COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 670

starting strength gym
Page 670 of 751 FirstFirst ... 170570620660668669670671672680720 ... LastLast
Results 6,691 to 6,700 of 7503

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #6691
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Posts
    53

    Default

    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    • wichita falls texas february 2021 seminar
    • starting strength seminar april 2021
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Harlin View Post
    So first the message was, “Masks prevent the spread and that is good.”

    Now it’s, “Masks cause the spread and that is good.”

    And we are expected to take these “Experts” seriously.
    The problem, as I see it, is that people won't think that hard. The powers that be are training them to accept more and more invasion into their lives and even worse to police the rest of us who don't want to accept that invasion. I fear the ticket-able offense will easily advance from not wearing a mask to talking smack about masks and encouraging others not to wear them. All they have to do is bullshit the majority into thinking masks are The Answer.

  2. #6692
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Medicine’s Uncomfortable Relationship With Math: Calculating
    Positive Predictive Value

    How dare you question our medical professionals and politicians!

    75% of medical students, residents and attending physicians (mostly from top institutions like Harvard) were unable to correctly use basic statistics.... the same type of math that is needed to correctly interpret WuHan Flu test results.

    How many of our politicians would get this answer correct? How many of our health advisers? City council? Police officers? How about Fauci?

  3. #6693
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Harlin View Post
    So first the message was, “Masks prevent the spread and that is good.”

    Now it’s, “Masks cause the spread and that is good.”

    And we are expected to take these “Experts” seriously.
    The initial take was actually "masks don't do anything unless you're in a highly controlled environment like a hospital, so don't stockpile them and deprive our nurses and doctors of PPE." It's like these morons have never been in any type leadership role in their lives.

    Doing an about-face like they did on the masks is a great way to lose the trust of every single person worth a damn.

  4. #6694
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    The problem, as I see it, is that people won't think that hard. The powers that be are training them to accept more and more invasion into their lives and even worse to police the rest of us who don't want to accept that invasion. I fear the ticket-able offense will easily advance from not wearing a mask to talking smack about masks and encouraging others not to wear them. All they have to do is bullshit the majority into thinking masks are The Answer.
    I share these concerns. This is one reason to support legal defense funds of those that are willing to challenge authority early. Don’t wait until the fight comes to your shores, support those that are on your side and the side of liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    MedicineÂ’s Uncomfortable Relationship With Math: Calculating
    Positive Predictive Value

    How dare you question our medical professionals and politicians!

    75% of medical students, residents and attending physicians (mostly from top institutions like Harvard) were unable to correctly use basic statistics.... the same type of math that is needed to correctly interpret WuHan Flu test results.

    How many of our politicians would get this answer correct? How many of our health advisers? City council? Police officers? How about Fauci?
    Confidence-inspiring.

  5. #6695
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    Medicine’s Uncomfortable Relationship With Math: Calculating
    Positive Predictive Value

    How dare you question our medical professionals and politicians!

    75% of medical students, residents and attending physicians (mostly from top institutions like Harvard) were unable to correctly use basic statistics.... the same type of math that is needed to correctly interpret WuHan Flu test results.

    How many of our politicians would get this answer correct? How many of our health advisers? City council? Police officers? How about Fauci?
    The job description of a clinician is very different from that of a public health official, and it is not surprising (though disappointing) that a sample of clinicians struggle to calculate a PPV. It’s not something that is of much use when you are taking care of sick people, so even though you learned it in medical school, it falls away with disuse, like many skills.

  6. #6696
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    The job description of a clinician is very different from that of a public health official, and it is not surprising (though disappointing) that a sample of clinicians struggle to calculate a PPV. It’s not something that is of much use when you are taking care of sick people, so even though you learned it in medical school, it falls away with disuse, like many skills.
    Quite understandable. And it wouldn't make any difference if so many of them didn't hold forth about such things with absolute confidence.

  7. #6697
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Doctors need a couple classes in how the world really works so they can protect their patients from it.

  8. #6698
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,291

  9. #6699
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Quite understandable. And it wouldn't make any difference if so many of them didn't hold forth about such things with absolute confidence.
    That’s true of doctors on both sides of this mess.

