Corona Virus thread

[zephonic]

Good catch. I think the summary predates the updated report, that may account for the discrepancy.

 

Thanks for helping scrutinize this information, that's the reason I posted links to the Italian source.

 

I hope our Italian forumites will read the original report and chime in, but I think the ISS' own translation is very good. Either way, the data is what it is, and the discrepancies do not materially contradict or change SWPRS' summary.

 

 

edit:

 

Actually, no. I think the 2 persons under 40 in the summary refers to paragraph 9 of the ISS translation:

 

"As of March 30th, 112 out of the 10,026 (1.1%) positive COVID-19 patients under the age of 50 died. In particular, 23 of these were less than 40 years, 19 men and 4 women (age range between 26 and 39years). For 2 patients under the age of 40 years no clinical information is available; the remaining 15 had serious pre-existing pathologies (cardiovascular, renal, psychiatric pathologies, diabetes, obesity) and 6 had no major pathologies."

 

So the SWPRS summary says:

"The two Italians deceased under 40 years of age (both 39 years old) were a cancer patient and a diabetes patient with additional complications. In these cases, too, the exact cause of death was not yet clear (i.e. if from the virus or from their pre-existing diseases)."

 

 

But I get how you read it, they worded it carelessly. They should have made clear what they were referring to.

[zephonic]

Also, while we can hope for a vaccine, the one major difference between a pandemic like this and a war or a financial crisis is the possibility of amnesty. We can't call a truce. We can't negotiate a bailout. The shutdown cure might suck, but it also can suck to different levels depending on what folks up top decide/folks down low demand. There's no waving a white flag when you or your loved ones stop breathing.

 

I understand your sentiment, but let's keep in mind that the vast majority of those infected with Covid-19 will experience a mild illness and recover completely in two weeks. Similar to the flu, indeed, for which there is no vaccine either.

 

I'm not saying that we should not exercise caution, if quarantine helps to protect those at risk, I'm all for it.

 

My posts here are simply an appeal to reason; because right now the media is doing anything but.

[Rustar]

For those of you who are interested in how much a life is worth, here's a study. In summary, the value of a statistical life (VSL) is the marginal rate of substitution between income (or wealth) and mortality risk. The VSL indicates how much individuals are willing to pay (WTP) to reduce the risk of death. Applied properly, the VSL can be used in benefit-cost analysis to evaluate the efficiency of government policies designed to reduce risk.

 

https://strata.org/pdf/2017/vsl-full-report.pdf

 

Well, that's no light read. I was hoping for an abstract. I saved it and will attempt to digest it further.

[Adan]

 

I think you're missing the point.

 

The news is: it looks like the tests are not very accurate

 

The spin is: false negative tests may be as high as 30%

 

Another way to frame it would be: false positive tests may be as high as 30%

 

 

Why spin it at all? Why can't they just report that the tests are inaccurate? Isn't that worrisome enough?

 

.

 

 

I tried to find the story again to refresh my memory. Couldn't find it and I don't have all day for this sort of thing. But as I recall the story was simply quoting an expert who thought data suggested a 30% false negative rate. That's what the expert said, there was no translation, no paraphrasing, no spin.

 

.

 

 

I remembered that I sent that NYTimes article to my wire this morning (after she had tested negative), so found the link in that email. Here's the article:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/well/live/coronavirus-symptoms-tests-false-negative.html

 

It's written by a research scientist at Yale. He references this not-yet-peer-reviewed study of results in China:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493v2

 

This is not an opinion piece by a media pundit, it's reputable scientist discussing up to the minute research.

[El Lobo]

I don't see the spin. The NYT article, written by an MD, says "Current coronavirus tests may have a particularly high rate of missing infections. The good news is that the tests appear to be highly specific: If your test comes back positive, it is almost certain you have the infection." Then he says, "Unfortunately, we have very little public data on the false-negative rate for these tests in clinical practice. Research coming out of China indicates that the false-negative rate may be around 30 percent."

