OT: Corona virus

[MakeeLearn]

Horowitz: Coronavirus corruption: 430,000 flew directly from China since January; 40,000 since ‘shutoff’
April 6, 2020

https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... e-shutoff/

"While we are confined to our homes, it appears that 40,000 people have come here from China since the supposed shutoff. It’s unclear how many were Americans or Chinese nationals and from which parts of China they came, but according to the New York Times, they included “other authorized travelers,” and many came in with “spotty screening.”"


The bulk of the passengers, who were of multiple nationalities, arrived in January, at airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Seattle, Newark and Detroit. Thousands of them flew directly from Wuhan, the center of the coronavirus outbreak, as American public health officials were only beginning to assess the risks to the United States."


"Even after the shutoff, according to the Times, “about 60 percent of travelers on direct flights from China in February were not American citizens.” This means that, after initially bringing in the virus a month or two earlier, we kept reloading the gun to reinforce the spread throughout the country leading into March."


The Times reports that since New Year’s Eve, 430,000 people have arrived in the U.S. on direct flights from China. All but 40,000 came in before the shutoff on February 2. ABC News reports that if you go back as far as when the virus is now known to have surfaced, not when our government officially became aware of it, that number is as high as 760,000. According to the NYT, thousands of them came directly from Wuhan.


Which brings us to the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the question our government will not ask: When did COVID-19 really start in the U.S., and how pervasive was it from December until March?

The “experts” can’t have it both ways. If this virus spreads like wildfire, as they are constantly warning, then it is utterly impossible that it did not spread at least as early as January, with so many Chinese and American travelers coming directly from China, including from Wuhan.



Even after the shutoff, according to the Times, “about 60 percent of travelers on direct flights from China in February were not American citizens.” This means that, after initially bringing in the virus a month or two earlier, we kept reloading the gun to reinforce the spread throughout the country leading into March.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Queens, New York. Why does Queens account for more deaths per capita than anywhere in the country – nearly 10 percent of the national total? Well, it has many Chinese immigrants, some of whom the New York times documented as recently having traveled back from China in January.



Thus, the very people who helped import the virus and then spent two months blithely carrying on with large packed events are now lecturing us on the need to shut down even small businesses that follow CDC guidelines. Don’t worry, it’s all backed up by science."

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Makee, I scanned the original text when you posted it. The quote from the health official in Italy was thought-provoking. Would you mind adding that back into your post? I have no idea if he is quoted accurately and if he is a credible source but what's he's quoted as saying is noteworthy because it's contrary to what I'd been hearing.

^%%^^ this is a website that adds what it wants to "copy". Iasm getting it sorted

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Makee, I scanned the original text when you posted it. The quote from the health official in Italy was thought-provoking. Would you mind adding that back into your post? I have no idea if he is quoted accurately and if he is a credible source but what's he's quoted as saying is noteworthy because it's contrary to what I'd been hearing.

This? That is a diamond.


"Prof. Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, that Italy is overcounting deaths. “On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three,” said Ricciardi, according to the U.K. Telegraph."

[MakeeLearn]

Iam seeing websites starting to "ADD" stuff to anything that is copied from their site.

[RangerJoe]

Thank you, that was a very nice article about people coming from China.

[Canoerebel]

Thank you. That's the quote. I wonder how credible that is?

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Makee, I scanned the original text when you posted it. The quote from the health official in Italy was thought-provoking. Would you mind adding that back into your post? I have no idea if he is quoted accurately and if he is a credible source but what's he's quoted as saying is noteworthy because it's contrary to what I'd been hearing.

This? That is a diamond.


"Prof. Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, that Italy is overcounting deaths. “On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three,” said Ricciardi, according to the U.K. Telegraph."

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Along similar lines - my understanding is that in the UK the NHS is reporting deaths with Coronavirus (i.e. people who have died and have tested positive for the virus) not deaths from it.

[Canoerebel]

Last week, a good friend lost her brother (70s) here. He'd fought a long and hard battle with leukemia, finally losing. Two days later, a positive for coronovirus came in for him. I don't know how he'll be tallied. There will no doubt be all kinds of complicated situations where it's hard to really call it.

[MakeeLearn]

Taking into account the knowledge and wisdom I have learned from the people I have talked to over the last 15 years, I say that there is a good chance that we at war and that this is just the beginning



All warfare is based on deception. -Sun Tzu

[Canoerebel]

Here's how one "news" source chooses to capsulize the present situation, as of 10 a.m. eastern time.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Peak in deaths also dropped by four days.

There is a big movement underway - a major trend. What the nation is doing, and the way the experts project, are combining to bring this into a sharper focus that is much more encouraging. Just one week ago, the nation was riveted on 100k to 200k.

Just one note of potential caution on getting ahead of ourselves here with comparisons to the Washington modelling.