  10. #6700
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,291

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    That's true of doctors every day.

    And here's today's really good summary: https://twitter.com/NickHudsonCT/sta...71981792886784

    Yesterday’s interview of Harvard & Standford professors of medicine Martin Kulldorf, Jay Battacharya, M Levitt is the sanest appraisal of the C-19 situation I've heard. I know many won’t have 2 hours to take it all in, so here’s a summary.

    9/24/20 Governor Ron DeSantis Holds Virtual Roundtable with Leading Public Health Experts - YouTube

    Just in case somebody at Twitter doesn't like this:

    1. RISK

    Runaway exponential growth hasn't happened anywhere. With the possible exception of Iran, the epidemic has exhibited marked consistencies. The virus is "behaving well", but people have been less consistent than the virus.

    The purported reason for lockdown was to prevent overburdening of healthcare resources. Massive overprediction of demand happened nearly everywhere. Instead, the real problem was that hospital utilization fell so low that the sustainability of hospitals was jeopardized.

    Non-Covid Deaths at home have skyrocketed. Elective procedures, cancer screening & doctor visits that didn’t happen have caused or will cause death and health impacts. It is likely excess deaths coincidental to the epidemic arose because treatment wasn’t sought or provided.

    Initial Chinese case fatality rates were obvious overestimates of the infection fatality rate. Using cases is complicated. Countries define them differently. Cases should be defined by a positive test AND presence of symptoms. Recording cases on a test only is unsound.

    Assessing fatality rates using cases is a mistake, because the denominator is underestimated. For every confirmed case there are multiples more infections, although the vast majority are asymptomatic.

    Even seroprevalence studies overestimate the fatality rate because some portion of the population have immunity through mechanisms other than antibodies. Severe viral pneumonia is a small fraction of infections.

    Hard-hit places have higher than 700 deaths per million, whether they locked down hard or did nothing. Some places have very low death rates in the order of 10 per million and we don't yet know exactly why.

    Covid mortality is sharply age-differentiated, with a 1,000-fold risk difference between the old & the young, for whom it’s less severe than flu. Every yr there are flu deaths among kids. Not with Covid. Among 1.8m Swedish children who stayed at school there were 0 deaths.

    "Second waves" of cases in countries are not generally accompanied by second waves of deaths. Where they are, they are instances of "filling in" places that weren't impacted initially. They don't seem to occur in the same location.

    2. IMMUNITY

    Calling Covid a "novel" coronavirus was a mistake. Coronaviruses are far from new and this one is closely related to ones that have circulated among humans for ages.

    The scientific evidence for t-cell mediated immunity is very strong. It is very clear that there is long-lasting protection from prior infection. This is no surprise. It happens with many diseases.

    Herd immunity is not a "strategy". It is the inevitable outcome, whether through natural infections, vaccines or, most likely, a combination of both. The longer you drag that out, the harder it is to protect the vulnerable.

    The idea of herd immunity is not about doing nothing or letting the virus rip. It's the inevitable end-state of an epidemic. The point is that an age-targeted approach is the best route to herd immunity, as a vaccine is unlikely to be available for first waves.

    The goal of a vaccine is herd immunity. Covid is never going to be eradicated. It will be endemic. The reason there are few cases in New York is mostly because of immunity, not guidelines.

    Seroprevalence is an unreliable guide to assessing whether herd immunity has been attained. Antibody production declines over time, yet immune memory persists much longer & is very effective at protecting recovered people from contracting the disease when exposed again.

    3. LOCKDOWNS AND OTHER NPIs

    Structuring society simply to limit the number of covid cases is a mistake. A holistic approach is the only one that is fair. Age-targeted strategies are crucial.

    Mandates to wear masks: The evidence doesn't suggest they're effective in slowing spread, yet they cause social strife. There aren't sufficient benefits to require them. In general, it's better to provide advice than issue mandates. Instead of sowing panic, provide info.

