When epidemiologists would be willing to[engage in various activities]

["Roger"]

There was an intersting survey printed in the NY Times based upon a survey on when epidemiologists would be willing to engage in various activities. The link is here, but well might be behind a firewall. A few highlights...

(The numbers refer to when a majority or plurality would be willing to participate in the activity. For each activity, percentages are presented at the three different levels seen in bold face below. Disagreements aren't necessarily on the facts, but on how to respond to what is known or still uncertain.)

Willing to this summer...

Bring in the mail without precautions 64%
See a doctor for a non-urgent appointment 60%
Get a haircut 41%

In 3 to 12 months...

Eat in a dine in restaurant 56%
Travel by airplane 44%

In a year or more...
(In other words, "I am not sure that I would be willing to do that even after a year or more)

Attend a concert or play 64%
Stop wearing a face mask 52%
Attend a religious service 43%

 

[Passepartout]

While I understand that the survey is from the New York Times, I think that that alone will skew the responses. They would have to be colored by the fact that New York (and New Jersey) lead the USA in both infections and deaths, with over 1/3 of the US's cases.

I'd postulate that if epidemiologists were polled in Omaha, Dallas, Denver, San (Fransisco/Diego/Antonio) Las Vegas, New Orleans, or other metropolitan areas the percentages would be much higher.

Other more rural places simply wouldn't have enough Epidemiologists or theaters, sporting events to make a usable sample size.

 

["Roger"]

There is probably bias, but probably not what you suggest. From the article ... "About 6,000 epidemiologists were invited to participate in the survey, which was circulated to the membership of the Society for Epidemiologic Research and to individual scientists." That suggests a nation wide survey. However, only about 500 members responded. (That is actually a fairly good response rate for a survey.)

Still, something that holds true for any survey -- non-respondents are always different from respondents. So the survey suffers from a non-response bias. How that affected the results (if at all) would be pure speculation.

I still find it interesting how a large numbers of epidemiologists say they would behave.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

The fact they had 500 responses is good. There is a statistical rule of thumb that if you have at least 100 respondents for a large population it is considered statistically significant.

Did they publish the location distribution of the 500 respondents? That will indicate any regional bias.

 

[Old Hickory]

[Socially contentious post deleted.]

 

[Ken555]

I saw this yesterday and was hesitant to post it here since this type of info tends to generate negative responses on TUG.

I agree with the previous posts re more insight into those who responded would be interesting.

As for any implied bias based on the source of this survey...I will read any similar survey regardless of source. Find one from Oklahoma and post it.

 

[Cornell]

There is probably bias, but probably not what you suggest. From the article ... "About 6,000 epidemiologists were invited to participate in the survey, which was circulated to the membership of the Society for Epidemiologic Research and to individual scientists." That suggests a nation wide survey. However, only about 500 members responded. (That is actually a fairly good response rate for a survey.)

Still, something that holds true for any survey -- non-respondents are always different from respondents. So the survey suffers from a non-response bias. How that affected the results (if at all) would be pure speculation.

I still find it interesting how a large numbers of epidemiologists say they would behave.

It is not true that non-respondents are always different from respondents. It can happen, but it's not always the case.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I would love to see how these epidemiologists respond under non-pandemic conditions as a baseline. Are they germophobes? or not afraid of germs at all?

 

[Cornell]

I would love to see how these epidemiologists respond under non-pandemic conditions as a baseline. Are they germophobes? or not afraid of germs at all?

I just read the entire article. My occupation is analyzing data from survey research. My clients are often "shocked" by the survey results on their product / service. It's because they are so vested / close to the subject matter that they can't recognize that the survey respondents don't care as much about the topic as they do.

For instance, a toilet paper brand manager is disappointed when respondents aren't as passionate about the product claims of Brand X vs Brand Y as they are.

Many of my clients are in pharma & Healthcare so I see this phenomenon with them, as well, not just with my CPG clients.

 

[Yellowfin]

My take from this survey is that half of the epidemiologists do not think that the virus is as serious as we have been told.

 

[Brett]

My take from this survey is that half of the epidemiologists do not think that the virus is as serious as we have been told.

My take is that 64% of the surveyed epidemiologists say they might start to bring in the mail without precautions

 

[bluehende]

My take from this survey is that half of the epidemiologists do not think that the virus is as serious as we have been told.

Because 52% will stop wearing their mask over a year from now?

 

[Yellowfin]

Because 52% will stop wearing their mask over a year from now?

no, because:

this summer...
Get a haircut 41%

In 3 to 12 months...

Eat in a dine in restaurant 56%
Travel by airplane 44%

Someone who is really terrified would not get a haircut, dine in a restaurant or travel by airplane.

 

[Luanne]

no, because:

this summer...
Get a haircut 41%

In 3 to 12 months...

Eat in a dine in restaurant 56%
Travel by airplane 44%

Someone who is really terrified would not get a haircut, dine in a restaurant or travel by airplane.

Well, I'm certainly not terrified. But I am taking this seriously.

However I WILL get a haircut this summer. And possibly in 3 to 12 months (most likely closer to 12 months) I may eat in a dine in restaurant and travel by airplane

I will do those things if measures are in place to lessen the risk.

 

[Brett]

no, because:

this summer...
Get a haircut 41%

In 3 to 12 months...

Eat in a dine in restaurant 56%
Travel by airplane 44%

Someone who is really terrified would not get a haircut, dine in a restaurant or travel by airplane.

