Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Thought provoking analysis from a Harvard U. Center


Recommended Posts

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/coronavirus-strategic-challenge-has-washington-misdiagnosed-problem

This is a pro and con discussion, I found it to be informative.  Please read before you comment, it is not that long.  It seems very well documented and balanced to me.  The discussion seems germane to Mexico with the caveat, as the government here has pointed out, the health of the younger population is a factor in the higher death rate, notably due to such common problems here as obesity and diabetes among younger people.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Belfer Center is a rightist outfit that has been criticized often for conflict of interest in its relations with other groups, due to its directors. That aside, it is well written, but it fails to impress me because it starts by basically saying that just because experts agree, we should always question them regardless of their veracity.

(edited by mod to remove yet another "blatant" politicizing of a topic.  Warning sent.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll ask you to document your first statement with a CREDIBLE citation.  If it is well written why the ad hom?

Your second statement is mischaracterizing the piece, they are showing you the experts don't agree and yes it is right to question.  There most definitely are two sides to this issue.  If in fact there is a far larger level of CV infection without overt symptoms in the population that has great impact on both the fatality percentages and the most effective strategies going forward.  We shouldn't continue to lock up the young if in fact their chance of dying from this is minimal and in fact it is being mostly spread by the asymptomatic.

Look at how wildly the models postulated by the experts have been changing.  The experts in this case neither agree nor seem to be doing very well with their predictions.  We, the public, are paying a huge price for these policies and it is our right to question them.  

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-why-experts-disagree-so-strongly-over-how-to-tackle-the-disease-135825

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida has flattened the curve drastically because they attacked taking care of the most vulnerable in their State, the elderly and those in nursing homes. That strategy paid off big time for them. It appears more and more that the virus has infected many times more than have been reported, making its death rate perhaps dependent on high risk factors. Young (and older) people without other health concerns seem to be riding this out without significant problem. Our attention needs to be on those high risk, and let others go about their "normal" lives.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would question the projection line on that second graph.  This is not a line of best fit. After 4/18 all the points are below the dotted line and the curvature is excessive for the data.

The wild card in all of this is until you conduct a sufficient number of statistically valid samplings using testing, such as was done in CA, you just don't have a handle on what percentage of the population is or has been infected.  And without that number you can't determine overall rates.

But Florida hasn't flattened yet, I would agree.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Bowie said:

Florida has flattened the curve drastically because they attacked taking care of the most vulnerable in their State..... snip

 

Jim Bowie, can you share with us how you came to suggest that "Florida has flattened the curve drastically"   and "and it payed off big time for them'?  Other DATA as shown here does not support those statements and surely not the 'drastically' portion of your statement.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked on line and found Florida has the highest population of elderly of any U.S. state.  Since we know that age is a definite issue here I would surmise that would make the situation more difficult there.  Florida's percentage of elderly is almost twice that of Utah, for example.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-us-states-with-the-oldest-population.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, RickS said:

Jim Bowie, can you share with us how you came to suggest that "Florida has flattened the curve drastically"   and "and it payed off big time for them'?  Other DATA as shown here does not support those statements and surely not the 'drastically' portion of your statement.  

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/coronavirus/os-ne-coronavirus-tuesday-april-20-20200421-4zdn7yyq2fc2zciye37dqkjsxi-story.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jim Bowie said:

It appears more and more that the virus has infected many times more than have been reported, making its death rate perhaps dependent on high risk factors. Young (and older) people without other health concerns seem to be riding this out without significant problem. Our attention needs to be on those high risk, and let others go about their "normal" lives.

There might be 10 times the number of people who've had the virus without any symptoms. But this is immaterial to the fact that the virus is super contagious and that hospitals and staff are overwhelmed with those that are sick or dying. And that's not just the elderly or health-compromised. If the young are allowed to just go about life as normal, with no masks, not social distancing, and no disinfecting, what this means is that those at higher risk will never be abe to go out, not even to buy some groceries once a week. Why do people have such a huge sense of entitlement that they can't simply stay home, social distance, wear masks and gloves when they go out for a few months? Is that really so terribly onerous in order to beat this virus down so we can ALL know that the risk is over?

Link to post
Share on other sites

react_thanks.png.cbca19270426f1b601f20d8884b1cd67.png And I will say it again (for perhaps the THIRD time), that the Santa Clara study is FLAWED. Not only is it NOT specific for antibodies against ONLY Covid-19, the test used was not even FDA approved.

I realize people are wanting to clutch at straws here but please do your research. The models are "nowhere near what was expected" BECAUSE of steps that were taken for social distancing etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now NYC is reporting they have a 21 percent infection rate.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-virus-deaths-top-15k-cuomo-expected-to-detail-plan-to-fight-nursing-home-outbreaks/2386556/

And the Germans:

https://spectator.us/covid-antibody-test-german-town-shows-15-percent-infection-rate/

You can question the methodology but it is interesting all of these are saying the same thing.  A lot more people are showing signs of this than the test numbers indicate.  Given how low the rate of testing is, I don't find this surprising.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you notice that neither one of those articles listed the test method?

First, the test has to be specific for Covid-19 antibodies. Secondly, the specific immune response has to be divided into IGM antibodies and IGG antibodies. IGM antibodies are the body's first (weak) defence pass and IGG antibodies are the second (and more permanent) defence pass.

If you want to do an off the wall comparison... is your cholesterol and triglycerides higher after eating fish and chips and getting the test done or are you going to do it properly and fast for fourteen hours before the blood test?

The parameters and methodology and limitations of a test are everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to find that out you'd have to go find the actual test report and read it. 

Did you notice they all found the same thing?  And they are being done by credible professionals?

I don't have time to go hunt up the actual test reports and study the methods but if someone here wants to do so I'm sure it would be of interest.

IMO it is just common sense to suspect the very limited (by percentage) of testing being done does not tell us the actual rate of exposure/infection in the general population.  This may not be the flu but the virus is very similar in many respects and it is a common denominator among flu episodes that the overall rate of infection/exposure is far higher than a few percent.

There's a lot of work being done on this now and I expect we'll see more results soon.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it quite interesting that at the beginning of this "thingy" many were hollering that the real "infection rate" could be just unbelievably high, and deaths would be in the millions in each country. This was what stroked the "fear". Now, as reports come out seemingly to support their "fears" about the infection rate, (but not the death rate), they are trying to discredit those reports, which support their original speculation.  Wonder why??? Wonder what role more infections but less deaths will do to the "fear" angle? Interesting.  

  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jim Bowie said:

I find it quite interesting that at the beginning of this "thingy" many were hollering that the real "infection rate" could be just unbelievably high, and deaths would be in the millions in each country. This was what stroked the "fear". Now, as reports come out seemingly to support their "fears" about the infection rate, (but not the death rate), they are trying to discredit those reports, which support their original speculation.  Wonder why??? Wonder what role more infections but less deaths will do to the "fear" angle? Interesting.  

What part of “there is so much we do not know about this virus” do you not understand? They (and we) are learning as they go. Should they just have said, “Okay, just go about your business and we’ll see how many people get infected and what percentage die”?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Bowie said:

I find it quite interesting......

Location: Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas.  Interesting.....

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...