Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Pat]

Looks like COVID-19 cases are spiking in many of the Asian countries that are considered success stories, including Hong Kong, Vietnam, South Korea, Malaysia, and Japan. It's still far less than the rates in the West, but they're running into shortages -- for instance, South Korea has mobilized the military and is using shipping containers to deal with a shortage of hospital beds. Responses range from suspending inbound air travel, to limits on movie theaters and restaurants, gym and karaoke bar closures, and so on. The cause is ascribed to pandemic fatigue, family gatherings, and asymptomatic transmission by younger people.

Interesting quote from the head of the Korean Society of Epidemiology, Kim Dong-hyun: "This time even the contract tracing capacity is reaching its limits because infections are appearing at so many different locations at once".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-surge-hits-parts-of-asia-seen-as-pandemic-success-stories-11607523625

[oggsmash]

The simple truth is that saying no to covid measures requires no argumentation nor justification.  It requires nothing more than people saying "I'd rather take my chances."

Entertaining the premise that an argument most be considered credible, statistically, by people amiable to emergency measures is to lose before you say one word.

We never should have allowed seat belt laws on the basis of mortality reduction.  That was a significant validation of this entire flawed premise.  It should have been nipped right there instead of being allowed to take root and grow

You're citing seat belt laws, but fire codes, drug laws, speed limits and similar laws go back much earlier than that. There's a long history of laws based on mortality reduction.

I would say that if a person is risking only their *own* life, then I favor being more lenient. I don't favor total drug deregulation, but I favor more relaxed laws around morality.

However, if a person is endangering the public by their behavior, then I think it is less clear. If someone is shooting off fireworks in their own apartment, then they should be stopped - because the fire could spread to other apartments and even other buildings if it goes up. Likewise, if someone is driving recklessly, they endanger not only themselves, but other people on the roads. It's the same with infectious disease - whether that's covid or HIV or whatever. An infectious disease isn't just a risk to the person - it's a risk to everyone around them.

  HIV?  then is it not odd nanny state Cali has some pretty lax laws regarding knowingly spreading HIV and some iron fisted ones regardin COVID?

[Ratman_tf]

The simple truth is that saying no to covid measures requires no argumentation nor justification.  It requires nothing more than people saying "I'd rather take my chances."

Entertaining the premise that an argument most be considered credible, statistically, by people amiable to emergency measures is to lose before you say one word.

We never should have allowed seat belt laws on the basis of mortality reduction.  That was a significant validation of this entire flawed premise.  It should have been nipped right there instead of being allowed to take root and grow

You're citing seat belt laws, but fire codes, drug laws, speed limits and similar laws go back much earlier than that. There's a long history of laws based on mortality reduction.

I would say that if a person is risking only their *own* life, then I favor being more lenient. I don't favor total drug deregulation, but I favor more relaxed laws around morality.

However, if a person is endangering the public by their behavior, then I think it is less clear. If someone is shooting off fireworks in their own apartment, then they should be stopped - because the fire could spread to other apartments and even other buildings if it goes up. Likewise, if someone is driving recklessly, they endanger not only themselves, but other people on the roads. It's the same with infectious disease - whether that's covid or HIV or whatever. An infectious disease isn't just a risk to the person - it's a risk to everyone around them.

  HIV?  then is it not odd nanny state Cali has some pretty lax laws regarding knowingly spreading HIV and some iron fisted ones regardin COVID?

HIV was/is the gay disease. That earns them big oppression points to counter the concerns about public health hazards.

[moonsweeper]

  HIV?  then is it not odd nanny state Cali has some pretty lax laws regarding knowingly spreading HIV and some iron fisted ones regardin COVID?

HIV was/is the gay disease. That earns them big oppression points to counter the concerns about public health hazards.

Hardly surprising from jhkim...time and time again he has shown his tendency toward bigotry.

How often has he claimed it is perfectly ok to discriminate against someone if they are not a legally protected class?

I can see an argument for 'discrimination is ok by reason of the freedom of association' or the other end where 'it is wrong to discriminate against anyone'

...but how does he defend 'it is acceptable to discriminate against someone when they don't have some special status under the law.'

