• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 January 2020
"Watch Dr. Fauci In January Say You Don't Need To Worry About Coronavirus"

https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/...say-you-dont-need-to-worry-about-coronavirus/

Just to be fair, Fauci also said this:

If that testing shows the virus has slipped into the country in places federal officials don't know about, "we've got a problem," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY's Editorial Board Monday.

It seems he had little idea how poorly testing had been at that point. How could he not know that?
 
Thanks for asking.


Several others have responded already, making points similar to ones I would make too.

To repeat one of them: Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy, and should have no place in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technnology board. This is not the first time you're read such a response to posts of yours like this. It's odd, then, that you seem to think it makes some sort of sense to keep making such claims.

Somewhat new: OK, no more sports matches, restaurants going to the wall in the hundreds of thousands, millions of parents stuck at home with kids, etc sucks. What would you - and Peter Hitchens, and ... - suggest that we all do instead?

No, it is not an argument from authority. I specifically said I was not forwarding any particular argument in that post. I wanted to know what you think of them. Fools? Malicious intent? Intelligent but misguided?
 
Sounds like you're more interested in the number of doctors or scientists you can find that agree with you, than the quality of the evidence or arguments of the doctors or scientists you can find that agree with you.

You can find engineers, scientists, doctors, etc. who disagree with just about any mainstream idea out there. For example, the 9/11 truther crowd, are very fond of pointing to lists of engineers or scientists who disagree with the "official version" of events.

I doubt you're going to find many people on a website like this who are impressed with the mere fact that you can find a bunch of people who aren't obvious cranks who agree with you. It's not really much of a point in your favour.

You're misunderstanding my intent. I'm not trying to argue from authority, but how should I, as a layman, understand which authorities should be believed and which should not, especially when my own observations already match what they're saying?

Especially when considering that the sheer volume of those who disagree with me is just another form of argument from authority.
 
Last edited:
We have just been instructed to buy supplies for 1 week. 24 hour lockdown except for essential supplies like a farmacia. Starts tomorrow at midnight and goes until midnight next sunday. It is Semana Santa, and this is when people travel to party and have family reunions. No one can leave their Department (like a State) to travel. Nada. The Pres. is locking the country down even more. Can't blame him. If this stuff spreads here we are f'd.
 
Thanks.

It has more to do with how viruses function. Remember viruses are entirely passive. Probably only one in a million viruses you shed end up finding a home. The virus has to get in contact with a cell with the right protein receptor. Only if the virus comes in to contact with that protein can it bind and inject its RNA and enzymes into the cell. It then hijacks the cells protein manufacturing systems to make more viruses that are then shed and have to find a new cell to infect. So what limits the location of viruses in the body is the presence of the protein allowing the virus to bind and reproduce. The receptor protein ACE2 is found on airways cells, lung cells and in the mouth and gut (also hear kidneys and bladder). It is not found in blood cells. So blood cells will not be infected. Predominantly the virus will be in the airways and gut, and will spread within these organs. Low levels of virus might escape into blood particularly near death when tissue break down occurs, but virus isn't particularly blood borne.
While I certainly did not know all that in detail, I had a vague, general understanding. One that was sorta OK.

Question from curiosity (also relevant to some of the posts in this thead): "coronavirus" is at least partly a morphological classification (and partly a phylogenetic one). To what extent does classifying a virus as a coronavirus also pigeonhole its modus operandus?

Perhaps an analogy: injecting poison with a hypodermic needle is an example of convergent evolution, and I think even the specific poisons may also have evolved independently (the genes which code for the poison are very different even though the poison is ~the same). Do all coronaviruses "make the same poison", using this analogy?
 
You're misunderstanding my intent. I'm not trying to argue from authority, but how should I, as a layman, understand which authorities should be believed and which should not, especially when my own observations already match what they're saying?
Do you believe them because they're authorities (or they seem to be authorities) or because they're saying things that match what you already believe?

If you're agreeing with them based upon their supposed expertise or authority, have you checked to see how valid that expertise or authority is? Do they have an agenda? Is their expertise or experience relevant? Are they prone to promoting controversial ideas? Are their claims really out of whack with what other scientists are saying or out of whack with accepted facts? Are they using their position as scientists to bolster a position that doesn't have scientific evidence? Etc. etc.

Apply critical thinking to what they say.

