Colin Powell, military leader and first Black US secretary of state, dies

[RealityChecker]

It's not senseless. It might not be accurate. But it's not senseless.

Ideas that our out of sync with credible objective evidence and/or are illogical are senseless. Denying reality does not change reality.

Is it a true statement that you believe Covid-19 is not as dangerous as people think it is, and that as a result of this conclusion you believe many pandemic policies such as lockdowns, masks mandates, vaccine mandates are not warranted?

Well many people do believe the risk of catching the Wuhan virus is far greater than it really is. That is reality. When lockdowns are creating more harm than benefit they are bad public health policy. Mandating any old flimsy face mask is bad public policy. Vaccine mandates make sense for healthcare workers, especially those working in nursing homes.

I think this is a true statement just based on the brief exchange we've had.

Tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I am not sure what your point is here. Clearly the influenza virus is different from the Wuhan virus. So it is going to infect the body in ways that are similar to other respiratory viruses (e.g. colds & flu). It also appears deadlier (higher IFR) in older and sicker people than the flu. But the flu has a higher IFR (or is deadlier) in children. So I am not sure what it is you believe I am unaware of? Could you be more specific? Thanks

I understand that the flu and Covid-19 and how the body responds to each virus produce different effects in the human body. There are differences and similarities, and the differences are very scary and very real. For instance, Covid-19 appears to induce the formation of blood clots all over the body. That's bad. We can also combine this evidence of what Covid-19 does to the human body with other evidence that Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu (at least for the unvaccinated). Also, I think you're right that the IFR comes down after vaccinations are introduced. But if this is part of your argument for why the IFR is lower now, that must also be something that was true before the introduction of vaccinations.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No doubt some cases were missed. However, given the financial incentives and political pressure to over diagnose CoVID-19, my guess is the actual deaths caused primarily by SARS-CoV2 could net-net be higher than if the deaths were counted as they are for the flu.

This is bullshit right here. You're basically making a more sophisticated version of the typical Trumper anti-vax political argument. There is no evidence that the numbers are being inflated.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Wuhan virus

Why not just call it Covid-19? Why use the Trumper term for it?

 

[RealityChecker]

I understand that the flu and Covid-19 and how the body responds to each virus produce different effects in the human body. There are differences and similarities, and the differences are very scary and very real. For instance, Covid-19 appears to induce the formation of blood clots all over the body. That's bad.

Actually, I understood the fear of CoVID-19 more in March of 2020 than I do today. Why? Because human nature is to fear the unknown more than the known. Most Americans should be more fearful of the typical modern diet, smoking, or recreational drugs than the Wuhan virus. Why? The quality years of life lost for most Americans will be greater diet and lifestyle choices than the Wuhan virus. Now for older people who are already suffering from serious illnesses (most caused by diet and lifestyle choices) the Wuhan virus may well pose a higher risk of dying than continuing their risky lifestyle choices, especially if they do not get vaccinated.

We can also combine this evidence of what Covid-19 does to the human body with other evidence that Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu (at least for the unvaccinated).

That is likely not the case for school age children and young adults, but is the case for most older adults who really are likely better off getting vaccinated against the Wuhan virus and the flu. I have have been encouraging them to get both vaccinations and would agree that for them it is likely the COVID vaccine is even more important.

Also, I think you're right that the IFR comes down after vaccinations are introduced. But if this is part of your argument for why the IFR is lower now, that must also be something that was true before the introduction of vaccinations.

Right. And it is also true for the flu vaccines. Vaccines make sense when the research clearly shows the benefits for that individual likely outweighs the risk. A 10y old or 20y old in good health who has recovered from a mild Wuhan virus infection should not be mandated to get vaccinated to go to school or college or to work (unless perhaps they are working in a nursing home or other healthcare facility. I would not be surprised if in 2022 and thereafter we see more deaths from the seasonal flu than from the Wuhan virus. Some years one might be more deadly than the other based on mutations to each virus that are inevitable.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Even for those who have immunity and even though masks have been shown to be as effective as a chain link fence against water?