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.  He keeps aligning himself with people who feel a two-tier justice system is perfectly acceptable.

On the thread topic, I wonder how his statistical analysis of all the Covid-19 numbers/research aligns with his analysis of climate change research.  He's a scientist.  Surely he wouldn't justify or accept faulty or corrupted data simply because it fit his political narrative, would he??

[Pat]

On the thread topic, I wonder how his statistical analysis of all the Covid-19 numbers/research aligns with his analysis of climate change research.  He's a scientist.  Surely he wouldn't justify or accept faulty or corrupted data simply because it fit his political narrative, would he??

Jhkim's always struck me as honest. Remember, when it comes to COVID-19, the need for immediate answers has led to a lot of studies being rushed out the door that are based on often absurdly limited and/or highly unrepresentative data sets, and otherwise fall very low on the tiers of evidence based medicine. The conclusions, at best, are very shaky. At worst they're just wrong, because the rush has led to significant errors. There have been major retractions from The Lancet and The NEJM, and other studies that haven't but should be withdrawn. One of which is immediately relevant, because it's the WHO-funded meta study on masks in The Lancet that's been used as justification for a lot of the mask mandates. It concludes that masks are highly effective when used by the public, but the problem is it does things like transpose numbers, misclassify the studies under review, and the vast majority of the studies it considers don't address the central point of whether mask use is effective in the community (it ends up with two relevant studies, one showing no benefit and one showing a benefit, but the one that shows the benefit is itself highly flawed). Conversely, at least one study that's critical of masks, the so-called Danish study, has had a hard time getting published, apparently due to political reasons (it finally appeared last month in the Annals of Internal Medicine). As a result, it can be very hard to assess the data. And most people don't even try, and just accept whatever their echo chamber tells them.

Retraction https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions
Retraction https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lancet-retracts-surgispheres-study-on-hydroxychloroquine-67613
WHO meta study https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
Critique of the WHO study http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/
Danish study https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

[moonsweeper]

---snipped for brevity--- bolded by me for emphasis

The conclusions, at best, are very shaky. At worst they're just wrong, because the rush has led to significant errors. There have been major retractions from The Lancet and The NEJM, and other studies that haven't but should be withdrawn. One of which is immediately relevant, because it's the WHO-funded meta study on masks in The Lancet that's been used as justification for a lot of the mask mandates. It concludes that masks are highly effective when used by the public, but the problem is it does things like transpose numbers, misclassify the studies under review, and the vast majority of the studies it considers don't address the central point of whether mask use is effective in the community (it ends up with two relevant studies, one showing no benefit and one showing a benefit, but the one that shows the benefit is itself highly flawed). Conversely, at least one study that's critical of masks, the so-called Danish study, has had a hard time getting published, apparently due to political reasons (it finally appeared last month in the Annals of Internal Medicine). As a result, it can be very hard to assess the data. And most people don't even try, and just accept whatever their echo chamber tells them.

Retraction https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions
Retraction https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lancet-retracts-surgispheres-study-on-hydroxychloroquine-67613
WHO meta study https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
Critique of the WHO study http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/
Danish study https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

No Pat.  At worst the data was intentionally misused for political reasons...
Mistakes are one thing, intentional misuse is an entirely different kettle of fish...

Take the HCQ stuff...state Governor's were threatening doctors and pharmacies if they gave it to people because Trump said it had possibilities in a press conference.

Those possibilities came from actual CDC research...there was an episode of the Dead Zone from back in the early 2000s that even used it as a plot based on the data from the CDC.
(Bonus points if you can guess where the disease came from.  )

All of the 'quick' studies that were touted as showing it as bad, did not address use in recommended quantities in the early stages as a part of a 'cocktail' which was the anecdotal evidence.  They all used testing to arrive at their planned 'doesn't work' conclusion until they were forced to retract it because they couldn't lie about the numbers anymore.

Once you manipulate or hide data or deny someone a possible medical treatment for political reasons, you are no longer performing either science or medicine.

[Pat]

The conclusions, at best, are very shaky. At worst they're just wrong, because the rush has led to significant errors.

No Pat.  At worst the data was intentionally misused for political reasons...
Mistakes are one thing, intentional misuse is an entirely different kettle of fish...

