4th Study Shows COVID-19 Cases Massively Underestimated

_{Barry Arrington

April 23, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This account of the report states:

Preliminary results from New York’s first coronavirus antibody study show nearly 14 percent tested positive, meaning they had the virus at some point and recovered, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Thursday. That equates to 2.7 million infections statewide — more than 10 times the state’s confirmed cases.

Cue the science deniers: Jim Thibodeau and Orthomyxo, you’re up. How are you going to dismiss this latest study in furtherance of your calls for hysteria and panic at the expense of dispassionate reason?

Comments

A stitch in time saves nine, kindly repeat three times.kairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Mathematical denialism is really the worst sort
Well that is an interesting accusation against someone who had fellowships for math PhD programs and spent a year in a PhD math program and have about 45 credits in math at the graduate level. I also have had in addition several graduate level courses in statistics. As I replied to you earlier. I once knew by heart the proof of the theorem, The Law of Large Numbers So I suspect the accusation of math denialism is inappropriate. I am not denying that propensity scores are useful. I didn't see how they were calculated or what variables were included and excluded. There are about 30 variables reported and some represent large differences between the groups. All I saw was they were taken into account. Were all or just some? I did see that there were several differences between the groups on important factors, a big one being lymphopenia which is an indication of the strength of the immune system. Also I did not see any indication of when the drugs were administered and for what reason. On arrival or as a last resort? Did it differ between hospital since I assume these were from all over the country. The recommendations for HCQ are for prior to a need for hospitalization. So on that basis the study is irrelevant. Maybe it is relevant for those who are hospitalized in an advance stage of the disease. But the number of factors that the three populations differed on make it worthless except as political fodder.jerry_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

‘This treatment works because it would be great if it did’ is argumentum ad consequentiam.Jim Thibodeau_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

There is no possible way to correct for people who are already in extremis vs the ones who are less so and the ones who died were from the much more sick group.
Mathematical denialism is really the worst sort. If you want to make any progress with this argument, what you have to do is look at the details of the study, and look to see how much overlap there is in the propenstity scores in the two groups. But in order to do that, you first have to acknowledge the existence of propensity scores.
You also fail to address the issue that HCQ may be irrelevant with this group of patients who are far along in the disease.

I believe a high percentage of the no HCQ group also received the anti-biotic. Were they factored out? I did not see it.
No, I think that wasn't done because the analysis was about HCQ. My guess (and that's all it is) is that they weren't interested, because the anti-biotic isn't an anit-viral. But I agree that it's curious that this wasn't mentioned.
You act like you want this treatment not to be appropriate?
No, it would be great if it was appropriate, and worked. But the evidence so far isn't convincing, and I'd like it if people realised this. Even the VA study isn't great (no randomisation etc.), and shouldn't be seen as definitive, but neither should it be dismissed.Bob O'H_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Context is important, Ed. And I never said anything about keeping one's legs together. If the mother wasn't in any danger then having the abortion would be wrong. Only if you have a high probability at losing both should there be a decision to save one.ET_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

READ THE MANUSCRIPT.
I did and so did a few doctors who pointed out the issues with the survey. There is no possible way to correct for people who are already in extremis vs the ones who are less so and the ones who died were from the much more sick group. It is like the drug was given as a last resort. You also fail to address the issue that HCQ may be irrelevant with this group of patients who are far along in the disease. I believe a high percentage of the no HCQ group also received the anti-biotic. Were they factored out? I did not see it. You act like you want this treatment not to be appropriate? That is the interesting question. There is no other treatment on the table at the moment and thousands are dead and more are dying each day. Why ignore other information. You act like all you want is to win rhetorical battles based on minutiae.jerry_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 73 -
controlled for disease severity, and got the same result. I’m afraid you’re going to have to try harder.
No they didn’t.
Yes they did. READ THE MANUSCRIPT.
There is no way they could. It was a retrospective survey. So why did you say that?
Errm because they did. There are standard methods to do this correction, using propensity scores. I don't blame you for not knowing about them, they are a specialist topic.Bob O'H_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Et
Ed, Clearly you have no idea what details are. Why was the probability of a viable baby so low?
Why does it matter? Babies that are born under these conditions, although rare, are usually healthy.
What was the diagnosis?
Again, why does it matter? The risk to my daughter's life was very low (less than 2%). If, as we are repeatedly told here, a fetus from the point of conception has the same right to life as you or I, wouldn't it be unethical and immoral for my daughter to think more about herself than the fetus, especially given the low level of risk to herself. And, as you are so fond of saying, she could always have kept her legs together. Sex has consequences.Ed George_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Ed, Clearly you have no idea what details are. Why was the probability of a viable baby so low? What was the diagnosis?ET_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

