Coronavirus II

[Doug]

Yep, no surprise that he didn't know he had the ventilators.

 

[smokingman]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...e_doomsday_media_predictions_or_analysis.html

Creator of the model that article is trying to say went from 500,000 deaths,to now 20,000 deaths. I admit I fell for it to thinking maybe this was not as bad as originally though.
Then I though no he has to have been paid off to lower numbers like that. Both thoughts where wrong,I dug more and found the author of the model and study.
He had this to say.

I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928


I also talked to other modelers like https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom (Professor of Biology and leading modeling at the University of Washington).

His main problem right now.
This is going to be a personal thread about the experience of working at the intersection of infectious disease modeling and the study of misinformation during the worst pandemic in a century. If you're just interested in what is happening with the virus, you can skip it.
I spent the decade from 2000-2009 or so working with an amazing team of people around the world to develop the epidemiological modeling infrastructure to help us detect and forecast emerging infectious diseases in real time so as to stop them in their tracks if possible.
[FONT=&amp]We had some pretty scary moments (weeks or months, really) where we didn't know if we were on the cusp of the Big One. SARS. H5N1 clusters. H1N1 swine flu before we knew the case fatality rate. But we never had the feeling that we had already stepped off the diving board.




Somehow it always seemed like we'd be able to pull back from the brink, because the alternative was unimaginable. And each time, that was right, thank goodness.
At the same time, we always imagined that if we ever did find ourselves in the position we are today, in free fall between the lip of the board and an impact of yet unknown violence, the world would be united in a struggle to save lives.

In all of the previous situations, both those that we halted (SARS, H5N1, MERS) and those that we didn't, there's a fog-of-war element to the entire process while it's happening. Estimates change as new data becomes available. Different research teams have valid disagreements.
That's part of the process. Everyone in the field accepts it. The arguments can get heated—I've at times disagreed publicly and vehemently with @neil_ferguson
, for example—but it's because the stakes are high. At the end of the day we know we're on the same side.

There's no gotcha-ism. Updating your models and predictions in light of new evidence and new inferential methods and insightful counterpoints from colleagues isn't a sign of weakness, it's *doing science*.

We don't stake out positions on day 1 and then defend them as if our reputation depends on it. Rather, reputations depend on being flexible in light of new findings. You don't drop an idea just because it is criticized; you fight for it. But you also walk away when it's time.

And during this entire period, it certainly never occurred to us that there might some day be an axis along which our models and predictions about the future trajectory of epidemic would be deemed politically desirable or oppugnant.
Fast forward to the current crisis. As infectious disease epidemiologists, biomedical researchers, and health professionals more broadly, we're fighting a battle against the biggest crisis in decades.
But we are also fighting on a second front that we did not anticipate, fighting a battle against misinformation and disinformation in a hyper-partisan environment where our predictions and recommendations about the pandemic response are deeply politicizedrn that the pandemic takes is seized upon by one side or other to claim that some fraction of us are incompetent if not outright mendacious.



Researchers are pilloried for updating their beliefs based on new information.


[/FONT]Every twist and turn that the pandemic takes is seized upon by one side or other to claim that some fraction of us are incompetent if not outright mendacious.


Researchers are pilloried for updating their beliefs based on new information.

In this environment, when unexpected facts come to light — a higher than anticipated R0, for example — they are used to discredit scientists who made correct inferences given the data that they had available at the time.

I think that some of the best practicing epidemiologists right now may be able to largely turn a blind eye to the social furor churning around their work, especially if they are not immediately involved in setting policy. At least I hope that they are.

Because I've spent this pandemic at the interface of the research and scientific communication domains, I haven't been able to do that. And it's exhausting. It's demoralizing. I feel genuine sorrow over the way our society has become so polarized.

there are also a slew of vicious invectives. Attacks on my motives, my character, my intelligence. Calls for me to be reprimanded or fired by my university for my efforts (for what, I still don't understand). Ill wishes regarding my health. You name it.

I'm sure that 99% of these are motivated by what we call tribal epistemology, the idea that truth is determined not so much by the facts as by the way that a claim aligns with the story that a preferred leader is telling.

I try to shake these off, and turn to the day's science news. This gets hard with every consecutive 100-hour week. Every day, there are new scicomm crises blowing up, and the thing that kills me is that they are almost without exception MANUFACTURED with political intent.

And I guess this is the crux of the thread, though I didn't know it until I got here. (Twitter is an odd medium, writing stream-of-consciousness, unable to edit let alone restructure.)For me, this is the heartbreaking part. It turns out we're not all in this together.

What is so terrible about the politicization of this pandemic is this: what people believe impacts how they behave, and it impacts the ability of our governments to muster the political will to enact the measures we need to slow and ultimately stop the spread of the virus.

