COVID-19 Thread

[adambr2]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/researcher-verge-making-very-significant-030320409.html

 

What is going on here?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/researcher-verge-making-very-significant-030320409.html

 

What is going on here?

 

It is likely a nothingburger, but it will get the conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat crowds talking. But those are the same people who believe that national, state and local governments are in cahoots to keep things shut down for some unknown benefit, so their opinions are moot.

[igor67]

Looking at his webpage, I suspect others will be more than capable of completing his research, or someone else is already doing similar work and likely to complete it without a horrible delay. I could be wrong about that, but his background does not appear to be super unique in 2020. Twenty years ago he'd look like a pioneer.

[SoCalBrewfan]

Well, I'll use science then. Here's what a Nobel-winning scientist had to say yesterday:

 

That's not science, that's arguing from authority. Science isn't taking what one smart person says as gospel, it's arguing based on data and evaluating competing models or experimental results, collectively working iteratively toward a better understanding. The science on Covid is necessarily work in progress, and what is currently the consensus model will almost certainly evolve. Experts will disagree and argue. That doesn't mean we just ignore expertise and go with our gut feeling. It's hard to be patient and wait for the science to move forward, but that's what needs to happen.

 

Also, having a Nobel prize in one thing doesn't mean you know everything about everything. I've met a handful of Nobel prize winners, and there is often this tendency to assume that they are all-knowing...it's not so. (To be fair, plenty of scientists and engineers who have not won the Nobel prize also act like they know everything.) A few have taken maverick positions that have been kooky or actually detrimental. (Also there are more than a few really awful people in the list of Nobel winners.) The inventor of the Josephson junction spent time trying to research telepathy, and a chemistry winner supported a discredited theory that the HIV virus is harmless and AIDS is caused by drug use. Those points of view get amplified because they are backed by a Nobel prize winner, and it's really unfortunate. Levitt is a genius when it comes to molecular structures but he is not an epidemiologist or an economist.

 

That's not to say Levitt is a bad person or even necessarily wrong. Plenty of people (some of whom I know) are shut out of their normal research labs so they are running data analysis on publicly available COVID data and making statements on twitter or wherever. That's great, because the more people look at the problem, the more likely that something doesn't get overlooked, but it's a lot like brewers fans putting together their proposed 2020 batting orders. Of course there's a guy who thinks the team would be better with Braun at shortstop, but that is not the consensus of informed participants, and I would hate to see a person in a position to make a decision take the outlier point of view without being very convinced that it's right.

[FVBrewerFan]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/researcher-verge-making-very-significant-030320409.html

 

What is going on here?

 

It is likely a nothingburger, but it will get the conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat crowds talking. But those are the same people who believe that national, state and local governments are in cahoots to keep things shut down for some unknown benefit, so their opinions are moot.

 

National, state, and local governments ARE in "cahoots." That isn't exactly a secret.

[FVBrewerFan]

Well, I'll use science then. Here's what a Nobel-winning scientist had to say yesterday:

 

That's not science, that's arguing from authority. Science isn't taking what one smart person says as gospel, it's arguing based on data and evaluating competing models or experimental results, collectively working iteratively toward a better understanding. The science on Covid is necessarily work in progress, and what is currently the consensus model will almost certainly evolve. Experts will disagree and argue. That doesn't mean we just ignore expertise and go with our gut feeling. It's hard to be patient and wait for the science to move forward, but that's what needs to happen.

 

Also, having a Nobel prize in one thing doesn't mean you know everything about everything. I've met a handful of Nobel prize winners, and there is often this tendency to assume that they are all-knowing...it's not so. (To be fair, plenty of scientists and engineers who have not won the Nobel prize also act like they know everything.) A few have taken maverick positions that have been kooky or actually detrimental. (Also there are more than a few really awful people in the list of Nobel winners.) The inventor of the Josephson junction spent time trying to research telepathy, and a chemistry winner supported a discredited theory that the HIV virus is harmless and AIDS is caused by drug use. Those points of view get amplified because they are backed by a Nobel prize winner, and it's really unfortunate. Levitt is a genius when it comes to molecular structures but he is not an epidemiologist or an economist.

