Insane Scaremongering on a Colossal Scale

_{Barry Arrington

March 22, 2020

Intelligent Design}

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

JVL:

If we take the CFR for COVID-19 to be 2% . . . it’s a low estimate . . . in order to exceed Barry‘s limit* of 200,000 deaths in the US there would have to be over 10 million cases in the US. Wikipedia says the 2019 estimated population of the US is about 328 million so that means about 3% of the population would have to be diagnosed. It’s impossible to say, now, of course, but I’d be inclined to think that it’s fairly likely that 3% of the US population will get infected. We’ll see . . . .

JVL says “it’s fairly likely that” around 3% of the US population of 328,000,000 will contract COVID 19, resulting in 10,000,000 cases. (The exact number is 3.0488%.) He also says that of those 10 million cases, the fatality rate (CFR) is likely to be at least 2%, resulting in over 200,000 deaths.

This is insane scaremongering on a grand scale.

And it is easy to demonstrate this. Right now, as I write this, China (population 1.386 BILLION) has had a total of 81,054 cases. See here. 72,440 of those have recovered. There are 5,353 active cases. 1,845 of those are “serious.” There have been 3,261 deaths.

Deaths per day in China peaked at 150 on February 23. On March 21, there were 6 deaths. New cases peaked at 14,108 on February 12. On March 21 there were 46.

Significantly, there have been ZERO new cases reported in Wuhan for the 4th day in a row.

Inescapable conclusion. The epidemic has nearly run its course in China.

Let’s do a little simple math. Total deaths in a country with a population of 1.386 BILLION will almost certainly be under 10,000, perhaps under 5,000. Total cases will probably be less than 100,000.

Why in the world would anyone believe that total deaths in a county with a population of 328 million will approach 200,000? For that to happen, there would have to be over 20 times the deaths in a population that is one-fourth the size.

Why in the world would anyone believe that total cases in a county with a population of 328 million will approach 10 million? For that to happen, there would have to be 100 times the cases in a population that is one-fourth the size.

________________

*I don’t know what JVL means by Barry’s limit of 200,000 deaths. Jim Thibodeau believes there will be over 200,000 deaths, not I. I believe there will be a fraction (probably a very tiny fraction) of 60,000 deaths, in other words, far fewer than the deaths caused by the flu last year.

Comments

@Truthfreedom, your #16, 'There is no intelligence in ‘nature’, that is why we need the best science to fight against a tiny virus. ????' You think that because you haven't asked the CONCEPT of RANDOM CHANCE, if It wouldn't mind helping you out with the science of things ; a kind of RETRO-ENGINEERING for Dummies from the fountainhead of unintelligence, so to speak. I expect it would be only too willing to help out.Axel_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

No 'health' for the darwinist. A tumour and a healthy individual are the same to 'nature'. Only a rational mind can understand purpose (i. e. 'health is good').Truthfreedom_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Blockquote fail. First sentence and last sentence are mine. For what it’s worth, some economists like Dean Baker have complained that this is a capitalistic system that doesn’t work well because it depends on companies deciding what drugs to pursue. And what would work better would be if the government funded all drug research, and then licensed the compounds for manufacture. I’m sympathetic to that argument, but that’s not the system we have right now. Right now the FDA makeS decisions about drugs proposed and tested by outsiders, not proposed by itself.Jim Thibodeau_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

From the FDA American consumers benefit from having access to the safest and most advanced pharmaceutical system in the world. The main consumer watchdog in this system is FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The center's best-known job is to evaluate new drugs before they can be sold. CDER's evaluation not only prevents quackery, but also provides doctors and patients the information they need to use medicines wisely. The center ensures that drugs, both brand-name and generic, work correctly and that their health benefits outweigh their known risks. Drug companies seeking to sell a drug in the United States must first test it. The company then sends CDER the evidence from these tests to prove the drug is safe and effective for its intended use. A team of CDER physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists reviews the company's data and proposed labeling. If this independent and unbiased review establishes that a drug's health benefits outweigh its known risks, the drug is approved for sale. The center doesn't actually test drugs itself, although it does conduct limited research in the areas of drug quality, safety, and effectiveness standards. Before a drug can be tested in people, the drug company or sponsor performs laboratory and animal tests to discover how the drug works and whether it's likely to be safe and work well in humans. Next, a series of tests in people is begun to determine whether the drug is safe when used to treat a disease and whether it provides a real health benefit. So what drug companies have done tests for the efficacy of the drugs on this disease at a particular dosage?Jim Thibodeau_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

