General / Off-Topic The safest place

[Wotthe Dickens]

I refuse to panic until there's no internet

Good for you.
I’ve just spent the day talking to numerous elderly folk who are worried they’ll never see their grandkids again.
I spent yesterday reassuring my uni students that they’ll be able to complete their MAs.
Although I’m not panicking, there’s plenty of vulnerable people who are suffering through this.
Sure, we don’t need to care.
You know what though, Archeologists have found ancient hominoid bones which had broken, but then healed. Meaning that rather than being left to die like animals, these beings had cared for and provided for their brethren.

 

[Morbad]

This is how you title articles if you want to mislead:

Hydroxychloroquine is the ‘most effective therapy’ for coronavirus treatment: A global survey of over 6,000 doctors shows

Plenty of other articles with vaguely similar titles all sourcing the same Sermo survey, which polled 6227 licenced physicians, from 30 countries, from March 25-28:

https://public-cdn.sermo.com/covid19/c8/be4e/4edbd4/dbd4ba4ac5a3b3d9a479f99cc5/wave-i-sermo-covid-19-global-analysis-final.pdf

The content of the articles using this source generally don't even lie in their bodies, they either selectively copy paste, or gloss over the implications of the data that is incongrous with their article titles.

Anyway, this is the closest thing I can find to a (still anecdotal) "consensus", where a bit over one-third of physicians say hydroxychloroquine was the most effective treatment of the fifteen options given, where they had seen such treatments used. Degree of effectiveness wasn't mentioned, which is also telling as a treatment of "nothing" was also very high on the list.

Personally, I'd have titled the article: "A third of doctors think hydroxychloroquine might be better than nothing: A global survey of over 6,000 doctors shows". Doesn't have quite the same sensationalist ring to it though.

So yeah, 'science', 'consensus', 'anecdotal' and, depressingly enough, 'most' (which, for the record, never, ever, means 'way less than half')...some terms it would be wise for people to refresh their definitions of before continuing to misuse them.

Note: I'm not making any assessment of the effectiveness of any drug for treating COVID-19. I can't. The data isn't there. And that's the point.

 

[Ian Skippy]

You know what though, Archeologists have found ancient hominoid bones which had broken, but then healed. Meaning that rather than being left to die like animals, these beings had cared for and provided for their brethren.

Its a bit apocryphal about some wise person being asked what in his/her mind the start of human civilization was. Typically people think of some tool or some such. The perso responded:"a broken but healed femur." for the exact reason you give.

 

[GJ51]

Hilarious stuff

The press is all over the place today

There's no evidence, the models are wrong, you name it there are so many contradictory statements today it's too hard to keep track.

From hysteria to backtracking and back again...

I'll be 70 next year - and just no better than to get sucked in to all the non-sense

YMMV

I'll most likely pass within the next 30 years or less from something. I doubt that whatever the cause it will impact the total overall annual death rate by any significant amount regardless the cause attributed.

I'll let the rest of you figure that out...

Now that I know how "caring" you all are...

I am comforted

 

[Ian Skippy]

This is how you title articles if you want to mislead:

Hydroxychloroquine is the ‘most effective therapy’ for coronavirus treatment: A global survey of over 6,000 doctors shows

Plenty of other articles with vaguely similar titles all sourcing the same Sermo survey, which polled 6227 licenced physicians, from 30 countries, from March 25-28:

https://public-cdn.sermo.com/covid19/c8/be4e/4edbd4/dbd4ba4ac5a3b3d9a479f99cc5/wave-i-sermo-covid-19-global-analysis-final.pdf

The content of the articles using this source generally don't even lie in their bodies, they either selectively copy paste, or gloss over the implications of the data that is incongrous with their article titles.

Anyway, this is the closest thing I can find to a (still anecdotal) "consensus", where a bit over one-third of physicians say hydroxychloroquine was the most effective treatment of the fifteen options given, where they had seen such treatments used. Degree of effectiveness wasn't mentioned, which is also telling as a treatment of "nothing" was also very high on the list.

Personally, I'd have titled the article: "A third of doctors think hydroxychloroquine might be better than nothing: A global survey of over 6,000 doctors shows". Doesn't have quite the same sensationalist ring to it though.

So yeah, 'science', 'consensus', 'anecdotal' and, depressingly enough, 'most' (which, for the record, never, ever, means 'way less than half')...some terms it would be wise for people to refresh their definitions of before continuing to misuse them.

Note: I'm not making any assessment of the effectiveness of any drug for treating COVID-19. I can't. The data isn't there. And that's the point.

