Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 126   Go Down

Author Topic: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS  (Read 86339 times)

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #760 on: April 18, 2020, 01:05:19 am »

What makes experts saying what they say worse than regular people, is that with the latter, you consider if they're telling the truth.
In both cases the person may believe that they are telling the truth, it is just one is based on their field and one is based on their memory.
I have been in court cases where a witness gave a heartfelt rendition of what happened and obviously believed it, only to have their memory proved wrong.
The expert should be able to give reasons why it is true or likely to be true or could be true.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #761 on: April 18, 2020, 03:39:24 am »

We appear to be approaching a period of declining new instances and fatalities. Not tempting fate, but there will be, rightly, a review of the events and the timeline in the lead up to this human disaster. Not an anti-Trump (only), nor a Dems v Reps round of boxing, post - intended as a heads-up for a debate that will surely have repercussions. There are three distinct periods to be reviewed;  the Dec19-early January, Jan23- up to the first Covid-19 fatality, and then early March up to and on from today. Not US centric, it's on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond.

I've excerpted a post from The Guardian , the link to the full article is below.

Quote
On 22 January, it was in this setting that the WHO emergency committee convened to make a pivotal decision on whether to advise the organisation to declare a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) – a formal red alert for the world.

The WHO had been sharing information with member states constantly since the first cluster of pneumonia cases was first identified in the Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of December, but declaring a PHEIC still had huge symbolic importance.

The WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, sat in the SHOC with his top advisers watching as a succession of speakers gave their views on the screens in front of them.

First there were reports from China, and then Japan and Thailand where cases had been recently confirmed. Then it was the turn of the 15 members and six advisers on the emergency committee, drawn from around the world.

The debate was highly technical but it had one critical issue at its heart. It was known by then that the virus had spread from person to person, but the question was how easily?

If human-to-human transmission was only happening in close quarters, in families, or between patients and health workers, then perhaps it could be largely contained without a worldwide alert, and all the global economic disruption that entailed. If the virus was spreading freely among communities, there was not a moment to lose.

The emergency committee was split down the middle on the question. So Tedros told it to convene again the next day, in the hope new data might create a consensus.

“Tedros’s only obligation under the law is to convene a committee but not to follow it. But he feels that politically he needs to get a unanimous decision before he acts or at least an overwhelming majority,” Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University, said.

The second day’s meeting however, changed no one’s mind, and the impasse remained. Tedros had the committee adjourn pending further study and put it on notice to reconvene at short notice. A international health emergency was declared a week later, on 30 January, after clear evidence of community spread of Covid-19 had emerged.
[...]
In a hail of accusations hurled at the WHO in recent days, Trump has accused it of withholding critical information about the danger of Covid-19, and being under the control of China.

None of the accusations are supported by the facts.

China argued against declaring an emergency on 22 January, but could not have carried the argument alone. The other emergency members and advisers came were experts from the US, Thailand, Russia, France, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Australia, Senegal, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and New Zealand.

Their advice is confidential, but for the vote to have been split, several western, or western-aligned, representatives must have voted with Beijing.

While the emergency committee took a week to decide to declare a PHEIC, Trump spent more than a month after that playing down the threat to the US, during which the country fell weeks behind the rest of the world in diagnostic testing and stockpiling essential equipment.

There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that the WHO hid information at China’s behest. The US is well represented in the top ranks of the organisation. There were more than a dozen officials from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) embedded in the WHO in January and February.

US health leaders were part of regular conference calls, weekly or twice weekly, beginning on 7 January. From 10 January those calls included warnings about the risk of human-to-human transmission.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/caught-in-a-superpower-struggle-the-inside-story-of-the-whos-response-to-coronavirus
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #762 on: April 18, 2020, 11:05:31 am »

If it arrived in the US at the same time, why did the cases pop up two weeks later? Could environment, weather, native genes, or other factors affect the incubation period?  These are things worthy of study.  They may help find a cure or vaccine.

The cases popped up later because there was no testing in place at the beginning to locate the cases. By the time people started dying, it was 2 weeks gone.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #763 on: April 18, 2020, 11:20:02 am »

Ok, so, answer my last couple of questions. Basically, what do you know, and how do you know you know it? If you consider experts dangerous, how do gain knowledge and make decisions about matters you have no personal knowledge?
I never said I don't listen to experts.  I said I question what they say because I've been burned.  I'm not a robot taking directions.  You have to use some discernment when it comes to advice.  After all, do you do everything you wife tells you to do? :)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #764 on: April 18, 2020, 11:31:17 am »

In both cases the person may believe that they are telling the truth, it is just one is based on their field and one is based on their memory.
I have been in court cases where a witness gave a heartfelt rendition of what happened and obviously believed it, only to have their memory proved wrong.
The expert should be able to give reasons why it is true or likely to be true or could be true.

That's true.  But then, both experts in a trial representing opposite sides should give the same testimony. The truth is the truth.  Obviously, that's not what happens.  Is one of them lying?  Are they both distorting the truth?  Are they just cherry picking the facts that best represents their client's interests?  Often, it's the latter.  That's what makes experts so dangerous.  Because we give them so much leeway and trust what they say as being irreproachable.  Listening to non-experts, we just say well, they're lying. Or they're trolling us.  Or they don't know what they're talking about. Their credibility is suspect from the beginning. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #765 on: April 18, 2020, 11:35:48 am »

We appear to be approaching a period of declining new instances and fatalities. Not tempting fate, but there will be, rightly, a review of the events and the timeline in the lead up to this human disaster. Not an anti-Trump (only), nor a Dems v Reps round of boxing, post - intended as a heads-up for a debate that will surely have repercussions. There are three distinct periods to be reviewed;  the Dec19-early January, Jan23- up to the first Covid-19 fatality, and then early March up to and on from today. Not US centric, it's on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond.

I've excerpted a post from The Guardian , the link to the full article is below.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/caught-in-a-superpower-struggle-the-inside-story-of-the-whos-response-to-coronavirus

WHO had been in China's pocket for years.  Who in WHO was getting paid off, I don't know.  However, their rulings always supported China and their action was delayed deliberately to protect China as long as they could. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #766 on: April 18, 2020, 11:37:44 am »

The cases popped up later because there was no testing in place at the beginning to locate the cases. By the time people started dying, it was 2 weeks gone.
Testing has nothing to do with deaths.  It was deaths that occured at different times.  Why?

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #767 on: April 18, 2020, 12:41:45 pm »

People who are pushing for opening up the economy really soon should read this. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-testing-states.html
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #768 on: April 18, 2020, 12:46:30 pm »

Testing has nothing to do with deaths.  It was deaths that occured at different times.  Why?

Like I said until you test, you have no idea, even with deaths. Maybe all those early Covid deaths were chalked up to seasonal flu deaths.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #769 on: April 18, 2020, 01:10:12 pm »

People who are pushing for opening up the economy really soon should read this. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-testing-states.html
It appears in NJ where I live, they're only testing people who appear sick. So what does that prove?  There isn't enough tests or time to really do major testing of the general public.  So what's the whole point of testing? Even if they test you today, tomorrow someone can cough on you and you get sick tomorrow.  Will you test every other day? Are you to test 330,000,000 Americans every other day?  My friend got the virus, stayed home to recover, never was tested, refused to go to the hospital because people die in hospitals. and is now recovering. If they test you and you have it, they tell you to stay home until you recover unless you really need to go to the hospital.  Do I need a test to tell me that?

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #770 on: April 18, 2020, 01:25:02 pm »

It appears in NJ where I live, they're only testing people who appear sick. So what does that prove?  There isn't enough tests or time to really do major testing of the general public.  So what's the whole point of testing? Even if they test you today, tomorrow someone can cough on you and you get sick tomorrow.  Will you test every other day? Are you to test 330,000,000 Americans every other day?  My friend got the virus, stayed home to recover, never was tested, refused to go to the hospital because people die in hospitals. and is now recovering. If they test you and you have it, they tell you to stay home until you recover unless you really need to go to the hospital.  Do I need a test to tell me that?

As you say, if someone shows the virus symptoms, there is not much point in testing them. just to confirm it.
The main benefit of testing is to catch asymptomatic or early-stage cases and tell them to stay at home.
Logged

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1219
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #771 on: April 18, 2020, 01:40:12 pm »

So what's the whole point of testing?

The point of testing to find out who is infected so that you can quarantine them to stop the infection spreading further.

You also need to trace all of their contacts, test them, and quarantine the positives.

This is basic pandemic control, as recommended by the WHO.

The US attempted to do this at the beginning of the outbreak, but failed. That is why there is a lockdown. Now you get to try again. But to do this successfully you need many more tests, and a whole army of contact-tracers.

(Most other countries are in the same position.)
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #772 on: April 18, 2020, 01:44:22 pm »

As you say, if someone shows the virus symptoms, there is not much point in testing them. just to confirm it.
The main benefit of testing is to catch asymptomatic or early-stage cases and tell them to stay at home.
What good is testing a small percentage of the population? In NJ they've tested 1 of 75 residents.  That's since the beginning of testing weeks ago.  So if 74 of 75 people have not been tested, how do you know who has the virus to isolate?  99% of the people weren't tested.  Plus you could be tested today, be clean, and then get it tomorrow.

