New Data Suggest the Coronavirus Isn’t as Deadly as We Thought

[DannyTS]

Shoddy statistics and false claims: Dr. Erickson dangerously misled the public on coronavirus

By now, you have likely seen the viral video of two doctors in Bakersfield, California (Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi) holding their own press briefing in which they argued that COVID19 is no dead…

thelogicofscience.com

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

You can always find pros and cons opinions about a lot of things. Suffice to say, in this case, only one side is censured and the other side can control the narrative. The article you posted has a lot of holes in it but people will not be able to listen to the other side to compare. This is the modern version of burning books.

 

[WVBaker]

You can always find pros and cons opinions about a lot of things. Suffice to say, in this case, only one side is censured and the other side can control the narrative. The article you posted has a lot of holes in it but people will not be able to listen to the other side to compare. This is the modern version of burning books.

Simply look around you. The only side that matters is the one that fits their agenda. When you're on their stage you will play by their rules.

 

[Monykalyn]

You can always find pros and cons opinions about a lot of things. Suffice to say, in this case, only one side is censured and the other side can control the narrative. The article you posted has a lot of holes in it but people will not be able to listen to the other side to compare. This is the modern version of burning books.

"You can carry COVID for roughly 2 weeks without symptoms. So, if you are out and about, you are spreading that everywhere". That is actually wrong-it can take up to 14 days to show symptoms with most infectious 1-2 days prior and by day 5 of symptoms rapidly become less infectious-per the studies (mild/moderate). It does not mean you are highly infectious for 14 days "spreading it everywhere" And we are are acting like we are 100% infectious, 100% of the time, with NO end ever. IF we are that infectious ALL the time then it's likely that a vast majority of the population has been exposed-lockdown or not. This sight also has his own agenda he wants to push. But it IS good to hear points/counterpoints for sure!

 

[Ken555]

Shoddy statistics and false claims: Dr. Erickson dangerously misled the public on coronavirus

By now, you have likely seen the viral video of two doctors in Bakersfield, California (Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi) holding their own press briefing in which they argued that COVID19 is no dead…

thelogicofscience.com

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

It's nice to see a critical review of their performance. Of course, many people will believe whatever they want, evidence notwithstanding.

 

[WVBaker]

Huckabee says YouTube must answer for pulling down doctors' video: 'Something is wrong with that'

Huckabee says YouTube must answer for pulling down doctors' video: 'Something is wrong with that'

YouTube must answer for pulling down the video of two California doctors and their "selective content," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee urged Wednesday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[DannyTS]

It's nice to see a critical review of their performance. Of course, many people will believe whatever they want, evidence notwithstanding.

it is reassuring the article has not been banned, even if contains a long list of misinformation and half truths

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

it is reassuring the article has not been banned, even if contains a long list of misinformation and half truths

Of course they do. We still are learning about the virus and its interactions. Because of that, all discussions will contain misinformation and half-truths.

It's part of the learning curve.

 

[Ken555]

Pseudoscience and COVID-19 — we’ve had enough already
The scientific community must take up cudgels in the battle against bunk.

Pseudoscience and COVID-19 — we’ve had enough already

The scientific community must take up cudgels in the battle against bunk.

www.nature.com

 

[Old Hickory]

It's nice to see a critical review of their performance. Of course, many people will believe whatever they want, evidence notwithstanding.

Does anyone know who is providing this critical review? The linked site is an anonymous blog. The anonymous blogger calls himself Fallacy Man which is a moniker taken from an online (not syndicated) comic strip.

I'm not supporting any side in this. I'm simply curious about the source who provided a critical review of their (doctors) performance.

 

[Ken555]

Does anyone know who is providing this critical review? The linked site is an anonymous blog. The anonymous blogger calls himself Fallacy Man which is a moniker taken from an online (not syndicated) comic strip.

I'm not supporting any side in this. I'm simply curious about the source who provided a critical review of their (doctors) performance.

Good question. I don't, but his site has this info about him:

About me

Because of the vitriol and ad hominem assaults that tend to get hurled at people who take a public stand on these issues, I am disinclined to post much in the way of person details. So I will simply summarize by stating that I have a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in biology, and I am currently a post-doctoral researcher at a university. I have over a decade of research experience, and I have published multiple peer-reviewed papers, served as a reviewer for many journals, and presented my research at national, professional conferences. Additionally, I have taught biology as an adjunct professor at a local college, as well as helping to teach multiple courses during my Ph.D. My research combines ecology and molecular tools (e.g., population genetics and microbiome sequencing) to address issues in wildlife conservation, particularly the conservation of reptiles and amphibians. Thus, depending on what level you were describing my research at, I could be accurately described as a herpetologist, zoologist, conservation biologist, ecologist, or population geneticist. Really though, all that you need to know about me is that I prize logical thought and a careful, rational understanding of the world around us above all else, and this blog is my attempt help people understand both logic and science.

