I agree. Another way to say it is the mandates are not working to prevent the spread of the virus in LA.
75% ICU now COVID.............
24,396 Views |
215 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Proposition Joe
it's always the kulaks
I believe they have certainly helped. I can't imagine LA if nothing had been done.Gumby said:
I agree. Another way to say it is the mandates are not working to prevent the spread of the virus in LA.
bay fan said:I believe they have certainly helped. I can't imagine LA if nothing had been done.Gumby said:
I agree. Another way to say it is the mandates are not working to prevent the spread of the virus in LA.
Maybe it would look more like Miami? Hospitals there weren't overrun and they didn't impose harsh measures. I was there in November and bars and restaurants were open with some restrictions. Hard to say because you cant prove the counterfactual.
You are right, I have no proof, there is no history. But if you fall back on what Dr. RamblinAg pointed out in regards to the non existent flu season, it seems fairly common sense but there's not always much of that around.
The weird thing about this virus is places with severe lockdowns often do worse than places with less severe restrictions. I live near DC and gyms are open along with indoor dining. My gym here doesn't require masks once you are inside. Its been open since June with no mask requirement.
Then you have LA where nearly everything is shut down and they are overwhelmed. And Miami which is the counter example to LA.
Whatever is going on it is clear to me that we haven't determined the right kind of interventions to prevent the spread of this virus. Whatever they are doing in LA isn't working.
Then you have LA where nearly everything is shut down and they are overwhelmed. And Miami which is the counter example to LA.
Whatever is going on it is clear to me that we haven't determined the right kind of interventions to prevent the spread of this virus. Whatever they are doing in LA isn't working.
This virus is a strange beast, for sure.
There are and will be a lot of studies reflecting how this thing spreads around in different areas at different rates.
There are and will be a lot of studies reflecting how this thing spreads around in different areas at different rates.
NPI's really have no statistically significant impact on the spread of the virus.
nortex97 said:
NPI's really have no statistically significant impact on the spread of the virus.
Perhaps, but it's difficult to know as there are no historical data for reference. Doesn't the absolutely non-existent flu season offer some evidence that societal changes do impact the transmission rates of a virus?
https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1338974424519692288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
All 3 had different NPIs. All 3 moved in tandem.
All 3 had different NPIs. All 3 moved in tandem.
Notacoronabro said:
https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1338974424519692288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
All 3 had different NPIs. All 3 moved in tandem.
That doesn't prove anything other than it is a multivariable problem.
I think all it shows it that viruses are different from on another. Clearly influenza in its normal, seasonal form is much less transmissible/contagious than Covid.
It proves that all variables proposed have negligible impact on the outcome.
The question is what NPIs work? We've got 9 months of data now. Would be great if you could provide proof they work rather than claim the variables just aren't calibrated right.
The question is what NPIs work? We've got 9 months of data now. Would be great if you could provide proof they work rather than claim the variables just aren't calibrated right.
Notacoronabro said:
It proves that all variables proposed have negligible impact on the outcome.
The question is what NPIs work? We've got 9 months of data now. Would be great if you could provide proof they work rather than claim the variables just aren't calibrated right.
Does it? What would the chart look like if no action were taken? I propose it would have a much higher slope and br at a much higher absolute number than it's currebtly at. That would mean NPIs work in limiing cases to an extent, but NPIs alone can't stop the spread. I would argue that's the academic consensus on the subject matter.
The virus spreads via human interaction. If an NPI decreases human interaction it absolutely without doubt limits spread. The ultimate NPI - which I'm not advocating for is forcing everybody to lock themselves in their home. If we did that I guarantee you cases would not follow the same trajectory. It's no coincidence that every lockdown in Europe has been precedes falling case counts. But obviously case counts are not the only variable that matters so a balanced approach is probably more wise.
Seasonal flu with the level of existing immunity and flu shots has an R0 of like 1.5ish. With the NPIs in effect, that's been dropped to something less than 1.
Covid has an R0 of like 2.5 -3. The estimated Rt during the recent waves has been in the 1.3-1.7 range in almost every state. Only in the very first waves before lockdowns did it get to that 3ish range. What we can basically say is that NPIs have some effect but we're not sure which ones and in what combo work the best.
Covid has an R0 of like 2.5 -3. The estimated Rt during the recent waves has been in the 1.3-1.7 range in almost every state. Only in the very first waves before lockdowns did it get to that 3ish range. What we can basically say is that NPIs have some effect but we're not sure which ones and in what combo work the best.
pocketrockets06 said:
Seasonal flu with the level of existing immunity and flu shots has an R0 of like 1.5ish. With the NPIs in effect, that's been dropped to something less than 1.
Covid has an R0 of like 2.5 -3. The estimated Rt during the recent waves has been in the 1.3-1.7 range in almost every state. Only in the very first waves before lockdowns did it get to that 3ish range. What we can basically say is that NPIs have some effect but we're not sure which ones and in what combo work the best.
This is the answer. No NPIs looks like NYC in March basically (population density and current immunity being the only current dampening variables without NPIs).
Compare Florida to California and see what it looks like. Most cities in Florida have dropped all NPIs. Florida should be skyrocketing past every state that is using NPIs.
Keep in mind that NPIs don't operate in a vacuum. There is also population density, ventilation, public transit, weather, voluntary social distancing, etc. California might be much worse without what it has implemented given its higher latitude, higher density, more public transit than Florida.
Gumby said:
Compare Florida to California and see what it looks like. Most cities in Florida have dropped all NPIs. Florida should be skyrocketing past every state that is using NPIs.
NPIs are not the only variable. Pretending that California and Florida are equivalent is inherently flawed analysis.
what exactly isn't reasonably equivalent?
climate?
climate?
Will they shut down school again since there are no beds? Before I think they shut down and the hospital situation wasn't this bad.thats why I'm wondering
You cannot reason with this logic.
NPI measures, cases go down - WE WON!
NPI measures, cases go up - NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH
No NPI measures, cases go up - WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
No NPI measures, cases go down - Silence.
NPI measures, cases go down - WE WON!
NPI measures, cases go up - NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH
No NPI measures, cases go up - WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
No NPI measures, cases go down - Silence.
Notacoronabro said:
You cannot reason with this logic.
NPI measures, cases go down - WE WON!
NPI measures, cases go up - NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH
No NPI measures, cases go up - WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
No NPI measures, cases go down - Silence.
See again, you know you can't actually challenge the substance of what I said so you're resorting to the lowest common denominator. Build me a model that shows cases uneffected by human interaction and prove it's validity and you might have a case that NPIs don't affect transmission rates. Those post is evidence that you don't care to understand how or why this works, but by God you have an opinion.
cone said:
what exactly isn't reasonably equivalent?
climate?
We can start with population density and number of people per household. There's a reason L.A. is getting hit particularly bad.
Gordo14 said:Notacoronabro said:
You cannot reason with this logic.
NPI measures, cases go down - WE WON!
NPI measures, cases go up - NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH
No NPI measures, cases go up - WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
No NPI measures, cases go down - Silence.
See again, you know you can't actually challenge the substance of what I said so you're resorting to the lowest common denominator. Build me a model that shows cases uneffected by human interaction and prove it's validity and you might have a case that NPIs don't affect transmission rates. Those post is evidence that you don't care to understand how or why this works, but by God you have an opinion.
Can you do the same to show they do work?
I mean I guess if the flu and RSV data doesn't prove it for you, I'll just concede that COVID is the one respiratory virus where the NPIs have zero effect.
pocketrockets06 said:
I mean I guess if the flu and RSV data doesn't prove it for you, I'll just concede that COVID is the one respiratory virus where the NPIs have zero effect.
Is the flu flourishing in areas without restrictions?
As an engineer, I'm having a tough time detecting a pattern on that one. Lol.Notacoronabro said:
You mean like this?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density?time=latest
I do agree with the poster that stated that multiple variables are involved. It's not just population density, weather, public transit, but also demographics, population health, access to medical care, etc.
Florida is much older than California and has several high density cities. Also, California and L.A. in particular is known for their terrible public transit that no one uses. So one would think Florida would be in far worse shape even if they had more restrictive NPIs than California. Since that is not the case, I think an objective person should question the NPIs being used in L.A. and their actual utility in managing COVID.
Gordo14 said:cone said:
what exactly isn't reasonably equivalent?
climate?
We can start with population density and number of people per household. There's a reason L.A. is getting hit particularly bad.
Earlier on this page you said " No NPIs looks like NYC in March basically ." Are you suggesting population density is a greater factor even more than ppe usage? This would make sense not just for cities but for indoor places in general such as hospitals and healthcare facilities where most transmissions seem to emanate.
I suspect there are far more multi generational households and much smaller living spaces based upon cost of living in LA as oppose to Florida. More people, smaller spaces = not a good combination.Gumby said:As an engineer, I'm having a tough time detecting a pattern on that one. Lol.Notacoronabro said:
You mean like this?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density?time=latest
I do agree with the poster that stated that multiple variables are involved. It's not just population density, weather, public transit, but also demographics, population health, access to medical care, etc.
Florida is much older than California and has several high density cities. Also, California and L.A. in particular is known for their terrible public transit that no one uses. So one would think Florida would be in far worse shape even if they had more restrictive NPIs than California. Since that is not the case, I think an objective person should question the NPIs being used in L.A. and their actual utility in managing COVID.
bay fan said:I suspect there are far more multi generational households and much smaller living spaces based upon cost of living in LA as oppose to Florida. More people, smaller spaces = not a good combination.Gumby said:As an engineer, I'm having a tough time detecting a pattern on that one. Lol.Notacoronabro said:
You mean like this?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density?time=latest
I do agree with the poster that stated that multiple variables are involved. It's not just population density, weather, public transit, but also demographics, population health, access to medical care, etc.
Florida is much older than California and has several high density cities. Also, California and L.A. in particular is known for their terrible public transit that no one uses. So one would think Florida would be in far worse shape even if they had more restrictive NPIs than California. Since that is not the case, I think an objective person should question the NPIs being used in L.A. and their actual utility in managing COVID.
Good point. And probably more undocumented immigrants without health care who also tend to live in tighter quarters.
There is a lot of data studying NPI implementation, and it's impact on both the flu, and the incidence rate/mortality rate for covid. But again, some people now are so traumatized by covid/2020, they have a religious belief in various NPI actions efficacy, and will not accept any contrary evidence (cognitive dissonance).CowtownEng said:nortex97 said:
NPI's really have no statistically significant impact on the spread of the virus.
Perhaps, but it's difficult to know as there are no historical data for reference. Doesn't the absolutely non-existent flu season offer some evidence that societal changes do impact the transmission rates of a virus?
Here is just one paper (from the many at the above link) studying the regression analysis of lockdowns and covid death rates. Notice the discussion, but there is not a good case for causality, period.
For the flu, it goes back some time, and I just don't think the CDC, WHO, and NIH are all wrong suddenly;
CDC nonpharaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995_article
Excerpt: "Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
WHO the likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:
potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands; (48, 49) potential self-contamination that can occur if nonmedical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify; potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask...
https://www.who.int/.../advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the...
NIH "Cloth masks are dangerous, may increase risk of infection, NIH published clinical study from New Zealand" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
"New England Journal of Medicine: Outside of hospitals, masks do not work"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
From a brief look at these this morning, these can be categorized as:
1) Not peer reviewed and/or potentially biased. Not saying they are wrong, but not ready to accept them as fact
2) Out of context quotes with little relevance to actual conclusions. In at least a couple of these, the authors have actively stated that people were taking things out of context.
Is this peer-reviewed and published somewhere else than fatemperor.com? The group publishing is pretty clear on their intents: "Our mission is simple. We see in lockdown and its related intrusions on civil liberties a serious threat not only to lives but to civilization itself. This threat must be resisted"
I was a little lazy on this one and didn't look at the paper itself, but this link contains a quote from one of the authors stating the paper is being taken out of context and also mentions that the senior author shortly later released a paper "demonstrating that masks are indeed highly effective in stopping infected people from releasing airborne viruses.". https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/31/facebook-posts/no-cdc-who-study-does-not-prove-masks-do-not-preve/
These are abstracted from a discussion about potential (note, "likely" not used in this context) advantages/disadvantages of mask usage among healthy population. You are skipping all of the potential benefits occurring right before that discussion. I admit this isn't a perfect analogy, but I read this as like listing potential side-effects of a medication - nowhere are they suggesting more harm than good and it doesn't change their recommendations in any way.
This is really getting stretched to lead to an assumption that NPIs don't work. From the objective: "The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks." And, from the conclusion: "Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated." Basically, healthcare workers shouldn't be wearing cloth masks over medical (Duh?) and no claims are being made about usage across the entire population.
Per author's, claim is being taken out of context. They reference recent research showing masks reduce transmission and "We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836
1) Not peer reviewed and/or potentially biased. Not saying they are wrong, but not ready to accept them as fact
2) Out of context quotes with little relevance to actual conclusions. In at least a couple of these, the authors have actively stated that people were taking things out of context.
nortex97 said:
Here is just one paper (from the many at the above link) studying the regression analysis of lockdowns and covid death rates. Notice the discussion, but there is not a good case for causality, period.
Is this peer-reviewed and published somewhere else than fatemperor.com? The group publishing is pretty clear on their intents: "Our mission is simple. We see in lockdown and its related intrusions on civil liberties a serious threat not only to lives but to civilization itself. This threat must be resisted"
nortex97 said:
For the flu, it goes back some time, and I just don't think the CDC, WHO, and NIH are all wrong suddenly;
CDC nonpharaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995_article
Excerpt: "Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
I was a little lazy on this one and didn't look at the paper itself, but this link contains a quote from one of the authors stating the paper is being taken out of context and also mentions that the senior author shortly later released a paper "demonstrating that masks are indeed highly effective in stopping infected people from releasing airborne viruses.". https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/31/facebook-posts/no-cdc-who-study-does-not-prove-masks-do-not-preve/
Quote:
WHO the likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:
potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands; (48, 49) potential self-contamination that can occur if nonmedical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify; potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask...
https://www.who.int/.../advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the...
These are abstracted from a discussion about potential (note, "likely" not used in this context) advantages/disadvantages of mask usage among healthy population. You are skipping all of the potential benefits occurring right before that discussion. I admit this isn't a perfect analogy, but I read this as like listing potential side-effects of a medication - nowhere are they suggesting more harm than good and it doesn't change their recommendations in any way.
Quote:
NIH "Cloth masks are dangerous, may increase risk of infection, NIH published clinical study from New Zealand" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
This is really getting stretched to lead to an assumption that NPIs don't work. From the objective: "The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks." And, from the conclusion: "Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated." Basically, healthcare workers shouldn't be wearing cloth masks over medical (Duh?) and no claims are being made about usage across the entire population.
Quote:
"New England Journal of Medicine: Outside of hospitals, masks do not work"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
Per author's, claim is being taken out of context. They reference recent research showing masks reduce transmission and "We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
12h ago
16k
42:45
20h ago
4.3k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
35:53
23h ago
3.7k