In all the years of studying infectious disease and planning for this day, I never dreamed that when it came I'd be opposed by my own federal government, a non-trivial fraction of my fellow citizens, and as yet undetermined fraction of hostile foreign actors.

Perhaps that was dreadfully naive of me, but the world has changed in profound ways since even 2010. Social media, hyper-partisanship, the broad populist distrust of experts, plummeting standards of factfulness in political discourse....

I'll keep doing what I do. My colleagues doing the amazing work in hospitals and laboratories, with simulations and mathematical models, they'll keep on too. We may not act like we're all in this together, but in a pandemic, like it or not, we are.

I am going to add to this from my own conversations with PHD.Carl T Bergstrom.

He was having a very difficult time from both political sides in this. It was draining him. I reached out to him. I even sent him my post from 2/6/2020 "The pandemic".
He thanked me. Mentality of how people deal with facts is not something he is used to dealing with. It not only helped him understand others reactions,but led us
to talk more about them. He is still in shock that people simply do not understand how bad the situation we are in is. He of course has the science and numbers
sitting right in front of him and understands them.

He is using a slightly edited version of my post to help others understand where we are. I am proud to have contributed to spreading not just facts,but an
understanding of the mentality and reasoning of people adjusting to the fact we are in a pandemic.

He has thanked me more than once,just in the last 24 hours.


On another note. "The pandemic" may be included in his new book,with my permission.
Calling Bull****: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World

https://www.amazon.com/Calling-Bull****-Skepticism-Data-Driven-World/dp/0525509186/

https://callingbull****.org/ Happy to be a part of this.


[FONT=&amp]







[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]




[/FONT]

 

[smokingman]

This has no place here. It's not WCS/Doomsday worthy. Someone will be along shortly to throw a wet blanket over it.

Facts are not a wet blanket nor are they political.

 

[Dead Duck]

So...
Everyone ready for the second wave?

 

[Doug]

So...
Everyone ready for the second wave?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Listening to Tucker Carlson’s show tonight and he was interviewing a NY doctor. The doctor happened to mention he was prophylactically taking that chloroquine drug...still not positive. I guess he’s part of study.

 

[Trigger Time]

FDA just approved a test that gets results back in as few as 5 minutes. Max of 13 minutes.

 

[Trigger Time]

So...
Everyone ready for the second wave?

Stadiums are closed

 

[smokingman]

Most have some free time.

Here is probably a good way to spend some of it.
https://callingbull****.org/videos.html

[video=youtube;A2OtU5vlR0k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k&feature=youtu.be&list=PLPnZfvK ID1Sje5jWxt-4CSZD7bUI4gSPS[/video]













[video=youtube;q94VJ3KToK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q94VJ3KToK8&feature=youtu.be&list=PLPnZfvK ID1Sje5jWxt-4CSZD7bUI4gSPS[/video]

 

[Rookie]

Howard County blocks purchase of nonessential goods | Covid-19 | kokomoperspective.com

I don't see that ending well for Kokomo

Looks like I'll be going out of town tomorrow.

 

[jamil]

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/03/...wrong-what-does-this-mean-for-climate-models/
If COVID-19 Models Are Unreliable, What Does This Mean For Climate Models?

You know the models are right when they predict the future with some accuracy. The climate models predicted *a* future. Just not the one that actually happened.

We’ll see how accurate the pandemic models are.

 

[Leadeye]

I remember talking to my grandfather about WW2, he was a tool maker when Pearl Harbor happened. He went to the induction center to enlist but was told he had a more important job, he helped convert various civilian manufacturers in the mid west into war equipment plants. I remember him saying that these places were converted from making things like metal caskets to mortars very quickly as everybody was highly motivated. Maybe some of that will happen with the ventilators.

 

[KG1]

Creator of the model that article is trying to say went from 500,000 deaths,to now 20,000 deaths. I admit I fell for it to thinking maybe this was not as bad as originally though.
Then I though no he has to have been paid off to lower numbers like that. Both thoughts where wrong,I dug more and found the author of the model and study.
He had this to say.

I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928

You bring up this point but you did'nt bother to mention Dr. Brix's analysis of that model and the counterpoints that she makes. Everything is all one sided on your part.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...e_doomsday_media_predictions_or_analysis.html

DR. DEBORAH BRIX: I'm sure you have seen the recent report out of the U.K. about them adjusting completely their needs. This is really quite important. If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They've adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. Half a million to 20,000. We are looking at that in great detail to understand that adjustment.

I'm going to say something that is a little bit complicated but do it in a way we can understand it together. In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. We have not seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000. So either we are measuring the iceberg and underneath it, are a large group of people. So we are working hard to get the antibody test and figure out who these people are and do they exist. Or we have the transmission completely wrong.