As far as I can tell the model has three main assumptions (I don't use that word in a negative sense - somebody with more of a science background might know of a better word) - 1) a base rate assumption about how quickly the virus spreads and the proportion of people requiring hospital admission and in particular ICU care, 2) an assumption of the extent to which varying levels of lockdown are able to slow the spread of the virus and 3) an assumption of the extent to which reaching the limit of healthcare provision will result in excess mortality.

If the actual numbers are lower than the predicted ones then that suggests that some of these assumptions were not correct. The problem that we still have at this point is that we don't know which or to what extent.

Assumptions is the correct word in this context. These assumptions are made to make the problem simpler in many respects. That could be information deficit, such as adherence to social distancing measures (so assume 30% don't comply), patterns (assume that weather follows previous trends going forward, or that age groups act in specific manners) or based on hard information (ICU capacity).

You have the core of it, yes. There are certain to be much longer list of assumptions, but those are the key one.

However, if the numbers are lower than predicted, it can be due to quite a few things. You're right that the assumptions could be off, but there could also be factors not covered by the model (of which there will be many) that influence the results, or even the model itself could be wonky.

This type of modelling is exceptionally challenging, and is difficult to get right even with the best people working on it. You can see for yourself in the error bars from some of the charts that CR has posted that it is far from a perfect predictive tool.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not really. I'll paraphrase from a much wiser and more respected forumite (you know who you are!)

[8|] <facepalm>

Santa Maria! What on Earth is wrong with you? The US healthcare system shite. The US Navy is shite. America is racist. "I'm smarter than everyone". Give it a rest, man.

Did your mama have to pay kids to come to your birthday parties?

Charming as always Mandrake.

I don't think there's the need for me to repost the informed criticism of the US healthcare system (not that you'd likely read it anyhow).

As for the US Navy, that's not how I'd describe it to be honest. I am less than enthused with its recent handling of events, however.

For being smarter than everyone, definitely not. There's no illusory superiority from me. That's not the case from others in the thread.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Along similar lines - my understanding is that in the UK the NHS is reporting deaths with Coronavirus (i.e. people who have died and have tested positive for the virus) not deaths from it.

Therein lies the crux of my previous points about inputs into these models and spreadsheets that are being posting.

I've seen nothing (may have missed it, but unlikely) posted by anyone on the data integration underpinning any of the information posted.

To then claim that this thread is a source of robust analysis is...premature at best.

[Canoerebel]

Who used the word "robust"?

To the contrary, qualifying adjectives like "armchair analysts" and "laymen" and "encouraging trends" are consistently used (either in the post or associated posts).

But we've done better in here, sooner, than just about any other source I've seen. And that's why the thread was started. See post #1.

[Canoerebel]

When the projections were 17 million and 1.7 million and 100k-200k and 90k....there were few if any claims these were premature or that the sources were not credible.

We're using the same source that was so widely used by most everyone last week...and there were no such caveats and cautions and finger-wagging then.

We can take just a moment to appreciate good news while keeping in mind the uncertainties and the fact that many jurisdictions are mired in the fight and unable to pause for celebrations (as we noted in here yesterday).

[witpqs]

Replying to two at once.
This:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

When this is over, the scientists and mathematicians and statisticians will re-analyze the data in an effort to incorporate those overlooked, as was done in past outbreaks of things. It's likely they'll find many more cases. I think the final death rate may be lower than the current 1% widely used today. There was, in fact, a post in here a four or five days back re-calculating to a 0.66% rate.

As for GWTW, I disagree with a fair bit of that and don't wish for silence to suggest acquiesence. I understand it's good points and bad, know where people are coming from, and have written on the topic many times (including, by coincidence, two days ago and again yesterday morning).

I saw your post and thought it was a good comment. This wasn't written in response to you, so no need for disagreement, acquiescence or understanding on your part really.

This was a reference to Warspite's comment about the response; "Who would object to a picture of the wonderful Mammy?"

If we're going to ask those questions I feel it's appropriate that they should be answered.

warspite1

I have to say that question was more directed to people on this thread.

Sadly of course, there will always be those who refuse to move on, who are keen to keep raking up the wrongs of the past. What does one do? Ban GWTW from ever being shown again? Just think about it. You ban GWTW then you ban literally thousands of films because someone, somewhere is going to object to portrayals of people of colour, people of a different sexual orientation, wars fought with those we now fear insulting - and so the list goes on. So GWTW in some cases may distort history (hardly surprising given it was made in 1939 in a very different America) but what, it can only be re-made with Mammy (and all slaves) now portrayed as some sort of heroic resistance fighters?? So we swap one set of distortion for another to suit the time the film is made.... please*.

But this is a hugely emotive, sad and frustrating subject, so I'll comment no more.

* And for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting these are your thoughts obvert.

And this:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: obvert

No. You're very intelligent and the last thing I want to seem is condescending, but you are simply neglecting the obvious that we don't have to use a place name for this virus, and if we do it could cause harm to others.

