Coronavirus outbreak

[riffraff]

Just now, Boudrias said:

Had an email from a Rotarian in Kenya. She said it is simply impossible for the majority of Kenyans to self isolate or not work. They do not have the means of survival otherwise. 

So they won’t.  
 

And they will go about their lives and the virus will run its course and they will survive as Kenya.

 

sadly all the other death rates related to living conditions in Kenya will not change either.

 

 

[Boudrias]

1 minute ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

I am sure the Chinese will have some spare defective ones they can sell us. 

[Tre Mac]

15 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Coughspring should open with their hit:

 

Quote

 

I called her up for the 6th time today

I told her to keep 6tf away

She came over, she had a cough

That's when I decided she should $%^& off

 

 

 

[Cpt.Clutch]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

I was wondering when that would happen. 
Not surprised. Countries look within their own borders first when crises come. They’ll hoard supplies just like your neighbour. 

[RUPERTKBD]

A while back, a few of us were "discussing" the merits of the next four years under a Joe Biden led administration and another four years of Donald Trump. Some folks were making the case that the two results would essentially the same for low and middle income Americans, especially those under 30. I (and a few others) attempted to point out differences in areas besides economic, which would make a Biden government much more desirable.

 

One thing that didn't come up in the conversation, (or was just slightly touched on) was Trump's penchant for putting unqualified people (especially family members) in positions of power and influence. It appears as though this habit might even have life and death consequences:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/jared-kushner-is-going-to-get-us-all-killed/ar-BB127MR9?li=AAggFp5#image=BBZaM5o|2

 

Quote

 

Reporting on the White House’s herky-jerky coronavirus response, Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman has a quotation from Jared Kushner that should make all Americans, and particularly all New Yorkers, dizzy with terror.

 

 

According to Sherman, when New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, said that the state would need 30,000 ventilators at the apex of the coronavirus outbreak, Kushner decided that Cuomo was being alarmist. “I have all this data about I.C.U. capacity,” Kushner reportedly said. “I’m doing my own projections, and I’ve gotten a lot smarter about this. New York doesn’t need all the ventilators.” (Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top expert on infectious diseases, has said he trusts Cuomo’s estimate.)

Even now, it’s hard to believe that someone with as little expertise as Kushner could be so arrogant, but he said something similar on Thursday, when he made his debut at the White House’s daily coronavirus briefing: “People who have requests for different products and supplies, a lot of them are doing it based on projections which are not the realistic projections.”

 

Kushner has succeeded at exactly three things in his life. He was born to the right parents, married well and learned how to influence his father-in-law. Most of his other endeavors — his biggest real estate deal, his foray into newspaper ownership, his attempt to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians — have been failures.

 

Undeterred, he has now arrogated to himself a major role in fighting the epochal health crisis that’s brought America to its knees. “Behind the scenes, Kushner takes charge of coronavirus response,” said a Politico headline on Wednesday. This is dilettantism raised to the level of sociopathy.

 

The journalist Andrea Bernstein looked closely at Kushner’s business record for her recent book “American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power,” speaking to people on all sides of his real estate deals as well as those who worked with him at The New York Observer, the weekly newspaper he bought in 2006.

Kushner, Bernstein told me, “really sees himself as a disrupter.” Again and again, she said, people who’d dealt with Kushner told her that whatever he did, he “believed he could do it better than anybody else, and he had supreme confidence in his own abilities and his own judgment even when he didn’t know what he was talking about.”

 

It’s hard to overstate the extent to which this confidence is unearned. Kushner was a reportedly mediocre student whose billionaire father appears to have bought him a place at Harvard. Taking over the family real estate company after his father was sent to prison, Kushner paid $1.8 billion — a record, at the time — for a Manhattan skyscraper at the very top of the real estate market in 2007. The debt from that project became a crushing burden for the family business. (Kushner was able to restructure the debt in 2011, and in 2018 the project was bailed out by a Canadian asset management company with links to the government of Qatar.) He gutted the once-great New York Observer, then made a failed attempt to create a national network of local politics websites.

 

His forays into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — for which he boasted of reading a whole 25 books — have left the dream of a two-state solution on life support. Michael Koplow of the centrist Israel Policy Forum described Kushner’s plan for the Palestinian economy as “the Monty Python version of Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

 

Now, in our hour of existential horror, Kushner is making life-or-death decisions for all Americans, showing all the wisdom we’ve come to expect from him.

 

“Mr. Kushner’s early involvement with dealing with the virus was in advising the president that the media’s coverage exaggerated the threat,” reported The Times. It was apparently at Kushner’s urging that Trump announced, falsely, that Google was about to launch a website that would link Americans with coronavirus testing. (As The Atlantic reported, a health insurance company co-founded by Kushner’s brother — which Kushner once owned a stake in — tried to build such a site, before the project was “suddenly and mysteriously scrapped.”)

