OT: Corona virus

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Let's move it privately, if you wish to continue. I won't tie down this thread further with this kind of back and forth.

Good. Let's keep social distance from politics and religion.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Any discussion of US healthcare systems will almost inevitably be "political" because it is a major schism between the Right and the Left.

You would have more luck with an apolitical discussion of abortion.[:)]

I think the difference is cultural as well as political. Universal free healthcare is something that (at least publicly) will be defended by politicians across the political spectrum in the UK.

The gun control debate is similar - it isn't so much a difference of right v left as a difference in cultural outlooks on the place on guns in society.

Not saying that anyone is right or wrong on either of those topics - just pointing out that they are two topics I now try and avoid avoid when talking with people from the US because I know that it is incredibly difficult (on both sides) to break out of your own 'cultural straitjacket' and see things from the other perspective.

This is a great point. In the current climate it's hard for Americans to engage in open dialogue about different systems across many areas of society without seeing politics as the basis for them.

No one here knows how anyone votes, what politics they believe in or how that relates to issues they're discussing. I think that's good and we should keep the assumption that statements are political out of the dialogue.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

One thing that strikes me is that China seemed to react swiftly and strongly enough to confine the outbreak to a particular region within their own country.

The question then raises itself - how in contrast did it get out and spread so far internationally? Were the Chinese withholding information and frustrating the kinds of measures that could have pinned the virus down when it started appearing elsewhere?

Meh. Some 15MM people left Wuhan prior to the last trains stopping. There was pandemonium and chaos on the (packed) last trains out. Presumably they wanted to get out of the area for the pending Chinese New Year and visit their families back in their 'home' provinces. It's quite likely that many of these were infected and then took the virus out of Wuhan to their families. If you look at a map of Chinese infections you'll see that most of their provinces have some positive cases.

It's also quite likely-probable even-that when these same visiting people got sick and developed symptoms they either intentionally did not self-report to the authorities (for fear of what the government would do to them or the stigma associated with being infected). REPORTED Chinese cases outside of Wuhan area have been very low. Inexplicably low by what we know now about the virus' ability to transmit efficiently in large social settings.

So applying Occam's razor-the most likely explanation for the REPORTED lack of spread throughout China isn't that it didn't spread through China. It's that it wasn't reported / was lied about / was downplayed / was covered up.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive



It's not so much about the effectiveness of the measures within Wuhan and the outcomes in terms of deaths - more that we haven't seen outbreaks in Beijing or Shanghai but we have seen them across the rest of the world.

Yes. This is a mystery to me. Maybe the testing, contact tracing and shutdown happened just in time to stop that wider transmission in China.

[bomccarthy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I just read this, with the size of this thread I can't be sure it hasn't already been posted.

Coronavirus: The California Herd

Wow. No. I haven't seen this. Hard to wade through some of the recent discussions but I at least skim every post.

I've got about 5 articles on hold to read now!

I hope it's a slow growth and doesn't overwhelm the hospital system as this says it will. I've got friends there. I'll check in with them to get the news on the ground.

For a snapshot of what is happening on the frontlines in San Francisco, you might find the following Twitter feed interesting: https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1244812876054843392?campaign_id=49&emc=edit_ca_20200401&instance_id=17245&nl=california-today&regi_id=66518913&segment_id=23500&te=1&user_id=2a15fd2d2ac86de50cf27e2c46239ebc

Bob Wachter is the Chair of the UCSF Dept of Medicine; he has been providing some daily insights from the UCSF hospital. It seems that San Francisco flattened the curve and the hospital is now re-opening spots for elective surgery (bypass operations, etc.).

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Replying to Ranger Joe:

Chauffeur in The Beverly Hillbillies: "Madam, that was settled in the Civil War."
Granny Clampett: "You mean the war betwixt the Yankees and the Americans?"

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: DD696

Regarding the California Herd, it is my personal opinion that this virus is seeking some form of intelligent life, and is finding a huge lack of that in California.

WHEW!!!! Iam safe.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If by "controlling the discussion" you mean "trying to steer us away from politics," I've certainly done that. But the discussion in here has been robust, with very few "steerings" needed.

While a commendable exercise, it is worth highlighting that you have not been appointed a moderator on the forum. Unsure then why you feel the need to act as one, when they have demonstrated that they can and do involve themselves where needed.

I don't ignore your post, but I don't like diverting the thread with lengthy chains of two parties posting "you said this" and "I said this" repeatedly. Already, that's what's happening here. Create another thread if you wish to go off on tangents. I've said that before. If that's controlling, so be it.

The need for excessive quoting is driven by your consistent attempts to misrepresent, distort and dismiss points that I have raised. If you were to cease with rhetoric and address the actual points raised then it would not be required and a more fluid discussion could emerge.

Our previous discussions have not gone well (Climate Change and some of the things in here), leading me to not want to get into lengthy discussions on tangential issues in here.

Our previous discussions have not gone well precisely because of the behaviour on your part I have outlined previously.

I disagreed with your comments about the poor in the US not having access to healthcare.

That has been noted.

I pointed out the reasons for my thoughts.

Which were supported only by anecdotal evidence.

How things have played out, at least to this point, have supported my views. There has been no evidence that the poor have been denied healthcare, at least to any statistically relevant extent.

I provided a range evidence from the U.S Census, CDC and NCBI that demonstrated that this was not the case.