By listing these other diseases with specific place names I know that you know they're a totally different category that have no implication of pointing to a vulnerable population in our societies that may in fact be targeted by those who, for instance, link Chinese (or Asian) people with this current pandemic. I know you know this, but it seems, (and I'm just guessing here) that you just don't like the current trend toward more PC language, less inflammatory humour, etc.

Partly I object to the intrusion of political correctness into EVERYTHING, yes, but this is irrational and inconsistent. The WHO picked the name "Middle East Respiratory Syndrome" in 2003. They picked this because the disease seemed to pop-up in several places in the Middle East and the exact location of origin could not be identified. The naming helped people across disciplines easily recognize what was being discussed. I don't recall any Arabs being singled out for creating MERS. MERS is also a Coronavirus. They might have picked "Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome" if they wanted to have rationality and consistency. Then there is the decades long naming convention for influenza approved by the WHO which, by convention, includes geographic names for first place of isolation. Take "bird flu" (a layman's term)...the actual official WHO name is "A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1)"

Influenza type A
Isolated in Hong Kong
Clade 156
Year 1997
Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase (viral protein) mutations

Perfectly rational..the human brain can remember place names better than numbers..et voila!

Now take COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019). All that is true but it completely lacks specificity. It doesn't mention geographic origin, species of origin, taxonomy etc. etc. The Coronaviridae cause disease in dozens, perhaps thousands of species. What happened? The CCP sent a stooge to the WHO meeting at a fancy hotel and over fois gras and steak tartare he made them an offer they could not refuse. This was the CCP trying to buff out the damage.

Here is a perfectly sedate scientifically sound, toxonomically accurate proposal for naming newly discovered Coronaviridae

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z

Within the last couple of years I listened to one of the Audible 'Great Courses', IIRC it was titled "The Other Side of History", and was about the lives of ordinary people in ancient times (Roman, etc.). The professor/lecturer did the reading himself I think. The content was very good, as was the delivery but for one very bad, very frequent occurrence. At various points the lecturer would interject how sorry he was to be telling the listeners about something or other. Didn't want to trigger anybody with terrible things about how people were often treated. "Oh, sorry, sorry, Oh...". It really detracted from the course and made it clear that listeners were expected to be permanently immature and glass-fragile. That presentation would even be bad for young children, because it would teach them that is how they are expected to be (better to tell them such treatment was wrong and that they just being told history or what actually happened).

In the current subject matter, PC "sensitivity" is just being used as one more propaganda weapon, to aid a cover-up by some people, for political advantage by others.

[Canoerebel]

Moralizing - noun. The action of commenting on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.

[MakeeLearn]

Coronavirus: It's time to get real about the misleading data
04/01/20 12:30 PM EDT

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ ... ading-data


"There is no doubt about it: The numbers are just not right. Whether diagnosed cases, deaths, projections, much of the data you see about the coronavirus is misleading — it’s just a matter of how far off the numbers really are."

"The bottom line: When a particular statistic stands out, that number bears extra scrutiny and skepticism. Don’t automatically assume there is some kind of secret genius-level thinking happening."

[Canoerebel]

Witpqs, as an editor, I frequently deal with that. Well-intentioned, mostly amateur writers will inject "unfortunately" into their writing all the time. Or sometimes a paragraph-length equivalent. They mean well but it weakens the writing. Readers know when something was unfortunate.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Who used the word "robust"?

To the contrary, qualifying adjectives like "armchair analysts" and "laymen" and "encouraging trends" are consistently used (either in the post or associated posts).

But we've done better in here, sooner, than just about any other source I've seen. And that's why the thread was started. See post #1.

Sorry, that's my usual lexicon slipping in. Treat it as synonymous with useful or worthwhile.

If you take that view, Canoerebel, then you're not looking at the right sources.

The Financial Times (posted extensively by Obvert) have been leading the way on this in terms of the major media outlets, and doing a much better job than is being done here. From a professional standpoint they're hitting all the right notes (and do some excellent visualisations).

Don't fall in to the trap of mistaking "fast" for "good". Good statistics takes time. There's a good reason that the majority of statistical publications are done on a yearly basis.

In the current subject matter, PC "sensitivity" is just being used as one more propaganda weapon, to aid a cover-up by some people, for political advantage by others.

You're right, except that attacks on PC sensitivity generally a smokescreen for something more nefarious.

Language matters. "Politically correct" language is important because it avoids marginalisation and exclusion. Like racism, or sexism.

This matters. See, for example, female doctors that are addressed by their first name rather than their title (in comparison to males).

Happy to provide further evidence on this.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Moralizing - noun. The action of commenting on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Witpqs, as an editor, I frequently deal with that. Well-intentioned, mostly amateur writers will inject "unfortunately" into their writing all the time. Or sometimes a paragraph-length equivalent. They mean well but it weakens the writing. Readers know when something was unfortunate.

Thanks, Dan. [8D]