Coronavirus Outbreak

[Robert]

No. When asked to name them, you could not. Therefor you were not backing up your claim but “forgot.”

These were none of my words. I was asked and searched. I could not find it right away, but said I would keep looking. It was found for me.

Scroll back in this thread. I have posted more links and studies then anyone else. I back up what I say with facts, not personal attacks, as you seem to do.

I am still waiting for my apology. It is not that I need it, but I feel it will be helpful for you to give one. A little humility helps the soul.

BTW, I had one of the highest patient satisfaction scores around. So high that my management thought that the results were suspect.

So you say. Should I doubt your honesty as you do mine?

Of note-Trump’s doctors did not appear to have used HCQ on him.

They also used zinc and vitamin D. Since Regeneron was being used, I am sure they wanted to see how it worked alone. It seems he was willing to be a test subject. Not sure I would have recommended it, but it was not my decision. I am glad they are finding more treatments, as I said all along they would.

[mike]

Daily new death are still slowly ticking upward again, and daily new deaths are still slowly ticking downward.



Looking at the two charts: The highest wave of deaths came with the first wave of the virus. However, curiously, the second wave of the disease, while being much higher than the first, came with a much lower rise in daily new deaths. It makes one think that the numbers of infections during the second wave was as high as it was due to greatly expanded testing. It also makes me think that the numbers of infections was far higher during the first wave than the charts show because of a lack of testing. Better treatments are most likely a factor as well.

The daily new deaths numbers have been steadily trending down for over two months now, since early August. That follows the curve of daily new cases. Daily new cases have now been trending up slightly the past week, which may mean we will again see a rise in deaths. Remains to be seen.

[silentreader]

New peer-reviewed Canadian study on the effectiveness of mask usage

Well that's certainly not what happened in the two local regions where indoor masking was mandated. In the one region the mandate came into force June 12 or 13 in the other July 12 or 13. In both cases daily infections were dropping at the time of the mandate. In the first region the case rate actually rose in the first week after the mandate before beginning to drop again, then reached a plateau before beginning to rise again, as now.
In the second region the case rate continued to drop, plateaued, and then began to rise again.

Data? Which regions. Are the numbers large enough that the results are reliable rather than statistical noise?

J.M.

I'm aware that ANY data that you don't agree with is just noise. The data is all hand-written notes where I followed daily changes for 3 months. Size? It follows two health regions separately, each of which consists of some rural areas and a city. In the one, the rural and urban areas were tallied separately, in the other not.
The one health unit acknowledged that considerable mask on mask infections were going on.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just saying how it ACTUALLY is here in my small circle.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Well that's certainly not what happened in the two local regions where indoor masking was mandated. In the one region the mandate came into force June 12 or 13 in the other July 12 or 13. In both cases daily infections were dropping at the time of the mandate. In the first region the case rate actually rose in the first week after the mandate before beginning to drop again, then reached a plateau before beginning to rise again, as now.
In the second region the case rate continued to drop, plateaued, and then began to rise again.

Data? Which regions. Are the numbers large enough that the results are reliable rather than statistical noise?

J.M.

I'm aware that ANY data that you don't agree with is just noise. The data is all hand-written notes where I followed daily changes for 3 months. Size? It follows two health regions separately, each of which consists of some rural areas and a city. In the one, the rural and urban areas were tallied separately, in the other not.
The one health unit acknowledged that considerable mask on mask infections were going on.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just saying how it ACTUALLY is here in my small circle.

Remember YOU are the one that is trying to convince others that the generally accepted position of our best public health experts are incorrect. Therefore burden of proof is on you.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but small sample sized are by nature less reliable than large ones. It may indeed be true in your small circle, but can you extrapolate that data to a larger group and claim it reliable.

Ken posted a link to a properly done study. My “side job” was reviewing papers for Chinese scholars In the US. Most of their problems were informed consent norms, language issues and methodological flaws. But some people do not get the need for a large enough sample size, I see way too many n=1 observations presented as facts.

My position is “show me the data.” Has been for 40 years.

J.M.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Daily new death are still slowly ticking upward again, and daily new deaths are still slowly ticking downward.



Looking at the two charts: The highest wave of deaths came with the first wave of the virus. However, curiously, the second wave of the disease, while being much higher than the first, came with a much lower rise in daily new deaths. It makes one think that the numbers of infections during the second wave was as high as it was due to greatly expanded testing. It also makes me think that the numbers of infections was far higher during the first wave than the charts show because of a lack of testing. Better treatments are most likely a factor as well.

The daily new deaths numbers have been steadily trending down for over two months now, since early August. That follows the curve of daily new cases. Daily new cases have now been trending up slightly the past week, which may mean we will again see a rise in deaths. Remains to be seen.

Better treatment methodology is almost certainly much of it. I have seen some numbers (Before I left work) that mortality of patients that wound up on ventilators has gone from “most die” to “most survive”. With the reduction of patients being put on vents to begin with. My state reported ZERO deaths for a few days last week, which is astounding. Cautiously, we may have turned the corner. I just hope so.

J.M.

[silentreader]

Data? Which regions. Are the numbers large enough that the results are reliable rather than statistical noise?

J.M.

I'm aware that ANY data that you don't agree with is just noise. The data is all hand-written notes where I followed daily changes for 3 months. Size? It follows two health regions separately, each of which consists of some rural areas and a city. In the one, the rural and urban areas were tallied separately, in the other not.
The one health unit acknowledged that considerable mask on mask infections were going on.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just saying how it ACTUALLY is here in my small circle.

Remember YOU are the one that is trying to convince others that the generally accepted position of our best public health experts are incorrect. Therefore burden of proof is on you.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but small sample sized are by nature less reliable than large ones. It may indeed be true in your small circle, but can you extrapolate that data to a larger group and claim it reliable.

Ken posted a link to a properly done study. My “side job” was reviewing papers for Chinese scholars In the US. Most of their problems were informed consent norms, language issues and methodological flaws. But some people do not get the need for a large enough sample size, I see way too many n=1 observations presented as facts.

My position is “show me the data.” Has been for 40 years.

J.M.

I pointed out from the beginning that this is what is happening HERE, and no amount of contortions will make the broader data fit what is happening HERE. I never said that what is happening HERE must be applied everywhere.
For HERE, my n does =1, whether you like it or not.

[Robert]

My position is “show me the data.” Has been for 40 years.

J.M.

I have showed plenty of data. You ignored or rejected it. Your statement should be "show me the data I like."

[Judas Maccabeus]

My position is “show me the data.” Has been for 40 years.

J.M.

I have showed plenty of data. You ignored or rejected it. Your statement should be "show me the data I like."

No, it is show me data from a large (ideally 1000 plus participants) from a property designed study, with controls, in a way that the study authors cannot influence the data through either conscious or unconscious selection bias. Retrospective analysis of data, is notoriously unreliable, because you normally have no control over interference of other factors. Your only control is your entry criteria and how you apply them. Ever wonder why this type of data cannot be used for approval in an NDA?

Normally this is not what I see. RECOVER is so far the best, but as of two weeks ago, an even larger one was in process.

It is not show me the data I like, it is show me the data that I know is reliable.

J.M.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I'm aware that ANY data that you don't agree with is just noise. The data is all hand-written notes where I followed daily changes for 3 months. Size? It follows two health regions separately, each of which consists of some rural areas and a city. In the one, the rural and urban areas were tallied separately, in the other not.
The one health unit acknowledged that considerable mask on mask infections were going on.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just saying how it ACTUALLY is here in my small circle.

Remember YOU are the one that is trying to convince others that the generally accepted position of our best public health experts are incorrect. Therefore burden of proof is on you.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but small sample sized are by nature less reliable than large ones. It may indeed be true in your small circle, but can you extrapolate that data to a larger group and claim it reliable.

Ken posted a link to a properly done study. My “side job” was reviewing papers for Chinese scholars In the US. Most of their problems were informed consent norms, language issues and methodological flaws. But some people do not get the need for a large enough sample size, I see way too many n=1 observations presented as facts.

My position is “show me the data.” Has been for 40 years.

J.M.

I pointed out from the beginning that this is what is happening HERE, and no amount of contortions will make the broader data fit what is happening HERE. I never said that what is happening HERE must be applied everywhere.
For HERE, my n does =1, whether you like it or not.

Once again, you just can’t extrapolate that sort of data into a large population.

I would LOVE to see how you actually determined that it was really mask on mask transmission. With so many presymptomic spreaders I would think that almost impossible unless you had unusual control of your study population. Contact tracing down here has almost been unworkable.

J.M.

[silentreader]

Remember YOU are the one that is trying to convince others that the generally accepted position of our best public health experts are incorrect. Therefore burden of proof is on you.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but small sample sized are by nature less reliable than large ones. It may indeed be true in your small circle, but can you extrapolate that data to a larger group and claim it reliable.

Ken posted a link to a properly done study. My “side job” was reviewing papers for Chinese scholars In the US. Most of their problems were informed consent norms, language issues and methodological flaws. But some people do not get the need for a large enough sample size, I see way too many n=1 observations presented as facts.

My position is “show me the data.” Has been for 40 years.

J.M.

I pointed out from the beginning that this is what is happening HERE, and no amount of contortions will make the broader data fit what is happening HERE. I never said that what is happening HERE must be applied everywhere.
For HERE, my n does =1, whether you like it or not.

Once again, you just can’t extrapolate that sort of data into a large population.

I would LOVE to see how you actually determined that it was really mask on mask transmission. With so many presymptomic spreaders I would think that almost impossible unless you had unusual control of your study population. Contact tracing down here has almost been unworkable.

J.M.

You are really not (paying any attention) responding at all to what I am actually saying.
If these signifies your self-professed expertise at data translation then there is no wonder there is so much confusion.
Look again at what Ken posted. Consider the many admitted variables. Consider their seeming extrapolation of what they think could have happened in Ontario to what they think could have happened in Canada.
What was actually going on in the rest of Canada in this time?
Think of the fact that the CDC was allowed to admit that the virus also spreads by aerosols.
You consider this sound data? You consider this science?
Come on, don't confuse this with what is actually happening.