 

My daughter, her husband, and their 2 children (my grandkids) almost certainly have this virus â fever, cough, upper respiratory congestion, change in sense of taste. They aren't able to get tested because tests aren't available. Most certainly, the number of cases in the US are underreported. Right now the Johns Hopkins site says there are 213,372 confirmed cases in the US and 4757 deaths. The cases are almost twice as many as Italy and many more than Spain and China (Chinese numbers are probably underreported). https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

[Adan]

Here's another spin-free article by a research scientist, this one at Princeton, regarding the dose-response relationship of viruses in general and implications for the Coronavirus.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opinion/coronavirus-viral-dose.html

 

According to the article, the severity of a virus' effect, and the likelihood of being able to overcome, are related to the degree of exposure -- how many of those bugs get inside you. This is not newfangled science, just a well-known principle about viruses that accords with common sense. The body starts generating antibodies the moment viruses are detected. Whether it can make those antibodies fast enough depends in part on how strong the virus invasion is.

 

A couple of rather depressing points follow from this. For one, it highlights the peril that health care workers are constantly putting themselves in, and the need for protective gear. What happens if that gear runs out, as is currently forecast, is horrifying to contemplate, not just for Covid patients but for all who need medical help of any kind.

 

More relevant to musicians, if you read the article you'll see he talks about distinguishing high intensity and low intensity exposures as we make plans to restart the economy. Sporting events, concerts, music clubs are all high intensity exposures. And you can bet the people setting public policy are going to be weighing the benefits of those against the potential harm. The priority is going to be restarting jobs in manufacturing, construction, and service industries like accounting and law, etc. When will sports and live music be able to function again?

[MAJUSCULE]

Another example of the importance of context in regards to statistics:

 

I've been keeping an eye on the daily updates from our chief provincial doctor and the govt stats posted according to her updates. The last two days, it looked like we were finally starting to see some curtailing in positive tests, but we found out today that the province was actually short on a particular chemical necessary for the testing process. They got a new shipment in and yesterday's numbers are through the roof, putting us right back on the track we were before. Things are changing so quickly, it's hard to make sense of things.

[ksoper]

I don't see the spin. The NYT article, written by an MD, says "Current coronavirus tests may have a particularly high rate of missing infections.

 

May. We don't know yet.

[Stokely]

Here's another spin-free article by a research scientist, this one at Princeton, regarding the dose-response relationship of viruses in general and implications for the Coronavirus.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opinion/coronavirus-viral-dose.html

 

According to the article, the severity of a virus' effect, and the likelihood of being able to overcome, are related to the degree of exposure -- how many of those bugs get inside you. This is not newfangled science, just a well-known principle about viruses that accords with common sense. The body starts generating antibodies the moment viruses are detected. Whether it can make those antibodies fast enough depends in part on how strong the virus invasion is.

 

A couple of rather depressing points follow from this. For one, it highlights the peril that health care workers are constantly putting themselves in, and the need for protective gear. What happens if that gear runs out, as is currently forecast, is horrifying to contemplate, not just for Covid patients but for all who need medical help of any kind.

 

More relevant to musicians, if you read the article you'll see he talks about distinguishing high intensity and low intensity exposures as we make plans to restart the economy. Sporting events, concerts, music clubs are all high intensity exposures. And you can bet the people setting public policy are going to be weighing the benefits of those against the potential harm. The priority is going to be restarting jobs in manufacturing, construction, and service industries like accounting and law, etc. When will sports and live music be able to function again?

 

Very appreciated, I had no idea. I guess I figured that if one little bugger gets in you, it's the same as 40 million...they are just going to spread. I never thought about the antibody angle and I haven't seen that reported much. It's almost (not really) enough to make you want to catch a "light dose" if you could

 

I pretty much figure my live playing days are done for quite a while. Which is ok if there are less gigs and pro guys need those gigs. Though I may be losing my job soon, maybe I'll rethink....

[Markay]

Story in the NYTimes today quotes experts saying false negative tests may be as high as 30%.

