|
|
Post by petrushka on Nov 30, 2020 4:17:52 GMT -5
DryCreek well in this country the science is pretty clear. There's no visible dissent in the medical profession. You seem to take an interesting stance that contrarian views are disinformation. That’s actually a huge point of contention in US culture right now. Is it appropriate to suppress factual data that’s contrary to the official narrative? Science has a long history of disproving widely-held beliefs. Skepticism of the status quo is a healthy attitude for science as well as politics. It should be encouraged, not squashed, in my opinion. I believe NZ’s approach went beyond the science into contact tracing and quarantine, no? And geographically / population density, isolation and quarantine were easier to achieve. Certainly, keeping the load down on healthcare leads to better care and outcomes for those who are infected. Plus, if you’re doing early-stage treatment of symptoms that could be another huge differentiator. No arguing that NZ has done well, but it was likely due to more than just agreeing on one medical narrative.
DryCreek I have a good scientific education, both in the physical sciences as well as the humanities. I know the difference between contrarian (people who object for the sakes of it), peer review, and scepticism. However, if a physicist tells me that, if I let that brick go, gravity will cause it to fall on my toe, I will take his word for it. If the chief medical officer of NZ and our leading virologist join forces and formulate a first like defense strategy, I will buck up and shut up, if you see what I mean. Time for scepticism and questioning later, once the strategy is in place, rather than blathering and whining and behaving like a truculent 5 year old. First line of defense: lockdown. Nobody leaves home except to buy food, only a small number of people allowed in each supermarket at a time, keep 7' distance. Masks were not even in the pipeline.
After 4 weeks the lockdown was eased. Still no social gatherings, but smaller shops and outlets were allowed to open again. It was at this stage contact tracing by phone was first touted. Previously contact tracing was done by health professionals. Still no direct access to surgeries and pharmacists. There IS no early stage treatment. There is in fact, no undisputed treatment at all, although some antiviral drugs and steroids are helpful to really sick people. I have replied to isthisit ... NZ being rural is a misconception. 4.25 out of 5 million of us live in cities. That argument doesn't cut the mustard. And yes, we do contact tracing. I scan a G-code with my phone every time I go to a supermarket or my croquet club or the hardware store. IF someone with the virus has been in that locality at the same time and the health authorities track them there, I will get a push notification on my phone to isolate. Stops the spread, and makes perfect sense to me.
The very heart of our response to the pandemic WAS the common agreement on one medical narrative. Our prime minister kept talking about "the team of 5 million". We got that drummed into us in daily lunchtime broadcasts by the PM and the chief medical officer where news and progress was explained. THAT was the reason for the successful campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerri on Nov 30, 2020 4:31:55 GMT -5
We saw a whole show on your leader, boy was I envious! That's how they do it in China. You can see exactly where the infected people are so you can avoid them, what what a concept!
|
|
|
|
Post by lessingham on Nov 30, 2020 5:56:15 GMT -5
There is an old management saying, when you are up to your ass in crocodiles, it is easy to forget you are there to drain the swamp. I know the important firefighting is in prevention but there is almost nothing for those who have passed through. Are the recovered infection free? Should they get dispendation from the restrictions? Should they receive better follow up? My son got it and recovered. But there is bugger all for him. His GP surgery is like a siege tower and refuse to see him for advice. (like lots or recoverees he still has breathing problems) He is subject to lockdown but has no real clue as to whether or not he can be reinfected. In one way they are a precious resource, they could be a help in hospitals and sheltered homes for example as they cannot pass it on(or can they?) and will not get infected. Again, there is very little thought or ideas going into the post virus world.
|
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Dec 1, 2020 4:01:46 GMT -5
You seem to take an interesting stance that contrarian views are disinformation. That’s actually a huge point of contention in US culture right now. Is it appropriate to suppress factual data that’s contrary to the official narrative? Science has a long history of disproving widely-held beliefs. Skepticism of the status quo is a healthy attitude for science as well as politics. It should be encouraged, not squashed, in my opinion. I believe NZ’s approach went beyond the science into contact tracing and quarantine, no? And geographically / population density, isolation and quarantine were easier to achieve. Certainly, keeping the load down on healthcare leads to better care and outcomes for those who are infected. Plus, if you’re doing early-stage treatment of symptoms that could be another huge differentiator. No arguing that NZ has done well, but it was likely due to more than just agreeing on one medical narrative.
