I was looking at the cover of my 1992 statistics textbook and there was this old picture on it about NY
The current Covid death rate is about ~2/1000 which looks like the red peak below..
Of course the numbers are bigger in 2020 but history puts the % in perspective..
Well, I view Bayesian inference (updating prior probabilities based on new evidence) as a sound mathematical probabilistic argument used universally that I perhaps wrongly call statistics. And it is also common sense, which we all use intuitively.
To help you with statistics! Simply start to count all positiv studies with early HCQ and then all with very late HCQ:
(Late also includes the famous british study that used a deadly dosis of HCQ....)
Then also read what WHO says: HCQ of no use if you are on a ventilator. - Most likely due to other mistreatings like missing blood thinners etc...
Did you know that cars are of no use?? - If you want to fly to the moon...
Display More
To help you with statistics! Simply start to count all positiv studies with early HCQ and then all with very late HCQ:
(Late also includes the famous british study that used a deadly dosis of HCQ....)
Then also read what WHO says: HCQ of no use if you are on a ventilator. - Most likely due to other mistreatings like missing blood thinners etc...
Did you know that cars are of no use?? - If you want to fly to the moon...
W - I'm happy to separate early HCQ from late HCQ and reckon that early HCQ has no RCT negative evidence (perhaps?). But also AFAIK it has no RCT positive evidence. Strange when HCQ has been so much studied. I guess it is more difficult to do controlled studies on outpatients etc?
Worth noting that GlobalResearch (Shane's link) score tin-has conspiracy theory on a media bias check
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
I do have a strong recommendation for unbiassed reporting (does not mean it is right, just that it will be wrong in an unbiassed way!). And the reporting is technical-led, which I like.
Fact checking websites exploded since Trump. One investigation found that various ones (Snopes, Politifact) they were run by these people:
We have a duty to protect the vulnerable (including possibly administrators who may not understand how this works).suggesting we give up our thinking to a website. In this case Media Bias Fact Check, and the owner Van Zandt. If you want to outsource your thinking to him, please do but dont get on the internet and try to use this site to discredit and spew controversy to malign other websites or opinions that may not be favorable to your objectives.
“[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.
“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …
“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”
Nothing new here, websites are created to spew controversy about smoking tobacco, climate, and food labeling. Here are some examples.
The fake-news concept was created like the conspiracy concept to stop thought and inquiry on important topics. The organizations that create these concepts have no concern about you - the ultra elite. Your allegiance to their concepts is pathetic, unless this is your job.
Now: perhaps W (immunity from prior CV infection) or Shane (not sure which mechanism) or anyone else (Stefan you have a view on this?)
Both the Lancet and Imperial studies concluded the lock downs were responsible for the decrease in cases. Not herd immunity...which they include any "natural means", or resistance to the virus, along with having developed anti-bodies. Those studies were published a month ago, and covered the immediate post reopening period. I tend to believe them, but I have also read other articles showing no correlation between the mitigation policies, and reduction in cases. In other words, lock downs did not work.
That tells me the jury is still out, and it will take months, if not years of data crunching to come to a consensus. Not unexpected with so many confusing moving parts they are trying to make sense of this early in the pandemic...as even the authors admit. Whatever they eventually decide on though, it appears most world, and local leaders have concluded against more lock downs. As we have talked about before, they know now there are actual, severe consequences to shutting down economies, that have to be weighed against deaths from the virus,
Some of the US mayors where riots took place, now blame in part the lockdowns for ratcheting up the rage. Over a thousand businesses destroyed, many more damaged, dozens of deaths, and a new exodus from inner cities resulted. They don't want to go through that again. Then there are more suicides, domestic abuse, overdoses, starvation in undeveloped countries, etc.
So, whether lock downs work or not, I think at this stage the world has decided it is better to keep everything open, and deal with the virus in other ways.
What did Kaletra (more or less the same mechanism) show: ICU patient just die in avg. 7 days later.. Now if you stop a study at a random point then all the late deaths fall out of the data and you get a fake positive result by just taking the first 400 of more than 1200...
We know from many sites that did use both Kaletra/Remdesivir than the later is about 10% better so ICU patient with Gilead crap die 9 days later in avg. ...
