COVID 19 Vaccination Discussion

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I know right!  Its so counter intuitive since our monkey brains intuition are developed in a pressure environment.

...it would have been a lot cheaper to put those guys in space suits in a big pressure vessel in vacuum on Earth though.  But lots more fun on the Moon.

It's been done already on Earth, and it's cool wherever it's done   Of course, Brian Cox goes on to point out that the Einstein interpretation that the bowling ball and feather aren't actually pulled by gravity at the same speed, they're just following the same inertial path through space-time.  Somewhere in my head, neurons are exploding...

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by jaylw314

[Shadrach]

My best guess is the latter.  I was diagnosed 28 years ago.  Lots of environmental changes since then. Symptoms have varied but never resolved completely even with biologics.  I ceased all treatment in October because of odd and rare side effects associated with Enbrel.  Symptoms worsened a bit heading into Christmas (normal for the dry season). I contracted Covid19 on or about December 30. I noticed psoriasis symptoms were resolving  a few days after my Covid19 diagnosis (early January). By the time I was out of quarantine psoriasis was gone.  After the skin healed, I went from patches of mild psoriasis to looking more like I had Vitiligo.  The pigment differences faded in time for me to enjoy a month of almost perfect skin. It was great reminder of what it was like to live without the mild burden of an auto immune condition.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

16 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

No, of course not.  Again, fallacy by "black or white thinking," but it is another common trope among those those who seek to discredit consensus developed by the scientific process.

Wait, are you accusing me of the above fallacy?  It's exactly the thing I was arguing against. 

[aviatoreb]

30 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

It's been done already on Earth, and it's cool wherever it's done   Of course, Brian Cox goes on to point out that the Einstein interpretation that the bowling ball and feather aren't actually pulled by gravity at the same speed, they're just following the same inertial path through space-time.  Somewhere in my head, neurons are exploding...

 

That's beautiful - 

But for effect - it would have been cooler if they stuck the host into that vacuum chamber, wearing a space suit and he dropped them manually by hand.  Just like on the Moon but a few billion cheaper.  (Trillion in current dollars?)

That's said, I am glad we went to the Moon!

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

99 out of 100 agree? That may be your perception but I’ve seen no evidence that it”s a reality. I appreciate the anecdotal evidence from your epidemiology friends but that’s merely a data point.  I was in finance for many years, I have seen firsthand the power of credentialed peer pressure on consensus thinking. I do not put a lot of stock in consensus; I like data analysis. Unfortunately, it is hard to have good real-time data analysis during a crisis. I certainly listen to people in the consensus, but I am absolutely, always looking for dissenting opinions. There is no risk in being a member of the consensus. If it all goes pear shaped, one can always fall back on the “Mistakes were made but not by me” trope.  It takes true conviction for a professional to stand up and have a dissenting opinion. The risks are real. It can be very detrimental professionally.  For that reason, I tend to go out of my way to listen to what credentialed dissenters have to say.  You might pretend everyone who disagrees with you is foolish, ignorant or worse but that is your perception, not reality. It is not at all difficult to find epidemiologists that are critical of current policy. It’s just that you’re not looking. Why that is, I don’t know

 

But here is the thing in my opinion (notice the refrain) - you - and I - are not doing the analysis with the actual data, or deep knowledge or deep experience in this setting.  I simply don't believe that everyone is an arm chair expert in all things.  That is a common concept these days.  That everyone with a channel changer and a keyboard into twitter can be an arm chair expert voting sides like a popularity contest.  If you were actually working with the data, expert in the topic, worked with the experiments, in this case the patients, then I would consider your dissenting opinion much more interesting than a few posters here that actually are trained in epidemiology.  If there were an epidemiologist with a dissenting opinion here, I would find that interesting too.  As a 3rd party to simply say that there are 1 out of 100 who disagree with you, I say that is always the case in all things.  Thus my zinger that facts don't exist.

Second, a question.  I mean this seriously.  Do facts exist?  Does there ever exist a correct answer in any topic on any thing?  Or does it always come down to some democratic process of votes (opinions) of opposing sides (whether it is 1 to 99 or 50 to 50 or whatever).  Is there ever a true right answer?  I operate in the logical construct that there is and it is not up to humans to decide.  All humans can do is uncover.  Certainly in the case of flat earth for example, most humans were wrong for a very long time, and now even still a few humans were wrong - if - earth is not flat.  There is an absolute truth. And in the case of flat earth, the deciding factor is not derived by statistics as many things are not decided by statistics.  But many things are temporarily settled by statistics - true up to alpha.

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Florida and New York are the third and fourth most populated states in the country, respectively. They are the ninth and eight most population dense states, respectively. The outcomes in New York are some of the worst in the country while Florida placed around the 50th percentile for Covid stats despite never having a mask mandate and never closing schools.  There has been little discussion on those differences in the media.  Treatment of the leadership of those two states has been markedly different. One was celebrated as the benchmark for how to handle a crisis and the other excoriated as an anti-science fool. One followed consensus and implemented draconian policies, the other took a much less heavy-handed approach. Outcomes be damned, one was heralded as the benchmark for crisis management (right up until the sexual misconduct allegations made him a pariah) and the other as the second incarnation of Trump… That is not an intellectually honest approach it is purely political. 

 

That is arm chair expertise.  Surely there are differences between New York and Florida.  But more so, the ones I can think of from my own arm chair expertise, I am confident that people who have been analyzing these data sets for a living, and also working the other aspects of the epidemiology for a living, have thought of the following.  

New York was ground zero for when covid first showed up, and there was a massive massive surge in New York city in March-April of 2020.  Blame the mayor of NYC or blame the governor, or blame whoever decided to let all the people returning from europe, or whatever I don't care.  There was a difference, and the highly packed living conditions only made it worse.  But anyway it was first.  After that time, NYC has not been any where as bad as it was thankfully.

Choose any city in the country, compare it to NYC for the last year, and you will get the same answer.  Choose any state in the country because NY state includes NYC and NYC is the majority of the population of the state by such a wide margin, and you will get the same answer if you are looking for an outcome like "florida was much smarter because"...  I am curious how that comes out if you start the count from May 2020.    I would guess - but I do not have the data available, or the time, to do an actual study - that if you start the data analysis in May 2020 that you can reverse the conclusion in many cases.

Mixing in "sexual allegations" and "trump" yada and is this still data science, statistics, or epidemiology?  Or are we talking heads now?  I know a lot of scientists and I don't know a single one who juices their numbers to tell a political story they have pre-chosen.  I am not saying such people don't exist.  But a pretense that is this what scientists do is what I see all the time if I turn the tv on and it is insincere drivel by the talking heads telling us what they would do if they were in that position.

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I appreciate the diverse group of individuals on this board. It is a great place to get perspectives to which you may not otherwise be exposed.  I think the expertise of our credentialed members would be most useful directed discussing anomalies that do not fit with the current narrative and why. I do not need a doc to say “shut up and mask up” I know plenty of Karens ensuring I get my fill.  I’d like something a bit more substantial than, and I am paraphrasing - “I am credentialed and you’re not. I don’t need to address that there is credentialed dissent it’s not worthy of my consideration.”  One can get away with that here, with someone like me. One could not get away with it in a more credentialed forum nor do I think they would try. For that reason, I see it as both dismissive and disrespectful.

Huh?  So if someone says they are an epidemiologist or a doctor who is working directly with covid patients you want to tell them that is irrelevant since expertise counts for zero and that you are fully positioned to declare them wrong? I am sure you are fully smart enough to make fully qualified conclusions but you like me are not invested in this data (meaning time actually analyzing it) or the topic (like working thousands of hours with patients) so without that, honestly I am not going to walk up to such a person and declare they are wrong.

Note that in almost everything I have posted on this topic, I have not taken an actual position.  I have just taken two perspectives -1) that truth exists. facts exist.  2) there are people who know what they are doing who have spent a huge amount of time learning their trade but also working with a given problem at hand.  I am not going to tell a violin maker he knows shit about making violins because I watched a few youtube skits about violin making.

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

A bit about correlation @aviatoreb.  When I say correlation, I mean a statistical relationship, that is all. What I said above is my observation that people pick statistical relationships that support their arguments while ignoring statistical relationships that do not.  

Correlation said by a statistician, or a scientist who uses statistics is a specific computation.  It is already inherently multi-variate.  There is a special case version that is single variate and it is the version taught in stats 101 because it is easier to describe for beginners.   Correlation is also a word used in English which is more like you said, but these are not synonyms.  Yes, in statistics it is designed to discuss relationships but it does so imperfectly in part because it is a linear statistic only.  It can only pick up linear relationships.  And only amongst measured variables.  For example, it is notorious when mistakenly used for missing cofounders which is the primary reason why correlation does not imply causation.  (Smoking causes yellow fingers. Smoking causes lung cancer.  Therefore if you developed a correlation statistic between yellow fingers and lung cancer without considering smoking, you might decide that yellow fingers causes cancer.  There are ways to handle this general problem that go way beyond correlation).    I like mutual information, and I use it a lot in certain settings.  One nice property is it is not restricted to linear relationships.

People pick statistical relationships that support their arguments....ignoring statistical relationships that do not.  So say the talking heads.  The practice of science by well meaning scientists which is overwhelmingly the majority, bends over backwards to not do this thing that the talking heads expert in all things assume that well meaning scientists do on purpose all the time which is juice their numbers to push agendas.  Juice their numbers means design faulty experiments, leave out data, avoid some data, and so on.  All ways you can get whatever answer you want if you want to use data as a yes man fall guy.

[Mcstealth]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

99 out of 100 agree? That may be your perception but I’ve seen no evidence that it”s a reality. I appreciate the anecdotal evidence from your epidemiology friends but that’s merely a data point.  I was in finance for many years, I have seen firsthand the power of credentialed peer pressure on consensus thinking. I do not put a lot of stock in consensus; I like data analysis. Unfortunately, it is hard to have good real-time data analysis during a crisis. I certainly listen to people in the consensus, but I am absolutely, always looking for dissenting opinions. There is no risk in being a member of the consensus. If it all goes pear shaped, one can always fall back on the “Mistakes were made but not by me” trope.  It takes true conviction for a professional to stand up and have a dissenting opinion. The risks are real. It can be very detrimental professionally.  For that reason, I tend to go out of my way to listen to what credentialed dissenters have to say.  You might pretend everyone who disagrees with you is foolish, ignorant or worse but that is your perception, not reality. It is not at all difficult to find epidemiologists that are critical of current policy. It’s just that you’re not looking. Why that is, I don’t know

The Great Barrington Declaration is not a group of quacks or outliers. It is comprised of highly credentialed professionals in multiple disciplines including epidemiology and economics. These are professionals that hold degrees from or are currently doing research at some of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the world. Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, etc... They are not being trotted out on talk shows. Quite the opposite. Their Facebook page was deleted. Twitter posts disappear. YouTube deleted videos of discussions between highly credentialed and accomplished professionals. Not because discussing infectious disease violates terms of service but because “google inc” will now decide when a Stanford educated MD with a specialty in epidemiology and a PhD in economics is making the appropriate statements. That scares me. It also bothers me that a credentialed individual such as yourself are not only dismissive, but absolute in your certainty that you are correct. You may be well-meaning. I like to think that everyone is. But many if not most of the most reprehensible things done throughout human history have been done by large groups of people who likely saw themselves as well-meaning. I’d be a lot less concerned about the data on mask wearing if there didn’t appear to be such a concerted effort to shut down any dissent and characterize those dissenters as antisocial, uneducated and selfish. Difficult conversations are the only way to get anywhere close to the truth. That will be the case until the end of time. Conducting those conversations in the most civil manner is the best way to bring people to your way of thinking. Smugly suggesting that no one of consequence disagrees with you and then stating your credentials. Is textbook “ipse dixit “…appeal to authority.  I have seen you dismiss people as QAnon followers for suggesting this virus may have been manmade. Do you think the virologist Luc Motagnier a QAnon follower?  Was it before or after his work discovering the AIDs virus?  Perhaps post Nobel peace prize but before he became merely an outlier…maybe just  age related dementia.

In addition to all of the noise that we’re all trying to glean some understanding from there is personal experience with the virus.  I can say firsthand that it will necessarily influence how one views the virus.  I deal with the dissonance between my personal experience and what I am being told every day. It is unavoidable. You can’t un-ring the bell. What you experience removes it from the abstract. All you can do is seek out as much information as possible. No one in my circle of infection (5 adults 33, 46, 59, 70, 82 two kids 3, 5) had respiratory symptoms. In fact, no one had any symptoms when the disease was transmitted. This does not mean that we were not aerosolizing the virus it just means no sneezing or coughing. This has piqued my interest in masks. Not because I chose to be a subversive but because I have seen the way masks are used around the country (world).  Some are store-bought paper surgical type masks. Some are homemade fabric masks. It matters not, a staple of today’s automobile is the used mask wrapped around the gearshift knob, in the center console or hanging from the rearview. I absolutely question the wisdom of handling and strapping on a multiple use handkerchief every time one goes into a public space. I never projected droplets via sneeze. But I am damn sure that I was shedding the virus via mucus membranes around my face and mouth. Like most, I walked around for several days not knowing that I was infected. I am better than most when it comes to washing masks and using disposables. But the reality of our local guidelines is that I was frequently handling a contaminated handkerchief with straps every time I went into public.  That may or may not be a vector for the virus. I haven’t been able to find any studies that analyze masks are used in the real world. Regardless, it surely should not be taboo to have the discussion.

A bit about correlation @aviatoreb.  When I say correlation, I mean a statistical relationship, that is all. What I said above is my observation that people pick statistical relationships that support their arguments while ignoring statistical relationships that do not.  I would much prefer to discuss all the data not just some of it.  If a state experiences a jump in caseload with the relaxation of the mask mandate, I am not going to dismiss that as useless data. On the other hand, I am not going to dismiss that Texas was supposed to be an apocalyptic hotspot post mask mandate. So much of the rhetoric from the chattering classes predicted disaster, yet there has been no correlating spike in cases. That is a piece of data then I am grateful we have. It is a piece of data that we would not have if Texas had followed the current narrative. What is odd to me is that I have a considerable number of friends and acquaintances that are disappointed that there was no disaster in Texas after the mandate was lifted. I do not just find that troubling, I find it reprehensible. It is not science it is pure politics. If there had been a spike those same people would likely be smugly basking in their “I told you sos”.

 

Florida and New York are the third and fourth most populated states in the country, respectively. They are the ninth and eight most population dense states, respectively. The outcomes in New York are some of the worst in the country while Florida placed around the 50th percentile for Covid stats despite never having a mask mandate and never closing schools.  There has been little discussion on those differences in the media.  Treatment of the leadership of those two states has been markedly different. One was celebrated as the benchmark for how to handle a crisis and the other excoriated as an anti-science fool. One followed consensus and implemented draconian policies, the other took a much less heavy-handed approach. Outcomes be damned, one was heralded as the benchmark for crisis management (right up until the sexual misconduct allegations made him a pariah) and the other as the second incarnation of Trump… That is not an intellectually honest approach it is purely political. 

I appreciate the diverse group of individuals on this board. It is a great place to get perspectives to which you may not otherwise be exposed.  I think the expertise of our credentialed members would be most useful directed discussing anomalies that do not fit with the current narrative and why. I do not need a doc to say “shut up and mask up” I know plenty of Karens ensuring I get my fill.  I’d like something a bit more substantial than, and I am paraphrasing - “I am credentialed and you’re not. I don’t need to address that there is credentialed dissent it’s not worthy of my consideration.”  One can get away with that here, with someone like me. One could not get away with it in a more credentialed forum nor do I think they would try. For that reason, I see it as both dismissive and disrespectful.

I nominate this for Post of the Year. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

But here is the thing in my opinion (notice the refrain) - you - and I - are not doing the analysis with the actual data, or deep knowledge or deep experience in this setting.  I simply don't believe that everyone is an arm chair expert in all things.  That is a common concept these days.  That everyone with a channel changer and a keyboard into twitter can be an arm chair expert voting sides like a popularity contest.  If you were actually working with the data, expert in the topic, worked with the experiments, in this case the patients, then I would consider your dissenting opinion much more interesting than a few posters here that actually are trained in epidemiology.  If there were an epidemiologist with a dissenting opinion here, I would find that interesting too.  As a 3rd party to simply say that there are 1 out of 100 who disagree with you, I say that is always the case in all things.  Thus my zinger that facts don't exist.

Second, a question.  I mean this seriously.  Do facts exist?  Does there ever exist a correct answer in any topic on any thing?  Or does it always come down to some democratic process of votes (opinions) of opposing sides (whether it is 1 to 99 or 50 to 50 or whatever).  Is there ever a true right answer?  I operate in the logical construct that there is and it is not up to humans to decide.  All humans can do is uncover.  Certainly in the case of flat earth for example, most humans were wrong for a very long time, and now even still a few humans were wrong - if - earth is not flat.  There is an absolute truth. And in the case of flat earth, the deciding factor is not derived by statistics as many things are not decided by statistics.  But many things are temporarily settled by statistics - true up to alpha.

That is arm chair expertise.  Surely there are differences between New York and Florida.  But more so, the ones I can think of from my own arm chair expertise, I am confident that people who have been analyzing these data sets for a living, and also working the other aspects of the epidemiology for a living, have thought of the following.  

New York was ground zero for when covid first showed up, and there was a massive massive surge in New York city in March-April of 2020.  Blame the mayor of NYC or blame the governor, or blame whoever decided to let all the people returning from europe, or whatever I don't care.  There was a difference, and the highly packed living conditions only made it worse.  But anyway it was first.  After that time, NYC has not been any where as bad as it was thankfully.

Choose any city in the country, compare it to NYC for the last year, and you will get the same answer.  Choose any state in the country because NY state includes NYC and NYC is the majority of the population of the state by such a wide margin, and you will get the same answer if you are looking for an outcome like "florida was much smarter because"...  I am curious how that comes out if you start the count from May 2020.    I would guess - but I do not have the data available, or the time, to do an actual study - that if you start the data analysis in May 2020 that you can reverse the conclusion in many cases.

Mixing in "sexual allegations" and "trump" yada and is this still data science, statistics, or epidemiology?  Or are we talking heads now?  I know a lot of scientists and I don't know a single one who juices their numbers to tell a political story they have pre-chosen.  I am not saying such people don't exist.  But a pretense that is this what scientists do is what I see all the time if I turn the tv on and it is insincere drivel by the talking heads telling us what they would do if they were in that position.

Huh?  So if someone says they are an epidemiologist or a doctor who is working directly with covid patients you want to tell them that is irrelevant since expertise counts for zero and that you are fully positioned to declare them wrong? I am sure you are fully smart enough to make fully qualified conclusions but you like me are not invested in this data (meaning time actually analyzing it) or the topic (like working thousands of hours with patients) so without that, honestly I am not going to walk up to such a person and declare they are wrong.

Note that in almost everything I have posted on this topic, I have not taken an actual position.  I have just taken two perspectives -1) that truth exists. facts exist.  2) there are people who know what they are doing who have spent a huge amount of time learning their trade but also working with a given problem at hand.  I am not going to tell a violin maker he knows shit about making violins because I watched a few youtube skits about violin making.

Correlation said by a statistician, or a scientist who uses statistics is a specific computation.  It is already inherently multi-variate.  There is a special case version that is single variate and it is the version taught in stats 101 because it is easier to describe for beginners.   Correlation is also a word used in English which is more like you said, but these are not synonyms.  Yes, in statistics it is designed to discuss relationships but it does so imperfectly in part because it is a linear statistic only.  It can only pick up linear relationships.  And only amongst measured variables.  For example, it is notorious when mistakenly used for missing cofounders which is the primary reason why correlation does not imply causation.  (Smoking causes yellow fingers. Smoking causes lung cancer.  Therefore if you developed a correlation statistic between yellow fingers and lung cancer without considering smoking, you might decide that yellow fingers causes cancer.  There are ways to handle this general problem that go way beyond correlation).    I like mutual information, and I use it a lot in certain settings.  One nice property is it is not restricted to linear relationships.

People pick statistical relationships that support their arguments....ignoring statistical relationships that do not.  So say the talking heads.  The practice of science by well meaning scientists which is overwhelmingly the majority, bends over backwards to not do this thing that the talking heads expert in all things assume that well meaning scientists do on purpose all the time which is juice their numbers to push agendas.  Juice their numbers means design faulty experiments, leave out data, avoid some data, and so on.  All ways you can get whatever answer you want if you want to use data as a yes man fall guy.

I hope I have a chance to unpack and respond before the lock... Maybe tonight after the kids are down.

[aviatoreb]

4 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I hope I have a chance to unpack and respond before the lock... Maybe tonight after the kids are down.

Better hurry because this one might lock any sec!

Can I amend your timing - after the kids are down and BEFORE the grown ups are down. That time gap between shrinks as the kids get older until at some point when they are teenagers - the grown ups are down before the kids....  its all downhill from there.

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Better hurry because this one might lock any sec!

Can I amend your timing - after the kids are down and BEFORE the grown ups are down. That time gap between shrinks as the kids get older until at some point when they are teenagers - the grown ups are down before the kids....  its all downhill from there.

I’m an older dad of a three and five-year-old. (47 earlier this month). I wish that gap was shrinking for me... I exist on 4 to 5hrs a night. 6 is a godsend. It’s my mind that is restless not my children.  I look forward to less interesting times...

[Hank]

43 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 I look forward to less interesting times...

We're all living the ancient Chinese curse:  may you live in interesting times. 

  

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I’m an older dad of a three and five-year-old. (47 earlier this month). I wish that gap was shrinking for me... I exist on 4 to 5hrs a night. 6 is a godsend. It’s my mind that is restless not my children.  I look forward to less interesting times...

I just turned 54 - but ours are 24, 23 and 19.  And our 19 year old is off to college in the fall (was meant to be last fall...but we know what happened last year!  Who wants to start freshman year in a pandemic?!).  I can't believe how time has flown?  How did they get so big?

I wish us all less interesting times very very soon.  A little interesting is great.  But this much interesting.  Slap hand on forehead and roll eyes.

[jaylw314]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Wait, are you accusing me of the above fallacy?  It's exactly the thing I was arguing against. 

What? No, I only accuse arguments, not people   That would be ad hominem

[Shadrach]

Just now, jaylw314 said:

What? No, I only accuse arguments, not people   That would be ad hominem

Fair enough but it read like you were suggesting that I had put forth a false dichotomy. 

[jaylw314]

Just now, Shadrach said:

Fair enough but it read like you were suggesting that I had put forth a false dichotomy. 

I read your solitary statement of "all epidemiologists?" to be an implication that since some epidemiologists disagree with the consensus, that the consensus opinion is to be discredited.  If I was incorrect in that reading, then I defend myself with the claim that terse statements online fail to communicate nuance or sarcasm well

[Hank]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

... terse statements online fail to communicate nuance or sarcasm well

Well, or even at all . . . .

[jaylw314]

12 minutes ago, Hank said:

Well, or even at all . . . .

  You reminded me of something from those old Infocom text computer games, like Zork and Planetfall.  There was actually a command called "maximum verbosity."  I always thought that was a pretty cool way of describing "talking too much."

[ilovecornfields]

@Shadrach, I appreciate your comments. Let me try to address some of them.

1. You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said. Please direct me to where I talked about absolutes and certainties. Science and medicine don’t work that way and I am careful not to use those words. 
 

2. I said “If 99 out of 100...” to illustrate a general concept but you’re claiming that I said 99 out of 100 epidemiologists agree on some statement. I’m not sure exactly what that statement is but, regardless, that is again something I never said which you’re attributing to me.

3. “Having difficult conversations” is quite different that posting offensive memes, insulting various people, and bragging about being socially irresponsible. I’m fully in support of the former but usually find more examples here of the latter.

4. I’m glad you have firsthand experience with 5 adults with COVID. I’ve seen over 500. Since you point out how important the “n” value is, odds are that my sample more accurately represents the population as a whole. Very basic statistical concept here. I also agree that most people do fine with COVID (I’ve never said otherwise) and I’ve been saying for over a year that the mortality rate is on the order of 1%. The problem is that if millions of people get COVID, that 1% becomes a big number (32 million cases and 573k deaths as of today in the US.)

5. I don’t know anyone who is disappointed when a public health disaster doesn’t happen. Perhaps you need new friends

6. Smart people can say and do crazy things. You brought up HIV. There is a man named Peter Duesberg who was a brilliant biologist and did some of the early groundbreaking work on cancer genetics (oncogenes). I met him once. Nice guy. Very well accomplished.  He also claimed HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and was quite vocal in these statements. Turns out he was wrong. I read the Barrington Declaration. I thinks it’s a political piece and disagree with most of the conclusions. I’m sure smart people were involved. Doesn’t mean they’re right.
 

7. COVID-19 is a “novel coronavirus.” We started off knowing very little about it and had to base early decisions on that. There’s still a lot we don’t know. When I don’t know the answer to something (is the engine running rough or is it ok?) I try to make a choice that causes the least harm if I’m wrong, because I know I’m not always right (I’ve written here about this several times before, despite your claims of my absolute certainty). I don’t like masks, but if I’m wrong about them then it’s an inconvenience. If I’m right and I don’t wear masks the people die. 
 

8. I think bandannas are stupid, too. I wear an N95 mask or nothing at all. At work, I wear an N95 under my respirator. 
 

9. Thank you for your genuine attempt at having a dialogue and not just making offensive political statements. I hope others will follow your example.

[Marauder]

[mention=8069]Shadrach[/mention], I appreciate your comments. Let me try to address some of them.
1. You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said. Please direct me to where I talked about absolutes and certainties. Science and medicine don’t work that way and I am careful not to use those words. 
 
2. I said “If 99 out of 100...” to illustrate a general concept but you’re claiming that I said 99 out of 100 epidemiologists agree on some statement. I’m not sure exactly what that statement is but, regardless, that is again something I never said which you’re attributing to me.
3. “Having difficult conversations” is quite different that posting offensive memes, insulting various people, and bragging about being socially irresponsible. I’m fully in support of the former but usually find more examples here of the latter.
4. I’m glad you have firsthand experience with 5 adults with COVID. I’ve seen over 500. Since you point out how important the “n” value is, odds are that my sample more accurately represents the population as a whole. Very basic statistical concept here. I also agree that most people do fine with COVID (I’ve never said otherwise) and I’ve been saying for over a year that the mortality rate is on the order of 1%. The problem is that if millions of people get COVID, that 1% becomes a big number (32 million cases and 573k deaths as of today in the US.)
5. I don’t know anyone who is disappointed when a public health disaster doesn’t happen. Perhaps you need new friends
6. Smart people can say and do crazy things. You brought up HIV. There is a man named Peter Duesberg who was a brilliant biologist and did some of the early groundbreaking work on cancer genetics (oncogenes). I met him once. Nice guy. Very well accomplished.  He also claimed HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and was quite vocal in these statements. Turns out he was wrong. I read the Barrington Declaration. I thinks it’s a political piece and disagree with most of the conclusions. I’m sure smart people were involved. Doesn’t mean they’re right.
 
7. COVID-19 is a “novel coronavirus.” We started off knowing very little about it and had to base early decisions on that. There’s still a lot we don’t know. When I don’t know the answer to something (is the engine running rough or is it ok?) I try to make a choice that causes the least harm if I’m wrong, because I know I’m not always right (I’ve written here about this several times before, despite your claims of my absolute certainty). I don’t like masks, but if I’m wrong about them then it’s an inconvenience. If I’m right and I don’t wear masks the people die. 
 
8. I think bandannas are stupid, too. I wear an N95 mask or nothing at all. At work, I wear an N95 under my respirator. 
 
9. Thank you for your genuine attempt at having a dialogue and not just making offensive political statements. I hope others will follow your example.

My sister is a retired physician (internal medicine & ER). She was called back out of retirement by the state of New York to help with COVID cases. She had an interesting comment on the cases she treated. She said that there doesn’t seem to be a constant demographic with cases that will turn out bad. She has seen people in their 20s die while a 90 year with similar initial symptoms recover well. And on another day, the opposite is true.

Are you seeing the same in your cases?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[ilovecornfields]

9 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

My sister is a retired physician (internal medicine & ER). She was called back out of retirement by the state of New York to help with COVID cases. She had an interesting comment on the cases she treated. She said that there doesn’t seem to be a constant demographic with cases that will turn out bad. She has seen people in their 20s die while a 90 year with similar initial symptoms recover well. And on another day, the opposite is true.

Are you seeing the same in your cases?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

It’s pretty unpredictable individually but there certainly are trends - obesity, older age, multiple comorbidities tend to do worse, but I’ve seen older morbidly obese diabetics who do fine and otherwise healthy 20 year olds who look like they’re dying (because they are). I suspect genetic predisposition had a big effect as well because there seem to be some families where everyone gets super sick (except one spouse) or families where the opposite is true.