 

The president was reportedly furious over the website debacle, but Kushner’s authority hasn’t been curbed. Politico reported that Kushner, “alongside a kitchen cabinet of outside experts including his former roommate and a suite of McKinsey consultants, has taken charge of the most important challenges facing the federal government,” including the production and distribution of medical supplies and the expansion of testing. Kushner has embedded his own people in the Federal Emergency Management Agency; a senior official described them to The Times as “a ‘frat party’ that descended from a U.F.O. and invaded the federal government.”

 

Disaster response requires discipline and adherence to a clear chain of command, not the move-fast-and-break-things approach of start-up culture. Even if Kushner “were the most competent person in the world, which he clearly isn’t, introducing these kind of competing power centers into a crisis response structure is a guaranteed problem,” Jeremy Konyndyk, a former U.S.A.I.D. official who helped manage the response to the Ebola crisis during Barack Obama’s administration, told me. “So you could have Trump and Kushner and Pence and the governors all be the smartest people in the room, but if there are multiple competing power centers trying to drive this response, it’s still going to be chaos.”

 

Competing power centers are a motif of this administration, and its approach to the pandemic is no exception. As The Washington Post reported, Kushner’s team added “another layer of confusion and conflicting signals within the White House’s disjointed response to the crisis.” Nor does his operation appear to be internally coherent. “Projects are so decentralized that one team often has little idea what others are doing — outside of that they all report up to Kushner,” reported Politico.

 

On Thursday, Governor Cuomo said that New York would run out of ventilators in six days. Perhaps Kushner’s projections were incorrect. “I don’t think the federal government is in a position to provide ventilators to the extent the nation may need them,” Cuomo said. “Assume you are on your own in life.” If not in life, certainly in this administration.

 

 

[AriGold2.0]

If this doesn't sum this guy up then I don't know what does...

[NewbieCanuckFan]

25 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I am sure the Chinese will have some spare defective ones they can sell us. 

“Leader of the free world” tells Canada to go **** itself essentially with that directive to 3M.  Good thing the private sector basically gives Bone Spurs to stick it.

[Down by the River]

2 hours ago, riffraff said:

https://theemfguy.com/blog/coronavirus/
 

Fact #1: We’re Locking Down Entire Countries To Stop the Coronavirus… And The Consequences Are (And Will Be) Disastrous

Fact #2: “Confirmed” Cases Of COVID-19 Are… Well… Not-So-Confirmed

Fact #3: “Confirmed” Deaths From COVID-19 Are Not-So-Confirmed Either

Fact #4: The WHO’s Panic-Inducing Death Rates Are Akin To Comparing Apples To Oranges

Fact #5: Overall Mortality Rates From Respiratory Infections Have Still Not Increased Significantly

Fact #6: A Slew Of International Experts Warn That The Danger Of COVID-19 Has Been Dangerously Overblown

Fact #7: The Data Confirms That Lockdowns Are Possibly Useless & Surely Damaging

Fact #8: Things Are Getting Better, And Better, And Better

The Anti-Conclusion: What This Article Does Not Claim

Conclusion: What This All Means & What You Should Do

 

It is good to have balance so thanks for posting... but let's look at what some of these facts mean. 

 

Counterfact #1: The economic consequences of the cornavirus are likely disastrous whether countries were locked down or not locked down. Arguably, locking things down is what will save lives. We don't know which approach would have the more disastrous consequence. 

 

Counterfact #2: His main argument was from a retracted study. False positives widely varied depending on the study and its sample size. The study with the highest false positive happened to be retracted. Moreover, the false positives might not outweigh the false negatives. If this is the case, the rate of COVID-19 is not being overestimated as implied by the blogger.

 

Here is why I think the article was retracted (http://html.rhhz.net/zhlxbx/017.htm). The article estimated false positives seemingly using a 75% confidence interval. This is nuts. Convention is to always use a 95% CI. Using a 75% CI means that our confidence that the number reported is accurate is very shaky. 

 

On that note, be very wary about "peer-reviewed" articles that are published in non-American journals. This isn't universal, but 90+% of the top journals are all in the United States, regardless of field. They will also have a professional organization attached to it. The Chinese Journal of Epidemiology has the appearance of what a predatory journal looks like (researchers pay the journal to publish their work and the peer review process is a joke).   

