|
Post by james on Jun 9, 2020 7:17:48 GMT -5
Originally Alternet. I extracted and posted most of the links from a Wonkette story on another thread. It was a bit of a bore. I couldn't really be bothered to do the same on another post. People have used much less reputable sources here in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 9, 2020 9:32:47 GMT -5
For me the story of the reporting is as interesting as the "story" itself. The challenge of science journalism is to get deep enough into the story that it covers matters such as the nature of the evidence and the limits of confidence in or certainty about the conclusions**. I've long seen problems especially in reporting about medical research--what treatment shows promise, what risks are more or less serious, who has to worry about Syndrome X or Vulnerability Y. (Dietary issues seem especially vulnerable--everybody wants or lose weight or find a magic vitamin supplement.) Even if there are caveats or qualifications, they're often put way below the fold and not given the kind of attention I would give, say, countervailing evidence about the authorship of a supposed new Shakespeare play.
The other side of this is part of our wild-west social-media environment, where everybody gets to shout an opinion about anything, having mixed and matched from the stew of half-remembered high-school science classes and amateur-hour theorizing that drives anti-vax and flat-Earth blogs. Even this Alternet story-about-the-story deserves to be vetted--my first impulse is to backtrack to the WHO statement, check out exactly what it says and on what basis, and look at how various outlets presented it to their audiences, and then look at the reception by those audiences as expressed in various places.
What I have thought from the start about our understanding of the Covid-19 virus is that there is inevitably a great deal of uncertainty--that we are modeling based on a growing body of evidence, and that the "novel" part of the description means that some parts of the model are going to be wrong or distorted or missing. And that the risk/benefit (or over/under or best-case/worst-case) analysis is not going to be perfect, and that recommendations about how to avoid infection, how to treat symptoms, even what the range of symptoms might be, is going to change as we get data. And a slow start itself changes the patterns of infection and our ability to understand the disease.
** When I was starting out in tech-feature and -review writing, my mentor told me that what was wanted was a "bug-level" understanding of the program or device under review. Anything else tended toward marketing writing.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 9, 2020 12:37:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jun 9, 2020 12:54:39 GMT -5
Dead+Recovered does not come close to equaling confirmed cases. What is the status of the balance of cases? Ill, asymptomatic, etc.?
|
|
|
COVID 19
Jun 9, 2020 14:04:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by theevan on Jun 9, 2020 14:04:59 GMT -5
Now is the time to purge all dissidents!
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 9, 2020 14:13:41 GMT -5
No thanks--I have some medication that has that effect already.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 9, 2020 14:34:00 GMT -5
Yes, Sweden is interesting. 8th place out of 25 for cases per million population. Not at the top or bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jun 9, 2020 14:41:30 GMT -5
So Sweden has a death rate of over ten percent. That sucks.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 9, 2020 14:54:07 GMT -5
From the NYT - Dr.Kerkhove walking back the asymptomatic transmission comments. - "A top expert at the World Health Organization on Tuesday walked back her earlier assertion that transmission of the coronavirus by people who did not have symptoms was “very rare.” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, who made the original comment at a W.H.O. briefing on Monday, said that it was based on just two or three studies and that it was a “misunderstanding” to say asymptomatic transmission was rare globally.“I was just responding to a question; I wasn’t stating a policy of W.H.O. or anything like that,” she said.Dr. Van Kerkhove said that estimates of transmission from people without symptoms come primarily from models, which may not provide an accurate representation. “That’s a big open question, and that remains an open question,” she said.Scientists had sharply criticized the W.H.O. for creating confusion on the issue, given the far-ranging public policy implications. Governments around the world have recommended face masks and social-distancing measures because of the risk of asymptomatic transmission.A range of scientists said Dr. Van Kerkhove’s comments did not reflect the current scientific research.“All of the best evidence suggests that people without symptoms can and do readily spread SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19,” scientists at the Harvard Global Health Institute said in a statement on Tuesday. “Communicating preliminary data about key aspects of the coronavirus without much context can have tremendous negative impact on how the public and policymakers respond to the pandemic.”A widely cited paper published in April suggested that people are most infectious about two days before the onset of symptoms and estimated that 44 percent of new infections were a result of transmission from people who were not yet showing symptoms.Dr. Van Kerkhove and other W.H.O. experts reiterated the importance of physical distancing, personal hygiene, testing, tracing, quarantine and isolation to control the pandemic".www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/world/coronavirus-updates.html?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 9, 2020 16:08:03 GMT -5
james, thanks for the additional information about an assertion I found very surprising.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jun 9, 2020 16:19:16 GMT -5
Not especially germane, but LOL at China’s numbers. Those stats are as believable as a grainy black and white video of Bigfoot in flagrante delicto with both the loch ness monster and the easter bunny at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 9, 2020 16:43:26 GMT -5
Sweden's strategy guaranteed them that they wouldn't have the least deaths in the short term. To look at their stats now without that in mind is to purposely miss the point of the strategy.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 9, 2020 17:27:11 GMT -5
Presumably Anders Tegnell, the state epidemiologist of the Sweden's Public Health Agency, is familiar with the point of Sweden's Covid strategy, as he was the one who formulated it. And he has at least some concerns and regrets regarding the results and consequences. He now says, "If we were to run into the same disease, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would end up doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done." Sounds like an honest man who is concerned about the effectiveness and consequences of Sweden's approach. He is also under a great deal of domestic criticism regarding that approach. Both of which are good to know when considering Sweden's approach as a model. If pressed, I would hazard that Tegnell would now say the best approach to follow wasn't known at the time, isn't known now, and probably never will be known. I suspect many on the front lines would agree. From way, way in the back, far, far from the front, I certainly agree. (but, my guess is that informed opinion across the entire planet, perhaps the universe, will settle on doing what North Dakota did. Just my unbiased guess.) For the record, Sweden's initial approach to the Covid deal wasn't quite as laissez faire as sometimes assumed. - www.livescience.com/results-of-sweden-covid19-response.html
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jun 9, 2020 23:02:55 GMT -5
As the country opens up, the virus is ramping up. Who’d a thunk it? Keep your head down Flake.
From NBC news: “ Arizona reactivated a hospital emergency plan after seeing COVID-19 cases more than double. Health officials are now saying eight out of 10 hospital beds are being used, and warn they could hit full hospital capacity in a matter of weeks.”
From the LA Times: “ The number of coronavirus infections throughout California continues to rise steadily as counties further lift stay-at-home restrictions amid increasing efforts to restore the battered economy.
On Monday, health officials reported nearly 3,100 cases, bringing the total to more than 134,000 infections in the state.”
Mike
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 10, 2020 5:02:23 GMT -5
I'm guessing that one of the main reasons to not want the disease to "ramp up" again is that when it does we will continue to see how much less deadly it was than we were told at the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 10, 2020 11:36:38 GMT -5
Yeah, Mike, the increase here has been called "alarming" by public health officials. We could use a little more public education than we've had.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 10, 2020 11:41:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 10, 2020 21:41:33 GMT -5
Went to my newly reopened dentist for a reassuringly cautious, non aerosol spray producing, Maryland bridge fixing procedure. I can smile less self-consciously now. Interesting learning about all the special arrangements at the surgery. It's quite a palaver. Some patients get almost Ebola style precautions.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 10, 2020 22:26:08 GMT -5
In this mask-friendly country, just over 900 deaths now.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jun 11, 2020 9:17:22 GMT -5
200,000 dead in us expected by Sept. and that’s a best case scenario.
Mike
|
|