    General lockdowns, closing schools, businesses & beaches, cause serious public health problems, increasing total deaths. Lockdowns should be off the table. Another would be disastrous. It’s healthy for the young to go to bars & restaurants. The elderly should avoid crowds.

    It is not possible to discern benefits from lockdowns and NPI mandates in the data. Coercive mandates in general our contra-indicated. If we could lock down at zero cost, it would maybe be useful, but we can't.

    The benefits of lockdown are small and the costs are enormous and catastrophic. We know this as a matter of certainty. Lockdowns have never in history eradicated a disease. Countries that are continuing with lockdowns are harming their populations.

    Efficacy of coercive non-pharmaceutical intervention mandates in general is not evident in the data, with the exception of hand-washing. For example, mask mandates are uncorrelated with disease spread. Mask-wearing by kids at school does not make sense.

    A frequent mistake is to interpret continuing decline in the disease as evidence that an intervention is effective. Continuing decline in the change in daily deaths is the natural pattern of the disease.
    A policy that asks the young to isolate or distance is a mistake. It was a mistake to close schools. This exposed huge numbers of children to risks that their schools normally protect them from. The focus should be on protecting the elderly.

    Universities should operate almost normally. Students should be on campus & attend normal classes, unless their teachers are particularly vulnerable. Students who get sick don't need to be tested, but merely stay in their dorms. Going home simply puts parents at risk.

    It's not right to expel students for going to parties. Such policies to quarantine the young are unnatural & cause psychological harm. 1 in 4 young adults seriously considered suicide in June. Universities have an obligation to respect that and not harm their students.

    Children transmit to adults at much lower rates than for other respiratory diseases, posing little risk to teachers, whose risk is no worse than other professions. Sick kids should be sent home as is normal. There’s no point in schools taking any other measures.

    4. TESTING

    Testing asymptomatic youngsters at schools and universities makes no sense. "There are certain people who think testing is the solution to everything. I'm not one of them." (Levitt)

    Deploying PCR test with cycle thresholds of 40 isn't sensible for general purposes, especially when attached to an environment of contact tracing & quarantine. This results in quarantining huge numbers of people who aren't even contagious, imposing enormous costs on them.

    These are functional and epidemiological false positives. These costs make people less willing to co-operate with contact tracers. As many as 60% consequently lie when asked to disclose contacts.

    Oxford University opines you're only likely to be dealing with live virus for cycle thresholds of 25-26. Higher than that and you'll be picking up viral fragments. It only really makes sense to up sensitivity in nursing home contexts.

    5. SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT

    There has been a tear in the fabric of society. The media has been irresponsible and partisan.

    The Imperial College group declined engagement with top scientists who were critical of their work, including some who were pointing out that their numbers were out by an order of magnitude.

    Top academics producing results that contradict the prevailing narrative have struggled to get their work published. You solve hard problems by having discussions, and many academics have been unwilling to engage in them.

    "As a public health scientist who has been working with infectious diseases outbreaks for many years, I am absolutely stunned by the reaction of the scientific community as well as the media to this…” (Kulldorff)

    There have even been open calls by academics to establish in effect a censorship board over open science. Stanford Professor John Ioannidis' videos were suppressed. Dissenting scientists have been attacked.

    “Dr Sunetra Gupta is the pre-eminent infectious disease expert in the world and until very recently has had a very hard time getting people to even listen to what she is saying." (Kulldorff)

    "Dr Heneghan, also at Oxford …& my colleagues, Baral, Chandler, Livingstone, Yih & some who are afraid to speak out … favour an age-targeted approach. Most of the high-profile scientists [you hear the opposite from] have not actually been experts in infectious diseases.”

    When this is over we are going to have to work hard to re-establish the public's acceptance of science.

    6. MY QUESTIONS

    Does this mark the end of YouTube and others censoring speech that contradicts the
    @WHO, because this interview certainly does?

    I’ve never read conspiracy into anything that has happened, but can you listen to this and conclude anything but that many have been swept up in the costliest overreaction of all time?

    With so many people conflicted and heavily committed to the prevailing narrative, what is the route out of this mess? What can we do to amplify these voices of reason?
    Thanks to Nick Hudson for this summary.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •