Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Increase in Coronavirus Deaths

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Metryll View Post

    Yes I did. Taro Aso is Deputy Prime Minister. In Japan the head of government, and its offcial and unique voice on foreign policy is Prime Minister Shinzo Abe :

    "“The cooperation of the WHO is essential in fighting the coronavirus,” Abe told reporters in Tokyo. “Japan is not thinking at all of cutting or ending its contributions. Now is the time to support the WHO,” he added."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ter-trump-cuts

    Is there issue with political game played by Members States ? Certainly, but it has nothing to do with scientific work made by WHO. All CDC around work with scientific data, not political stance.




    No, they did not had evidence and no one on Earth had by this time. You keep repeating this point but even Taiwanese CDC did not knew as they asked WHO for more information while dispatching scientists to China. China has most likely lied about real death toll but did not witheld or misinformed others countries about data gathered on the new, unknown virus. Once again aside from Trump administration, no government or agency/organization around the world has made such a claim.



    China warned WHO by December 31st, 2019.

    WHO stated by January 14, 2020 that “it is certainly possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission”.

    WHO organized first expert meeting by January 17.

    By January 22, WHO issued a statment including " More analysis of the epidemiological data is needed to understand the full extent
    of human-to-human transmission. WHO stands ready to provide support to China to conduct further detailed analysis."

    The same day : "The Director-General based the decision to reconvene on the “deeply concerning” continued increase in cases and evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China, in addition to the numbers outside China holding the potential for a much larger outbreak, even though they were still relatively small."

    January 30 : WHO’s Regional Director for Africa sent out a guidance note to all countries in the Region emphasising the importance of readiness and early detection of cases."WHO recommends that to protect against the novel virus, people should practice good hand and respiratory hygiene and safe food practices. These include washing hands with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub, covering the mouth and nose with a tissue or sleeve when coughing, avoiding close contact with anyone with flu-like symptoms, cooking food, especially meat, thoroughly and avoiding direct unprotected contact with live animals."

    Emphasize is mine.

    The same day WHO declared :"..., following the recommendations of the Emergency Committee, the WHO Director-General declared that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)."

    February 16 : "The WHO-China Joint Mission began its work. As part of the mission to assess the seriousness of this new disease; its transmission dynamics; and the nature and impact of China’s control measures, teams made field visits to Beijing, Guangdong, Sichuan and Wuhan.

    The Mission consisted of 25 national and international experts from the People’s Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Nigeria, the Russian Federation, Singapore, the United States of America and WHO, all selected after broad consultation to secure the best talent from a diversity of geographies and specialties. It was led by a Senior Advisor to the WHO Director-General, with the Head of Expert Panel of COVID-19 Response at the China National Health Commission (NHC) as co-lead. "

    The timeline, as well US commitment from the very start by agencies or organization is well documented. It's only a matter of searching. Ignoring facts is an easy task. But trying to rewrite history in an History forum "a un petit parfum de Kamikaze"

    My post included a statement from the deputy PM of Jaopan condemning the WHO, your refutation of that is merely a statement from the head of government that they need to support WHO. That does not refute what I posted. You said Japan (and others) did not blame the WHO and I provided evidence to the contrary. Changing the subject to issuing statements of "support" doesn't make my post untrue.

    The message from the Japanese deputy PM is precisely the one I am making.
    You imply that the WHO limits itself to science, but clearly the Japanese government thinks otherwise.
    It isn't just me saying that the WHO gave in to political pressure.

    If the WHO had made it clear that their information was being limited by the Chinese I would withdraw any criticism of the WHO's actions. But they did not. They repeated the China party line.
    I think that G David Bock's post #41 and #42 covers it far better than I could.

    I will add this about the 1/14 tweet from WHO.

    "[The tweet] was issued on the same day the WHO's technical lead on Covid-19, Maria Van Kerkhove (a US immunologist) gave a press briefing in Geneva warning of precisely the opposite — the potential for rapid spread.

    "Concerned that her briefing conflicted with the initial Chinese findings, a middle-ranking official told the social media team to put out a tweet to balance the Van Kerkhove briefing."
    https://www.businessinsider.com/who-...uardian-2020-4

    Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for why a WHO official felt the need to "balance" the warning from the WHO's technical lead about the threat, but that sounds more like politics than medical science.



