Coronavirus

[RichardGibbons]

False equivalence fallacy (equivalent to "both sides are bad!") here...

 

Anyone with a moral compass capable of putting something else above self interest would be preferable to what we have now. Biden and most other non-sociopathic humans have him beat by miles. Rather have a President who stutters than one who recommends bleach injections.

 

Also yep. Biden will have a team around him that will be effective even as he struggles mentally, while Trump doesn't.

[RichardGibbons]

 

Funny how you failed to bold by injection inside.

Because that would be unfair.  If I had to bold, I had to bold

"by injection inside, or almost a cleaning"

 

But then he clarified "It wouldn’t be through injection. "

 

But then the overall statement was Trump was addressing the scientist. Trump turned to scientist and said

" is there a way we can do something like that"

 

It was a question to the scientst.

 

People say, "He suggested injecting disinfectant", you quote the part where he suggested injecting disinfectant, but bold a bunch of stuff and exclude the part where he suggests injecting it, and then, when called on it, pretend that somehow the part you didn't bold becomes irrelevant if you add more words.

 

Come on.  Aren't you above such silly games?

 

Wow.

[Investor20]

 

Funny how you failed to bold by injection inside.

Because that would be unfair.  If I had to bold, I had to bold

"by injection inside, or almost a cleaning"

 

But then he clarified "It wouldn’t be through injection. "

 

But then the overall statement was Trump was addressing the scientist. Trump turned to scientist and said

" is there a way we can do something like that"

 

It was a question to the scientst.

 

People say, "He suggested injecting disinfectant", you quote the part where he suggested injecting disinfectant, but bold a bunch of stuff and exclude the part where he suggests injecting it, and then, when called on it, pretend that somehow the part you didn't bold becomes irrelevant if you add more words.

 

Come on.  Aren't you above such silly games?

 

Wow.

 

Richard, you should stop playing these games.  He clearly clarified in same briefing

"It wouldn’t be through injection. "  To say he suggested injecting bleach when it is exactly opposite he said is pure lying.

[RichardGibbons]

You ought to be ashamed.

 

(Actually, it's even worse than that, because by lying about what he said, you're missing the main point.  Look what he said--even with his correction. That's the guy you're supporting so passionately, the guy who said that stuff. And keeps saying that sort of stuff.)

 

And why the heck would you throw away your credibility on this forum trying to defend that hill? You seemed kind of reasonable before deciding that this is what you wanted to argue.

[Investor20]

You ought to be ashamed.

 

(Actually, it's even worse than that, because by lying about what he said, you're missing the main point.  Look what he said--even with his correction. That's the guy you're supporting so passionately, the guy who said that stuff. And keeps saying that sort of stuff.)

 

Richard.  My quote of transcript "It wouldn’t be through injection. " was from original briefing on April 23.  Its not a correction.

 

The statement you are using to say he suggested injecting is "It wouldn’t be through injection".

 

Transcript from April 23 when he supposedly suggested injecting bleach.  Check for yourself.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

[LC]

If the docs can beam sunshine into your lungs and fry COVID with UV light or inject Lysol gel into your windpipe and wipe out coronavirus in one minute, Trump was right!

 

If not, well...”he was just asking a question!”

 

The problem is Trump is 100% double talk. Zero responsibility as it were. Those who engage in and enable this  behavior are spineless.

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

Assuming you didn't lie about the transcript, these are his exact words:

 

"I see disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning."

 

You're arguing that he didn't say that it might be a good idea to inject a disinfectant.

 

He did say it.  It's very clear, even if he later regretted saying it a few minutes later.

 

I'm baffled why you wouldn't just say, "Oops I was wrong. He did say it, though he later backpedaled."

[sys]

weird that some want to misquote the president to paint his words as irresponsible.  he was clearly just suggesting we fill the lungs with chlorine gas.

[Investor20]

Assuming you didn't lie about the transcript, these are his exact words:

 

"I see disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning."

 

You're arguing that he didn't say that it might be a good idea to inject a disinfectant.

 

He did say it.  It's very clear, even if he later regretted saying it a few minutes later.

 

I'm baffled why you wouldn't just say, "Oops I was wrong. He did say it, though he later backpedaled."

 

Richard, again you  are taking it out of contest.  I listented to the whole briefing because it was interesting from heat, humidity and light effect on Covid.

 

The scientist in his presentation had been using inject word a bit, for example the scientist said:

 

"If you look at the fourth line, you inject summer — the sunlight into that.  You inject UV rays into that. ".

But they were not injecting into a living being.  They were injecting into suspended virus in air.  You can check by checking word "inject" in the transcript.

 

And the president asked the scientist "And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.  Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs."

 

I did not take it that it meant injecting into blood.

 

Then a reporter asked clarification

 

Q    But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned.  There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there?  I mean —

 

.....

 

THE PRESIDENT:  It wouldn’t be through injection.  We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area.  Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work.  But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.

 

So, when the reporter clarified is it injection into a person, the president said NO.

 

To keep saying he suggested injecting bleach into a person after listening to the scientist presentation and question to scientist, the word inject has to be taken in context of scientist use - injecting into a drum of suspended virus in air.