 

That is very misleading. Last week I read that the tests have an accuracy of less than 50%, but spinning that as false negatives is of course more much more alarming.

 

The mainstream media is an ugly thing.

 

The Guardian has a little map with the latest numbers of total cases and deaths reported. Last week they briefly had the numbers of recoveries as well, which really put things in perspective as it was nearly two thirds of the total. For some reason that number is no longer being displayed, why?

No mystery or conspiracy. Clearly stated underneath the charts.

 

"Sources: cumulative and daily figures are from Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University data last updated 2020-04-01. Recovered cases removed due to unreliable data."

[CEB]

[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/YUakLzaboMo

[ElmerJFudd]

^^^

Saw that last night. He"s always great for a cuss filled story.

 

On viral things - Fauci states that there is serious work and trials going on with a vaccine. Target at the moment is 12-18 months from being available to the public. Between that and so many people who"ve been hit with it - immunity to the new bugger should tame its rampant spread. Too far off I know.

[elif]

Apologies if a repost...

 

[video:youtube]

[ProfD]

Brotha Zephonic, you are correct..."the mainstream media is an ugly thing".

 

Listening to the 24/7/365 coverage of this pandemic makes it huge. I will not belabor this thread with historical facts and data to prove otherwise.

 

Surely, nobody wants to endure the pain and suffering that comes with losing loved ones. Mother Nature and Father Time do not make mistakes.

 

I'll be glad when we get to the point that "this too shall pass".

 

In the meantime, use this situation as an opportunity to be a better human being. It shouldn't take a pandemic or crisis to make it so.

 

I hope the new normal is being more kind and considerate. Take better care of each other. Treat others as you wish to be treated.

 

Stay home if/when you don't feel well and wash your f8cking hands regularly.

[Stokely]

Yes, while I don't think all "mainstream media" is bad--we still need vetted documented, sourced news and the bloggers etc can say anything they want---I avoid cable news entirely. Haven't regularly watched it for at least 7-8 years, the last time I've had it on at home was during the 2016 election and just for that night. CSPAN would pretty much be the only exception, as they provide context and let stories and interviews play at length (BORING, says the public....)

 

I'm already doing everything I can, so why put the same news on a loop for hours at a time. That stuff is engineered to draw you in, it's pretty much the sugary salty snacks of the news world. My stress levels went down noticeably when I stopped watching it and (even more so) local news. I see that stuff on a loop at doctor's office waiting room and feel so bad for those people working there...how many times can you hear the story about how a dad ran over his toddler with a pickup? I do NOT need to even know that happened.

 

All of the cable news channels write some decent articles though. I check "news" on my ipad once in the morning, and I'll hear about anything major via my work connections.

[Adan]

The current situation resonates strongly with the classic "tragedy of the commons" dilemma. Tragedy of the Commons refers to the situation in bygone days when villages would feature a common grassy area in which all the livestock would graze. One commons, many livestock owners. Each owner's self-interest is to graze his livestock as much as possible. Doing so enriches himself ahead of others. The tragedy is that unless each livestock owner regulates themselves, other people's livestock will die causing societal inequality and disruption, and possibly also degrading the commons to the point it can't return, which is when everyone dies.

 

Not to get lost in the details, but the point is, you have one resource but if everyone acts in their self-interest, the resource is destroyed and everyone suffers. Self-interest will not solve the situation, only order imposed from above (e.g., laws, peer pressure, religion) will make it sustainable.

 

The analogy is far from perfect. A communicable virus is not a resource. But it's analogous in the sense that self-interest will not function sustainably.

 

Call this the Tragedy of the Spring Breakers. While the vast majority of people hunker down, make great sacrifice, and may not be able to work, a very few people saw this as an opportunity to take a cheap spring break vacation, in the process becoming super spreaders. That they're young and may not themselves get sick is sadly ironic, but ultimately of little import. It's their role as vectors that matters. If everyone stays home, this is over more quickly. But if even only a few people ignore the warnings, traveling and cavorting recklessly, those few people stretch the whole process out for everyone. Lockdown time is expanded for everyone. Everyone suffers greater economic damage.