Early on it was mostly individuals,  but now we’re seeing a lot more “everyone in the family had it.” They will often describe everyone being fine except 1 or 2 people. Seems how much you get exposed with during the initial infection might play a role in disease severity as well so I’m not sure if that accounts for anything (maybe the 1st person had a smaller exposure through a casual contact but the rest of the family members have a higher exposure because of close contact).

Some of the sadder ones are the ones where they know who brought it home and another family member gets hospitalized or dies. I saw an 11 year old with MIS-C who ended up getting extremely sick and the dad (who brought it home) wouldn’t come to the ER to see him. Mom said dad was having a really rough time with it because he didn’t hadn’t really believed in COVID and the kid had never really looked that sick the month prior when they all had it. Statistically, MIS-C is rare but it sucks to be the one to give it to your kid.
 

[carusoam]

The side effects of Covid on flying...

Plane for sale... tragic story. (Owner, and probably the plane too..)

keep up the good fight...

-a-

 

[N9201A]

Ahaha - so a no mask no service restaurant celebration of snowflake scared to see people on mask isn’t nonsense?
A pair of adults drove by my son and his friend in town 6 weeks ago and they were wearing masks. They were shouting profanity coughed at them and spit at them / too far to mean anything but it’s sad they are so offended and scared to see people in masks.  Mask snowflakes apparently it’s a thing.  

Yes I listened to one of these doofuses whine about masks, “it’s just a flu,” “it’s 1%, live your life,” “sheeple,” etc...and then complain how he would never get a vaccine because a shot received when he was a child made him a little nauseous. Poor baby! So, rational folks doing math not wanting to needlessly risk an ICU visit, lose their medical, or suffer long term effects are “sheeple” — but it’s OK for big brave braindead to shy away from a little pokey needle that wouldn’t scare most seven-year olds.

We don’t need to turn on the TV anymore to watch world-class buffoonery, sadly.

[N9201A]

Fake news. All those dead bodies are really just actors being paid to brainwash you into actually caring for someone other than yourself and being a responsible member of society. Don’t fall for it. Just eat your steak. It’s to die for. Let’s keep spreading the disease and seeing how many more mutations we can get!
It’s totally lost on me how the people who claim to want a return to “normalcy” are EXACTLY the ones keeping us from getting there because of their reckless behavior. Every time we make progress, they act like imbeciles and almost guarantee that we’ll take a huge step back.
Great job guys. We already have variants here that the vaccines are less effective against, so why don’t you just go gather in large groups with other unvaccinated super spreaders, cause the next wave to come and then complain about how the government wants to pass all these rules to keep you from exercising your right to infect and kill others.
Where else did we just read a thread about someone doing something incredibly stupid and then blaming the government for picking on her? I have no respect for those who blame others for the consequences of their own stupid choices. 

Yes, it’s a hoax, don’t get a vaccine, don’t wear a mask. Smoke as much as possible, chew too, and never wear a seat belt. Try to speed always, and remember—motorcycle helmets are for wimps! Always keep your gun loaded, gun safety is for commie pinkos who want to take your guns away! Try to handle them while drinking, it’s American and very patriotic.

Darwin prevails, again.

[Tony Starke]

3 hours ago, N9201A said:

Yes I listened to one of these doofuses whine about masks, “it’s just a flu,” “it’s 1%, live your life,” “sheeple,” etc...and then complain how he would never get a vaccine because a shot received when he was a child made him a little nauseous. Poor baby! So, rational folks doing math not wanting to needlessly risk an ICU visit, lose their medical, or suffer long term effects are “sheeple” — but it’s OK for big brave braindead to shy away from a little pokey needle that wouldn’t scare most seven-year olds.

We don’t need to turn on the TV anymore to watch world-class buffoonery, sadly.

Hey bruh my body, my choice. Why you so mad? 

[mike_elliott]

On 4/27/2021 at 7:28 PM, jaylw314 said:

  You reminded me of something from those old Infocom text computer games, like Zork and Planetfall.  There was actually a command called "maximum verbosity."  I always thought that was a pretty cool way of describing "talking too much."

Zork...written by former Mooney 201 owner and CTO of Compaq computer corp Scott Cutler

[N9201A]

Hey bruh my body, my choice. Why you so mad? 

Who’s mad? I wrote I’m getting free real-world buffoonery and re-proving Darwin. I’m laughing my ass off at it...