Official Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[dohboy_24]

Telling someone else to not make unsubstantiated predictions and then immediately doing it yourself, was the point.

Fair point. Only time I've done that is this thread. Congrats for pointing it out.

[Fairview4Life]

Maybe you should define what you mean by lockdown. Because the lockdown countries you listed there also vary widely in what they are doing.

The measures being taken by the non-lockdown countries listed vary widely as well. Not a true apples-to-apples comparison as that's almost impossible to make given all the differences in response.

By far the most effective measure that has been used to limit spread is centralized quarantine. None of the countries you’ve highlighted as lockdown have done that as far as I can tell.

Which countries have used centralized quarantine? What are the death/per 1 million stats for those countries?

Wuhan eventually did it and effectively stopped The spread.

[dohboy_24]

Wuhan eventually did it and effectively stopped The spread.

Wuhan isn't a country.

You said:

By far the most effective measure that has been used to limit spread is centralized quarantine. None of the countries you’ve highlighted as lockdown have done that as far as I can tell.

Can you substantiate this claim to support your hypothesis?

[Fairview4Life]

No, Wuhan isn’t a country. It is a place that implemented centralized quarantine to excellent effect. It doesn’t have to be a country to know if it works, not sure why that’s a criteria. Hong Kong, Taiwan (although hospitals there essentially served as the way to do this) and South Korea have all implemented it at various times as well, to good effect.

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238456/centralized-isolation-coronavirus-hong-kong-korea

[dohboy_24]

No, Wuhan isn’t a country. It is a place that implemented centralized quarantine to excellent effect. It doesn’t have to be a country to know if it works, not sure why that’s a criteria. Hong Kong, Taiwan (although hospitals there essentially served as the way to do this) and South Korea have all implemented it at various times as well, to good effect.

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238456/centralized-isolation-coronavirus-hong-kong-korea

I asked which countries have implemented centralized quarantine to excellent effect and your reply was Wuhan, which is a city, not a country. Hong Kong is a city as well.

Given the differences in population, population density, and other factors, comparing the measures taken by a city to the measures taken by a country makes it more difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

None the less, two of the countries you listed, Taiwan and South Korea, are included as non-lockdown countries, so if you're favoring a single variable, centralized quarantine, as the driver of these outcomes, do you have a method for isolating that variable to further support your hypothesis?

[RoLo]

Watch on YouTube

[Fairview4Life]

Non lockdown vs lockdown countries is an essentially meaningless metric. Lockdown means something different in basically every country. And listing the US as a lockdown country means ignoring differences between states, counties and cities. It’s a very stupid way to try and categorize what works and what doesn’t. Based on a few different studies of specific actions that different places have taken, centralized isolation of infected people is the most effective way to limit spread. I’m not sure why that is controversial or requires argument at this point. The “let’s kill a bunch of people for the economy” crowd should be pushing for it anyway. You want to go to Tim’s in the morning? Test a lot and quarantine infected people.

[Kevin Willis]

Since many of the non-lockdown countries are still practicing social distancing and other measures to limit exposure, especially for the at-risk segments of the population, what additional benefits are gained by enforcing lockdown measures if they're not producing a significant difference in the number of deaths?

A little deceiving. Some on the lockdown countries started off as non-lockdown such as UK, Italy and USA. If they didn't do lockdown it would have been much, much worse.

Also some of non-lockdown countries were originally lockdown countries like S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan. They acted more quickly contained and that's most likely due to experience.

Mexico has not seen the worse it is too early to say. Iceland is not heavily populated and has natural social distancing. It's almost like cheating. Australia, Norway might be better examples. Australia did what S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan did - not trust CCP and the WHO and did their own thing.

Trying to put more context on the numbers.

[dohboy_24]

Non lockdown vs lockdown countries is an essentially meaningless metric. Lockdown means something different in basically every country. And listing the US as a lockdown country means ignoring differences between states, counties and cities. It’s a very stupid way to try and categorize what works and what doesn’t. Based on a few different studies of specific actions that different places have taken, centralized isolation of infected people is the most effective way to limit spread. I’m not sure why that is controversial or requires argument at this point. The “let’s kill a bunch of people for the economy” crowd should be pushing for it anyway. You want to go to Tim’s in the morning? Test a lot and quarantine infected people.