Doctors that use Remdesivir possibly engage in a criminal act as in reality there is no proven positive result except a huge (tax-free as usual) kick-back for hospital owners.
I've been a bit surprised by the way that one not very convincing RCT is taken as strong evidence for Remdesivir. If it is correct, it will save hospitals bed occupancy, and patients or insurers money, a powerful motivation for hospitals.
However this trial https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04257656 was not stopped at an arbitrary point that could allow what you say. They could no longer enroll patients due to no more COVID (many studies had this problem, it is real).
Display MoreBoth the Lancet and Imperial studies concluded the lock downs were responsible for the decrease in cases. Not herd immunity...which they include any "natural means", or resistance to the virus, along with having developed anti-bodies. Those studies were published a month ago, and covered the immediate post reopening period. I tend to believe them, but I have also read other articles showing no correlation between the mitigation policies, and reduction in cases. In other words, lock downs did not work.
That tells me the jury is still out, and it will take months, if not years of data crunching to come to a consensus. Not unexpected with so many confusing moving parts they are trying to make sense of this early in the pandemic...as even the authors admit. Whatever they eventually decide on though, it appears most world, and local leaders have concluded against more lock downs. As we have talked about before, they know now there are actual, severe consequences to shutting down economies, that have to be weighed against deaths from the virus,
Some of the US mayors where riots took place, now blame in part the lockdowns for ratcheting up the rage. Over a thousand businesses destroyed, many more damaged, dozens of deaths, and a new exodus from inner cities resulted. They don't want to go through that again. Then there are more suicides, domestic abuse, overdoses, starvation in undeveloped countries, etc.
So, whether lock downs work or not, I think at this stage the world has decided it is better to keep everything open, and deal with the virus in other ways.
Shane, I posted the relevant part of that letter. It is not arguing the lockdowns did or did not work (though difficult to see what else was causing drop in case numbers). It was arguing that the facts do not support herd immunity as a mechanism for COVID plateauing.
So if others are now arguing this they need a plausible mechanism - and if it is herd immunity again to explain away the strong evidence against herd immunity in that letter.
Strange when HCQ has been so much studied
thousands of patients on 2400 mg/day is the Wreckovery study..
which incompetent pharmacist checked that dose....?? the routine dosing is 200-400 mg..
When selfcongratulatory Landray writes..
“If more people took the RECOVERY model, or something like it, did that for the drugs they were interested in,
in the patients they’re interested in, in their part of the world … we make progress an awful lot quicker,” said Landray.
I take it that he is not talking about the HCQ part of the study..
http://covexit.com/oxford-prof…soir-newspaper-denies-it/
From one study:
"The herd immunity argument is therefore at odds with both mortality and seroprevalence data, whereas the intervention argument provides a parsimonious explanation for both."
From the other:
"In summary, there are large differences in patterns of per-capita deaths in different countries that are difficult to reconcile with herd immunity arguments but are easily explained by the timing and stringency of interventions."
Both are being way to cute -which is a story in and of itself, but I interpret them to mean the lockdowns *did work*.
Both the Lancet and Imperial studies concluded the lock downs were responsible for the decrease in cases.
Both sources are no longer trustworthy due to conflicting interests of the members/owners. In fact Lancet is a no go as they intentionally posted fake studies.
Serious studies in fact show we were getting "a kind of herd immunity" one to two weeks before the lockdown. Of course a lockdown will reduce mortality far more effective but it was entirely superfluous except for places with overwhelming health care issues (e.g. New York, UK,Italy).
Switzerland (8.5 mio. people) is open since about 6 weeks now. The avg. death rate is about 1/day or in the "slippery soap range..".
But we had as "strong increase" of cases from almost 0 to about 100 in avg./day. That's what you expect from a virulent pathogen despite herd immunity. In fact the cases were triggered by returning (Serbia) young people directly going into clubs despite feeling sick.
Now the crazy Swiss state officials do force us to wear a mask in public transportation despite during 5 weeks of no mask we had no increase in cases.
This is how the mafia tries to profit from the smallest incidents by selling 7-10x over prized masks and also tries to make you obedient!
At least we do not need any Gilead crap due to in avg. 15 ICU cases needing ventilation.