 

. . . and more people die. But for those more concerned about the economic damage than the loss of life, the Tragedy of the Spring Breakers is no less a compelling problem.

 

So is the ubiquitous, loud, overbearing, 24/7 media coverage of the virus too much? It may seem that way for those already doing the right thing, who don't need to be hit over the head with it day and night to see the nexus between self and common interest. And yet all that coverage wasn't enough to stop 70 college students from flying to Mexico for spring break (last I checked 44 have tested positive).

 

How much annoying, hyperbolic media coverage is needed to get us through this crisis more quickly? For the answer to that question, ask the Spring Breakers.

[Mr. Nightime]

We're weathering the "lockdown" fairly well. I'm working from home, so the only economic impact is the lack of gig money. We were unable to really celebrate our 21st anniversary, and we won't be at our 4 year old great nephew's birthday party Saturday.

 

All in all it could be much worse. We could be in the Philippines

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-will-bury-you-duterte-says-coronavirus-lockdown-violators-can-be-shot/ar-BB123JCW?li=BBnb7Kz

[zephonic]

 

 

I remembered that I sent that NYTimes article to my wire this morning (after she had tested negative), so found the link in that email. Here's the article:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/well/live/coronavirus-symptoms-tests-false-negative.html

 

It's written by a research scientist at Yale. He references this not-yet-peer-reviewed study of results in China:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493v2

 

This is not an opinion piece by a media pundit, it's reputable scientist discussing up to the minute research.

 

 

Thanks for sharing. Since the abstract of the original non-peer reviewed Chinese study did not mention anything about 30% false negative rate, I just read all 17 pages of the actual study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493v2.full.pdf

 

I urge you to read it for yourself, because it illustrates my point. If you don't have time to read the whole thing, read at least the "DISCUSSION" section, starting half way page 8, sentence 163.

I would like to offer some quotes from the pdf but it's hard to copy and paste directly because of the formatting, and I don't have the time right now to edit it all. Hopefully I can get to it later.

 

Anyway, long story short: we agree testing is inaccurate, the argument is really about the 30% false negative rate, which is the one thing you remembered and paraphrased before you linked to the article.

 

The tables are on page 13 and 14. Again, please read the study and ask yourself if that suggests a false negative rate of 30%

[Adan]

 

 

I remembered that I sent that NYTimes article to my wire this morning (after she had tested negative), so found the link in that email. Here's the article:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/well/live/coronavirus-symptoms-tests-false-negative.html

 

It's written by a research scientist at Yale. He references this not-yet-peer-reviewed study of results in China:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493v2

 

This is not an opinion piece by a media pundit, it's reputable scientist discussing up to the minute research.

 

 

Thanks for sharing. Since the abstract of the original non-peer reviewed Chinese study did not mention anything about 30% false negative rate, I just read all 17 pages of the actual study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493v2.full.pdf

 

I urge you to read it for yourself, because it illustrates my point. If you don't have time to read the whole thing, read at least the "DISCUSSION" section, starting half way page 8, sentence 163.

I would like to offer some quotes from the pdf but it's hard to copy and paste directly because of the formatting, and I don't have the time right now to edit it all. Hopefully I can get to it later.

 

Anyway, long story short: we agree testing is inaccurate, the argument is really about the 30% false negative rate, which is the one thing you remembered and paraphrased before you linked to the article.

 

The tables are on page 13 and 14. Again, please read the study and ask yourself if that suggests a false negative rate of 30%

 

 

Zephonic, I'm trying to work a full time job from home with two small children under foot, so I won't be reading the study itself. I read the Discussion before first posting, but it is outside my training (environmental lawyer). I have to be honest and say I don't understand it.

 

I took a deeper interest in this topic because of my wife's negative test result, but there's a limit to how deep I can dive.

 

I did not paraphrase the article written by Dr. Krumholz. Here's the quote:

 

"Research coming out of China indicates that the false-negative rate may be around 30 percent. Some of my colleagues, experts in laboratory medicine, express concerns the false-negative rate in this country could be even higher."