Note: the pseudonym under which I am writing this blog (i.e., Fallacy Man) is a moniker that I adopted based on a character in the hilarious and educational online comic strip, Existential Comics.

 

[DannyTS]

Good question. I don't, but his site has this info about him:

still anonymous and full of misinformation. I will take the word of 2 ER doctors with a name and a face over a comic strip character any time of the day.

 

[Ken555]

still anonymous and full of misinformation. I will take the word of 2 ER doctors with a name and a face over a comic strip character any time of the day.

I’m sure you would. I tend to evaluate authenticity by other standards, such as does the argument make sense. I suppose you don’t think these ER docs vested financial interest in reopening has anything to do with their opinion?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

Cuomo estimates that 24.7% of NYC has already had Covid 19. The number actually went up from last week when it was 21.2%


View attachment 19765

This data is very interesting to me when we compare it against current hospitalization and mortality rates, as compared to confirmed cases:

NYC Population: ~8.5MM (8.4MM in 2018)

Hospitalization rate by Confirmed Cases: 25.8%
Mortality rate by Confirmed Cases: 11% (includes probable deaths)
Mortality rate by Confirmed Cases: 7.6% (excluding probable deaths)

Infections by Antibody Estimates: 2,193,000
Hospitalization rate by Antibody Estimates: 1.8%
Mortality Rate by Antibody Estimates: 0.8% (includes probable deaths)
Mortality Rate by Antibody Estimates: 0.56% (excludes probable deaths)

This was all back of the napkin math so please excuse any miscalculations.

Granted the data is extrapolated in nature and needs to be peer reviewed and confirmed, but this type of data is paramount to forming a path forward for risk mitigation and balancing economic welfare and recovery vs safety moving forward. The mortality rates are still 5-8x higher than the typical flu mortality rates at 0.1%, so we can't just turn everything back on overnight. That said, the current primarily "all or nothing" lockdown approach simply isn't sustainable over the long term - so it is data like this that will allow the feds and the state government agencies to make better informed decisions as we look forward. The data Cuomo is displaying also shows that hotspots like NYC are much further along the curve toward herd immunity than NY state as a whole, at 25.8% vs only 3.2%. So most of the U.S. states that aren't as far along as NYC will be better equipped with data like this to determine the best paths forward.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

The question is - how many false positives are actually in the antibody test results, and how random are they? We really don't know, despite claims to the contrary.

Let me give a hard number example. New York versus Florida.

Florida is slightly more populous, and has a higher percent of "at risk" populations (older people, minorities).

Yet (as of a few days ago), the death rate for Florida ascribed to COVID-19 is 5% of the death rate ascribed to COVID-19 in New York, per 100,000 residents.

Why?

(Different measurement standards? Different weather? Different implemented quarantine standards?)

Finding out the why would be critical to determining how, and how much to release the quarantine.

 

[Old Hickory]

I tend to evaluate authenticity by other standards, such as does the argument make sense.

That's called confirmation bias and we all have it at times. But it's important to know when you're being consumed by it.

 

[Monykalyn]

I know part of the reason I'm frustrated with things is summed up in this opinion piece-We simply do NOT have the strong evidenced based leadership we truly need right now.

We need the real CDC back, and we need it now

This must be a painful time for the many extraordinary career scientists who continue to work at the CDC. Real CDC leadership is absolutely essential for confronting and getting clear of this crisis.

www.statnews.com

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Here's a near current (a few days ago) video on the blood clot aspect of COVID-19.

It's a mid-level discussion.

 

[Conan]

Here's a near current (a few days ago) video on the blood clot aspect of COVID-19.

Not my area, but I learned a lot first watching, then Googling.

I found an article that pulls together the "happy hypoxics" mentioned near the end of the talk--and why everyone who can get one should keep a pulse oximeter handy. Amazon link: https://amzn.to/3bQExTY

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

 

[DannyTS]

Coronavirus crisis could lead to 18,000 more cancer deaths, experts warn
Analysis models impact over next year of delays in getting diagnosis and treatment.