Stop being so basic. I don't think anyone wants to "kill a bunch of people of the sake of the economy" and that's definitely not the stance I'm taking.

The initial predictions were wrong. The adjusted predictions were wrong. The adjusted predictions that were made to adjust the adjusted predictions were wrong again and yet the lockdown measures and social distancing practices are still in place.

While it was the only data available, the initial data should never have been used as it was to make the predictions made from it.

Just the same as one shouldn't extrapolate the growth rate of a baby during the first 6 months of it's life to determine how big he/she will grow to become over the course of the next 6 years of his/her life, these predictions were made using data that can't be relied upon to make such projections.

Something anyone with a basic understanding of statistics, calculus, regression analysis, statistical modeling and such knows all too well, but if you'd rather trust the government and media, all the power to you and best wishes being first in line for the vaccine.

[ItsDanger]

Positive test results has fallen from 6.5% on Apr 20th to 2.9% on May 2nd in Ontario. This could be just because the government is testing as many people as they can instead of just people with very mild or worse symptoms.

[dohboy_24]

A little deceiving. Some on the lockdown countries started off as non-lockdown such as UK, Italy and USA. If they didn't do lockdown it would have been much, much worse.

Also some of non-lockdown countries were originally lockdown countries like S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan. They acted more quickly contained and that's most likely due to experience.

Mexico has not seen the worse it is too early to say. Iceland is not heavily populated and has natural social distancing. It's almost like cheating. Australia, Norway might be better examples. Australia did what S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan did - not trust CCP and the WHO and did their own thing.

Trying to put more context on the numbers.

Yes, all data is imperfect, kind of the point I've been trying to make.

For example, sampling bias is a big issue in statistics in general, but especially so with the stats for this virus.

For the same reason you can't stand on the corner of Times Square in NYC between the hours of 3pm and 9pm every weekday for 6 weeks, measure their height and weight, and then extrapolate that data to make predictions about the height and weight of all people in NYC, all people in New York state, all people on the east coast of the US, or all people in the US, you cannot use the infection rates and death rates of symptomatic people and extrapolate them to the entire population.

Generally speaking, healthy people aren't being tested. People with symptoms, people who believe they are sick are being tested.

That would be the same as only measuring the heights and weights of people who believe they're taller than 6' - you're only going to end up with a data set filled mostly with people taller than 5'10" and an average height far greater than reality.

Same goes here. If you're testing people who believe they're sick, you're going to get more positive results than if you were to take a random sample of people from the population.

[dohboy_24]

Positive test results has fallen from 6.5% on Apr 20th to 2.9% on May 2nd in Ontario. This could be just because the government is testing as many people as they can instead of just people with very mild or worse symptoms.

Correct. As more data is collected and the sample data begins to more accurately represent the expected outcome among the greater population, the impact of outliers will be normalized and the results from the sample data will more accurately approach those of the population.

Think of it like flipping a coin.

If you flip it 10 times, you could get 10 heads and 0 tails. Not statistically likely, but possible. In fact, the probability of such is 0.0009766.

But, what if you flip it 100 times? What is the probability of getting 100 heads and 0 tails?

Basically zero. If you flipped a coin 100 times, there's a 0.00000000000002 probability of getting 85 heads and 15 tails, but anything much more than that and the probability drops to nothing.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/coin-flip-probability

[Fairview4Life]

I don’t think you even know what you want at this point, other than to just argue about something and demand things be normal because you can’t deal with what is happening.

[dohboy_24]

I don’t think you even know what you want at this point, other than to just argue about something and demand things be normal because you can’t deal with what is happening.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm arguing with you. No need to take it personal.

No need to presume you understand my demands should I even have them, nor what I'm able to deal with or not either.

You don't know me and I don't know you. I haven't assumed to know your motivations and you shouldn't assume to know mine, but should you care, it's quite simple: Given my background, I have access to information and experiences most others don't.