DryCreek I have a good scientific education, both in the physical sciences as well as the humanities. I know the difference between contrarian (people who object for the sakes of it), peer review, and scepticism. However, if a physicist tells me that, if I let that brick go, gravity will cause it to fall on my toe, I will take his word for it. If the chief medical officer of NZ and our leading virologist join forces and formulate a first like defense strategy, I will buck up and shut up, if you see what I mean. Time for scepticism and questioning later, once the strategy is in place, rather than blathering and whining and behaving like a truculent 5 year old. First line of defense: lockdown. Nobody leaves home except to buy food, only a small number of people allowed in each supermarket at a time, keep 7' distance. Masks were not even in the pipeline.
After 4 weeks the lockdown was eased. Still no social gatherings, but smaller shops and outlets were allowed to open again. It was at this stage contact tracing by phone was first touted. Previously contact tracing was done by health professionals. Still no direct access to surgeries and pharmacists. There IS no early stage treatment. There is in fact, no undisputed treatment at all, although some antiviral drugs and steroids are helpful to really sick people. I have replied to isthisit ... NZ being rural is a misconception. 4.25 out of 5 million of us live in cities. That argument doesn't cut the mustard. And yes, we do contact tracing. I scan a G-code with my phone every time I go to a supermarket or my croquet club or the hardware store. IF someone with the virus has been in that locality at the same time and the health authorities track them there, I will get a push notification on my phone to isolate. Stops the spread, and makes perfect sense to me.
The very heart of our response to the pandemic WAS the common agreement on one medical narrative. Our prime minister kept talking about "the team of 5 million". We got that drummed into us in daily lunchtime broadcasts by the PM and the chief medical officer where news and progress was explained. THAT was the reason for the successful campaign.
Along with an awful lot less people to spread it..... other nations have densely packed cities of more than your population... that sure does help. As does no land borders. Whether you welcome these fact or not. However, I agree NZ is a great example of the difference clear communication and excellent leadership can make. Timely and decisive action pays dividends. Your PM showed the world how to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Dec 1, 2020 13:43:40 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion, for sure. I think the cultural differences account for more than I expected, particularly around deference to 'authority'.
It's a fact that the government doesn't hold a monopoly on intelligence. It does have the benefit of perspective and resources, but it is also dwarfed by the army of qualified practitioners in the trenches with first-hand, realtime knowledge. In many senses, that empirical evidence is far more valuable, but certainly it is not garbage; however, results that don't match the current narrative are drummed out of town.
Similarly, epidemiologists are not the only people qualified to study statistics and spot patterns; in fact, that's only one facet of their domain, and others who specialize are significantly more qualified. When you're looking for needles in haystacks, why wouldn't you want more eyes on the job?
There appears to be a strong "not invented here" attitude toward data that arrives at the doorstep of officials, simply because it didn't follow their process; that doesn't change the results. While I can appreciate the need for process in studying data, the glacial pace of academia and medicine -- while normally appropriate -- is not befitting a wildfire. And where officials are ignoring useful results, I think it's appropriate for the public to see (which includes medical practitioners who are educated enough to evaluate for themselves and apply with caution).
If the official narrative is sound, it should hold up under scrutiny or incorporate new knowledge, not survive by suppressing contrarian views. How many times in history have we seen major discoveries ridiculed because they challenged the established narrative? In this regard, it seems "the science" is acting more like religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Dec 1, 2020 17:41:10 GMT -5
Similarly, epidemiologists are not the only people qualified to study statistics and spot patterns; in fact, that's only one facet of their domain, and others who specialize are significantly more qualified. When you're looking for needles in haystacks, why wouldn't you want more eyes on the job? I do believe you are being mischievously provocative 😊. Epidemiologists are indeed the only people qualified to study stats and patterns of communicable diseases. They are qualified public health physicians with a parallel expertise in statistics and these days disease modelling. Many have PhD’s in epidemiology (the maths of disease transmission). So in short fuck-off clever people with a work ethic to match no other, underpaid and under recognised. But despite this, dumb journalists and Joe Public feel qualified to dip their toes into the world of epidemiology with their perceived expertise. I was queuing to get into Tesco a few weeks ago and some old fart was moaning, loudly to no-one in particular. “It’s bloody ridiculous .... if you look at the data...” I am afraid I rolled my eyes. Yeah right, Imperial College London is sharing all of their their raw data with you are they bell end? No wonder it’s taking so long to sort out, they should have got you on it sooner. If members of the public feel qualified to cast doubt on the work of epidemiologists they shouldn’t contain their genius any longer. Perhaps they could pop into their local OR and help out with some heart surgery? Or maybe drop in an ICU and help out with those hypoxic and cardiovascularly unstable folks? Because this type of medicine is just as complex as epidemiology, and that’s easy enough to pick up watching the telly. Your move DC 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Dec 1, 2020 18:22:21 GMT -5