The only way I see how testing helps us is if you test on a truly random basis.  Like polling, you only need a small sampling.  You can estimate by extrapolation what's the percentage of infected in the whole population.  That could help determine when to open a specific region for regular business.  But right now, at least in NJ, they only testing key personnel like police, EMT, and nurses, or civilians who appear to have symptoms and show up at the testing line.  So current testing, at least in NJ,  will not provide general infection rates of the normal population.  It also won't catch those who are infected in the normal population.  It will only flag those key people who might be infected and shouldn't go to work and confirm a few infections of civilians who show up for the test.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/nyregion/coronavirus-testing.html

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #773 on: April 18, 2020, 01:48:21 pm »

The point of testing to find out who is infected so that you can quarantine them to stop the infection spreading further.

You also need to trace all of their contacts, test them, and quarantine the positives.

This is basic pandemic control, as recommended by the WHO.

The US attempted to do this at the beginning of the outbreak, but failed. That is why there is a lockdown. Now you get to try again. But to do this successfully you need many more tests, and a whole army of contact-tracers.

(Most other countries are in the same position.)

See my last post.  In NJ, they tested 1 of 75 people.  The other 74 were not tested.  So how can you quarantine people who who are positive if 99% of them weren't tested? 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #774 on: April 18, 2020, 01:55:22 pm »

The point of testing to find out who is infected so that you can quarantine them to stop the infection spreading further.

You also need to trace all of their contacts, test them, and quarantine the positives.

This is basic pandemic control, as recommended by the WHO.

The US attempted to do this at the beginning of the outbreak, but failed. That is why there is a lockdown. Now you get to try again. But to do this successfully you need many more tests, and a whole army of contact-tracers.

(Most other countries are in the same position.)

Correct, this is the "Containment phase". It also requires follow up testing of contacts if someone tests positive for the virus.
The lack of testing capacity, either from the availability of the tests themselves or from the (unsuccessful) follow-up tracing of contacts, will result in the next phase.

That next phase is "Mitigation", e.g. by an indiscriminate lockdown.
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #775 on: April 18, 2020, 02:02:46 pm »

See my last post.  In NJ, they tested 1 of 75 people.  The other 74 were not tested.  So how can you quarantine people who who are positive if 99% of them weren't tested?

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the NJ tests.
Were they done in the "Containment" phase?

Were they done (and how?) to prove the existence of the active virus, or are they serum tests to check for antibodies (indicating that the subject has been exposed to the virus in an earlier stage)?

P.S. a technical semantic comment, people who have not been proven to be infected can be placed in "Quarantine", while those who tested positive are placed in "Isolation".
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #776 on: April 18, 2020, 02:03:20 pm »

Correct, this is the "Containment phase". It also requires follow up testing of contacts if someone tests positive for the virus.
The lack of testing capacity, either from the availability of the tests themselves or from the (unsuccessful) follow-up tracing of contacts, will result in the next phase.

That next phase is "Mitigation", e.g. by an indiscriminate lockdown.

The only way to find those infected is to test the entire population at the same time, an impossible feat even if you have all the tests which no country does.  Then you isolate everyone who has it.  In 14 days, the whole population can get back to normal activity.  There's no one left to spread it. 

Of course, no country can test the entire population.  That's why Phase 2 mitigation is required. 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #777 on: April 18, 2020, 02:06:11 pm »

The only way to find those infected is to test the entire population at the same time, an impossible feat even if you have all the tests which no country does.  Then you isolate everyone who has it.  In 14 days, the whole population can get back to normal activity.  There's no one left to spread it. 

Of course, no country can test the entire population.  That's why Phase 2 mitigation is required.

Not really, in the early stages tracing of contacts of contacts of contacts, will soon cover almost all contageous subjects. But one needs to do it early on.

Most (all?) countries lacked testing capacity, so they soon had to move on to Mitigation.
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1219
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #778 on: April 18, 2020, 02:07:37 pm »

So how can you quarantine people who who are positive if 99% of them weren't tested? 

You can't. Testing needs to be scaled up massively if you are ever going to come out of your lockdown.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS
« Reply #779 on: April 18, 2020, 02:10:43 pm »

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the NJ tests.
Were they done in the "Containment" phase?

Were they done (and how?) to prove the existence of the active virus, or are they serum tests to check for antibodies (indicating that the subject has been exposed to the virus in an earlier stage)?

P.S. a technical semantic comment, people who have not been proven to be infected can be placed in "Quarantine", while those who tested positive are placed in "Isolation".
Your confusing questions have nothing to do with my statement.  You can't find all those infected unless you test everyone and that's impossible. 
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 126   Go Up