PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[OldPhiKap]

The press outings of Las Vegas' mayor is bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "cover the spread."

[freshmanjs]

It is *exactly* “a few scientist think it probably came from somewhere else.” I would have much preferred to read about their reasoning, stripped of the political discussion and the conjecture. The discussion of probability was helpful. This type stuff, I found less so:

And the bolded is exactly why I said it was NOT simply "a few scientists think it probably came from somewhere else." It went into a great deal of detail as to WHY they think that. As such, your post was an oversimplification.

The article also made the assertion that hypotheses can't be disproven. That's not true...hypotheses are rejected and disproven all the time.

“The trouble with hypotheses is that they are not disprovable. You cannot prove a negative"

[cato]

And the bolded is exactly why I said it was NOT simply "a few scientists think it probably came from somewhere else." It went into a great deal of detail as to WHY they think that. As such, your post was an oversimplification.

I never suggested that the article did not include WHY the handful of scientists think what they do. I simply pointed out that the article is a summary of what a handful of scientist think. I found it long on conjecture and political discussion and short on insightful analysis.

What did you think was useful in the article, aside from the discussion of probability?

[BD80]

I'll wait for Kedsy to run the numbers before I put any stock in them.

Certainly necessary before we can start a minutes debate!

Cuomo shared results from random antibody testing of 3,000 people. Suggests NY statewide infection rate of nearly 14% and over 21% in NYC.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/23/...uomo-says.html

I would think with the population density of NYC, the infection rate would be much higher in the city relative to the remainder of the state. If we assume half of the state's population is in the city, the infection rates would be 21% in the city versus 7% outside the city or 3 times greater. I would think the infection rate in the much more densely packed city would be more on the magnitude of 5 to 10 times higher than the rest of the state.

For comparison, 75% of the positive cases in Michigan are located in the 3 counties that include and border Detroit. Detroit has less than 1 million people. The 3 counties combined total less than 4 million of Michigan's 10 million residents. So the not so densely packed Detroit metro area (which has horrible public transportation) has an infection rate more than 4.5 times higher than the rest of the state. And it's not like the Detroit sports teams were performing so well that they were drawing hoards of people!

I would think NYC with its public transportation so widely used, its population density, dense pedestrian traffic, and densely patronized businesses would have a far greater infection rate relative to the rest of the state.

[brevity]

The month-long Chinese study found 13.9% of patients on remdesivir died compared to 12.8% who were given a placebo.

Leadership: Why aren't we studying these placebos?

Americans: rushing out to buy and stockpile placebos

Me: invests $1200 stimulus check in unlabeled jelly beans to meet sudden demand

[Stray Gator]

I have a pretty cherry beachfront RV reservation for early April 2021 under similar circumstances.

I made a reservation last fall for an oceanfront 4-BR condo in North Myrtle Beach from August 8-15, when we hope to host our customary family beach week gathering with our two children, their spouses, and the three grandchildren. Also before the Great 2020 Timeout, we booked a Mississippi Riverboat cruise on the American Queen from September 20-28, together with another couple who are former neighbors and longtime friends. At this point, I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to proceed with those plans, because the timing of both should fall between the completion of the Staged Reopening and the arrival of the Second Wave. But if not, I hope that those companies are as generous with their cancellation policies as the companies with whom we booked excursions for our Europe trip that was scheduled to run from May 19 to June 18.

[BD80]

It looks like Remdesivir is not going to be the miracle drug we had all hoped. If you had been bullish on Gilead stock, now is the time to sell!

...A summary of the study results was inadvertently posted to the website of the World Health Organization and seen by STAT on Thursday, but then removed.

“A draft document was provided by the authors to WHO and inadvertently posted on the website and taken down as soon as the mistake was noticed. The manuscript is undergoing peer review and we are waiting for a final version before WHO comments,” said WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic.

The month-long Chinese study found 13.9% of patients on remdesivir died compared to 12.8% who were given a placebo.

-Jason "..." Evans

Accidentally published by WHO? How many ways will we hear that question asked?


WHO and CDC having been getting much good press through this crisis.

[BD80]

The month-long Chinese study found 13.9% of patients on remdesivir died compared to 12.8% who were given a placebo.

-Jason "[IMG]...[/IMG]" Evans

Leadership: Why aren't we studying these placebos?

Americans: rushing out to buy and stockpile placebos

Me: invests $1200 stimulus check in unlabeled jelly beans to meet sudden demand

Oh no. No placebos for me!

Last time I got addicted!