 

Is Dr. Krumholz mischaracterizing the study? That would surprise me. Reputable scientists generally don't do that, and certainly not in a way that can be easily caught be a non-expert like your or me. Krumholz knew his article would be read by PhDs who, unlike you and me, can critically evaluate his opinion. For me, that's enough, but if you believe there is chicanery afoot, I'd encourage you to pursue it.

 

Regarding peer review, it must be interesting to be an epidemiologist during the beginning stages of a pandemic caused by a previously unknown virus. Peer review is what separates science from junk. But when every day is critical, what do you do?

 

I believe you're taking this seriously, and I admire your persistence in reading the paper itself. If you want to post more on this specific topic, I'll be happy to read it.

[zephonic]

 

Is Dr. Krumholz mischaracterizing the study?

 

 

No, he chooses his words carefully enough. And I don't necessarily disagree with the intended message (if you have symptoms, you probably have it).

 

My point is, the thing you remembered was 30% false negatives, because that's what stands out in the NYT article. But the actual study doesn't suggest that, even if that statement isn't incorrect per se.

 

I will offer up some quotes from the pdf once I get a chance to edit them. Context is all important in these things.

 

 

I know I must look like a conspiracy nut to many, and that my attempts to put it all in perspective rubs folks the wrong way.

 

But I do believe the media is summarily overstating the threat, and if you compare the reporting on the pandemic in Italy with the actual data I linked to earlier, it's hard to conclude otherwise.

 

However, I believe in intellectual honesty and am aware of my own biases and prejudices. I'm a layman unaccustomed to medical jargon, so chances are that Dr. Krumholz understands the study better than I do. I have emailed him with my questions. If he replies, I'll report back.

 

 

edit:

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-04-02/jobless-claims-unemployment-coronavirus

 

It's reported 6.6 million people filed for unemployment last week, bringing the total since the lockdown to nearly 10 million. This is expected to continue.

 

 

I'm not even gonna talk about the musicians, we're screwed anyway, but I find the story of our local drycleaner particularly heartbreaking: she has been in business forever, and lost more than 90% of her clientele since the lockdown began. She sent almost all of her staff home and keeps the doors open with just one employee. Beginning of last week she said she could hold out for another week or two, after that it's gonna be lights out. I hope the stimulus package will help her get through it.

[Adan]

 

 

But I do believe the media is summarily overstating the threat, .

 

Two points. First, I think broadly speaking (not focusing on you), we're seeing a tendency to blame the "media," as they are a popular punching bag. But the media I read is for the most part just reporting what experts are saying. Are the experts being too cautionary? That's endlessly debatable, but the point is, venting frustrations on the people who do the reporting isn't productive.

 

Second, I happen to believe that the threat is not being overstated, but the crucial point is not how many people get sick from the virus, the crucial point is whether our health care system collapses under the stress of dealing with the virus. I think that threat is being understated. Doctors and nurses are trying to warn us, and we should listen to them.

 

As for your activity in this thread Zephonic, I'd encourage you to keep it up. I may disagree with your general views, but you are at least trying to support your positions with real facts. It's the sort of debate we need to have here and everywhere.

[MAJUSCULE]

As a Canadian, this forum, and these social/quasi-political threads in particular are super enlightening for me. I feel like the framework of these discussions is fairly different in the States compared to the rest of the world. I'm obviously still exposed to American media daily, but certain parameters of discussion, reactions, and tone are different by nature. I think we've seen a few posts from international members who thought they were toeing the line, but were swiftly rebuked.

 

Just an observation. Perspective is interesting and important.

[stillearning]

 

 

But I do believe the media is summarily overstating the threat, .

 

Two points. First, I think broadly speaking (not focusing on you), we're seeing a tendency to blame the "media," as they are a popular punching bag. But the media I read is for the most part just reporting what experts are saying. Are the experts being too cautionary? That's endlessly debatable, but the point is, venting frustrations on the people who do the reporting isn't productive.

