COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Soule]

This is very interesting:

“ Leading German virologist Christian Drosten thinks it is possible that some people have already built up an effective so-called background immunity against the new corona virus through contact with normal common cold corona viruses.”

[jklymus]

More from this site:

"Corona is a relatively harmless viral disease. We have to deal with the fact that Corona is a normal infection and we have to learn to live with it without quarantine“. The fatalities he examined would all have had such serious pre-existing conditions that, „even if that sounds harsh, they would all have died in the course of this year."

Rip, the problem is no one wants to hear that, for some reason. That's good news, yet people want to bury their heads in the sand of CNN and keep being scared of the ever rising "death count"

If you say corona virus and flu in the same sentence, There is a 99% chance that someone will yell at you "OMG STOP COMPARING IT TO THE FLU ITS 100000X MORE DEADLY, CNN SAID SO"

[Shiva Kaul]

I see your point. But: Governments destroyed the economy of the world on the basis of models so shitty that they have been revised downward by orders of magnitude AFTER the damage was done. But now we have to wait for perfect analysis before we even begin the process of trying to unfuck that which they have probably already irrevocably destroyed. Does this study in Santa Clara County not even challenge the basic assumptions? Imagine my frustration.

Here is a somewhat concerning issue. Stanford is chock-full of excellent statisticians who would have picked up on the quantitative flaws in the paper. They may have the best statistics department in the world. Despite the long list of authors, it does not seem to include a single mathematical statistician. (I tried to find that one to email, to no avail). Are well-known Stanford professors having difficulty recruiting quantitative hands on these studies?

[FlamingoDeFranc]

I think its funny how false positives all of a sudden became the focus of the discussion for a moment. Wasn't this point brought up against the testing data a few weeks ago but dismissed by the doomsayers? Can't we just agree that the original statistics used to drive the majority into a hysteria and yearn for quarantine have been found to be incorrect and therefore the quarantine is wrong? Lets start looking forward and figure out how we can mitigate the damage to the old and at-risk, apparently thats who we just spent the last month protecting. The country needs to open up shop. The psychological damage and resulting germaphobias are already going to be irritating enough to deal with.

[Gerald Boggs]

Virginia is trending nicely as well...

Sorry Mate, that's not quite correct. True, with the liberal democrat governor and a democrat majority, things are looking grim. But still, things are much better in Virginia than in most parts of the states. And it will take a lot more then a single term of a governor to change very business friendly Virginia into New York or California. (For those of you that aren't in Virginia, governors are limited to one term in a row)

[Noah Ebner]

Here is a somewhat concerning issue. Stanford is chock-full of excellent statisticians who would have picked up on the quantitative flaws in the paper. They may have the best statistics department in the world. Despite the long list of authors, it does not seem to include a single mathematical statistician. (I tried to find that one to email, to no avail). Are well-known Stanford professors having difficulty recruiting quantitative hands on these studies?

No, they're just smart enough to quit investing in the most bullshit of all fields of mathematics is all.

[Shiva Kaul]

I think its funny how false positives all of a sudden became the focus of the discussion for a moment. Wasn't this point brought up against the testing data a few weeks ago but dismissed by the doomsayers?

No. That is rewriting history: the initial outcry was that Trump wasn’t providing enough tests, that they were being reserved for rich celebrities, etc.

Also, the PCR and antibody tests in different ways. Even a little uncertainty about antibody FPR dramatically affects the ensuing inference about the entire population.

In this regard, the Stanford study just wasn’t well-planned. It is the first of its kind, a study with major policy implications, maybe changing the world economy. To validate the specificity of the brand-new antibody test which has never been used before, they obtain a total of...30 negative samples???

[Mainstream]

Anyone who really believes that various types of governments around the world are that different is deceived ...the more I see the more I am convinced that organized groupings of human beings always follow similar patterns and if a certain government is different it is because it is dealing with a different set of circumstances

[Brian Harlin]

Mark Levin had Dr Katz and Dr. Ionnodis on tonight. I definitely recommend watching this episode. Not sure if it’s in demand or not I have it set to record.

[Shiva Kaul]

No, they're just smart enough to quit investing in the most bullshit of all fields of mathematics is all.

Of course, Noah. Statisticians, in the Statistics department at Stanford, obviously think the enterprise of collecting random samples and computing CIs via the delta method (you know, the core material in an undergraduate statistics class) is just pure bullshit.

And please, tell me more about the modern relationship between applied mathematics and statistical machine learning.