The Coronavirus Thread

[Hermit]

You're making Cunt's head hurt...

Nah. He barely skims my posts, then dismisses what little of it he has read with a Jussie Smallett. It's a quick, simple and painless procedure.

[rainbow]

Trump ducked his responsibilities, and decided to push hydroxy-chloroquine.

He didn't push it. He simply said it looked promising. After he did, there was a veritable FURY of news stories insisting that it wasn't, and that he was terrible.

Later, he admitted to taking it himself.

In unrelated news, tens of thousands of health care workers in the UK will be given it as some sort of effort to rub it in the faces of the TDS set. Unless maybe your ranting and screeching doesn't matter, and they really gave it to them for health reasons...

Your ignorance of the Scientific Method is staggering.
I assume this is to what you refer:

The study for UK health workers is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial that will enrol more than 40,000 people.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/n ... 46671.html

The purpose of this is to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a way to protect against getting Covid-19:

"We really do not know if chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are beneficial or harmful against Covid-19.”

"The best way to find out if they are effective in preventing Covid-19 is in a randomised clinical trial."

Science doesn't work by starting from conclusions and then designing experiments to prove a point.

Some of the staff will get the hydroxychloroquine, some will get nothing others a placebo. Neither those administering the trial, nor those getting the various treatments will know what they are getting. That is why it is called a "double blind" study.

Good. Now you've learnt something, tell your friends on the ultra right wing. Maybe they can learn.

[Hermit]

Hermit,
Either google made a bad translation (which is often the case especially with this level of Dutch) or you misunderstood it. There clear references to data and how it is inaccurate. It is a very interesting article and of just many that appears in de Volkskrant.

Clear references to data? LOL. There is no single comment about statistics. No mention at all. Not whether they are overstated, understated or accurate. If there were, you would have pointed it out to me instead of blaming Google translate or my lack of understanding for me not finding it among the 4.5 thousand words.

[Scot Dutchy]

Ik ben blij dat je zoon expert bent van de Nederlandse taal.

[Hermit]

So, still nothing. I am not surprised.

[Scot Dutchy]

Just because YOU cant understand it. Just put it down to "lost in translation".

[NineBerry]

Just quote the relevant part

[rainbow]

If he is so bad, why would you want him taking authority from the States?

He is the President. He should be leading, since this is a matter of National Security.
It is about Responsibility, something Trump doesn't seem to be capable of taking.

If he can't do the job, he must resign and hand over to someone who can.
Could the US organise a snap election, like what they do in the rest of the civilised world when government becomes disfunctional?

[Scot Dutchy]

The whole article is relevant. He talks of the RIVM failure which was the answer to Hermits earlier post concerning it. There is also an audio version of the article available. They had it down in beginning when the outbreak was in Noord Brabant as a common flue one and then they continued to listen to a small group of experts and failed to respect the comments of other experts who were expressing concerns about the measures taken when they admitted their data was not accurate.
That is all I am doing for him for this article. If he wants to use google to translate that is up to him. I only do that work for payment.

Today there around 10 different articles in de Volkskrant concerning the Corona outbreak world wide.

[Hermit]

Just quote the relevant part

Scott can't because it is not there. The entire article contains no single statement about infection or death statistics. No mention at all. Not whether they are overstated, understated or accurate.

The irony is that the Dutch health ministry has published an article (which I linked to) explaining why its own numbers of fatalities due to infections by the corona virus are wrong, and it explained why they are wrong. Unfortunately their argument goes into the opposite direction to where Scott asserts they are going. For Scott persons who are infected by the virus die of something other than the virus. That's why he keeps ignoring the article published by the Dutch ministry of health with that extremely sudden rise in deaths at the exact time the epidemic spread from Brabant to the rest of the Netherlands. He is incapable of accounting for the sudden excess of fatalities. In the words of the ministry

In the week from Thursday 9 April to Wednesday 15 April 2020 inclusive, total mortality in the Netherlands significantly increased (mortality reported within two weeks - around 97%). A total of 4,500 deaths were reported; this count is usually between 2,654 and 2,959 deaths. This is between 1,541 and 1,846 more deaths than the expected average this time of year. This count is about twice as high as the reported deaths from laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients in the same week.

Link (again)

[Hermit]

The whole article is relevant.

Um, the bone of contention is how many people died of Convid-19 in the Netherlands, and how the numbers published by the Dutch health ministry got them wrong. How can the article even address that without using at least some of the following words among the 4.5 thousand even once?

dodelijke, slachtoffers (fatalities)
sterftecijfer (fatality rate)
tarief (rate)
gestorven (died)
sterfgevallen (deaths)
overleden (deceased)

In the absence of any of them nothing in the article you linked to is relevant to our discussion.

[NineBerry]

We report a time course of SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in primary sewage sludge during
the Spring COVID-19 outbreak in a northeastern U.S. metropolitan area. SARS-CoV-2 RNA
was detected in all environmental samples and, when adjusted for the time lag, the virus RNA
concentrations were highly correlated with the COVID-19 epidemiological curve (R2
=0.99) and
local hospital admissions (R2
=0.99). SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations were a seven-day
leading indicator ahead of compiled COVID-19 testing data and led local hospital admissions
data by three days. Decisions to implement or relax public health measures and restrictions
require timely information on outbreak dynamics in a community.

https://t.co/hZVdXebx2D?amp=1

[Brian Peacock]

That's a shit graph.

[Cunt]

Your theories are something to think about. Democrats die because of population density, but Japanese are dying far less because

Asian societies are more community-minded. They do as they are told.

This theory has me wondering about all the other Asian societies that have been ravaged, but maybe they weren't doing as they were told.

Well, the spread of the corona virus is multifactorial. In addition to population density there is the the degree to which people self-isolate. Also, the lag between the initial infections and the introduction of social isolation regulations. Then there is social mobility - particularly international travel to consider, and a whole raft of other factors.

So your speculation about why Japan has such favourable results is a bit thin.

To be honest, your exchange with Scot Dutchy has me thinking you are trying to push an agenda, and refute any doubt he raises, rather than admitting that authorities got this one wrong. (they have gotten it wrong again and again, so I don't know why you think they have it right this time)

We know that population density is one real factor. The high rates on cruise liners and abattoirs are too consistent to blithely dismiss them as mere coincidence. Voting intentions could be checked too, but not by cherry-picking the data. What needs to be done is to compare infection rates in areas, rural as well as urban, where a significant majority voted Democrat with areas, rural as well as urban, with similar population densities, where a significant majority voted Republican. If results consistently show that locations x with a population density y with a majority of Democrat voters have a higher infection rate than locations x with a population density y with a majority of Republican voters, then you can add voting intentions to the slew of factors that affect infection rates, provided that other variables are also controlled for.

I wonder how lockdowns vs non-lockdowns work. It sure looks like the (Democrat?) states favouring lockdowns are not doing better, at the very least.

I'll remember your knee-jerk reaction about Japan, and quick backpedaling about the 'spread being multifactorial', and chalk it up to your usual smart-sounding stuff.

The purpose of this is to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a way to protect against getting Covid-19:

So they are going to risk all those lives, on a dangerous drug?

You must be very hopeful that Trump isn't at all correct about this in the end. How will you deal with it if it turns out he was right this time?

If he is so bad, why would you want him taking authority from the States?

He is the President. He should be leading, since this is a matter of National Security.
It is about Responsibility, something Trump doesn't seem to be capable of taking.

You must be from one of those 'non-USA' countries, where ignorance lives.

He is doing federalism, and this way, we can see how good a job each governor does with their individual states.

Maybe Cuomo can take some responsibility for sending covid positive patients back to their nursing homes. Of course, Trump should be blamed for that, too...

[Scot Dutchy]

The whole article is relevant.

Um, the bone of contention is how many people died of Convid-19 in the Netherlands, and how the numbers published by the Dutch health ministry got them wrong. How can the article even address that without using at least some of the following words among the 4.5 thousand even once?

dodelijke, slachtoffers (fatalities)
sterftecijfer (fatality rate)
tarief (rate)
gestorven (died)
sterfgevallen (deaths)
overleden (deceased)

In the absence of any of them nothing in the article you linked to is relevant to our discussion.

It is not required. It was why they got them wrong. It is not an article about the statistics but process of getting them wrong which was counter to the article that you posted.