 

Second, I happen to believe that the threat is not being overstated, but the crucial point is not how many people get sick from the virus, the crucial point is whether our health care system collapses under the stress of dealing with the virus. I think that threat is being understated. Doctors and nurses are trying to warn us, and we should listen to them.

 

As for your activity in this thread Zephonic, I'd encourage you to keep it up. I may disagree with your general views, but you are at least trying to support your positions with real facts. It's the sort of debate we need to have here and everywhere.

Yes, to all of the above.

 

Thanks for the sensible post. I share your view that the threat is not being overstated. I"m not sure it can be. A doctor friend has said if you think you"re overreacting, you"re probably not.

[ksoper]

 

 

But I do believe the media is summarily overstating the threat.

 

Second, I happen to believe that the threat is not being overstated, but the crucial point is not how many people get sick from the virus, the crucial point is whether our health care system collapses under the stress of dealing with the virus. I think that threat is being understated. Doctors and nurses are trying to warn us, and we should listen to them.

 

 

Today my wife read me the contents of a lengthy memo sent out by the parent corporation of her hospital. It was essentially instructions for triage. It included how codes would be run, how ppe would be conserved, how visitors would be contained, and how end of life care would be managed. It also included a letter written to the mayor of our city thanking him for his participation in containing the spread of the virus but encouraging him to implement shelter-in-place. The onslaught is projected to begin April 19. Also in the letter was a paragraph stating that because of HIPAA not all coronavirus cases are being reported. Many patients who are positive but not in acute respiratory distress are sent home to be quarantined. Hospital staff who are positive and asymptomatic are expected to report to work with N95s worn through the shift. They'll take their own temperatures twice a day. I don't know where they'll eat.

 

I've said this before in this thread and I'll say it again because some aren't getting the message: Cases of COVID-19 are being underreported. The threat is real. I won't share them here but there are things in the hospital memo that would and should horrify you. Eventually the correct numbers will be reported to the state and the CDC but not at this time.

[zephonic]

Two points. First, I think broadly speaking (not focusing on you), we're seeing a tendency to blame the "media," as they are a popular punching bag. But the media I read is for the most part just reporting what experts are saying. Are the experts being too cautionary? That's endlessly debatable, but the point is, venting frustrations on the people who do the reporting isn't productive.

 

I don't think I'm blaming the media, I like to think I'm exposing a narrative

 

They don't just report what the experts are saying, they report what SOME experts are saying. For every Dr. Krumholz there is another doctor with an opposing view, you just don't find his opinion in the NYT. My impression is that there is a narrative, and they find the experts whose opinions corroborate and/or reinforce that story. I'm not suggesting evil intent, mind you. As you already suggested, it may simply be a case of scaring folks into doing the right thing.

 

Since I have your attention, may I ask you directly, do you think the reporting on the situation in Italy is commensurate with the data from the ISS I provided?

 

Second, I happen to believe that the threat is not being overstated, but the crucial point is not how many people get sick from the virus, the crucial point is whether our health care system collapses under the stress of dealing with the virus. I think that threat is being understated. Doctors and nurses are trying to warn us, and we should listen to them.

 

Yes, but the prognosis is based on computer models. In the UK they use the model by Neil Ferguson and co. at Imperial College, London. They originally predicted 250,000 deaths in Great Britain even with max suppression/mitigation, but readjusted that expectation to less than 20,000 deaths recently.

 

What does that say about computer modeling?

 

In the US we use the simulation by Chris Murray and co. from the University of Washington. We only started using this last week, so I have no further info on that at this time.

[zephonic]

As a Canadian, this forum, and these social/quasi-political threads in particular are super enlightening for me. I feel like the framework of these discussions is fairly different in the States compared to the rest of the world. I'm obviously still exposed to American media daily, but certain parameters of discussion, reactions, and tone are different by nature. I think we've seen a few posts from international members who thought they were toeing the line, but were swiftly rebuked.

 

Just an observation. Perspective is interesting and important.

