MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => COVID-19 => Topic started by: WarriorDad on April 25, 2020, 08:49:30 PM
-
This was on Yahoo today. Doctors out west presenting some information, and they also mention Wisconsin doctors several times. They address a number of the various options and concerns people have mentioned here. There is a bit for everyone here. Several reporters in the room asking them questions. Good exchanges with media and the doctors.
Takeaways
They are advocating for widespread testing, but we cannot test all of humanity and there are major tradeoffs in thinking that is possible
They are working with what they have today based on data now. Discuss that double-blind full research will not be available until next year.
New York perfect setup for hot zone, but doesn't mean rest of the country is.
Models early on were wrong, but best that we had. With more data now, need to adjust how we think.
Hospital administrations pressuring doctors on death certificates to list COVID as one of the causes (Wisconsin mention)
The vulnerable should shelter in place. If you have comorbidities, use a mask. If you are healthy, you should not.
People have been scared to go to the doctor and other diseases are causing problems that need to be treated.
They believe quarantining the healthy is wrong. Quarantine the sick.
Increase in alcoholism, sexual assaults, depression, domestic violence because of shelter in place. Financial ruin will ultimately be worse than the policies practiced.
Doctors furloughed, hospitals closing floors.
They touch on Sweden and Norway stats and in the USA
When shelter in place ends, illness will spike which they say is normal. The current plan, in their opinion, is hurting our immune systems because we are not out and about. They want schools reopened, businesses. Sports they believe should be slower.
https://youtu.be/xfLVxx_lBLU
https://youtu.be/zb6j7o1pLBw
-
This was on Yahoo today. Doctors out west presenting some information, and they also mention Wisconsin doctors several times. They address a number of the various options and concerns people have mentioned here. There is a bit for everyone here. Several reporters in the room asking them questions. Good exchanges with media and the doctors.
Takeaways
They are advocating for widespread testing, but we cannot test all of humanity and there are major tradeoffs in thinking that is possible
They are working with what they have today based on data now. Discuss that double-blind full research will not be available until next year.
New York perfect setup for hot zone, but doesn't mean rest of the country is.
Models early on were wrong, but best that we had. With more data now, need to adjust how we think.
Hospital administrations pressuring doctors on death certificates to list COVID as one of the causes (Wisconsin mention)
The vulnerable should shelter in place. If you have comorbidities, use a mask. If you are healthy, you should not.
People have been scared to go to the doctor and other diseases are causing problems that need to be treated.
They believe quarantining the healthy is wrong. Quarantine the sick.
Increase in alcoholism, sexual assaults, depression, domestic violence because of shelter in place. Financial ruin will ultimately be worse than the policies practiced.
Doctors furloughed, hospitals closing floors.
They touch on Sweden and Norway stats and in the USA
When shelter in place ends, illness will spike which they say is normal. The current plan, in their opinion, is hurting our immune systems because we are not out and about. They want schools reopened, businesses. Sports they believe should be slower.
https://youtu.be/xfLVxx_lBLU
https://youtu.be/zb6j7o1pLBw
So we have medical doctors claiming people at risk should wear masks but people not at risk should not? I will stay away from those doctors. The masks are not preventing a person from getting the disease. They’re helping to prevent the spread of the disease.
Also, there are a ton of people who aren’t “sick” that have it and can spread it. By not quarantining them we will just continue the spread of it.
-
i agree with what they are saying.
I still think sports and the movies can go on with preassigned seating to space out the crowd. obviously a limit on the people that can attend and slowly build it up
-
Interesting takes. There are always outlier opinions.
-
So we have medical doctors claiming people at risk should wear masks but people not at risk should not? I will stay away from those doctors. The masks are not preventing a person from getting the disease. They’re helping to prevent the spread of the disease.
Also, there are a ton of people who aren’t “sick” that have it and can spread it. By not quarantining them we will just continue the spread of it.
the big thing to figure out say i am diabetic and the 5 others in my house are fine, what happens then. Do I hide in the basement until a vaccine?
-
the big thing to figure out say i am diabetic and the 5 others in my house are fine, what happens then. Do I hide in the basement until a vaccine?
Exactly. What people still don’t understand is that sometimes the world isn’t always all about you. Yes, if I went about my life as if it was normal the chances are I would get covid 19 and the chances are I would come out of it just fine. Great! The problem is the chances are I would also be spreading it to other people, who would then go and spread it to more people, and eventually it would get to someone who would not come out of it just fine.
-
the big thing to figure out say i am diabetic and the 5 others in my house are fine, what happens then. Do I hide in the basement until a vaccine?
Three choices, none optimal:
1.You hide in your basement for as long as it takes - until there’s a vaccine, herd immunity, whatever it is that gives you the confidence to leave.
2. You and your family quarantine for as long as it takes - until...
3. Everybody quarantines.
#1 or #2 make more sense to me than #3.
-
Here we go again.
Chicos has found some videos from two ER doctors in Bakersfiled, California who agree with him and therefore are given full authority on this topic. Even though that county's and state's public health officials, who are, you know, experts in public health, don't agree with them.