controlled for disease severity, and got the same result. I’m afraid you’re going to have to try harder.
No they didn't. There is no way they could. It was a retrospective survey. So why did you say that? My guess is that you do not read with comprehension or it seems do not read what is suggested. The drug was given to the most severe, some with other life threatening diseases that the non HCQ group did not have. Almost as the last resort. The drug is not best used in these circumstances. If you are following the discussions here, it is best used when symptoms first appear usually about 5 days after exposure. Not three weeks later when they are in poor condition in a hospital setting. The three groups in the survey were nowhere near identical. They did not control for this because there is no way they could. The drugs were given to the worse patients. It was a retrospective survey, not a study. It met none of the characteristics you claim you want to see. So why are you now extolling an extremely flawed report when you are nearly always demanding rigor in terms of how a study should be conducted.jerry_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

ET It all depends on the details. Not enough information to make a decision. But losing both would be the wrong way to go about it. OK. In my daughter's case the risk of maternal death was <2% and the probability of a viable baby was <1%. Was she unethical and immoral for choosing to have it terminated?Ed George_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
If a woman is pregnant and the fetus has a very small, but not zero, chance of viability, and continuing the pregnancy places the woman at a potential serious risk to her health, is it unethical and immoral for her to have it terminated?
It all depends on the details. Not enough information to make a decision. But losing both would be the wrong way to go about it.ET_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

TF, EG & JVL, I think that the role of evolutionary materialistic scientism in the commanding heights of our civilisation is a matter of significant concern, given its evident incoherence and inability to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap. Historically, it has repeatedly become a chaotic element in the political sphere, ever since the aftermath of the Athenian plague 430 - 426 BC. It should be no surprise that it is again significant and often damaging. that is a legitimate concern and one that affects this and many other issues once ethical, epistemological and logical concerns are involved. Where, inescapably, reason is governed by first principles and duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence [as opposed to skepticism], to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice, etc. In turn, those have import for the roots of reality, credibility of worldviews, cultural visions and policy agendas. Much of the polarisation we see traces to the unfolding of consequences of evolutionary materialistic scientism, especially as its incoherence and amorality come to the fore. KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

JVL, yes, the HCQ issue is the dominant global news just now, and it brings out issues connected to the theme of this blog. I think you can glean enough to see that discussions and suggestions here are being used in policy analysis and suggestions, in the real world, especially key reference materials such as the Science survey on the course of the disease. KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

@66 Kairosfocus:
We need to duly note that the major media are utterly untrustworthy and irresponsible then studiously ignore them.
True.Truthfreedom_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

@66 Kairosfocus: Ok.Truthfreedom_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Jerry, sadly, correct. 4th generation civil war, infosphere operations by agit prop. We need to duly note that the major media are utterly untrustworthy and irresponsible then studiously ignore them. They have been advised, corrected, cautioned and even successfully sued and it has made little difference. KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

JVL, in a 4th gen civil war the information battlespace is just that. And it has the utterly ruthless and sociopathic. That's sad, and it is part of the breakdown that is costing us dear. KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

@Kairosfocus:
BTW, the incoherence and inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic scientism are significant, have cost lives by the dozens of millions, and are routinely suppressed.
True.Truthfreedom_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

TF and ET (and EG et al), do you see how feeding overheated rhetoric leads to side tracks that go nowhere? Let us all keep the rhetorical voltage within reasonable limits. KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 60 - yes, but if you read the paper, you'll see that the authors controlled for disease severity, and got the same result. I'm afraid you're going to have to try harder.Bob O'H_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Why won’t you answer Ed George‘s question? Are you afraid to answer it honestly? A yes or no answer would be a lot easier than typing all those deflecting responses. Just in case you’ve forgotten what it was:
Were not you the person that types: 'not interested' when you choose so? :) Are you, a moral subjectivist suggesting that 'honesty' is objectively good? If you are doing that, you are showing that your philosophy is self-refuting. Are you suggesting that 'being afraid' is something 'objectively' bad? You materialists are precious. :) What about applying your own standards to yourself, JVL? Ed George posed a fake scenario. Why do I say it is fake? Ed George says he is a liar (and proud) of it. Therefore, nothing he says can be trusted. There was never an honest question, because his attempt was just (another) lie.Truthfreedom_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