 

When asked about injecting into a person, the president said NO.

[meiroy]

 

Investor20,

 

Out of curiosity, how do you view Trump in general? How do you see his personality like?  From your point of you, the way this person expresses himself is normal? Have you encountered people like that in your life?  Thanks.

[ukvalueinvestment]

Trump says stuff that, in my view, is incredibly dumb every day.  Some of it is genuinely dumb and some of it he says for his audience.

 

But what is equally dumb is people continuing to be shocked and outraged by it every day and talking about it. 

 

Trump is Trump.  Nothing will change people's mind one way or another.

[meiroy]

Trump says stuff that, in my view, is incredibly dumb every day.  Some of it is genuinely dumb and some of it he says for his audience.

 

But what is equally dumb is people continuing to be shocked and outraged by it every day and talking about it. 

 

Trump is Trump.  Nothing will change people's mind one way or another.

 

Indeed the discussion should be more about his circle of enablers and what motivates them to support such an individual. 

I disagree, though, with the description of him as just dumb. It's far more than that.

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

You ought to be ashamed.

 

(Actually, it's even worse than that, because by lying about what he said, you're missing the main point.  Look what he said--even with his correction. That's the guy you're supporting so passionately, the guy who said that stuff. And keeps saying that sort of stuff.)

 

And why the heck would you throw away your credibility on this forum trying to defend that hill? You seemed kind of reasonable before deciding that this is what you wanted to argue.

 

They work by drawing people into arguing with their nonsense.

 

Let me help him out: “That guy on 5th Ave sort of had it coming anyway and Trump said afterwards that he didn’t really mean to shoot him—he was being sarcastic with the gun, so it’s not the big deal you guys are making it”.

 

That’s the pathology we are dealing with.

[Cigarbutt]

Sometimes the strategy is to steer the conversation away from the real issues.

In my area, schools will re-open soon and public health authorities along the political people on top imply (they are careful with the words) that community spread is an established fact and aim to slowly reach some kind of herd immunity. People in general seem to agree to go along with that.

People also talk about reforming the way chronic care homes are organized and run but i've heard that before.

[StubbleJumper]

weird that some want to misquote the president to paint his words as irresponsible.  he was clearly just suggesting we fill the lungs with chlorine gas.

 

 

Yeah, that was already tried out at the 2nd Battle of Ypres.  It didn't work out so well...

[Investor20]

Sometimes the strategy is to steer the conversation away from the real issues.

In my area, schools will re-open soon and public health authorities along the political people on top imply (they are careful with the words) that community spread is an established fact and aim to slowly reach some kind of herd immunity. People in general seem to agree to go along with that.

People also talk about reforming the way chronic care homes are organized and run but i've heard that before.

 

Absolutely correct.  The real interesting part of the presentation of task force on April 23rd is effect of temperature, humidity and UV from sun.  Yet almost no discussion on that.

 

The scientist actually suggested "move activities outside".  Below is the most interesting part of the presentation, IMO:

 

Q    Obviously, at the moment, the advice is stay at home.  By the summer, could we be flipping that and saying you’d be much better off being outside with UV rays or the humidity that Washington brings in August?

 

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN:  I would not go contrary to the guidance that have been issued right now. 

 

I think, though, to tell you that if — if I’m having an event with my family, I’m doing it in the driveway or in the backyard, not inside the house with my children.

 

See below attachments.  See the best practices for every american given in the presentation slide.  This is what we and media should be focussing on.

https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/04/23/white-house-reveals-solar-light-humidity-hugely-detrimental-to-coronavirus/

[TwoCitiesCapital]

WHO confirms that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest getting COVID-19 once prevents you from getting it again.

 

This is one of the major risks I outlined in a prior post and could mean COVID-19 is comparable to the flu/cold on that it comes back every year.

 

Seems to me that unless if we FIND this evidence, the only options for us going forward are

 

1) Societal level precautions which include mass testing, masks, and excessive handwashing

 

And

 

2) a vaccine to guard against the more lethal variations/mutations or step 1 has to be far more disruptive and include distancing measures and varying forms of isolation and contact tracing.

[SHDL]

WHO confirms that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest getting COVID-19 once prevents you from getting it again.

 

This has been a concern of mine as well. I only have a layman’s understanding of how vaccines actually work, but does this not increase the likelihood of us never getting a vaccine? That is a scenario that I think not many are prepared for.

[Dalal.Holdings]

WHO confirms that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest getting COVID-19 once prevents you from getting it again.

 

This is one of the major risks I outlined in a prior post and could mean COVID-19 is comparable to the flu/cold on that it comes back every year.

 

Seems to me that unless if we FIND this evidence, the only options for us going forward are

 

1) Societal level precautions which include mass testing, masks, and excessive handwashing

 

And

 

2) a vaccine to guard against the more lethal variations/mutations or step 1 has to be far more disruptive and include distancing measures and varying forms of isolation and contact tracing.

 

WHO is a science led org. When there are a lot of unknowns, scientists like to use the phrase “there is no evidence that...” but it is important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

On the flipside, there also isn’t a whole lot of evidence that you can get this twice if your immune system is functional. So really, we know nothing. But they are erring on the side of caution.