 

That's not to say Levitt is a bad person or even necessarily wrong. Plenty of people (some of whom I know) are shut out of their normal research labs so they are running data analysis on publicly available COVID data and making statements on twitter or wherever. That's great, because the more people look at the problem, the more likely that something doesn't get overlooked, but it's a lot like brewers fans putting together their proposed 2020 batting orders. Of course there's a guy who thinks the team would be better with Braun at shortstop, but that is not the consensus of informed participants, and I would hate to see a person in a position to make a decision take the outlier point of view without being very convinced that it's right.

 

It's not one person, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Entire countries have based their response on the science of herd immunity. GB started that way, went to lockdown and it got worse. I'm not saying we know what approach is best, but let's not pretend Levitt is some sort of fringe outlier.

[Samurai Bucky]

Again, I encourage watching of the Evergreen College doc. There were entirely made up "studies," intentionally fabricated and submitted for the sole purpose of confirming the bias of the peer reviewers. I don't believe this part is in the documentary, but it involved the same people. Basically they approved the papers they wanted to. The pranksters received an award for one in which they copied and pasted parts of Mein Kampf. Data is data and I'm agreeing with your point about the lazy thing and that you need to do your own legwork, but there was a time where an academic paper was a gold standard and it isn't anymore.

 

As a scientist who writes academic papers, I would never, ever believe anyone who cites a single academic paper as evidence for an argument that goes against common knowledge in the field. I do think provocative and creative ideas are a good thing and often a ton of good science comes out of people debunking bad science.

 

Ultimately people just need to listen to the top experts. If I see a controversial paper in my field my immediate reaction is to ask several top experts in that area what they think about it. Which is exactly what good journalists do. And the best experts will acknowledge where the gaps are in the science and be open about where their personal opinion differs from established ideas.

I don't write academic papers, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I need to ask -- what happens if you, as a scientist, find evidence that contradicts common knowledge in the field? What percentage of people need to agree in order to be considered common knowledge? I don't know how Galileo and Mendel would have answered this question.

 

The challenge today is that there is simply sooooooooo much information, that it is difficult for people -- even highly educated people -- to know what is "right" and what is "wrong." I'll keep coming to bf.net for the right answers...

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm not 100% sure that some "experts" don't have agendas as well.

 

Our media has let our nation down, plain and simple. I see no end in sight.

Oh, some "experts" do have agendas. Andrew Wakefield is one of the worst human beings on the planet, and his fraudulent "research" and an all-to-eager-to-get-the-scoop media has resulted in death and an almost eradicated disease being brought on thousands of people.

 

As someone whose job it is to draw conclusions from data, I can tell you that rarely does one single piece of data ever tell you the whole story. You have to learn to synthesize multiple sources of data and then ask yourself what makes sense.

 

Correct. Absorb all the information you can, then it comes down to instinct.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/researcher-verge-making-very-significant-030320409.html

 

What is going on here?

 

It is likely a nothingburger, but it will get the conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat crowds talking. But those are the same people who believe that national, state and local governments are in cahoots to keep things shut down for some unknown benefit, so their opinions are moot.

 

National, state, and local governments ARE in "cahoots." That isn't exactly a secret.

 

What are you arguing here? Of course they are working together to respond to a pandemic, as they should be. What they ARE NOT doing is working together with the goal to crush the country's economy, as is being implied by some of the more "out there" conspiracy theorists.

[igor67]

That is a rather non standard usage of the word instinct. Most would call that process judgement.

[owbc]

As a scientist who writes academic papers, I would never, ever believe anyone who cites a single academic paper as evidence for an argument that goes against common knowledge in the field. I do think provocative and creative ideas are a good thing and often a ton of good science comes out of people debunking bad science.

 

Ultimately people just need to listen to the top experts. If I see a controversial paper in my field my immediate reaction is to ask several top experts in that area what they think about it. Which is exactly what good journalists do. And the best experts will acknowledge where the gaps are in the science and be open about where their personal opinion differs from established ideas.

I don't write academic papers, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I need to ask -- what happens if you, as a scientist, find evidence that contradicts common knowledge in the field? What percentage of people need to agree in order to be considered common knowledge? I don't know how Galileo and Mendel would have answered this question.

 

The challenge today is that there is simply sooooooooo much information, that it is difficult for people -- even highly educated people -- to know what is "right" and what is "wrong." I'll keep coming to bf.net for the right answers...

 

That's a good question! I could write for hours about this and even so my experience is only specific to atmospheric/climate science. Everyone is so highly specialized these days. It is very rare for there to be a reversal of common knowledge because the scientific process works pretty well and it has grown enough that a couple grumpy old guys can't control things like they used to. Generally what pushes things forward is not a new idea but new technology that allows for either data or analysis that wasn't possible before. And the result tends to be refinement or complexity added to established ideas. In my experience, if you push on an established theory at a conference you will usually get some people on board and some people opposed. And over time if you keep providing evidence and hammering away you will eventually move the needle. And if you are wrong the experts will figure it out pretty quickly.

 

The attitude toward machine learning in my field has been interesting to watch. At first it was just a couple people pushing it forward and they were initially met with a ton of skepticism. But they continued to produce better and better results that were harder to dispute, and suddenly in the last year or two there was this exponential explosion in people embracing this tool. Most people in science are honestly trying to come up with new ideas, especially these days when most of us could leave for more lucrative careers in private industry at any time.

 

With COVID things are moving so fast and people are desperate for an extraordinary discovery. Honestly, it could happen with how many people are working on the problem and how much the science has been moving forward lately in genetics. But the experts know pretty well what is possible and what isn't, so when they say "18 months to a vaccine" then either we need to listen to them or we need to throw a ton of resources at that problem to try and speed it up. The key is that the people with the money/resources need to know what they are doing, too often the money gets sent to people who have no idea what they are doing, especially in a crisis. If the consensus in the field is 18 months to a vaccine and someone says "I can do it in 6 months" then they are probably full of BS.

[igor67]

Nonsense on Stilts by Massimo Piliguci is probably the single best source I can think of to point a non-scientist towards that provides a lot of insight into how to separate out garbage from more reliable (not not infallible) authority. Unfortunately the quacks have gotten more sophisticated over time, so it can be challenging even with good tools. Sorry if my book recommendations have gotten excessive, but as someone best described as a science generalist between my teaching experience and a very eclectic mix of publications my real specialty is educating students in how to think about and use science as future citizens.

[homer]

A guy at Univ of Washington teaches a course on Calling out Bull****. Book by the same name coming out later on this year. Have any of you science guys ever heard of this?

[MrTPlush]

Wisconsin showed a spike in testing ability up to 14,800 today, so I guess that is nice. The overall percent of positive cases has been declining pretty steadily this month...but now that meat plants are forced back open that probably won’t last long.

 

Maybe it lasts long enough for us to get some added freedoms.

[FVBrewerFan]

Wisconsin showed a spike in testing ability up to 14,800 today, so I guess that is nice. The overall percent of positive cases has been declining pretty steadily this month...but now that meat plants are forced back open that probably won’t last long.

 

Maybe it lasts long enough for us to get some added freedoms.

 

Nah, there's always a day that has broken the trend. We're at 3 days in a row now, so it's going to be a while. That will depend, of course, on the WI Supreme Court ruling.

[MrTPlush]

Wisconsin showed a spike in testing ability up to 14,800 today, so I guess that is nice. The overall percent of positive cases has been declining pretty steadily this month...but now that meat plants are forced back open that probably won’t last long.

 

Maybe it lasts long enough for us to get some added freedoms.

 

Nah, there's always a day that has broken the trend. We're at 3 days in a row now, so it's going to be a while. That will depend, of course, on the WI Supreme Court ruling.

 

That’s not what is required, a trend is required for 14 days. We don’t need 14 days of continuous decline. I’m not sure exactly how they calculate their trend, but you can definitely have outlier spike days and still trend down.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Wisconsin showed a spike in testing ability up to 14,800 today, so I guess that is nice. The overall percent of positive cases has been declining pretty steadily this month...but now that meat plants are forced back open that probably won’t last long.