Given that it was quite some time ago, happy to repost to refresh the discussion:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... sured.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access ... h-care.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6125037/

I would like to correct you on a point of language on discussion to healthcare. Denying is not quite the correct terminology from my reading on the subject; a more accurate term should be something like structural barriers to accessing healthcare.

Truly, I think we ought to take this elsewhere. Or, I can be excused, if there's a pressing need to engage in political discussion or contretemps in here.

You keep reiterating that this discussion is supposedly political.

The above posted links are all firmly focused on technical and statistical matters related to healthcare. The only manner in which this discussion could turn political is if you make it so. I am more than content with sticking strictly to a technical, statistical and structural discussion on the topic.

I think it's time for you guys to agree to disagree and PLEASE let this go.

[MakeeLearn]

No Politics Bro.


Seriously, modern politics is for children.

[Canoerebel]

+1

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

+1

You too SLOW.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

I think it's time for you guys to agree to disagree and PLEASE let this go.

+1

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

always remember this post... mid January

Sun Tzu

[Canoerebel]

Dang it, MakeeLearn. You are the Goosebump, Tennesse, virus, proliferating wildly, beyond control, threatening to overcome the world.

[alanschu]

So applying Occam's razor-the most likely explanation for the REPORTED lack of spread throughout China isn't that it didn't spread through China. It's that it wasn't reported / was lied about / was downplayed / was covered up.

I suspect on some level there's always an incentive for political rulers to downplay the severity, and it's just easier to do that in a situation like China has. With rumors about cremations and also adding in "missed" deaths/cases among asymptomatic carriers, it does seem like there's a lot of skepticism about China's data.

Which does make me wonder, is there any value in their data? While the numbers might not be as high, but is it safe to say that the curve is probably accurate? I am skeptical but I'm not actually sure.

[Cap Mandrake]

From the Victor David Hansen article in National Review.

Moreover, researchers in Italy believe that the Chinese were not telling the truth about the origins or birth dates of the virus; they argue that COVID-19 was first loose worldwide in the middle of Autumn 2019 rather than in Winter 2020. Reuters recently reported:

Adriano Decarli, an epidemiologist and medical statistics professor at the University of Milan, said there had been a “significant” increase in the number of people hospitalized for pneumonia and flu in the areas of Milan and Lodi between October and December last year. . . . He told Reuters he could not give exact figures but “hundreds” more people than usual had been taken to hospital in the last three months of 2019 in those areas — two of Lombardy’s worst hit cities — with pneumonia and flu-like symptoms, and some of those had died. . . . Decarli is reviewing the hospital records and other clinical details of those cases, including people who later died at home, to try to understand whether the new coronavirus epidemic had already spread to Italy back then. . . . “We want to know if the virus was already here in Italy at the end of 2019, and — if yes — why it remained undetected for a relatively long period so that we could have a clearer picture in case we have to face a second wave of the epidemic,” he said.

If this is true it should be possible to find some viral nucleic acid in a frozen specimen from one of these patients

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

One thing that strikes me is that China seemed to react swiftly and strongly enough to confine the outbreak to a particular region within their own country.

The question then raises itself - how in contrast did it get out and spread so far internationally? Were the Chinese withholding information and frustrating the kinds of measures that could have pinned the virus down when it started appearing elsewhere?

Meh. Some 15MM people left Wuhan prior to the last trains stopping.

What number is this? 15MM?

So applying Occam's razor-the most likely explanation for the REPORTED lack of spread throughout China isn't that it didn't spread through China. It's that it wasn't reported / was lied about / was downplayed / was covered up.

It's hard to believe that now with the information that is even coming out of Wuhan that this could be covered up. I think they squashed the other cases with tracing, forced isolation of all contacts, etc.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: alanschu
is it safe to say that the curve is probably accurate?

The 'curve' is a function of the data sets used to develop it. Omission of / repression of / fabrication of the data making up the curve will absolutely lead to an inaccurate curve. It's a mathematical certainty.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

One thing that strikes me is that China seemed to react swiftly and strongly enough to confine the outbreak to a particular region within their own country.

The question then raises itself - how in contrast did it get out and spread so far internationally? Were the Chinese withholding information and frustrating the kinds of measures that could have pinned the virus down when it started appearing elsewhere?

Meh. Some 15MM people left Wuhan prior to the last trains stopping. There was pandemonium and chaos on the (packed) last trains out. Presumably they wanted to get out of the area for the pending Chinese New Year and visit their families back in their 'home' provinces. It's quite likely that many of these were infected and then took the virus out of Wuhan to their families. If you look at a map of Chinese infections you'll see that most of their provinces have some positive cases.

It's also quite likely-probable even-that when these same visiting people got sick and developed symptoms they either intentionally did not self-report to the authorities (for fear of what the government would do to them or the stigma associated with being infected). REPORTED Chinese cases outside of Wuhan area have been very low. Inexplicably low by what we know now about the virus' ability to transmit efficiently in large social settings.

So applying Occam's razor-the most likely explanation for the REPORTED lack of spread throughout China isn't that it didn't spread through China. It's that it wasn't reported / was lied about / was downplayed / was covered up.

Who knows really. The Chinese may well have a much bigger problem out in the countryside that they are covering up. But for me an outbreak on a similar scale to Wuhan/Lombardy/Madrid etc in a city like Beijing with 20m people is not something that even the Chinese could keep under wraps.

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Dang it, MakeeLearn. You are the Goosebump, Tennesse, virus, proliferating wildly, beyond control, threatening to overcome the world.

Illusion, Patience and SPEED.