    If we are going to exonerate the WHO for merely repeating what they claim was known at the time, then you really can't criticize Trump for not taking the virus as a bigger threat than the WHO did at the time.
    Especially since he was doing more than the WHO felt was necessary.
    Last edited by Cambronnne; 13 Jul 20, 14:52.
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

      Not even close. Reductions in transmission rates and mortality is due solely to restrictions imposed back in March, and only loosening in stages. Transmissions, hospitalizations, and mortality still raging among Hasidim, who have made a point of flouting restrictions since the beginning.



      New study indicates that immunity from exposure lasts only a few weeks.
      There is more to immunity than anti bodies. And as for New York, mortality has crashed due to running out of patients to infect. That's how viruses work. They infect everyone available who is susceptible then move on. The graph for New York is the classic bell curve with a long low tail.

      https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...06.29.174888v1

      https://unherd.com/thepost/swedish-doctor-t-cell-immunity-and-the-truth-about-covid-19-in-sweden/
      Last edited by Surrey; 13 Jul 20, 14:54.
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Really?

        You need to compare Sweden with countries of simmer charactersitics

        And Sweden has MUCH higher death rates than the nearby Scadinavian countries.

        Comparing Sweden to a city wit one of the highest population densities in the world, extensive use of public transportation, etc makes no sense.

        So, let's see Sweden:

        https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

        Deaths per million in Sweden: 547

        Deaths per million in Norway 47

        Deaths per million in Finland 59

        Deaths per million in Denmark 105



        Not only that but the Swedish economy seems that it was hit almost as bad as the economies of the other countries. So, they have nothing to show for the strategy they used

        https://www.politico.eu/article/swed...9-light-touch/

        “The economic consequences of the pandemic will be considerable,” Sweden’s central bank said in a recent report as it forecast an economic contraction for Sweden of between 7 and 10 percentage points for this year and unemployment of between 9 and 10 percent. Last year the jobless figure was 6.8 percent. The European Commission's current forecast for the eurozone for 2020 is for an economic contraction of 7.75 percent.

        Finally, I mentioned Sweden to show that has not developed herd immunity despite its relaxed measures. The death rate shows nothing about this issue. Most countries in Europe have now very low death rates, including the Scandinavian ones who actually have even lower rates than Sweden. Is this a sign that they have already developed immunity?
        A contraction of only 7 - 10 points is probably not that bad all things considered. And Sweden also has a lower deaths per million than UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium, France. It is no down to minimal levels. The Swedes, like others messed up in not protecting the care homes enough. When the eventual wash up is carried out in a few years I believe it will be found that the most effective intervention that could have been taken would have been protecting the vulnerable, the elderly and infirm.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
          There is more to immunity than anti bodies.
          You mean that immunity can be conferred without antibodies? So the vaccines we've been giving out for two centuries were worthless?

          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
          And as for New York, mortality has crashed due to running out of patients to infect.[
          That's 'cause they weren't hanging out at bars.

          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
          That's how viruses work. They infect everyone available who is susceptible then move on. The graph for New York is the classic bell curve with a long low tail.

          https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...06.29.174888v1
          Without new people to infect, a virus will die out. The social restriction of the past four-some months deprived covid of fresh victims. That's how viruses work.
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

            You mean that immunity can be conferred without antibodies? So the vaccines we've been giving out for two centuries were worthless?



            That's 'cause they weren't hanging out at bars.



            Without new people to infect, a virus will die out. The social restriction of the past four-some months deprived covid of fresh victims. That's how viruses work.
            Yes there can be immunity despite a negative anti body test.. The virus has been around since March now. You need to keep up with the research.

            The numbers susceptibleto Covid may be as low as 20% making herd immunity much easier to achieve.

            https://unherd.com/2020/06/karl-fris...e-to-covid-19/

            Last edited by Surrey; 13 Jul 20, 15:19.
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Surrey View Post

              A contraction of only 7 - 10 points is probably not that bad all things considered. And Sweden also has a lower deaths per million than UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium, France. It is no down to minimal levels. The Swedes, like others messed up in not protecting the care homes enough. When the eventual wash up is carried out in a few years I believe it will be found that the most effective intervention that could have been taken would have been protecting the vulnerable, the elderly and infirm.
              But that contraction is not much different from the countries which imposed lockdowns.

              And again, all of those countries have muchhhhhh higher population densities than Sweden and in the case of Italy and Spain they had also less time to realize the penetration and characteristics of the virus. The Italians were told that it was okay to hug Chinese tourists. By contrast, the Swedes (like other Scandinavians) chose their strategy in the light of more information available and because of their location (not many Chinee will choose Sweden over Spain or Italy) the Swedes had more time to take measures before a deep virus penetration but they refused to do so. This explains much better why now we see Sweden be so out of line (with respect to # of CV deaths per million population) from the other Scandinavian countries. To some extend the British also made an initial choice to ignore the clear data of the disease spread and go with the deliberate "immunity strategy."
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                But that contraction is not much different from the countries which imposed lockdowns.
                And again, all of those countries have muchhhhhh higher population densities than Sweden and in the case of Italy and Spain they had also less time to realize the penetration and characteristics of the disease. The Italians were told that it was okay to hug Chinese tourists. . By contrast, the Swedes chose their strategy in the light of more information available. To some extend the British also made an initial choice to ignore the clear data of the disease spread and go with the deliberate "immunity strategy."
                They may appear to have higher pop densities but most Swedes live in the south so the effective pop density is much higher than it appears.
                Swedish children have had an education something that American children based on some reports, may never have again. Sweden could have halved its deaths if they had protected the care homes. That is the ideal strategy in hindsight. Protect the care homes and the sick and elderly while enabling everything else to carry on as near normal as possible.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                  They may appear to have higher pop densities but most Swedes live in the south so the effective pop density is much higher than it appears.
                  Swedish children have had an education something that American children based on some reports, may never have again. Sweden could have halved its deaths if they had protected the care homes. That is the ideal strategy in hindsight. Protect the care homes and the sick and elderly while enabling everything else to carry on as near normal as possible.
                  But it is still much lower than the population in Italy in Spain. And again to repeat the edited part of the job that you probably did not see

                  in the case of Italy and Spain they had also less time to realize the penetration and characteristics of the virus. The Italians were told that it was okay to hug Chinese tourists. By contrast, the Swedes (like other Scandinavians) chose their strategy in the light of more information available and because of their location (not many Chinese tourists will choose Sweden over Spain or Italy) the Swedes had more time to take measures before a deep virus penetration but they refused to do so. This explains much better why now we see Sweden be so out of line (with respect to # of CV deaths per million population) from the other Scandinavian countries.

                  The uncertainty abut the exact consequences of the CV is an argument for why it was unwise for the Swedes to gamble. Less penetration would have given the Swedes the time to understand which places are more at risk without experiencing the death rates they did. While one should not use hindsight to hold the Swedes accountable for not anticipating the exact location of the problem (elder care facilities) it did not require any hindsight at the time for the Swedes to realize that in an uncertain situation less penetration would give the authorities more time to react and better secure the most vulnerable places with fewer losses as new data were becoming available. So, one should still hold the Swedes officials accountable for the choices at the time.
                  Last edited by pamak; 13 Jul 20, 17:33.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                    My post included a statement from the deputy PM of Jaopan condemning the WHO, your refutation of that is merely a statement from the head of government that they need to support WHO. That does not refute what I posted. You said Japan (and others) did not blame the WHO and I provided evidence to the contrary. Changing the subject to issuing statements of "support" doesn't make my post untrue.
                    I asked you if you knew other government which made claim as Trump administration do. Aso is not Japanese government. It's like saying that Mark Spence is the current US Head of State.

                    The message from the Japanese deputy PM is precisely the one I am making.
                    You imply that the WHO limits itself to science, but clearly the Japanese government thinks otherwise.
                    It isn't just me saying that the WHO gave in to political pressure.
                    Never said that WHO is limited to science. But that advice are. You're confusing Members States poilitcal games within WHO with data and information provided.

                    If the WHO had made it clear that their information was being limited by the Chinese I would withdraw any criticism of the WHO's actions. But they did not. They repeated the China party line.
                    I think that G David Bock's post #41 and #42 covers it far better than I could.
                    They had. It was simply a matter of reading WHO statements. Initial data could only come from China since initially this was the first and only one country to have enough cases to run investigations on the new virus.