I just thought people would want to hear about a new, US report done with VA data.
This was discussed yesterday fairly extensively. The people given the drug combinations were the most sick and already very far aLong in the disease. Almost like this is the last chance for them. So they had a higher death rate. Just as one should suspect. The recommended use for HCQ and zinc is early on in order to prevent the virus from replicating or even possibly entering the cell. So VA survey is the exact opposite of how it should be used. It is like hoping for a miracle as the person is dying. That is sort of like what ventilators are. for. A high percentage that go on them die if they are elderly. So the VA report was bogus relevant to HCQ. The fact that the press ran with it and a large percentage of the population fell for it says more than anything.jerry_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: As for overheated rhetoric, while I cannot patrol everywhere, I have repeatedly called for toning down. Unfortunately, what you see reflects an intensity bordering on hate in a penumbra of attack sites. The personalities there actually amount to defamation, and defamation sustained for years; I had to close comments on my personal blogs because of it and see echoes elsewhere where it is obvious people are trying to cost me my livelihood in places utterly unrelated to ID debates. Relatives at several degrees remove have been stalked, online and on the ground. That’s the reality that I and others live with. I am very sorry you have had such deplorable treatment. Rest assured I would never, ever condone or participate in such awful behaviour. I prefer to think of a forum such as this akin to a pub; we can all sit, maybe have a pint and share our views. We might get a bit rowdy but at the end of the day we part amicably. You may not know, but there have been bannings including mass bannings when things have gone beyond . Currently, there has been a large scale un-banning and toleration. This is good! I'm glad to hear that. And I'm sorry that some do not know how to behave, on all sides. However, this is not an invitation to a side tracking. Understood. I've said my piece so I'll end it there. Discussing materialism and unguided evolution we'll leave for a dedicated thread. By the way (and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sometimes unsure) there are so many COVID-19 threads that it's hard to know where to post different comments or news items. I don't have a solution but if there were, say, a dedicated thread for posting things gleaned from various news sources I would try hard to use it properly. Just a thought. I think most people look at the 'recent comments' list and respond that way. I subscribe to the comments RSS so can bookmark and return to older threads easily.JVL_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

JVL, See the Raoult response, there is something radically wrong with the structure of the intervention. I note, the use of the trick of casting moral principles into apparent conflict is ancient, there is a reason why I pointed to the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery and literally thrown down before Jesus as he was teaching. The entire premise of such exercises is wrong. As for overheated rhetoric, while I cannot patrol everywhere, I have repeatedly called for toning down. Unfortunately, what you see reflects an intensity bordering on hate in a penumbra of attack sites. The personalities there actually amount to defamation, and defamation sustained for years; I had to close comments on my personal blogs because of it and see echoes elsewhere where it is obvious people are trying to cost me my livelihood in places utterly unrelated to ID debates. Relatives at several degrees remove have been stalked, online and on the ground. That's the reality that I and others live with. There is a reason I point to squandered social capital. You may not know, but there have been bannings including mass bannings when things have gone beyond . Currently, there has been a large scale un-banning and toleration. However, this is not an invitation to a side tracking. And BTW, the incoherence and inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic scientism are significant, have cost lives by the dozens of millions, and are routinely suppressed. That is part of why I keep pointing to something ever so many are unwilling to respond to appropriately, the warning in Plato:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Ortho, It is a good start for onward discussion. Let me clip and go in steps of thought: >>It’s sort of true that once you get very far behind the epidemic testing isn’t all that helpful.>> -- De novo fast moving disease, without viable tests at the beginning, implying one starts behind the curve. It is likely, it was lurking in "normal" flu statistics until a pattern was spotted, associated with a cluster. -- Testing, primarily, is a diagnostic tool, and PCR driven tests allow match to a standard, allowing a fairly quick response . . . but behind the curve and if exponential growth is likely . . . recall, there was a debate over human to human contact spreading then about aerosol spreading . . . this points to a strain on resources. -- China's apparent decision to use a week to grab and hoard globally must also be recognised. >>But getting back on top of it after a lockdown will require isolating the infected before they can spread it further,>> -- That comes from contact tracing and symptom detection in key part. Also, isolation for two cascaded incubation periods plus a buffer implies likelihood that fresh clusters will show up then, That is 2 x 5 to 14 days plus a buffer, i.e. 4 - 6 weeks, followed by prolonged social distancing and hygiene measures. -- Otherwise, the chain should break, apart from the asymptomatic carrier pattern and maybe long latency incubation. Thus the small wave echoes, hopefully isolated. >>and this requires testing basically everyone with respiratory symptoms and all of the close-contacts of cases.>> -- Which is not a census-scale testing programme, though with a strong outbreak, that will drain resources. War pivots on logistics. -- BTW, that points to testing of frontline health care providers. >> That pre-supposes you attempt to suppress or eliminate the disease after lockdown,>> -- The point of lockdown . . . I write from my "gaol cell" in the midst of a 24/7 lockdown riding on a less stringent exercise . . . is to break chain propagation. -- post lockdown, I see cluster isolation to stop onward outbreaks. My own suggestion was, gradual relaxation of controls through a half-day period [with an offset between Government and Private sector hours] in which observation and controls on social distancing would drive onward re-tightening or next phase re-opening. The last thing to reopen would be travel. -- Mind you, here is unique given a post disaster situation. -- I am also betting on a shift in social norms [esp if the irresponsible in sufficient numbers retrigger tightening] and associated learning. -- I see a step change in digitalisation also, and am pressing for priority on a sea and land fibre optic cable project interrupted by the pandemic. With rainy season coming, road works need to be expedited. -- Another factor is emergence of credible treatments, the context in which my decision theory and phil background red flagged the gold standard fallacy. BAU vs ALT is a robust strategic choice and change framework, and it points to ways to exploit the BAU baseline, usually a slight modification of the usual way things get done. -- There is usually resistance to radical change, which requires power rebalance through participative empowerment. >> presumably some countries will ltake other approaches.>> -- Sweden, going for herd immunity driven by responsible behaviour. That depends on high social cohesiveness; the US has largely squandered the social capital of trust, especially in coastal urban centres. Hinterland communities would be different. That points to localisation. >> I dont’ know if the US has a plan for easing restrictions yet, so it’s a bit hard to know what’s going on with testing.>> -- There is talk, there is ALWAYS a high level simulation game going on in secret, playing out scenarios. In addition to computer modelling. KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: JVL, piling on. I just thought people would want to hear about a new, US report done with VA data. Surely that's significant. I didn't even comment on the report, I'll let the readers make up their own minds. That real world dilemma is utterly different from rhetoric designed to enable the utterly indefensible, holocaust. For shame! I wasn't defending or decrying abortion laws; I was trying to get Truthfreedom who incessantly asks inflammatory questions and often makes offensive and rude comments to answer a question posed to him (?). Truthfreedom, BobRyan and some others frequently lambast and denigrate those they disagree with; I'm not even close to their levels of rhetoric. As I've mentioned before: if there's a double standard at Uncommon Descent regarding participants behaviour so be it. If that's the case then make sure that is made clear for any new participants who want to jump in the pool. And if it's not the case then I respectfully ask that ALL participants are held to the same code of conduct, especially regarding the characterisations of others.JVL_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

KF, It's sort of true that once you get very far behind the epidemic testing isn't all that helpful. But getting back on top of it after a lockdown will require isolating the infected before they can spread it further, and this requires testing basically everyone with respiratory symptoms and all of the close-contacts of cases. That pre-supposes you attempt to suppress or eliminate the disease after lockdown, presumably some countries will ltake other approaches. I dont' know if the US has a plan for easing restrictions yet, so it's a bit hard to know what's going on with testing.orthomyxo_{April 24, 2020
April
04
Apr
24
24
2020
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

JVL (& EG), attempted moral dilemmas of that sort depend for any persuasive force, on the very primary duties they would undermine. They are fatally self contradictory like the dilemmas that malicious critics posed to Jesus, e.g. the woman caught in the act of adultery and publicly thrown down at his feet while he was teaching. The underlying attitude is its own refutation.. The sound approach is to start with basic principles, starting with, the quasi-infinite worth of the human person. In your artfully contrived example, you are trying to extend an utterly atypical case to enable the real typical case, taking the lives of our living posterity in the womb at will, constituting the worst -- and ongoing -- holocaust in history. Now, yes, one can face moral dilemmas where duties clash and one with decisional responsibility faces a calculus of infinities: loss of life is inevitable on either option. In such a real world context -- typically, an economically loaded choice of evils -- one finds some excuse [not justification] in seeking the least worst outcome. Such a case is ongoing, as any policy option once CV19 broke out will lead to loss of life, e.g. extend vs relax lockdowns, where deep recession implies massive loss of life including potentially by famine. That real world dilemma is utterly different from rhetoric designed to enable the utterly indefensible, holocaust. For shame! KFkairosfocus_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

JVL, piling on. Kindly note Dr Raoult's response. Here: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Response-to-Magagnoli.pdf KFkairosfocus_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply