covid-19 rant - what we ever know about anything

[nospam99]

In the midst of 'all this panic', with restrictions on commerce being imposed by government, restrictions which are most likely valid and helpful, I am reminded again how 'they' filter the information which they share with 'us'. 'They' being the, usually self-proclaimed, 'experts' or the 'authorities' who have legitimately been coronated by 'us' at the voting booth.

So many assertions ... 'It' (covid-19) is contagious. It is deadly. Umpteen zillion people are infected/hospitalized/dying/dead in China/Italy/Iran/Seattle/NYC/your neighborhood. It's worse for seniors/millennials/babies/immune-compromised. Just examples of the assertions.

Back in caveman days (the 60s and early 70s), before education in the US (I can't speak for other countries) was dumbed-down, I was taught .... and learned .... the now-rare skill of 'critical thinking', one of the facets of which was to question assertions. Having learned that skill thoroughly in junior high school, I was subjected to getting it pounded into my skull again in high school, college, and grad school - same shyt, different year. But at least back then it was still being taught so you didn't have to discover it on your own.

Ah yes, questioning assertions. The accumulation of knowledge can go through several phases: experimental design, experimentation, data collection, data analysis, documentation, conclusions, and ... assertions. When you don't have the luxury of experimentation, you can turn to anecdotal or empirical data collection. Anecdotal is of the form of 'my friend so-and-so got it, stayed home for two weeks, and is fine now'. Empirical is when lots of people have lots of friends reporting similar phenomena - leads to conclusions like some drug cures some disease with that conclusion being reached long before the 'authorities' (e.g. the FDA) 'bless' it.

Like almost everything the experts and authorities give 'us', all we get is the assertions. I really doubt that the 'authorities' (e.g. Trump - I love his values and accept his actions, but I think he is being a full-on ignorant a**h*** again every time he opens his mouth about 'it') understand anything about 'it'. They are just talking heads, mouthing scripts provided to them, perhaps by almost equally ignorant 'experts'.

There are all kinds of details about covid-19 which probably aren't even really known at the moment: how contagious and deadly it really is, which segments of the population are most at risk etc, etc. All we get are assertions. I'd love to know what the background, data, and analysis are behind those assertions. Maybe I (and we) really don't want to know. Maybe it's so bad that we'd panic and the experts and authorities are just keeping us calm like beef on the way to the abattoir. But maybe, as I've seen SO often, the experts and authorities have got it wrong and are making f***ing stupid decisions that are going to make the problem worse. My assertion, based solely on the empirical observations of US government actions for the last 55 years, is that it would be wise to publicize the data and allow the critical thinkers among 'us' to question the experts and authorities.

Not going to happen, but sometimes it's nice to dream.

Yes, this is a rant. Anybody miss that?

[chillii]

 

Nothin wrong with a good rant man.

Personally l've always been a critical thinker and lived it , it's just the way l am.  And yeah there's snow jobs in any gov anywhere l guess ,just part of what they do really isn't it and the way they do it. No doubt in my mind they all know all about exactly what this is and exactly what it can do , well , as much as they can and from the best info they can get .

But of course that and what any of them tell their people are two different things . But in this case hard to see where the line should be really too isn't it, there's panic and lives and shut downs and ruined livelihoods and economies and much more to take into account too , in what they let out and do. 

You can just see whats really going on behind the scenes and brave fronts but then they'd have to show that too wouldn't they because the people need to see it , so l dunno. Not too many govs in this world l have much respect for or faith in at all really but admittedly it'd be hard to know how to handle this one for sure .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Prudence V]

59 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

it would be wise to publicize the data

It’s out there. I can’t speak about what your government is or isn’t saying - Trump only appears on our TV screens as a joke, an example of how not to do things, so I don’t get to see the full picture - but many governments are allowing experts to report data as well as analysis. An epidemiologist friend of mine produces one such site, updating the data several times a day; another virologist friend of mine (an expert in coronaviruses) has a site where he collates studies, reports, analysis and data, as well as adding his own. Another friend, a vaccinologist, posts updates on the developments towards vaccines (there are several promising ones, but nothing imminent). 
 

My home country has also made it illegal to create, spread or encourage fake news about coronavirus, so that helps. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Prudence V

[nospam99]

@prudence. Thanks. But when you cut and pasted, you left off ''and allow the critical thinkers among 'us' to question the experts and authorities.'' In the US that doesn't happen, not at the federal, state, nor local level.

[pepperbird]

I've already been dinged because I think the reaction to this virus s being driven, in part,  by the media. My duaghter and i were talking about this. the other day. She;s a unil student ( double major now bio and anthropology with a separate diploma in forensics) and we were going through the latest numbers in our province-it's part of one of her new assignments.