For example, when you referenced someone earlier in this thread who said the fatality rate for COVID-19 might be as low as 0.01%, that set off alarm bells, because that's about 100 times lower than the current estimates that the mortality rate might be ~1%, so I ran some basic numbers to realise that it's clearly an absurd claim if you accept the death tolls from various countries (already 0.025% of Italy's population has died from COVID-19, therefore it's frankly silly to claim that the fatality rate might be as low as 0.01%). Did you read what they said and find yourself agreeing with it, or did you simply find someone who agreed with you and then referenced them without giving much thought as to why you agree with them?
 
Last edited:
Australia Daily Increase in CoViD-19 Positive tests

Date | Count | %
21 Mar 2020|
280​
| |
22 Mar 2020|
478​
|
71​
|
23 Mar 2020|
133​
|
-72​
|
24 Mar 2020|
362​
|
172​
|
25 Mar 2020|
320​
|
-12​
|
26 Mar 2020|
446​
|
39​
|
27 Mar 2020|
333​
|
-25​
|
28 Mar 2020|
497​
|
49​
|
29 Mar 2020|
344​
|
-31​
|
30 Mar 2020|
377​
|
10​
|
31 Mar 2020|
198​
|
-47​
|
01 Apr 2020|
303​
|
53​
|
02 Apr 2020|
254​
|
-16​
|
03 Apr 2020|
214​
|
-16​
|

In my State, 85 of the new cases came from one cruise ship.
Would that be NSW?

I heard that, as a result of how the disembarkation of passengers was so badly bungled, authority over this "border control" was taken away, and given to the NSW Police. Is that what happened (as far as you know)?
 
Why is 2% a true picture and not 1%? Is this 2% thing a rule that actual statisticians use when deciding whether a poll or sample represents a population?

Nope, I'm using it arbitrarily. There aren't any set numbers in statistics when you're not screening populations, but you can make inferences from them.

I'm seeing 2% as a number that would capture at least some cases of wild transmission if it's going on.

These still seem rather extremely optimistic to me. https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Not if you use the assumption stated at the top:

assuming full social distancing through May 2020

In some places, that will be true. In USA, not so much, as I believe churches in some other states are open for business this weekend. That's the exact opposite of social distancing.

So yes, the numbers look to be optimistic in the real world. Keep an eye on it and let us know how close they got about the 20th.
 
Would that be NSW?

I heard that, as a result of how the disembarkation of passengers was so badly bungled, authority over this "border control" was taken away, and given to the NSW Police. Is that what happened (as far as you know)?

No, I'm in South Australia. There was a reference online to us having 85 cases from the Ruby Princess.

Here's the source:

The number of COVID-19 cases in South Australia stands at 407 — an increase of 11 since yesterday.

That includes one who travelled on the Ruby Princess cruise liner, which now accounts for 85 cases in SA.​

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...th-private-sector/12121858?WT.ac=statenews_sa
 
Nope, I'm using it arbitrarily. There aren't any set numbers in statistics when you're not screening populations, but you can make inferences from them.

I'm seeing 2% as a number that would capture at least some cases of wild transmission if it's going on.



Not if you use the assumption stated at the top:



In some places, that will be true. In USA, not so much, as I believe churches in some other states are open for business this weekend. That's the exact opposite of social distancing.

So yes, the numbers look to be optimistic in the real world. Keep an eye on it and let us know how close they got about the 20th.

Out of curiosity, and for a moment setting aside all my doubts about the pandemic as a whole, do you know why they don't take into account the very real possibility that the whole thing screeches to a halt as summer arrives, the way flu tends to?
 
I'm seeing 2% as a number that would capture at least some cases of wild transmission if it's going on.
But why 2%? You've touted this number as if it means something, and apparently you just picked it at random as a baseline you need. What will 2% tell you that 1% doesn't, and why? Why are you "seeing 2%" as something as opposed to seeing 1% or any other arbitrary %, it really sounds like you're just picking that number out of thin air, but thinking it's somehow meaningful.

Why not 0.5% or 3% or 5%? It seems like you think 2% is a number you think "captures" something, for reasons you can't explain.
 
