And the Dark Ages were oh so great a place to be. Especially for us intellectuals.

They were. Most people are entirely ignorant about them because they read the version they're taught in schools, which they keep repeating like parrots to no end. But they were an age of steady, solid progress filled with advances in mathematics, architecture, music and philosophy that culminated with the invention of the press. And then things exploded from then on. It was the idiot Voltaire (who was a rabid anti-christian) who coined the term Dark Ages to refer to the Middle ages. In order to properly understand them, one has to first learn what was before them, and what they supplanted.

 

No offense, but you're obviously listening to demonstrably fake news.

We are in an election cycle. Don't forget that.

You have any doubts about what Dr. Corbett wrote? Why are such racist and divisive views tolerated by Dr. Fauci? Can her research be trusted?

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day (in the US).

Some of Trump's advisors are deeply conflicted, like Fauci and his appointee, Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett (Ph.D.). Why not open the dialog to ID practitioners and pathologists and give them the data? Instead, we hear from attractive radiologists. Sad, but unfortunately, that is how politics of all parties work.

Dr. Fauci is an MD from Cornell where he graduated first in his class. Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett has a PhD in microbiology and immunology. Dr. Birx is an MD and regular Army Colonel. Who is the attractive radiologist?

 

It could be worse. You could be rich and have to take out your own trash.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-th...with-staff-or-do-their-own-chores-11587051916

 

https://www.kptv.com/general/contam...cle_30a23baa-5e3b-5146-ac65-b6ddb0685821.html

There will be no shortage of people who were demanding that the normal rules and procedures be waived because we need something NOW coming back and criticizing and assigning blame because the normal rules and procedures weren't followed.

We can't have our cake and eat it, too. People were demanding that we waive all of the usual protocols and requirements because we need something NOW. Well, if you do that you run the risk of making the errors and mistakes that are the reason for those protocols and requirements to exist in the first place. There's no RIGHT answer in a situation like this because you have mutually conflicting priorities. So you evaluate the situation and make a decision and accept the risks associated with it.

 

Beside quinine, Gilead science has been testing Remdesivir for 2019-NCoV known for tests before on SARS ans MERS
https://www.gilead.com/news-and-pre...-ongoing-response-to-the-2019-new-coronavirus

Ivermectin an anthelmentic for parasites being tested in Melborne more of an inhibitor preventative.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

 

What they are saying is that it is a wild construct and not a man manipulated one. There is still a lot of speculation over the wild construct leaking from the Wuhan research facility.

I went back and looked at the Chinese reporting about the Wuhan research facility. It turns out they desperately were looking for specialists in Coronavirus transmission and had reported a new human to human transmission variant back in Nov, Dec 2019. SO it's possible the activity reported there is actually (a lot more likely) a response to Covid-19 cases in town being investigated at the lab, infecting and killing researchers instead of being the source of the original infection.

 

There are thousands of ID physicians who know or should know MRSA, HIV, flu and other major infectious diseases in the past 50 years. True, physicians of 1918 are no longer practicing, but the lessons from that pandemic are not forgotten. The problem, on some sites, is when attractive radiologists give opinions on ID, it is news. Dr. Fauci is also conflicted.

Perhaps, but nobody but nobody knew for sure if this one even followed the usual rule that the infected people eventually become immune. They didnt know if a person could get it a second time because they didnt have experience with it yet. They admit that.
They operated solely on statistics when they decided to try to "flatten the curve" and spread out the rate of infection. They relied on past data for that too that was assumed to follow for this new one.

 

Ok, I like to stretch things with wack analogies. I regret having done so now.

However, I still can doubt the veracity of a conclusion based on statistics. First, a pandemic’s statistics are difficult to trust. The ways they are reported introduce a lot of error. I believe that trustworthy statistics will only become available in the future. Does any conclusion drawn today have a confidence factor that makes a drawn conclusion strong? Secondly, many people recognize that China likely has misreported their statistics. Which renders that data useless.