So so Chicos....
-
Three choices, none optimal:
1.You hide in your basement for as long as it takes - until there’s a vaccine, herd immunity, whatever it is that gives you the confidence to leave.
2. You and your family quarantine for as long as it takes - until...
3. Everybody quarantines.
#1 or #2 make more sense to me than #3.
Lennys, I am having trouble understanding what your world would look like. Keeping restaurants and bars open with no social distancing? Social distancing in place? Because the first option seems very dangerous given what we know. The second sounds about as economically feasible as the current situation.
I think the biggest problem is going to be people's willingness to engage in activities that they used to engage in. If the economy "opened up" tomorrow, are people going to want to sit in a packed bar? Go to a sporting event? Fly to a crowded destination to go on vacation?
I think we are blaming the government's response to the pandemic for the economic problems way more than the actual culprit. The pandemic.
-
Lennys, I am having trouble understanding what your world would look like. Keeping restaurants and bars open with no social distancing? Social distancing in place? Because the first option seems very dangerous given what we know. The second sounds about as economically feasible as the current situation.
I think the biggest problem is going to be people's willingness to engage in activities that they used to engage in. If the economy "opened up" tomorrow, are people going to want to sit in a packed bar? Go to a sporting event? Fly to a crowded destination to go on vacation?
I think we are blaming the government's response to the pandemic for the economic problems way more than the actual culprit. The pandemic.
Fluff - even when we “open up” I think that some people should practice strict social distancing for as long as it takes. Others will choose it. Some businesses will be affected for a long time.
-
I think we are blaming the government's response to the pandemic for the economic problems way more than the actual culprit. The pandemic.
For the first couple weeks no one was blaming the government. Once the pandemic was politicized...
-
To go along with the 'some' who are and are advocating for drinking bleach.
-
Here we go again.
Chicos has found some videos from two ER doctors in Bakersfiled, California who agree with him and therefore are given full authority on this topic. Even though that county's and state's public health officials, who are, you know, experts in public health, don't agree with them.
So so Chicos....
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/fs0idQwq7jQAZKfqfm/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47d340bf7ea0c8850b77adbfa4d2a66544da2a7e55&rid=giphy.gif)
Exactly. Another appeal to authority... except they're not authoritative... but you know, they're doctors, so we should give them the same authority as epidemiologists... because... reasons.
-
Fluff - even when we “open up” I think that some people should practice strict social distancing for as long as it takes. Others will choose it. Some businesses will be affected for a long time.
So then it seems to me the economy is f*cked either way.
-
These docs have an interesting perspective, but they make an immense error in assuming that the % positive COVID-19 tests among the tested population equals the percentage of the total population that has been infected by the virus. Indeed, because testing to date has been limited almost entirely to symptomatic persons throughout the USA, the percentage of positive results should be orders of magnitude higher than in the general population. This is an almost inexplicable error on their part, which places the remainder of their discussion in question.
-
This is the equivalent of a couple of Pop Warner football coaches holding a press conference to argue that Bill Belichick and Nick Saban don't understand defensive game planning as well as they do. And using faulty data to support their claims.
-
This is the equivalent of a couple of Pop Warner football coaches holding a press conference to argue that Bill Belichick and Nick Saban don't understand defensive game planning as well as they do. And using faulty data to support their claims.
Now that's what I call fascinating!
-
Appeal to authority.
500 economists...
-
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1254481543759683584?s=19
TLDR: that video is totally bogus
-
These docs have an interesting perspective, but they make an immense error in assuming that the % positive COVID-19 tests among the tested population equals the percentage of the total population that has been infected by the virus. Indeed, because testing to date has been limited almost entirely to symptomatic persons throughout the USA, the percentage of positive results should be orders of magnitude higher than in the general population. This is an almost inexplicable error on their part, which places the remainder of their discussion in question.
You mean if 2 people go to the doctor and 1 is infected it doesn't mean that 50% of the general population is infected? I watched 30 minute of the video last night and turned it off after the same logic was used multiple times.
I'm pretty torn on how to think about risk vs. benefit in regards to reopening (so much we are still learning) but arguments like that presented in the video aren't helping.
-
double post
-
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1254481543759683584?s=19
TLDR: that video is totally bogus
Agreed. Barely got through 1 minute of it, before there were glaring inaccuracies.
So some owners of predatory urgent care (fake ER's that profit off labeling themselves as an ER), want people to reopen. I can come up with at least a dozen reasons why they may be motivated to go that route that have nothing to do with health of patients.
Also, this being about the same as a regular flu is provably false.
-
So then it seems to me the economy is f*cked either way.
F*cked for sure. It already is. But not totally, depression type f*cked. Yet.
-
F*cked for sure. It already is. But not totally, depression type f*cked. Yet.
Lenny I’ve been thinking a lot about this from a curiosity standpoint. Here is one guys opinion.
1. A significant amount of consumer demand is going to be lost not matter what the govt decides or doesn’t decide to do as it related to shutdowns.
