Bad News Thread

[Desert Hound]

“The lockdowns have been an enormous and ineffective overreaction, not actually protecting the population from COVID. While at the same time, the collateral damage is absolutely devastating,” he said.

“It’s an unfocused overreaction…We just should have focused on the population we knew to be at risk, protected them, thought of creative ways to protect them from the beginning of the epidemic…And for the rest of the population, the lockdown, we should have been thinking about the collateral damage from the very beginning.”

Stanford Doctor Blasts COVID Lockdowns, Were an ‘Overreaction’ to ‘Protect the Rich’

After months of extreme lockdown measures, business closures and overall restrictions on life as we knew it, one doctor is speaking out. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, told podcast host Megyn Kelly that

humanevents.com

 

[Grace T.]

After Fauci bouncing back and forth for several days, we've reached peak stupidity and the CDC is studying recommending double masks. I tell you right now, if they try to mandate it I won't do it. Here's my red line. They don't even have solid proof the single masks in real world conditions can do anything. And remember, they are talking about this going on for years folks (for reasons previously discussed: kids not fully vaccinated until 2022, the J&J and other non-mRNA vaccine being partially effective, virus variants mutating away from the vaccines). Nope.

Fauci says CDC may recommend double-masking

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may soon recommend all Americans wear two masks to enhance their protection against coronavirus, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday. “It makes commo…

nypost.com

 

[Grace T.]

My brothers and I just went 3 rounds talking about how to talk my father off the ledge and his intent to remain under quarantine, despite in 1 week he'll be fully vaccinated. Particularly with my younger brother, who is also in an irrational panic, it was painful. Think I've finally lined up everyone to see the light particularly with the argument it's not fair to either my mother or the grandkids. But man, it was a lesson on how rational arguments fall on deaf ears when people are in panic mode.

 

[espola]

After Fauci bouncing back and forth for several days, we've reached peak stupidity and the CDC is studying recommending double masks. I tell you right now, if they try to mandate it I won't do it. Here's my red line. They don't even have solid proof the single masks in real world conditions can do anything. And remember, they are talking about this going on for years folks (for reasons previously discussed: kids not fully vaccinated until 2022, the J&J and other non-mRNA vaccine being partially effective, virus variants mutating away from the vaccines). Nope.

Fauci says CDC may recommend double-masking

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may soon recommend all Americans wear two masks to enhance their protection against coronavirus, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday. “It makes commo…

nypost.com

Looks like you're having a panic attack.

 

[Grace T.]

Looks like you're having a panic attack.

"Oh Magoo, you've done it again!"

Post a pic of you in your double mask. I'm sure you'll look cute in that little yellow car of yours.

 

[espola]

"Oh Magoo, you've done it again!"

Post a pic of you in your double mask. I'm sure you'll look cute in that little yellow car of yours.

No mask, single mask, double mask, whatever -- the relative effectiveness of all of those choices should be easy to prove or disprove.

Since you are so heavily dedicated to personality types (a subtle form of prejudice ("all you e's are just alike")) , just let me prejudge that as a scientist you make a good poet.

 

[Grace T.]

No mask, single mask, double mask, whatever -- the relative effectiveness of all of those choices should be easy to prove or disprove.

Since you are so heavily dedicated to personality types (a subtle form of prejudice ("all yoou e's are just alike")) , just let me prejudge that as a scientist you make a good poet.

Wait....so you are a scientist? Please tell me more? What's your field...genuinely interested?

The mask thing hasn't been easy to prove because it would require a RCS which has been deemed unethical in the current environment (basically deliberately exposing people to COVID in real world situations and seeing if the masks do anything). So we are stuck with observational and modeling studies, and the studies (mostly observational) which were done on the flu before the pandemic, and Denmark.

I suspect actually that you and I may have mirror personalities (which is why we seem to dislike each other so much, with the mirror being in the e or i). It also shows you are a very poor judge of character because my personality type is probably self-evident to anyone with a relative level of self-awareness. I am relatively far away from poet in the personality type, though I have had a romantic streak which has caused no end to difficulties.

 

[Kicker4Life]

So what’s the take on this? Have we been misrepresenting the cases with hypersensitive testing?

WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and...

www.who.int

 

[Hüsker Dü]

Then why post the link? That link is not an argument against visiting grandma. (which would be a responsible post.)

That link is a straight up argument against purchasing and wearing cloth and surgical masks.

And not even a good argument at that.

He’s just a GP. He is certainly not qualified to evaluate epidemiology research. Nor is he up to date. The text is still talking about protecting the wearer, instead of reducing outbound transmission.

It’s just one more half-informed rant from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about. Same as the right wing nutters used to post here back in April. Care to follow it up with a picture of a chain link fence?

April? You mean back when the one nutter wagered that there would be no more than 12,500 deaths?

 

[espola]

Wait....so you are a scientist? Please tell me more? What's your field...genuinely interested?

The mask thing hasn't been easy to prove because it would require a RCS which has been deemed unethical in the current environment (basically deliberately exposing people to COVID in real world situations and seeing if the masks do anything). So we are stuck with observational and modeling studies, and the studies (mostly observational) which were done on the flu before the pandemic, and Denmark.

I suspect actually that you and I may have mirror personalities (which is why we seem to dislike each other so much, with the mirror being in the e or i). It also shows you are a very poor judge of character because my personality type is probably self-evident to anyone with a relative level of self-awareness. I am relatively far away from poet in the personality type, though I have had a romantic streak which has caused no end to difficulties.

In order of study - mathematics, chemistry, physics, electronics, and computer engineering. I have even had a touch of biology and psychology training along the way. The most interesting learning I pursued is neural networks - sort of a mix of biology and mathematics, which got really interesting in the '80s when it became possible for electronic circuits to emulate biological mechanisms with a speed and density good enough to be useful (not just theoretical mathematical curiosities any more) and then leading up to now when we have computers able to do biologic-like things faster and more dependably than real brains.

My introduction to neural networks was taking a class thought by Dr. Bart Kosko. It was a UCSD Extension course, so the format was 3 hours one night a week. The first week, we covered Dr. Kosko's recent paper on Bidirectional Associative Memories (after some appropriate leadup material), followed by a quiz on the material just presented. By the next week, about half the class had dropped out.

http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/BAM.pdf

I don't buy into the personality type hogwash. I judge people as individuals.

BTW, I didn't mean that you were a _good_ poet.

 

[espola]

April? You mean back when the one nutter wagered that there would be no more than 12,500 deaths?

I thought it was 15 and it would all go away by April.

 

[Grace T.]

In order of study - mathematics, chemistry, physics, electronics, and computer engineering. I have even had a touch of biology and psychology training along the way. The most interesting learning I pursued is neural networks - sort of a mix of biology and mathematics, which got really interesting in the '80s when it became possible for electronic circuits to emulate biological mechanisms with a speed and density good enough to be useful (not just theoretical mathematical curiosities any more) and then leading up to now when we have computers able to do biologic-like things faster and more dependably than real brains.

My introduction to neural networks was taking a class thought by Dr. Bart Kosko. It was a UCSD Extension course, so the format was 3 hours one night a week. The first week, we covered Dr. Kosko's recent paper on Bidirectional Associative Memories (after some appropriate leadup material), followed by a quiz on the material just presented. By the next week, about half the class had dropped out.

http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/BAM.pdf

I don't buy into the personality type hogwash. I judge people as individuals.

BTW, I didn't mean that you were a _good_ poet.

Impressive. I take it from the above you (unlike dad or I) are not an "N", which would also explain our mutual antipathy and is probably another mirror.

No, I would not make a good poet. When I was 25 I tried to write the great American novel. Had always won praise from my teachers through college for fiction and I thought I could do it. I could not. The structure drove me insane even though the language was easy. If I were to be a writer, I would be out of time and would be more interested in writing a 19th century Russian horror of a novel than within the current strictures of writing.

I am a master of reading people. It has been said my father is a gift for judgement, and my mother is empathic on the verge of psychic. It would make me a wonder at the poker table except that I am incapable of lying convincingly myself. The personality types are extremely useful at dissecting people's motivations and for understanding where they are coming from. It is insufficient to analyze an argument purely on its text...you also have to analyze how it is made and how it is making it. The personality tests are extremely useful for this purpose. They, like other tools, are limited and only give out what the situation calls for.