I think what the Delta variant did to places like Texas, Louisiana, Florida, etc. is a good example of why you and RealityChecker are wrong about encouraging vaccines.

Tens of thousands of people died unnecessarily because they believed the crap you and RealityChecker are pushing, that Covid-19 is only something that is killing old and sick people who were going to die anyway.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

However, I remain open to that possibility. My main point was that the far greater issue with the delta variant is that the original Wuhan virus had a R0 = 2.4 and the delta variant R0 is likely 6 to 7. This makes it far more contagious and that is why it has largely replaced early mutants and also the main reason we are seeing those big spikes in new cases despite so many people being vaccinated and/or having naturally acquired immunity. Indeed, the delta variant often result in people with prior immunity shedding a lot more virus despite having no symptoms in those with prior immunity.

And this is another great reason for everyone to get vaccinated.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Your post is why I no longer will respond to posts That do not include an excerpt to links the poster slaps up unless I feel like it and it is a slow day for me. I feel it is sneaky and disingenuous to just slap up a link with a headline which asserts "Here's my 'proof'. Now you go digging through the link to find it". As you say, a poster finds a headline, thinks the headline refutes what you say and posts it as a diversionary tactic because he or she really can't debate the facts. Time after time I have broken my own rules and viewed the link(s) and scratched my head as to why the poster slapped that link because either the link was the usual clickbait type headline a rag like The NY Times or WaPo puts out and contains no refutation of what you said, or the person who wrote the article flat out doesn't know what they are talking about.

You don't post any links, dude.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

What is his point? It's deadlier than what? My guess is RAMOSS still wants to pretend the IFR of the Wuhan virus is much higher than that of the seasonal flu.

There is contradictory evidence on this, and the general consensus is that the IFR is at least one order of magnitude higher than Covid-19 -- you don't have to use Wuhan to describe it, we know where it came from -- and you are using the estimate that is at the far lower end of the range.

Of course, the IFR is not etched in stone. It about 10,000X higher in the average 85y old American as in a 10 year old American. And over time the IFR typically falls, especially for new viruses. In general viruses mutate to have higher R0 and lower IFRs. Of course, the IFR of a virus declines also because vaccines and medical treatments also reduce the odds it will kill someone who gets infected. So the IFR typically drops, especially if the vaccines are effective, but also in response to MDs having more effective treatment options and gain more clinical experience. But we do know that viruses can occasionally mutate to have a higher IFR or be deadlier.

Also, yeah, you made this point before about the vaccines lowering the IFR. I think that's true, and I think that's a good reason for people to get vaccinated. Yet, you're using it to argue the contrary.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Well if Dr. Niels Ferguson estimate of an IFR of 0.9% had been correct and his prediction that 81% of the population would get infected and the result would likely be an estimated death toll of well over 2 million Americans. And others were estimating the IFR from 1 to 6.5% back in March and April of 2020. It was these predictions that that convinced Trump and most governors to do those lockdowns back in April and early May.

No, this is not true.

The thing that scared the shit out of people was not just the IFR estimations.

It was the hospitals overflowing with dead and dying Covid-19 patients. And when you see the hospitals getting overwhelmed. And you see places like Italy where patients are dying in the halls of hospitals, it's a little nerve-wracking.

It was also the uncertainty of it. Nobody knew for sure what the IFR was in early 2020. It's better to be cautious -- if you are someone who cares about human life -- and do a lockdown, drive the hospitalizations rate down so hospitals aren't overwhelmed, than any of the alternatives.

 

[Paradoxical]

I think what the Delta variant did to places like Texas, Louisiana, Florida, etc. is a good example of why you and RealityChecker are wrong about encouraging vaccines.

Tens of thousands of people died unnecessarily because they believed the crap you and RealityChecker are pushing, that Covid-19 is only something that is killing old and sick people who were going to die anyway.

So, no response to those with immunity already needing a vaccine and that masks have been PROVEN to be basically ineffective?

It's all well and good to p[ick a specific time frame of infections and death and say that you know why it happened. Proving it is altogether a different thing. There are many other states that don't require masks that are having no increases. Then you conveniently forget that those same states now have subsided dramatically all with NO change to masks or vaccinations.

 

[Paradoxical]

You don't post any links, dude.

Are you serious? I post many links and 99% of the time I cut out and paste the portions that I feel support my position. You should try it someday.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

But Drs. Fauci and Brix convinced Trump unless he did the lockdowns millions of Americans would die. Apparently the "smart money" put more faith in the lower IFR than the higher IFR estimates, which may be why the stock market bottomed on March 23, 2020. The next day on March 24th the DJIA was up over 11%!!! Makes me wonder what they were hearing that the POTUS and most other Americans were hearing about the likely course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Food For Thought

770,000 people isn't enough dead Americans to justify the pandemic counter-measures? Covid-19 victims can't contribute to the economy if their dead. As far as I'm concerned we didn't do enough. How many people need to die before you feel comfortable justifying pandemic counter-measures? 7 million? 70 million? What's the number.

But it really boils down to values.

There is no right answer, and there is no perfect solution to pandemics. Reality is uncertain, and complex. And in that environment of uncertainty when you're making a decision like doing a lockdown or enforcing a mask mandate or something in real-time when you don't have enough information to make the perfection decision is you say, "Okay, we are doing this lockdown. We don't know for sure if the Covid-19 virus is going to kill x number of people or not, but we know if we do this lockdown we will relive stress on the hospitals, and decrease the average daily death rate, and this will be prudent, and if our projections are wrong and it's worse than we thought, that's good we will have saved more lives than we initially thought, and if our projections are wrong in the other way, and Covid-19 ends up not being as deadly as we thought it would be, that's okay, because having a damaged economy for a short time isn't the end of the world."

The decisions to do lockdowns were prudent. And disagreements about the lockdowns are not about disagreements over information or data or conclusions, etc. They are really disagreements over values. There is no perfect decision during a complex/unpredictable event. It really boils down to what you are trying to protect, human lives, or the economy. Ultimately, human lives, I think, are more important.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Are you serious? I post many links and 99% of the time I cut out and paste the portions that I feel support my position. You should try it someday.

I am serious. I rarely see you post any links and if anyone contradicts you and posts a link you don't read it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Actually, Dr. Ioannidis article estimated the IFR for SARS-CoV2 at 0.15% is based on the world's population. Because the US population is older and has far more people with illnesses that increase the risk of death if infected with SARS it is likely the IFR is higher than that seen in most other countries.

I don't agree with the numbers Loannidis is pushing, but I do agree that the IFR must certainly by higher for populations with higher proportions of older people.

But that doesn't make it any better, and that should not change how we respond to the pandemic. It doesn't matter if they're old. They still deserve to live. And we should still do what we can to decrease the chances they will die.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Actually, Dr. Ioannidis article estimated the IFR for SARS-CoV2 at 0.15% is based on the world's population. Because the US population is older and has far more people with illnesses that increase the risk of death if infected with SARS it is likely the IFR is higher than that seen in most other countries. I believe, Dr. Ioannidis's study [the first to use sereological testing to estimate the number of people who had been infected with SARS-CoV2] of people living in Santa Clara originally estimated the IFR at 0.17%, but based on some valid criticism of their methodology ended up being closer to 0.25%. Keep in mind that we were looking at the IFR back in March and early April of 2020 when no one was vaccinated, MDs had few effective strategies and no proven drugs to treat very sick people back then. So the IFR (the risk of dying if infected) is no doubt much lower today than it was back in early 2020.

Loannidis can eat a bag of dicks.

