Crazy (and not-so-crazy) shit about Covid-19

[meeks]

I spoke to one of my friends still living in Wuhan. When the lockdown finally progressed from '1 family member can go shopping' to 'no one can go outside' the govt sent food and supplies to their door. They were never left 'starving' or worried about whether they were going to have a 'next meal'. We need to stop latching onto narratives that feed our biases just because it backs up our (sometimes incorrect) point of view.
The Wuhan govt took care of their people during harsh times that required drastic measures and it worked. They didn't argue about needing to push the public back outside because 'people deserve to work for large corporations to keep the stock values high'. They didn't argue about "who's going to pay for this?". They didn't argue "we do more testing that other countries that are now able to relax their safety protocols because the numbers are in decline". They didn't argue "it's a capitalist hoax" and claim it will go away by Chinese New Year.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide logical data that proves that mixing into a crowd of infected people makes you no less likely to contract the virus that simply staying indoors and away from the crowd. We can opine about this for months (clearly, since we're on page 95 now) about what false opinion pieces we saw on the news (Tucker Carlson...coff coff...) (this is not directed at anyone specific).

[LaoDan]

Michael is smart enough to be correct about many of the points that he makes. For example, data from small sample sizes often lead to incorrect conclusions (I wrote an article about science and TJQ to address this very same point), and there are often many factors that are not taken into account. He correctly points this out for my extrapolation from 1% to the general population. And there are other problems like that eventually having herd immunity was not factored in (so 100% of the population would likely not be expected to be exposed or susceptible...). He correctly points out that we will not really KNOW until things play out under whatever conditions each society chooses to use to address the pandemic. Then, in hindsight, we can determine what approach worked best. But in a pandemic where significant loss of life is certain to occur, that may be too late and too many deaths may have already occurred that could have been prevented (there is no recovery from death).

My problem is the tendency to dismiss the preliminary data and advocate for whatever one wants because there is not enough evidence to PROVE that one action is better than another. We should use the best “guesses” from the current available information, rather than dismissing that information by assuming that it is unreliable and should therefore be discarded. We should use the best information that we currently have (even if that is not yet reliable, as long as it is based on real data rather than on desires); we should do the best that we can with the limited data that is available. We should increase resources to enable increases in the available data that can be analyzed for increasingly accurate conclusions. We should continuously modify our recommendations based on emerging data and analyses, rather than ignoring it until only after it eventually becomes more reliable or definitive.

So, for example:

The “Spanish flu” epidemic showed that, even without rapid scientific investigations, those communities that shut down the soonest had better survival rates than those that were slow to do so. [This is from analysis of results from differing approaches after the final results became known.]

The Chinese, with a population of some 1.4 billion, has had 4,638 confirmed deaths to date while the USA, with a population of about 0.33 billion has had over 117,000 confirmed deaths. Even if the numbers are not completely accurate, this difference is huge! Why? Why isn’t the USA doing better?

I know that Michael is smart enough to apply his own knowledge, about using limited data to draw conclusions, to the information that he posts to support his own preferences. But it seems to me that he uses one standard for opponents, but allows himself to use equally unsubstantiated information to represent his own views.

For example, although there may have been some incidences of Chinese starving due to lock-down conditions in China (although the sources for the information are not reliably confirmed), the vast majority of restrictions appears to have been handled humanely, with supplies being provided to households under travel lock-downs. Extrapolating from a small number of possible incidents to the idea that lock-downs can lead to widespread starvation deaths appears to be vastly exaggerated. Plus, I have not heard of any starvation deaths in the USA due to lock-down restrictions, but I have heard of many organizations helping neighbors with obtaining needed food and supplies.

Why the double standards?

[everything]

yup yup well said

we could say Sweden did a better job than the US by claiming do very little is a sound strategy. rather than just a bunch of flip flopping and pandering for political reasons.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Michael is smart enough to be correct about many of the points that he makes. For example, data from small sample sizes often lead to incorrect conclusions (I wrote an article about science and TJQ to address this very same point), and there are often many factors that are not taken into account. He correctly points this out for my extrapolation from 1% to the general population. And there are other problems like that eventually having herd immunity was not factored in (so 100% of the population would likely not be expected to be exposed or susceptible...). He correctly points out that we will not really KNOW until things play out under whatever conditions each society chooses to use to address the pandemic. Then, in hindsight, we can determine what approach worked best. But in a pandemic where significant loss of life is certain to occur, that may be too late and too many deaths may have already occurred that could have been prevented (there is no recovery from death).

My problem is the tendency to dismiss the preliminary data and advocate for whatever one wants because there is not enough evidence to PROVE that one action is better than another. We should use the best “guesses” from the current available information, rather than dismissing that information by assuming that it is unreliable and should therefore be discarded. We should use the best information that we currently have (even if that is not yet reliable, as long as it is based on real data rather than on desires); we should do the best that we can with the limited data that is available. We should increase resources to enable increases in the available data that can be analyzed for increasingly accurate conclusions. We should continuously modify our recommendations based on emerging data and analyses, rather than ignoring it until only after it eventually becomes more reliable or definitive.

So, for example:

The “Spanish flu” epidemic showed that, even without rapid scientific investigations, those communities that shut down the soonest had better survival rates than those that were slow to do so. [This is from analysis of results from differing approaches after the final results became known.]

The Chinese, with a population of some 1.4 billion, has had 4,638 confirmed deaths to date while the USA, with a population of about 0.33 billion has had over 117,000 confirmed deaths. Even if the numbers are not completely accurate, this difference is huge! Why? Why isn’t the USA doing better?

I know that Michael is smart enough to apply his own knowledge, about using limited data to draw conclusions, to the information that he posts to support his own preferences. But it seems to me that he uses one standard for opponents, but allows himself to use equally unsubstantiated information to represent his own views.

For example, although there may have been some incidences of Chinese starving due to lock-down conditions in China (although the sources for the information are not reliably confirmed), the vast majority of restrictions appears to have been handled humanely, with supplies being provided to households under travel lock-downs. Extrapolating from a small number of possible incidents to the idea that lock-downs can lead to widespread starvation deaths appears to be vastly exaggerated. Plus, I have not heard of any starvation deaths in the USA due to lock-down restrictions, but I have heard of many organizations helping neighbors with obtaining needed food and supplies.

Why the double standards?

Far too generous.

There are key claims being made that are not reasonable or right.

If he had just come out and said, "The hit to the economy and other factors of well being will be greater than the good done by social distancing," I would have simply let that stand. I don't agree with that argument, but it is an argument. To constantly argue that none of the science can be believed (or only the essays and youtube videos that he likes can be) and that mitigation strategies don't work is actively harmful and a message that needs to be countered.

[everything]

I'm trying to think of some analogies. It's not the most prudent to ask for overwhelming proof some precautions on things like seat belts or helmets or not smoking before thinking "good idea" - except these are bad analogies because those mainly affect the individual not potentially so many others in a large way. Yeah there's 2nd hand smoke but even that. Like it's probably safe to assume I should vape until the evidence is overwhelming I should not. It's not so much about an argument based on an assumption. The assumption itself is the issue.

[Steve James]

The world changes. I remember when people were allowed to smoke in movie theaters and jazz clubs. I miss that atmosphere. Ya can't even smoke in Paris cafes anymore. Otoh, seeing doctors and teachers going back to smoking in hospitals and schools is not gonna happen.

It's better not to start smoking, buuut people argued the same thing about tobacco that they do about the coronavirus. I.e., we were told that there was no proof. Of course, the scientists at the tobacco companies knew by the 50s. The difference is that research on tobacco had been going on for decades, and returning GI's, and the culture of smoking, provided lots of data. There's not enough data on vaping, but making sugary flavors to attract kids shouldn't be allowed.

I know some apartment buildings that are supposed to be no-smoking. But, I think it'll be way more interesting in a building where the smokers and vapors live. At grad school, I lived on the last smoking floor on the whole campus. Name a continent, and there were two or three from it --except Antarctica.

[Franklin]

no one is talking about this
and I would love to find out more...

about the cargo plane that can create a sonic boom...

that's pretty dope


Franklin

[Giles]

I’ve been following this thread in recent days but due to other commitments I don’t have much time to post. First of all, a big thankyou to LaoDan for his contributions, which I very much appreciate. Also for his acknowledgements to Michael for the valid points in the latter’s arguments, alongside the clear criticism.

