mike wrote:Here are the top 10 most populous nations in the world and their reported COVID numbers. I'm curious how many people here are confident in the accuracy of the numbers out of China, India, and Russia.
I like to advise caution on charts that are not linked to the original study as many pseudo-scientists like to use false interpretations for arguments and agendas. It is the old trick of taking concepts out of context to win an argument or to accrue funding or both. Mike, I know you would not have such an intention. I am merely reminding that citing the chart's original sources and studies are important.
If this chart came from a medium that did not cite the original study, my next question would be why did the medium not want to cite the source? Was the reporter trying to prove a pre-conceived point? Was the reporter trying to make a front page headline? Was the reporter simply lazy about finding the original study? Studies are posted readily online in this era of the internet. Any original study can be accessed therefore lack of accessibility is not an excuse.
The original study may have had a caveat in its summary that indicates the level of reliability of the collected data. We do know that not all nations have the capability to collect good data sets. Other nations may be trying to "save face" in order to maintain the appearance of superiority.
Regarding the refusal to be vaccinated, there is another reason that is not often cited. There are those who are allergic to the suspension (carrier liquid) in which the agent is administered. I have family members who cannot be vaccinated due to this reaction that sends them to hospital.
MaxPC wrote:I like to advise caution on charts that are not linked to the original study as many pseudo-scientists like to use false interpretations for arguments and agendas. It is the old trick of taking concepts out of context to win an argument or to accrue funding or both. Mike, I know you would not have such an intention. I am merely reminding that citing the chart's original sources and studies are important.
If this chart came from a medium that did not cite the original study, my next question would be why did the medium not want to cite the source? Was the reporter trying to prove a pre-conceived point? Was the reporter trying to make a front page headline? Was the reporter simply lazy about finding the original study? Studies are posted readily online in this era of the internet. Any original study can be accessed therefore lack of accessibility is not an excuse.
The original study may have had a caveat in its summary that indicates the level of reliability of the collected data. We do know that not all nations have the capability to collect good data sets. Other nations may be trying to "save face" in order to maintain the appearance of superiority.
Charts like this are not based on studies but on data sources. I typically post worldometers.info charts, and their sources and methods are described here. I take all data with a grain of salt, because there's no way to have perfect data on this scale. They make that clear in their discussion of sources. And I am skeptical of all data, and very skeptical of data from certain sources, such as the Chinese government. But at some point you have to work with the data you've got. If you don't trust anything or anybody to any extent, you'll be a hermit in the woods. I know some people like that.
MaxPC wrote:I like to advise caution on charts that are not linked to the original study as many pseudo-scientists like to use false interpretations for arguments and agendas. It is the old trick of taking concepts out of context to win an argument or to accrue funding or both. Mike, I know you would not have such an intention. I am merely reminding that citing the chart's original sources and studies are important.
If this chart came from a medium that did not cite the original study, my next question would be why did the medium not want to cite the source? Was the reporter trying to prove a pre-conceived point? Was the reporter trying to make a front page headline? Was the reporter simply lazy about finding the original study? Studies are posted readily online in this era of the internet. Any original study can be accessed therefore lack of accessibility is not an excuse.
The original study may have had a caveat in its summary that indicates the level of reliability of the collected data. We do know that not all nations have the capability to collect good data sets. Other nations may be trying to "save face" in order to maintain the appearance of superiority.
Charts like this are not based on studies but on data sources. I typically post worldometers.info charts, and their sources and methods are described here. I take all data with a grain of salt, because there's no way to have perfect data on this scale. They make that clear in their discussion of sources. And I am skeptical of all data, and very skeptical of data from certain sources, such as the Chinese government. But at some point you have to work with the data you've got. If you don't trust anything or anybody to any extent, you'll be a hermit in the woods. I know some people like that.
Thank you for posting the source where you obtained the graph.
Personally I do not view this as a trust issue only. Primarily I view this as a contextual issue. In the sciences we are told to always cite the original studies. It has to do with excellent pursuit of the scientific method and accountability for the context.
Without the appropriate context, information is not usable or does not qualify as usable.
MaxPC wrote: There are those who are allergic to the suspension (carrier liquid) in which the agent is administered. I have family members who cannot be vaccinated due to this reaction that sends them to hospital.
Actually this is uncommon, but not unheard of. Sometimes products only incidentally related can cause problems. We had an uptick in reactions to CT contrast in the 90s. Turned out to be that the manufacturer switched his vial supplier and the “new” vials had stoppers that contained natural latex rubber. That was likely the cause, when they switched back the rate went back down.
The rate of reactions we are seeing in the news media does not alarm me. Likely we have handed out about a million doses in the USA, and we have seen like 2 reactions. I wish we were so blessed such a low rate with some of the drugs we used.
MaxPC wrote: There are those who are allergic to the suspension (carrier liquid) in which the agent is administered. I have family members who cannot be vaccinated due to this reaction that sends them to hospital.
Actually this is uncommon, but not unheard of. Sometimes products only incidentally related can cause problems. We had an uptick in reactions to CT contrast in the 90s. Turned out to be that the manufacturer switched his vial supplier and the “new” vials had stoppers that contained natural latex rubber. That was likely the cause, when they switched back the rate went back down.
J.M.
Latex allergies are fairly common. Incidental contact is problematic for the very sensitive.
In the case of family, they have allergies to a variety of items. One member went into acute distress during a routine procedure. The anesthesiologist did not read the sensitivities/allergies portion of the chart and used a peanut oil as the gas push. The family member reacted on the operating table and they nearly lost him.
Belgium is getting hammered! It has the population of Ohio (11.5 million) with twice as many deaths.
The US will likely end the year with 400,000+ excess deaths (between 15% - 20% above normal). A pretty sound indictment of the "dying with COVID not of COVID" argument IMO.
Dan Z wrote:Belgium is getting hammered! It has the population of Ohio (11.5 million) with twice as many deaths.
The US will likely end the year with 400,000+ excess deaths (between 15% - 20% above normal). A pretty sound indictment of the "dying with COVID not of COVID" argument IMO.
At this late time, it is interesting to take a look at Sweden. The King has called their response a disaster, the government has begun enforcing social distancing and mask wearing in some contexts.
I can see why Dr. Atlas left. Herd immunity without a vaccine looks like a complete tragedy. You cannot protect “the most vulnerable “ if you permit the virus to widely circulate in the population as a whole.