DryCreek you're a Libertarian, aren't you? 😏😊 I agree the gov't and scientists don't know everything. But in disasters, war and pandemics, time is of the essence and someone has to call the shots. In the civilized world, that someone is generally government officials making difficult judgment calls based on best available knowledge. Looking at the whys and trying to find perfection is more of a job for historians IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerri on Dec 2, 2020 4:02:37 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion, for sure. I think the cultural differences account for more than I expected, particularly around deference to 'authority'. It's a fact that the government doesn't hold a monopoly on intelligence. It does have the benefit of perspective and resources, but it is also dwarfed by the army of qualified practitioners in the trenches with first-hand, realtime knowledge. In many senses, that empirical evidence is far more valuable, but certainly it is not garbage; however, results that don't match the current narrative are drummed out of town. Similarly, epidemiologists are not the only people qualified to study statistics and spot patterns; in fact, that's only one facet of their domain, and others who specialize are significantly more qualified. When you're looking for needles in haystacks, why wouldn't you want more eyes on the job? There appears to be a strong "not invented here" attitude toward data that arrives at the doorstep of officials, simply because it didn't follow their process; that doesn't change the results. While I can appreciate the need for process in studying data, the glacial pace of academia and medicine -- while normally appropriate -- is not befitting a wildfire. And where officials are ignoring useful results, I think it's appropriate for the public to see (which includes medical practitioners who are educated enough to evaluate for themselves and apply with caution). If the official narrative is sound, it should hold up under scrutiny or incorporate new knowledge, not survive by suppressing contrarian views. How many times in history have we seen major discoveries ridiculed because they challenged the established narrative? In this regard, it seems "the science" is acting more like religion. It would be great if we followed successful countries and everyone stopped resisting and making it political. I really can't see why everyone wasn't on the same page! It seems so simple even for a moron like myself! |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Dec 2, 2020 12:37:21 GMT -5
Jerri
It would be great if we followed successful countries and everyone stopped resisting and making it political. I really can't see why everyone wasn't on the same page! It seems so simple even for a moron like myself!1. I don't consider you to be a moron. 2. People want to think they have enough information even when they don't have enough or the correct information. thinking you don't have enough or the correct information leads many people to feel on edge or uncomfortable. Even having enough and the correct or relevant information is sometimes difficult to sift through and match the actual cause and effect relationships. Sometimes information is difficult to obtain from a large population so a poll or sample has to be taken and the results are an indication of how more people or trend would likely happen. So in the case of New Zealand, Australia, the USA and any high death rate nation, how much do masks VS no mask and other per-emtive measures influence the death rates? What other factors influence the death rate or the degree of long term negative results with people that recover from Covid? This is out of my knowledge base but I think a place to start would be to do some work in the following area. www.statology.org/descriptive-inferential-statistics/ Along with the Epidemiologist collaboration. Disclaimer, I will use an old military phrase. "This stuff is above my pay grade. Check with the Generals with the most stars on his hat that will see you."
|
|
|
|
Post by lessingham on Dec 11, 2020 5:01:56 GMT -5
I have never had an accident but I wear seat belts. I have had all the vaccine jabs but live in a healthy country. I live in a low coronavirus area but I wear my masks and wash my hands. I play the percentages game and it is that simple. All tbis about "rights" and my freedoms is just plain stupid, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by worksforme2 on Dec 19, 2020 8:35:59 GMT -5
Romance and even marriage is possible, just keep the social distancing OK...  |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Jan 5, 2021 14:43:06 GMT -5
The Internet report that there now 3 variants of Covid 19. COVID-19 pandemic cases and mortality by country as of 4 January 2021 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country
Sorry, the tab spacing doesn't work. I tried it in different WP but no luck.
Cases Deaths case rate Deaths per 100K population Italy 2,155,446 75,332 3.5% 124.66 United Kingdom 2,662,699 75,137 2.8% 113.01 Spain 1,928,265 50,837 2.6% 108.80 United States 20,636,663 351,580 1.7% 107.46 Mexico 1,448,755 127,213 8.8% 100.81 France 2,712,975 65,164 2.4% 97.28 Brazil 7,733,746 196,018 2.5% 93.58 Sweden 437,379 8,727 2.0% 85.70 Netherlands 832,702 11,707 1.4% 67.94 South Africa 1,100,748 29,577 2.7% 51.19 Ireland 101,887 2,259 2.2% 46.54 Canada 606,076 15,880 2.6% 42.85 Germany 1,783,896 34,791 2.0% 41.95 Russia 3,203,743 57,730 1.8% 39.96 Denmark 169,358 1,374 0.8% 23.70 Finland 36,772 561 1.5% 10.17 Australia 28,504 909 3.2% 3.64 South Korea 64,264 981 1.5% 1.90 New Zealand 2,181 25 1.1% 0.51 China 96,160 4,784 5.0% 0.34 Taiwan 812 7 0.9% 0.03 |
|
|
|
Post by lessingham on Jan 6, 2021 4:14:29 GMT -5
The Greeks invented democracy. However, they also invented tyranny. When a crisis hit, they ditched democracy and elected a tryrant for a set duration to sort the matter out. They recognised when the shit hit the fan, you needed a strong ruler with powers to take unpopular polisies to clean up the mess. A good idea in these times, but as aleays the devil is in the detail, what happens when the tyrant refuses to quit?