Just to further highlight a couple of points already made by LaoDan: science / scientific research is – and usually has to be – a fairly slow-moving process in response to a crisis. That’s why people create protocols for emergency situations, and also why experience and protocols from other situations have to be applied provisionally to new situations, even if you don’t immediately know whether they are fully appropriate. But still much better, and indeed much safer, than waiting “for all the evidence and removal of any doubt” before acting.
"Is that whooshing rumbling noise approaching from just around the bend in the road a truck, or only the wind in the trees, or maybe a landslide?" – "No fully conclusive evidence as yet, we don't have a total consensus, so let’s all stay on the road just as we are until we see it come round the corner. Although it does seem to be moving quite fast..."


We’re not in a gaming situation where you can make mistakes, small or even catastrophic, then learn from these, press Reset and start over.
Nonetheless, I hear and read again and again how some people, also here in Germany, point to certain revisions in findings and corresponding advice as damning evidence that (real) experts and the scientific community don’t know what they’re doing, can’t be trusted etc. otherwise they wouldn’t keep ‘changing their minds’. Even when, ever since February at the latest, there has been no mind-changing by the responsible medical scientific community about the basic facts that Covid-19 is highly infectious and also dangerous (and that in some ways, such as possible long-term harm for survivors, continues to be an unknown quantity), and has the potential to go exponential, so that basic containment and tracking measures are essential.

Plus, human-run organizations don’t function properly sometimes, and scientists are people too (I’ve heard this tenacious rumor a few times). So the human failings that sometimes affect people and human endeavor in general can also sometimes affect science processes. But that’s not the main argument or point here.
So much for that.

The other thing LaoDan wrote which I think is really important is this:

Personally, I think that LIFE is a prerequisite for “liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that therefore life should take precedence, during this health pandemic, over things like “freedom” (especially when freedoms endanger other peoples’ lives), making money, etc.

This touches on the real baseline issue behind the majority of the most heated debate and dissent in many countries. Here Dan comes down more on one side of the fence, but either way it’s the real issue. Every society is built on some kind of balance between freedom and constraint, and on a workable approximation of a consensus about how the mix should look. And as we are all seeing, wherever we live, a dramatic change in a key societal parameter (in this case: oh, it’s a pandemic...) necessitates a (temporary) shift in the balance, or at least some strong arguments for shifting the balance. No one wants to live in a truly 1984-style dictatorship and no one wants to live in a situation where everybody can do exactly as they want with no ‘rule of law’. With the possible exception of a few very unbalanced minds at each end of the spectrum.
And in this present case, anno 2020, the question seems to be this:
Does/should the preservation of some (!) individual freedoms (the continued ability to travel, socialize, congregate, come into close physical contact with anyone you want, do business based on personal contacts, earn money etc. to the ‘normal’ degree) take precedence over the curtailment of such – temporarily – by ‘government’ in order to greatly reduce the numbers of pandemic-related deaths and serious illness? If the answer is yes, then meaning: It’s very unfortunate that lives were lost that might otherwise have been saved, but individual liberties are such a precious and hard-won thing that we need to accept the hurt.

Or does/should the major reduction of deaths and serious illness by the virus temporarily take precedence over the full preservation of aforementioned individual freedoms? If the answer is yes, then meaning: It’s very unfortunate that precious and hard-won liberties were temporarily curtailed, but individual lives are such a precious thing that we need to accept the hurt.

I think that is the essential issue. Of course, here too it’s not a question of absolutes but rather of degree, because even with the imposition of “measures”, people still retain many freedoms, albeit to slightly varying degrees in different countries and at different times. And the imposition of measures usually does not prevent all spread of the virus and all loss of life but only mitigates this, albeit sometimes very strongly. Furthermore, there is the issue of economic damage (caused either by the measures intended to combat the virus, or very likely by the virus itself if it spreads uncontrolled) and also the issue of possible collateral social or health harms caused by the measures.

Nonetheless, I would still maintain this remains the underlying issue. And it’s not one where you can cite facts to back up or debunk claims in favour of either ‘side’. It’s not a question amenable to science at all, nor to fact-checking. It’s in the realm of ethics, morals, political philosophy. It’s an issue that can certainly be debated but in the end I don’t see that proponents of either standpoint can ‘prove’ or ‘demonstrate’ by logical argument that their view is more valid than the other one. So at least, I think, it’s good to have this in the open, where each can clarify their standpoint for themself and for others. Instead of arguing many other issues that can, in themselves, actually be backed up or refuted by facts and logical argument, but where the ‘underlying issue’ is constantly resonating in the background and is influencing debates without always being made explicit.