How (Not) to Do an Antibody Survey for SARS-CoV-2

Preprints from the first round of seroprevalence studies indicate that many more people have been infected with the virus than previously reported. Some of these studies also have serious design flaws.

www.the-scientist.com

Update (May 18): A whistleblower complaint filed last week with Stanford University reveals that the Santa Clara study was partially funded by JetBlue Airways founder David Neeleman, who has spoken out against the use of lockdowns to slow the spread of COVID-19, BuzzFeed News reports. The information, which was not publicly disclosed, raises “concern that the authors were affected by a severe conflict of interest,” according to the complaint, which was filed by someone involved with the research. The complaint also suggests that the study’s authors disregarded warnings raised by Stanford professors about the accuracy of the antibody test used. In interviews with BuzzFeed, Neeleman and study coauthor Eran Bendavid denied that Neeleman or other funders had influenced the study.

But epidemiologists, statisticians, and other many other researchers were quick to express concerns—on Twitter and in lengthy blog posts—about several aspects of the study, from the choice of testing kit to the recruitment of participants to the statistical treatment of the data.

--

I remember when this happened. A lot of idiot Republicans and Trump supporters used this survey to justify a political/policy stance against mask-wearing, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates.

And it was wrong. It was bullshit.

And **** Loannidis for not disclosing the funding.

And no wonder he is doing everything he can to save his reputation by low-balling the estimate.

 

[RealityChecker]

This is bullshit right here. You're basically making a more sophisticated version of the typical Trumper anti-vax political argument. There is no evidence that the numbers are being inflated.

There certainly have been reports of deaths being counted as death with COVID-19 when it was likely not the main cause of the person dying. So there are no doubt deaths being attributed to COVID-19 that where the SARS-CoV2 infection was not the true primary cause of that death. The truth is that deaths due to COVID-19 and the flu are not counted in the same way. This means comparing the numbers isn’t as straightforward as many people believe. There is a requirement and economic incentive to report every death in which the patient had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

By contrast, deaths due to influenza in the U.S. do not have to be reported, so there is never a direct count of those deaths. Each flu season, the CDC estimates deaths from the flu based on in-hospital deaths and death certificate data. However, there are no economic incentives or requirements to report every possible death with the flu. The CDC continues to update the data on their estimate of flu caused deaths on their website, but the final numbers from the last two flu seasons have not yet been finalized.

Conversely, every death in which a person tested positive for COVID-19 is being quickly tallied and counted as a "death with COVID-19". The numbers you see and hear about COVID-19 then are not estimates, but rather reported deaths of people who tested positive for or in some cases were simply assumed based on their symptoms to have been caused by CoVID-19. Clearly there have been cases where deaths with COVID-19 were not primarily caused by the COVID-19 infection. So you can see how comparing the IFR of the flu and COVID-19 isn’t exactly comparable at this point.

 

[Paradoxical]

I am serious. I rarely see you post any links and if anyone contradicts you and posts a link you don't read it.

Then you haven't seen enough of my posts. IF I post a link, I almost always provide the excerpt(s) of that link that I contend support whatever position it is I am taking. It is inconsiderate, lazy and disingenuos to not post an excerpt. It says that the poster is probably bluffing and just found some article from some idiot on the net from a rag like WaPo, CNN, MSNBS, HuffPo, or the like and slams it up knowing that it will take a reader several minutes or a half hour to go through it, and if the poster does and comes back and says "Hey, your link is nothing about what you're talking about and actually refutes your premise" then you get into a weeks long back and forth where the link slapper just denies it.

I know this from first hand experience with link slappers, one of whom I had to ignore because it was so maddening and wasted so much of my time.

I hope and trust \you will understand my position and be guided accordingly.

 

[RealityChecker]

I think what the Delta variant did to places like Texas, Louisiana, Florida, etc. is a good example of why you and RealityChecker are wrong about encouraging vaccines.

Makes no sense. Why am I wrong to be encouraging older and sicker people to get the COVID vaccines unless they are sure they have already recovered from a SARS-CoV2 infection?

Tens of thousands of people died unnecessarily because they believed the crap you and RealityChecker are pushing, that Covid-19 is only something that is killing old and sick people who were going to die anyway.

Everything I have posted here is consistent with reality as far as I can determine. If I stated something that is false then provide a valid rebuttal that proves what I posted was wrong and I will be happy to change my opinion. Your claim that tens of thousands of people are dying because of what I have posted here is simply not valid.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I think you may be confusing the valid criticism of Dr. Ioannidis's study in Santa Clara, CA with the results of the article provided the link to

I am not.

Here are some examples of the criticism Ioannidis received:

What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?

I've been meaning to write this post for months now, but have hesitated. Up until yesterday, that hesitation has always led to my abandoning the post and choosing a different topic. The reason for my

sciencebasedmedicine.org

A tale of two epidemiologists: It was the worst of times. | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

 

[W_Heisenberg]

A comparison of the conclusions of Ioannidis to the conclusions of others:

A critical look at preprints on Covid-19 infection fatality rates: The Sequel

Personal website

hildabastian.net

This is a blog article from:



Here are the IFRs they estimate:

	Meyerowitz-Katz	Grewelle	Ioannidis
Overall IFR	0.75%	1.04%	Not estimated
Range	0.49–1.01%	0.77–1.38%	0.02–0.40%

Those differences might not seem large, but they make a big difference when they affect millions of people. For perspective, when the IFR for New York City was estimated to be 0.85%, around 15,000 people had died of confirmed or probable Covid-19 – and that was 0.18% of the population of the whole city.

The highest estimated IFR of these 3 preprints is the one by Grewelle. That paper is the only one of the 3 that reports making all their data available online (but I didn't check that). It is a paper describing a novel method of calculating an IFR. The authors point out that basing global estimates of the IFR based on studies done in better-resourced countries with better access to health care isn't going to reflect the world's experience. I don't have the expertise to assess their proposed method on the fly. However, the result they have calculated has more uncertainty around it than the others, as it's based on the national tallies at Worldometers. The data emerging for infections, testing, and deaths in real time is riddled with all sorts of problems.

The Ioannidis preprint has the lowest estimate by far. However, the biases in the study may be pushing the estimates down. I argue in my post about it that it has a biased sample of studies, the search strategy is inadequate (and inadequately reported), the data methods used may be biasing towards lower IFRs, and there are data errors.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I don't like Ioannidis. I think he is dishonest. I also think what has been driving him is that he made a mistake with his first back-of-the-napkin estimate and that made him look stupid so he has been doing everything he can to make his original mistake not look stupid.

 

[Paradoxical]

Makes no sense. Why am I wrong to be encouraging older and sicker people to get the COVID vaccines unless they are sure they have already recovered from a SARS-CoV2 infection?

Everything I have posted here is consistent with reality as far as I can determine. If I stated something that is false then provide a valid rebuttal that proves what I posted was wrong and I will be happy to change my opinion. Your claim that tens of thousands of people are dying because of what I have posted here is simply not valid.

Reality Checker, one thing to be wary of is the transparent tactics used by the left, borrowed from Christianity, of guilt, fear and shame ion almost every debate or discussion. They are what I call "show stoppers" intended to not answer the facts or questions but as a diversionary tactic to get you AWAY from debating the facts and putting the spotlight on you instead of the facts. I think it was this same poster that was greatly offended by my thread titled "Culling the herd" and mentioned that someone close to him died from COVID. He didn't argue the facts that a virus or disease DOES cull the animal herd and affects those who are the weakest. Nope. It is an argument coming from emotion and fear and no one can debate those arguments. they are show stoppers where the poster accuses you of being insensitive and callous for pointing out facts because your facts are right and he wants to divert attention away from them.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly

A Stanford whistleblower complaint alleges that the controversial John Ioannidis study failed to disclose important financial ties and ignored scientists’ concerns that their antibody test was inaccurate.

www.buzzfeednews.com

This guy is a piece of shit:

A Stanford whistleblower complaint alleges that the controversial John Ioannidis study failed to disclose important financial ties and ignored scientists’ concerns that their antibody test was inaccurate

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.

That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.

The study — released as a non-peer-reviewed paper, or preprint, on April 17 — made headlines around the world with a dramatic finding: Based on antibodies in thousands of Silicon Valley residents’ blood samples, the number of coronavirus infections was up to 85 times higher than believed. This true infection count was so high that it would drive down the virus’s local fatality rate to 0.12%–0.2% — far closer to the known death rate for the flu.

 

[RealityChecker]

JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly

A Stanford whistleblower complaint alleges that the controversial John Ioannidis study failed to disclose important financial ties and ignored scientists’ concerns that their antibody test was inaccurate.

www.buzzfeednews.com

This guy is a piece of shit:

A Stanford whistleblower complaint alleges that the controversial John Ioannidis study failed to disclose important financial ties and ignored scientists’ concerns that their antibody test was inaccurate

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.

That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.

The study — released as a non-peer-reviewed paper, or preprint, on April 17 — made headlines around the world with a dramatic finding: Based on antibodies in thousands of Silicon Valley residents’ blood samples, the number of coronavirus infections was up to 85 times higher than believed. This true infection count was so high that it would drive down the virus’s local fatality rate to 0.12%–0.2% — far closer to the known death rate for the flu.

I read the Buzz Feed News article. It is mostly building a mountain out of a mole hill. The JetBlue owner donating $5000 would hardly be sufficient to entice Dr. Ioannidis and his co-authors to falsify their research. That represents less than 1% of the cost of conducting that study.

How about the concerns of the serological test used was inaccurate? From the article:

"Wang’s experiments on the [serological] test left her “alarmed,” as she would soon recount on the email thread to the group of Stanford faculty. In her retelling, she had told Bendavid by phone that the test entirely missed a certain class of antibodies in some samples. She also told him, she informed the group, that she thought the test “performed very poorly on samples with lower antibody” levels that are more representative of people with mild or asymptomatic infections.

Regardless, the paper ended up including Wang’s data. In a section that describes the test’s accuracy rates, the preprint states that out of 30 samples from virus-free people, the test correctly produced negative results for all of them. But out of 37 samples from known COVID-19 patients, the test correctly detected antibodies in only 27 of them (erroneously identified as 25 in the first preprint)."

So Dr. Wang found no false positives in 30 of 30 subjects who had not been infected with SARS-CoV2. The problem was that Dr. Wang found that the serological test used did produce quite a few false negatives. So it missed finding prior infections in 10 of 37 subjects - mostly because they had lower levels of antibodies in their blood. So they had a proven infection but tested negative - that is a false negative. Of course, missing a lot of subjects with false negatives serological results means the study's findings were underestimating the IFR. By contrast, Dr. Wang found zero false positives means the the study was not underestimating the IFR.

Now the way they recruited subjects for this study may well have biased the results in a way that would lead to the study likely have recruited a higher proportion of Santa Clara County residents who had been infected with SARS-CoV2 than not. So the Ioannidis study results may well have low balled the true IFR at the time even though the false negative results that concerned Dr. Wang would have led to a lower (not higher) IFR result.

The Ioannidis study (despite its flaws) clearly showed that there were far more people who had a SARS-CoV2 infection and recovered with no or such mild symptoms that it never occurred to them to get tested for CoVID-19 and/or by the time they got tested they were no longer shedding virus in sufficient quantities to test positive. This was already apparent from the data from the Diamond Princes cruise ship data that had already been published. So Ioannidis study showed predicting the IFR from the case fatality ratio (CFR) was clearly leading to absurdly high estimates of how likely SARS-CoV2 infection would prove fatal. Yet, as the BF News article mentioned the use of CFR of 6% to predict the IFR was leading to mass hysteria as people were erroneously being led to believe the Wuhan virus was far more likely to kill them that was reality.

And the IFR of people being infected with the delta variant today is likely similar to that of the seasonal flu although I do not doubt it may have been perhaps as much as 5X higher than the flu back in the Spring of 2020.