Steven Wright

[Acymetric]

NC lockdown extended to May 8 (per Gov. Cooper's press conference, ongoing).

[bedeviled]

Cuomo shared results from random antibody testing of 3,000 people. Suggests NY statewide infection rate of nearly 14% and over 21% in NYC

It might be appropriate to say "statewide infection rate, 3 to 5 weeks ago, of nearly 14% and over 21% in NYC" as I believe the NY Health Wadsworth lab, which developed the tests, uses IgG.

Also, for those following the antibody testing, the concerns stated about false positives may not be quite correct. In determining metrics for the antibody testing, the positive reference cases are known via PCR, but negative test cases are presumptive. As such, results may be considered uncertainty rather than error. That is, we don't know if the negative test cases were truly negative (eg IgG not yet at identifiable levels, serologically unique strain, procedural error, etc)

[devildeac]

NC lockdown extended to May 8 (per Gov. Cooper's press conference, ongoing).

Sounds reasonable. I was expecting around May 15.

[AustinDevil]

Texas Governor Abbott promising hair salons and in-store shopping "at least in many parts of the state" in early May. In-restaurant dining and movie theaters also coming "soon," once they've been reconfigured for distancing.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/publ...e-coming-soon/

I guess no one showed him that Wuhan restaurant infection map, because there's no mention of managing the A/C air flows in those restaurants and movie theaters.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Texas Governor Abbott promising hair salons and in-store shopping "at least in many parts of the state" in early May. In-restaurant dining and movie theaters also coming "soon," once they've been reconfigured for distancing.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/publ...e-coming-soon/

I guess no one showed him that Wuhan restaurant infection map, because there's no mention of managing the A/C air flows in those restaurants and movie theaters.

Can you imagine Hollywood execs saying yes to opening a movie with at least 1/4 (on the weak side of guessing) of the seats taped off?
Also...movie date night gonna be kinda awkward yelling at your new found sweetie from three seats over.

[CDu]

I never suggested that the article did not include WHY the handful of scientists think what they do. I simply pointed out that the article is a summary of what a handful of scientist think. I found it long on conjecture and political discussion and short on insightful analysis.

I said that your post oversimplified by leaving out the part about the "why", which is a pretty substantial part of that article.

What did you think was useful in the article, aside from the discussion of probability?

1) The probability of the virus jumping from animals to humans outside the lab is much higher than the virus infecting humans inside the lab, and the "why" of why they suggest that probability. This is a fairly reasonable argument, but not proof. Just that the odds are much stronger that it came naturally.

2) There’s no actual evidence that the Wuhan lab was working on this new coronavirus. This is a pretty big point: if you believe that the Wuhan lab is at fault for this, you need to at least have evidence that the Wuhan lab actually had this coronavirus in their lab. Without it, all you have is conjecture.

3) The US military chief reviewed the evidence and says “the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural” origin. This is not the be-all, end-all, but it seems fair to state that the folks reviewing the evidence don't think (so far, at least) that it came from the lab. This includes quotes from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff surgeon. These are not politically motivated individuals, and they were tasked with specifically reviewing the possibility that this came from the Wuhan lab, and based on their review, they don't think it did.

4) The Wuhan lab says they didn't leak it, and that tests of this strain don't doesn't match any of the viruses in their lab. This is important in that the lab is not the same thing as the government. This is the least "smoking gun" of them, but it's important to point out nonetheless: those who have presented the "it came from a Wuhan lab" appear to be basing this on the idea that the Wuhan lab is complicit in a conspiracy here. Scientists need not be assumed the same as government officials.

I think these four pieces of information are pretty useful pieces of information. And as you have only even acknowledged the first point vaguely, I will continue to assert that you have oversimplified the article.

[cato]

I said that your post oversimplified by leaving out the part about the "why", which is a pretty substantial part of that article.



1) The probability of the virus jumping from animals to humans outside the lab is much higher than the virus infecting humans inside the lab, and the "why" of why they suggest that probability. This is a fairly reasonable argument, but not proof. Just that the odds are much stronger that it came naturally.

2) There’s no actual evidence that the Wuhan lab was working on this new coronavirus. This is a pretty big point: if you believe that the Wuhan lab is at fault for this, you need to at least have evidence that the Wuhan lab actually had this coronavirus in their lab. Without it, all you have is conjecture.

