COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS

[Paulo Bizarro]

The 7.5% is for the country overall.  It's much higher in Stockholm, its major metropolis.  So it will be interesting to see what happens next year.  You're rushing to judgment.

No, it is Stockholm:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

Other sources point to similar figures.

[faberryman]

Maybe America is getting better prepared then others for next year if it comes back.

Nope.

Everyone's guessing which is the best policy medically.

Nope

In the meanwhile, the economies of the world are taking a big hit that has its own negative effects.

Obviously

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Nope

[Alan Klein]

Nope.Nope Obviously Nope

Differing opinions is what makes a horse race. Thanks for your bet. 

[faberryman]

Differing opinions is what makes a horse race. Thanks for your bet. 

Truth is not a horse race.

[Alan Klein]

Truth is not a horse race.

So you're a prophet?  You can divine the future six months and a year from now?   Amazing!  Any idea which stocks I should buy?

[Paulo Bizarro]

So you're a prophet?  You can divine the future six months and a year from now?   Amazing!  Any idea which stocks I should buy?

Well, when you say:

"Maybe America is getting better prepared then others for next year if it comes back.  Everyone's guessing which is the best policy medically."

It is pretty clear that America will not be better prepared compared to others: death toll will keep rising significantly, economy will be as bad as other countries. If you mean immunity, no again. One thing might work there first, and that is getting to a good vaccine first.

If you aretaliking about America besides USA and Canada, then it is a disaster already - Brasil, Peru, and other countries.

And no one is guessing what is the best medical policy, the guidelines are clear.

[Alan Klein]

Well, when you say:

"Maybe America is getting better prepared then others for next year if it comes back.  Everyone's guessing which is the best policy medically."

It is pretty clear that America will not be better prepared compared to others: death toll will keep rising significantly, economy will be as bad as other countries. If you mean immunity, no again. One thing might work there first, and that is getting to a good vaccine first.

If you aretaliking about America besides USA and Canada, then it is a disaster already - Brasil, Peru, and other countries.

And no one is guessing what is the best medical policy, the guidelines are clear.

They've recently discovered that parents who overprotect their children from dirt, bacteria, etc., wind up hurting them when they get older.  Because they haven't developed antibodies when young, as adults they are opened to all sorts of infections that other adults can withstand because they were exposed to them when children.  Allergies such as to peanuts is another malady that adults would avoid if they ate peanut butter when they were young.

The point is, immediate benefits don't necessarily mean long-term benefits.  So called "experts" have been wrong about diets, food groups, and all sorts of medical issues that have affected health negatively.  It takes a lot of hubris to think they have all the answers up front about a new virus and how it's going to play out in the future.

[faberryman]

They've recently discovered that parents who overprotect their children from dirt, bacteria, etc., wind up hurting them when they get older.  Because they haven't developed antibodies when young, as adults they are opened to all sorts of infections that other adults can withstand because they were exposed to them when children.  Allergies such as to peanuts is another malady that adults would avoid if they ate peanut butter when they were young.

And you believe the experts that propound this theory?

The point is, immediate benefits don't necessarily mean long-term benefits.  So called "experts" have been wrong about diets, food groups, and all sorts of medical issues that have affected health negatively.  It takes a lot of hubris to think they have all the answers up front about a new virus and how it's going to play out in the future.

And so the experts that propound the theory in the first paragraph which you agree with are also probably wrong, yet you believe them anyway.

[LesPalenik]

So you're a prophet?  You can divine the future six months and a year from now?   Amazing!  Any idea which stocks I should buy?

Amazon and Adobe

[hogloff]

The 7.5% is for the country overall.  It's much higher in Stockholm, its major metropolis.  So it will be interesting to see what happens next year.  You're rushing to judgment.

Where do you get your information from? Source that shows Stockholm infection rate is much higher. If just making things up...just stop.

[hogloff]

They've recently discovered that parents who overprotect their children from dirt, bacteria, etc., wind up hurting them when they get older.  Because they haven't developed antibodies when young, as adults they are opened to all sorts of infections that other adults can withstand because they were exposed to them when children.  Allergies such as to peanuts is another malady that adults would avoid if they ate peanut butter when they were young.

The point is, immediate benefits don't necessarily mean long-term benefits.  So called "experts" have been wrong about diets, food groups, and all sorts of medical issues that have affected health negatively.  It takes a lot of hubris to think they have all the answers up front about a new virus and how it's going to play out in the future.

Back to the experts being wrong paranoia.

[Alan Klein]

And you believe the experts that propound this theory?

And so the experts that propound the theory in the first paragraph which you agree with are also probably wrong, yet you believe them anyway.

You're right.  The experts today could be proven wrong tomorrow.   That's the main point.   It takes a lot of hubris to assume you know what's going to happen a year from now.

[faberryman]

You're right.  The experts today could be proven wrong tomorrow.   That's the main point.   It takes a lot of hubris to assume you know what's going to happen a year from now.

The thing I am right about is that your posts repeatedly demonstrate that you believe what you want to believe, and, for the stuff you don't want to believe, you trot out the experts have been wrong before excuse.

[Alan Klein]

The thing I am right about is that your posts repeatedly demonstrate that you believe what you want to believe, and, for the stuff you don't want to believe, you trot out the experts have been wrong before excuse.

Frank, I hate to break it to you.  But everyone has their beliefs and trots out their experts to prove their points. You're no different.

[faberryman]

Frank, I hate to break it to you.  But everyone has their beliefs and trots out their experts to prove their points. You're no different.

Naturally you did not read what I wrote.

[Alan Klein]

Naturally you did not read what I wrote.

Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote.

[degrub]

how about both of you take this over to the politics thread.....

[Manoli]

(...)
It's not the case in the UK, however, where many of the certified deaths are no more than guesses by those with no ability to make even an educated guess, and where as far as I know no specimens have been taken from the individuals, ante- or post-mortem.

Whether or not that is accurate (it isn’t), the cross-check is to measure excess deaths in relation to earlier corresponding period(s).

[Manoli]

Scroll down the FT page to see their country by country graphic.

The UK is shown as having +57% (64,200) excess deaths.
If the FT/John Burn-Murdoch ‘s estimates are correct, then it it would seem that, rather than being over-estimated, the UK is under-reporting Covid-19 fatalities.

https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

[Jeremy Roussak]

Whether or not that is accurate (it isn’t), the cross-check is to measure excess deaths in relation to earlier corresponding period(s).

What isn't accurate? Do tell.

"Excess deaths" is a crude, broad-brush measure, useful for the press. There's abundant evidence that terror of coronavirus infection has led to avoidance of medical treatment for more serious conditions, and hence to increased mortality from those conditions.

Jeremy