 

Counterfact #3: This is the most important one I think. How many deaths are due to COVID-19 versus deaths that were related to, for example, cancer that was aggravated by COVID-19? It is a relevant question. However, as mentioned in previous posts, we know virtually nothing about the nature of underlying health problems. Is COVID-19 speeding up mortality for the elderly by a couple weeks or a couple years or a decade? We don't know.

 

The bigger issue is that the blogger suggests that (1) we have false positives and (2) the death rate is overestimated. If you are going to argue that we have false positives, then it means the death rate is underestimated. It suggests a lower denominator, which means a higher death rate. 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Down by the River

[riffraff]

5 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

It is good to have balance so thanks for posting... but let's look at what some of these facts mean. 

 

Counterfact #1: The economic consequences of the cornavirus are likely disastrous whether countries were locked down or not locked down. Arguably, locking things down is what will save lives. We don't know which approach would have the more disastrous consequence. 

 

Counterfact #2: His main argument was from a retracted study. False positives widely varied depending on the study and its sample size. The study with the highest false positive happened to be retracted. Moreover, the false positives might not outweigh the false negatives. If this is the case, the rate of COVID-19 is not being overestimated as implied by the blogger.

 

Here is why I think the article was retracted (http://html.rhhz.net/zhlxbx/017.htm). The article estimated false positives seemingly using a 75% confidence interval. This is nuts. Convention is to always use a 95% CI. Using a 75% CI means that our confidence that the number reported is accurate is very shaky. 

 

On that note, be very wary about "peer-reviewed" articles that are published in non-American journals. This isn't universal, but 90+% of the top journals are all in the United States, regardless of field. They will also have a professional organization attached to it. The Chinese Journal of Epidemiology has the appearance of what a predatory journal looks like (researchers pay the journal to publish their work and the peer review process is a joke).   

 

Counterfact #3: This is the most important one I think. How many deaths are due to COVID-19 versus deaths that were related to, for example, cancer that was aggravated by COVID-19? It is a relevant question. However, as mentioned in previous posts, we know virtually nothing about the nature of underlying health problems. Is COVID-19 speeding up mortality for the elderly by a couple weeks or a couple years or a decade? We don't know.

 

The bigger issue is that the blogger suggests that (1) we have false positives and (2) the death rate is overestimated. Well actually, if you are going to argue that we have false positives, then it means the death rate is underestimated. It suggests that our total cases should be lower, which means a lower denominator, which means a higher death rate. 

 

 

He admits as such which enforces the main point that decisions are being made based on inconclusive data.

 

he makes multiple qualifiers stating he isn’t saying there isnt a problem.  He is providing references by world leaders in the various related fields that are questioning just how big the problem really is and how does it compare to the result of the tactics currently employed by gvts.

 

im posting to try and encourage people to ask questions and use their own will and brain to make informed decisions.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by riffraff

[Down by the River]

8 minutes ago, riffraff said:

He admits as such which enforces the main point that decisions are being made based on inconclusive data.

 

he makes multiple qualifiers stating he isn’t saying there isnt a problem.  He is providing references by world leaders in the various related fields that are questioning just how big the problem really is and how does it compare to the result of the tactics currently employed by gvts.

 

im posting to try and encourage people to ask questions and use their own will and brain to make informed decisions.

 

 

The lack of nuanced data is definitely a big problem to point out. However, along the way I think that he is making mistakes in his own analysis. It is fine to ask questions. But, for the blogger trying to answer these questions, his answers deserve just as much scrutiny as the answers he is looking into. He can't have it both ways. If the false positive rate is drastically high, the death rate is drastically underestimated. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Down by the River

[riffraff]

10 minutes ago, riffraff said:

He admits as such which enforces the main point that decisions are being made based on inconclusive data.

 

he makes multiple qualifiers stating he isn’t saying there isnt a problem.  He is providing references by world leaders in the various related fields that are questioning just how big the problem really is and how does it compare to the result of the tactics currently employed by gvts.

 

im posting to try and encourage people to ask questions and use their own will and brain to make informed decisions.

 

 

If you’re going to read this 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-covid-projections-1.5519575

 

Followed by this
 

https://www.cbc.ca/arts/after-the-crisis-what-kind-of-world-do-we-want-post-apocalyptic-novels-hold-lessons-and-warnings-1.5509721

 

then it is worth paying attention to what some renounced scientists are saying  while the Canadian media tries to present the data like an Olympic medal tally relative to what our “leader” to the South is or is not doing.  And watching online death tallies and interactive models based on weak supporting data and analysis.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by riffraff

[riffraff]

5 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

The lack of nuanced data is definitely a big problem to point out. However, along the way I think that he is making mistakes in his own analysis. It is fine to ask questions. But, for the blogger trying to answer these questions, his answers deserve just as much scrutiny as the answers he is looking into. He can't have it both ways. If the false positive rate is drastically high, the death rate is drastically underestimated. 