So these are the things we are looking at, because the predictions of the model don't match the reality on the ground in China, South Korea or Italy. We are five times the size of Italy. If we were Italy and did all those divisions, Italy should have close to 400,000 deaths. They are not close to achieving that.

Models are models. We are -- there is enough data of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20% of a population getting infected, it's very scary, but we don't have data that matches that based on our experience.

 

[Ziggidy]

Listening to Tucker Carlson’s show tonight and he was interviewing a NY doctor. The doctor happened to mention he was prophylactically taking that chloroquine drug...still not positive. I guess he’s part of study.

I'll gladly join that study!

 

[smokingman]

You bring up this point but you did'nt bother to mention Dr. Brix's analysis of that model and the counterpoints that she makes. Everything is all one sided on your part.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...e_doomsday_media_predictions_or_analysis.html

If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They've adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. Half a million to 20,000. We are looking at that in great detail to understand that adjustment.

The problem is she does not understand why the data went from 500,000 deaths to 20,000. The model did not change. The RO did to adjust for people staying at home,and socially isolating.Then they go on to try and make claims about where the cases went.

Cases she does not understand did not change,the reality of the RO did.She is trying to explain what happened to cases in the model as if they disappeared,while at the same time not looking at WHY the numbers changed. The RO reduction.Personally I think they may be over estimating the stay at home orders impact on RO,I think they lowered the RO number by to much.
She goes on to say the model does not reflect reality on the ground...when it actually is doing a good job at that by taking into account measures taken to lower the RO. You can not dismiss a 20% infection rate(the low estimate with the new RO) because 20% of the population do not have covid-19 today,which is what she does.


Looking at it even more you can start to understand how she is perceiving the model.Statements like "
In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. " She clearly is stating looking at the data she thinks you have to have a large number of a-symtomatics to get to the original 500,000 figure.It is simply not true.You need a higher RO than the current model is using with people staying at home.

She does not understand how the model works. That is very clear to me.

I do my absolute best to not have a side. I look at what is presented by the science.

Trying to make this about sides is something I have criticized more than once. It is not left or right. Trying to make this about sides is not helping in any way,and I have pointed that out.

 

[Leadeye]

I'll gladly join that study!

I'm doing my part by guzzling gin and tonic in the evening.

 

[tsm]

If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They've adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. Half a million to 20,000. We are looking at that in great detail to understand that adjustment.

The problem is she does not understand why the data went from 500,000 deaths to 20,000. The model did not change. The RO did to adjust for people staying at home,and socially isolating.Then they go on to try and make claims about where the cases went.

Cases she does not understand did not change,the reality of the RO did.She is trying to explain what happened to cases in the model as if they disappeared,while at the same time not looking at WHY the numbers changed. The RO reduction.Personally I think they may be over estimating the stay at home orders impact on RO,I think they lowered the RO number by to much.
She goes on to say the model does not reflect reality on the ground...when it actually is doing a good job at that by taking into account measures taken to lower the RO. You can not dismiss a 20% infection rate(the low estimate with the new RO) because 20% of the population do not have covid-19 today,which is what she does.


Looking at it even more you can start to understand how she is perceiving the model.Statements like "
In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. " She clearly is stating looking at the data she thinks you have to have a large number of a-symtomatics to get to the original 500,000 figure.It is simply not true.You need a higher RO than the current model is using with people staying at home.

She does not understand how the model works. That is very clear to me.

I do my absolute best to not have a side. I look at what is presented by the science.

Trying to make this about sides is something I have criticized more than once. It is not left or right. Trying to make this about sides is not helping in any way,and I have pointed that out.

Can’t imagine how Trump missed including you as part of his team. That group is clearly suffering from not having the most intelligent person on the planet with them.

 

[churchmouse]

There is a lot of good info in here.
There is a lot of opinions in here.

We can all have them and not be treated poorly.

 

[MCgrease08]

There is a lot of good info in here.
There is a lot of opinions in here.

We can all have them and not be treated poorly.

^^^ This ^^^

I am grateful to have multiple sources of information being posted here. I find this thread much more useful than anything I have seen from the MSM in general let alone a single source.

A lot of what's posted here I skim over. Some of it I read more closely. But I am grateful for all of it. If there is information or a specific topic I don't find relevant helpful, optimistic, realistic, whatever, then I scroll on by. It's not that hard.

 

[Super Bee]

Can’t imagine how Trump missed including you as part of his team. That group is clearly suffering from not having the most intelligent person on the planet with them. 

I was thinking the same thing. It is amazing how Trumps team doesnt understand this, however he does.

At first I did read his post, then moved to just lightly skimming. Now, I will catch the most outlandish statements while skimming. I guess I will just place on ignore.