2. Controlling the virus is paramount to any business recovery
3. The next ‘wave’ of economic/wage driven loss is just started and that likely precedes the next wave of virus driven loss (balanced by fiscal/monetary support).
So in my mind we need to find out how to keep a factory or business open and running. The only way I see that happening is testing with an intrusive level of tracing that the US citizens haven’t faced before or a vaccine.
Somehow we need to find a quick way to identify sick people and keep them out of circulation.
-
These guys also don’t believe in vaccines, so there’s that.
-
So in my mind we need to find out how to keep a factory or business open and running. The only way I see that happening is testing with an intrusive level of tracing that the US citizens haven’t faced before or a vaccine.
Somehow we need to find a quick way to identify sick people and keep them out of circulation.
Frenns
If 50% or 80% of people with the virus are asymtomatic testing and tracing - unless you can test everyone multiple times - won’t do the job. That’s why I tend to favor keeping the vulnerable as under wraps and protected ar possible while the healthy build a herd immunity.
I acknowledged it’s a gamble. All strategies are. Just eels like the most logical one to me.
-
Frenns
If 50% or 80% of people with the virus are asymtomatic testing and tracing - unless you can test everyone multiple times - won’t do the job. That’s why I tend to favor keeping the vulnerable as under wraps and protected ar possible while the healthy build a herd immunity.
I acknowledged it’s a gamble. All strategies are. Just eels like the most logical one to me.
The original plan, I thought, was to go through cycles of open and closed to keep everything below the point of saturating medical facilities.
I think that was nixed as too hard/damaging on an economy. But we can't open it up either if it might overwhelm the system.
It just now feels like we have no real plan.
So do we open now and wing it? Take whatever losses of life that will occur. Do we stay closed indefinitely? Take the economic penalty and call it a reset?
Or can we do a rolling open/close/open/close plan, without massive consequences?
-
Frenns
If 50% or 80% of people with the virus are asymtomatic testing and tracing - unless you can test everyone multiple times - won’t do the job. That’s why I tend to favor keeping the vulnerable as under wraps and protected ar possible while the healthy build a herd immunity.
I acknowledged it’s a gamble. All strategies are. Just eels like the most logical one to me.
Pick a number on asymptomatic. It doesn’t actually matter. Slaughterhouses and first responders can’t stay healthy and operational. There is not taking a risk. We are taking it and failing.
-
The original plan, I thought, was to go through cycles of open and closed to keep everything below the point of saturating medical facilities.
Yes, 15 days to bend the curve became 45 days. Now in the area where it appeared facilities might be overwhelmed, that has been accomplished. New York/New Jersey is looking for states/other countries that need ventilators. The other initially “hot” areas (Washington and California) never really saw their systems stressed. Neither did Florida, thought to be a potential tinderbox.
It seems as if the curve has been bent in many areas but people now say it’s still not “safe”. True, and it won’t be for a long, long time. Do we wait another 45 days, and another and another - ad infinitum? That’s not a plan either IMO.
-
Pick a number on asymptomatic. It doesn’t actually matter. Slaughterhouses and first responders can’t stay healthy and operational. There is not taking a risk. We are taking it and failing.
The original plan, I thought, was to go through cycles of open and closed to keep everything below the point of saturating medical facilities.
I think that was nixed as too hard/damaging on an economy. But we can't open it up either if it might overwhelm the system.
It just now feels like we have no real plan.
So do we open now and wing it? Take whatever losses of life that will occur. Do we stay closed indefinitely? Take the economic penalty and call it a reset?
Or can we do a rolling open/close/open/close plan, without massive consequences?
That to me is what gives me the most anxiety. What is the plan in late May? I don’t know. No one seems to know. I mean we have to have people working and going about life in proximity to one another right?
So what are we going to do? Each answer seems wrought with awful consequences.
-
Pick a number on asymptomatic. It doesn’t actually matter. Slaughterhouses and first responders can’t stay healthy and operational. There is not taking a risk. We are taking it and failing.
I don’t know. Could be 10,000,000, could be 100,000,000. Hope it’s the latter. It would mean the virus is less lethal than believed and we are more than half way to herd immunity.
-
Dr. Scott Atlas, MD, chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center had these comments today. Similar to the doctors yesterday. I'm inclined to agree with them as more data comes in
The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.
Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.
Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.
In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.
Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.
The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.
The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.
Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
-
The concern I have with relying on herd immunity – referred to by the Stanford physician as “population immunity” – is that many experts question whether we will even see it with this virus. If we don’t, we will just see wave after wave of outbreaks.
As for isolating the “high risk“ groups, that may be (relativity) easy to do with the 65+ crowd. But there is a huge number of Americans with diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiac disease, lung disease, and obesity. Do we isolate everyone with those conditions too? And if so, who covers their unemployment until a vaccine is developed?
-
I don’t know. Could be 10,000,000, could be 100,000,000. Hope it’s the latter. It would mean the virus is less lethal than believed and we are more than half way to herd immunity.
Exactly. You are guessing and so am i because we don’t have a scalable way to tell who has or doesn’t have it. NYC best guess is 20% based on sampling. Santa Clara single digits. It’s maddening because until we know more we are flying blind and so will businesses as they try to keep mfg running, let alone services.
-
Dr. Scott Atlas, MD, chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center had these comments today. Similar to the doctors yesterday. I'm inclined to agree with them as more data comes in
The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.
Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.
Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.
In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.
Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.
The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.
The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.
Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
Well eventually we will be opening back up. It's not like we are staying in this state forever. Being a couple of weeks on either side of the "perfect" opening date isn't going to matter either way.
-
The concern I have with relying on herd immunity – referred to by the Stanford physician as “population immunity” – is that many experts question whether we will even see it with this virus. If we don’t, we will just see wave after wave of outbreaks.
As for isolating the “high risk“ groups, that may be (relativity) easy to do with the 65+ crowd. But there is a huge number of Americans with diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiac disease, lung disease, and obesity. Do we isolate everyone with those conditions too? And if so, who covers their unemployment until a vaccine is developed?
So there’s a chance that herd immunity won’t work. And some younger people (who should know who they are) need to self isolate. It’s still a far better plan than hiding under the bed until a vaccine (maybe never) comes along.
-
It’s still a far better plan than hiding under the bed until a vaccine (maybe never) comes along.
Who is recommending this?
-
So there’s a chance that herd immunity won’t work. And some younger people (who should know who they are) need to self isolate. It’s still a far better plan than hiding under the bed until a vaccine (maybe never) comes along.
Is this anyone's plan? Feels like a false choice dilemma.
But I agree. Spending the next 12-18 months under one's bed is a terrible idea.
-
Herd immunity is predicated on the assumption that people who have had it acquire some sort of immunity. They don’t yet know if that is true.
-
Herd immunity is predicated on the assumption that people who have had it acquire some sort of immunity. They don’t yet know if that is true.
Also predicated on a minimum of 70 percent of the population contracting it. That's 231 million Americans. Even with a mortality rate on the low end of current estimates - let's say .15 percent - that's 345,000 deaths. That's a lot of dead people in a short amount of time, all in hopes of a herd immunity that may never arrive.
-
And the other thing is that we would all like them to be right. We all want our lives back.
-
Also predicated on a minimum of 70 percent of the population contracting it. That's 231 million Americans. Even with a mortality rate on the low end of current estimates - let's say .15 percent - that's 345,000 deaths. That's a lot of dead people in a short amount of time, all in hopes of a herd immunity that may never arrive.
Not to mention that the people that recover aren't all going to recover fully. There are a lot of long term problems.
-
Also predicated on a minimum of 70 percent of the population contracting it. That's 231 million Americans. Even with a mortality rate on the low end of current estimates - let's say .15 percent - that's 345,000 deaths. That's a lot of dead people in a short amount of time, all in hopes of a herd immunity that may never arrive.
Yes, that’s a lot of dead people. Sadly, no matter what steps we take, IMO there will be a lot of dead people. The war metaphor is an apt one. Casualties are inevitable. What plan do you favor and how many casualties over what time period do you suppose your plan will result in? And at what added cost to the economy?
-
Yes, that’s a lot of dead people. Sadly, no matter what steps we take, IMO there will be a lot of dead people. The war metaphor is an apt one. Casualties are inevitable. What plan do you favor and how many casualties over what time period do you suppose your plan will result in? And at what added cost to the economy?
I trust in the expertise of the vast majority of those knowledgeable in the area of communicable diseases and therefore believe the stay-at-home orders implemented in most places are wise measures that are saving lives. I believe that in the coming weeks, if and when the rate of infection slows and treatment options improve, we need to begin a gradual lifting of those restrictions while continuing to increase our testing and tracing capabilities, and leaving open options to reimpose restrictions when and where needed.
I have no idea how many people will die as a result. How would I? It's kind of a dumb question.
Is it your belief that the number of deaths will be the same, regardless of the course of action? Or will some measures save more lives than others? And exactly how many additional people are you willing to let die to reopen* your precious economy sooner than the medical professionals suggest? Just give me a ballpark figure of how many lives aren't worth the effort.
As has already been explained, the war metaphor is not apt, unless you believe wars are fought with no idea of how to kill your enemy or even where your enemy is located.
* = And I really wish we'd stop using this phrase. The economy isn't closed. It is in many ways suppressed, but it's not closed.
-
Is it your belief that the number of deaths will be the same, regardless of the course of action? Or will some measures save more lives than others? And exactly how many additional people are you willing to let die to reopen* your precious economy sooner than the medical professionals suggest? Just give me a ballpark figure of how many lives aren't worth the effort.
It is my belief that the Swedish plan will actually save lives. We can quarantine/protect the most vulnerable relatively well for a short period of time (while achieving herd immunity). Over a much longer period (a year, 18 months?) I don’t like our chances. That doesn’t mean the number of weekly deaths won’t increase initially. They will. Long run, I don’t think so. Worse case, I think it’s a push.
Regarding “my precious economy”, I don’t really have any skin in the game. I’m 71, mostly retired - my life won’t change whether this is a V or U shaped recovery or prolonged recession or depression. But dismissing the unnecessary pain, suffering and even death that would be associated with the latter is, again imo, myopic.
You say you are “going with the experts”. I’d say more accurately that you’re going with a consensus. If and when you’re/they’re wrong you’ll have that as a cover. I prefer the plan that the Swedish “experts” (medical and economic) have come up with. It’s more logical to me. Time will tell.
-
There’s nothing showing herd immunity is even possible with this virus.
-
There’s nothing showing herd immunity is even possible with this virus.
This is an important point.
Also, why is everyone focusing on Sweden and not new Zealand?
-
It is my belief that the Swedish plan will actually save lives. We can quarantine/protect the most vulnerable relatively well for a short period of time (while achieving herd immunity). Over a much longer period (a year, 18 months?) I don’t like our chances. That doesn’t mean the number of weekly deaths won’t increase initially. They will. Long run, I don’t think so. Worse case, I think it’s a push.
So you believe that over the next 12-18 months there will be no medical advancements in the understanding and treatment of this disease that will that better one's chances of surviving infection? Like, a person who comes down with COVID-19 in April 2021 is in the same boat as one who contracted it in April 2020?
I'd be very disappointed in the world's medical community if that were the case.
Regarding “my precious economy”, I don’t really have any skin in the game. I’m 71, mostly retired - my life won’t change whether this is a V or U shaped recovery or prolonged recession or depression. But dismissing the unnecessary pain, suffering and even death that would be associated with the latter is, again imo, myopic.
Some might suggest that the economic pain isn't unnecessary if it's saving lives.
-
This is an important point.
Also, why is everyone focusing on Sweden and not new Zealand?
It seems obvious.
-
So you believe that over the next 12-18 months there will be no medical advancements in the understanding and treatment of this disease that will that better one's chances of surviving infection? Like, a person who comes down with COVID-19 in April 2021 is in the same boat as one who contracted it in April 2020?
I'd be very disappointed in the world's medical community if that were the case.
Some might suggest that the economic pain isn't unnecessary if it's saving lives.
I believe that there’s a better chance that herd immunity will work than we’ll have a vaccine in 12-18 months. Maybe treatments will be more effective by then but by then I believe more of the vulnerable will become infected, too.
I believe that a 12-18 month lockdown means a depression. That’s more than mere economic pain.
I don’t know if I’m right, you’re right or if we’re both wrong. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that whatever strategy we employ end up working. That’s my only wish. I’m sure yours too.
Finally, I believe it’s unfair for you to insinuate I’m advocating $$ over lives.
-
I believe that there’s a better chance that herd immunity will work than we’ll have a vaccine in 12-18 months. Maybe treatments will be more effective by then but by then I believe more of the vulnerable will become infected, too.
I believe that a 12-18 month lockdown means a depression. That’s more than mere economic pain.
I don’t know if I’m right, you’re right or if we’re both wrong. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that whatever strategy we employ end up working. That’s my only wish. I’m sure yours too.
Finally, I believe it’s unfair for you to insinuate I’m advocating $$ over lives.
Really good answer. This isn’t money over lives, but if people want to ignore the damage a destroyed economy also does to lives when they do not have jobs or money coming in is surprising and naive. If the mortality rates by the Stanford doctor are correct, this discussion has to happen.
Sweden is in the news because they are trying something different and not an island nation dissimilar to most other nations. They are comparable in geography, lifestyle, and demographics and newsworthy as a result.
It seems obvious.
-
Finally, I believe it’s unfair for you to insinuate I’m advocating $$ over lives.
I apologize if I've misunderstood or misstated your comments. Sincerely.
Side note ... I don't believe there's been serious suggestion by anyone here of a 12- to 18-month lockdown, so that seems a bit of a straw man.
-
I apologize if I've misunderstood or misstated your comments. Sincerely.
Side note ... I don't believe there's been serious suggestion by anyone here of a 12- to 18-month lockdown, so that seems a bit of a straw man.
Thanks, Pakuni. Much appreciated.
I thought the best estimate for a vaccine (if we get one) was 12-18 months and I further thought that folks here had proposed a lockdown until we had one. I apologize if this was a misrepresentation.
-
If the mortality rates by the Stanford doctor are correct, this discussion has to happen.
The mortality rates by the Stanford doctors are wrong. So no need for the discussion?
Here is an analysis of why the Stanford data is fundamentally incorrect, likely deliberately so.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/
Not to mention they lied to all the participants in saying the tests were FDA approved, and would guarantee whether they had the virus or not. That is a major violation of research ethics and a violation of human experimentation.
-
Wow. I never thought I would see an Andrew Gelman blog post on Scoop.
There's a first time for everything I guess.
-
Really good answer. This isn’t money over lives, but if people want to ignore the damage a destroyed economy also does to lives when they do not have jobs or money coming in is surprising and naive. If the mortality rates by the Stanford doctor are correct, this discussion has to happen.
Sweden is in the news because they are trying something different and not an island nation dissimilar to most other nations. They are comparable in geography, lifestyle, and demographics and newsworthy as a result.
It seems obvious.
Only if you cherry pick data. Very Chicos.
