Epidemiologist: Why Lockdowns Are The Wrong Policy

[davew]

Originally Posted by ElKabong

As many times as Fauci has flip flopped on his stances in regards to the Chinese virus, there's no losing any bets. You're pretty much covered on any side of the arguement

and surprising how wrong the 'experts' at WHO and CDC were during the first dew months

[classhandicapper]

At this point, no one is taking Fauci seriously except the media.

The dilemma we have is that there’s so many people (even in the medical community) that are politically motivated it’s hard for anyone to read through it all and understand what’s going on when even the handful of brilliant people trying to be honest aren’t exactly sure what’s going on yet. We just know if Fauci says it, it’s probably dated or wrong. There are way sharper people than Fauci out there looking at data and analyzing it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

At this point, no one is taking Fauci seriously except the media.

The dilemma we have is that there’s so many people (even in the medical community) that are politically motivated it’s hard for anyone to read through it all and understand what’s going on when even the handful of brilliant people trying to be honest aren’t exactly sure what’s going on yet. We just know if Fauci says it, it’s probably dated or wrong. There are way sharper people than Fauci out there looking at data and analyzing it.

Sure the sneaky deep state is pulling all you Trumpite's strings. A cosmic cabal out to make the Donald look bad. The NYT just planted false tax records. I am sure the rest of the MSM will follow suit shortly.

Gee, first all the world's climatologists paid off by the democrats and globalists to lie about global warming. Then 95% of epidemiologists doctors, nurses and health care professionals all in cahoots to lie about the coronavirus.

And now setting up the moron's fake tax and financial records.

What will you do when Donald gets locked up? Go back to blaming George Soros? or Jane Fonda, AOC, or Greta Thunberg?

I can hardly wait till the next generation of post Trump conspiracy theories

[Tom]

hcap = side-step, divert, whatabout......anything but directly address a post....as his usual.

Class - 1
hcap - 0

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

Sure the sneaky deep state is pulling all you Trumpite's strings. A cosmic cabal out to make the Donald look bad. The NYT just planted false tax records. I am sure the rest of the MSM will follow suit shortly.

He's trying to do the job. He's just less competent at it than other people doing the analysis privately, making more accurate projections, and trying to understand what's really going on.

He's more of a hired gun for politicians and the media.

He's the Paul Krugman of epidemiologists.

Just the other day he and his buddies were saying 90% of the population of the US is still vulnerable. That number was inconsistent with the data I've seen from sources that have been quite reliable. So I looked into it. It turns out the 90% figure was based on data through late July. So that means everyone that was infected in late July, all of August, and all of September was not included. That's exactly when a lot of cases were exploding in Florida, Texas, CA, Georgia, Arizona etc..

So 90% is obviously wrong. Millions more people have been infected over that period, many were asymptomatic or with mild cases, not even tested, and are now over it.

The correct number is around 83%-84% IF you assume everyone who has not been infected yet is vulnerable - which is almost certainly not the case.

I'm a horse player that spends half hour a day reading the commentary of brilliant people doing great research/work looking at the data. I knew 90% was wrong and he didn't. What does that tell you about the guy the media adores. It's hard to know who is worse, him or the press.

I'm sure he was a brilliant guy in his day, but he's not the guy we should be listening to or fawning over now.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

He's the Paul Krugman of epidemiologists.

Just the other day he and his buddies were saying 90% of the population of the US is still vulnerable. That number was inconsistent with the data I've seen from sources that have been quite reliable. So I looked into it. It turns out the 90% figure was based on data through late July. So that means everyone that was infected in late July, all of August, and all of September was not included. That's exactly when a lot of cases were exploding in Florida, Texas, CA, Georgia, Arizona etc..

So 90% is obviously wrong. Millions more people have been infected over that period, many were asymptomatic or with mild cases, not even tested, and are now over it.

The correct number is around 83%-84% IF you assume everyone who has not been infected yet is vulnerable - which is almost certainly not the case.

I'm a horse player that spends half hour a day reading the commentary of brilliant people doing great research/work looking at the data. I knew 90% was wrong and he didn't. What does that tell you about the guy the media adores. It's hard to know who is worse, him or the press.

I'm sure he was a brilliant guy in his day, but he's not the guy we should be listening to or fawning over now.

I am not going to argue herd immunity and your amateurish speculation of a way lower threshold needed to achieve it again.You Trumpites went of on a tangent trying to cast doubt on Fauci's integrity and expertise when I posted Dr Faici setting Rand Paul straight as that unqualified ophthalmologist made an absolute fool of himself babbling your crapola that NYC got over their intense viral load, because doing nothing and letting the infection run it's ciourse, and hey much more deaths and suffering were cool,...... till no one was left to be infected

Agreed, Fauci and his "buddies" did not get it right at the beginning. There were many unknowns when the virus began. However that is how science works. Built on a body of work accumulated by previous experts in the field, using the scientific method.

While Trump was calling it a democratic hoax and claiming it will go away by itself, Fauci and his buddies, originally cautions, became more and more alarmed. This video goes to late March showing just that.

YouTube (Short URL)

[classhandicapper]

Again, all you have is Trump this and Trump that.

That's because you can't address what I've been telling you other experts have been saying and predicting, what actual data is saying, and how Fauci and his supporters couldn't even get the current vulnerable number right. 90% is OLD NEWS (like 2 1/2 months old)

He's a brilliant expert, but right now he's as much a politician as anybody in Washington. He's spinning information and always erring on the side of extreme caution instead of discussing what's actually going on and what the data is saying.

And for the record, most of what Rand Paul said was correct. There are published papers suggesting he is correct. However there are other papers that disagree. That's what Fauci was saying. He was NOT saying Rand Paul was wrong. He was saying we aren't 100% sure yet.

The appropriate response from Fauci would have said exactly that.

He should have said "We have data and studies that suggests you are correct but we also have data and studies that suggest you may be wrong, so we should err on the side of some caution until we know".

The media coverage of that exchange was just a bunch a politically motivated scumbags and liars being themselves and people like you eating it all up.

[hcap]

You gents claimed in the Fauci versus Rand Paul debate, Fauci could not be trusted about herd immunity because Dr Fauci flipped flopped on previous positions.

I will not debate your so-called "getting the current vulnerable number right." I would have to study your premise in depth, and so far all your premises have been more political than scientific.

Just like climate change denial.

You refuse to accept the mainstream explanation of the threshold of herd immunity by "Fauci and his buddies", speculating instead with a minority view with much less evidence than what is accepted. I in fact find your speculations that of a dangerous ideologue, putting politics over science. Willing to go along with a deadly epidemiological philosophy in an foolish attempt to unsafely get the economy going.

Ala Trump and his new favorite non-infectious-disease non-epidemiologist, radiologist S. Atlas.

Excuse me, but I would rather accept the Mayo Clinic, the WHO, Johns Hopkins and Fauci and all his boys, instead of you and all your boys.

[myohmyjustify]

Angry partisans such as hcap defend and idolize Dr. Anthony Fauci, even when Dr. Fauci's own words later prove stupid or wrong or at best inconsistent.

Where is the defense of statements made by Dr. Fauci, such as 'Nothing wrong with hooking up with strangers and engaging in anonymous sex," and even dumber, "We should wear goggles as a way to combat this covid 19."

He made both statements months after we all knew about covid 19 and its dangers, hcap.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

You gents claimed in the Fauci versus Rand Paul debate, Fauci could not be trusted about herd immunity because Dr Fauci flipped flopped on previous positions.

I will not debate your so-called "getting the current vulnerable number right." I would have to study your premise in depth, and so far all your premises have been more political than scientific.

You refuse to accept the mainstream explanation of the threshold of herd immunity by "Fauci and his buddies", speculating instead with a minority view with much less evidence than what is accepted. I in fact find your speculations that of a dangerous ideologue, putting politics over science. Willing to go along with a deadly epidemiological philosophy in an foolish attempt to unsafely get the economy going.

Ala Trump and his new favorite non-infectious-disease non-epidemiologist, radiologist S. Atlas.

Excuse me, but I would rather accept the Mayo Clinic, the WHO, Johns Hopkins and Fauci and all his boys, instead of you and all your boys.

This is not difficult other than you want to turn everything into an anti Trump diatribe.

Figuring out the Herd Immunity Threshold is a simple math problem based primarily on how contagious the disease is (the R0). However, the assumption in that math is that everyone is equally vulnerable to infection, everyone has equal contacts with others, and everyone spreads it equally.

There is evidence (in some cases massive) that those things are NOT true of Covid-19.

First, brilliant mathematicians presented papers on how the HIT changes when you change the assumptions for better or worse.

For example, if you know not all people are equally vulnerable to infection (like children and some young adults as an obvious one), there appear to be super spreaders and some people that don't spread it as much (which there is also evidence of), and different people come into contact with different numbers of people (which we know is true), you know you have to change the math.

No one knows exactly with the HIT rate is. Estimates are all over the map, but there is a growing belief the standard model is WRONG and the data (again studied by brilliant data modelers controlling for everything) also suggests the HIT rate is lower than the old model.

This is not about politics except for you.

It's about figuring out what's actually going on, telling the unbiased unspun truth, and eventually adjusting policy as new realities are demonstrated.

[hcap]

Sorry, not buying it.


Why ‘herd immunity’ can’t save us from COVID-19
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...-from-covid-19

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts can’t recall an example in which governments intentionally turned to natural infection to achieve herd immunity. Generally, such a strategy could lead to widespread illness and death, said Dr. Carlos del Rio, an expert in infectious disease and vaccines at the Emory University School of Medicine.

“It’s a terrible idea,” Del Rio said. “It’s basically giving up on public health.”

The U.S. still has a long way to go to achieve herd immunity to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. A large study published last week in the medical journal Lancet found that fewer than 1 in 10 Americans have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the formal name for the coronavirus. Even in the hardest-hit areas, like New York City, estimates of immunity among residents are about 25%.

To reach 50% to 70% immunity would mean about four times as many people getting infected and an “incredible number of deaths,” said Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Some of those who survive could suffer severe consequences to their heart, brain and other organs, potentially leaving them with lifelong disabilities.

[hcap]

The largest sample size to date

The Lancet Journal

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a large nationwide sample of patients on dialysis in the USA: a cross-sectional study

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...009-2/fulltext

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

Sorry, not buying it.


Why ‘herd immunity’ can’t save us from COVID-19
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...-from-covid-19

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts can’t recall an example in which governments intentionally turned to natural infection to achieve herd immunity. Generally, such a strategy could lead to widespread illness and death, said Dr. Carlos del Rio, an expert in infectious disease and vaccines at the Emory University School of Medicine.

“It’s a terrible idea,” Del Rio said. “It’s basically giving up on public health.”

The U.S. still has a long way to go to achieve herd immunity to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. A large study published last week in the medical journal Lancet found that fewer than 1 in 10 Americans have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the formal name for the coronavirus. Even in the hardest-hit areas, like New York City, estimates of immunity among residents are about 25%.

To reach 50% to 70% immunity would mean about four times as many people getting infected and an “incredible number of deaths,” said Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Some of those who survive could suffer severe consequences to their heart, brain and other organs, potentially leaving them with lifelong disabilities.

1. No one anywhere on planet earth is advocating going totally back to normal to aggressively achieve herd immunity. Some people are advocating that we concentrate on protecting the most vulnerable and allowing the very low risk to go about their business as they see fit. That's how you can slowly reach the HIT rate, protect the most vulnerable, and limit the deaths and sickness. Me personally, I'd continue being hyper cautious.

2. We are going to reach herd immunity one way or the other. The virus will not go away. We will reach herd immunity via infections or infections + vaccines, but we are going to reach herd immunity PERIOD. It's just at matter of when, how, and how much damage we do in between.

3. The "1 in 10 people have antibodies" quote is the same out of date information that Fauci's buddies have been quoting. Those results are only as of July. It's more like 16%-17% now.

4. Again, we don't know what the HIT rate is, but 50-70% is not consistent with the improved models mathematicians have come up with and the data to date are saying. IMO, Fauci, the media etc... don't want to tell the truth on this because they are afraid people will let their guard down and cases will start rising. So they'd rather err on the side of extreme caution.

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am not going to argue herd immunity and your amateurish speculation of a way lower threshold needed to achieve it again.You Trumpites went of on a tangent trying to cast doubt on Fauci's integrity and expertise when I posted Dr Faici setting Rand Paul straight as that unqualified ophthalmologist made an absolute fool of himself babbling your crapola that NYC got over their intense viral load, because doing nothing and letting the infection run it's ciourse, and hey much more deaths and suffering were cool,...... till no one was left to be infected

Agreed, Fauci and his "buddies" did not get it right at the beginning. There were many unknowns when the virus began. However that is how science works. Built on a body of work accumulated by previous experts in the field, using the scientific method.

While Trump was calling it a democratic hoax and claiming it will go away by itself, Fauci and his buddies, originally cautions, became more and more alarmed. This video goes to late March showing just that.


https://youtu.be/ShiwHR5OvtM

a great Fauci montage from mostly the doom and gloom, Trump bad stations. I wonder why they did not include the hook-ups fine clip? I am sure with all of the briefings, one showing the complete opposite could be made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Db7-3x3N3A

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

a great Fauci montage from mostly the doom and gloom, Trump bad stations. I wonder why they did not include the hook-ups fine clip? I am sure with all of the briefings, one showing the complete opposite could be made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Db7-3x3N3A

I post a timeline of Dr Fauci's public statements starting with his discussion of the neeed for as virus in late January, and you pst a hit piece by a matchmaker???

Meet Professional Matchmaker Susan Trombetti And Change Your Life In 2020
https://exclusivematchmaking.net/abo...ti-matchmaker/


You are running on empty