 

These scientific statements confuse a lot of lay people. That’s why you see a lot of brilliant minds in places like here jump on the “see! WHO said no evidence of human to human transmission in mid january so this proves they did not think it was a big deal!” That’s nonsense due to misinterpretation of the “no evidence” statement by scientifically illiterate lay people.

 

For a long time, there was “no evidence” that smoking led to lung cancer because doing a study that proves such an association is very very hard. Same thing with this outbreak which is only like 4-5 months old, so we have a lot of absence of evidence and the only thing that makes sense is to invoke the precautionary principle in such a situation.

[Guest cherzeca]

"WHO confirms that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest getting COVID-19 once prevents you from getting it again."

 

no evidence of x is not evidence of not-x.

 

antibodies show that the body's immunity system successfully produced proteins to bind against the virus.  certainly it will take study to see how effective the response is...and it is my understanding that antibodies are not a singe uniform reaction, but usually present in the form of bands.

 

so obviously, WHO should be endorsing studies, including using its substantial resources, on an expedited basis. 

 

[Ronchong]

Don't worry about investor20. He was just being sacarstic.

[DooDiligence]

You ought to be ashamed.

 

(Actually, it's even worse than that, because by lying about what he said, you're missing the main point.  Look what he said--even with his correction. That's the guy you're supporting so passionately, the guy who said that stuff. And keeps saying that sort of stuff.)

 

Richard.  My quote of transcript "It wouldn’t be through injection. " was from original briefing on April 23.  Its not a correction.

 

The statement you are using to say he suggested injecting is "It wouldn’t be through injection".

 

Transcript from April 23 when he supposedly suggested injecting bleach.  Check for yourself.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

 

This was clearly an inline correction by someone who blurted out an idiotic statement, realized it sounded idiotic, and then did an autocorrect.

[dwy000]

You ought to be ashamed.

 

(Actually, it's even worse than that, because by lying about what he said, you're missing the main point.  Look what he said--even with his correction. That's the guy you're supporting so passionately, the guy who said that stuff. And keeps saying that sort of stuff.)

 

Richard.  My quote of transcript "It wouldn’t be through injection. " was from original briefing on April 23.  Its not a correction.

 

The statement you are using to say he suggested injecting is "It wouldn’t be through injection".

 

Transcript from April 23 when he supposedly suggested injecting bleach.  Check for yourself.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

 

This was clearly an inline correction by someone who blurted out an idiotic statement, realized it sounded idiotic, and then did an autocorrect.

 

The fact that we are even having this conversation (and its only this week's conversation in a stream of similar conversations) shows how unfit this President is for any type of leadership. It's the President for crissakes!!  It's the one person we shouldn't have to worry about telling their citizens to poison themselves and then backtracking.  I used to tell my kids they could grow up to be President because it was so respected and esteemed. Now it's become a joke and reflects on America.

[Spekulatius]

NYC:  11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%.  just like the flu.

 

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they?

 

This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/

 

So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu!

 

I love the stupidity!  the 21% positive antibody test results on NYCers (3000 person sample) is the best DATUM we have on creating the correct denominator of the mortality per infection rate.  what is your problem, Larkin?

 

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

 

I agree that this is a meaningful study. It’s large enough and reasonably random. There might be a bias in just choosing people outside vs at home but it is likely not a strong one.

0.67% morbidity is ~7x deadlier than the flu though. The flu kills between 10-50k annually and infects ~30M (roughly ) so thats in the 0.1% ballpark. In addition, it’s much more infective.

 

On thing I overlooked when looking at the IFR rate is that death cases have a long tail. They typically occur many weeks after the infection and display of symptoms Example of this was the Diamond Princess when only 6 death were reported first, but subsequently ended up with 14 dead. While that is a small sample size, I think the likely conclusion is that the IFR rate is higher than the ~0.7% rate calculated probably by as much than a factor 2

 

It’s all highly uncertain at this point and ballpark estimates, but better than nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

[patience_and_focus]

NYC:  11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%.  just like the flu.

 

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they?

 

This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/

 

So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu!

 

I love the stupidity!  the 21% positive antibody test results on NYCers (3000 person sample) is the best DATUM we have on creating the correct denominator of the mortality per infection rate.  what is your problem, Larkin?

 

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

 

I agree that this is a meaningful study. It’s large enough and reasonably random. There might be a bias in just choosing people outside vs at home but it is likely not a strong one.

0.67% morbidity is ~7x deadlier than the flu though. The flu kills between 10-50k annually and infects ~30M (roughly ) so thats in the 0.1% ballpark. In addition, it’s much more infective.

 

Why do we keep quoting an article from Sept 2018 with initial estimates when we have better numbers now on CDC website.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

 

The 2017-2018 season was 61000 deaths with 45 million infections (NOT counting asymptomatic subjects) which puts the death rate at 61000 / 45000000 = 0.13%. Again, estimates suggest that # of asymptomatic flu patients are ~ 2.5-3 times that number which means the death rate is more close to 0.033 to 0.05%.