When I finished my PhD I was contacted by our PR department; they had read the title and abstract of my dissertation and thought it'd be great to boost the reputation of the uni by drafting a press kit. During my PhD I wrote a bit of code in MatLab that processed physiological data (ECG, fEMG, GSR) and estimates 'valence', or the extend participants experienced more positive or negative affect. It worked to the extent that as long as groups of participants under lab conditions adhered to instructions, my program could successfully identify when they, on group level, were exposed to emotion-inducing stimuli, whether they were positive or negative, and more or less order them by intensity on a scale. I rejected, because I knew exactly what news outlets (who would also never read the dissertation) would make of it.

Take home message: when you see an interesting 'science' thing in the media, proceed to read the actual paper.

 

[Ian Skippy]

There's no evidence, the models are wrong, you name it there are so many contradictory statements today it's too hard to keep track.

That is why you read the scientific papers in scientific journals, and dont rely on the press.

 

[Synkreto]

This is how you title articles if you want to mislead:

Hydroxychloroquine is the ‘most effective therapy’ for coronavirus treatment: A global survey of over 6,000 doctors shows

Plenty of other articles with vaguely similar titles all sourcing the same Sermo survey, which polled 6227 licenced physicians, from 30 countries, from March 25-28:

https://public-cdn.sermo.com/covid19/c8/be4e/4edbd4/dbd4ba4ac5a3b3d9a479f99cc5/wave-i-sermo-covid-19-global-analysis-final.pdf

The content of the articles using this source generally don't even lie in their bodies, they either selectively copy paste, or gloss over the implications of the data that is incongrous with their article titles.

Anyway, this is the closest thing I can find to a (still anecdotal) "consensus", where a bit over one-third of physicians say hydroxychloroquine was the most effective treatment of the fifteen options given, where they had seen such treatments used. Degree of effectiveness wasn't mentioned, which is also telling as a treatment of "nothing" was also very high on the list.

Personally, I'd have titled the article: "A third of doctors think hydroxychloroquine might be better than nothing: A global survey of over 6,000 doctors shows". Doesn't have quite the same sensationalist ring to it though.

So yeah, 'science', 'consensus', 'anecdotal' and, depressingly enough, 'most' (which, for the record, never, ever, means 'way less than half')...some terms it would be wise for people to refresh their definitions of before continuing to misuse them.

Note: I'm not making any assessment of the effectiveness of any drug for treating COVID-19. I can't. The data isn't there. And that's the point.

Honestly, people should read, or watch, more Chomsky .

 

[GJ51]

That is why you read the scientific papers in scientific journals, and dont rely on the press.

You wouldn't happen to have one that can define how much this has moved the needle on the total daily global death rate, would you?

I also just saw a news item reporting a 95 yr old who recovered.

So is it safe to ask, "how many people who died while being infected, would have likely passed without being infected within the same month"?

I basically look at the death rate due to Covid 19 as the total who pass while having it, as it is frequently cited that those who are passing away while having it also are elderly with underlying conditions. So without understanding how many of those would have passed anyway within a reasonably close time frame, wouldn't that tend to exaggerate the true impact of the disease?

 

[Ian Skippy]

You wouldn't happen to have one that can define how much this has moved the needle on the total daily global death rate, would you?

No, but I presented the statistics from two weeks in the Netherlands. But accurate global data is neither available nor will it be available in the foreseeable future. For a great many countries we already don't have accurate statistics during normal times, never mind now. I assume that within a month or two we'll start getting accurate estimates of how much the mortality has increased in the western world during March, though.

Any media outlet confidently claiming the lives COVID19 has cost globally so far is full of it.

 

[GJ51]

No, but I presented the statistics from two weeks in the Netherlands. But accurate global data is neither available nor will it be available in the foreseeable future. For a great many countries we already don't have accurate statistics during normal times, never mind now. I assume that within a month or two we'll start getting accurate estimates of how much the mortality has increased in the western world during March, though.

Any media outlet confidently claiming the lives COVID19 has cost globally so far is full of it.

Thanks,

I think that's exactly what I've been trying to get at from the start. It's too easy to only focus on a narrow data point that doesn't accurately describe overall impact and does so in a vacuum. Measures being taken are likely to cause changes in mortality rates from other causes that are not being considered. Yes - I agree that this disease is tragic, and I'm hoping that the responses initiated may lead to better management and treatment of infectious diseases in the future as a result of the resources now being focused on the problem.

But the reaction and hysteria being driven by the press isn't due to altruism.

 

[jasonbarron]

Thanks,

I think that's exactly what I've been trying to get at from the start. It's too easy to only focus on a narrow data point that doesn't accurately describe overall impact and does so in a vacuum. Measures being taken are likely to cause changes in mortality rates from other causes that are not being considered. Yes - I agree that this disease is tragic, and I'm hoping that the responses initiated may lead to better management and treatment of infectious diseases in the future as a result of the resources now being focused on the problem.

But the reaction and hysteria being driven by the press isn't being due to altruism.

The reaction and hysteria being driven by the press is to create as much panic as possible, and to lay the foundation for the biggest blame laying game in US history. Marco Rubio called it: there are those in the media who are "gleeful" for every piece of bad news that comes down the pike.

 

[Synkreto]

“There Is Hope for This Horrible Pandemic” – Trial Drug Can Block Early Stages of COVID-19

"There is hope for this horrible pandemic," says University of British Columbia scientist Dr. Josef Penninger. An international team led by University of British Columbia researcher Dr. Josef Penninger has found a trial drug that effectively blocks the cellular door SARS-CoV-2 uses to infect its ho

scitechdaily.com

Someone able to (de)validate that ?

 

[jasonbarron]

“There Is Hope for This Horrible Pandemic” – Trial Drug Can Block Early Stages of COVID-19

"There is hope for this horrible pandemic," says University of British Columbia scientist Dr. Josef Penninger. An international team led by University of British Columbia researcher Dr. Josef Penninger has found a trial drug that effectively blocks the cellular door SARS-CoV-2 uses to infect its ho

scitechdaily.com

Someone able to (de)validate that ?

There are no real scientists contributing to this discussion (other then Robyn, maybe) so I'm unclear how you expect anyone here to validate or de-validate it.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Thanks,

I think that's exactly what I've been trying to get at from the start. It's too easy to only focus on a narrow data point that doesn't accurately describe overall impact and does so in a vacuum. Measures being taken are likely to cause changes in mortality rates from other causes that are not being considered. Yes - I agree that this disease is tragic, and I'm hoping that the responses initiated may lead to better management and treatment of infectious diseases in the future as a result of the resources now being focused on the problem.

But the reaction and hysteria being driven by the press isn't being due to altruism.

And your edit which I missed:

I also just saw a news item reporting a 95 yr old who recovered.

So is it safe to ask, "how many people who died while being infected, would have likely passed without being infected within the same month"?

I basically look at the death rate due to Covid 19 as the total who pass while having it, as it is frequently cited that those who are passing away while having it also are elderly with underlying conditions. So without understanding how many of those would have passed anyway within a reasonably close time frame, wouldn't that tend to exaggerate the true impact of the disease?

Currently COVID19 mortality is both under- and overreported.

1) People are dying due to COVID19 without them being included. This happens a LOT now in the Netherlands since we started encouraging the very old and infirm to not go to ICU as they are unlikely to survive the treatment, and we pretty much only count those dying in hospitals or are otherwise known at this point.

2) People are dying who, with all respect, would have died pretty soon anyway. ICU is disproportionately occupied by elderly obese smoker, and while their suffering is no less tragic we don't have to pretend they'd have lived for many decades if it hadn't been for COVID19.

Ultimately, the true measure of mortality is not what we are currently seeing in the stats, they are wildly unreliable. What we are now doing in the Netherlands is compare weekly mortality regardless of cause with the average weekly mortality of the first 6 or so weeks of 2020 (which is curiously rather high compared with 2019...). We only have data available from the period up to March 29th, which was the 'onset period', so caveats apply. But from this data it seems mortality is up considerably above what you'd expect by simply adding official COVID19 fatalities to the weekly average. So our national stats seem to, in general, underestimate the actual impact of the virus. This somewhat mirrors earlier reports from Italy where covid19 fatalities did not account for the larger increase in mortality in general. This will absolutely vary country by country, so I won't generalize this to other countries. But I do agree that comparing with the normal average weekly/monthly mortality rate is a much more insightful approach. Somewhat morbidly, it is also important to compare this with the 2021 and 2022 stats. This to make sure mortality during 2020 isn't simply a time-shifted effect of those who'd otherwise would have died in 2021 or 2022. Ultimately, you want to know not how many lives were lost, but how many 'years of living' were lost. It'll be years before we'll know.