Anyway, the discussion doesn't need to happen. It's happened. States will be opening back up on their own timelines. End of May at the latest it seems.
-
Really good answer. This isn’t money over lives, but if people want to ignore the damage a destroyed economy also does to lives when they do not have jobs or money coming in is surprising and naive. If the mortality rates by the Stanford doctor are correct, this discussion has to happen.
Sweden is in the news because they are trying something different and not an island nation dissimilar to most other nations. They are comparable in geography, lifestyle, and demographics and newsworthy as a result.
It seems obvious.
Intellectual dishonesty
-
Intellectual dishonesty
quelle surprise
-
Exactly. Another appeal to authority... except they're not authoritative... but you know, they're doctors, so we should give them the same authority as epidemiologists... because... reasons.
Appeal to authority? Isn't that done here routinely? When someone attaches an article to say they nailed it, isn't that an appeal to authority to back up their opinion on a matter? You don't seem troubled by it when you do it, or others here. Member Forgetful appealing to authority because he appeals to Andrew Gelman?
I found those doctors interesting, and also the Stanford doctor (Atlas) whom I copied. Last evening there were countless doctors in various forums saying similar things with other doctors opposing them. Healthy dialogue is good.
Everyone here is frustrated. Your constant name calling, bullying and other attacks are not needed. I'm sorry you are stressed out, but many of us are.
-
Appeal to authority? Isn't that done here routinely? When someone attaches an article to say they nailed it, isn't that an appeal to authority to back up their opinion on a matter? You don't seem troubled by it when you do it, or others here. Member Forgetful appealing to authority because he appeals to Andrew Gelman?
I'm not appealing to authority, or appealing to Andrew Gelman.
I'm appealing to basic statistical theory and experimental practice. Something the Stanford guys absolutely ignored. I'm appealing to their flawed data, tests, and analysis.
-
I'm not appealing to authority, or appealing to Andrew Gelman.
I'm appealing to basic statistical theory and experimental practice. Something the Stanford guys absolutely ignored. I'm appealing to their flawed data, tests, and analysis.
You used a link to back up your claim, no different than I did. The Stanford researchers have promised to release additional information (this week?) to address Gelman's and other critiques. When they do can that be linked or will this endless bickering and calling people names continue?
-
You used a link to back up your claim, no different than I did. The Stanford researchers have promised to release additional information (this week?) to address Gelman's and other critiques. When they do can that be linked or will this endless bickering and calling people names continue?
Depends if they remotely follow proper experimental protocol, and statistical methods, or not. They have proven through this and past research that they are more interested in political aims, than they are in research integrity. Frankly, I don't see how they deal with the clear and obvious biases, and violations of research ethics, in regards to their subject recruitment.
But data is data. I look at all data the same way.
-
Appeal to authority? Isn't that done here routinely? When someone attaches an article to say they nailed it, isn't that an appeal to authority to back up their opinion on a matter? You don't seem troubled by it when you do it, or others here. Member Forgetful appealing to authority because he appeals to Andrew Gelman?
This isn't what's meant by appeal to authority.
And expertise in the field is wholly relevant when weighing credibility in matters of science and statistics.
-
You used a link to back up your claim, no different than I did.
More intellectual dishonesty. SOP.
-
Intellectual dishonesty
Help make me a better person the . Why do you think it is intellectually dishonest? There have been comments here that truly are dishonest ( “blood on their hands”), but how is my statement dishonest?
-
Appeal to authority.
500 economists...
This has been mentioned multiple times now. Can someone explain what 500 economists means?
-
This has been mentioned multiple times now. Can someone explain what 500 economists means?
::)
-
Appeal to authority? Isn't that done here routinely? When someone attaches an article to say they nailed it, isn't that an appeal to authority to back up their opinion on a matter? You don't seem troubled by it when you do it, or others here. Member Forgetful appealing to authority because he appeals to Andrew Gelman?
I found those doctors interesting, and also the Stanford doctor (Atlas) whom I copied. Last evening there were countless doctors in various forums saying similar things with other doctors opposing them. Healthy dialogue is good.
Everyone here is frustrated. Your constant name calling, bullying and other attacks are not needed. I'm sorry you are stressed out, but many of us are.
Yeah, you don't understand what I was saying. Read up.
Interesting final comment. I have been the one that has been bullying people? Where exactly?
Honestly, I'm not stressed out. Maybe you're doing a little big of projection here.
Or you're just holding some sort of grudge... for some reason, "Mike".
Wait, is that name calling?
-
https://www.acep.org/corona/COVID-19/covid-19-articles/acep-aaem-joint-statement-on-physician-misinformation/?fbclid=IwAR1xpyVAR9WYacsdt6I06Au5zgZQZujGB-AXTHDxpS4-WwCizb4ZUVWUhr0
Pushback from an organization of emergency room physicians questioning their methodology, conclusions, and bias.
-
And the reason the videos have gone blank above is that YouTube removed them.
-
Too bad. I was going to watch it again as a satirical piece.
-
Thanks, Pakuni. Much appreciated.
I thought the best estimate for a vaccine (if we get one) was 12-18 months and I further thought that folks here had proposed a lockdown until we had one. I apologize if this was a misrepresentation.
I for one think the lockdown should only continue until states meet the criteria to begin the three-phase reopening set forth (and then subsequently ignored) by Trump. Among other things, this requires states to have declining trajectory of infections for 14 days, adequate resources to test all symptomatic individuals, and adequate resources for contact tracing for anyone who tests positive.
I am not sure which if any states meet these criteria, but doubt it would take 12-18 months.
-
And the reason the videos have gone blank above is that YouTube removed them.
You Tube should not be censoring, but they do. It has been happening in social media for several years now. Wholly UnAmerican and not appropriate for the debate we all should be having.
It is good that others are pushing back, that is where dialogue stems from. Have the debate, do not censor.
Related. Last night Dr. Stephen Smith, Infectious Disease expert, called the Virginia study on hydroxychoriquine a sham. Is he right? I don't know, but there sure seem to be many people that are gleeful if it doesn't work or point to examples to prove they are right.
"I've no idea why [University of Virginia School of Medicine opthamology professor Dr. Jayakrishna Ambati] delved into this study, which isn't a study. It's a sham," Smith said. "I can't believe anyone took this seriously. There's not one dosage listed, cumulative or daily, of hydroxychloriquine or anthromicin. And people call this a study."
-
You Tube should not be censoring, but they do. It has been happening in social media for several years now. Wholly UnAmerican and not appropriate for the debate we all should be having.
It is good that others are pushing back, that is where dialogue stems from. Have the debate, do not censor.
It's not a debate if they facts they use are innaccurate. It's misinformation.
-
You Tube should not be censoring, but they do. It has been happening in social media for several years now. Wholly UnAmerican and not appropriate for the debate we all should be having.
YouTube has no obligation to allow people to use its private platform to spread misinformation, especially misinformation that's potentially dangerous. That;s the kind of thing that gets companies sued.
Since when is it "UnAmerican" for a private enterprise to choose how its service is used? Funny take from a guy who believes the NFL was within its rights to punish anthem kneelers.
Related.
Not remotely related.
Also, you didn't mention that Dr. Stephen Smith is a Fox News guest who's claimed that hydroxychloroquine would end the pandemic.
A very objective source.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-stephen-smith-on-effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine-with-coronavirus-symptoms-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-pandemic
-
You Tube should not be censoring, but they do. It has been happening in social media for several years now. Wholly UnAmerican and not appropriate for the debate we all should be having.
It is good that others are pushing back, that is where dialogue stems from. Have the debate, do not censor.
Related. Last night Dr. Stephen Smith, Infectious Disease expert, called the Virginia study on hydroxychoriquine a sham. Is he right? I don't know, but there sure seem to be many people that are gleeful if it doesn't work or point to examples to prove they are right.
"I've no idea why [University of Virginia School of Medicine opthamology professor Dr. Jayakrishna Ambati] delved into this study, which isn't a study. It's a sham," Smith said. "I can't believe anyone took this seriously. There's not one dosage listed, cumulative or daily, of hydroxychloriquine or anthromicin. And people call this a study."
Where'd you get that story about Dr. Stephen Smith? CNN? MSNBC? I ask this rhetorically, because I know the answer.
Additionally, what are Dr. Stephen Smith's credentials? What is the Smith Center? Why do they have the same name? Is it just a guy with a small practice in Jersey that has DONATE buttons all over his webpage?
You know, you wouldn't seem so intellectually dishonest if you'd even do a simple google search before quoting and appealing to the authority of one man.
But I guess some things never change.
-
YouTube has no obligation to allow people to use its private platform to spread misinformation, especially misinformation that's potentially dangerous. That;s the kind of thing that gets companies sued.
Since when is it "UnAmerican" for a private enterprise to choose how its service is used? Funny take from a guy who believes the NFL was within its rights to punish anthem kneelers.
Not remotely related.
Also, you didn't mention that Dr. Stephen Smith is a Fox News guest who's claimed that hydroxychloroquine would end the pandemic.
A very objective source.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-stephen-smith-on-effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine-with-coronavirus-symptoms-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-pandemic
Crap, I walked away for 20 minutes to do some work, and I don't get to be the first to crap on that guy. C'est la vie.
-
You Tube should not be censoring, but they do. It has been happening in social media for several years now. Wholly UnAmerican and not appropriate for the debate we all should be having.
It is good that others are pushing back, that is where dialogue stems from. Have the debate, do not censor.
Related. Last night Dr. Stephen Smith, Infectious Disease expert, called the Virginia study on hydroxychoriquine a sham. Is he right? I don't know, but there sure seem to be many people that are gleeful if it doesn't work or point to examples to prove they are right.
"I've no idea why [University of Virginia School of Medicine opthamology professor Dr. Jayakrishna Ambati] delved into this study, which isn't a study. It's a sham," Smith said. "I can't believe anyone took this seriously. There's not one dosage listed, cumulative or daily, of hydroxychloriquine or anthromicin. And people call this a study."
lol, internet lawyer is very serious about censorship.