I appreciate you taking the time to read.  

[AlwaysACanuckFan]

 

[Boudrias]

30 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

“Leader of the free world” tells Canada to go **** itself essentially with that directive to 3M.  Good thing the private sector basically gives Bone Spurs to stick it.

Same thing is happening in Europe. Some suggestion it could be the end of the European Union. 

[CBH1926]

7 hours ago, canuckster19 said:

Like the doctors in China who went missing for exposing the significance while the rest of the world had it’s heads in the sand because they don’t want to offend the Chinese and the Chinese who don’t want to look bad before the rest of the world and the portion of their population who still act bass ackwards in their beliefs in hocus pocus and dietary intake the same as any backwater Alabama trump supporter? Is that what we should do?

China should be dealt with later, especially if we find the evidence that they lied.

 

 

[samurai]

18 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

It is good to have balance so thanks for posting... but let's look at what some of these facts mean. 

 

Counterfact #1: The economic consequences of the cornavirus are likely disastrous whether countries were locked down or not locked down. Arguably, locking things down is what will save lives. We don't know which approach would have the more disastrous consequence. 

 

Counterfact #2: His main argument was from a retracted study. False positives widely varied depending on the study and its sample size. The study with the highest false positive happened to be retracted. Moreover, the false positives might not outweigh the false negatives. If this is the case, the rate of COVID-19 is not being overestimated as implied by the blogger.

 

Here is why I think the article was retracted (http://html.rhhz.net/zhlxbx/017.htm). The article estimated false positives seemingly using a 75% confidence interval. This is nuts. Convention is to always use a 95% CI. Using a 75% CI means that our confidence that the number reported is accurate is very shaky. 

 

On that note, be very wary about "peer-reviewed" articles that are published in non-American journals. This isn't universal, but 90+% of the top journals are all in the United States, regardless of field. They will also have a professional organization attached to it. The Chinese Journal of Epidemiology has the appearance of what a predatory journal looks like (researchers pay the journal to publish their work and the peer review process is a joke).   

 

Counterfact #3: This is the most important one I think. How many deaths are due to COVID-19 versus deaths that were related to, for example, cancer that was aggravated by COVID-19? It is a relevant question. However, as mentioned in previous posts, we know virtually nothing about the nature of underlying health problems. Is COVID-19 speeding up mortality for the elderly by a couple weeks or a couple years or a decade? We don't know.

 

The bigger issue is that the blogger suggests that (1) we have false positives and (2) the death rate is overestimated. Well actually, if you are going to argue that we have false positives, then it means the death rate is underestimated. It suggests that our total cases should be lower, which means a lower denominator, which means a higher death rate. 

 

 

But one of the other major points is that death by 19 are not being properly confirmed, for example, being separated from other corona. They alone account for 7-15% a year.  Nobody knows the actual death rates by 19. I saw a doctor this morning say that they are seeing a lot of deaths by heart attack but they cannot confirm that it is the 19 or not, but guess how the death is recorded?

[JM_]

1 hour ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

 

any Canadian that still likes or supports Trump needs to be given a one way ticket to NYC. 

[Down by the River]

Just now, samurai said:

But one of the other major points is that death by 19 are not being properly confirmed, for example, being separated from other corona. They alone account for 7-15% a year.  Nobody knows the actual death rates by 19. I saw a doctor this morning say that they are seeing a lot of deaths by heart attack but they cannot confirm that it is the 19 or not, but guess how the death is recorded?

Definitely agree with this. We need to know (a) what is the death rate for otherwise healthy persons and (b) what is the death rate due to existing conditions complicated by Corona? For the latter, we need to know the way in which Corona complicated the precondition. Did the "hazard rate" significantly speed up, or were the persons with the precondition already at an extremely high risk?

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Same thing is happening in Europe. Some suggestion it could be the end of the European Union. 

At least I hope it makes us a bit more self-reliant (with respect to things like PPE, etc.,) in the future instead of outsourcing "to the lowest cost".  

[samurai]

21 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

The lack of nuanced data is definitely a big problem to point out. However, along the way I think that he is making mistakes in his own analysis. It is fine to ask questions. But, for the blogger trying to answer these questions, his answers deserve just as much scrutiny as the answers he is looking into. He can't have it both ways. If the false positive rate is drastically high, the death rate is drastically underestimated. 

You are not looking at the entirety of the argument.  Death rates are unreliable cause the tests and recording of death are unreliable they are being disputed by experts not just this blogger.  Sorry I just saw your response above. I agree with you.

Edited April 3, 2020 by samurai