Rather than sit back and watch my fellow man/woman succumb to fear given what's happening right now, I hope to shed some light on the situation with the hope it will help others gain a more informed perspective.

Should you wish to skip past it or ignore it, you're welcome to do so, but I would hope you would at least consider what's being said and investigate it for yourself just the same as I hope others would.

While it's much easier to watch the news, listen to government officials and not question what you're being told, the truth isn't typically found in sound bites and headlines - you have to dig deeper than that to draw your own conclusions.

[TD2FutureStar]

I don’t think you even know what you want at this point, other than to just argue about something and demand things be normal because you can’t deal with what is happening.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm arguing with you. No need to take it personal.

No need to presume you understand my demands should I even have them, nor what I'm able to deal with or not either.

You don't know me and I don't know you. I haven't assumed to know your motivations and you shouldn't assume to know mine, but should you care, it's quite simple: Given my background, I have access to information and experiences most others don't.

Rather than sit back and watch my fellow man/woman succumb to fear given what's happening right now, I hope to shed some light on the situation with the hope it will help others gain a more informed perspective.

Should you wish to skip past it or ignore it, you're welcome to do so, but I would hope you would at least consider what's being said and investigate it for yourself just the same as I hope others would.

While it's much easier to watch the news, listen to government officials and not question what you're being told, the truth isn't typically found in sound bites and headlines - you have to dig deeper than that to draw your own conclusions.

What is your background exactly? What are you suggesting people do in regard to the virus?

[dohboy_24]

What is your background exactly? What are you suggesting people do in regard to the virus?

Background in statistics, finance and economics as mentioned in my first post in this thread. No recommendations or suggestions other than to find your own answers and seek your own truth. I would rather teach someone to fish than do it for them.

If you, or anyone else, has thought for a moment that something doesn't seem right about all of this, you owe it to yourself more than anyone else to dig deeper, discover your own truths, and draw your own conclusions.

[EG73]

What is your background exactly? What are you suggesting people do in regard to the virus?

Background in statistics, finance and economics as mentioned in my first post in this thread. No recommendations or suggestions other than to find your own answers and seek your own truth. I would rather teach someone to fish than do it for them.

If you, or anyone else, has thought for a moment that something doesn't seem right about all of this, you owe it to yourself more than anyone else to dig deeper, discover your own truths, and draw your own conclusions.

But no background in medicine, microbiology, etc.
Dig deeper and you will become flatearther, anti-vaccine, conspiracy theorist.

If everyone has to dig deep to choose what strategy is appropriate about coronavirus, the answer will be chaotic, uncoordinated.

Edit: often, the scientific publications are badly interpreted, cited out of context, study limitations are not acknowledged,etc. You have to listen the recommandations of people who studied years in these topic (public health, microbiology). And if experts can not be certain what is the best strategies, it illustrate the complexity of the problem.

[Fairview4Life]

I am not sure how someone with a background in statistics would repeatedly post numbers comparing the number of “flu” deaths to Covid 19 deaths to be honest. It doesn’t take a background in statistics to realize the numbers being reported under both classifications were using completely different methodologies. Just reading the pages the numbers came from would have done that. Dig deeper but pay attention to what you’re digging into. If Covid deaths in the US were counted the same way flu deaths were, the number would be well over 100000 already. And lockdown vs non lockdown isn’t actually a well defined metric at all. Especially at the national level you’re trying to apply it at. Just really simple garbage in garbage out errors and bizarre points to try and make for someone with a stats background.

Read on Twitter

[dohboy_24]

I am not sure how someone with a background in statistics would repeatedly post numbers comparing the number of “flu” deaths to Covid 19 deaths to be honest.

I've made two posts which contain stats that include covid-19 deaths and influenza deaths, one of which is directly from the CDC itself, the other of which uses CDC data and WorldoMeters data. Not my data, not my data collection methods. Should you have an issue with it, you might find it more prudent to contact the CDC directly to make your complaint, especially since they're the ones making the comparison in their own reports.



SOURCE: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

It doesn’t take a background in statistics to realize the numbers being reported under both classifications were using completely different methodologies. Just reading the pages the numbers came from would have done that. Dig deeper but pay attention to what you’re digging into.

