6 minutes ago, F737NG said:

According to that chart, I was 'low risk' and yet still caught it.
Admittedly, that's only anecdotal evidence and it doesn't say that you cannot contract it under those circumstances, but I am the proof that it is still very possible. No scarum harum hype here.

Glad you pulled through.  But low risk doesn't mean no risk.

Noel

9 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Both sides of the political divide want a return to an open economy and society. They may not agree on how nor when to do it, but they want a return to the same old mud slinging and fighting in the ditch that they are used to as soon as practicable.

I don't know how old you are F737NG, but I recall a time when Democrats and Republicans were civil to each other.  When legislation differences were worked our on the golf course, over steak dinners, or in smoke filled rooms.  When TV cameras were not allowed onto the floors of the legislature or senate.  When a Democratic Speaker of the House (Tip O'Neal) was a regular dinner guest at a Republican White House (Ronald Reagan).

The vitrol, name calling, in-your-face insults, and refusal to compromise, if you don't agree with me you are my enemy, and general disrespecting of the other side was almost unheard of then.

Noel 

Ok guys, let’s get off the political stuff since we’re starting to trend towards that type of discussion again.

5 hours ago, Alan_A said:

I'm not sure if you mean to, but you seem to be reasoning backward from a conclusion - in other words, the coronavirus isn't serious, therefore reports and data and graphics that make it seem that way are wrong.

I think Dave has an absolutely valid point.  When something like 0.4% of the population has been confirmed to have contracted the virus, a graphic that shows maybe 50% of the area of the nation covered in red is indeed misleading, and arguably intentionally so.  If the graphic depicted 0.4% of the US land mass in red (in other words a barely discernable pink tinge), that picture would paint a thousand different words than that ginormous blob of red does.

The virus is a serious thing, but its seriousness is being exaggerated.  With that in mind, I do have to ask myself: Cui bono???

 

4 hours ago, birdguy said:

What are your chances of actually contracting Coronavirus?  No scarum harum hype.

https://www.matherhospital.org/wellness-at-mather/what-are-your-chances-of-catching-covid-19/

Noel

That's a reasonable take - it's consistent with what Dr. Gawande described in the New Yorker article I linked to the other day.

The only thing I'd quibble with is the middle-risk part of the dial, where it says the risk is from people who are symptomatic.  We know that asymptomatic transmission happens, and there's evidence that people are most contagious before they develop symptoms.

And the only thing I'd add is that the situations on their dial graphic are illustrations - it's not a comprehensive list.  I'd want to think about what situations are similar to the ones they describe.  So, not just being within six feet of a symptomatic person for ten minutes or more, but also being in a crowded space (office? restaurant? public transportation? arena? house of worship?), especially one with a closed HVAC system.  It's not that you're likely to catch it by passing somebody on the street - you're not.  But there's a reason those meatpacking plants are a problem.  So, the pressing question - as you reopen, how do you limit the risk of all those situations, especially large, closed gatherings?  It's not that all encounters are risky, but that some bear watching.

52 minutes ago, w6kd said:

When something like 0.4% of the population has been confirmed to have contracted the virus, a graphic that shows maybe 50% of the area of the nation covered in red is indeed misleading, and arguably intentionally so

In most graphical programs the size of the dots are relative to the total number of cases or things you are looking at, they can adjusts this variable and if you look at the graph now you will see they have all been reduced in size to better fit the map as more data gets added. 

Martin

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

46 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I think Dave has an absolutely valid point.  When something like 0.4% of the population has been confirmed to have contracted the virus, a graphic that shows maybe 50% of the area of the nation covered in red is indeed misleading, and arguably intentionally so.  If the graphic depicted 0.4% of the US land mass in red (in other words a barely discernable pink tinge), that picture would paint a thousand different words than that ginormous blob of red does.

The virus is a serious thing, but its seriousness is being exaggerated.  With that in mind, I do have to ask myself: Cui bono???

 

I understand the point, but it's really just a data visualization.  I'm not sure what Fox showed, but if you go to the actual map on the Johns Hopkins covid site, you can drill all the way down to a local level and the dots get quite small.  I know this is subjective, but to me, if you get to the county level, it doesn't look very sensational.

