[NatureNS] Covid lock down

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
References: <26ea2dc2-9d5c-9491-0246-39d76d6afcd5@glinx.com>
From: Richard Stern <sternrichard@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 14:35:55 -0300
To: NatureNS <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
--00000000000036faa005a4999fc1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My 2c. worth, just because I enjoy discussing all manner of stuff  -------
There are lies, damn lies and statistics (I can't remember where that
phrase came from originally).

When talking about risk in this situation, I feel there are 2 rather
separate questions - 1). What is the risk of an individual person
contracting Covid-19 or any other infectious disease for that matter, and
2). Having contracted the disease, what is the risk of that person dying
of it?

There are several potentially statistically valid ways to determine the
true risk to an individual of Covid-19 in a given population, all of them
fraught with difficulties and flaws. Probably the best would be to take a
very large random selection of a total population, which would have to
include pre-symptomatic, asymptomatic, and symptomatic people, test the
entire sample for active infection ( e.g. with nasal swabs, although they
apparently have a significant false negative rate) , and for evidence of
cleared infection (e.g. by looking for antibodies in the blood, which is
not yet proven to be accurate). And all the groups would have to be
re-tested until the answers become clear-cut. At the present time, it seems
there are not enough resources to carry this out.

A second potential method is to compare current death rates in a total
population with those of, e.g. 1 year ago, when weather, flu rates ec. were
comparable, and assume that any significant difference is probably due to
Covid-19. That is also fraught with the difficulty of making the huge and
untested assumptions that the null hypothesis is true, and that
retrospective death rates are accurate.  There are probably other
statistically valid methods, but I can't think of them.

In terms of calculating the risk of dying if you have already contracted
the disease, it seems at least reasonably well-established that there is
increased risk of dying from Covid-19 in older people (but no definition of
older), people with underlying immune deficiencies, underlying other
chronic medical conditions, and some or all of the above. Other factors,
e.g. genetic predisposition to viral infections, are unknown. Otherwise
healthy "young" people can also die of this disease, and it is unknown how
many people in the "high risk" groups are pre- or a-symptomatic,. At least
in Canada at the present time, transmission statistics seem highly biased
towards whether or not one is in a long-term care facility. So estimates of
death rates are almost useless in determining population statistics
regarding transmission, unless all the sub-groups can be teased out.

Whether it is safe to decrease the current isolation, lockdown , re-opening
etc., is a societal decision without  having the above valid statistics.
Which is the higher risk to society - 1).. staying isolated and locked down
for an unknown period, with all the mental health and financial problems
etc. that will bring?  Or 2). opening things up without any valid
statistics on transmission of a potentially (but we don't know how
potentially) fatal disease, is something for society to decide. Some
countries, e.g. New Zealand, have already tried option 1, evidently with
some success so far, but others, notably USA, are in the process of trying
option 2, and it will be interesting to see if that produces an outcome
acceptable to their society.

And for individual people, which is the better/ worse choice - enjoying
your pre-lockdown activities but being a- or pre-symptomatic and risk
infecting others or yourself; or giving up that enjoyment and feeling good
about protecting others and yourself? Or a bit of each? That is something
for the individual to subjectively decide.

Finally, one cannot talk about risk without talking about benefit. Some
people might argue that the benefit of the current pandemic is a return to
more time with family, less environmental pollution as a result of less
travel, more encroachment of nature into urban areas etc., etc. - people in
the farming, travel or restaurant industry, or our future children who have
grown up isolated or who have missed essential schooling might not feel
that these are benefits. Again, that is something for society  and
individuals to decide.


Richard





On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:46 AM Phil Schappert <philjs@eastlink.ca> wrote:

> On 2020-05-01 9:46 AM, N Robinson wrote:
>
> > I think the doctors' video was pulled from YouTube because it went
> > viral - so perhaps considered too influential in the politicized
> > atmosphere in the U.S.
>
>
> Nancy, it was pulled because it's wrong. Period. Stephen called it
> "nonsense" but perhaps "poppycock" would be better suited. Or, as
> Sherman T. Potter would say, it's "Bullpucky!"
>
> Phil
>
> --
>
> Phil Schappert, PhD
>
> 27 Clovis Ave.
> Halifax, NS, B3P 1J3
>
> philschappert.ca
> imaginaturestudio.ca
>
>    =E2=97=8E|||||||=E2=97=8E
>
> If it gets much better than this,
>   I may need some medication, to get me through the day
> If it gets much better than this,
>   I may need some strong sedation, or I might just float away
>
>            Tony Hawks, Nik Kershaw & Ash Alexander
>           (from 'Round Ireland With A Fridge, 2010)
>
>

--=20
#################
Richard Stern,
Port Williams, NS, Canada
sternrichard@gmail.com
###################

--00000000000036faa005a4999fc1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small">My =
2c. worth, just because I enjoy discussing all manner of stuff=C2=A0 ------=
- There are lies, damn lies and statistics (I can&#39;t remember where that=
 phrase came from originally).=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" styl=
e=3D"font-size:small"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-=
size:small">When talking about risk in this situation, I feel there are 2 r=
ather separate questions=C2=A0- 1). What is the risk of an individual perso=
n contracting Covid-19 or any other infectious=C2=A0disease for that matter=
, and 2). Having contracted the disease, what is the risk of that person dy=
ing of=C2=A0it?</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small"=
><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small">There are=
 several potentially statistically valid ways to determine the true risk to=
 an individual of Covid-19 in a given population, all of them fraught with =
difficulties and flaws. Probably the best would be to take a very large ran=
dom selection of a total population, which would have to include pre-sympto=
matic, asymptomatic, and symptomatic people, test the entire sample for act=
ive infection ( e.g. with nasal swabs, although they apparent