321–330 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
0.1% for flu is of symptomatic infections. I think covid would get another near ~2X multiplier under the same measure.
Currently, CFR for covid is 4%, so 40x multiplier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say Ioannidis denied germ theory. What I implied was that he seems to put findings based on germ theory in the same category as the often/generally false/debatable findings of experimental psychology. Then he publishes findings based on completely selective uses of data, apparently with the attitude "nothing is true, I'll take the truth I like".
Did you read his California study? He sampled blood, and came up with a number. You are inferring a whole lot from that.
He's push covid denialism in every conceivable forum open to him and aligned with overtly right wing ideological institutions like the Hoover Institute and the American Institute For Economic Research.
This stuff has been gone over so much by now it has skidmarks on it but I'll dust off the file I keep this stuff:
A nice article describing the similarity of Covid-denial and Climate-change-denial: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-d...
An article on the effort to spin the Santa Clara tests befor e they were even release: https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating...
What's on with Ioannidis: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-...
Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, another Stanford Connected "minimizer" https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-corona...
A summary of several related minimizers, with a similar program: https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-abou...
Aljazeera gives a broader discussion, why real scientist would do this: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We actually don’t have this evidence. If anything we have strong evidence of the opposite. SARS-2 radiological abnormalities resolve in months and this is for hospitalized cases which are by definition more severe than your usual cases. There is really no evidence of what you claim. We’re now 7 months into the major part of this pandemic and people are still stuck citing the fears we all had in April.
Thank you for this post and all the others. Where can I find the evidence you mention?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The study linked in the OP estimates a median .27% IFR across all populations. The following numbers are from several month old seroprevalence studies so take them with a grain of salt but: https://www.ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_case_for_endin... Pegs the 50-59 age range around the median IFR. Whereas the >70 mortality is where things really start falling off of a cliff. BTW my point was never “your chance of…
> BTW my point was never “your chance of dying in a car crash is >= COVID”...although that statement would be very true for Which was based on your observation of driving VS Covid19 mortality, or at least it appeared to be from the comment. People have a very natural risk aversion for a new disease that is extremely likely to kill their parents or grandparents, that has unknown long-term effects, that has no known tr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> its less deadly yet more infectious brother. Nitpicking here, Sars-1 is, as I understand, more infectious but also more obvious. So you don't have asymptomatic spread and other things. This ultimately comes down to exactly what you mean by "infectious" though. > is totally unproven speculation. At this point we have more known Covid-19 long haulers in the US than there are Sars-1 infections globally. Comparisons to…
Thanks joshua. By infectious I meant the basic reproduction number, but I believe SARS-2 is also more infectious (in the sense if likelihood of infection per exposure event) given its incredibly high binding affinities. It seems to be unusually good at infecting humans in a way SARS-1 wasn’t. Not sure if that’s due to furin cleavage or what. I’m a bit rusty on the mechanics there so open to dissenting opinions. Also…
Yes, I mostly agree with this characterization.
> There is absolutely no way for you to prove this nor for me to disprove it, which tells you about its explanatory value. I personally find it much more likely that the dropoff in cases is purely explainable by timing; NY was already rounding the bend when it enforced its (IMO pseudoscientific and deleterious) measures.
There are multiple studies that support my assertion (that lockdowns reduce R0 and without them cases continue growing at near-exponential rates). Thanks to a wide variety of government policies, we have reasonable sample sizes. See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268966/ (longitudinal) and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/ (correlational). So yes, I'd argue your assertion here is wrong and there's strong evidence to state that.
> Basically everywhere in the globe, including Sweden, showed a large uptick for some time followed by a peak and wind-down.
This is a misconception. While not as extreme as other places, Sweden did implement social distancing measures. And you're actually incorrect about the shape of sweden's case count graph. It went up, paused, went up again a month later, and then went down some.
You can argue all kinds of things about herd immunity and whatnot, but that's not well supported. From the evidence we have the only conclusion you can make is that lockdowns do work in reducing spread, and they keep spread low later. That's the only conclusion based in evidence. Anything else is based on conjecture about things unseen.
> My guess is not good pre-existing Vitamin D3 levels exacerbated by being directed to stay inside, combined with stress, fear, lack of exercise and lost sleep attributable to lockdown + general hysteria, and finally the aforementioned iatrogenic harm caused by excessive ventilation.