                    I will add this about the 1/14 tweet from WHO.

                    "[The tweet] was issued on the same day the WHO's technical lead on Covid-19, Maria Van Kerkhove (a US immunologist) gave a press briefing in Geneva warning of precisely the opposite — the potential for rapid spread.

                    "Concerned that her briefing conflicted with the initial Chinese findings, a middle-ranking official told the social media team to put out a tweet to balance the Van Kerkhove briefing."
                    https://www.businessinsider.com/who-...uardian-2020-4
                    The headline read : An infamous WHO tweet saying there was 'no clear evidence' COVID-19 could spread between humans was posted for 'balance' to reflect findings from China.

                    By January 14, no one knew how virus transmission operated with certainty. Van Kerkhove tweeted his opinion (she clearly state so in her tweet account). Unlike politics, science does not confuse data (findings) with opinion. Probably many others scientists shared Van Kerkhove opinion but WHO does not issue opinion, only data driven advice.

                    It's quite ironic that you constantly attack WHO as being a Chinese government creature by citing an US scientist working for WHO and still a recognized and respected member of this organization. Note also that unlike Trump administration, she never accused WHO of lying to Members States.

                    Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for why a WHO official felt the need to "balance" the warning from the WHO's technical lead about the threat, but that sounds more like politics than medical science.
                    The reasonable explanation resume to two words : New. Unknown.

                    If we are going to exonerate the WHO for merely repeating what they claim was known at the time, then you really can't criticize Trump for not taking the virus as a bigger threat than the WHO did at the time.
                    WHO certainly did took the virus as a global threat: by January 30 it issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. US task force on coronavirus was not created before January 31.

                    Especially since he was doing more than the WHO felt was necessary.
                    What Trump administration did that WHO did not said ?


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                      Yes there can be immunity despite a negative anti body test.. The virus has been around since March now. You need to keep up with the research.

                      The numbers susceptibleto Covid may be as low as 20% making herd immunity much easier to achieve.

                      https://unherd.com/2020/06/karl-fris...e-to-covid-19/
                      Lots of claims which do not make sense from people who are not even virologists

                      1 from your link

                      Professor Karl Friston, like Michael Levitt, is a statistician not a virologist;


                      2. Friston referred to some kind of “immunological dark matter” as the only plausible explanation for the huge disparity in results between countries in an interview with the Guardian last weekend.

                      This is just pure speculation which does not even hold water considering the fact that we saw how results in countries can often suddenly change . At some point, one could argue that thee was a lot of "immunological dark matter" in India since for some weird reason the virus seemed to have skipped that country. Now, we see a serious CV wave in India, months after the start of the spread of the decease and despite the fact that the country borders China. So, parameters like different travel patterns, geography, demographic characteristics, policies, individual behavior, culture and so on can explain huge disparities among countries.

                      And for sure, nobody can use such "immunological dark matter" to explain why some countries still manage to have 20 or 30 deaths per million of population as opposed to countries with 400 and 500 deaths per million.

                      We also have experience from other viruses of different waves coming in succession after the first ones died which shows that temporary recession of deaths do not show immunity.
                      Last edited by pamak; 13 Jul 20, 22:16.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The evidence suggests nobody has a clue and will not for years
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          The evidence suggests nobody has a clue and will not for years
                          The evidence suggest that unlike politic, which need only an ego and a pen to express, data gathering, interpretation and elaboration of model take a lot of time and work. This process has even a name, it is called Science.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Metryll View Post

                            The evidence suggest that unlike politic, which need only an ego and a pen to express, data gathering, interpretation and elaboration of model take a lot of time and work. This process has even a name, it is called Science.
                            Yes and no.

                            Medicine like engineering is applied science. The science informs the model but technically the model itself is not science but something of an art form. As is medicine to the degree that complex, chaotic systems are irreducible and the current science is reductionist.

                            For the most part what distinguished science from other forms of empiricism is accuracy. An example is psychology and sociology. In theory they are more accurate than common sense empiricism.