 

Maybe it lasts long enough for us to get some added freedoms.

 

Nah, there's always a day that has broken the trend. We're at 3 days in a row now, so it's going to be a while. That will depend, of course, on the WI Supreme Court ruling.

 

That’s not what is required, a trend is required for 14 days. We don’t need 14 days of continuous decline. I’m not sure exactly how they calculate their trend, but you can definitely have outlier spike days and still trend down.

 

Yep ... it's all about upping the testing capacity. Increase the capacity, and you are going to see higher numbers of positive tests as a result. The key is getting a larger ratio of positive tests : total tests.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Wisconsin showed a spike in testing ability up to 14,800 today, so I guess that is nice. The overall percent of positive cases has been declining pretty steadily this month...but now that meat plants are forced back open that probably won’t last long.

 

Maybe it lasts long enough for us to get some added freedoms.

 

Sort of feel like we're in a no-man's land where most of the easy to open stuff is open and the closures are mostly things with large complications. Miller Park, crowded bars, etc. I have my own opinions on stuff, but at least if bars/restaurants can open in some capacity there would be some travel demand, maybe. I hope.

 

This has already been brought up here but it is funny to me that you can't sit down at a diner but Home Depot is OK. Has anyone been a HD on the weekend during this? Mine was an absolute zoo last weekend. I'd never seen it so crowded.

[MrTPlush]

Wisconsin showed a spike in testing ability up to 14,800 today, so I guess that is nice. The overall percent of positive cases has been declining pretty steadily this month...but now that meat plants are forced back open that probably won’t last long.

 

Maybe it lasts long enough for us to get some added freedoms.

 

Sort of feel like we're in a no-man's land where most of the easy to open stuff is open and the closures are mostly things with large complications. Miller Park, crowded bars, etc. I have my own opinions on stuff, but at least if bars/restaurants can open in some capacity there would be some travel demand, maybe. I hope.

 

This has already been brought up here but it is funny to me that you can't sit down at a diner but Home Depot is OK. Has anyone been a HD on the weekend during this? Mine was an absolute zoo last weekend. I'd never seen it so crowded.

 

Those large hardware stores are nightmares...but what else are people going to do? Might as well do fixes around the house. Apparently the greenhouses/plant shops are zoos too.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Wisconsin showed a spike in testing ability up to 14,800 today, so I guess that is nice. The overall percent of positive cases has been declining pretty steadily this month...but now that meat plants are forced back open that probably won’t last long.

 

Maybe it lasts long enough for us to get some added freedoms.

 

Sort of feel like we're in a no-man's land where most of the easy to open stuff is open and the closures are mostly things with large complications. Miller Park, crowded bars, etc. I have my own opinions on stuff, but at least if bars/restaurants can open in some capacity there would be some travel demand, maybe. I hope.

 

This has already been brought up here but it is funny to me that you can't sit down at a diner but Home Depot is OK. Has anyone been a HD on the weekend during this? Mine was an absolute zoo last weekend. I'd never seen it so crowded.

 

Here in MN they are trying to limit how many people are actually inside at any time - so people gather in a herd in the parking lot waiting in line...then once you are inside if you go out to the outdoor lawn and garden area you better not have a reason to go back in. It's kind of like airport TSA checkpoints...

 

I personally feel like everything should be given the opportunity to reopen while applying social distancing guidelines and that should have happened a few weeks ago - IMO that wouldn't mean 100% of people would instantly run out and cram into confined spaces two nights before going to visit their great grandparent in a nursing home...but maybe I give too many people the benefit of the doubt. IMO more places open in some form give people more places to go, and it helps to thin out public herds at grocery stores, boat landings, golf courses, etc.

