PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

1. We do not have enough doctors to cope....

Ooops... sh1t happens. Never mind that in most countries makeshift hospitals are operating at 10-50% capacity. Or that doctors are hanging out on social media.

... In none of those cases have I felt unable to breath or to be near death...

Neither have I. Nor 95% of those infected.

[JoeKitchen]

I have put together a graph that will hopefully illustrate the effect of early and decisive action on Covid-19.

The keys to understanding this illustrations are:
1. The UK and South Africa have similar size populations.   
2. Keep in mind that the results of any action taken today show themselves in ~14 days. e.g. note the drop in imported SA cases ~14 days after the borders were closed.
3. Testing has increased by quite a lot so our experts are happy that "lack of testing" is not giving us false numbers.

We are by no means declaring victory - they are planning for our peak to be in September - we have simply bought ourselves 4-6 weeks to plan further.
The mining (gold & platinum) sector is busy re-opening slowly and there is talk that if we can keep our new cases to under 90 per day we can start thinking about a gradual re-opening - with perhaps continued isolation for older folk.

We have an "army" of experienced trackers & tracers who are busy chasing down cases so each night we wait to hear (and hope) that our numbers are below 90!

These numbers are taken from Johns Hopkins Website. Any corrections with what I have tried to do here are welcome.

The population density of the UK is 430 people per square km, whereas the population density of SA is 49 per sq. km, nearly a 1/10.  Of London is 4542 per sq km vs. Johannesburg of 2900. 

How does this work into your graph? 

[BernardLanguillier]

I have put together a graph that will hopefully illustrate the effect of early and decisive action on Covid-19.

The keys to understanding this illustrations are:
1. The UK and South Africa have similar size populations.
2. Keep in mind that the results of any action taken today show themselves in ~14 days. e.g. note the drop in imported SA cases ~14 days after the borders were closed.
3. Testing has increased by quite a lot so our experts are happy that "lack of testing" is not giving us false numbers.

We are by no means declaring victory - they are planning for our peak to be in September - we have simply bought ourselves 4-6 weeks to plan further.
The mining (gold & platinum) sector is busy re-opening slowly and there is talk that if we can keep our new cases to under 90 per day we can start thinking about a gradual re-opening - with perhaps continued isolation for older folk.

We have an "army" of experienced trackers & tracers who are busy chasing down cases so each night we wait to hear (and hope) that our numbers are below 90!

These numbers are taken from Johns Hopkins Website. Any corrections with what I have tried to do here are welcome.

This is really fascinating because as far as I know you would probably expect just the opposite just looking at the overall quality of healthcare in both countries.

Thanks for sharing.

Extrapolated to the US this probably means that the amount of casualties Trump is responsible for may be as high as 90% of the death toll.

The density of population is a very poor metric btw, it just shows that South Africa has more areas that are basically empty. It like saying that the average wage of a country with 1 person making 100 billion US$ and one million people making 1 US$ is 100,000 US$ per person...

Don't you think that the cities alone are more than large enough to have generated tens of thousands of cases had the lock down not been pronounced early. A large majority of cases in UK are in urban areas.

Regards,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

This is really fascinating because as far as I know you would probably expect just the opposite just looking at the overall quality of healthcare in both countries.

Thanks for sharing.

Extrapolated to the US this probably means that the amount of casualties Trump is responsible for may be as high as 90% of the death toll.

Regards,
Bernard

LOL Bernard. 

Fact is, we have no idea if social distancing (lack thereof) is more at fault or if it is population density or just older populations.  There have been no actual accurate analysis to this yet, and more then likely wont be for a while. 

For someone into science, it amazes me how of much hubris you have and ignore this fact. 

But we do know, as as of now, Sweden, who is not engaging in social distancing, is not fairing nearly as bad as some countries that are, but has a pretty low population density.

And like I pointed out yesterday, Cuomo, who you keep on referencing as a great leader, is being blamed in the NYTs for 50% to 80% of the death toll in NYC. 

[BernardLanguillier]

LOL Bernard. 

Fact is, we have no idea if social distancing is more at fault or if it is population density or just older populations. 

And like I pointed out yesterday, Cuomo, who you keep on referencing as a great leader, is being blamed in the NYTs for 50% to 80% of the death toll in NYC.

I have never written a word about Cuomo being a great leader. Not a word.

I just wrote that his analysis of Trump actions was spot on.

We probably have 7+ billons of great leader worldwide if all those thinking Trump is a distastes are great leaders.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

I have never written a word about Cuomo being a great leader. Not a word.

I just wrote that his analysis of Trump actions was spot on.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

You just post videos of him while saying things like "Total clarity," and other compliments. 

[Craig Lamson]

But I thought your hero (who speaks in tongues) had it covered? I thought he had it all covered under one silly, embroidered red cap or catchy slogan or another?

Well we all know the CDC screwed the pooch on tests and then the FDA screwed the people that wanted to fix the CDC's problem.  It then took Trump  and company to reel in the out of control agencies and regulations and fix the mess. Big government sucks.

[BernardLanguillier]

You just post videos of him while saying things like "Total clarity," and other compliments.

Not a word about him being a great leader.

Again, you are the one looking at this as a Republican vs Democrat story. I couldn't care less.

Cheers,
Bernard

[William Walker]

The population density of the UK is 430 people per square km, whereas the population density of SA is 49 per sq. km, nearly a 1/10.  Of London is 4542 per sq km vs. Johannesburg of 2900. 

How does this work into your graph?

Hi Joe, yes you are right, don't you think that strengthens the argument for social distancing? A large portion of our population is now urban, and, I am afraid to say, the conditions are awful in terms of density and lack of basic things like running water.

You might also note that we are a lot warmer here, but those kinds of factors I am happy to leave to the experts.....

[Craig Lamson]

For a cat you think devoid of logical thought processes, he sure makes convincing arguments and observations.

Yea, right, too bad he is dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to how the USA actually works and his "arguments" and 'observations" are void of all logic for this very reason.

[JoeKitchen]

Hi Joe, yes you are right, don't you think that strengthens the argument for social distancing?

You might also note that we are a lot warmer here, but those kinds of factors I am happy to leave to the experts.....

Perhaps.  It is surely the case that having a more spread out population keeps disease at bay. 

However, being more spread out is not the same as telling everyone to stay inside. 

The warm weather may be a factor too, thanks for pointing that out. 

My 86 year old aunt just caught this, and she has been held up inside for 3 to 4 weeks now without a visitor. 

The fact is, we have no analysis yet that shows social distancing is really doing anything.  Plus it is important to remember experts are not superior beings free from mistakes.  They are just as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone else, and this has lead to some pretty amazing screw ups amongst experts over the years. 

[Craig Lamson]

1. We do not have enough doctors to cope.

2. "Everyone", in this case, is a suspect, simply because everyone cannot tell if they are or are not carrying the virus. The choice has to be to err on the side of caution. Worse, there are those strangely crazed citizens amongst us who do not want to help with making the situation less difficult by obeying the simple, obvious, universal advice to stay at home and not risk further contamination.

3. It is extremly difficult to differentiate between the groups when they are at large; they don't wear signs. That's why you have to begin with the assumption, as in a terrorist zone where they don't wear uniforms - that anyone can be wearing that explosive vest. Corinna is that kinda gal, and we have all wandered unwittingly into her brothel right now.

4. But it is not like either: I have had both so many times I couldn't count them; I have a sniffle all winter long and the worst 'flu I ever had was here in Mallorca, soon after being given a surprise 'flu jab for which I had not visited the doctor that morning. In none of those cases have I felt unable to breath or to be near death. The most close to that has been during bad nocturnal attacks of acid reflux when I awake with acidic matter blocking my windpipe and can only clear it by exhaling what little gas remains in my lungs. If that doesn't clear it, I'm history.

My annual experiences with the cold and 'flu lead me to suspect any power or safety in herd immunity. It doesn't even see to work on the individual level, never mind the pack.

Hospitals in the USA are LAYING OFF medical staff.  Independant Drs. and other medical professionals are closing their offices.

In my state we have used only arond 25% of our ICU Beds and Vents. Other states are in the same boat. 

I'm all for staying home, in fact we have been in since March 14.  That said, sooner or later we will need to get back to work. 

[BernardLanguillier]

My 86 year old aunt just caught this, and she has been held up inside for 3 to 4 weeks now without a visitor.

Sorry to hear about your aunt Joe.

But that is just not possible. She must have met someone who contaminated her. Possibly someone without symptoms. Or she has been inside for just 2 weeks and got contaminated just prior to entering isolation.

Am I reading you right that you are questioning the effectiveness of social distancing?

Regards,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Sorry to hear about your aunt Joe.

But that is just not possible. She must have met someone who contaminated her. Possibly someone without symptoms. Or she has been inside for just 2 weeks and got contaminated just prior to entering isolation.

Am I reading you right that you are questioning the effectiveness of social distancing?

Regards,
Bernard

Thanks.  And no, she did not have any visitors aside from getting medication, kind of a requirement to do so. 

Yes, I am questioning whether or not it is social distancing or just population density that is more effective.  Like I said before, having a low population density is not the same as being socially distant. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, I am questioning whether or not it is social distancing or just population density that is more effective.  Like I said before, having a low population density is not the same as being socially distant.

Those 2 not being the same isn't related to social distancing being effective or not, right?

The fact that reducing the number of people one sick person meets reduces contagion seems as indisputable as 1+1=2 isn't it?

My 8 years old daughter explained that to me yesterday when I was about to go out shopping...

Regards,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Just food for thought for those of you who think the experts are always right and should be trusted out right. 

SCIENCE’S UNDER-DISCUSSED PROBLEM WITH CONFIRMATION BIAS

Research scientists are under pressure to get published in the most prominent journals possible, and their chances increase considerably if they find positive (thus “impactful”) results. For journals, the appeal is clear, writes Philip Ball for Nautilus: they’ll make a bigger splash if they discover some new truth, rather than if they simply refuted old findings. The reality is that science rarely produces data so appealing.

The quest for publication has led some scientists to manipulate data, analysis, and even their original hypotheses. In 2014, John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor conducting researching on research (or ‘meta-research’), found that across the scientific field, “many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated.” Ioannidis, who estimates that 85 percent of research resources are wasted, claims that the frequency of positive results well exceeds how often one should expect to find them. He pleads with the academic world to put less emphasis on “positive” findings.

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks.  And no, she did not have any visitors aside from getting medication, kind of a requirement to do so. 

When did she get medication and who gave that medication to her if I may ask?

Regards,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Just food for thought for those of you who think the experts are always right and should be trusted out right. 

SCIENCE’S UNDER-DISCUSSED PROBLEM WITH CONFIRMATION BIAS

Research scientists are under pressure to get published in the most prominent journals possible, and their chances increase considerably if they find positive (thus “impactful”) results. For journals, the appeal is clear, writes Philip Ball for Nautilus: they’ll make a bigger splash if they discover some new truth, rather than if they simply refuted old findings. The reality is that science rarely produces data so appealing.

The quest for publication has led some scientists to manipulate data, analysis, and even their original hypotheses. In 2014, John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor conducting researching on research (or ‘meta-research’), found that across the scientific field, “many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated.” Ioannidis, who estimates that 85 percent of research resources are wasted, claims that the frequency of positive results well exceeds how often one should expect to find them. He pleads with the academic world to put less emphasis on “positive” findings.

Nobody is saying that experts are always right.

Experts being sometimes wrong isn't related at all to the obvious and basic concept that a disease doen't spread when there is no contact between a sick person and other people.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Those 2 not being the same isn't related to social distancing being effective or not, right?

The fact that reducing the number of people one sick person meets reduces contagion seems as indisputable as 1+1=2 isn't it?

My 8 years old daughter explained that to me yesterday when I was about to go out shopping...

Regards,
Bernard

Sure, but all of the graphs, being posted, that are pointing to how social distancing is the key factor by comparing different countries are not taking into account population density.  Or at least that graphs are not saying it was taken into account if it was.  So these are really misleading at best, or purposely deceptive, which I'll get to in a minute. 

It may be that the main difference is actually population density, and that although social distancing can help, perhaps it really is a scintilla of the reason.

Also, it is no secret that politically it is very beneficial that those in charge make sure they can justify all of this.  If it actually is the case that population density is key and social distancing is not as important, you can bet those in power will go to great lengths to suppress that, since it would ruin their careers otherwise.

[JoeKitchen]

When did she get medication and who gave that medication to her if I may ask?

Regards,
Bernard

It was delivered by a pharmacy.  She is going blind, not filly yet, and cant really leave the house on her own anymore.