                            Last edited by wolfhnd; 14 Jul 20, 07:40.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Metryll View Post

                              I asked you if you knew other government which made claim as Trump administration do. Aso is not Japanese government. It's like saying that Mark Spence is the current US Head of State.



                              Never said that WHO is limited to science. But that advice are. You're confusing Members States poilitcal games within WHO with data and information provided.



                              They had. It was simply a matter of reading WHO statements. Initial data could only come from China since initially this was the first and only one country to have enough cases to run investigations on the new virus.



                              The headline read : An infamous WHO tweet saying there was 'no clear evidence' COVID-19 could spread between humans was posted for 'balance' to reflect findings from China.

                              By January 14, no one knew how virus transmission operated with certainty. Van Kerkhove tweeted his opinion (she clearly state so in her tweet account). Unlike politics, science does not confuse data (findings) with opinion. Probably many others scientists shared Van Kerkhove opinion but WHO does not issue opinion, only data driven advice.

                              It's quite ironic that you constantly attack WHO as being a Chinese government creature by citing an US scientist working for WHO and still a recognized and respected member of this organization. Note also that unlike Trump administration, she never accused WHO of lying to Members States.



                              The reasonable explanation resume to two words : New. Unknown.



                              WHO certainly did took the virus as a global threat: by January 30 it issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. US task force on coronavirus was not created before January 31.



                              What Trump administration did that WHO did not said ?

                              What Trump did was ban travel from China and the WHO condemned it.
                              That constituted doing more than what the WHO did.

                              Again, on 2/3 the WHO said:
                              World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday there was no need for measures that “unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade”
                              https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1ZX1H3

                              The WHO leader goes on to applaud china for its actions even though there was already plenty of evidence that the chinese were hiding information. (see the timeline in posts #41 and 42.)

                              If you read post #42:
                              Interestingly, on 1/6 the CDC issued a "travel watch" for people traveling to Wuhan and that the mode of transmission was not known yet. It was a week later that the WHO said there was "no evidence" of human to human transmission. As such, the WHO "knew of should have known" that saying there was "no evidence" was a false statement.

                              Regardless, if you are going to excuse the WHO becuase the virus was "new and unknown" how do you fault Trump?

                              I agree the virus was new and unknown, it still is. I fault the WHO for giving false information when they clearly should have been questioning what the chinese were telling them.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                Lots of claims which do not make sense from people who are not even virologists

                                1 from your link

                                Professor Karl Friston, like Michael Levitt, is a statistician not a virologist;


                                2. Friston referred to some kind of “immunological dark matter” as the only plausible explanation for the huge disparity in results between countries in an interview with the Guardian last weekend.

                                This is just pure speculation which does not even hold water considering the fact that we saw how results in countries can often suddenly change . At some point, one could argue that thee was a lot of "immunological dark matter" in India since for some weird reason the virus seemed to have skipped that country. Now, we see a serious CV wave in India, months after the start of the spread of the decease and despite the fact that the country borders China. So, parameters like different travel patterns, geography, demographic characteristics, policies, individual behavior, culture and so on can explain huge disparities among countries.

                                And for sure, nobody can use such "immunological dark matter" to explain why some countries still manage to have 20 or 30 deaths per million of population as opposed to countries with 400 and 500 deaths per million.

                                We also have experience from other viruses of different waves coming in succession after the first ones died which shows that temporary recession of deaths do not show immunity.
                                Immunologists deal with the immune system not virologists.
                                Friston is a stats specialist as you say and in the interview he is careful to stick to his brief. Re 'the immunology dark matter' Essentially he is saying that the numbers only add up if you assume that a relatively small proportion c20% are actually vulnerable to Covid. Unlike what Ferguson did in March he is using models to try and explain real world events rather than making predictions.


                                But Friston is only part of the picture. A number of papers of been published by immunology specialists on the immune response, particularly focusing on T cells rather than anti bodies. These papers indicate that the reason that Friston's numbers only add up if you assume that only a proportion of people are susceptible despite only relatively small numbers testing positive for anti bodies is the T cell response to the virus. T cells are responding to the virus in people who have not been exposed to the disease. There is evidence that levels of immunity are much higher than indicated from the number of people with positive antibodies.

                                https://news.ki.se/immunity-to-covid...sts-have-shown

                                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X