*used to say*.Truthfreedom_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

'Scientists' used to said that homosexuality is a mental problem. They were forced to change the DSM :)Truthfreedom_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

What’s much more likely is that no drug company did the necessary tests to prove the efficacy and safety of the drug. Regulatory agencies don’t just study whatever drug they want to. They evaluate proposals to use certain drugs for certain things according to established protocols.Jim Thibodeau_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Medical experts used to endorse smoking ;)Truthfreedom_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

@KF
March 24, 2020 at 5:03 am JVL, my first problem is why extensive studies on and approval of Hydrochloroquine by itself and in cocktails were not carried out given its demonstrated efficacy against viruses of both RNA and DNA, lipid coated and protein coat only varieties was shown and published in the literature 15 years ago. That speaks to a serious failure of regulatory agency, already.
So you’re not even considering the possibility that medical experts and scientists in this field may know things that you don’t.Jim Thibodeau_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

@40 Jawa: No, I am not Edward Feser. He is a serious man. :) I link to his blog because it is very interesting.Truthfreedom_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

@74 Kairosfocus:
F/N my antivirus just popped up with a cv19 alert.
You mean your physical antivirus (inmune system)? Or the one made of software, the result of using human minds? :)Truthfreedom_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

F/N my antivirus just popped up with a cv19 alert.kairosfocus_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

BR, the statistics in hand by and large track cases serious enough to make it into the record. By that yardstick, serious cases of the yearly 'flu are highly lethal, especially to older people and/or for those with preconditions. So, less lethal than serious cases of 'flu does not imply not alarmingly lethal. Yes, we have become used to significant numbers of 'flu deaths per year; that is itself something to be addressed with urgency and seriousness beyond the hit or miss flu shot. That means we need serious efforts to develop, approve and use antivirals, especially widely effective antivirals. In that context, we do need to take seriously another emerging highly lethal viral pandemic. At the same time, we must be prudent to avert triggering needless deep recession. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

JVL, my first problem is why extensive studies on and approval of Hydrochloroquine by itself and in cocktails were not carried out given its demonstrated efficacy against viruses of both RNA and DNA, lipid coated and protein coat only varieties was shown and published in the literature 15 years ago. That speaks to a serious failure of regulatory agency, already. Next, we are in the face of a pandemic with sobering potential for loss of life and damage to the global economy . . . depression numbers have been put on the table as possible outcomes. Against that backdrop, studies in several countries already point to credible high effectiveness. That the US FDA et al have been tardy to make initial emergency approval speaks further volumes on regulatory failure. I note that doctors and hospitals have on their own initiative or at request of patients looking at stark alternatives, begun to prescribe the drug on its own and/or in cocktails; with good apparent effect. Yesterday, it was in the news that major trials are beginning today in the US epicentre, NY. I trust that appropriate fast tracking of such studies and approvals will follow, running in a parallel track to emergency, stark alternative use. We know, that days count with epidemics running as 2 - 3 day doubling time. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

JVL, chloroquine has been and is being used to fight covid 19. Doctors are NOT waiting on the FDA, nor should they. And it works.ET_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

KF: If Chloroquine works then the tests now being done will show that. But, at the moment, the FDA has NOT approved it for fighting COVID-19 and to say it has is not true.JVL_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

As kairosfocus @ 67 pointed out, COVID-19 is a close relative to SARS. It's actually called SARS 2 and it happens to be from the same family of the strain we've already been exposed to. When a virus of the same family enters a human host that has already been exposed, the immune system recognizes it and deals with it quickly. We have been studying viruses for a long time and know exactly what happens when an incident like COVID-19 occurs after going through COVID-2. It will be less lethal than influenza. There has never been a single instance where 2 viruses from the same family have reacted differently. Viruses are predictable.BobRyan_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

PS: FYI, kindly see this OP: https://uncommondescent.com/ud-newswatch-highlights/breaking-is-the-1934-bayer-anti-malarial-chloroquine-a-potential-covid-19-breakthrough-treatment/ and note the discussion chain.kairosfocus_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

JVL, there have in fact been studies in Australia, France and China which have a consistent positive outcome. Particularly, regarding the cocktail with z-pac, an antibiotic for bronchitis. Further, there is longstanding evidence that Chloroquine has antiviral effects, including enough to identify mechanisms. Indeed, it has a wide ranging antiviral effect on a fairly large number of viruses including a close relative to this virus, SARS. That is already sufficient evidence that there is good reason to already use the drug in cases of the alternative being pretty stark; as we saw just above. Tests are in train now, and it is being used in other jurisdictions. The declaration that Mr Trump's claim is "false" is irresponsible. Yes, one may modify it, as degree of proof or warrant is a delicate and complicated subject in a scientific-statistical context, but that is a very different thing from being "false." KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Trouble at the top:
"I can't jump in front of the microphone and push him down," Fauci said when asked about moments when Trump makes factual mistakes at press conferences.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/dr-fauci-explains-why-he-doesnt-correct-trump-during-press-conferences/
In March 9 briefing, Trump falsely claimed that the drug chloroquine had proven effective at treating COVID-19 and that the the Food and Drug Administration had approved it for that use. It has not been shown effective at treating COVID-19 and the agency has not approved it for that use, the FDA noted in a statement.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/were-in-a-public-health-crisis-wheres-the-cdc/JVL_{March 24, 2020
March
03
Mar
24
24
2020
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Jim Thibodeau @58: Did you miss the posts @34 & 35? :)jawa_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