So am I to trust a statistician whose data is inherently unreliable? Or the physician whose specialty is infectious disease and has been working in the field for many years.

Yeah but everything done so far has been based on statistics from previous outbreaks and that is because nobody has experience with this virus. If you read about some of the decisions made you will find that they did not know anything would work with this one they were just betting that it would, and that includes "flattening the curve" to spread out the rate of infection. They also do not know for sure if a person actually becomes immune for sure, they are betting that they do and that's all based on experience with previous viruses.
So if nobody has a confidence level that is "strong" by your definition it doesnt matter because that's all we have to go on anyway. It's always a bit of a gamble.

Ultimately we listen to all views and then make up our minds who we want to listen to. We also have macro real life experiments going on we can refer too because other countries are not doing the same thing we are. So we can collect data from them and see if it matches any of our guesses for that mitigation set. If it worked for them we conclude it will work for us, and if it did not work then we assume it will not work for us either.

So it's still a guessing game and the one with the most correlated data wins the day

 

But in the end, Wuhan is unique. Highly infectious, no prior exposure or immunity anywhere on earth. Even the demographics of those hardest hit are completely different than any previous pandemic.

It's all models, and that's all we have right now. And most of the models have been exceptionally wrong in their predictive power.

We can use all the expertise available to us -- regardless of background. Even a quack is sometimes right.

This world-wide quarantine must end -- sooner than later. Otherwise, people are going to begin starving to death (or killed for other reasons, like riots).

That's what i was worried about too. With supplies running low sometimes people could start fighting over ownership. If it is the only one left in the isle, watch out. Walk softly.

 

Yeah but everything done so far has been based on statistics from previous outbreaks and that is because nobody has experience with this virus. If you read about some of the decisions made you will find that they did not know anything would work with this one they were just betting that it would, and that includes "flattening the curve" to spread out the rate of infection. They also do not know for sure if a person actually becomes immune for sure, they are betting that they do and that's all based on experience with previous viruses.
So if nobody has a confidence level that is "strong" by your definition it doesnt matter because that's all we have to go on anyway. It's always a bit of a gamble.

Ultimately we listen to all views and then make up our minds who we want to listen to. We also have macro real life experiments going on we can refer too because other countries are not doing the same thing we are. So we can collect data from them and see if it matches any of our guesses for that mitigation set. If it worked for them we conclude it will work for us, and if it did not work then we assume it will not work for us either.

So it's still a guessing game and the one with the most correlated data wins the day

I cannot disagree with your statement. In fact I agree. But your final statement is true. My point is that I believe a physician who’s trained his entire life has more valid correlated data than the mathematicians.

 

That's what i was worried about too. With supplies running low sometimes people could start fighting over ownership. If it is the only one left in the isle, watch out. Walk softly.

Thought it was walk softly and carry a big stick. He with the big stick gets the last roll of toilet paper.

Ron

 

I cannot disagree with your statement. In fact I agree. But your final statement is true. My point is that I believe a physician who’s trained his entire life has more valid correlated data than the mathematicians.

More than that, they have a much broader context within which to evaluate the data. The numbers only tell you so much and interpreting them requires that they be considered within a relevant context along with an appreciation for the limitations of what they can and cannot say. Which is not to say that the people with the relevant context can get too wedded to their believes about what the numbers can and cannot say and make the mistake of overlooking things that a more distant observer might not.

The best situation (in so many areas) is to bring together people that look at things with diverse and even adversarial perspectives and let them challenge each others' claims and defend their own. What often grows out of that is a view that is much better than any of the views could have produced by themselves.

 

That's what i was worried about too. With supplies running low sometimes people could start fighting over ownership. If it is the only one left in the isle, watch out. Walk softly.

I've actually been pretty impressed by how well everything has gone. There have been relatively few disturbances (anywhere in the world, as near as I can tell -- which is not to say zero). For the most part the systems have adapted remarkably well, with most shortages being pretty short term. Around here I have seen zero evidence of price gouging and relatively little evidence of extreme hoarding on any kind of scale. Yes, a handful of things like toilet paper are excessively popular, but most things have become available pretty quickly. We have to remember that most large supermarkets only have, on average, about three days worth of merchandise on hand with many products needing to be stocked daily. They rely on demand being pretty uniformly distributed so that their sales are pretty close to what people actually consume on average with pretty limited ability to absorb surges. So now we tell people to stay at home -- it's not unreasonable for people to stock up and buy what they would normally buy over a couple weeks in one day and for there to be a lot of people doing that over a very few number of days. That's not hoarding, but it is one hell of a surge that the local systems can't absorb quickly -- and it does tend to then create a self-fulfilling prophecy as people who see signs of shortages decide that perhaps they should be a bit more proactive and move their own purchasing efforts up a bit.

But for the most part, what I have seen is people taking things in stride -- usually in pretty decent humor, for that matter -- and just getting on with their lives and finding ways to deal with the problems as they come up.

 

But for the most part, what I have seen is people taking things in stride...

Until, suddenly, they don't.

 

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/04/...its-time-to-permanently-dump-epidemic-models/

 

I cannot disagree with your statement. In fact I agree. But your final statement is true. My point is that I believe a physician who’s trained his entire life has more valid correlated data than the mathematicians.

Oh ok, well that makes sense. I would have expected the mathematician to be professional enough to be sure to cover all the results from any study, but i guess he might not catch some subtle point that the physician might catch.

 

I've actually been pretty impressed by how well everything has gone. There have been relatively few disturbances (anywhere in the world, as near as I can tell -- which is not to say zero). For the most part the systems have adapted remarkably well, with most shortages being pretty short term. Around here I have seen zero evidence of price gouging and relatively little evidence of extreme hoarding on any kind of scale. Yes, a handful of things like toilet paper are excessively popular, but most things have become available pretty quickly. We have to remember that most large supermarkets only have, on average, about three days worth of merchandise on hand with many products needing to be stocked daily. They rely on demand being pretty uniformly distributed so that their sales are pretty close to what people actually consume on average with pretty limited ability to absorb surges. So now we tell people to stay at home -- it's not unreasonable for people to stock up and buy what they would normally buy over a couple weeks in one day and for there to be a lot of people doing that over a very few number of days. That's not hoarding, but it is one hell of a surge that the local systems can't absorb quickly -- and it does tend to then create a self-fulfilling prophecy as people who see signs of shortages decide that perhaps they should be a bit more proactive and move their own purchasing efforts up a bit.

But for the most part, what I have seen is people taking things in stride -- usually in pretty decent humor, for that matter -- and just getting on with their lives and finding ways to deal with the problems as they come up.

I have not seen much price gouging except in one case where the store got an off brand rubbing alcohol. The usually store brand is usually less than 3 dollars. The new unheard of before this brand was 10 dollars for the same quantity 32 ounces.

Yeah i have not seen any fighting (yet) either.

Your point of normal supply and demand though i have to disagree with because if one person comes in a buys up the whole product stock the next 100 guys get none. With a reasonable limit, everybody gets at least some. It is not uncommon to ration a rare commodity and some actually became very valuable. For example, i could not get a thermometer for myself or a friend because everywhere local they were sold out. I also could not get disinfectant because they were all sold out. At one time i could not even get water, sold out.
Those are very valuable in a time like this.

I guess we learn some lessons from all this though, and if i am right some people are actually becoming closer due to the common enemy.

 

More than that, they have a much broader context within which to evaluate the data. The numbers only tell you so much and interpreting them requires that they be considered within a relevant context along with an appreciation for the limitations of what they can and cannot say. Which is not to say that the people with the relevant context can get too wedded to their believes about what the numbers can and cannot say and make the mistake of overlooking things that a more distant observer might not.

The best situation (in so many areas) is to bring together people that look at things with diverse and even adversarial perspectives and let them challenge each others' claims and defend their own. What often grows out of that is a view that is much better than any of the views could have produced by themselves.

