I found the name of the doctor i was quoting earlier in this thread.
He argues that we are doing the opposite of what we should be doing by keeping everyone isolated. I think it is based mostly on the fact that viruses run out a natural course where they surge then level off then die and if you dont let it run its course then you just prolong the problem.
However, one counter point i have rad is that the hospitals were worried that they would get overrun with patients so they tried to decrease the rate of infection on the general public, so delaying might have been a good idea.
His name:
Knut Wittkowski

A search turns up a lot of hits so i wont post any links unless i think they are especially interesting.

Say safe folks.

 

However, one counter point i have rad is that the hospitals were worried that they would get overrun with patients so they tried to decrease the rate of infection on the general public, so delaying might have been a good idea.

That was the whole point of "shifting" the curve, as I understood it.

There are contrary views in the medical community and have been from the start. Unfortunately, government is not a deliberative scientific body.

One example:
Given that testing supplies were limited early on, and there is no specific treatment for the disease/infection, why should rationing favor those who fit the clinical definition of the disease? The best available treatment is/was supportive, and those people should simply be treated.

Testing contacts and those with ambiguous symptoms followed by stricter isolation of those who are positive would seem to be more effective at reducing contagion rates. Yet, the political position was to test those who met clinical criteria for the disease.* The apparent purpose? Get accurate statistics.

Now that specific treatment may be on the horizon, defining infection may become clinically relevant, and simultaneously, testing is becoming more available.


* Leading political figures were also included. I do not disagree with that.

 

 

the political position was to test those who met clinical criteria for the disease

Probably because the tests were somewhat expensive and scarce?

 

Probably because the tests were somewhat expensive and scarce?

I got the test when I met enough clinical criteria. Massachusetts sent out on online screening test, which when I took it, recommended that I contact my PCP to schedule a test. It was a long 5 days while I waited for the results.

 

He argues that we are doing the opposite of what we should be doing by keeping everyone isolated. I think it is based mostly on the fact that viruses run out a natural course where they surge then level off then die and if you dont let it run its course then you just prolong the problem.

Gee, when I said that I got called the village idiot.

 

I found the name of the doctor i was quoting earlier in this thread.
He argues that we are doing the opposite of what we should be doing by keeping everyone isolated. I think it is based mostly on the fact that viruses run out a natural course where they surge then level off then die and if you dont let it run its course then you just prolong the problem.
However, one counter point i have rad is that the hospitals were worried that they would get overrun with patients so they tried to decrease the rate of infection on the general public, so delaying might have been a good idea.
His name:
Knut Wittkowski

A search turns up a lot of hits so i wont post any links unless i think they are especially interesting.

Say safe folks.

First, Knut (ironic name) is NOT a physician. He’s a statistician (of “lies, damn lies and statistics” fame). It is reasonable to question his understanding of infectious dIseases. As to any model used to support his statements, I search for a definition of R0(t); it was an unsuccessful search.

Secondly, the University he USED to work out has released a public statement regarding his work. They DISAVOW any connection with his work. When you’re an academic, to have your former employer make such a statement is illustrative.

He is in the same category as Dr. Oz, a shill who is NOT a medical doctor. He is a psychiatrist with NO training in infectious diseases.

Would you let your food at a fine restaurant be prepared by the bus boy?

Just sayin’

 

Source: https://www.sfgate.com/news/editors...dy-test-coronavirus-results-case-15208216.php

Researchers estimate that if 2.5 to 4.2 percent of the county has already been infected, the true number of total cases in early April — both active and recovered — ranges between 48,000 and 81,000. The county had reported just under 1,000 cases at the time the study was conducted, which would mean cases are being underreported by a factor of 50 to 85.

"Herd" immunity? A lot of physicians suspected that. It looks like Stanford may have confirmed it. Infection is not a death sentence. If you get symptomatic, then it is much more serious.

Antibody to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is another example. Most people show antibody as evidence of past infection (https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/208/8/1286/2192838). Far fewer have actually had a clinically significance disease, such as mononumcleosis.

 

Source: https://www.sfgate.com/news/editors...dy-test-coronavirus-results-case-15208216.php


"Herd" immunity? A lot of physicians suspected that. It looks like Stanford may have confirmed it. Infection is not a death sentence. If you get symptomatic, then it is much more serious.

Antibody to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is another example. Most people show antibody as evidence of past infection (https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/208/8/1286/2192838). Far fewer have actually had a clinically significance disease, such as mononumcleosis.

Their numbers are pretty close to what I estimated a couple weeks ago:

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/coronavirus.166679/post-1491755

I estimated that we were confirming something a bit more than 1% of the actual cases.

I sure hope they get a friendlier response than I got.

 

Source: https://www.sfgate.com/news/editors...dy-test-coronavirus-results-case-15208216.php


"Herd" immunity? A lot of physicians suspected that. It looks like Stanford may have confirmed it. Infection is not a death sentence. If you get symptomatic, then it is much more serious.

Antibody to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is another example. Most people show antibody as evidence of past infection (https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/208/8/1286/2192838). Far fewer have actually had a clinically significance disease, such as mononumcleosis.

This is great news as it means the general population lethality of CONID-19 is possibly manageable with fewer restrictions outside of at risk groups.
We do have a good control point in Sweden on how to hand this in the future.

More than 20 Swedish epidemiologists and scientists published an article this week urging politicians to take over from the public health agency and shut down schools and restaurants to avoid Sweden following the same path as Italy in terms of coronavirus deaths. “The approach must be changed radically and quickly,” they wrote.

Ms Linde said the scientists were “entitled to their opinion”. But she added: “It’s very different to compare countries with different circumstances and different stages of the virus. We are all fighting the same fight but with different means.”

Much of the Swedish approach is centred around the idea that dealing with coronavirus will be “a marathon, not a sprint”, with measures likely to be in place for months, if not years. Authorities believed that closing schools and kindergartens would have caused some key workers such as doctors and nurses to have to stay at home — or for at-risk grandparents to be drafted in to do childcare.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...ders-to-ignore-their-own-public-health-agency

 

Gee, when I said that I got called the village idiot.

That wasn't the reason.

 

http://instagr.am/p/B_A1m2hDWfa/

 

Behold quiet which is a good thing.

Ron

 

I wonder if he even begins to appreciate the irony -- he's able to ignore the lockdown and go out and explore the headlands without the crowds only because everyone else is not ignoring the lockdown.

 

https://bayareabicyclelaw.com/bike-sf-shelter-in-place/

 

A nice surf 'n' turf family dinner.

Finished cooking the Lobster with a little Cherry smoke on the grill.

Reef 'n' beef! Love it.

 

The Graniteware 21QT Water Bath Home Canner makes a great lobster pot.
https://www.landmsupply.com/granite...ih4-QiyGHu-n9pH6nDh0yFw0A8oYrURgaAtLFEALw_wcB

 

http://instagr.am/p/B_A1m2hDWfa/

 

​

 

First, Knut (ironic name) is NOT a physician. He’s a statistician (of “lies, damn lies and statistics” fame). It is reasonable to question his understanding of infectious dIseases. As to any model used to support his statements, I search for a definition of R0(t); it was an unsuccessful search.

Secondly, the University he USED to work out has released a public statement regarding his work. They DISAVOW any connection with his work. When you’re an academic, to have your former employer make such a statement is illustrative.

He is in the same category as Dr. Oz, a shill who is NOT a medical doctor. He is a psychiatrist with NO training in infectious diseases.

Would you let your food at a fine restaurant be prepared by the bus boy?

Just sayin’

I think he has a better perspective on this than you or i do.
You cant compare a PhD in one field with a chef and then another PhD in another field with a bus boy.
So you cant compose an analogy of a PhD with either a chef or s bus boy because neither of them qualify. All you can really say is that he might not be in the right field of study. However, even statistics is an accepted way of analyzing things that we dont have experience with just yet BUT we had experience with similar things in the past.