JT (& attn EG), In re, 58:
[JT:] Trump’s irresponsible pushing of those drugs has already caused shortages for patients with lupus, R.A, and other diseases, who need them, in some places.
Did you observe that 3 million tabs were donated by Bayer on or about the day Mr Trump brought this up? Further, that there is significant potential or actual manufacturing capacity? I find it sad that you dismiss promotion of a point of definite, credible hope as "irresponsible." KF PS: Here is a life that may well have been saved because of that promotion:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/coronavirus-victim-52-said-good-bye-to-family-prepared-to-die-says-hydroxychloroquine-saved-his-life A 52-year-old man who contracted the coronavirus and said he spent days in the ICU unable to breathe said good-bye to his wife and children on Friday night as he prepared to die. Then a friend sent Rio Giardinieri news of the drug hydroxychloroquine working on coronavirus patients, prompting Giardinieri to contact an infectious disease doctor who warned him it was still incompletely tested, but acceded to his request and prescribed it for him. According to Giardinieri, the next morning he felt normal . . . . he traveled to Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital in Hollywood, Florida, where he nearly passed out before he was diagnosed with pneumonia and coronavirus. He stated he spent a week in the ICU where he still had trouble breathing. He said of his situation on Friday night: “I was at the point where I was barely able to speak and breathing was very challenging. I really thought my end was there. I had been through nine days of solid pain and for me, the end was there. So I made some calls to say in my own way goodbye to my friends and family.” But a close friend alerted him to the positive stories about hydroxychloroquine and urged him to take the drug. Giardinieri said of the infectious disease doctor he spoke to: “He gave me all the reasons why I would probably not want to try it because there are no trials; there’s no testing; it was not something that was approved. And I said, look, I don’t know if I’m going to make it until the morning because at that point I really thought I was coming to the end because I couldn’t breathe anymore. He agreed and authorized the use of it and 30 minutes later the nurse gave it to me.” Giardinieri said that within an hour after the IV pumped the medicine into his system, his heart felt like it was beating out of his chest. He recalled, “They had to come in and get me calmed down and take care of me. I had another episode about two hours later where I just got to the point where I couldn’t breathe and my heart was pounding again, so they gave me some Benadryl through the system and something else. I’m not sure what it was. It allowed me to go to sleep and when I woke up at exactly 4:45 in the morning, I woke up like nothing ever happened.” Giardinieri, who took another three doses of the medicine on Saturday, concluded, “To me, there was no doubt in mind that I wouldn’t make it until morning. So to me the drug saved my life … I just want everyone to know there’s an option. You don’t have to just sit there and hydrate. There’s a medicine that’s working.”
Now, you tell me just why this man did not "need" the drug that he says he heard of because of the news buzz and which he credits with saving his life, even by moving urgently before structured double blind tests etc. And BTW, testing is starting in NY tomorrow.kairosfocus_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie:
There is no way that TF could be respected as a philosopher. Unless he only posts here when he is drunk.
TF makes more sense than you ever have.ET_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Chloroquine has already proven to be effective. Coronavirus patient says chloroquine saved his life The thing be debated now is whether or not going back to normal sooner, rather than later, will be better or worse. As in will more people die non-virus related deaths if the economy tanks than the people that will die of the virus.ET_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Another fail.Truthfreedom_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Found this today from Motus A.D.
Nobody Knows Nuthin’– Black Swan Edition Warning: There’s Always a Black Swan Somewhere Ahead "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld, 2002 This is undoubtedly Rumsfeld’s most famous, as well as most derided, quote. The media, predisposed towards disdain for George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, didn’t even attempt to comprehend what he was telling them. Instead they ridiculed his statement as “word salad.” If however you have at least a working knowledge of classic risk assessment technique/models – which most journalists do not - Rumsfeld’s statement would seem both perfectly logical and linguistically correct. Human endeavors are riddled with knowns and unknowns That’s why decisions are seldom perfect. Risk analysis helps sort through what you do know, assess the impact of things you don’t and direct you to the best decision based on a thorough evaluation of circumstances, facts and hypotheses. Many methodologies exist for coaxing data from the first 3 quadrants, but only imagination will help you discover what you don’t yet know. Which is why novelists predicted a 9-11 event, the financial meltdown and countless examples of worldwide pandemics but apparently nobody actually responsible for averting such disasters ever conceived of them. Such disasters have come to known as Black Swan events: an extremely rare, unpredictable event with severe consequences. With the benefit of hindsight people who lacked the imagination to envision such a calamity will claim that the Black Swan should have been predictable. But we are in the middle of the maelstrom, having not yet arrived at the point of perfect knowledge known as hindsight. If we’re not driving blind we’re certainly operating with impaired sight. And we’ve reached a dark intersection where the knowns have the right of way but there is no guarantee that the unknowns will yield to them. Hence we have two camps regarding our response to the the coronavirus threat: one camp says we are shutting the country down and ruining the economy for no valid reason, the risk to the general population isn’t that great and it’s much ado about nothing. The other camp contends that this thing, this plague, could decimate the population and requires an abundance of caution. I bounce back and forth, simply because the unknowns at this point remain many and significant. Nobody actually knows. What we do know, although nobody in authority will admit it, is that this is a man-made disaster. To paraphrase the few scientists who are not (yet) afraid to speak out, the bio-markers of the “novel” Wuhan coronavirus genome are as unlikely to have occurred in nature as a monkey sitting at a keyboard and banging out a Shakespearian play. So acting like this is just another flu is insane, especially since the Communist Chinese Party hasn’t told us anything we can trust about the virus’s origin, infection and death rate. Since we don’t know or understand the full extent of this scourge – Europe is just two or three weeks ahead of us so not a reliable model either - we don’t know whether destroying America’s economy is a futile attempt to contain the virus or the only prudent action. So I sit here with too much time on my hands and no more real knowledge than I had 3 weeks ago. From that vantage point the the shutdown and shelter in place strategy looks like a stalling mechanism, right out of a dystopian novel, to keep the Grim Reaper at bay while we search frantically for a prophylactic and/or cure. There is nothing worse than the uncertainty of outcomes and the ambiguity of meaning. That there’s been as little panic as there has been is almost commendable. But the truth is out there and yes, we can handle the truth – even if it’s that nobody knows how this plays out at this point. I do not want a government functionary determining my fate. If the Black Swan has made another appearance we deserve to hear it sooner than later. But remember, all swans appear black in the dark. If the government expects us to follow their diktats - that are sounding more and more like martial law – and isolate in place for weeks or months we deserve to know why this is necessary. Shine a little more light on the pandemic’s prognosis. Tell us everything that is known today; and if nobody knows nuthin’ let us decide how we want to deal with the risks of the unknowns. For all we know the swan is getting a bum wrap.
Latemarch_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

@58 Jim Thibodeau There are no diseases for the naturalist, because disease means labelling something as 'wrong'. But according to 'naturalism', Stuff Happens, nothing is good/ bad. For 'nature' a tumor is equally valid as a healthy individual.Truthfreedom_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

@EdGeorge Trump’s irresponsible pushing of those drugs has already caused shortages for patients with lupus, R.A, and other diseases, who need them, in some places.Jim Thibodeau_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Info of use: The US is not the next Italy:
At 34.7 ICU beds per 100,000 people, the U.S. has nearly three times as many as Italy and almost ten times as many as China. While this doesn't guarantee a wonderful outcome, it demonstrates that the U.S. has a critical care infrastructure that surpasses that of other nations.
Hopefully, we'll get COVID-19 under control soon. In the meantime, wash your hands, stay at home if you're concerned, do what you can to prevent the elderly or immunocompromised from getting sick... and stop reading social media, particularly if it involves politics. Alex Berezow, "Coronavirus: U.S. Is Not The Next Italy" at Ameerican Council on Science and Health
News_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

PPS: Hey, let me clip JB:
The S-curve [aka sigmoid], also known as the [logistic] curve, looks a lot like the exponential curve. In fact, it has a lot of the same patterns that you find in an exponential curve. On the left side, it is pretty flat. At some point, it makes a steep turn upwards. The difference between the exponential and the S-curve is that the S-curve eventually flattens out [= saturates] on top. The basic idea of the S-curve is that you have exponential growth with one or more limiting factors that enforces a maximum to your exponential. It turns out that our idea of what happens when a post goes viral on social media is actually an S-curve, not an exponential. Because there is a limit to the number of people in the world, the social media post can only be forwarded and re-forwarded so many times. Eventually, the people to whom it is forwarded will already have seen it, and therefore won’t be new viewers. Thus, they probably won’t forward it again. Thus, eventually, the exponential curve gets exhausted and falls off. The important things to remember about S-curves are that (a) they look extremely like exponential curves and (b) it is hard to tell from the early part of the curve where it will top out. Think about times you may have heard someone pitching a new investment opportunity. The sales representative may say, “Our sales growth has been exponential.” Fine, but the curve they are following is more likely an S-curve than a true exponential. So what we really need to know is not that they are currently experiencing exponential growth but rather when (at what point) might that exponential growth likely tail off. For example, in his Tesla, Inc earnings call with investors in Q4 2018, self-driving car entrepreneur Elon Musk said “if you track Tesla vehicle production year-over-year, cumulative sales deliveries year-over-year, it is about the cleanest exponential I’ve ever seen. We’ve basically almost doubled our fleet every year. Every year, we make as many cars as we did in all prior years.” This is certainly an achievement. However, in real life, most things that start as exponentials end as S-curves. Therefore, the appropriate question to ask is where does that exponential break into something more like an S-curve? S-curves, however, aren’t death knells. They can often be broken, but only if you are aware of them. Remember, S-curves occur because of factors that limit exponential growth. Identifying (and removing) the factors that limit exponential growth can get you back on track for more exponential growth, at least until the next limiting factor is found.
kairosfocus_{March 23, 2020
March
03
Mar
23
23
2020
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply