Epidemiologist: Why Lockdowns Are The Wrong Policy

[hcap]

Are you boxcar's brother.
Be gone foul spirit. You earned it
On ignore.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mhaney0423

The problem with the internet age is there can be one or two crackpots whether they be MDs, epidemiologists, politicians, lawyers. etc, etc, etc. They will be cherry picked as the voice of reason, or the justification of dissenting points of view. Show me a consensus of epidemiologists that agree lockdowns are not beneficial to slowing the spread of COVID and I will listen.


I guarantee somewhere out there there is a career geologist that swears the earth is flat, there is probably an ex NASA employee that swears the moon is made of cheese. Those people and their expertise and opinion does not make those things facts.

Neither is a "consensus" the arbiter of truth.

[mhaney0423]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Neither is a "consensus" the arbiter of truth.

I beg to differ, the consensus of experts IS usually the arbiter of the truth......consider the Supreme Court. That is a consensus.
Anyway, not worth arguing semantics, I would tend to gravitate towards the consensus in a field that I was not an expert in, not the opinion of a single person or a few people making up the minority of the experts. Even in horse racing the consensus or oddsboard picks more winners or is correct more than any single individual or small group of individuals.

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by mhaney0423

The problem with the internet age is there can be one or two crackpots whether they be MDs, epidemiologists, politicians, lawyers. etc, etc, etc. They will be cherry picked as the voice of reason, or the justification of dissenting points of view. Show me a consensus of epidemiologists that agree lockdowns are not beneficial to slowing the spread of COVID and I will listen.

A bigger problem is that big tech companies (Goggle, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter) censor and/or take down content that does not support their narratives, or it threats their vested financial interests. Rather than letting folks read/hear about it and draw their own conclusions, they simply remove the content so that alternative points of view can not be investigated and reviewed via intelligent discussion.

There are probably more than a few out there supporting the same alternate point of view, but one would never know because of big tech banning/censorship.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mhaney0423

I beg to differ, the consensus of experts IS usually the arbiter of the truth......consider the Supreme Court. That is a consensus.
Anyway, not worth arguing semantics, I would tend to gravitate towards the consensus in a field that I was not an expert in, not the opinion of a single person or a few people making up the minority of the experts. Even in horse racing the consensus or oddsboard picks more winners or is correct more than any single individual or small group of individuals.

Your own analogy defeats your argument! Be sure to let us know when the "consensus or oddsboard" picks more winners than losers. (And even then what good would it do, since so many people would bet the one or the other that a flat bet loss would Shirley be the result.)

Also, even a consensus of "experts" isn't perfect for a reason that should be obvious to you: Human beings are fallible. Always been that way. Always will be in this world.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by bpiets

Very simply, those who are in gov. positions and get thier pay cheques do not worry ...and the wealthy political persons like Biden, clintons, soros, etc, and just well off folks really do not concern themselves and since polluted Nancy goes hair styling instead of seeing to survival packaging being sent to thier fellow American citizens is an abomination....lucky that mr trump is president and not the Clinton/ Obama / Biden / clowns... it is fortunate that many a person who is alive because of mr trumps lock down that some of these can vote for low life's in the Democratic Party...Americans should be very glad mr trump is over seeing the economy & company....Biden is just a " punch & Judy " clown for the swamp and left wing commies... sure which we had a mr trump and his administration for prime minister and company.... many a nation would love to have a mr trump and company running thier nation with the actions he takes to have the nation cut down on so many more serious problems that could have been the case had he not done what he did and is still working towards...an out standing president and he has been nominated to three peace keeping awards...Obama one for which he is still scratching his head about...

I thought the Canadians spoke English...

[classhandicapper]

Yes, a new wrinkle but can you or anyone else explain specifically how the herd immunity threshold is changed? Other than it varies by various factors. And local;s

It's NOT A NEW WRINKLE.

It's been known for months based on data studies around the world. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. You are just too busy trashing Trump to listen.

This stuff wasn't been reported widely in the US because our media is incompetent and politically motivated.

The math itself is over my head, but I posted papers here for YOU discussing this and the math involved in MARCH!!!!

It's OCTOBER NOW and the media is just catching on.

We don't know exactly what percentage of people are super spreaders vs. those that hardly spread it at all.

We don't know all the conditions.

We don't know exactly how many people have some kind of natural immunity, cross immunity, or at least resistance or why. But we know for example that children and young adults are less likely to catch it or pass it.

These things change the HIT math.

The data is not solid enough to know what the true HIT is YET, but it's very likely the standard numbers being thrown out by dimwits in media are WRONG. The infection graphs around the world under all kinds of conditions strongly support that the math is wrong and they are being tracked by Nobel Prize level data guys.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

A bigger problem is that big tech companies (Goggle, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter) censor and/or take down content that does not support their narratives, or it threats their vested financial interests. Rather than letting folks read/hear about it and draw their own conclusions, they simply remove the content so that alternative points of view can not be investigated and reviewed via intelligent discussion.

There are probably more than a few out there supporting the same alternate point of view, but one would never know because of big tech banning/censorship.

so they are editing content by removing the half they don't like? how democratic of them

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by davew

so they are editing content by removing the half they don't like? how democratic of them

Not to mention tolerant! Dimwits are huge on diversity as long as that doesn't involve different ideas or opinions.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's NOT A NEW WRINKLE.

It's been known for months based on data studies around the world. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. You are just too busy trashing Trump to listen.

This stuff wasn't been reported widely in the US because our media is incompetent and politically motivated.

The math itself is over my head, but I posted papers here for YOU discussing this and the math involved in MARCH!!!!

It's OCTOBER NOW and the media is just catching on.

We don't know exactly what percentage of people are super spreaders vs. those that hardly spread it at all.

We don't know all the conditions.

We don't know exactly how many people have some kind of natural immunity, cross immunity, or at least resistance or why. But we know for example that children and young adults are less likely to catch it or pass it.

These things change the HIT math.

The data is not solid enough to know what the true HIT is YET, but it's very likely the standard numbers being thrown out by dimwits in media are WRONG. The infection graphs around the world under all kinds of conditions strongly support that the math is wrong and they are being tracked by Nobel Prize level data guys.

I admit it is an interesting speculation. It may develop.

Did you read the paper I posted where there are existing formulas for calculating homogeneous and heterogeneous clusters? (Super spreers). That difference has been known and included in previous epidemiological studies. When you have solid evidence and there is some peer review, and a more specific HIT may be calculated, it will move closer the mainstream. Don't get me wrong. Often that is how science works.

But not now and not today


And until you have solid evidence, by announcing a semi-scientific take down of mainstream "herd immunity" theory can be dangerous in this politically charged environment.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

And until you have solid evidence, by announcing a semi-scientific take down of mainstream "herd immunity" theory can be dangerous in this politically charged environment.

The media should report all the knowledge to date with the caveat that we don't know exactly what all the numbers mean yet in the same way I was informing people here in March of what I was reading.

Mathematicians (some Nobel Prize level) noticed in the data that the virus would spread parabolically in an area until it hit around 15%-20% and then the growth rate would decelerate rapidly and decline. That was true in the isolated cruise ships and in many states, countries, etc.. even when there wasn't much of a lock down.

Mathematicians then started building models for projections (that were working better than the early mainstream projections) and started finding mathematical explanations for why it was not behaving like mainstream epidemiologists expected.

None of this is to say you overthrow everything and change your entire policy, but you don't accumulate all this new real world evidence and totally ignore it either, especially because you want to bash Trump all day long.

[mhaney0423]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your own analogy defeats your argument! Be sure to let us know when the "consensus or oddsboard" picks more winners than losers. (And even then what good would it do, since so many people would bet the one or the other that a flat bet loss would Shirley be the result.)

Also, even a consensus of "experts" isn't perfect for a reason that should be obvious to you: Human beings are fallible. Always been that way. Always will be in this world.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, I said the consensus/oddsboard picks more winners than ANYONE else. I did not say it picks more winners than losers......so....there is that. I also do not believe I said a consensus is perfect by any means, but when a consensus of experts trained in a specific field have a consensus of how to move forward with a problem, I am not going to question them unless I have a damn good reason.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The media should report all the knowledge to date with the caveat that we don't know exactly what all the numbers mean yet in the same way I was informing people here in March of what I was reading.

Mathematicians (some Nobel Prize level) noticed in the data that the virus would spread parabolically in an area until it hit around 15%-20% and then the growth rate would decelerate rapidly and decline. That was true in the isolated cruise ships and in many states, countries, etc.. even when there wasn't much of a lock down.

Mathematicians then started building models for projections (that were working better than the early mainstream projections) and started finding mathematical explanations for why it was not behaving like mainstream epidemiologists expected.

None of this is to say you overthrow everything and change your entire policy, but you don't accumulate all this new real world evidence and totally ignore it either, especially because you want to bash Trump all day long.

Wait a second. All I am doing is cautioning YOU, an amateur just like the rest of us from jumping to conclusions.

Do you have any background developing new ideas for commercial use?

I hold two US patents and had another patent pending temporarily placed under the "Invention Secrecy Act of 1951" Unfortunately only one was a limited commercial succeeds. I researched engineering papers, did my own patent searches in DC and learned Edison's "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" is the rule not the exception.

To prove a concept beyond a concept, requires real world interaction. The papers you posted have merit, but much of the legwork is lacking.

Generally peer review confirms new valid developments.

Where is your speculative lower Herd Immunity Threshold in peer review? And how many are there?

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

Wait a second. All I am doing is cautioning YOU, an amateur just like the rest of us from jumping to conclusions.

Do you have any background developing new ideas for commercial use?

I hold two US patents and had another patent pending temporarily placed under the "Invention Secrecy Act of 1951" Unfortunately only one was a limited commercial succeeds. I researched engineering papers, did my own patent searches in DC and learned Edison's "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" is the rule not the exception.

To prove a concept beyond a concept, requires real world interaction. The papers you posted have merit, but much of the legwork is lacking.

Generally peer review confirms new valid developments.

Where is your speculative lower Herd Immunity Threshold in peer review? And how many are there?

that would explain your epidemiology skills

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

Wait a second. All I am doing is cautioning YOU, an amateur just like the rest of us from jumping to conclusions.

Do you have any background developing new ideas for commercial use?

Generally peer review confirms new valid developments.

Where is your speculative lower Herd Immunity Threshold in peer review? And how many are there?

This is a forum for discussions on what is going on in the real world and its implications for public health and the economy.

I am simply reporting what data scientists and mathematicians are saying about the virus that the mainstream media has been ignoring (months ahead of the mainstream curve).

There are papers on these issues being published regularly that are being reviewed and one actual Nobel Prize winner posting graphs of the data on Twitter where he has been making predictions.

Don't worry, I don't make policy.

Instead of listening and learning. You are preoccupied with bashing Trump.