All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (1 Viewer)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[J-DONK]

I personally believe that people who think like this are part of an ever shrinking minority.

People are fed up with having their lives disrupted. 10's of millions have lost their jobs. Businesses are going under. People are told they have to behave like sheep and follow nonsensical rules like no more than 2 people in a boat, regardless of whether all the people reside in the same household.

They don't have to have someone else tell them that we overreacted. They know that when they look at their unpaid bills and realize that the Imperial College sold the world the most expensive pile of BS in the history of the world.

Again, a conservative talking point, that's not really based in reality. We know how bad the virus was in Italy/New York, and to some extent Wuhan. What stopped it in all these places? A lockdown. We know the R0 appears to be extremely high, and that is spreads quickly. You could make the point that it's time to open for any state that has "flattened the curve". I can agree with that, but to call the lockdown in general a over reaction is lunacy. It's not a fact based opinion to put it nicely.

What stopped the federal government from halting/forgiving mortgage payments, giving monthly stimulus checks, unlimited SBA loans, and a massive expansion of social safety net programs for now? This is a mismanaged crisis on an epic scale.

 

[Lapaz]

What is not true? What, particularly is your problem with the info in the link I posted?

The past 7 days the total number of new cases in the US was 155,861

The 7 days before that the number was 172,116

The 7 days before that - 194,497

The idea, at least implicit in your article, was that we are not at an R0 level below 1 and that we need more people to wear masks to achieve it. I am saying that is supposition in large part because there is good evidence that the country as a whole has an R0 level below 1 and that all but 2 states do as well.

There is a lag in cases and people's actions. Things started opening up about 7 to 14 days ago, but it takes about 2 weeks for the effects of people's actions to start resulting in new cases. Even today, a large percentage of people are still wearing masks and taking precautions, however there is a subset that isn't, and those will start causing the virus to spread again. The data on new cases from 14 to 21 days ago should be higher than the last 7 days, since the last 7 days should reflect the shutdowns. Even though many will continue to take precautions, what we see from 7 to 14 days from now will tell us whether the openings are causing a resurgence.

Colorado is now making an effort to distinguish people who died with Covid from those who died of Covid. This article is brought to you by The Blaze, which I am sure many of you already enjoy reading. I am are there are arguments that deaths were underreported, especially early on. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction toward gaining public confidence as well as understanding the virus better.

State's coronavirus death toll drops significantly after officials make major criteria change | Blaze Media

'We started to hear stories about "are these correct or are these incorrect?"'

www.theblaze.com

Why does it matter? Is the purpose of testing to show a desired result or understand the status of a infections? I would argue that the purpose is to understand the status. The methodology of reporting doesn't matter as long as it is consistent and leads to a better understanding of the circumstances. Whether Colorado reports deaths due to Covid or deaths with Covid is irrelevant unless it somehow results in a poorer understanding of the spread and impact of infections. I don't see why using that methodology makes them more credible than if they reported all people who died with Covid and didn't claim a cause of death.

 

[SystemShock]

Why does it matter? Is the purpose of testing to show a desired result or understand the status of a infections? I would argue that the purpose is to understand the status. The methodology of reporting doesn't matter as long as it is consistent and leads to a better understanding of the circumstances. Whether Colorado reports deaths due to Covid or deaths with Covid is irrelevant unless it somehow results in a poorer understanding of the spread and impact of infections. I don't see why using that methodology makes them more credible than if they reported all people who died with Covid and didn't claim a cause of death.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but, are you saying that:
1. There is no difference between dying of something and dying with something?
2. More accurate information does not lead to better understanding?

I'd say that methodology gives them more credibility because they are trying to determine and record proper root cause. And BTW, I mention coding and variables on another post, this is something I deal with on a daily basis as well, the lack of differentiation between with and of.

 

[Beach Friends]

There is a lag in cases and people's actions. Things started opening up about 7 to 14 days ago, but it takes about 2 weeks for the effects of people's actions to start resulting in new cases. Even today, a large percentage of people are still wearing masks and taking precautions, however there is a subset that isn't, and those will start causing the virus to spread again. The data on new cases from 14 to 21 days ago should be higher than the last 7 days, since the last 7 days should reflect the shutdowns. Even though many will continue to take precautions, what we see from 7 to 14 days from now will tell us whether the openings are causing a resurgence.

Why does it matter? Is the purpose of testing to show a desired result or understand the status of a infections? I would argue that the purpose is to understand the status. The methodology of reporting doesn't matter as long as it is consistent and leads to a better understanding of the circumstances. Whether Colorado reports deaths due to Covid or deaths with Covid is irrelevant unless it somehow results in a poorer understanding of the spread and impact of infections. I don't see why using that methodology makes them more credible than if they reported all people who died with Covid and didn't claim a cause of death.

I sincerely don't understand your question. Are you asking why it matters if we accurately count the number of deaths attributed to the virus? Are you asking why is matters if the public doesn't have confidence in the way data about the virus is being collected and reported?

 

[Beach Friends]

Again, a conservative talking point.

Cool, I can't wait until I tell my friends and family I am now writing conservative talking points.

 

[Intensesaint]

Cool, I can't wait until I tell my friends and family I am now writing conservative talking points.

You influencer you!

 

[FullMonte]

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but, are you saying that:
1. There is no difference between dying of something and dying with something?

I think the bigger issue is how do you prove someone died with COVID and not from COVID?

Patient Fred has been diagnosed with COVID-19, and dies of a heart attack. How to you prove that the heart attack wasn't the result of increased heart rate, fear, and stress from his difficulty breathing?

 

[Lapaz]

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but, are you saying that:
1. There is no difference between dying of something and dying with something?
2. More accurate information does not lead to better understanding?

I'd say that methodology gives them more credibility because they are trying to determine and record proper root cause. And BTW, I mention coding and variables on another post, this is something I deal with on a daily basis as well, the lack of differentiation between with and of.

I didn't say that it doesn't matter if a state reports people as dying of something vs dying with Covid. That's not what is being claimed about Colorado. Of course attributing Covid to people that have died of something, if they do NOT have Covid, would completely distort the trend analysis of the Covid infections. The objective is to determine what impact Covid is having, and I think Colorado's methodology would do that, but it would also do that if they reported all deaths of people that had Covid. If more or less people are dying than usual that happen to also have Covid, and the health agency is consistent on how it reports it, then we'll have an indication of the impact of Covid. We may shockingly find that Covid reduces mortality in people with some morbidities. The point is being consistent, because consistency allows you to analyze other data for sensitivity analysis. If Colorado was reporting Covid related deaths inconsistently, then they would have credibility issues. If they happen to change how they report, and are transparent about it, then one can segregate the data for analysis based on when it was reported. Someday in the future, if data from different states, with different standards are to be conglomerated, then there will need to be some analysis of how to combine them for consistency. However, within a state, consistency allows them to do trend analysis.

My point was that their methodology doesn't impact their credibility if their methodology has a sound basis and is consistent. The issue of assigning cause of death is a completely different issue that doesn't impact trend analysis. The cause of death will be used in the future to assess the true mortality. I don't think we're making a mortality decision based on any state's data. It'll be based on worldwide data, of which there are many different standards of reporting which will have to be normalized.

 

[SystemShock]

I think the bigger issue is how do you prove someone died with COVID and not from COVID?

I think when your blood alcohol level is .55, kind of clear.

Patient Fred has been diagnosed with COVID-19, and dies of a heart attack. How to you prove that the heart attack wasn't the result of increased heart rate, fear, and stress from his difficulty breathing?

We can play 6 degrees of Covid Bacon, but, if it is fear of X that triggers a heart attack, it would be the result of adrenaline flooding the heart.

 

[SystemShock]

I didn't say that it doesn't matter if a state reports people as dying of something vs dying with Covid. That's not what is being claimed about Colorado. Of course attributing Covid to people that have died of something, if they do NOT have Covid, would completely distort the trend analysis of the Covid infections. The objective is to determine what impact Covid is having, and I think Colorado's methodology would do that, but it would also do that if they reported all deaths of people that had Covid. If more or less people are dying than usual that happen to also have Covid, and the health agency is consistent on how it reports it, then we'll have an indication of the impact of Covid. We may shockingly find that Covid reduces mortality in people with some morbidities. The point is being consistent, because consistency allows you to analyze other data for sensitivity analysis. If Colorado was reporting Covid related deaths inconsistently, then they would have credibility issues. If they happen to change how they report, and are transparent about it, then one can segregate the data for analysis based on when it was reported. Someday in the future, if data from different states, with different standards are to be conglomerated, then there will need to be some analysis of how to combine them for consistency. However, within a state, consistency allows them to do trend analysis.

So now it is the impact of Covid-19... ok... so are we now going to blame the media in general for scaring everyone to death over covid-19?

My point was that their methodology doesn't impact their credibility if their methodology has a sound basis and is consistent.

What do you mean, methodology doesn't matter (impact credibility)? Of course it matters. It is the very methodology that is going to determine the soundness and consistency of any findings.

The issue of assigning cause of death is a completely different issue that doesn't impact trend analysis.

What?

 

[Lapaz]

So now it is the impact of Covid-19... ok... so are we now going to blame the media in general for scaring everyone to death over covid-19?

I don't know why you brought up whether the media is scaring people. The trends are not going to change whether you count all deaths with the virus vs all deaths due to the virus. People may get more scared by hearing a larger number of deaths, and those people may not give it as much credibility, but it shouldn't matter from a scientific perspective. From a scientific perspective, either method should yield the same result as far as tracking whether the virus is or isn't under control. That is the only point I was addressing. I wasn't addressing public relations. I was addressing the contention that someone said they have better credibility because they are trying to distinguish between cause of death. For the purposes of tracking the virus' spread, I disagree, because I think either of those methodologies are credible.

What do you mean, methodology doesn't matter (impact credibility)? Of course it matters. It is the very methodology that is going to determine the soundness and consistency of any findings.


What?

I never said methodology doesn't matter without qualifying it. I said methodology doesn't matter as long as it is sound and contributes to understanding the spread of the virus. Colorado's method seems sound, but their method doesn't make them more credible than if they reported everyone that died with Covid. What matters is consistency and transparency.

 

[The moose]

I think when your blood alcohol level is .55, kind of clear.


We can play 6 degrees of Covid Bacon, but, if it is fear of X that triggers a heart attack, it would be the result of adrenaline flooding the heart.

Well fluid filling the lungs is pneumonia.

So do you say they died of that even though that is exactly what this virus causes?

 

[J-DONK]

Cool, I can't wait until I tell my friends and family I am now writing conservative talking points.

You influencer you!

We have the best thinkers on this board. It's amazing you guys happen to come up with the same exact conservative talking points independently of that media bubble. Trump might even say you have one of the best minds, behind his obviously.

 

[Beach Friends]

We have the best thinkers on this board. It's amazing you guys happen to come up with the same exact conservative talking points independently of that media bubble. Trump might even say you have one of the best minds, behind his obviously.

You know what you should do?

Copyright the phrase, "conservative talking points" that you just came up with all by yourself.

 

[J-DONK]

You know what you should do?

Copyright the phrase, "conservative talking points" that you just came up with all by yourself.

I read this a week ago:

'Abusive, dictatorial, tyrannical': Republicans ramp up attacks on lockdowns

Hard-liners are embracing the protests against stay-at-home orders, with some hoping to spark a sequel to the tea party.

www.politico.com

I come to this board and here is Beach Friends bashing the lockdown.

The great irony of this entire situation, if Trump had shown any real leadership. He would have sky high approval numbers that all these governors are now experiencing. He could have had a Bush post 9/11 bump, but that's no one's fault but his own. It's abundantly clear he is trying to blame anyone but himself.

 

[Heathen]

Well this would be very interesting..

Covid Patients Testing Positive After Recovery Aren’t Infectious, Study Shows

Researchers are finding evidence that patients who test positive for the coronavirus after recovering aren’t capable of transmitting the infection, and could have the antibodies that prevent them from falling sick again.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Intensesaint]

We have the best thinkers on this board. It's amazing you guys happen to come up with the same exact conservative talking points independently of that media bubble. Trump might even say you have one of the best minds, behind his obviously.

I know you like to claim that we troll the left, but I am starting to think you just troll yourself. You're like a dog with a laser pointer attached to his head.

 

[J-DONK]

Intensesaint,

I just wanted to have a discussion about the lockdown. Beach Friends only wanted to carry forward a discussion about "conservative talking points". Should lefties on the board pretend that most conservative posters don't regurgitate right wing talking points with little to no follow-up? Also, it shows some thin skin to be upset over that comment. I would say 99.9 of us get our information from somewhere.

Also, you went dirty with a personal attack. I came here to only have a discussion. Why you decided to add your two cents trying to devolve the discussion into demeaning comparisons that add no value is beyond me.