[everything]

yes that's the problem in a nutshell. some people say "give me liberty or give me death". I suspect this view will change if they or their grandmas are really adversely affected by something like covid.

[meeks]

charts of covid statistics

[LaoDan]

Thanks for your input Giles.

Societies (even democracies and others who emphasize personal freedoms) tend to restrict freedoms when those freedoms risk harming other (usually innocent) people. Typically we have prohibitions against murder and most assaults (with notable exceptions for extenuating circumstances like self defense...); prohibitions on drunken driving (or limits on HOW intoxicated should allowed...) although the freedom to drink in a responsible manor is usually protected (unless religious/moral reasons are enforced...); prohibitions on smoking in public (although smoking in designated areas, or at home, or under other conditions where harm to others is minimized or voluntary...); mandating immunizations (unless medical exemptions apply...); regulating environmental pollution...

But things are, of course, more complicated than this. In the pandemic there are people who argue for only having restrictions on vulnerable populations so that others are not burdened. If one is likely to remain asymptomatic if they catch the virus, should they have been “unnecessarily” restricted? Current data indicates that only perhaps 1 in 20 individuals who have been exposed sufficiently to have their body produce antibodies actually develop noticeable symptoms. Should the people in that 95% that show no apparent individual harm when infected (currently standing at perhaps ~10% of the US population of ~330 million) be restricted? [Extrapolating these preliminary numbers and assuming that they are reasonably reflective of the country as a whole, this would mean that only about 4-5% of the remaining population, or ~15 million people living in the USA, would still be at risk for significant disease symptoms.]

Priorities and choices need to be made. Is ~10% current exposure for the USA population (~33 million people out of the total population of ~330 million) enough to start easing restrictions when ~15 million of the remaining unexposed individuals are still vulnerable to severe illness? How much and which restrictions can reasonable safely be loosened without jeopardizing significant “rebound” or “second wave” infections? Or more broadly, should one even care rather than just letting “nature” take its course (isn’t a person’s ability to resist disease a part of natural selection?)?

[Giles]

Yes, that's it. These essential questions come down to a personal or collective ethical framework or, one could also say, ideology. 'Ideology' in the neutral sense, not meant pejoratively. I have my own beliefs and ideology here, which lead to personal decisions and a judgement on corresponding decisions at level of local or national government. But I can respect other ideologies, up to a point, as long as they are stated openly. Hell, at the level of pure reasoning I can even 'appreciate' an ultra-right (=Nazi) standpoint developed from the attitude mentioned in the last line of your posting: Those who suffer or die from this disease were weak - i.e. too old, or too ill, or of insufficiently strong constitution - and the national gene pool is better off when cleansed from such feeble specimens of humanity. I wouldn't necessarily adopt the reasoning myself but it's an argumentatively coherent viewpoint that can serve as a basis for debate. Better explicit than implicit.

- And just to be quite clear, I'm absolutely not implying that any opponents of specific anti-pandemic measures who post here on RSF might hold this view!! I know they don't.

[everything]

he's at it with the racist language again. no mention of george floyd or the pandemic deaths.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... ve-updates

[everything]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/21/us/us-co ... index.html

more young people getting covid. seems to be due to things like fraternity rush parties.

[Steve James]

There are probably a lot more young people being tested. Remember, the case was made that the more tests, the lower the fatality rate. However, the key statistic isn't the number of tests. Testing just enables better mitigation. Now, it's the number of young people who need hospitalization, and or die.

Maybe the worst case scenario would be that the virus has mutated into a form that affects younger people more. That was the case with the 1918 flu (i.e., it had a worse affect on younger people). Well, that's the problem with a new virus.

Today, NYC enters Phase 2. Stores are opening --with mask requirements. Restaurants can have street seating. Personally, I ain't changing s__t much at all.

The debate about asymptomatic transmission has shifted because a "symptom" might be present but not noticed. For ex., fatigue is a symptom, but there's "a little tired" and "can't get out of bed." Patients with both are symptomatic.