|
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Jan 6, 2021 6:01:58 GMT -5
Similarly, epidemiologists are not the only people qualified to study statistics and spot patterns; in fact, that's only one facet of their domain, and others who specialize are significantly more qualified. When you're looking for needles in haystacks, why wouldn't you want more eyes on the job? I do believe you are being mischievously provocative 😊. Epidemiologists are indeed the only people qualified to study stats and patterns of communicable diseases. They are qualified public health physicians with a parallel expertise in statistics and these days disease modelling. Many have PhD’s in epidemiology (the maths of disease transmission). So in short fuck-off clever people with a work ethic to match no other, underpaid and under recognized. But despite this, dumb journalists and Joe Public feel qualified to dip their toes into the world of epidemiology with their perceived expertise... If members of the public feel qualified to cast doubt on the work of epidemiologists they shouldn’t contain their genius any longer. Perhaps they could pop into their local OR and help out with some heart surgery? Or maybe drop in an ICU and help out with those hypoxic and cardiovascularly unstable folks? Because this type of medicine is just as complex as epidemiology, and that’s easy enough to pick up watching the telly. Your move DC 😉 Someone else being provocative. I find this attitude pervasive and counterproductive. The excessive reverence for expertise can be a lazy generalization of reliance like sexism, or racism. I dub it "credentialism". Credentials are a resource others can use as shorthand to produce trust in a hurry. Two people tell you differing stories and you need to decide on a course of action, surely you can flesh out both arguments, but which advice do you follow first. If one has credentials they'll need to defend if they are wrong, it can often be wise to follow this expert. Below the level of "epidemiologist" can be a graduate who is merely waiting on their degree to be handed to them on a stage. Below that is a student in their second year. Below that might be a senior in college graduating with a B.A. in Biology and having a professed interest in pathology. Then you might take the opinion of a retired radiologist who happened across a few articles by accident a decade ago. Then perhaps you might take into account the opinions of a businessman whose enterprises have gone bankrupt four times and you suspect wouldn't know that "Nature" is not a pictograph collection for birdwatchers. Somewhere in that arbitrary hierarchy may fall anyone trying to share data wit you. Every citizen should feel responsibility to understand scientific method which one can evaluate the reliability of data and its likelihood of accurately reflecting the true functioning of our world. Everyone should be a scientist. Relying on authorities without an interest in understanding how reproducible data and controlled studies work lead to "They said, they said" arguments that allow confirmation bias to allow everyone to do as they please without regard to data. People with credentials of differing relevance and weight can serve as the basis for action. Data should drive all and presentation of flawed data should be weakening the reputation of experts to the point of dismissal. This si why the production of false data is something of a crime in the scientific community. Dr. Mr. Andrew Wakefield is repeatedly cited by those that profess the hazards of vaccines, not because his data is good, but because he says things that they want to say too. There is befuddling anger afoot that objects to the censoring of falsified data like Wakefield's and plenty of ire from those that wish to spread the news of flawed studies with poor controls or omitted confounding factors. America is sorting out this problem and it's first efforts are demarcating such "information" as disproven, but without the basic understanding of science, it is interpreted as meddling in a debate akin to politics where much is unsettled and possibly permanently inchoate. Epidemiology is highly susceptible to well designed controlled studies, but much of the public with emotional agendas seek to put their desired views on equal footing and will refuse to succumb given superior, even airtight proof because they don't understand what makes the data better and therefore renders their own data false. Our wish to be right overcomes the opportunity to be correct by changing our minds. A willingness to be wrong is essential to all scientists and admitting you're wrong has not been widely practiced since at least 2001. Bohr bested Einstein, and yet our Facebook friends cannot humble themselves by following the latter's example. |
|
|
|
Post by jim44444 on Jan 6, 2021 14:35:14 GMT -5
First dose in today. The worst part was waiting in line outside for an hour in Ohio winter.
|
|