 

My company has offices basically everywhere in the US, and our approach to reopening offices is to insist on continued wfh if you have the ability to do so indefinitely - whether you are in New York, TX, or Wyoming and independent from whether a state has lifted its shelter in place order or not. We also have special guidance for people to avoid public transit when some of our downtown city offices reopen - and even then we will be returning to offices in shifts, keeping staff capacity at 50% and limiting how many different people interact with each other. Face coverings would be required in common areas of the office along with daily temp screenings. I'm sure most businesses have worked hard sorting out ways to reopen with an increased level of safety - bars and restaurants included. hopefully a good percentage of them are given the opportunity to do so before they go under.

[owbc]

Amazon just announced their October 2 reopening plan for the corporate headquarters yesterday.

-Temperature taken on arrival

-Social distanced desks

-Limit of 1 person per meeting room

-All meetings required to be virtual

-Masks required for any interactions with others

-No services (coffee shops/restaurants)

 

In other words, nothing is going to change until there is either a vaccine or cheap+abundant testing. Because nobody is going to go to the office with those rules. And nobody is going to be able to get to the office anyway because of the limitations to reopening public transportation.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Amazon just announced their October 2 reopening plan for the corporate headquarters yesterday.

-Temperature taken on arrival

-Social distanced desks

-Limit of 1 person per meeting room

-All meetings required to be virtual

-Masks required for any interactions with others

-No services (coffee shops/restaurants)

 

In other words, nothing is going to change until there is either a vaccine or cheap+abundant testing. Because nobody is going to go to the office with those rules. And nobody is going to be able to get to the office anyway because of the limitations to reopening public transportation.

 

Good grief this is depressing. My opinions won't change the measures these places are taking. Things like this are just a kick in the gut. Makes you realize how long this is actually going to drag out. I'm already concerned about school starting on time.

[owbc]

Amazon just announced their October 2 reopening plan for the corporate headquarters yesterday.

-Temperature taken on arrival

-Social distanced desks

-Limit of 1 person per meeting room

-All meetings required to be virtual

-Masks required for any interactions with others

-No services (coffee shops/restaurants)

 

In other words, nothing is going to change until there is either a vaccine or cheap+abundant testing. Because nobody is going to go to the office with those rules. And nobody is going to be able to get to the office anyway because of the limitations to reopening public transportation.

 

Good grief this is depressing. My opinions won't change the measures these places are taking. Things like this are just a kick in the gut. Makes you realize how long this is actually going to drag out. I'm already concerned about school starting on time.

 

The clear conclusion is that there is no "reopening" or "return to normal" and there never will be. Most people will eventually go back to the office, travel, etc but will do so in very different ways than they did before.

[Fear The Chorizo]

This is pretty much where I'm at with all this...I think there are some measures that should be extended longer term for at risk populations, but by and large we're past the point of diminishing returns extending stay at home orders to the general public further in terms of it providing any sort of overall public health benefit - especially compared to the negative economic/societal/public health impact these orders will have being extended too long.

 

https://www.drjohnm.org/2020/05/can-we-discuss-flatten-the-curve-in-covid19-my-eight-assertions/

 

One problem with assessing effect of one size fits all stay at home orders compared to the modified approach several states or countries have made that never fully shut down (Sweden, Iowa/SD/etc) is that they were likely enacted several weeks too late in the US to help in dense population centers where the virus was already spreading (New York/NJ). The prevailing school of thought is that these orders must have saved lives and helped slow the spread - I'm sure they have compared to enacting no mitigation measures at all, especially during the initial 2-3 weeks in dense population centers when hospital capacities and equipment were very questionable...but that level of confidence drops significantly when trying to compare stay at home order states to ones that never fully shut down "nonessential" activities but did enact social distancing mitigation measures. Adding in the obvious differences in population density and many other factors when trying to compare how different areas have fared leads to many unknown variables at this point - particularly with actual case counts not being anywhere close to well established. For example, how is AZ seemingly skating by with minimal impact when hundreds of thousands of snowbird retirees were down there coupled with an influx of people for MLB spring training and many other seasonal tourism trips? How is FLA continuing to have relatively limited impact with a huge elderly population and similar snowbird temporary residents after being late on issuing a stay at home order and early to reopen?