Last edited:
Curious about what you all think about people not only like Peter Hitchens, but also like the person he quoted in this interview. Do you think they're all fools, like you think I am? Or do you think that it's possible you're not as right as you think you are? Some of these people are eminent scientists in their own right.



https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/03/the-alleged-cure-is-immensely-worse-than-the-disease/

ETA: I'm not so much interested in specific rebuttals or analyses of the arguments in that interview, as in your thoughts on the reality that there are MANY scientists and epidemiologists who aren't considered "fringe" or "cranks" who are against all of this and who say the virus isn't what it's being made out to be. But when I read them and agree with them, you act as though I'm a wacko. Do you think they're all wackos, too?

My own thought is that there is much sensible in the article, but in the end it does downplay the reality of this virus.

I know you aren't sold on this, but this virus is a whole heck of a lot worse than the flu. It kills a much higher percentage of the people infected with it.

Does that mean the best option for society is the shutdown that we are taking? Is that the best option for Britain? For the US? That's much harder to answer. The fact is that the economic havoc we are putting on ourselves will be very, very, bad, and will even cause some death by itself. So, how much is too much? How much is worth it?

Those are difficult questions. My problem is that, in the USA, we don't have a lot of alternatives, and I don't believe the leadership is getting us there.

What I wish were happening is that a group of very smart people were getting together and figuring out ways that we could really slow the spread of this disease. I mean figuring out how to ramp up testing, not by 100,000 tests per day, but by a million tests per day. How we could make 1,000,000,000 masks. How we could truly harness the power of industry to make PPE right now, in really big quantities, instead of patting ourselves on the back because we told existing companies at full production.

That would address Hitchens' concerns.

I see a tiny bit of that starting. Here's an anecdote. I know a woman who has gotten contracts to make a few hundred masks. I've known this woman since she was a girl. She sews. She's a woman with a sewing machine. She has made, and sold, a few hundred masks. I'm sure they are not perfect, but I'm sure they are good and a lot better than nothing.

We should be doing things like that, a lot If we did that, it would eventually reach a point where those measures would be more effective than shutting down the economy.
 
Thanks for the swift response.

May I ask when you'll be responding to all the other posts - including mine - that you said you'd respond to?

JeanTate said:
Thanks for asking.


Several others have responded already, making points similar to ones I would make too.

To repeat one of them: Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy, and should have no place in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technnology board. This is not the first time you're read such a response to posts of yours like this. It's odd, then, that you seem to think it makes some sort of sense to keep making such claims.

Somewhat new: OK, no more sports matches, restaurants going to the wall in the hundreds of thousands, millions of parents stuck at home with kids, etc sucks. What would you - and Peter Hitchens, and ... - suggest that we all do instead?
No, it is not an argument from authority. I specifically said I was not forwarding any particular argument in that post. I wanted to know what you think of them. Fools? Malicious intent? Intelligent but misguided?
Once again, I find your posts (and claims) confusing and inconsistent.

For example, in #1647 you refer to people (e.g."what you all think about people not only like Peter Hitchens") and ideas (which you call "arguments", e.g. "are against all of this and who say the virus isn't what it's being made out to be").

So be it.

You mention just three people - Peter Hitchens, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, yourself - and reference "MANY" others. As far as I know, I haven't met any of them (except perhaps you, somewhat, virtually). So how could I have any thoughts about them (as people)?

If you think any of these people - named and unnamed - have ideas worth discussing here, in this thread in the SMM&T board, please invite them to join and contribute directly. If you'd like to present what you understand to be their "arguments", please go ahead.

Besides, how could it not be an Argument from Authority when you write (or quote) this: "the extraordinary Professor Sucharit Bhakdi of Mainz University in Germany, an absolute genius in the microbiological method", "MANY scientists and epidemiologists"? :confused:


Oh, and what JesseCuster said too.
 
Curious about what you all think about people not only like Peter Hitchens, but also like the person he quoted in this interview. Do you think they're all fools, like you think I am? Or do you think that it's possible you're not as right as you think you are? Some of these people are eminent scientists in their own right.



https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/03/the-alleged-cure-is-immensely-worse-than-the-disease/

ETA: I'm not so much interested in specific rebuttals or analyses of the arguments in that interview, as in your thoughts on the reality that there are MANY scientists and epidemiologists who aren't considered "fringe" or "cranks" who are against all of this and who say the virus isn't what it's being made out to be. But when I read them and agree with them, you act as though I'm a wacko. Do you think they're all wackos, too?
The guy is an expert in microbiological method, not epidemiology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom