Coronavirus Information...who do you trust?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2020, 03:01 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: And the inevitable response from the conservative friend.......

.......that’s fine and dandy....but it doesn’t change one damn thing about the percentage of the population in this state who have died from Covid 19. If I stand naked grabbing a barbed wire fence during an electrical storm my chances of getting hit by lightning go up dramatically. But...I don’t do that. So talking about the survival rate after the fact doesn’t begin to speak about the infinitesimal chance of dying of Covid 19 in the state of Iowa. The very obvious bottom line is 755 people out of a population of 3,123,899- 3,155,070 (depending the source used for Iowa’s population) leaving the entire population with a .024 chance of dying from Covid 19. I choose to not hype the information.

In February, Covid 19 was totally contained. Only 15 total cases and soon to be down to zero. That 15 turned into 3.4M cases with over 130K deaths. Ask your conservative friends if that sounds contained.

Let’s put it another way. If I was a contractor doing a simple home repair for you and gave an estimate of $15, but five months later said the job was gonna be $3.4M and counting with no end in sight to the repairs, why the F would you believe me?

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-14-2020, 04:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's fine.  Work with the numbers we have.  It's not a very commutable (right word?) disease.

You're probably looking for the word "communicable." I'm getting context from the last two or three posts, and not much else. So of course you could be looking for a different one.

[BmorePat87]

once again the president has shown that he is certainly not someone to trust with information on the pandemic

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-blames-obama-biden-coronavirus-testing-fact-check-204552449.html

Quote:President Trump on Monday again sought to redirect blame for his coronavirus response to the Obama administration.

Trump, who has repeatedly claimed that increased testing has led to a spike in U.S. COVID-19 cases, was asked by a reporter at the White House whether he was concerned about a resurgence of the virus that has killed more than 135,000 Americans and infected more than 3.3 million.

“We have one of the lowest mortality rates anywhere,” the president said before pivoting to an attack on Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee.

“Biden and Obama stopped their testing,” Trump said. “They just stopped it. You probably know that. I’m sure you don’t want to report it. But they stopped testing. Right in the middle, they just went, ‘No more testing.’”

It’s not entirely clear what Obama-era testing program Trump was referring to. He has previously criticized the Obama administration over its handling of the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak, which killed about 12,500 Americans. (On Monday he acknowledged that the so-called swine flu was “a much lesser problem than the one we're having.”)

[*michaelsean*]

(07-14-2020, 06:17 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: You're probably looking for the word "communicable." I'm getting context from the last two or three posts, and not much else. So of course you could be looking for a different one.

That’s the one. Thank you!

[*jason*]

(07-14-2020, 04:51 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: During Covid’s first few weeks, reported deaths by heart failure, kidney failure and other ways of death were up over 400% in some areas. If anything, the deaths are under reported, IMO.

Earlier this year in NYC, they had found 8 times as many people dead on the street or in their apartments as they had last year.

[fredtoast]

I trust everything BengalBong has to say on the subject.

How can you doubt a guy with a name like that?

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/507321-white-house-tells-hospitals-to-bypass-cdc-on-covid-data-reporting?fbclid=IwAR2ZTIEiEwJfcjSjFl0loXtmT5duexnxhm_iVa00I3PiqV6DxbFXozhotxU

Further on the topic of mistrust

The Trump admin is asking hospitals to not send their data to the CDC, instead sending it to HHS, a department more directly influenced by Trump political appointees.

[treee]

(07-14-2020, 08:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/507321-white-house-tells-hospitals-to-bypass-cdc-on-covid-data-reporting?fbclid=IwAR2ZTIEiEwJfcjSjFl0loXtmT5duexnxhm_iVa00I3PiqV6DxbFXozhotxU

Further on the topic of mistrust

The Trump admin is asking hospitals to not send their data to the CDC, instead sending it to HHS, a department more directly influenced by Trump political appointees.

Brilliant. Now we can more effectively pretend covid doesn't exist and stock market will hum along and everything will be fine and perfect and "it was all gods plan for grandma to drown on dry land ,Jimmy".

[BmorePat87]

The CDC is asking all Americans to wear masks

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

Robert Redfield, head of the CDC, said that “Like herd immunity with vaccines, the more individuals wear cloth face coverings in public places where they may be close together, the more the entire community is protected".

Speaking with the Journal of the American Medical Association today, he said “If we could get everybody to wear a mask right now, I really think in the next four, six, eight weeks, we could bring this epidemic under control.”