The fake-news concept was created like the conspiracy concept to stop thought and inquiry on important topics. The organizations that create these concepts have no concern about you - the ultra elite. Your allegiance to their concepts is pathetic, unless this is your job.
Navid, that speculation on my job - with the implication that it is to mislead people (parse what you have said - it can only mean that) is known by many here to be totally wrong, and inflammatory, and grossly insulting. Take it back or I will respond by speculating on your motivation (with reference to the literature on the psychology of extreme conspiracy theory nuts, and facts to show that such theories are in the tin foil hat area).
Also, the idea that I am part of the "ultra-elite" is laughable. Unless you mean by that people who have a broadly scientific education, use the internet to research stuff they post, and read widely rather than picking up only fringe websites supporting their prejudices.
Your views disqualify you from that because you dismiss 99% of internet comment as mainstream and controlled by elites who are out to destroy the world. It leaves you with much less reading to do.
Both sources are no longer trustworthy due to conflicting interests of the members/owners.
W - please comment on Fergusons's comment, and his detailed arguments. Why are they wrong? Saying you dislike the Lancet, whether that is justified or no, will not cut it. Letters are not properly peer reviewed, this was Ferguson replying to some critiques of his earlier work with data. We get most of our info from preprints that have no preer review anyway.
They could no longer enroll patients due to no more COVID (many studies had this problem, it is real).
THH: This is outraging nonsense: In fact, I as relative would strictly vote against a crap drug that just allows the hospital to charge 9 more days in ICU before the patient dies. There are more than enough patients available for studies but not for mistreatment of victims.
I repeat it once more: Kaletra/Remdesivir were used since January and never showed anything else than a prolongation of the death phase and thus did produce maximum
cash for hospitals. If patient get a blood thinner - what is standard good care - then this effect dominates by more than a factor 5 over the Gilead crap. Do you really believe all the patients did renounce the known working drugs??
W - please comment on Fergusons's comment,
It's all said in In a preprint response to Ferguson, Homburg and Kuhbandner do a good job with the first approach.
W - you are not addressing the points I've asked you to, which are substantive. Instead you are quoting other less clear evidence you believe strong, which my points contradict.
Navid, that speculation on my job - with the implication that it is to mislead people (parse what you have said - it can only mean that) is known by many here to be totally wrong, and inflammatory, and grossly insulting. Take it back or I will respond by speculating on your motivation (with reference to the literature on the psychology of extreme conspiracy theory nuts, and facts to show that such theories are in the tin foil hat area).
Also, the idea that I am part of the "ultra-elite" is laughable. Unless you mean by that people who have a broadly scientific education, use the internet to research stuff they post, and read widely rather than picking up only fringe websites supporting their prejudices.
Your views disqualify you from that because you dismiss 99% of internet comment as mainstream and controlled by elites who are out to destroy the world. It leaves you with much less reading to do.
There is nothing to take back. Your indignation is all an act to get the board admins to generate empathy for "poor you."
You engage in speculation all the time, that is what you do. So your threat that you will respond by "I will respond by speculating on your motivation" is going to be hard to deny when you threaten with the very thing we accuse you of doing!
Nobody said you are part of the ultra-elite - you are creating a false narrative.
You continue on by saying "you dismiss 99% of internet comment as blah blah blah elites destroy the world" Again, over emphatic over the top spin.
It is plain as day for all to see you are the one spinning and fabricating. I am surprised by the generosity of the board admins. Continual presence does breed familiarity and liking - that's the same reason almost every morning Gates has a story on my Android news feed. (yesterday it was "Gates backs Canadian miner!"). It doesn't mean Gates is a philanthropist and out for the good of humanity.
We could be discussing a lot more interesting things here about covid but the board is filled by panic and spin.
We could be discussing a lot more interesting things here about covid but the board is filled by panic and spin.
Really? Must confess I hadn't noticed.
secluded place in the country..
I live very secluded but no orange trees.
I typically don't see anyone but the Mrs. - others perhaps to the store once ever 2 or 3 weeks.
Don't worry- I won't take rat poison.
but do take vit D and Zn.
There is nothing to take back.
