Preparing for COVID-19

Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

"The definitive coronavirus timeline".

I read through that timeline.

Looked at the sources listed. Pretty narrow list for so much information. Authors mostly follows a few conservative/right wing sources, not surprising considering what NOQ is.

Looked at NOQ and who they are, what they say they do, how they are rated by a number of fact checking groups. NOQ is a USA conservative/far right organization. As with every other source with an agenda, need to verify information and vet sources as best you may.
 
Very interesting comment!

Hehe... sorry... I don't mean to dismiss it completely. You seem like a nice person! I certainly enjoy your posts - kinda makes me feel like I should have persisted with it more.

So I fast forwarded through it and watch some snippets. Again... hardly a comprehensive base to critique something. My cursory feel is that they aren't an independent voice in this - they own a chain of urgent care clinics. I am sure the shelter-in-place order is hurting their profitability... so they have a pretty compelling personal reason to call for it to end.

I assume much of the argument revolves around this calculation [~5:15]:

So if you look at California, these numbers are from yesterday. We have thirty 33,865 COVID cases out of a total of 280,900 total tested. That's twelve percent of Californians were positive for COVID. So we don't... the initial... as you guys know the initial models were, were woefully inaccurate.

They predicted millions of cases of death. Not of not of prevalence or incidents. But death. That is not materializing. What is materializing in the state of California is 12% positives. Well if we have 39.5 million people - if we just take a basic calculation and extrapolate that out, that equates to about 4.7 million cases throughout the state of California. Which means this thing is widespread. That's the good news. We've seen 1,227 deaths, in the state of California, with a possible incidence or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California.

It is a blunt analysis... The 12% figure was calculated on biased data (not random sampling). So its likely not a reliable figure. Nor is extrapolating out on basic numbers likely to be too useful. While it is true that personal risk of death might be extremely low, you could use his analysis to run the numbers on the other side of the equation.
  • 88% are not positive
  • If you have 39.5 million people and extrapolate that out, that equates to about 34.76 million potential cases
  • With 34.76 million potential cases and a 0.03 chance of dying, that equates to another 10,428 deaths
  • (or more simply: approximately 1227÷12×100)
Risk another 8-9x as many potential deaths?

I am playing the devils advocate here. I don't really believe in the utility of such simple math for reversing a large public health initiative. It is just to show you can twist numbers to adopt any argument. And heck... for fun 🙂



On a side note, @ian will love this one [~26:52]:

but academics and reality is two different things

🤬🤪



Did they totally gloss over the Spanish flu?

I dunno... he certainly seemed to gloss over the etymology of the word. That is; meaning forty days! This goes back to the Black Death in the mid 1300's when ship crew were isolated (for forty days) before being allowed on shore. Including 'healthy' people without symptoms!! It seems even back then... the 'cruise ship' industry was a vector for disease 😝
 
On a side note, @ian will love this one [~26:52]:

🤬🤪

It’s true that this attitude drives me up the wall, and not just because academics is my reality. ;)

More because yes, academics is not reality, but it tries to model reality*, and the people who say things like that are implying that models have no use and that they should just use their intuition or whatever, which is misguided. I guess it’s not surprising to hear such an anti-science, anti-expert message coming from two urgent care entrepreneurs who are publicly questioning the guidelines of the experts.

Ok, but now you just got me all riled up. I don’t actually have a strong opinion on the content of the video.


———


* my personal academics does not model anything, and is completely useless. :)
 
This is not just abut the economy/money. Shut downs which cause massive unemployment which results in bad economies which cause death and shortened lifespans too. Hospitals laying of tens of thousands of employees has long-term effects. There are tradeoffs.

There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns
I asked for and received from the above author his data set so if anyone wants it but does not want to bother the author (it took a couple of days to get) I'm happy to send it to you, just DM me.

Alex Berenson (formally with the NYT) has put together some good stuff on twitter too. Mostly documenting that the flattening occurred too soon in most cases to be the result of the lockdown. He has a wicked sense of humor as an added bonus.

I'm old enough to remember when the reason for the shutdowns was to flatten the curve so hospitals would not be overwhelmed. That made sense for areas with high density populations and heavily used public transportation. But power is intoxicating and some of the governors and mayors seem to be enjoying it too much for my tastes. I'm a libertarian which colors how I see things YMMV.
 
This is not just abut the economy/money. Shut downs which cause massive unemployment which results in bad economies which cause death and shortened lifespans too. Hospitals laying of tens of thousands of employees has long-term effects. There are tradeoffs.

There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns
I asked for and received from the above author his data set so if anyone wants it but does not want to bother the author (it took a couple of days to get) I'm happy to send it to you, just DM me.

Alex Berenson (formally with the NYT) has put together some good stuff on twitter too. Mostly documenting that the flattening occurred too soon in most cases to be the result of the lockdown. He has a wicked sense of humor as an added bonus.

I'm old enough to remember when the reason for the shutdowns was to flatten the curve so hospitals would not be overwhelmed. That made sense for areas with high density populations and heavily used public transportation. But power is intoxicating and some of the governors and mayors seem to be enjoying it too much for my tastes. I'm a libertarian which colors how I see things YMMV.

Spiked was started with funding from the Koch foundation. Anyone involved in USA politics knows who the Kochs bankroll and why.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiked-magazine/?amp
The writer of the linked article has written some books as well-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Taboo-Facts-Cant-Talk-about/dp/162157928X/spiked
See my last post re: agenda driven sources of news, veting sources and such.



https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/
20200428_102840.jpg
 
Last edited:

The track record in thread for critics who complain about sources are tires to "debunk" something is terrible.

Complaining about "quality of sources" is usually a signal you don't understand any of the underlying material. If you want to argue the "timeline" is wrong, re-write it with corrections. ANd cite your sources.

Otherwise, pls stop cluttering up the thread with progaganda/anti propaganda garbage links.

Every news media corporation is corrupted by either their capital funding sources (eg wall street and corporate advertisers on madison avenue), or by some other oligarchic "beneveolent" dictats of a rich owner (NY Times = suzlberger, Washington post = bezos, bloomberg=bloomber, LA Times=some random rich dude etc, facebook=zuckerberg).

Take a look at the corporate control diagrams of those entities (go ahead, read the SEC Filings, apparently you have time....and report back to the class)

This is all the same ******** with a different name on the cheque.
 

Something obviouly wasn't right becasue she died after a "family intervention" all the way down in Virginia and her Hospital is in NYC. This is also peculiar because she was not only infected once, but apparently she was "re-infected" (?) with corona virus or "sent home" a second time for some other reason (either psych or discpline by hospital mgmt?), despite clearing a full quarantine and returning to work.

Its also rare these days that the article discusses "suicide" which is almost unheard of (I think it s shadowbanned word in the press). The hospital for example dids not disclose this to their employees in internal communications from what I read. The press may have deemed this bit of reporting necessart in this case is to clarify she didn't die of Covid-19 infection, since she was a confirmed postive test result.

It appears this is possibly another example of issues with re-infection or failure of the 2 week quarntine model.

Or it could be something else very specific to her case and of a different nature. It would be nice to know if it was the former. The latter is to some extent not something for public consumption unless it involves here work duties.
 
The track record in thread for critics who complain about sources are tires to "debunk" something is terrible.

Complaining about "quality of sources" is usually a signal you don't understand any of the underlying material. If you want to argue the "timeline" is wrong, re-write it with corrections. ANd cite your sources.

Otherwise, pls stop cluttering up the thread with progaganda/anti propaganda garbage links.

Every news media corporation is corrupted by either their capital funding sources (eg wall street and corporate advertisers on madison avenue), or by some other oligarchic "beneveolent" dictats of a rich owner (NY Times = suzlberger, Washington post = bezos, bloomberg=bloomber, LA Times=some random rich dude etc, facebook=zuckerberg).

Take a look at the corporate control diagrams of those entities (go ahead, read the SEC Filings, apparently you have time....and report back to the class)

This is all the same ******** with a different name on the cheque.
Said the person who puts his own spin on every posted news story...it is true that some sources are better than others and those that purposefully distort facts are not exactly 'news'...whatever..
 
The track record in thread for critics who complain about sources are tires to "debunk" something is terrible.

Complaining about "quality of sources" is usually a signal you don't understand any of the underlying material. If you want to argue the "timeline" is wrong, re-write it with corrections. ANd cite your sources.

Otherwise, pls stop cluttering up the thread with progaganda/anti propaganda garbage links.