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2020, 11:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The CDC is asking all Americans to wear masks

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

Robert Redfield, head of the CDC, said that “Like herd immunity with vaccines, the more individuals wear cloth face coverings in public places where they may be close together, the more the entire community is protected".

Speaking with the Journal of the American Medical Association today, he said “If we could get everybody to wear a mask right now, I really think in the next four, six, eight weeks, we could bring this epidemic under control.”

Yet, despite the CDC’s recommendations being published in JAMA reviewing the science behind wearing face coverings to reduce the spread of infections, the Orange County School Board falsely claimed the science doesn’t support their use. It’s freakin’ mind boggling.

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2020, 02:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yet, despite the CDC’s recommendations being published in JAMA reviewing the science behind wearing face coverings to reduce the spread of infections, the Orange County School Board falsely claimed the science doesn’t support their use. It’s freakin’ mind boggling.

Is it really, though? I mean, given the anti-science mindset of certain segments of our society over the past few decades, should we be surprised by that?

[Goalpost]

So Moderna is back in the news regarding vaccines. It's positive. Out of the 45 people given their treatment, all 45 developed anti bodies to the virus. The only somewhat negative, is that the test involved people between 18-55. The most vulnerable, 55 plus in age, not part of the test. The science here involves a 'boost' to an individual's immune system to neutralize the virus.

[BrownAssClown]

[Dill]

(07-14-2020, 08:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/507321-white-house-tells-hospitals-to-bypass-cdc-on-covid-data-reporting?fbclid=IwAR2ZTIEiEwJfcjSjFl0loXtmT5duexnxhm_iVa00I3PiqV6DxbFXozhotxU

Further on the topic of mistrust

The Trump admin is asking hospitals to not send their data to the CDC, instead sending it to HHS, a department more directly influenced by Trump political appointees.

Trump's people will be more fair to the president than disloyal nerds at the CDC.

This shift in data reporting could more effectively reduce the number of new cases reported than merely reducing the number of tests.

Soon Trump may have the numbers under control and we can get the economy back up and running before November.

[BmorePat87]

The governor of Oklahoma has tested positive for Covid a day after he led a statewide meeting in which he wore his mask around his neck. He also attended the Tulsa rally without a mask.

[BrownAssClown]

You know how the president has "nicknames" for those he doesn't see eye to eye with? "Lyin' Ted!" "Little Marco!" "Pocahontas!" "Crooked Hillary!" "Sleepy Joe!" etc. How long before he starts referring to Dr. Fauci as "Grouchy Fauci!" , you know it's coming, probably being "Spit-balled" around the White House as I type.

[GMDino]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/trump-fauci-coronavirus-pandemic-oppo/614224/

Quote:Fauci: ‘Bizarre’ White House Behavior Only Hurts the President
The nation’s top public-health expert tells The Atlantic that he isn’t going anywhere, despite the Trump administration’s newest attempts to undercut him.



Anthony Fauci isn’t about to quit, despite the White House’s clumsy attempts to stain his public image. More so now than at any other point in their uneasy partnership, it seems that if President Donald Trump wants to be rid of Fauci, he’ll need to fire him. In recent days especially, the White House has stepped up efforts to discredit Fauci, a move he describes as “bizarre.”

Each weekday evening, get an overview of the day’s biggest news, along with fascinating ideas, images, and voices.
Email Address (required)

Sign Up

“Ultimately, it hurts the president to do that,” Fauci told The Atlantic in a series of interviews this week. “When the staff lets out something like that and the entire scientific and press community push back on it, it ultimately hurts the president.”
He described the White House attacks against him as “nonsense” and “completely wrong.” He also seemed dismayed that they are coming at a time when COVID-19 is surging across the country, deaths are once again rising, and Americans remain deeply confused about how to keep themselves and their loved ones safe.

Targeting Fauci seems like a tragic misuse of White House time and energy if officials’ aim is to defeat the coronavirus. But Trump appears more concerned with discrediting Fauci. Over the weekend, the White House sent multiple news outlets a document that smacked of opposition research. It carried a list of statements Fauci had made about COVID-19, purporting to show that he had contradicted himself about the outbreak and that he “has been wrong on things.” In one example from an NBC interview in February, the White House omitted Fauci’s full quote, giving the impression that he’d misjudged the outbreak’s danger. Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade adviser, wrote an op-ed for USA Today yesterday claiming that Fauci has been “wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.” (A Trump communications aide tried to distance the White House from the op-ed this morning.)



The attempt to discredit Fauci’s public-health expertise is a political move, and one with disastrous implications. As much as Trump wants and needs Americans to see the virus as a nuisance that’s soon to be overcome, Fauci is a recurring reminder that the crisis remains a grave and enduring threat, and that Trump has mishandled the pandemic. The Americans who believe the White House’s anti-science campaign risk cutting themselves off from potentially life-saving information.

Peter M. Shane: Trump shouldn’t be able to fire Fauci for contradicting him
[/url]
“I cannot figure out in my wildest dreams why they would want to do that,” Fauci told The Atlantic, in reference to the White House document. “I think they realize now that that was not a prudent thing to do, because it’s only reflecting negatively on them.
“I can’t explain Peter Navarro,” he added. “He’s in a world by himself.”

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEiQ-9wjo4]My colleague Ed Yong and I spoke with Fauci in two interviews over the past 24 hours—about the oppo against him, the private discussion he had later with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and the nation’s faltering response to the virus’s resurgence. What follows is an edited and combined transcript of our conversations.

---

The Atlantic: In your 36-year history as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has anything like this ever happened to you? What do you think about the White House’s claim that you made inaccurate statements about the pandemic?


Anthony Fauci: I stand by everything I said. Contextually, at the time I said it, it was absolutely true … [The White House document] is totally wrong. It’s nonsense. It’s completely wrong. The whole thing is wrong. The whole thing is incorrect.

The Atlantic: Why did the White House do this?

Fauci: I don’t know.

The Atlantic: You are the government’s top health adviser, and the government you’re trying to advise is actively trying to discredit you. How do you work like that?

Fauci: Well, that is a bit bizarre. I sit here and just shrug my shoulders and say, “Well, you know, that’s life in the fast lane.”
I think if you sit down and talk to the people who are involved in that list that came out, they are really, I think, taken aback by what a big mistake that was. I think if you talk to reasonable people in the White House, they realize that was a major mistake on their part, because it doesn’t do anything but reflect poorly on them. And I don’t think that that was their intention. I cannot figure out in my wildest dreams why they would want to do that. I think they realize now that that was not a prudent thing to do, because it’s only reflecting negatively on them.

I can’t explain Peter Navarro. He’s in a world by himself. So I don’t even want to go there.

Read: Anthony Fauci’s plan to stay honest

The Atlantic: You met Monday with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff. What did you tell him?

Fauci: I said that that was not particularly a good thing to do. Ultimately, it hurts the president to do that. When the staff lets out something like that and the entire scientific and press community push back on it, it ultimately hurts the president. And I don’t really want to hurt the president. But that’s what’s happening. I told him I thought it was a big mistake. That doesn’t serve any good purpose for what we’re trying to do.

The Atlantic: Did Meadows offer an explanation or an apology?

Fauci: No. There was no apology. He said that he didn’t know about it.

The Atlantic: Given this experience, do you still want to work with the administration? Have you thought about resigning?

Fauci: No. I think the problem is too important for me to get into those kinds of thoughts and discussions. I just want to do my job. I’m really good at it. I think I can contribute. And I’m going to keep doing it.

The Atlantic: There’s been some reporting that the Trump administration has tried to cut back on your TV interviews. Isn’t it important at this moment for the nation and the world to hear from you?

Fauci: I can’t make a comment on that, but I think you know what the answer to that is.

The Atlantic: Can you update us on your relationship with the president?


Fauci: Well, the scene has changed a bit. When we were having frequent press briefings, I had the opportunity to have a personal one-on-one to talk to the president. I haven’t done that in a while. But a day does not go by that I am not in contact with Debbie Birx [the White House coronavirus-response coordinator], with Bob Redfield [the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], or Steve Hahn [the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration] and others. My input to the president goes through the vice president. But clearly, the vice president—literally every day—is listening to what we have to say, there’s no doubt about that.

The Atlantic: Do you know why it is that you don’t talk to President Trump more often?

Fauci: No, I don’t.

The Atlantic: Everyone who knows you has talked about the fact that you are indefatigably honest; that is your reputation, someone who always tells the truth. Can you tell us the truth about the federal response to the pandemic?

Fauci: When you look at the numbers, obviously, we’ve got to do better. We’ve got to almost reset this and say, “Okay, let’s stop this nonsense.” We’ve got to figure out, How can we get our control over this now, and, looking forward, how can we make sure that next month, we don’t have another example of California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona? So rather than these games people are playing, let’s focus on that.

The Atlantic: How much worse do you expect the pandemic to get? How do we get back to a better place?

Read: The week America lost control of the pandemic

Fauci: By pushing a reset button, I don’t mean everybody locking down again. We’ve got to call a time-out and say, “If you’re going to open, we’ve got to get everybody on the same team.” I’m not going to name any states—that’s not helpful—but some states did, in fact, prematurely jump over some checkpoints.

Even though we are in the middle of a setback now—you can’t deny that; look at the numbers, you’re dealing with 40,000 to 60,000 infections in a day—it doesn’t mean we’re going to be defeated. But states that are in trouble right now, if those states pause and say, “Okay, we’re going to do it right, everyone wear a mask, bars closed, no congregating in crowds, keep your distance, protect the vulnerable”—if we do that for a few weeks in a row, I’ll guarantee you those numbers will come down.

The Atlantic: We recently published a piece about burnout among public-health experts trying to fight this pandemic. You clearly have been very much a part of that. How are you doing? How are you coping?

Fauci: I’m doing okay; I’m doing fine. I am running a bit on fumes, but as they say, the fumes are really thick. It’s enough to keep me going. I wish we didn’t have a lot of those distractions, which I think are noise that gets in the way. But I put that aside, try not to let it bother me, and just move ahead.

[Dill]

(07-14-2020, 03:01 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: And the inevitable response from the conservative friend.......

.......that’s fine and dandy....but it doesn’t change one damn thing about the percentage of the population in this state who have died from Covid 19. If I stand naked grabbing a barbed wire fence during an electrical storm my chances of getting hit by lightning go up dramatically. But...I don’t do that. So talking about the survival rate after the fact doesn’t begin to speak about the infinitesimal chance of dying of Covid 19 in the state of Iowa. The very obvious bottom line is 755 people out of a population of 3,123,899- 3,155,070 (depending the source used for Iowa’s population) leaving the entire population with a .024 chance of dying from Covid 19. I choose to not hype the information.

For me, the problem is not just with "dying," as in me dying. It's not ok if loved ones die either. 

Further, it appears that many people who live are suffering serious, even permanent, damage to lungs and other organs. Is that number less or greater than the number who die?

Also, there is the economic damage done to families with sick members. Wage earners who cannot work.

We don't appear to have much statistical data on this sort of collateral damage. But clearly death stats should not be the single measure of damage.


Finally, the "chances of dying" in Iowa is not some permanently fixed ratio of living to dead. As long as people practice social distancing and there are few cases, it may remain low. If they do not, there is no reason to suppose it will remain low.  If 3 million contract the disease, the chance of dying will no longer be only .024. The death rate won't be a "mere" 755 but reach hundreds of thousands.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-14-2020, 12:33 AM)BrownAssClown Wrote: My brother's father-n-law died just over 2 months ago "most likely" from Covid-19. He was a Japanese man that lived in Sendai, Japan. He was 85 and fell ill and was taken to the hospital and died there a few days later. The reason I say "most likely" is because on his death certificate it list "pneumonia" as the cause of death, but he tested positive for Covid-19 while in the hospital, I don't know if Covid was listed as a contributing factor though. My brother's in-laws told him that the virus is worse and more widespread there than the Japanese government is reporting also. They believe the man that came to the house to sell my brother's father-n-law fish( yes...they have door-to-door fish salesman in Japan) passed the virus to him, because that man also tested positive for Covid-19 and it was the only person he had been in contact with during that whole month.
I wouldn't doubt there are times Covid is not the cause of death, but I just wonder how many of the over 500,000+ people worldwide that tested positive and died would still be alive right now if it wasn't for this virus, I would wager most of them.

Yeah, Japan really took a firm "if we don't test, there can't be positive cases" approach, and only shut down things for about a month.

(07-14-2020, 04:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know what to tell you. I'm not following all of it super close other than local news. There are so many variables in how the infection rate is affected there is no way to be certain. It could very well be under reporting both in Iowa and Ohio, but that also could mean there are deaths that were really linked to COVID-19 that they don't know about. When cases go unreported you can't say it will push the numbers one way or the other because you really don't know. We can only work with the numbers we have.

In Ohio, roughly 16% of all positive cases are from people living in or working at nursing homes. Meanwhile about 70% of all Covid deaths in Ohio have been in nursing homes.

No reason not to wear a mask, but for the general public here you're pretty good so long as you're not at a nursing home according to the numbers.

[fredtoast]

(07-15-2020, 06:44 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No reason not to wear a mask, but for the general public here you're pretty good so long as you're not at a nursing home according to the numbers.

You just posted numbers that show 84% of cases are from people that have no contact with nursing homes