As to exaggerations for someone's benefit - you'd have to be more explicit for me to be able to respond.  I'm not aware myself of being driven by an agenda - to the best of my knowledge, I'm trying to interpret and draw conclusions based on some degree of background in public health and some degree of work experience in the context of an earlier pandemic.  There are things that are sometimes done and sometimes not done, and a variety of results to draw on from past examples, and that's about it.  I'd be happy to say more if I knew more about what I was responding to.

I'll make a general observation - this isn't for Col. Scott or any other member in particular.  I honestly don't think any of us are as far apart as the debate sometimes makes it seem.  I don't know of anyone working from a public health perspective who's arguing that the lockdown is a great and unmitigated good, or that it should continue forever.  We all want things to get back to normal - the question is how.  And I don't think anyone on the other side of the discussion is really arguing that the pandemic is trivial or that mass death is a desirable outcome.  I think what we're debating is how to balance interests and the time, place and manner of how to respond.  Maybe as an exercise, we should think about the things we can agree on.  It wouldn't necessarily be a long list, but it'd be a list, and that's something.

The John Hopkins Map Alan alluded to is the most accurate I have seen.  It goes to the county level and gives you the number of cases for that county.

For instance my county, Chavez County in New Mexico has 30, cases.  But it also shows how many cases there would be per 100K population.  Then we would have 46 cases.  I think that's a pretty accurate way of giving you a picture of how things stand compared to the rest of the nation.

Noel

6 hours ago, w6kd said:

The virus is a serious thing, but its seriousness is being exaggerated.  With that in mind, I do have to ask myself: Cui bono???

 

Who stands to gain? Really? Are we cleared hot on politics now? You’re a moderator? Can we discuss your comment? You’ve stated your political opinion, will you delete any pushback as political?

86000. What is that? Over 500 737max crashes? And you saw how the world freaked after two crashes. If you don’t think the world would freak out, then you should have been born in the middle ages. Sorry, but this society has progressed to where this kind of event has little acceptance.

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by KevinAu

8 hours ago, birdguy said:

Glad you pulled through. 

The vitrol, name calling, in-your-face insults, and refusal to compromise, if you don't agree with me you are my enemy, and general disrespecting of the other side was almost unheard of then.

Thank you. I appear to be one of the unlucky minority that have lingering side effects long after everyone else normally makes a full recovery.
Here's an article that tries to cover the phenomenon:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/weird-hell-professor-advent-calendar-covid-19-symptoms-paul-garner

"But low risk doesn't mean no risk." Absolutely. I tried to describe exactly that, whilst also highlighting that it was very easy to contract.

While we need economies to start-up again, I would advise everyone to continue following procedures to limit their exposure.
No matter how much everywhere opens up and day-to-day activities appear normal, the virus hasn't gone away and it will continue to make people ill and / or kill them.


Without wanting to take this down a political side avenue, I agree with your take on the current state of politics on both sides of the Pond. It's destructive and I fear for society in both the US and the UK.
 

Something to keep in mind at the supermarket.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/refrigerated-trucks-used-morgues-during-000802204.html

3 hours ago, KevinAu said:

Who stands to gain? Really? Are we cleared hot on politics now? You’re a moderator? Can we discuss your comment? You’ve stated your political opinion, will you delete any pushback as political?

Johns Hopkins University is a private educational institution that is publishing widely-referenced data on the COVID-19 pandemic.  Calling their graphically exaggerated presentation of that data into question is not advocating for or against any government policy or political entity.  And asking *why* they would present a graphically exaggerated depiction of the data isn't suggestive of any particular motive, or intent, or beneficiary.

I served my time as a Powerpoint Warrior in the Pentagon and other staff officer jobs...I spent a good 5 years of my life as an analyst and/or advocate, using graphical presentation of data to tell a story or make a case for a decision.  It is well understood that you can present absolutely valid data in varied ways that visually diminish or exaggerate the data without changing it.  The heavy hitters sitting at the head of the table could spot that sort of subterfuge a mile away, and would rightfully hand you a 2-lb hunk torn from your own butt if you tried it.  I don't think Joe Average, looking at that scary JHU map covered in a sea of red, is likely to understand how to interpret it.

3 hours ago, KevinAu said:

86000. What is that? Over 500 737max crashes? And you saw how the world freaked after two crashes. If you don’t think the world would freak out, then you should have been born in the middle ages. Sorry, but this society has progressed to where this kind of event has little acceptance.

