Coronavirus Truths

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I have seen you say here publicly, that doctors are experts, and experts are to be believed.

 

Suddenly, I have discovered that only doctors that agree with your view are to be believed.  Would it be possible to get a complete list of those you deem trustworthy so I'll know whom to believe?

Edited April 30, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[laylalex 7,300]

No, I said we should believe experts who speak in their field of expertise. Emergency room doctors who operate "doc in a box" clinics probably aren't qualified to talk about epidemiology or virology. Now, I did listen to the MPH you posted about, and I looked into him more. He does have an MPH, but his field of expertise isn't epidemiology. So while he has background in a relevant area, it is not what he has gone on to practice. 

 

I think I've been pretty consistent.  Right! Back to dinner. We're having Indian tonight. Just dipping in to say hi before I get the laptop taken away from me forcibly for being unsociable at home.  

[Dashinka 24,741]

6 hours ago, laylalex said:

No, I said we should believe experts who speak in their field of expertise. Emergency room doctors who operate "doc in a box" clinics probably aren't qualified to talk about epidemiology or virology. Now, I did listen to the MPH you posted about, and I looked into him more. He does have an MPH, but his field of expertise isn't epidemiology. So while he has background in a relevant area, it is not what he has gone on to practice. 

 

I think I've been pretty consistent.  Right! Back to dinner. We're having Indian tonight. Just dipping in to say hi before I get the laptop taken away from me forcibly for being unsociable at home.  

You don’t have to search very far to find eminent virologist or epidemiologists that agree with these Drs.  These Drs. May not be completely right, but one theme I saw when I watched their press conference was that it is important to change or alter strategies based on the new data that is now available.  From what I am seeing with the governors out there clamping down even more, they and their health experts are not considering any of this data.  On the surface it appears that these governors are buying into the media doom and gloom narrative.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Dashinka

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

You don’t have to search very far to find eminent virologist or epidemiologists that agree with these Drs.  These Drs. May not be completely right, but one theme I saw when I watched their press conference was that it is important to change or alter strategies based on the new data that is now available.  From what I am seeing with the governors out there clamping down even more, they and their health experts are not considering any of this data.  On the surface it appears that these governors are buying into the media doom and gloom narrative.

 

  Do you have a link to any of them?

[Dashinka 24,741]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Do you have a link to any of them?

I already provided a link to the former Swedish Dr. Fauci. (Dr. Johan Giesecke), as well as another link on a previous response.

 

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic/

Edited April 30, 2020 by Dashinka

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I already provided a link to the former Swedish Dr. Fauci. (Dr. Johan Giesecke), as well as another link on a previous response.

 

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic/

 

   So not necessarily agreeing with dr Erickson and the Youtube video, but more correct to say they are not agreeing with the extent of the official response. 

 

  As I said before, some of the things dr Erickson said were true, but they mixed some BS in there too. I know that made their argument look stronger to some, but in reality, they only hurt themselves, and they got nailed for it. That's why the video got taken down.

[Dashinka 24,741]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   So not necessarily agreeing with dr Erickson and the Youtube video, but more correct to say they are not agreeing with the extent of the official response. 

 

  As I said before, some of the things dr Erickson said were true, but they mixed some BS in there too. I know that made their argument look stronger to some, but in reality, they only hurt themselves, and they got nailed for it. That's why the video got taken down.

 No one is going to completely agree, but both have essentially the same messages, don’t make the cure worse than the disease, and use the new data learned to make decisions.  I am just amazed at what CA, WA, OR and AZ is doing.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Dashinka

[Steeleballz 7,550]

44 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

 No one is going to completely agree, but both have essentially the same messages, don’t make the cure worse than the disease, and use the new data learned to make decisions.  I am just amazed at what CA, WA, OR and AZ is doing.

 

   The argument is basically a spectrum. We could say don't treat the disease at all on one end, give everyone the cure even if they don't have the disease on the other, or some combination of both in the middle. Saying go back to normal immediately is not the same thing as saying some of the restrictions went too far.

 

   Ultimately we made a choice to go with the consensus of knowledge. Not everyone agrees, even experts in the field won't completely agree. They never do. However to say they don't use new data is not fair either. The approach has changed based on that. That doesn't mean the argument should be made on paradox. Because of the measures taken, the R0 of the virus dropped from ~3 to less than 1. You can not now make a valid argument saying why did we do all this for a virus with an R0<1. The measures were so successful that the argument is now made that we didn't really need them. That is disingenuous.

 

   

Edited April 30, 2020 by Steeleballz

[yuna628 9,700]

There are more and more good articles being posted every day refuting these guys. If they wanted to truly help or back up what it is they're saying maybe they should address the numerous issues had with their suggestions and methods used.

Edited April 30, 2020 by yuna628

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

There are more and more good articles being posted every day refuting these guys. If they wanted to truly help or back up what it is they're saying maybe they should address the numerous issues had with their suggestions and methods used.

 

    Their intent was never to present the truth. Their intent was to present a good looking argument that supported their conclusion. Then they got called on it. They won't be able to back it up. The best they can do is walk it back.  

[Dashinka 24,741]

9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The argument is basically a spectrum. We could say don't treat the disease at all on one end, give everyone the cure even if they don't have the disease on the other, or some combination of both in the middle. Saying go back to normal immediately is not the same thing as saying some of the restrictions went too far.

 

   Ultimately we made a choice to go with the consensus of knowledge. Not everyone agrees, even experts in the field won't completely agree. They never do. However to say they don't use new data is not fair either. The approach has changed based on that. That doesn't mean the argument should be made on paradox. Because of the measures taken, the R0 of the virus dropped from ~3 to less than 1. You can not now make a valid argument saying why did we do all this for a virus with an R0<1. The measures were so successful that the argument is now made that we didn't really need them. That is disingenuous.

 

   

Yes, we used completely outrageous models that were projecting millions of deaths to make decisions.  If we are now actually using the new data, it is really hard to see.  Additionally, you cannot make any conclusions regarding the measures taken as we have already discussed.  Any strategy taken would put you in a paradox situation which cannot be proven.  Politicians will take credit for saving lives which can never be proven by data.  As I have always maintained, actions needed to be taken, and human nature would most likely lead to people doing the right thing.  Now did that require putting 30 million out of work, and closing hospitals and causing ancillary victims due to lack of other medical care?  A balance was necessary, but a balance was not what we got at least in most states.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Yes, we used completely outrageous models that were projecting millions of deaths to make decisions.  If we are now actually using the new data, it is really hard to see.  Additionally, you cannot make any conclusions regarding the measures taken as we have already discussed.  Any strategy taken would put you in a paradox situation which cannot be proven.  Politicians will take credit for saving lives which can never be proven by data.  As I have always maintained, actions needed to be taken, and human nature would most likely lead to people doing the right thing.  Now did that require putting 30 million out of work, and closing hospitals and causing ancillary victims due to lack of other medical care?  A balance was necessary, but a balance was not what we got at least in most states.

 

    We stopped elective surgeries before any restrictions were in place. The assumption that we could have not had any restrictions and function as normal is wrong. In fact, that is basically what we were doing in February.

 

   If we wanted fewer restrictions to work, we should have started earlier. It might have been an option if we did that. If we wanted no restrictions, we certainly could have done that, but we had to be willing to live with that outcome - lack of treatment and more people dying because of that. The models don't change that.  We are seeing essential businesses like meat packing plants closing down anyway because of outbreaks. It's not like the economy was going to magically roll along as if nothing was happening. The pandemic happened. There was never an option for life to go on as normal.

[Dashinka 24,741]

21 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    We stopped elective surgeries before any restrictions were in place. The assumption that we could have not had any restrictions and function as normal is wrong. In fact, that is basically what we were doing in February.

 

   If we wanted fewer restrictions to work, we should have started earlier. It might have been an option if we did that. If we wanted no restrictions, we certainly could have done that, but we had to be willing to live with that outcome - lack of treatment and more people dying because of that. The models don't change that.  We are seeing essential businesses like meat packing plants closing down anyway because of outbreaks. It's not like the economy was going to magically roll along as if nothing was happening. The pandemic happened. There was never an option for life to go on as normal.

So we should have started before the WHO declared it a pandemic?  Would physical distancing and banning large gathering such as sporting events been enough?  Again, not something we will ever know.  Did we have less death with or because of Covid19 due to the measures?  Who knows.  But as data comes in it should be used evenly, but that is not what we are seeing.

 

 But now we are starting to see these stories.

 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article241841476.html

Edited April 30, 2020 by Dashinka

[yuna628 9,700]

So over at the hospital where my sister is at, the practice decided not to shut down. They felt it unethical. People have serious conditions that need help and so measures were put in place to screen each patient coming in carefully, and disinfect each time. Of course the lack of PPE and dwindling cleaning supplies is becoming a problem. Even if a doctor wants to open they are being rationed. At some point the hospital came to them and wanted them to stop seeing patients with serious conditions, or go through an ''approval board'' where the board would determine who was high priority or not. Again they felt it unethical and have found ways of still seeing patients that need them. Yes there is risk. In fact most of them there have had to take a COVID test when they encountered a possibly infected patient.

 

It's understandable that people don't want to go to the ER. I didn't want to go either. UC was a better option for me (clean, safe, and pretty dead inside). My dad didn't want to go to the ER, but he went, got tested and is hanging in there. Telemed with the doctor every week and a nurse come twice a week. Rigid procedures have perhaps made an ER experience less dangerous, with constant cleaning and lack of people milling about. But that is at the good hospital. Would not dare try the local death trap. I would still like to very much see my doctors, but there is not a lot I can do. IMO if a practice like my sister's is committed to staying open and an UC can stay open, I don't know why some of these places could not. Supply chain though needs to be urgently addressed to make things safer.

[Dashinka 24,741]

29 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

So over at the hospital where my sister is at, the practice decided not to shut down. They felt it unethical. People have serious conditions that need help and so measures were put in place to screen each patient coming in carefully, and disinfect each time. Of course the lack of PPE and dwindling cleaning supplies is becoming a problem. Even if a doctor wants to open they are being rationed. At some point the hospital came to them and wanted them to stop seeing patients with serious conditions, or go through an ''approval board'' where the board would determine who was high priority or not. Again they felt it unethical and have found ways of still seeing patients that need them. Yes there is risk. In fact most of them there have had to take a COVID test when they encountered a possibly infected patient.

 

It's understandable that people don't want to go to the ER. I didn't want to go either. UC was a better option for me (clean, safe, and pretty dead inside). My dad didn't want to go to the ER, but he went, got tested and is hanging in there. Telemed with the doctor every week and a nurse come twice a week. Rigid procedures have perhaps made an ER experience less dangerous, with constant cleaning and lack of people milling about. But that is at the good hospital. Would not dare try the local death trap. I would still like to very much see my doctors, but there is not a lot I can do. IMO if a practice like my sister's is committed to staying open and an UC can stay open, I don't know why some of these places could not. Supply chain though needs to be urgently addressed to make things safer.

Glad to hear some Drs. are choosing to stay open.  Most here in MI are not.  My niece is an NP and she is required to only do telemedicine with her patients.  I haven’t talked to my other niece who is an NP in Iowa, but her mom said there it is mostly business as usual.  I agree, if an ER visit is necessary no one should hold back, but of course we have a media over hyping this thing so bad people are absolutely scared which is leading to the stories of empty ERs.  I really doubt people suddenly stopped having strokes, or heart attacks.  In my opinion, this, the media hype, is going to be the biggest factor in getting back to some semblance of normalcy.