She explained the difference between presumptive and positive cases, and also how high the number false positive results are showing up in these tests, which really amount to screening tests. It's above 40 percent. Anyone who tests positive gets a second test, which is sent away for further analysis.
That's all well and good, but the problem is, it's not really being reported that way. There;s a lot of click bait out there, and this is all getting mixed in with politics. Our PM was advised to close the border, which he finally did, but it came very late. People are complaining because they chose to go on vacation knowing the borders would likely close and now they ca;t get home ( Peru is one example).
Again, just as with the test results, the media reports the border is closed, but not the whole story. People who are considered "essential" are allowed to cross( truckers, etc.)  and there's talk about allowing migrant workers in to help plant crops. Students will also be allowed to return to the country for summer courses (at least here, I don't know about other provinces) starting at the end of May, and a sizebale group of people feel it's illegal for us to close our borders to refugees and those seeking political asylum. Combine that with our really long border that;s mostly unguarded, and the " isolation" part of the equation won't be happening.

Then there's the photos out there of the military being called out in some places. That has scared a lot of people, but if it's anything like what the standard protocols are here, it's not  what it appears to be. In small communities, the military would be the people to call to help remove casualties and also people who are sick. They are highly trained in infectious disease control measures, and it keep civilian ambulances, etc, form needing to be used. It doesn't always mean mass casualties.

Sooner or later, things are going to have to go back to "normal", or at least as close to that as possible. I'm not seeing much about how that is going to happen. 

[Foxhall]

Although many countries were initially slow to react, it is fair to say they have reacted quite promptly in the last week effectively shutting down economies at the drop of a hat,

In view of these rapid sudden shutdowns, my fear is that the virus may actually be worse than Governments have been letting on.

Im still not prepared to go under house arrest however!

Edited March 22, 2020 by Foxhall

[lana-banana]

On 3/21/2020 at 8:26 AM, nospam99 said:

There are all kinds of details about covid-19 which probably aren't even really known at the moment: how contagious and deadly it really is, which segments of the population are most at risk etc, etc. All we get are assertions. I'd love to know what the background, data, and analysis are behind those assertions.

Huh? This data is publicly available through dozens of sources like the WHO, Johns Hopkins CSSE, even plenty of countries publish their own data. Singapore has an index where you can literally trace individual patients by age, gender, and when they contracted it. The Financial Times has an incredibly in-depth dashboard of how it's spreading across countries. In the United States, the COVID-19 Tracking Project aggregates all available data by state (including positive and negative tests) every day at 4 PM. We already know how contagious and deadly it is, we already know which segments are most at risk. We have the numbers.

[pepperbird]

On 3/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, Foxhall said:

Although many countries were initially slow to react, it is fair to say they have reacted quite promptly in the last week effectively shutting down economies at the drop of a hat,

In view of these rapid sudden shutdowns, my fear is that the virus may actually be worse than Governments have been letting on.

Im still not prepared to go under house arrest however!

I found this website ( Worldmeter ) which gives some global statistics.

[nospam99]

@lana-banana. Do 'we' already have the data? Since you listed a number of data sources, I'd appreciate you sharing the links please. In my OP I outlined the process that I learned 50+ years ago to be 'scientific' ... ''experimental design, experimentation, data collection, data analysis, documentation, conclusions, and ... assertions. '' Please start with a COMPLETED RESEARCH STUDY (if one exists) that characterizes the life-cycle of the virus i.e. how long it survives outlive various animals and how it is transmitted. I am particularly interested in experimental design, which is what determines the VALIDITY of the conclusions. All I've seen so far is assertions, both in the mass media and on this forum. There is no information that I've seen so far that those assertions are based on anything beyond empirical data.

[lana-banana]

10 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

@lana-banana. Do 'we' already have the data? Since you listed a number of data sources, I'd appreciate you sharing the links please. In my OP I outlined the process that I learned 50+ years ago to be 'scientific' ... ''experimental design, experimentation, data collection, data analysis, documentation, conclusions, and ... assertions. '' Please start with a COMPLETED RESEARCH STUDY (if one exists) that characterizes the life-cycle of the virus i.e. how long it survives outlive various animals and how it is transmitted. I am particularly interested in experimental design, which is what determines the VALIDITY of the conclusions. All I've seen so far is assertions, both in the mass media and on this forum. There is no information that I've seen so far that those assertions are based on anything beyond empirical data.

I generally don't do hyperlinks in posts anymore because they get flagged and delayed by moderators. This is what Google is for. The Lancet publishes research studies every day and if you Google "COVID-19" and "The Lancet" you can pull up dozens of "completed research studies" at their coronavirus resource center. Columbia Research at Columbia University also has a COVID-19 resource center full of papers and studies. There are hundreds of papers being published on it all over the world with more every day. It is flat-out inaccurate and frankly preposterous to claim there's no research being done on this subject.

Edited March 24, 2020 by lana-banana

[nospam99]

@pepperbird. Thanks for the link. Definitely an interesting 'read'. Nevertheless fails the (at least MY) 'validity test' because it doesn't describe exactly where the numbers are coming from and how they are counted. The biggest omission I am concerned about is how the count of diagnosed cases it derived. How many different diagnostic tests are used worldwide? How many diagnoses are based on tests? on symptoms? or both? How reliable are the tests? false negatives? false positives? commingled with other viruses which give the same test results as covid-19?

[nospam99]

@lana-banana. Thanks both for your suggestion of search arguments and your patience in answering me.

I do not have the time to review every published report and cull them for the answers to the questions I think are most critical. Those question relate to the life cycle of the virus, the life cycle of the infection in humans, the variation of the course of the disease in humans based on identifiable differences among groups of humans, and the reliability of various diagnostic tests and symptom-based diagnoses.

FWIW, the first study that I found googling covid-19 and the lancet was based on a hospitalized population in Wuhan. The 'findings' did not relate to any of the questions I listed above. Rather the study related to comorbidity risk factors for death/discharge outcomes.

Edited March 24, 2020 by nospam99

[lana-banana]

4 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

@lana-banana. Thanks both for your suggestion of search arguments and your patience in answering me.

I do not have the time to review every published report and cull them for the answers to the questions I think are most critical. Those question relate to the life cycle of the virus, the life cycle of the infection in humans, the variation of the course of the disease in humans based on identifiable differences among groups of humans, and the reliability of various diagnostic tests and symptom-based diagnoses.

FWIW, the first study that I found googling covid-19 and the lancet was based on a hospitalized population in Wuhan. The 'findings' did not relate to any of the questions I listed above. Rather the study related to comorbidity risk factors for death/discharge outcomes.

Read here. There are hundreds of studies.

[pepperbird]

2 hours ago, nospam99 said:

@pepperbird. Thanks for the link. Definitely an interesting 'read'. Nevertheless fails the (at least MY) 'validity test' because it doesn't describe exactly where the numbers are coming from and how they are counted. The biggest omission I am concerned about is how the count of diagnosed cases it derived. How many different diagnostic tests are used worldwide? How many diagnoses are based on tests? on symptoms? or both? How reliable are the tests? false negatives? false positives? commingled with other viruses which give the same test results as covid-19?

I know we had a porblem here with very high (40%) false positive rates on the initial tests. The issue is that these were being reported as "cases" without indicating whether they are presumptive or positive.

[ChatroomHero]

I find it interesting that the 'vaping deaths' back in like August/Sept never seemed to have a definite cause determined and the symptoms I see listed seem to be the exact same as covid 19. That would change everything if those were covid 19.

[elaine567]

https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/coronavirus-science-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-virus/

[nospam99]

Props to the people (I'll name names if anyone cares) who have provided me LINKS to a couple of the web sites that are displaying data.

One such site mentioned several times is Johns Hopkins University. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Down at the bottom middle of the page is a block with an explanation of the sources of the information presented. This is some of the 'fine print' as it were.

Here's a couple of the documented 'data sources' that, to me, cast SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA
- state and national government health departments
- local media reports

And a couple of disclaimers that further undermine the credibility of the data:
Confirmed cases include presumptive positive cases.
Recovered cases outside China are estimates based on local media reports, and may be substantially lower than the true number.

Nice of JHU to have the integrity to report these FLAWS in the collection of the data. But IMO to include 'presumptive positive cases' and 'estimates' makes the numbers 'fake news'. Sadly, this has long since become 'business as usual' for information reporting.

I have no doubt that covid-19 is a global pandemic. However I have no faith in the reporting of the scale of this pandemic. Given how unreliable the reporting is, it could be much less serious and pervasive than the reports. There could also be a lag in diagnoses so that the number of infected people could be understated. 'We' just don't know either way.

[elaine567]

27 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

However I have no faith in the reporting of the scale of this pandemic.

And how do you suggest "more accurate" reporting is carried out in the middle of a pandemic?
Legions of guys in hazmat suits with clipboards monitoring the victims...????

[nospam99]

@elaine. Nope. I do not expect accurate reporting, certainly not at the global level. It's possible individual jurisdictions are doing the job of keeping whatever they are counting accurate. But that could only be verified at low levels - WAY too much work to expect to be done 'in the middle of a pandemic'. It 'would be nice' if there were institutions that could be trusted, but that is not the case. It probably has always been true, but every source of information has ulterior political motives that undermines their credibility. My main concern with the reporting, coincidentally probably the same concern people at Trump's level have, is that the reporting will so overstate the facts as to create panic q.v. the 'run' on toilet paper .... TOILET PAPER .... geezus. Still, better than rioting in the streets.