61,000 people died in the last influenza season in the US.  Over 100,000 died in the US (>1 million worldwide) during the 1968-70 Hong Kong Flu pandemic (which would translate to 175,000 today at the same per-capita rate).  In that same period we had Woodstock, civil rights and anti-war protest marches, and NASA launch events, among others, that each put hundreds of thousands of people into large, packed (and unmasked) crowds.  So yes, public reaction to COVID-19 in comparison to other similarly deadly epidemics--with mortality within the same rough order of magnitude--is grossly out of proportion and exaggerated when viewed through that historical lens. 

 

43 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I don't think Joe Average, looking at that scary JHU map covered in a sea of red, is likely to understand how to interpret it.61,000 people died in the last influenza season in the US.  Over 100,000 died in the US (>1 million worldwide) during the 1968-70 Hong Kong Flu pandemic

An influenza season has by definition, a beginning and an end. There seems to be no end in sight for this pandemic.

To compare a death toll over a two to three year period with one over three months does not seem to make any kind of point or sense. Of course Joe Average may be considered to be  too stupid to see that. However, I do not think that Joe Average is as stupid as some people seem to think he is.

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by Reader

44 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Johns Hopkins University is a private educational institution that is publishing widely-referenced data on the COVID-19 pandemic.  Calling their graphically exaggerated presentation of that data into question is not advocating for or against any government policy or political entity.  And asking *why* they would present a graphically exaggerated depiction of the data isn't suggestive of any particular motive, or intent, or beneficiary.

In fairness, though, your question was not "why?" but "cui bono" - who benefits?  Which does raise the question of motive. And the context for the Latin phrase is criminal law, so...

About all that - I worked with a very smart guy who liked to say, "give your colleague the benefit of the doubt."  In this context - Johns Hopkins and everybody else is having a lot of information thrown at them and trying to work out on the fly how to present it.  As @MartinRex007 already noted, they've refined their graphical presentation and will probably continue to do that. Everybody is working hard at getting better at this.  Maybe cut them some slack?

49 minutes ago, w6kd said:

61,000 people died in the last influenza season in the US.  Over 100,000 died in the US (>1 million worldwide) during the 1968-70 Hong Kong Flu pandemic (which would translate to 175,000 today at the same per-capita rate).  In that same period we had Woodstock, civil rights and anti-war protest marches, and NASA launch events, among others, that each put hundreds of thousands of people into large, packed (and unmasked) crowds.  So yes, public reaction to COVID-19 in comparison to other similarly deadly epidemics--with mortality within the same rough order of magnitude--is grossly out of proportion and exaggerated when viewed through that historical lens. 

I do wish we could get past the flu comparisons, only because they're not strictly comparable.  As Dr. Jeffrey Faust pointed out in his Scientific American article, the CDC flu numbers are adjusted sharply upward to account for probable cases that weren't clinically confirmed, while the covid-19 numbers aren't. To bring them in line with each other, you'd either have to eliminate the probable count for flu, revising it downward, or include the probable count for covid-19, revising it upward.  More in this article about how that adjustment would work out. 

There is also the difference in natural history - flu is a known virus for which vaccines and antivirals are available (though it mutates and vaccines need seasonal adjustments). Covid-19 is a "novel" virus - that is, never before encountered, so there is no natural human immune response.  There are no vaccines or antivirals currently available.  So before we get to health impacts and hospitalization rates, the dynamics are different.  In the absence of immune response, vaccines or therapeutics, and taking into account relatively high infection rates and very high hospitalization rates for those infected, planning and response is naturally calibrated for worst-case scenarios.

To quote Dr. Faust:

Quote

 

The question remains. Can we accurately compare the toll of the flu to the toll of the coronavirus pandemic?

To do this, we have to compare counted deaths to counted deaths, not counted deaths to wildly inflated statistical estimates. If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse.

 

As with so much of this, I'd like it to be different but that's where the findings lead.

57 minutes ago, w6kd said:

61,000 people died in the last influenza season in the US

Actually the last influenza season 2018-2019 CDC estimates 34,000 people died in the United States from influenza, perhaps you're thinking of another year, the death from influenza in the U.S. does change from year to year a lot depending on the strain. 

Martin