Yeah the diverse viewpoint idea sounds good that way we hear all sides and the data might START to tend toward one or the other so we might get the chance to predict something that way.
In the flattening of the curve argument though it might be impossible to tell who was right because the experiment might or might not have been influenced by what was actually done already. Here i dont think hind sight will help any.

 

I have not seen much price gouging except in one case where the store got an off brand rubbing alcohol. The usually store brand is usually less than 3 dollars. The new unheard of before this brand was 10 dollars for the same quantity 32 ounces.

Yeah i have not seen any fighting (yet) either.

Your point of normal supply and demand though i have to disagree with because if one person comes in a buys up the whole product stock the next 100 guys get none. With a reasonable limit, everybody gets at least some. It is not uncommon to ration a rare commodity and some actually became very valuable. For example, i could not get a thermometer for myself or a friend because everywhere local they were sold out. I also could not get disinfectant because they were all sold out. At one time i could not even get water, sold out.
Those are very valuable in a time like this.

I guess we learn some lessons from all this though, and if i am right some people are actually becoming closer due to the common enemy.

I don't know what you're disagreement is. I made NO point about rationing or what stores could or should do. That's an entirely different matter. I merely described the phenomenon where a supply system that is very efficient at meeting normal distribution flows nearly 100% of the time can still be very quickly stressed by demands that are not that far outside the norm. Even fairly minor shifts in the timing of the same short-term demand can cause severe upsets. It does not require people "hoarding" to cause disruptions. I don't consider someone that is being asked to stay home for the next two weeks to be a hoarder because they would like to buy two weeks worth of supplies.

Are you saying that stores DO have adequate stocks to cover surges where people buy an extra week's worth of stuff instead of buying the same amount but half today and half a week from now? Or that if a large fraction of people that would have made their purchases over the next week all come in over a two day period and just buy the same amount? That shortages occur only because one person comes in and buys the entire product stock (or toward that end)?

Take your thermometer as a perfect example. If a store had one and you wanted one, should you have been allowed to buy one, even if it was the last one?

How many thermometers have you bought in the last ten years? I haven't bought any (not the fever thermometer kind, which is what I assume you are talking about). Thermometers are made and stocked at levels consistent with it being an item that people go years without buying, but enough of a market that it follows a pretty smooth and predicable seasonal ebb and flow. So what is going to happen when even a tiny fraction of people do exactly what you did -- want to buy a single thermometer? They sell out very quickly and no amount of rationing is going to change that.

But let's think about those thermometers some more. Let's say that there are a number of people that are hoarding them and trying to buy excessive quantities. Is putting a limit on sales really going to curb that? If I have a hankering to buy a bunch of thermometers and every store limits the sales to two, I can just go to a bunch of different stores until I have bought the same number.

A perfect example of that is when something goes on sale but has limits on it. People just make multiple trips, sometimes little more than buying the limit, putting them in the car, and then going back in and getting more and just going to a different aisle. I've done that myself on occasion when it was a really good price on something that I was willing to stock up on.

But what if the price at all the stores went up by a factor of two? I can't get around that by going to multiple stores. Somewhat that wants a thermometer will grumble and pay it, but someone that wants twenty is going to think twice about it. If they decide not to, then that's that many more thermometers that are available for other people. If you want to get thermometers into the hands of as many people as possible, then you want the price to go up to the point where you just barely sell the last thermometer because the higher the price the few people will buy multiple thermometers, meaning that the total number people that get one will be maximized. If stores also want to limit the quantity that can be purchased, that's fine and may help, but for the most part that's an illusion.

I've also read a number of stories over the past few weeks about Amazon and eBay and others taking down offers that people have been making to sell in-demand items for outrageous prices. Why? If I want to sell my $5 thermometer for $100, how will not letting me sell it to someone willing to pay for it going to somehow increase the supply of available thermometers? All it's done is taken a thermometer off the market, since they can't force me to sell it at what someone determines is the "fair" price.