 

Absolutely. Even though I live in the US, I guess my mindset and worldview are European, and I habitually overstep boundaries I didn't even perceive.

I've gotten better at navigating American sensitivities, but I still run into trouble from time to time. The Dutch are typically direct and blunt with their opinions, and casually disagree with each other. I've noticed that sort of thing doesn't really fly here, at least not in California.

[Adan]

 

For every Dr. Krumholz there is another doctor with an opposing view

 

 

That's an interesting assertion. Can you support it?

 

I'm not a scientist, but I come from a family of scientists. I was raised in a University community. I don't have a science degree, but as an environmental lawyer I'm working with scientists every day. The work of scientists is so profoundly ingrained our lives, and yet we can't really be checking their work. It's just not possible. When I read that discussion piece on negative test results, I knew with certainty it was beyond my ability to understand. And as I said, I work with science all the time, but I'd have to go through med school and then additional years of specialization to be on par with that discussion.

 

So what's the average person to do? Do you just say, well, there's experts who say this and there's experts who say that, so it's all just a matter of who controls the narrative? I don't think so. Science isn't like a big playground where kids run around calling out "I am rubber, you are glue . . ." Science is built around institutions and practices that are based on enforcing principles of honesty and integrity. They aren't perfect, but they have worked well enough to get us where we are today, where virtual medical miracles are possible. We have to make sure those institutions and practices are robust and healthy.

 

So as for Dr. Krumholz, he may be right or he may be wrong. He may be honest or he may be a charlatan. As I pointed out above, peer review takes time, so we have to decide how we use information as it's becoming available. GIven his credentials, I'm inclined to believe him. If there's an expert with a different view, let them come forward.

 

As for news outlets selectively choosing among experts to control a narrative, yeah, it happens sometimes. But when addressing a specific situation you have to support an argument like that with real evidence. Without evidence, it's a conspiracy theory.

[El Lobo]

I've said this before in this thread and I'll say it again because some aren't getting the message: Cases of COVID-19 are being underreported. The threat is real. I won't share them here but there are things in the hospital memo that would and should horrify you. Eventually the correct numbers will be reported to the state and the CDC but not at this time.

I agree that C-19 cases are underreported. I disagree that the correct numbers will ever be reported. There are people who have the virus who have not and will not be tested (in part because tests are not available) so their cases will never be reported. The result is that the true numbers of cases will never be known and we will only know the number of cases confirmed by tests.

[ksoper]

I disagree that the correct numbers will ever be reported. There are people who have the virus who have not and will not be tested (in part because tests are not available) so their cases will never be reported. The result is that the true numbers of cases will never be known and we will only know the number of cases confirmed by tests.

 

I could have been more specific. By correct I mean the number of patients who test positive of all tests performed. Right now the number of positive tests are underreported.

[zephonic]

That's an interesting assertion. Can you support it?

 

You mean in addition to the ones I already posted about in this thread? How about these:

 

https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/coronavirus-deadly-they-say

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsExPrHCHbw&feature=emb_title

 

And whaddayaknow, even the NYT has a divergent op-ed, which debunks my earlier assertion of controlled narrative lol https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html

 

So as for Dr. Krumholz, he may be right or he may be wrong. He may be honest or he may be a charlatan.

 

I have not commented on his integrity, this feels like you are putting words into my mouth. I don't doubt that he stands behind his article.

 

As for news outlets selectively choosing among experts to control a narrative, yeah, it happens sometimes. But when addressing a specific situation you have to support an argument like that with real evidence. Without evidence, it's a conspiracy theory.

 

Well, you did not respond to that particular part of my previous post, so let me ask you again, do you feel the reporting on the situation in Italy is commensurate with the data from the Italian National Health Service?

 

I provided evidence, but other than Majuscule nobody has bothered to address that.

 

 

edit:

 

Anyway, I feel like I'm done here. Clearly, the majority of folks do not need to hear dissenting views at this time, and I think peace and unity are ultimately more important. So I'll take a timeout and maybe revisit this thread when the mood has changed.