So here's the deal on this virus

[Burney]

Hi AFC East. How is it meaningless to use the current data, not what existed a month ago, to become more knowledgeable as how this particular virus works? What I've been looking at is current analysis and studies like the one Stanford did in Santa Clara county. There have been other anecdotal occurrences where a whole population was tested, like the Boston homeless testing, not just who took themselves to a hospital or testing site. It reveals many who acquired the virus and didn't know it. It also uncludes those who felt sick for a time but did not get tested and then got better. Those are not included in the CFR ratio that is widely quoted and is being used to determine societal restrictions and behavior. Simply, the numerator (deaths) is known. The denominator, number of people who acquired it, is UNKNOWN and is many many times higher. the Santa Clara study indicates the denominator could be 55 times higher.

Second, who is dying? Look at the data, AFC East. About 80% of the deaths are in this subset: Over 70 and/or those with co-morbidities. Nobody knows the true CFR, granted, but using this data we have now (again, not a month ago or longer) it looks like around 0.5%. I think it's actually lower but let's use that. that means 5 out of 1000 that acquire it die. 4 out of those 5 are in the HIGH RISK subset described. the high risk subset population should be restricted. They should be wearing masks, avoiding crowds, etc. That is the way a quarantine used to work.

Please explain to me and other readers why this is meaningless. I do not want to be wrong. We already did the lockdown and there will be many analyses done as to whether that was appropriate. I'm concerned about the present and what we advise from here.

This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/...alth-concerns/

This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.

Firstou're operating on a false premise - namely that all the deaths attributed to Covid are all the deaths there are that were caused or occasioned by it. Since we don't even know when it started, that is not a valid conclusion to draw. Also, what were the criteria for attributing a death to Covid? Having it or dying from it? How many deaths were misattributed either way? The point is, the numbers are screwed before you even begin. That's not anyone's fault - it's simply that there isn't the quality of data at this point to start drawing any serious conclusions here.
What you've got there is raw, local data - not something you can undertake a serious public health initiative with.

[Chief Arrowhead]

Firstou're operating on a false premise - namely that all the deaths attributed to Covid are all the deaths there are that were caused or occasioned by it. Since we don't even know when it started, that is not a valid conclusion to draw. Also, what were the criteria for attributing a death to Covid? Having it or dying from it? How many deaths were misattributed either way? The point is, the numbers are screwed before you even begin. That's not anyone's fault - it's simply that there isn't the quality of data at this point to start drawing any serious conclusions here.
What you've got there is raw, local data - not something you can undertake a serious public health initiative with.

Hi Burney. Don't get me started on the numerator! I fully expect to see the headline "Chute fails to open, Skydiver killed by Covid-19." I deliberately omitted that to focus on the denominator. Did you know that hospitals here receive more federal compensation if the cause of death is listed as Covid-19?

Data is always raw, it's how you apply it to determine policy and action. So we now have more data, raw data, that indicates the the denominator (# of cases) is way way low. Some anecdotal, yes, but the Stanford study is clinical. I'll spare you the report and link a news article:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/0...d-study-finds/

Even Gov. Cuomo is finding out that NYC has many times more "cases" than he has used to lockdown the whole state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...s-test-ny.html

There are several admittedly anecdotal occurrences like the Boston Homeless one.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/bo...eak/index.html


Our decision to lockdown the whole country was based on raw data, but was imperfect as you said. WE have better data now. Let's base our policy and action on what we know now, not what we had a month ago. Open it up. Tightly restrict who goes in Senior retirement villages or any plce with over 70's. Raise awareness of high risk folks who have co-morbidities and let them know what precautions to take. That's my opinion based on what we know on May 4th.

[Burney]

Hi Burney. Don't get me started on the numerator! I fully expect to see the headline "Chute fails to open, Skydiver killed by Covid-19." I deliberately omitted that to focus on the denominator. Did you know that hospitals here receive more federal compensation if the cause of death is listed as Covid-19?

Data is always raw, it's how you apply it to determine policy and action. So we now have more data, raw data, that indicates the the denominator (# of cases) is way way low. Some anecdotal, yes, but the Stanford study is clinical. I'll spare you the report and link a news article:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/0...d-study-finds/

Even Gov. Cuomo is finding out that NYC has many times more "cases" than he has used to lockdown the whole state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...s-test-ny.html

There are several admittedly anecdotal occurrences like the Boston Homeless one.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/bo...eak/index.html


Our decision to lockdown the whole country was based on raw data, but was imperfect as you said. WE have better data now. Let's base our policy and action on what we know now, not what we had a month ago. Open it up. Tightly restrict who goes in Senior retirement villages or any plce with over 70's. Raise awareness of high risk folks who have co-morbidities and let them know what precautions to take. That's my opinion based on what we know on May 4th.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but governments can be forgiven for exercising the precautionary principle when faced with raw data of a pandemic that undeniably has caused a serious spike in mortality in other countries. And the flipside of that, of course, is that it's a brave government that then abandons that precautionary principle in the face of other raw data.
It's not an easy call and anyone who is required to make it has my sympathy.