 

[dad4]

So what’s the take on this? Have we been misrepresenting the cases with hypersensitive testing?

WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and...

www.who.int

Not really. PCR can’t invent a case where none ever existed. They are talking about PCR detecting cases that exist, but are mild on the day of testing.

Some of these are cases that are almost finished. Some are cases that just have not grown yet. And some are patients who just never develop a high viral load at all. But all of them are patients who have an infection.

 

[Kicker4Life]

Not really. PCR can’t invent a case where none ever existed. They are talking about PCR detecting cases that exist, but are mild on the day of testing.

Some of these are cases that are almost finished. Some are cases that just have not grown yet. And some are patients who just never develop a high viral load at all. But all of them are patients who have an infection.

Thanks for clarifying...Would such sensitivity potentially lead to detecting other viruses and creating a positive?

 

[Grace T.]

Not really. PCR can’t invent a case where none ever existed. They are talking about PCR detecting cases that exist, but are mild on the day of testing.

Some of these are cases that are almost finished. Some are cases that just have not grown yet. And some are patients who just never develop a high viral load at all. But all of them are patients who have an infection.

Doesn't it come down to a definitional issue, though? If the person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they never actually develop illness, if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they can't be infectious, and if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they actually develop some-form of immunity, is it a case? Presumably there are some people who have been exposed but the virus doesn't take a sufficient hold in their bodies to replicate because either there isn't enough material there or the immune system is somehow able to clear it out?

 

[dad4]

Thanks for clarifying...Would such sensitivity potentially lead to detecting other viruses and creating a positive?

No. PCR can only detect a virus if it has exactly the same RNA as you are testing for.

 

[watfly]

I am definitely not the panic type but I have to say the stories of the long haulers have been a bit frightening. Mainly because this virus is just so damn weird!

If you can stand Bryant Gumbel there was a good segment on Real Sports about "long haulers" that are athletes. Interesting and a little scary, but fortunately rare. The oddest thing is that it doesn't appear to effect male athletes.

 

[dad4]

Doesn't it come down to a definitional issue, though? If the person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they never actually develop illness, if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they can't be infectious, and if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they actually develop some-form of immunity, is it a case? Presumably there are some people who have been exposed but the virus doesn't take a sufficient hold in their bodies to replicate because either there isn't enough material there or the immune system is somehow able to clear it out?

It becomes an epidemiological issue.

Group A is people who already had it, are recovering, and are now longer contagious.
Group B is people who just naturally have a low viral load, and will never be contagious.
Group C is people who have a low viral load, but are contagious anyway.
Group D is people who have a low viral load today, but will be contagious soon.

A and B are safe. C and D are not.

You are asking how many people are in group A or B, and how many people are in group C or D. I don’t know. This is why we need those experts you dislike so much.

 

[Grace T.]

If you can stand Bryant Gumbel there was a good segment on Real Sports about "long haulers" that are athletes. Interesting and a little scary, but fortunately rare. The oddest thing is that it doesn't appear to effect male athletes.

You have a link? That's fascinating. Men are generally more susceptible to the virus. IIRC almost by a factor of .5. Perhaps because of their superior cardiovascular systems? Come to think of it, most of the longer haulers I know are all women.

 

[Grace T.]

It becomes an epidemiological issue.

Group A is people who already had it, are recovering, and are now longer contagious.
Group B is people who just naturally have a low viral load, and will never be contagious.
Group C is people who have a low viral load, but are contagious anyway.
Group D is people who have a low viral load today, but will be contagious soon.

A and B are safe. C and D are not.

You are asking how many people are in group A or B, and how many people are in group C or D. I don’t know. This is why we need those experts you dislike so much.

It's the people in group B that most interest me. If it's a large group, it would explain the policy choice. C is the counterfactual. A is baked into the cake already so are irrelevant. D are probably the area of the highest concern from a policy point of view.

You misunderstand my antipathy for experts. I agree this is exactly the type of data situation we need the experts to resolve. Where the problem for the experts come is in interpreting the data and making a policy judgement, which for various reasons they aren't very good at doing and it's why from a public policy point of view we need a check on them (usually it's a market, but as we've seen markets have a tendency to break down, particularly if they are oriented to defer to the experts). When it's a politician, it's a prescription for disaster.