-
Misinformation should be squashed by every authority that has control over its domain.
There should be zero "debate" when it comes to misinformation.
Intellectual dishonesty continues.
-
YouTube has no obligation to allow people to use its private platform to spread misinformation, especially misinformation that's potentially dangerous. That;s the kind of thing that gets companies sued.
Since when is it "UnAmerican" for a private enterprise to choose how its service is used? Funny take from a guy who believes the NFL was within its rights to punish anthem kneelers.
Not remotely related.
Also, you didn't mention that Dr. Stephen Smith is a Fox News guest who's claimed that hydroxychloroquine would end the pandemic.
A very objective source.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-stephen-smith-on-effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine-with-coronavirus-symptoms-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-pandemic
I have never made any comment about NFL anthem protests here. If you want my opinion, they have every right to express their opinion in any way they wish. That is the American way. There may be consequences to those actions from some parts of society, but that does not change my opinion they should be able to do what they wish.
Who is determining if what those doctors are saying is misinformation? It is their opinion as doctors. YouTube may be under no obligation, but it appears they are deciding what is and isn't trustworthy. What are YouTube's credentials to do this? If these doctors had said in early March that wearing a mask was important, would their videos have been pulled down since WHO and others said masks were not important until they changed their stance?
Are Dr. Smith's concerns about the study done valid? He raised legitimate concerns and the question should be whether they are valid.
-
Who is determining if what those doctors are saying is misinformation? It is their opinion as doctors. YouTube may be under no obligation, but it appears they are deciding what is and isn't trustworthy. What are YouTube's credentials to do this? If these doctors had said in early March that wearing a mask was important, would their videos have been pulled down since WHO and others said masks were not important until they changed their stance?
Their opinions were based on factual inaccuracies.
-
Misinformation should be squashed by every authority that has control over its domain.
There should be zero "debate" when it comes to misinformation.
Intellectual dishonesty continues.
Who is deciding? What credentials do they have to determine if the information is incorrect? Look at the changes from health professionals in the last two months alone. How many pivots, turns, changes in approach have taken place that would have been deemed misinformation by some only do become solid gold information only weeks later.
These doctors are joined by other doctors asking the same questions. Because someone doesn't like the information doesn't make it misinformation. Imagine how many other doctors won't even bother coming forward with their opinions because of the attacks they will suffer. Chilling.
-
Who is deciding? What credentials do they have to determine if the information is incorrect? Look at the changes from health professionals in the last two months alone. How many pivots, turns, changes in approach have taken place that would have been deemed misinformation by some only do become solid gold information only weeks later.
These doctors are joined by other doctors asking the same questions. Because someone doesn't like the information doesn't make it misinformation. Imagine how many other doctors won't even bother coming forward with their opinions because of the attacks they will suffer. Chilling.
LOL. You are hilarious.
-
I have never made any comment about NFL anthem protests here. If you want my opinion, they have every right to express their opinion in any way they wish. That is the American way. There may be consequences to those actions from some parts of society, but that does not change my opinion they should be able to do what they wish.
I must have confused you with someone else who is totally not you. My bad.
Who is determining if what those doctors are saying is misinformation? It is their opinion as doctors. YouTube may be under no obligation, but it appears they are deciding what is and isn't trustworthy. What are YouTube's credentials to do this? If these doctors had said in early March that wearing a mask was important, would their videos have been pulled down since WHO and others said masks were not important until they changed their stance?
The rest of the medical community is determining that this is misinformation. They based their conclusions on inaccurate data. That's not a matter of opinion. It is fact.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Contrary to Cheek-logic, not all opinions are equally valid.
Are Dr. Smith's concerns about the study done valid? He raised legitimate concerns and the question should be whether they are valid.
I have no idea whether his concerns are legitimate or not, and I'd imagine you don't either. But for you to offer him up as some kind of objective expert - without mentioning his vested interest in hydroxychloroquine as a cure-all - is misleading at best.
This guy has been pimping hydroxychloroquine on TV and in the White House as a "game-changer." Of course he's going to attack any study that disproves him.
-
Who is deciding? What credentials do they have to determine if the information is incorrect?
The American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine.
The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.
COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.
https://www.acep.org/corona/COVID-19/covid-19-articles/acep-aaem-joint-statement-on-physician-misinformation/
-
Yes, you do have me confused and continue to do so. Thank you for the information you provided. Someone tell Elon Musk. :D
Does this mean YouTube will start to censor claims by WHO that said COVID was not transferable from human to human? Feels very selective on what information they are determining is wrong. It also feels to me that some of the information continues to change and what was wrong then, is right now or the reverse.
-
Yes, you do have me confused and continue to do so. Thank you for the information you provided. Someone tell Elon Musk. :D
Does this mean YouTube will start to censor claims by WHO that said COVID was not transferable from human to human? Feels very selective on what information they are determining is wrong. It also feels to me that some of the information continues to change and what was wrong then, is right now or the reverse.
Reach out to YouTube with your concerns. Or sue them.