No, the bolded part is referring to the scientific papers, which had serious limitations, but they weren't really political. The spin happened downstream, in the information presented to the public by the press and public health. Though the failure to retract the WHO study and the suppression of the Danish study may be political.

[jhkim]

On the thread topic, I wonder how his statistical analysis of all the Covid-19 numbers/research aligns with his analysis of climate change research.  He's a scientist.  Surely he wouldn't justify or accept faulty or corrupted data simply because it fit his political narrative, would he??

Jhkim's always struck me as honest. Remember, when it comes to COVID-19, the need for immediate answers has led to a lot of studies being rushed out the door that are based on often absurdly limited and/or highly unrepresentative data sets, and otherwise fall very low on the tiers of evidence based medicine. The conclusions, at best, are very shaky.

Thanks, Pat, about honesty. I'm already spending more time on this forum than I really should, and most of my attention has been on the election thread. I'll get back to the covid stuff maybe in a few days.

[consolcwby]

[
Those possibilities came from actual CDC research...there was an episode of the Dead Zone from back in the early 2000s that even used it as a plot based on the data from the CDC.
(Bonus points if you can guess where the disease came from.  )

In the show, it came from WUHAN CHINA! Am I right? What did I win??
You see, when it comes to those in the upper echelons, they TELL YOU what they are going to do and by people doing NOTHING to stop them, they accept that apathy as a form of CONSENT. Then you have their soldiers out there, when confronted with the truth, they then ATTACK the messenger and call the message A CONSPIRACY THEORY. When, in fact, there is a conspiracy happening all around!

[Shasarak]

So this is what we have come too:

[moonsweeper]

The conclusions, at best, are very shaky. At worst they're just wrong, because the rush has led to significant errors.

No Pat.  At worst the data was intentionally misused for political reasons...
Mistakes are one thing, intentional misuse is an entirely different kettle of fish...

No, the bolded part is referring to the scientific papers, which had serious limitations, but they weren't really political. The spin happened downstream, in the information presented to the public by the press and public health. Though the failure to retract the WHO study and the suppression of the Danish study may be political.

It was political as soon as the WHO helped China suppress information and everybody attacked Trump for shutting down travel from Wuhan.

And the scientists became complicit as soon as they did not come forward to refute the political narrative...

[Larsdangly]

Curse the scientists! None of them have anything to contribute here — they never seem to tell us any useful information about how to suppress spread of the disease; they haven't quickly invented a series of tests, treatments and immunizations; none of them are doing anything to systematically study modes of transmission or the progression of the disease.

[Catulle]

Curse the scientists! None of them have anything to contribute here — they never seem to tell us any useful information about how to suppress spread of the disease; they haven't quickly invented a series of tests, treatments and immunizations; none of them are doing anything to systematically study modes of transmission or the progression of the disease.

If only they could be as SMART and INFORMED as we! Why, I'll bet they've not reviewed even HALF of the meticulous data vomited forth by the EXPERTS of Twitter! For shame, America, for shame...

[moonsweeper]

Curse the scientists! None of them have anything to contribute here — they never seem to tell us any useful information about how to suppress spread of the disease; they haven't quickly invented a series of tests, treatments and immunizations; none of them are doing anything to systematically study modes of transmission or the progression of the disease.

You'll note that all I said was 'refuse to refute the political narrative'.  Saying that you don't have enough information yet is acceptable.  Too bad they chose not to do that.

If only they could be as SMART and INFORMED as we! Why, I'll bet they've not reviewed even HALF of the meticulous data vomited forth by the EXPERTS of Twitter! For shame, America, for shame...

I wouldn't know what the experts on Twitter say since I don't have an account.

[EOTB]

Curse the scientists! None of them have anything to contribute here — they never seem to tell us any useful information about how to suppress spread of the disease; they haven't quickly invented a series of tests, treatments and immunizations; none of them are doing anything to systematically study modes of transmission or the progression of the disease.

If only they could be as SMART and INFORMED as we! Why, I'll bet they've not reviewed even HALF of the meticulous data vomited forth by the EXPERTS of Twitter! For shame, America, for shame...

What about this expert on Twitter?

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1336923426259349504?s=20