommended here.

 

[Giordano]

I am already extraordinarily impressed by how many ISF members posting on the covid threads have so quickly come up to speed on virology epidemiology, etc. and come up with their own carefully generated insights.

But there also have been a few posters who frankly have burned any of their credibility. Proof that not everyone has a right to their opinion. Not at all. If you know nothing except you have an opinion, then think it through multiple times before offering it in contraction to the knowledgeable experts. Before you embarrass yourself.

Why am I being so nasty? Because this disease would kill me if I catch it. And I see some true ignorance posted here in the absence of facts or knowledge that will only make the spread of the disease wider. As well as how irritating a concept that someone here having made no effort to learn holds themselves above the CDC, NIH, etc.

I’ll eventually cool off. And apologize.

 

[JeanTate]

Interesting claim ...

I didn't change my claim, nor did I move the goalposts.

Let's see now ...

Fauci and cdc are saying 200,000 could die with 160 million infected. That works out to a fatality rate of 0.1%, same as normal flu.

As far as I'm concerned the case is closed. We have the US government itself projecting 0.1% death rate. A coronavirus with that death rate compared to total infections is literally, by definition "normal flu". <snip>

.

Setting aside the other things you've said that people have countered, wtf do you mean "the case is closed?" What case are you talking about, and why would you close it? To me that means you are saying that new information is of no importance. I doubt if that's what you meant, but that's how I read it.

Yeah, I agree, I got carried away with my rant. Shouldn't have said that.

Next ...

I actually don't know who's projections to believe, I assumed those projections were considered reliable, but am happy to be corrected. I didn't know Fauci was considered an unreliable source, as he has seemed very concerned about the issue and in favor of extreme measures to combat it.

He originally said 2%, now he said 0.1%, I assumed he could be listened to as an objective source.

.

Yes, I did read the study, I use https://sci-hub.tw to read science papers. I found it to be solid, although I'm not a trained scientist. As for the .1% rate, I made it clear that that is what Dr Fauci's projection was, not my own.

Next ...

Except flu numbers are down as coronavirus numbers are up. Making me think they're the same thing. So far, the numbers do not prove otherwise.

.

Kind of, except maybe not...if you watch the 10 minute vid of the German pulmonologist, he says that 7-15% of flu cases ARE coronaviruses and are included in the statistics. And that now ALL flu where this coronavirus is detected are being counted as "coronavirus".

.

Seems contradictory. You say they are the same thing, then you say they are two different things. You should not be surprised that some people are confused.

Fair enough, I wasn't clear. What I meant by "the same thing" is an annual phenomenon of respiratory illness attributed to viruses of one kind or another, this year being heavily attributed to the newly discovered Covid 19 virus, but not appreciably different in terms of case rates, spread, and fatalities but with the illusion of being so because of extreme levels of testing and reporting and media hysteria and the attendant societal hysteria.

.

That's right, you did mention that. But is that 100k total (USA deaths) between flu and coronavirus, or 100k from just coronavirus? If it were, for example, 99k from just coronavirus, I would definitely consider that a very real and serious pandemic. If it were from flu/coronavirus combined I would say my suspicions were vindicated.

.

Yes, I'd like to hear your proposal. Why would it be odd that I'd consider myself vindicated? 100k would be a very, very bad flu year but far, far from the disaster being predicted. It would mean probably 40-65k coronavirus deaths in the US.
But what I actually believe is we'll see a combined total of 65k-80k deaths between flu and coronavirus.

.

Not quite...I think that Covid19 is a respiratory illness of the same type that is seen during a normal flu season. I know it's not an influenza virus but it's also my understanding that 7-15% of "flu" illnesses are actually already due to coronaviruses. In any case, I think that whatever the combined total deaths are between "flu" and coronavirus for the 2019-2020 season, they will not exceed that of a particularly bad flu year (2017-2018 was ~80k, for example). I think that when the US death toll for combined flu/Covid19 is calculated for the 2019-2020 season it will be <100k.

Next ...

Thank you, I don't completely understand your argument. If fewer weak and elderly people were victims of flu, wouldn't more of them be around to die of this virus? I still don't understand why that wouldn't be the case. It's probably a deficiency in my own comprehension rather than your presentation. I'll try to figure it out but if you could further clarify I would appreciate it.

.

Yes, thank you, you make very good points and I can see how it is faulty reasoning. That's why I'm on this board. I am a big believer in good evidence and good reasoning. The reason I'm skeptical of this pandemic is because so far I haven't found the evidence persuasive that one exists. I think we will see total combined deaths between flu and coronavirus in the US for the 2019-2020 season of 65,000-80,000, clearly a heavy flu/respiratory illness season, but not the disaster predicted. And then, as I said before, all the people who were wrong will still say I was the one who was wrong because all of the lockdowns are what caused the low number of deaths. I don't see a way out of this conundrum.

There's more, but that'll do for now ...

 

[JeanTate]

By deflating the masks slightly, they were able to fit more of them on the plane.

I see what you did there ...

 

[William Parcher]

I am already extraordinarily impressed by how many ISF members posting on the covid threads have so quickly come up to speed on virology epidemiology, etc. and come up with their own carefully generated insights.

But there also have been a few posters who frankly have burned any of their credibility. Proof that not everyone has a right to their opinion. Not at all. If you know nothing except you have an opinion, then think it through multiple times before offering it in contraction to the knowledgeable experts. Before you embarrass yourself.

Why am I being so nasty? Because this disease would kill me if I catch it. And I see some true ignorance posted here in the absence of facts or knowledge that will only make the spread of the disease wider. As well as how irritating a concept that someone here having made no effort to learn holds themselves above the CDC, NIH, etc.

I’ll eventually cool off. And apologize.

I remember being the first to mention aerosol (exhaled water vapor) transmission as my opinion. I remember you saying Nah. I have no education or training in medicine or virology.