Like this. This is not supported by any evidence. It was possible to go outside, it was possible to exercise. Stress and fear would be raised independent of lockdown measures. You're being just as hysterical about stay at home orderers as you accuse lawmakers of being about covid.
> I have a lot of trouble believing in a bunch of anecsotsl cases of people on Twittwr with very obvious political leanings, given that most long haulers I have seen are in popupations with next to no risk or SARS-2. It’s much more likely to be that the 20-something year olds are either inducing psychosomatic symptoms, or exaggerating their actual symptoms, or coincidentally got Epstein-Barr virus or similar at the same time.
I generally agree that long haulers are probably at least somewhat exaggerated, but we have indisputable evidence that serious, but non-fatal cases cause long lasting side effects in many (most!) severe patients (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6). If that eventually wears off, that's good, but until we understand these things further, we should be cautious. A disease with a .4% IFR is very different than one with a .4% IFR and a 2% or 5% chance of leaving you with lifelong severe breathing problems, and there's a reasonable chance that Covid-19 is the second and not the first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main concern with this study is that it uses reported Covid-19 deaths to infer the fatality rate. According to the paper, the fatality rates in the US are far higher than the rates in China and India. While the inferred fatality rate in the US is as high as ~1.3% (Louisiana), in many other places like China outside Wuhan and in India, the inferred death rate is close to 0.0%. I highly doubt that's actually the cas…
Researchers in India conducted an antibody seroprevalence study of poor people in Mumbai and calculated a fatality rate under 0.1%. The tests were free, subjects didn't have to pay anything. https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/coronavirus/news/sero-su...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't test for who has flu.
> We don't test for who has flu. What? Of course we do. Influenza rapid tests are among the most common diagnostics during flu season. Epidemiologists rely on these tests as well as serological surveillance to derive IFR estimates for the various flu bugs, just as they do for covid. But it doesn't matter. Your assertion was that flu and covid IFR's are "apples to oranges" because we're taking measures to reduce covid…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> COVID is the only remotely plausible explanation for those excess deaths. I personally know someone whose father likely died due to being unable to access health care in a timely fashion, as well as someone else who died of cancer after their chemotherapy was postponed. And I also know of two suicides in my extended social group in the past few months. It's tough to pin specific blame on lockdown for things like th…
> I personally know someone whose father likely died due to being unable to access health care in a timely fashion, as well as someone else who died of cancer after their chemotherapy was postponed. And I also know of two suicides in my extended social group in the past few months. It's tough to pin specific blame on lockdown for things like that. But it's certainly plausible that deaths like that would lead to exces…
Again, this isn't idle speculation: genuine mainstream health authorities believe lockdown has killed significant numbers of people. This is not a controversial position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> BTW my point was never “your chance of dying in a car crash is >= COVID”...although that statement would be very true for Which was based on your observation of driving VS Covid19 mortality, or at least it appeared to be from the comment. People have a very natural risk aversion for a new disease that is extremely likely to kill their parents or grandparents, that has unknown long-term effects, that has no known tr…
You fundamentally misunderstand SARS-2 if you think it “risks becoming endemic”. It already is endemic and it would be regardless of whatever measures we took. It’s a zoonotic virus that is great at spreading. It is functionally impossible to eradicate.
"The Dutch government reported multiple cases of transmission from mink to farm staff"
If it can happen in a farm, there's a reasonable chance it can happen in the wild too. Cats also seem to be able to get it: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200911/covid-19-may-strike...
Animal reservoirs make the flu pretty much impossible to eradicate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a peer-reviewed article published by the World Health Organization, not a press release from an individual Stanford lab. Could you please enumerate your specific concerns with this study?
My main concern with this study is that it uses reported Covid-19 deaths to infer the fatality rate. According to the paper, the fatality rates in the US are far higher than the rates in China and India. While the inferred fatality rate in the US is as high as ~1.3% (Louisiana), in many other places like China outside Wuhan and in India, the inferred death rate is close to 0.0%. I highly doubt that's actually the cas…
it's very plausible that it's Singapore in particular is probably a high fidelity case. It has one of the highest testing rates on the globe, likely clean data and they've registered 28 deaths on >50k cases.