As for the media; I make my daily rounds across the various major media outlets from multiple countries. There are vast cultural differences. In the Netherlands the media generally seem to try to 'keep the spirits high' in order to make sure people keep following social distancing routines without giving up. There is little to no sensationalism whatsoever. Articles are titled "Minister ramps up efforts to meet ICU demands." instead of "Will ICU crumble, click here to find out!". When I look at the US media landscape it is a completely different story. One of the key difference, beyond sensationalism, is the political perspective: "Is Cuomo taking the spotlight hurting Biden?", "How will Trump respond to a sudden Cuomo entrance into the race?", "Is COVID19 proving Sanders' point?" and so forth. In contrast, over here nobody cares about politics right now. We don't run articles about how our Prime Minister is polling. Opposition isn't trying to heckle the government, and the government isn't using the crisis to their own advantage.

 

[Ian Skippy]

“There Is Hope for This Horrible Pandemic” – Trial Drug Can Block Early Stages of COVID-19

"There is hope for this horrible pandemic," says University of British Columbia scientist Dr. Josef Penninger. An international team led by University of British Columbia researcher Dr. Josef Penninger has found a trial drug that effectively blocks the cellular door SARS-CoV-2 uses to infect its ho

scitechdaily.com

Someone able to (de)validate that ?

I hate pre-print articles. :/ The figures are completely unreadable. It appears to be fairly promising, on a cellular level in lab conditions. As they say:

We are hopeful our results have implications for the development of a novel drug for the treatment of this unprecedented pandemic.

This is scientese for "way more work is needed". And let us be clear: even if they found the amazing breakthrough tomorrow, it'll be months before it is produced, distributed and applied. There will not be a miracle cure for the first wave we are dealing with now and will deal with the next three months..

 

[Morbad]

When I finished my PhD I was contacted by our PR department; they had read the title and abstract of my dissertation and thought it'd be great to boost the reputation of the uni by drafting a press kit. During my PhD I wrote a bit of code in MatLab that processed physiological data (ECG, fEMG, GSR) and estimates 'valence', or the extend participants experienced more positive or negative affect. It worked to the extent that as long as groups of participants under lab conditions adhered to instructions, my program could successfully identify when they, on group level, were exposed to emotion-inducing stimuli, whether they were positive or negative, and more or less order them by intensity on a scale. I rejected, because I knew exactly what news outlets (who would also never read the dissertation) would make of it.

Take home message: when you see an interesting 'science' thing in the media, proceed to read the actual paper.

Spoiler

hysteria

The only hysteria I've seen in this thread as come from people desperately clinging to any hope of a quick fix, no matter how premature, or far-fetched.

Most of your accusations are strawmen, applying to no one.

“There Is Hope for This Horrible Pandemic” – Trial Drug Can Block Early Stages of COVID-19

"There is hope for this horrible pandemic," says University of British Columbia scientist Dr. Josef Penninger. An international team led by University of British Columbia researcher Dr. Josef Penninger has found a trial drug that effectively blocks the cellular door SARS-CoV-2 uses to infect its ho

scitechdaily.com

Someone able to (de)validate that ?

I haven't read the source paper yet or gotten any better-informed opinions on it, but I know Cell is a very reputable peer-reviewed journal and that the paper has been reviewed and accepted.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I haven't read the source paper yet or gotten any better-informed opinions on it, but I know Cell is a very reputable peer-reviewed journal and that the paper has been reviewed and accepted.

It is a wonderful example of that cartoon.

Contrast:
Title of article: "There is hope for this horrible pandemic!"

with quote from the actual paper:“We are hopeful our results have implications for the development of a novel drug for the treatment of this unprecedented pandemic.”

The title isn't wrong, but they imply there is short-term hope. As you said, there is not and this paper is no exception.

 

[GJ51]

Spoiler

The only hysteria I've seen in this thread as come from people desperately clinging to any hope of a quick fix, no matter how premature, or far-fetched.

Most of your accusations are strawmen, applying to no one.



I haven't read the source paper yet or gotten any better-informed opinions on it, but I know Cell is a very reputable peer-reviewed journal and that the paper has been reviewed and accepted.

I'm just gonna let your cheap shot pass this time.

 

[askavir]

Spain, one of the countries suffering the most, bought (and paid) 150 ventilators from China, the airplane carrying them landed in Ancara to refuel, and the Turkey government stole the ventilators for their own hospitals.

 

[Patrick_68000]

US accused of "modern piracy" after confiscation of masks for Berlin.

"Even in times of global crisis, methods worthy of the Wild West cannot prevail," said a German official.

Confirmation here that the United States is the biggest pirates on the planet.

After stealing France, the Americans steal Germany.



--------------------------------------------------------