3) The US military chief reviewed the evidence and says “the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural” origin. This is not the be-all, end-all, but it seems fair to state that the folks reviewing the evidence don't think (so far, at least) that it came from the lab. This includes quotes from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff surgeon. These are not politically motivated individuals, and they were tasked with specifically reviewing the possibility that this came from the Wuhan lab, and based on their review, they don't think it did.

4) The Wuhan lab says they didn't leak it, and that tests of this strain don't doesn't match any of the viruses in their lab. This is important in that the lab is not the same thing as the government. This is the least "smoking gun" of them, but it's important to point out nonetheless: those who have presented the "it came from a Wuhan lab" appear to be basing this on the idea that the Wuhan lab is complicit in a conspiracy here. Scientists need not be assumed the same as government officials.

I think these four pieces of information are pretty useful pieces of information. And as you have only even acknowledged the first point vaguely, I will continue to assert that you have oversimplified the article.

Suffice it to say, I am not surprised that you will continue to repeat your point without acknowledging that my summary was correct!

I am not moved by points 2 or 4. Point 3 is a summary of what the US military has apparently said publicly. I do find the first point interesting, and thought the other points in the article actively undermined its supposed conclusion.

But I suppose I should have known better than to continue reading the article beyond the first part dedicated to the politics of where the virus originated.

[Tripping William]

NC lockdown extended to May 8 (per Gov. Cooper's press conference, ongoing).

Sounds reasonable. I was expecting around May 15.

I predict Roy-the-Gov cancels the rest of the public school year tomorrow.

[CDu]

Suffice it to say, I am not surprised that you will continue to repeat your point without acknowledging that my summary was correct!

Suffice to say, I am not surprised that you will continue to ignore that my entire point was that your statement was an oversimplification and omitted key points. Even though your second post almost immediately implied that it was an oversimplification (acknowledging the probability bit), even as you disagreed.

We can agree to disagree on the usefulness of points 2 and 4, as "useful" is in the eye of the beholder. You asked what I found useful in it. I answered.

[CDu]

Suffice to say, I am not surprised that you will continue to ignore that my entire point was that your statement was an oversimplification and omitted key points. Even though your second post almost immediately implied that it was an oversimplification (acknowledging the probability bit), even as you disagreed.

We can agree to disagree on the usefulness of points 2 and 4, as "useful" is in the eye of the beholder. You asked what I found useful in it. I answered.

And just to clarify: “oversimplification” doesn’t mean “incorrect.” I am not sure why you think I said your summary was incorrect. I said no such thing. I said it was oversimplified, implying incomplete not incorrect.

[jv001]

Suffice to say, I am not surprised that you will continue to ignore that my entire point was that your statement was an oversimplification and omitted key points. Even though your second post almost immediately implied that it was an oversimplification (acknowledging the probability bit), even as you disagreed.

We can agree to disagree on the usefulness of points 2 and 4, as "useful" is in the eye of the beholder. You asked what I found useful in it. I answered.

I think it came from the man on the grassy knoll. We will probably never know for sure where this virus came from, while most of us have a pretty good idea but can't prove it.

GoDuke!

[sagegrouse]

“I have worked in this exact laboratory at various times for the past 2 years,” wrote Danielle Anderson, scientific director of the Duke-NUS Medical School ABSL3 Laboratory, in a March 2 post on Health Feedback, a site where scientists review the veracity of news reports. “I can personally attest to the strict control and containment measures implemented while working there. The staff at WIV are incredibly competent, hardworking, and are excellent scientists with superb track records.”

Duke-NUS Medical School is a collaboration between Duke University and the National University of Singapore, and Singapore’s only graduate-entry medical school.




From a capitalism viewpoint, Vegas would be the place. Is there any other industry that so carefully studies and controls their consumer's environment and purchasing experience?

Vegas already excels at air filtration and enhancing the air patrons breath. The casinos that could offer the best environmental protections would be the most commercially successful, spurring research and scientific advancement.

I could easily see Vegas restaurants leading the way in concierge dining - roped off areas or private rooms for big money customers. Perhaps clear enclosures for each table for the more common clientele. I imagine they would have an upward flowing air filtration system around food. But in more common areas, a downward flow would cause the virus particles to fall more quickly, thus traveling less and remaining suspended for less time.

Can disinfectant be safely introduced into the ambient air in quantities that would be effective? Ultra-violet lights everywhere! Automatic temperature measurements on each person that enters a casino. Virtual chip and card manipulation and counting. Gambling stations with clear barriers. Exit medical exams to ensure that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!

Just think where casinos could lead us!

Just recently, Disneyland in Anaheim led us to a surge of measles cases.