On the contrary - you implied strongly, an ad hom and grossly false, that I post here (a) paid (or at least in the service of some entity) and (b) dishonestly. Neither is true (and in principle one could be true and the other false, so it is a double ad him insult). If you believe this then you are stupid. If you are yourself dishonestly implying these things, as a rhetorical flourish, you will discover that it is not useful behaviour, because I will point it out along with other contextual matters that are apparent from studying your posts in this thread.
I keep personalities out of these posts. I'd expect you to do the same, but if you do not, don't worry. I have no need for the moderators, I will deal with your next post myself. In full.
I don't often get angry here but am now: not sure I've ever actually relished breaking my rule of not personalising posts.
W - thanks for your reply to my reply I won't get into an infinite regression here, just note that repetition does not address the points I noted quoting Ferguson - two of which seem to me very strong. If it does, you could help us all be elucidating where (paragraph) they are dealt with.
There is still interest in this matter. I don't myself quite feel all the data coheres. For example, what is it about children? Are they asymptomatic positive, or do they just not catch it? And why are they less infectious (if they are). I will go on worrying at these questions until it all makes sense to me.
On fact checking websites.
If you have any interest in truth, as something different from personal opinion, you will realise that while most things (including a lot of medicine and some science) are matters of opinion as well as fact, there are differences between those reporters who try to provide true statements, and do not seek to persuade with emotive words, and those at the other end of the spectrum who do the reverse.
In particular, there are many clever people around, and many publishers, who will argue opinions that are very tendentious by making false statements.
It is not easy to feret out whether statements are true or false reading them. I am often convinced by Navid's favoured conspiracy links, until I check myself on the details. Then I discover facts misrepreseted or just made up. Actually, one element of this, the personalisation and use of emotive memes, is obvious on first reading. But whether the facts that back up these memes exist or are distorted / fabricated needs more work than we usually have time for.
Hence it is always worth rating comments according to how you trust where they are published. RB here does not trust the Lancet due to certain controversial matters about its editor. Many (left or right) will note publications with political bias that are weak on factual reporting.
Fact checking websites (there are many) try to rate sites according to political slant (whether you think this biased or not depends on your politics, so I tend to view mild left-leaning is non-biassed, others would not), and the way they do reporting.
Politics is sort of not the point since we are all biased. But a tendency to use emotive words and publish unverifiable statements as facts, or question or contradict verifiable facts, is something we can all agree independent of bias.
Navid criticises one fact-checking website as below:
Fact checking websites exploded since Trump. One investigation found that various ones (Snopes, Politifact) they were run by these people:
We have a duty to protect the vulnerable (including possibly administrators who may not understand how this works).suggesting we give up our thinking to a website. In this case Media Bias Fact Check, and the owner Van Zandt. If you want to outsource your thinking to him, please do but dont get on the internet and try to use this site to discredit and spew controversy to malign other websites or opinions that may not be favorable to your objectives.
“[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.
“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …
“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”
let us fact check Navid's criticism of the fact checkers.
(1) his comments are unattributed
(2) he uses emotive phases rather than factual descriptions
(3) he does not criticise incorrect content, nor competence of owners, but claims said owners have undesirable characteristics
(4) His view of undesirable - any medic - would appear so extreme as to eliminate most people with genuine skill and experience on COVID
Then, egregiously, having posted what he thinks is a condemnation of some fact checking websites, he uses this to argue that one specific fact checker is worthless without stating which of these cases applies to that site! Or perhaps none do?
Then he quotes (again without attribution) somone who does not like the fact checking Van Zandt has done. Again, no facts involved in this accusation, just rhetoric and unspecific allegations from somone who has been called out by Van Zandt. If Navid insists we could check further to see whether generally Van Zandt's evaluation of this person's content is an outlier, or whether other fact checkers agree. Oh, I forgot, Navid does not approve of fact checkers, so that would be irrelevant to him.
I am not fond of people or websites who claim on strength of opinion, without facts, that whole sections of comment, like fact-checkers or medics, should be ignored because they are obviously unreliable.
Navid's posts on this thread are indeed often unreliable and contain opinion without attributable and checkable fact. Not surprising that Navid has this strong dislike of fact-checking websites!