Which methodologies does the CDC use to report influenza deaths? Which methodologies does the CDC use to report covid-19 deaths? Please source "the pages the numbers cam from" for reference and quote the exact text you're speaking of for both myself and others to refer to.

If Covid deaths in the US were counted the same way flu deaths were, the number would be well over 100000 already.

Can you support this hypothesis?

And lockdown vs non lockdown isn’t actually a well defined metric at all.

Correct, it's not a perfect metric, but does such a perfect metric even exist?

How is it that this same data is perfectly okay when used to create models and predictions, justify the lockdown and social distancing measures being taken, or depict how this virus is more infectious or deadly than X, but not to refute them?

Especially at the national level you’re trying to apply it at.

Again... not my data or graph. If you have issues with the countries included in the comparison, the data used to compile them, or the anything else related to it, you might find it more prudent to complain to the folks at UKColumn who put it together.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-1st-may-2020

Just really simple garbage in garbage out errors and bizarre points to try and make for someone with a stats background.

I'll let George take this one...

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[dohboy_24]

But no background in medicine, microbiology, etc.

I don't have a computer engineering degree, but still understand how a computer works and use one everyday. I don't have a mechanical engineering degree, but still understand how a car works and know how to operate one.

Dig deeper and you will become flatearther, anti-vaccine, conspiracy theorist.

There are always two sides to every coin. The official narrative isn't always the truth. Many times it takes decades before the truth is revealed. The Gulf of Tonkin incidents are one example of such.

"Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War."

"We may never know the whole truth behind the Tonkin events and the motivations of those involved. However, it is important to put what we do know into context. The administration's zeal for aggressive action, motivated by President Johnson's election worries, created an atmosphere of recklessness and overenthusiasm in which it became easy to draw conclusions based on scanty evidence and to overlook normally prudent precautionary measures. Without the full picture, Congress could not offer the checks and balances it was designed to provide. Subsequently, the White House carried the nation into the longest and one of the most costly conflicts in our nation's history."

SOURCE: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin

If everyone has to dig deep to choose what strategy is appropriate about coronavirus, the answer will be chaotic, uncoordinated.

Edit: often, the scientific publications are badly interpreted, cited out of context, study limitations are not acknowledged,etc. You have to listen the recommandations of people who studied years in these topic (public health, microbiology). And if experts can not be certain what is the best strategies, it illustrate the complexity of the problem.

Even though the experts had studied for years on the topic and were certain of the situation and best strategies to take in response to the second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, they ultimately proved to be inappropriate in light of the full information.

"Historians have long suspected that the second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin never occurred and that the resolution was based on faulty evidence. But no declassified information had suggested that McNamara, Johnson, or anyone else in the decision-making process had intentionally misinterpreted the intelligence concerning the 4 August incident. More than 40 years after the events, that all changed with the release of the nearly 200 documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and transcripts from the Johnson Library.

These new documents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.

Among the most revealing documents is a study of the Gulf of Tonkin incidents by NSA historian Robert J. Hanyok. Titled "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964," it had been published in the classified Cryptological Quarterly in early 2001. Hanyok conducted a comprehensive analysis of SIGINT records from the nights of the attacks and concluded that there was indeed an attack on 2 August but the attack on the 4th did not occur, despite claims to the contrary by President Johnson and Secretary McNamara. According to John Prados of the independent National Security Archive, Hanyok asserted that faulty signals intelligence became "vital evidence of a second attack and [Johnson and McNamara] used this claim to support retaliatory air strikes and to buttress the administration's request for a Congressional resolution that would give the White House freedom of action in Vietnam."22

Almost 90 percent of the SIGINT intercepts that would have provided a conflicting account were kept out of the reports sent to the Pentagon and White House. Additionally, messages that were forwarded contained "severe analytic errors, unexplained translation changes, and the conjunction of two messages into one translation." Other vital intercepts mysteriously disappeared. Hanyok claimed that "The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack occurred."

SOURCE: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin

History can, and has repeated itself. Quite possibly, you're living through a similar situation right now.