The Data Is In... Stop The Panic & End The Total Isolation
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=574...z6KXkDXtX5
A misleading post. But, governors, be my guest and proceed with your openings. This about as a 'controlled experiment' as we're going to see.
Save for the fact that people who live along a border between
'closed' and 'opened' may skew the results. As in , 'Clem I'm a headed for GA for a haircut, a massage and a tattoo, maybe some bowlin' too.' When I come out I'ma gonna just stand on a corner with muh thumbs hooked under the straps a my bib-overalls and enjoy me some un-masked fresh air.
Fact 2 ignores that, unchecked, a rapid number of infections could result in hospital overcrowding anyway . I'm not disputing the fact that older people have higher rates of hospitalization, rather that they are being presented in a very sketchy way.
The article reads "0.1 percent per 100,000". What does this even mean? A percent is always per one hundred (hello? per cent, from the Latin centum meaning one hundred), so per cent per 100,000 is already a red flag. In fact, following the link to the data this is supposed to be based off, which is on a nyc.gov page (so I'm assuming it is reliable), you find that the rate of hospitalizations of people under 65 per 100,000 people is 784, which is not 0.1 but 0.784 percent.
Furthermore, presenting it as a percent is already not a good metric, because it lacks information. 0.78 percent of how much? Surely if 100,000 people get infected, only 784 will be hospitalized and this is manageable.
What if 10 million get infected over a relatively short period of time, say, two or three weeks? Then the number of hospitalizations would be around 78,000, and this is just the people under 65. Suddenly, this looks much harder to handle. Also missing is the amount of time patients generally spend hospitalized, but that's a different point.
Fact 3 is just appallingly poor-sourced. It starts by making a very general statement that "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." Guess what? This isn't totally true.
Immunity is not usually an on-off switch, in fact, for most infectious diseases it never is. This is why a lot of vaccines require boosters every couple of years, you have to continuously remind your immune system keep up defenses. About COVID-19, though, we know nothing. This is a totally new virus so we don't know if we can even develop long-term immunity to it.
Most coronaviruses we know, and many of them cause a common cold, only result in a short-term immunity that goes away in a couple of months--much too short for herd immunity to exist. In addition, there is evidence that aymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections of COVID-19 result in weaker immune response, and likely shorter-lived, than moderate and severe cases.
Fact 5, like the ones before, doesn't give you the full information. Yes, there is a clearly defined population at risk who could be protected with targeted measures, and unfortunately some of those measures aren't easy to implement at the moment, particularly widespread testing.
To suggest that locking older people up would solve the problem easily overlooks the many factors needed to make that strategy work.
https://gagadaily.com/forums/topic/324120-the...isolation/
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=574...z6KXkDXtX5
A misleading post. But, governors, be my guest and proceed with your openings. This about as a 'controlled experiment' as we're going to see.
Save for the fact that people who live along a border between
'closed' and 'opened' may skew the results. As in , 'Clem I'm a headed for GA for a haircut, a massage and a tattoo, maybe some bowlin' too.' When I come out I'ma gonna just stand on a corner with muh thumbs hooked under the straps a my bib-overalls and enjoy me some un-masked fresh air.
Fact 2 ignores that, unchecked, a rapid number of infections could result in hospital overcrowding anyway . I'm not disputing the fact that older people have higher rates of hospitalization, rather that they are being presented in a very sketchy way.
The article reads "0.1 percent per 100,000". What does this even mean? A percent is always per one hundred (hello? per cent, from the Latin centum meaning one hundred), so per cent per 100,000 is already a red flag. In fact, following the link to the data this is supposed to be based off, which is on a nyc.gov page (so I'm assuming it is reliable), you find that the rate of hospitalizations of people under 65 per 100,000 people is 784, which is not 0.1 but 0.784 percent.
Furthermore, presenting it as a percent is already not a good metric, because it lacks information. 0.78 percent of how much? Surely if 100,000 people get infected, only 784 will be hospitalized and this is manageable.
What if 10 million get infected over a relatively short period of time, say, two or three weeks? Then the number of hospitalizations would be around 78,000, and this is just the people under 65. Suddenly, this looks much harder to handle. Also missing is the amount of time patients generally spend hospitalized, but that's a different point.
Fact 3 is just appallingly poor-sourced. It starts by making a very general statement that "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." Guess what? This isn't totally true.
Immunity is not usually an on-off switch, in fact, for most infectious diseases it never is. This is why a lot of vaccines require boosters every couple of years, you have to continuously remind your immune system keep up defenses. About COVID-19, though, we know nothing. This is a totally new virus so we don't know if we can even develop long-term immunity to it.
Most coronaviruses we know, and many of them cause a common cold, only result in a short-term immunity that goes away in a couple of months--much too short for herd immunity to exist. In addition, there is evidence that aymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections of COVID-19 result in weaker immune response, and likely shorter-lived, than moderate and severe cases.
Fact 5, like the ones before, doesn't give you the full information. Yes, there is a clearly defined population at risk who could be protected with targeted measures, and unfortunately some of those measures aren't easy to implement at the moment, particularly widespread testing.
To suggest that locking older people up would solve the problem easily overlooks the many factors needed to make that strategy work.
https://gagadaily.com/forums/topic/324120-the...isolation/