FWIW, the (very) 'short list' of people I 'trust' includes Ralph Nader and Bill Nye, not that either of them is participating much in the current information crisis. I disagree with their politics, but I don't, at the moment, expect them to spin covid news to advance their agendas cf Nancy Pelosi.

[pepperbird]

Is there any reliable information yet about whether or not catching this virus results in immunity to it?

[lana-banana]

If you don't believe any institutions anywhere are credible, what is the point of anything at all? It honestly sounds like you just have personal opinions you want to believe about this, and you are determined to disregard any evidence to the contrary. Which, OK, do that. But your primary assertion that there is no research and there is no knowledge remains fundamentally incorrect. The research and data is out there for anyone to see, you just won't accept it.

[nospam99]

@lana-banana. The research and data that is out there for anyone to see is too voluminous to evaluate. LIKE ANY mass of information, it 'should' have an index. Incidentally, I was a 'subject matter expert' frequently in the past. When I was, I could substantiate ANY assertion of technical fact I made by being able to show exactly where the supporting information was, whether that information was a research study or the detailed documentation, source code included for computer systems, schematics for circuits or devices, that showed exactly how a device functioned.

To pick just one particular question that strikes me as rather important, please DIRECT ME to one (or more) specific research that parametrizes the length of time a covid-19 infected individual needs to isolate to no longer be contagious and breaks that down by any statistically significant independent variables (age, gender, specific comorbidities are all possible) that characterize the population of carriers. I hope it's obvious that these parameters dictate how long our leaders should be directing us to isolate.

More to the point, when an information resource such as the CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fabout%2Fsymptoms.html asserts ''These symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure (based on the incubation period of MERS-CoV viruses).'' and does NOT provide an accompanying link to the research that assertion is based on, that assertion is unacceptable because the 'authority' has failed to do due diligence in substantiating the assertion. You and everyone else are fee to accept that, and other, assertions. If something else which could have been discovered by thorough research is true, like the symptoms may appear as late as 28 days, then accepting the 14 day value as the necessary isolate time could just continue the pandemic.

Yes, coulda, woulda, shoulda. My point is that the background information and research is NOT being reported side by side with the assertions, which is exactly what used car and snake oil salesmen do.

Though I challenged you to direct me to the source information, that is not your responsibility. It is the responsibility of our government. The circumstance that, in my example, the CDC did not provide that information right on the web page and that there is no government entity (executive branch agency or staff of the congresspersons and senators who supposedly were elected to represent us) that can provide it, even if they could be reached by telephone which they can't, is the problem.

Edited March 26, 2020 by nospam99

[nospam99]

I'm going to spin this one more way ....

The government has directed me to isolate for a specific number of days WITHOUT TELLING ME WHY. Omitting that rationale is UNACCEPTABLE.... that's STRIKE ONE.

If I try to independently 'connect the dots' to come up with a 'why' for that specific number of days I find something like the CDC web page that I cited above. That I have to GUESS that the page I found is the rationale is UNACCEPTABLE ..... that's STRIKE TWO.

I would like to KNOW the process that was used to come up with the CDC number. The process or a link thereto is not provided on the page with the number. That's UNACCEPTABLE .... STRIKE THREE. Got a 'strike out' already but not done yet.

I would like to be able to ask someone why that number for isolation is 14 (in this case) and not one of the higher 'outlier' numbers mentioned at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incubation-period/#ref-3 That I have to GUESS who to ask is UNACCEPTABLE ... STRIKE FOUR.

I just phoned my county health department to see if there was someone there to ask my question. Assuming that 'the local health authorities' are ignorant (as usual), getting a reference to another agency would have been acceptable. That didn't happen. All I got was a phone tree. Not having telephone access to a live human representative of a local government health agency is UNACCEPTABLE (they're on the taxpayer dollar-they could work from home) ... STRIKE FIVE.

I think that's more than enough unacceptability to justify my opinion and assertion.

[Tamfana]

CDC is federal.  Rely on nonfederal sources- state, local.  The federal administration has been gutted.  Rely on info from your governor, Cuomo, who's been knowledgeable and accurate so far.  

It’s been explained. The purpose is to flatten the curve so people can be treated.   

[elaine567]

As an individual you are 65 that in itself puts you at increased risk. If you have underlying medical issues as well then you need to isolate yourself whether anyone in authority tells you to or not. 
Not sure why you seem to be railing against self isolation?
Forget about days, this unless it suddenly decides to give up on its own, will be a problem for as long as it takes to get a vaccine....hopefully...