next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
b2YgdGhlIHZpcnVzLiAgSSBkaWRu4oCZdCBs This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7FC09E88476898E3F142DD38 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear All, Sorry to have to drag this on but Stephen seriously misquoted me on naturens and I wish to set the record straight. So for clarification I have copied and pasted what I actually said; in quotation marks below. "Hi Rick and all. On that point I agree with you if the extrapolation to population from samples tested was based on targeted testing not random testing (I assumed perhaps incorrectly that his samples were random), but I was especially taken by his comments about adverse effects of social isolation; events that will haunt some people for a lifetime." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note the IF. It remains to be established whether or not those samples were random. He is a researcher as well as an MD so, unless you have proof, I think you should reserve judgment. The figures I have seen elsewhere for Covid mortality were about 4% I think BUT=====as he points out often those who get covid are already compromised by other medical conditions. I do not imply that MDs are infallible but he likely knows more about this disease than either you or I and strangely, I learn much from those more informed than I am. And once again I am especially concerned about the secondary and unintended consequences of this lock down. Shutting down much of an economy, here and across Canada, will have huge negative consequences. If in good times there are many homeless, what will be the consequences of turning the economy to idle ? I notice that as of April 28, 21 of 27 deaths have been in one Nursing Home in the Central region. Were the other 6 deaths also in Nursing Homes ? As usual there are information gaps. The high incidence of death in Nursing Homes may be age related but some component may be attributable to concurrent medical problems. This may in time come to light as estimates. Or it may be that chronic under funding of Nursing Homes, which lead to burn out and loss of many qualified staff by 2017 may have worsened to the point of chaos. Dave Webster, Kentville On 4/30/2020 8:48 PM, Stephen Shaw wrote: > Hi Nancy, > Strange?— no. You must have missed Rick Whitman’s reply to David, and > David’s response acknowledging that Rick was correct in pinpointing > the fatal flaw in the banned video talk. The “analysis” the guy in > the video gives is nonsense, but he sounds slick enough -- he > presumably is deliberately intending to mislead the audience, us: that > is, he has a hidden agenda to push. The argument the guy gives may > sound convincing but it is not, so perhaps numbers may help. > > Say that epidemiologists round up 100 people whom they have good > reason think probably have (or have had) covid-19, test them and find > that 99 actually do have covid. On video logic, they'd want to say, > extrapolating, that 99 percent of the larger population must have been > infected, a huge number, 39 million folk in California. If a > relatively low number of people in CA have died (~1200 they said) it > sounds as if a only tiny fraction of those infected have died, so the > death rate must be extremely low — heck, it’s no worse than flu. This > is a totally biased, bogus and wrong conclusion because it’s not based > on random sampling. It doesn’t matter if they calculate a 12% rate > not 99%, it is just as phoney an analysis and wrong. > > If the surveyors instead round up 10,000 people randomly from the > population (with no prior knowledge of whether they are or are not > infected), test this larger number and find that the same 99 people > are infected, they will estimate correctly that only about 1 percent > of the larger population is actually infected, now very small > proportion (99 out of 10,000 = 0.99% ≈ 1%). Since this number is way > lower than the bogus video estimate while the number of dead stays the > same, 1200, the actual death rate must be much higher than the bogus > video estimates claim. > > To know the true current infection rate would be really useful, but > needs random sampling and is not going to happen widely in present > circumstances, if at all. As you saw from the local front-line > doctor’s touching e-mail here recently, she and colleagues are working > flat out already, and it is also clear from TV reports that medics are > pushed to find test and PPE materials both here and in USA. If you > perform random tests on 10,000 people and find that most are not > infected, those tests are not useful in the sense that they do not > help diagnose those patients who actually are infected, and are > actually harmful in taking time, money and supplies away from already > overworked heath care personal. Not going to happen in the current > situation. > > It would be useful, though, to have non-bogus estimates to see what > the current infection rate really is, to gauge whether countries are > heading upwards towards 80% of the population infected as suggested by > earlier UK modeling, should no lock-down precautions be taken. Or are > we now heading to an 80% overall infection anyway with a flattened > curve, just much more slowly and integrated over a much longer time > scale? > ------------------------------------------------------- > On Apr 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM, N Robinson <nrobbyn@gmail.com > <mailto:nrobbyn@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Thank you, David, for finding this video that was banned by YouTube - >> very strange... >> >> I find these doctors very responsible, finally someone putting the >> gross numbers into perspective; i.e. looking at per capita rates and >> death rates compared to other illnesses. I have not heard any news >> reports since the beginning of this pandemic telling us how many >> people die every day of many causes. It is as if without Covid 19, >> nobody dies. The doctors' extrapolations to the wider population >> should be examined more closely. I notice, however, that they >> mentioned increased domestic violence, etc. as a side effect of the >> shutdown, but gave no numbers. Nor did the reporters ask how many, >> wit