Extra 18,000 cancer patients in England could die in next year – study

Analysis shows potential impact of delays in seeking diagnosis and receiving treatment

www.theguardian.com

Professor Warns Cancer Deaths Due to COVID Disruption Will Be Greater Than Deaths From Coronavirus

Professor Warns Cancer Deaths Due to COVID Disruption Will Be Greater Than Deaths From Coronavirus

400 cancers a week being missed because people are not getting hospital treatment.

summit.news

 

[DannyTS]

I’m sure you would. I tend to evaluate authenticity by other standards, such as does the argument make sense. I suppose you don’t think these ER docs vested financial interest in reopening has anything to do with their opinion?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When I suggested that because of the lockdown Jeff Bezos's net worth increased by 24 billion $ and that Washington post has an obvious vested interest some did not like it. Many others may have economic, ideological or political motives for the lockdown to continue. There are a lot of counter current interests in this matter and this is why news has to circulate freely and one side should not be censored, people can make up their minds by reading both sides.

In the end you can evaluate any way you want. But I still have to note that the 2 ER doctors have put their reputation in line and would take their medical advice any time of the day vs the anonymous blog you linked to.

 

[davidvel]

And now Facebook is censoring pages that discuss protests, because they have decided they can't protest. It's Orwell's 1984. Facebook and YouTube have become the Ministry of Truth.

 

[SmithOp]

In the end you can evaluate any way you want. But I still have to note that the 2 ER doctors have put their reputation in line and would take their medical advice any time of the day vs the anonymous blog you linked to.

Ken did not link the blog, I did. I posted it because X3 Skier was wondering why the ER Doctors video was taken off YouTube. It seemed relevant.

We are all free to evaulate using whatever facts or opinions we want to. I’m still divided between mandating SIP vs opening up and relying on Herd Immunity. I’m not opposed to opening the economy back up now May 1st, but personally because of my age and health I prefer to SIP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ken555]

When I suggested that because of the lockdown Jeff Bezos's net worth increased by 24 billion $ and that Washington post has an obvious vested interest some did not like it. Many others may have economic, ideological or political motives for the lockdown to continue. There are a lot of counter current interests in this matter and this is why news has to circulate freely and one side should not be censored, people can make up their minds by reading both sides.

Only when both sides are credible. These guys from Bakersfield splashed over social media as news, and then there was almost immediate backlash from experts and more. This is not what happened when The Washington Post posted the articles you complained about.

Instead, you complain about *any* article from The Washington Post or, if memory serves, The New York Times. Of course, the Post is an easy target and is a target by many others so it’s not surprising that you are repeating what you hear and read in certain publications.

I would suggest there is a fundamental difference between a billionaire who adds, or loses, billions on a regular basis vs two guys from Bakersfield who are probably struggling to keep their business alive. I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare the two. I’m not saying either position is good, but just that they’re hard to compare.

In the end you can evaluate any way you want. But I still have to note that the 2 ER doctors have put their reputation in line and would take their medical advice any time of the day vs the anonymous blog you linked to.

Well, I won’t be asking you for a referral any time soon!

And yeah, I didn’t post that anonymous article. I just commented on it. And based on my read of it, it just makes sense. Of course, I wouldn’t make any decisions based on it alone, and would want confirmation by others, since I’m not a virologist...oh, and neither are those guys from Bakersfield.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[IngridN]

ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation
Joint Statement issued on April 27, 2020:

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.

https://www.acep.org/corona/COVID-19...7iTUT-hy9R2NW4

 

[DannyTS]

Only when both sides are credible. These guys from Bakersfield splashed over social media as news, and then there was almost immediate backlash from experts and more. This is not what happened when The Washington Post posted the articles you complained about.

Instead, you complain about *any* article from The Washington Post or, if memory serves, The New York Times. Of course, the Post is an easy target and is a target by many others so it’s not surprising that you are repeating what you hear and read in certain publications.

I would suggest there is a fundamental difference between a billionaire who adds, or loses, billions on a regular basis vs two guys from Bakersfield who are probably struggling to keep their business alive. I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare the two. I’m not saying either position is good, but just that they’re hard to compare.



Well, I won’t be asking you for a referral any time soon!

And yeah, I didn’t post that anonymous article. I just commented on it. And based on my read of it, it just makes sense. Of course, I wouldn’t make any decisions based on it alone, and would want confirmation by others, since I’m not a virologist...oh, and neither are those guys from Bakersfield.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Many WP articles have been proven false after a day, a week or a year. It is ridiculous to choke news just because one side does not like it.

@IngridN I am not surprised by the ACEP's statement since it has to be the official narrative and the official narrative only, right? The most troubling part of their statement is that is referring to the doctors' presumed motivation, so the association must have been living in their heads, and must know! They are basically claiming others should not comment about this but the association itself can speculate about their motivation.
If anyone knows anything about ANY professional association and the way the decisions are taken, they rarely represent the views of all the members, rarely represent the views of a majority of their members, sometimes they do not represent the views of any members.