Continuation of thread…
The overuse of percentages by our wise ruling class and media to convey critical information may be hindering understanding, and therefore a rational response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Lots of figures are being thrown about, practically all on a percentage basis, not as ratios, as natural phenomenon should be expressed.
This STAT News article (March 3rd, since removed) falls into the same base-10(0) percentage rut, but at least they're slicing and reporting the data well, which is quite rare these days.
The ratios on total-infected per fatality (the inverse of the above percentages) for COVID-19 by age follow:
Analyze this ... again, with ratios. It's lucky that we live in a country with such robust youthful leadership, otherwise policy might be skewed.
And, lastly ... Don't shoot the messenger ... you've been advised to self-quarantine, and will be reported to authorities.
....
In related news: https://babylonbee.com/news/nations-nerds-wake-up-in-utopia-where-everyone-stays-inside-sports-canceled-social-interaction-forbidden
Apparently, on this same day (3/13) as this thread was posted, the Mainstream and New Media were still grappling with the meaning of it all, but took a stab at analyzing the data:
--------[ WAIT ... THERE'S MORE!!! ]-------
Finally, a Stanford doc -- Dr Scott Atlas -- chimes in with sensible advice (4/24) ... his bottom line (excerpt): "Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter". Yes, facts do indeed matter. Too bad that perspective has been lost.
Sensible StatNews comes out against demonizing Coronavirus skeptics (4/27).
From Russia, some rational Coronavirus analysis (5/20): ‘Those Meant to Die Will Die,’ Russia’s Coronavirus Info Chief Says
A little late to be genuinely surprised (see all)…
An extensive study of the COVID-19 cases in the UK (7/9, NYTimes via Yahoo News) found that there’s a “jaw-dropping” disparity in fatality rate based on the victim’s age and pre-existing conditions, including “pervasive social and structural inequities”, of course.
BIG PICTURE, all things considered, herd-immunity-wise: “Simply put, COVID-19 won’t flame out until 50 to 80 percent of us get it (the precise number is open to debate).” At this point, while protecting the vulnerable old and/or ailing ... given how widespread the virus already is, the best rational strategy could be: Get it? Got it. Good! (7/13) … let’s get this over with, shall we?
Hindsight is 20/20 on the Big Event of 2020 … a comprehensive data-packed retrospective. On the other hand, this companion post on potential COVID-19 vaccines and the inherent uncertainties of those ambitious programs is forward projection (7/27, supporting evidence is very well footnoted in both posts).
Finally, some rational Coronavirus analysis…
Perhaps our wise ruling class just needed an opportunistic *RESET* -- to “lead to real change” (7/14) -- so that they can properly administer the reimagined path to our glorious future.
Could this ongoing drill – the global lockdown for CODENAME: Operation Virus IDentification 2019, which only reduced carbon emissions 8%, dammit! -- be a coordinated step by the Davos crowd on the journey to our dystopian glorious future? (9/26; more here, 9/28)
'Petty tyranny' ... the New Normal..? (10/5)
The overuse of percentages by our wise ruling class and media to convey critical information may be hindering understanding, and therefore a rational response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Lots of figures are being thrown about, practically all on a percentage basis, not as ratios, as natural phenomenon should be expressed.
This STAT News article (March 3rd, since removed) falls into the same base-10(0) percentage rut, but at least they're slicing and reporting the data well, which is quite rare these days.
Excerpt: The death toll skews old even more strongly. Overall, China CDC found, 2.3% of confirmed cases died. But the fatality rate was 14.8% in people 80 or older, likely reflecting the presence of other diseases, a weaker immune system, or simply worse overall health. By contrast, the fatality rate was 1.3% in 50-somethings, 0.4% in 40-somethings, and 0.2% in people 10 to 39.
NOTE: The Chinese CDC data may not be totally credible, but that uncertainty factor would apply to all categories equally, presumably(?).
The ratios on total-infected per fatality (the inverse of the above percentages) for COVID-19 by age follow:
80 and older ..... 7
50-something ... 77
40-something ... 250
10-39 ..................... 500
Analyze this ... again, with ratios. It's lucky that we live in a country with such robust youthful leadership, otherwise policy might be skewed.