Every news media corporation is corrupted by either their capital funding sources (eg wall street and corporate advertisers on madison avenue), or by some other oligarchic "beneveolent" dictats of a rich owner (NY Times = suzlberger, Washington post = bezos, bloomberg=bloomber, LA Times=some random rich dude etc, facebook=zuckerberg).

Take a look at the corporate control diagrams of those entities (go ahead, read the SEC Filings, apparently you have time....and report back to the class)

This is all the same ******** with a different name on the cheque.

I admit my desire to read that article was also diminished by the fact that it was published in Spiked, a magazine with a distinct conservative bias. That said, of course you're right, and we shouldn't dismiss anything out of hand just because of the journal in which it appears, and that instead, we should argue the specific merits of the article. But my god... there are so many articles out there. Who has time to actually go through even the articles that are posted on KKF... Lots of the articles we're talking about probably have subtle mistakes that require real work to identify. So unless an article introduces some new piece of info that someone on here identifies and says "wow, that's interesting", I'm not going to spend the time working through their new interpretations of the usual data and trying to figure out whether in fact I should now doubt the recommendations of the CDC and WHO, especially if this article comes from somewhere with a known bias in the direction of the articles conclusions.

Anyway, whatever. Rant over. Maybe my point is just that I've had too much wine and can't read anything complicated at the moment anyway. Luckily there's a forum where I can just vomit out content without thinking!

Something obviouly wasn't right becasue she died after a "family intervention" all the way down in Virginia and her Hospital is in NYC. This is also peculiar because she was not only infected once, but apparently she was "re-infected" (?) with corona virus or "sent home" a second time for some other reason (either psych or discpline by hospital mgmt?), despite clearing a full quarantine and returning to work.

Its also rare these days that the article discusses "suicide" which is almost unheard of (I think it s shadowbanned word in the press). The hospital for example dids not disclose this to their employees in internal communications from what I read. The press may have deemed this bit of reporting necessart in this case is to clarify she didn't die of Covid-19 infection, since she was a confirmed postive test result.

It appears this is possibly another example of issues with re-infection or failure of the 2 week quarntine model.

Or it could be something else very specific to her case and of a different nature. It would be nice to know if it was the former. The latter is to some extent not something for public consumption unless it involves here work duties.

??

The point of the article is that being a doctor in the time of coronavirus is stressful. It has almost nothing to do with her being infected, although I imagine that was stressful too.
 
The point of the article is that being a doctor in the time of coronavirus is stressful. It has almost nothing to do with her being infected, although I imagine that was stressful too.

First, I have not doubts being a Doc in NYC right now is stressful. One of the intersting takeaways from the ICU docs video was you could see/feel the various situations they were dealing with (not easy). Especially with lack of time, money, staff, and PPE/etc

But at the same time, there are some questions that are in the public interest to understand. Its normal to expect (but necessarily to accept) that a lot of facts (information) is being limited for public consumption because of the neature fo the death of the Dr in the earlier article.

The subject in question wasn't simply a doctor, she was the Medical director of Emergemcy Medicine at a Columbia/Cornell (ie Ivy league research hospital) in NEW YORK CITY.

These people are well-trained and selected from a deep talent pool.

Our discussion earlier adressed earlier about "2 week" qurantine model (USS Roosevel issues) and the "3-week Antibody test mode" (CDC research) both of which are adressing issues liked to mulitple studies out of asia showing possible Covid-19 reinfection potential (SK, Japan, China).

So for thsi reason I think the Dr.'s case is intersting if it sheds light on these issues. If it doesn't and is purely a personal tragedy, I'm OK with that info remaining private.
 
Too much wine, is that possible?? What are you enjoying? Turley Juvenile Zin for me and the spouse.

Now here's a good topic! Mine was a Stephen Millier Cabernet from nakedwines.com. Naked wines has been good to us. Cheap and very drinkable. We get a box of assorted wines in the mail for not so much a bottle. Good selections, imo.
 
More debate about: Airborne +Aerosols
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/health/coronavirus-hospital-aerosols.html
Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who was not involved with the Nature paper. “It strongly suggests that there is potential for airborne transmission.”

WHO may need to revise its position again
Dr. Marr and many other scientists say evidence is mounting that the coronavirus is being spread by tiny droplets known as aerosols. The World Health Organization has so far downplayed the possibility...

:angiefavorite:

Maybe google will save us from article by deleting it and all references to it
 
Va Tech is a great school with high quality professors - just ask Wildboar;). Really though if they are saying it's an issue it most likely is.
Hmmmm, if I remember correctly the primary qualification for teaching freshman/ sophomore engineering students was an inability to communicate effectively in the English language :pullinghair:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ian
The aerosol theory sounds plausible to me, at least. It would also help to explain why the number of infections is so large (much larger than we initially thought): if the R0 is larger than the ~2.5 one commonly sees quoted, and considering the large number of asymptomatic infections, it would be no surprise that the disease has managed to spread so fast.

But merely detecting RNA in an aerosol doesn't necessarily mean that the virus spreads that way. We'll have to wait and see whether they can culture the virus from an aerosol. If so, that would be truly bad news :(
 
Talked to a friend of mine earlier today. His 82 year old dad had a stroke back in early February. Or did he? He has been having a rocky recovery, where some days he is fine, and some days he has impaired motor abilities. His lab work, etc. showed no signs of a stroke. Turns out my friend's sister was sick in late January with the flu, although she tested negative. Her Dr figured it was a false negative and sent her on her way. She had a couple fairly bad days, then recovered. So then their father (the parents live near my friend's sister) started feeling poorly, with headaches, sore throat, etc. He wasn't too bad for a couple of days, but then he got a lot worse and had motor issues and difficulties breathing, and he spent 3 days in the hospital. They diagnosed it as a small stroke, but in follow-on testing, etc. later in February they could not find any evidence of a stroke. He started to improve, and get back movement abilities, although it was/ has been very up and down. The mother than appeared to get a mild case of the flu. And my friend, who had been over at his parent's house helping to finish the basement, felt sick for a week, mainly with breathing difficulties. Looking back at it all now, especially with the new 'symptoms' confirmed that include headaches, they think they all may have had the virus. They are going to see if the father and/ or sister can get tested to see if they show evidence, such as antibodies. Not sure if a Dr will give the okay for the testing though.

This is in the DC/ Northern Virginia area.
 
They are going to see if the father and/ or sister can get tested to see if they show evidence, such as antibodies. Not sure if a Dr will give the okay for the testing though.

Quest Diagnostics (many you will know this as a big USA lab company) will sell you their Antibody test direct. Not sure if the data on it are public (performance/etc) but its using an Abbot test kit, which is a generally reputable supplier for lab/diagnostic).

Quest Diagnostics is rolling out its own antibody testing service, using tests from Abbott and Euroimmun

One big manufacturer, Abbott, recently launched a serology test and plans to produce 20 million tests a month by June. The company said it will apply to FDA for official authorization.

https://newsroom.questdiagnostics.c...COVID-19-Antibody-Test-Through-QuestDirect-TM
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/pr...first-consumer-ordered-covid-19-antibody-test
 
It was just announced, so I suspect it could take a little while to get one. Looks like you have to go to one of their locations to get your blood drawn. The Quests I have been to are a little, uh, worrysome, so I wonder how they are going to control the flow of people and keep them separated in their tiny waiting areas. Hopefully the paperwork can all be done online so you don't need to stand their at one of the desks for 10 minutes. Quests always seems like there is an endless stream of people passing through, and I've always worried about catching something while I am there (it's the clientele mainly; many of them are there for court-required testing). It's definitely a 'get me out of here as quickly as possible' kind of place.

Not knocking their testing whatsoever, as that is first-rate. Just their 'storefronts', where real people need to visit to provide samples. Maybe they can hang UV lights from the ceiling?
 
Not knocking their testing whatsoever, as that is first-rate. Just their 'storefronts', where real people need to visit to provide samples. Maybe they can hang UV lights from the ceiling?

Not personally familiar with the retail side, sound like a zip code lottery...

Since antibodies and testing continue to be in the news, this is another good article for people
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-not-to-do-an-antibody-survey-for-sars-cov-2-67488
“I don’t think any of the current point-of-care tests are appropriate for use in seroprevalence surveys,” says Michael Busch, the director of Vitalant Research Institute, a nonprofit transfusion medicine organization. ...

Good antibody surveys require samples that can be retested . . . If you don’t have a good test, there’s no point in running a serologic survey.”
 
Well they sure as heck won't compliment the US since we pulled funding. They probably figure what would be better than giving a slap on the back to a country that did the exact opposite.

Politics is everywhere, and the WHO is very much tied up in it.
 
Back
Top