OK, so in your opinion the surveyed epidemiologists are not currently "really terrified"

 

[TravelTime]

The epidemiologists responses were what I would have expected from the general public. They seem rather conservative to me, especially waiting up to a year before dining out or traveling by airplane. I am concerned that people are taking the easing of SIP/SAH to indicate that life is going back to normal this summer and the general public is opening up too quickly. It seems like many people are assuming that social distancing and masks are the solution while others are already dropping these precautions as they see large groups assembling to protest without many safety protocols at all. I heard today that one of my client's summer camps is opening for the summer with no restrictions at all (no social distancing, no masks.) I am worried because if people start opening up with little safety guidelines being followed, that we will indeed have a high recurrence this summer and have to move back to full lock downs or accept a high death rate. So then, why did we have a harsh lock down for 10 weeks? Maybe Sweden was right that having more moderate guidelines in place is better over the long term. I am just throwing out some thoughts and concerns. I am still watching and learning throughout this pandemic. Obviously, a long term lockdown is not the solution. We need to get life back and take some risks (i.e. a harm reduction approach). I read an article today by the CEOs at Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic that the number of deaths from non-Covid reasons (postposing medical visits, avoiding the ER, etc.) has already cost the nation about 100,000 lives. About the same as Covid so far (of course, this was not based in hard numbers, just an estimate). I have been in favor of a middle of the road / long term targeted approach with targeted lockdowns, quarantining of the sick and those testing positive for Covid, more serious precautions for the elderly and high risk populations, social distancing, masks, testing and contact tracing until we have a vaccine or treatments.

 

[Ken555]

I read an article today by the CEOs at Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic that the number of deaths from non-Covid reasons (postposing medical visits, avoiding the ER, etc.) has already cost the nation about 100,000 lives. About the same as Covid so far (of course, this was not based in hard numbers, just an estimate).

Please post a link to that article. I’d like to read it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

["Roger"]

Please post a link to that article. I’d like to read it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

+1

Also, hijacking my own thread (hopefully only temporarily) -- "Pura Vida" I love Costa Rica. My wife and I have been there about four times. I take it that you are a fan too.

 

[TravelTime]

+1

Also, hijacking my own thread (hopefully only temporarily) -- "Pura Vida" I love Costa Rica. My wife and I have been there about four times. I take it that you are a fan too.

Yes I love Costa Rica. I have been there twice. Last year, we visited the Northwest section of Costa Rica for 10 days and stayed at the Four Seasons (in an exchange with our 2 BR at FS Aviara) and the Westin hotel. A few years ago, we did a two week trip that included the Arenal Volcano, Monteverde, and a brief stop in San Jose and 7 nights on a Windstar cruise. These were among two of my favorite trips. You have been there more times than me. Where have you visited? What were your favorite experiences?

 

[TravelTime]

Please post a link to that article. I’d like to read it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here is The NY Times article:

Opinion | How Many More Will Die From Fear of the Coronavirus? (Published 2020)

Seriously ill people avoided hospitals and doctors’ offices. Patients need to return. It’s safe now.

www.nytimes.com

It may be behind a firewall so here is a summary:

Top health care execs: 'Effects of fear and deferred care' leading to preventable deaths

The leaders of the world’s two best hospitals are offering a stark warning about the effects the pandemic is having on patients with serious, complex and acute illnesses.

www.medcitybeat.com

 

[Patri]

Well, I'm certainly not terrified. But I am taking this seriously.
However I WILL get a haircut this summer. And possibly in 3 to 12 months (most likely closer to 12 months) I may eat in a dine in restaurant and travel by airplane. I will do those things if measures are in place to lessen the risk.

I had a haircut two weeks ago. Technically salons cannot yet be open, but many blatantly are. I fly next week.

 

["Roger"]

Yes I love Costa Rica.... me. Where have you visited? What were your favorite experiences?

Our main interest in Costa Rica has been walking through the rain forest or across suspension bridges while birding, but we have done lots of other things. First things that come to mind...

Sitting in a stream in a jungle area with water supplied by the Ariel volcano at perfect bathing temperature. A walking tour of San Jose that began by going underground through a bevey of tunnels with the most extensive farmers' market that I have ever seen. Outside of San Jose, a talk (somewhat humerous, but very informative) by a choclatier on the history of chocolate followed by a meal. A pair of tours of coffee plantations. In Monteverdi, you absolutely have to tour the butterfly preserve. It begins with a talk by the most humerous person that I have ever encountered. (Hopefully you won't be too grossed out when she pops her pet cockroach in her mouth.)

One distinct memory from our first visit which was years before any of the others. At the time the Arial Volcano was active. With a guide from the University of Arizona, we went for a twilight visit. The volcano was spewing an occassional lava boulder down the hill side. The guide proceded to tell the story of when Mount St. Helen's first begin to show activity. He got together about eight graduate students and they took off from Tuscon to see the volcano (Mt. St. Helen's) . Their original plan was to drive straight through, but they were so tired as they went through California that they made an unscheduled camping stop. If that had continued on, they would have camped almost on top of Mt. St. Helen's the day it exploded and been vaporized. (That is what happened to a geologist at exactly the spot where they would have been.) So there I am, standing, sippling champaign, wondering to myself how close to I really want to stand to this guy.

Pura Vida (First time I noticed this at the bottom of your posts. It immediately conjured up some great memories. Thanks.)