 

There is no question the stay at home order goalposts have been moved since they were initially enacted - and the justification for doing so is not based on the reasoning they were enacted in the first place (medical system capacity concerns). These extensions might help delay when certain areas reach peak hospital capacity demand, but they aren't going to reduce the ultimate spread of infections. Had the preliminary models used the 0.3% population-wide mortality rate this virus will likely be determined to land, coupled with the targeted hospitalization rates of different age groups, there wouldn't have been one size fits all shutdowns enacted in the first place...and places like New York probably wouldn't have sent Covid patients not needing a ventilator to nursing homes to finish recovering.

 

My biggest downer thus far comes after speaking with multiple people working in elderly care / alzheimer facilities over the past few weeks...They are seeing rapid declines in their residents and are losing them much sooner than they would have expected - these facilities haven't been exposed to coronavirus, but the measures staff are having to take coupled with the lack of actual interactions with family/friends is devastating to quality of life in those settings...it's heartbreaking, especially considering that any sort of virus mitigation measures would be impacting nursing home facilities and the most vulnerable at the twilight of their lives the same way.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

This is pretty much where I'm at with all this...I think there are some measures that should be extended longer term for at risk populations, but by and large we're past the point of diminishing returns extending stay at home orders to the general public further in terms of it providing any sort of overall public health benefit - especially compared to the negative economic/societal/public health impact these orders will have being extended too long.

 

https://www.drjohnm.org/2020/05/can-we-discuss-flatten-the-curve-in-covid19-my-eight-assertions/

 

One problem with assessing effect of one size fits all stay at home orders compared to the modified approach several states or countries have made that never fully shut down (Sweden, Iowa/SD/etc) is that they were likely enacted several weeks too late in the US to help in dense population centers where the virus was already spreading (New York/NJ). The prevailing school of thought is that these orders must have saved lives and helped slow the spread - I'm sure they have compared to enacting no mitigation measures at all, especially during the initial 2-3 weeks in dense population centers when hospital capacities and equipment were very questionable...but that level of confidence drops significantly when trying to compare stay at home order states to ones that never fully shut down "nonessential" activities but did enact social distancing mitigation measures. Adding in the obvious differences in population density and many other factors when trying to compare how different areas have fared leads to many unknown variables at this point - particularly with actual case counts not being anywhere close to well established. For example, how is AZ seemingly skating by with minimal impact when hundreds of thousands of snowbird retirees were down there coupled with an influx of people for MLB spring training and many other seasonal tourism trips? How is FLA continuing to have relatively limited impact with a huge elderly population and similar snowbird temporary residents after being late on issuing a stay at home order and early to reopen?

 

There is no question the stay at home order goalposts have been moved since they were initially enacted - and the justification for doing so is not based on the reasoning they were enacted in the first place (medical system capacity concerns). These extensions might help delay when certain areas reach peak hospital capacity demand, but they aren't going to reduce the ultimate spread of infections. Had the preliminary models used the 0.3% population-wide mortality rate this virus will likely be determined to land, coupled with the targeted hospitalization rates of different age groups, there wouldn't have been one size fits all shutdowns enacted in the first place...and places like New York probably wouldn't have sent Covid patients not needing a ventilator to nursing homes to finish recovering.

 

My biggest downer thus far comes after speaking with multiple people working in elderly care / alzheimer facilities over the past few weeks...They are seeing rapid declines in their residents and are losing them much sooner than they would have expected - these facilities haven't been exposed to coronavirus, but the measures staff are having to take coupled with the lack of actual interactions with family/friends is devastating to quality of life in those settings...it's heartbreaking, especially considering that any sort of virus mitigation measures would be impacting nursing home facilities and the most vulnerable at the twilight of their lives the same way.

 

I agree with you pretty much 100% and this sentence is exactly what's really getting under my skin. We could not stop hearing that we had to flatten the curve, that we could re-open when we did that, that the WHOLE point was to not overwhelm hospitals. That is now out the door and we need to all but eradicate the virus to please people, it seems. Flatten the curve was replaced with abundance of caution.