Covid-19

[drudy23]

One more unbiased FACT FILLED report from outside the USA on this virus.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

So in all seriousness, is something else going on here? I’m not into the conspiracy theories, but even the most reasonable person would start to have some suspicions.

[XU '11]

My thoughts are as follows:
1 - Models are just that; models
2 - They can be good, or bad. Close or not so close to what actually happens
3 - I don't think doctors who try to model a virus are thinking politically. I think they are trying to be helpful.
4 - Sometimes they are going to miss, and miss by a lot.

But none of that in my mind is political. It's medical. It's science. It's estimates to try and help stop deaths. A virus can't think.
The fact that we characterize our responses to a virus as left, or right, or anything political, seems not productive at all to helping what we should do.

It isn't about the models, it about how the media reports on the models. The way for them to get the most clicks is to take the model that came to the most dire conclusion and make that the headline. I agree with all of your points that none of the scientists are doing these things for political reasons. However, media platforms want clicks, so every day for the past week they've been given the choice of two headlines: "Texas and Georgia see new high in daily reported cases" OR "Texas and Georgia see new high in testing capacity". It has been the first one 100% of the time. You could really fit both of those into the same headline if you wanted it to be unbiased. But nearly every headline has an agenda.

MOR posted a link to what is essentially the inverse of that. A list of links to 25 scientific studies that present the most pro-opening, this isn't as bad as we feared, shutdowns are actually making things worse side of the argument. Only looking at that side isn't right either, but those studies are almost never published because it doesn't feed into the fear.

As I said before, even leftist data scientists are saying the reporting has been irresponsible.

[XU 87]

This is from a Conservative site, but it sites a lot of data.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horow...reaking%20News

[paulxu]

I'm 70, and 9-10 weeks into this, I still don't know of anyone who has had Covid 19. The article about T cells is very interesting. People in my age group mostly all had measles, chicken pox, and mumps as children. Could there be some lifetime T cell based immunity some of us developed ? I just find it strange that of all the people in their 60s and 70s I know, no one is ill. This includes 100 or so volunteers at the Hospital where I volunteered or the 40 or so people I played pickleball with every day.

I'm a little older than you, but the "former classmate" noted in my post below passed away yesterday in Brazil.(His country of origin)
Curiously in the 1960's he foreshadowed the rise of soccer style place kickers. It was new to our high school for sure.

'65 was a great year for Muskie football.
8-2 record, with wins over UC, Dayton, Villanova, Miami, OU, Kent St, Quantico and Toledo.
Lost to Texas Western, and on a last minute field goal to Chattanooga. (Kicked by a former classmate of mine from Notre Dame HS in Chattanooga).

Probably Biles best year. Carroll Williams and Abramowicz clicked all year. Beetle Bailey anchored the D.

[XU '11]

This is from a Conservative site, but it sites a lot of data.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horow...reaking%20News

Some of those arguments are pretty weak. "2) States with longer lockdowns had worse results" is a terrible statement. States with larger outbreaks are OF COURSE going to stay locked down longer. Is anybody arguing that New York and New Jersey shouldn't have had the most strict and longest lockdowns? I guess that guy is. You could even argue that everybody locked down for too long, but I still think that logic would include that NY and NJ needed more than Montana.

[XU 87]

Some of those arguments are pretty weak. "2) States with longer lockdowns had worse results" is a terrible statement. States with larger outbreaks are OF COURSE going to stay locked down longer. Is anybody arguing that New York and New Jersey shouldn't have had the most strict and longest lockdowns? I guess that guy is. You could even argue that everybody locked down for too long, but I still think that logic would include that NY and NJ needed more than Montana.

The argument is- states like Florida, who had less stringent policies and a high elderly population, why didn't they have higher outbreaks? The author's answer would be that Florida was simply smarter in how they dealt with the Corona issue.

[Muskie in dayton]

Some of those arguments are pretty weak. "2) States with longer lockdowns had worse results" is a terrible statement. States with larger outbreaks are OF COURSE going to stay locked down longer. Is anybody arguing that New York and New Jersey shouldn't have had the most strict and longest lockdowns? I guess that guy is. You could even argue that everybody locked down for too long, but I still think that logic would include that NY and NJ needed more than Montana.

NY was excluded from the analysis. I agree in principle with your point, but these data are compelling.

[boozehound]

Some of those arguments are pretty weak. "2) States with longer lockdowns had worse results" is a terrible statement. States with larger outbreaks are OF COURSE going to stay locked down longer. Is anybody arguing that New York and New Jersey shouldn't have had the most strict and longest lockdowns? I guess that guy is. You could even argue that everybody locked down for too long, but I still think that logic would include that NY and NJ needed more than Montana.

That was my impression as well. I sort of think of The Blaze as one giant highly conservative Op-Ed. It was founded by Glenn Beck who isn't exactly known for his objectivity. You also get a Pop-up when you try to read the linked article about "Stopping Tech Censorship" because "Conservative voices are being suppressed". Your response options are either "I want to be informed" or "No, I'll stick with Fake News".

Moving past that, it actually gets even funnier. The article opens by talking about how 'we have been lied to' and then cites a variety of sources. Some (cdc.gov) are credible, while others (an excel chart posted to twitter by a guy named 'Gummibear737') seem less so.

The article essentially ends with this statement which give you an idea how people who read 'The Blaze' really think.

How have we allowed such an illogical approach to crush our liberties, economy, hospitals, education, and criminal justice? How have we lost our freedoms?

The answer is that the public is not getting the right information. This is why the political class is doing everything in its power to censor anyone who dares question the idolatry of this lockdown cult. YouTube has censored the videos of Knut Wittkowski, who was a top epidemiologist in Germany and then served as the head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at Rockefeller University. One would think we'd want to hear his opinion, but there is only one view that is allowed to gain traction. Why is it that only one side is scared of the information of the other side?

I probably agree with about 30% - 40% of the theories outlined in the 'article' however the way it's written just sounds like fear porn for conservatives.

[XU 87]

That was my impression as well. I sort of think of The Blaze as one giant highly conservative Op-Ed. It was founded by Glenn Beck who isn't exactly known for his objectivity. You also get a Pop-up when you try to read the linked article about "Stopping Tech Censorship" because "Conservative voices are being suppressed". Your response options are either "I want to be informed" or "No, I'll stick with Fake News".

Moving past that, it actually gets even funnier. The article opens by talking about how 'we have been lied to' and then cites a variety of sources. Some (cdc.gov) are credible, while others (an excel chart posted to twitter by a guy named 'Gummibear737') seem less so.

The article essentially ends with this statement which give you an idea how people who read 'The Blaze' really think.

Aren't you the same guy who wrote this a few weeks ago on another thread:

"Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought."

[Masterofreality]

The argument is- states like Florida, who had less stringent policies and a high elderly population, why didn't they have higher outbreaks? The author's answer would be that Florida was simply smarter in how they dealt with the Corona issue.

“Cuomo issued his infamous March 25 order that said, “No resident shall be *denied readmission or admission to NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.”

New York has had over 5,500 Covid related deaths in Nursing Homes.
Florida, which immediately used the data on elderly from South Korea-data that was fully available to Cuomo, went the other way. They locked down their homes from accepting patients from hospitals, sent any suspected victims TO hospitals and have had about 750 Covid related deaths in this population segment- even though Florida is full of Nursing Homes with one of the highest numbers of any state. Meanwhile DeSantis gets roasted while Cuomo gets toasted. Wow.