And, lastly ... Don't shoot the messenger ... you've been advised to self-quarantine, and will be reported to authorities.
....
In related news: https://babylonbee.com/news/nations-nerds-wake-up-in-utopia-where-everyone-stays-inside-sports-canceled-social-interaction-forbidden
Apparently, on this same day (3/13) as this thread was posted, the Mainstream and New Media were still grappling with the meaning of it all, but took a stab at analyzing the data:
Excerpt (highlighted in their text): The bottom line is that the coronavirus hit Italy and South Korea very differently in terms of age at around the same time and the same level of the outbreak — at least the level that we noticed in terms of confirmed cases — thereby causing a much higher number of deaths in Italy. [..wha?..and so..?!?]
It is probable that all their various charts in percentages confused them, obscuring deeper meaning within the data ... for proper analyses, one needs to use ratios, I tell you ...RATIOS.--------[ WAIT ... THERE'S MORE!!! ]-------
Finally, a Stanford doc -- Dr Scott Atlas -- chimes in with sensible advice (4/24) ... his bottom line (excerpt): "Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter". Yes, facts do indeed matter. Too bad that perspective has been lost.
UPDATE (6/20): Hindsight is 20/20 ... from another Stanford doc: Median infection fatality rate of coronavirus for those under 70 is just 0.04%.
UPDATE (7/15): Atlas says that science shows that kids should go back to school. Too bad educators are paid by risk-befuddled administrators, not rational scientists.
UPDATE (8/17): Hopefully, Atlas will shoulder this burden … a rational voice at the White House on the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant economic fallout.
Sensible StatNews comes out against demonizing Coronavirus skeptics (4/27).
Excerpt: [W]e can’t allow questions of science, medicine, and public health to become captives of tribalized politics. Today, more than ever, we need vigorous academic debate.
From Russia, some rational Coronavirus analysis (5/20): ‘Those Meant to Die Will Die,’ Russia’s Coronavirus Info Chief Says
A little late to be genuinely surprised (see all)…
An extensive study of the COVID-19 cases in the UK (7/9, NYTimes via Yahoo News) found that there’s a “jaw-dropping” disparity in fatality rate based on the victim’s age and pre-existing conditions, including “pervasive social and structural inequities”, of course.
BIG PICTURE, all things considered, herd-immunity-wise: “Simply put, COVID-19 won’t flame out until 50 to 80 percent of us get it (the precise number is open to debate).” At this point, while protecting the vulnerable old and/or ailing ... given how widespread the virus already is, the best rational strategy could be: Get it? Got it. Good! (7/13) … let’s get this over with, shall we?
However, it’s probable that this ‘COVID coup’ (7/17, really long diatribe) – where compliance is the metric, not your overall health and wellbeing -- will continue until, say ... early November.Hindsight is 20/20 on the Big Event of 2020 … a comprehensive data-packed retrospective. On the other hand, this companion post on potential COVID-19 vaccines and the inherent uncertainties of those ambitious programs is forward projection (7/27, supporting evidence is very well footnoted in both posts).
20:20 UPDATE: Death from Above... a retrospective on the business-as-usual, old-school approach to prudently managing a community during an epidemic, contrasted to what's-already-happened, for which no one probably will ever be held accountable for (9/1).
Finally, some rational Coronavirus analysis…
Perhaps our wise ruling class just needed an opportunistic *RESET* -- to “lead to real change” (7/14) -- so that they can properly administer the reimagined path to our glorious future.
Relax ... Klaus knows what's best for you...
Reminiscent of post-9/11 … “you’re either with us or against us” is the mantra of those pushing the Great Reset (9/10).Could this ongoing drill – the global lockdown for CODENAME: Operation Virus IDentification 2019, which only reduced carbon emissions 8%, dammit! -- be a coordinated step by the Davos crowd on the journey to our dystopian glorious future? (9/26; more here, 9/28)
UPDATE (10/7): In hindsight, Jane Fonda calls coronavirus 'God's gift to the left'.
UPDATE (10/12): Aussies ‘call out’ this wily ploy ... ‘Great Reset’ = Green Feudalism, the dream scenario of enviro-socialists.
'Petty tyranny' ... the New Normal..? (10/5)
x
Last edited: