Covid-19 miscellany

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Regarding CGG issue...

There is an inference of 5% probability for this codon usage.

I question if this is a valid inference once a virus jumps host species.

Agree/Disagree?

Thoughts?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Your beliefs you've expressed on this forum have all along have been dismissive of science.

Not really. I do not think the "experts" and "scientists" are gods and shouldn't be questioned. I would say I pay more attention to the "science" than most on here.

How isn't that an oxymoron? No, scientists aren't gods. But the scientific method is the closest thing we mere mortals can get to divine revelation.

Which brings us to the next question, what sources have you been using to inform yourself?

I think we can both agree on that in the Covid pandemic we were constantly flooded with fake news and outright bullshit through social media and, normally reputable, news sources?

I got my information from TWIV.

https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/

Granted that it's a show for virology, not epidemiology. But they did regularly invite epidemiologists. They also managed to get all the Covid-19 heavyweights (globally) onto the show. Even researchers at the Wuhan lab.

In hindsight they (the collective of scientists on the podcast and guests) were correct about absolutely everything all the time. They were completely transparent regarding what they were and weren't sure about.

Their problem was that politicians weren't listening to scientists as much as they should. They had political agendas and only listened to scientists when it suited their political goals. But you're throwing the scientists under the buss, accusing them of being wrong. When they were just saying uncomfortable truths.. all the time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

COVID vaccines and blood clots: five key questions

But none of that matters because any side effects of any of the vaccines are much milder than getting Covid-19.

People are hysterical about vaccine side-effects.

Here's a good video on people's shit ability to calculate risk

 

[zorq]

Here's a good video on people's shit ability to calculate risk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43J7hD9I0jY

Regarding the video... Interesting, but I disagree.

First, Where is this guy getting his statistics of 0.15% mortality. I know he cited some "John Joanidis" but how does that jive with the observed mortality rate of the virus in Mexico and Peru where the reported fatality rate is around 9.4%?

Secondly... We should only care about one bad symptom, Death, and all the other symptoms are completely unimportant? No. Even when Covid-19 doesn't kill you it is often quite nasty and has lots of other rotten and LONG lasting symptoms.

Thirdly, because we are unlikely to experience the "one bad symptom," we should just ignore people with aggravating conditions who are much more likely to experience that deadly symptom (because our selfish whims outweigh the lives of others). No. It isn't crazy to try to protect the weak and vulnerable by making some sacrifices in our lives.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a good video on people's shit ability to calculate risk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43J7hD9I0jY

Regarding the video... Interesting, but I disagree.

First, Where is this guy getting his statistics of 0.15% mortality. I know he cited some "John Joanidis" but how does that jive with the observed mortality rate of the virus in Mexico and Peru where the reported fatality rate is around 9.4%?

Secondly... We should only care about one bad symptom, Death, and all the other symptoms are completely unimportant? No. Even when Covid-19 doesn't kill you it is often quite nasty and has lots of other rotten and LONG lasting symptoms.

Thirdly, because we are unlikely to experience the "one bad symptom," we should just ignore people with aggravating conditions who are much more likely to experience that deadly symptom (because our selfish whims outweigh the lives of others). No. It isn't crazy to try to protect the weak and vulnerable by making some sacrifices in our lives.

I think you proved his point. That our culture is overly extreme on this. That's it's a good vs evil black and white dichotomy and you're either with us or against us. And since you identified him as being on the other side, you went full on pinning all manner of other implied beliefs onto him.

He's not arguing "the other side". He's saying that our western post-war culture sucks balls at calculating risks and that we habitually exaggerate risk. We downplay the costs of risk avoidance. At our peril. Do you disagree with that opinion?

Which I think also has been TSwizzle's point in this thread. Even though he's argued for it badly. I do think he has a point.

 

[Elixir]

... our western post-war culture sucks balls at calculating risks and that we habitually exaggerate risk. We downplay the costs of risk avoidance.

Is this as true in Denmark as it is in the US? I have long attributed it to the politics of fear that has been institutionalized in the US since 2001. As soon as I heard the phrase "Department of Homeland Security" my mind was reading it in a voice with thick German accent. And it has panned out just like I ... uh ... feared.
It's real good for stuff like gun sales, not so good for people who have been made into objects of fear (blacks, immigrants, muslims, women...).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's a good video on people's shit ability to calculate risk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43J7hD9I0jY

Regarding the video... Interesting, but I disagree.

First, Where is this guy getting his statistics of 0.15% mortality. I know he cited some "John Joanidis" but how does that jive with the observed mortality rate of the virus in Mexico and Peru where the reported fatality rate is around 9.4%?

Secondly... We should only care about one bad symptom, Death, and all the other symptoms are completely unimportant? No. Even when Covid-19 doesn't kill you it is often quite nasty and has lots of other rotten and LONG lasting symptoms.

Thirdly, because we are unlikely to experience the "one bad symptom," we should just ignore people with aggravating conditions who are much more likely to experience that deadly symptom (because our selfish whims outweigh the lives of others). No. It isn't crazy to try to protect the weak and vulnerable by making some sacrifices in our lives.

I think you proved his point. That our culture is overly extreme on this. That's it's a good vs evil black and white dichotomy and you're either with us or against us. And since you identified him as being on the other side, you went full on pinning all manner of other implied beliefs onto him.

He's not arguing "the other side". He's saying that our western post-war culture sucks balls at calculating risks and that we habitually exaggerate risk. We downplay the costs of risk avoidance. At our peril. Do you disagree with that opinion?

Which I think also has been TSwizzle's point in this thread. Even though he's argued for it badly. I do think he has a point.

Yeah, it is nice to think that. Over 600,000 confirmed deaths, but we were being overly cautious.

Meanwhile New Zealand and Australia paid what for a death toll that was 35 people per million as opposed to our 1840 people per million or about 50 times the number of dead people.

 

[ZiprHead]

Royal Caribbean caved to governor deathsentence.

Royal Caribbean Won’t Require Covid-19 Vaccination To Ride U.S. Cruises

Royal Caribbean International has announced plans to begin sailing six of its cruise ships out of southern U.S. ports this July and August. The first to set sail will be the “Freedom of the Seas” ship out of Miami, Florida, on July 2. The company had originally required guests 18 years and older to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and provide proof of vaccination to board their ships. However, the cruise ship company has now done an “a boat” face, so to speak. As Taylor Doven reported for the Miami Herald, Royal Carribean issued a statement on Friday that said, “Guests are strongly recommended to set sail fully vaccinated, if they are eligible. Those who are unvaccinated or unable to verify vaccination will be required to undergo testing and follow other protocols, which will be announced at a later date.”

Apparently, Dolven is referring to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signing into law a ban on Covid-19 “vaccine passports.” That means, as of July 1, the Florida state government could fine a cruise ship operator $5,000 each and every time the cruise ship operator requires proof of vaccination to use their services. Assuming that you have hundreds or even thousands of people on your cruise ships, a quick calculation with your fingers and toes will show that defying this order from the Florida state government could quickly put you out of business. So, is the Florida government essentially not allowing businesses to do something that would help keep their customers and staff safer?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pissing in hot tubs will now only be mildly discouraged.

The good news with the cruise ships is that outbreaks are containable and it can be an exercise of Darwin. Of course, then the GOP Governors will EO that you can't not disembark Covid-19 positive passengers.

 

[ZiprHead]

Covid: Twitter suspends Naomi Wolf after tweeting anti-vaccine misinformation

Dr Wolf, well known for her acclaimed third-wave feminist book The Beauty Myth, posted a wide-range of unfounded theories about vaccines.

One tweet claimed that vaccines were a "software platform that can receive uploads".

She also compared Dr Anthony Fauci, the top Covid adviser in the US, to Satan to her more than 140,000 followers.

Most recently, she tweeted that the urine and faeces of people who had received the jab needed to be separated from general sewage supplies while tests were done to measure its impact on non-vaccinated people through drinking water.

 

[crazyfingers]

Covid: Twitter suspends Naomi Wolf after tweeting anti-vaccine misinformation

Dr Wolf, well known for her acclaimed third-wave feminist book The Beauty Myth, posted a wide-range of unfounded theories about vaccines.

One tweet claimed that vaccines were a "software platform that can receive uploads".

She also compared Dr Anthony Fauci, the top Covid adviser in the US, to Satan to her more than 140,000 followers.

Most recently, she tweeted that the urine and faeces of people who had received the jab needed to be separated from general sewage supplies while tests were done to measure its impact on non-vaccinated people through drinking water.

Never heard of her. Having read the page on her in Wikipedia, it's another case of someone who may have been ok at one point but eventually chose to go crazy and dishonest.

 

[ZiprHead]

Covid: Twitter suspends Naomi Wolf after tweeting anti-vaccine misinformation

Dr Wolf, well known for her acclaimed third-wave feminist book The Beauty Myth, posted a wide-range of unfounded theories about vaccines.

One tweet claimed that vaccines were a "software platform that can receive uploads".

She also compared Dr Anthony Fauci, the top Covid adviser in the US, to Satan to her more than 140,000 followers.

Most recently, she tweeted that the urine and faeces of people who had received the jab needed to be separated from general sewage supplies while tests were done to measure its impact on non-vaccinated people through drinking water.

Never heard of her. Having read the page on her in Wikipedia, it's another case of someone who may have been ok at one point but eventually chose to go crazy and dishonest.

I'm thinking more that she's turned into a huckster fleecing easily shorn sheep.

 

[untermensche]

Possibly always a huckster.

She gained her fame with a very provocative book and her aggressive defense of it in the media.

She is highly intelligent.

Unless she has had some brain injury she knows the idea of the vaccine administered by random nurses and pharmacists as something nefarious is delusional.

The vial has multiple does in it.

The nurse, who volunteered, drew out one dose at a time. The liquid in the vial was clear.

How did she give everyone a single chip, or whatever was supposedly implanted?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You would have missed my gripes about not only that, but also about the rat-lickers {snip}

Anyone who uses the silly “rat-lickers” term is not worth my time.

How about some real-world evidence that behavior matters:

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-m...sts-87a97b0f-6d30-4440-a16f-ef73bb859c2b.html

Always-maskers are less than half as likely to have caught Covid as never-maskers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was reading about the US AZ stockpile, and I wonder, why sit on it waiting for the FDA?

The FDA can't act unilaterally here--they can't approve an application that hasn't been made.

But if the application has not been made, then the situation is even worse: the FDA will never approve it, and then the Biden administration's policy is to never release the vaccines. It was 20 million back in April, and I'm not sure how many now. But even if they're not making more, how about the people who are getting seriously sick or even dying of covid, who could be saved by these vaccines?

I do not get it.

The FDA can't make them apply and can't approve it without an application.

I think the plan is to give/sell the stockpile to other countries that have approved it.

 

[TSwizzle]

Alameda County has changed its methodology to record coronavirus deaths, causing its fatality figures to decrease by 25%.

The official COVID-19 death count in Alameda County fell from 1,634 to 1,223 after officials changed the criteria for fatalities to match state and national definitions, the county’s public health department said in a news release.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/alameda-county-changes-covid-19-death-reporting/2563332/

 

[bilby]

I think you proved his point. That our culture is overly extreme on this. That's it's a good vs evil black and white dichotomy and you're either with us or against us. And since you identified him as being on the other side, you went full on pinning all manner of other implied beliefs onto him.

He's not arguing "the other side". He's saying that our western post-war culture sucks balls at calculating risks and that we habitually exaggerate risk. We downplay the costs of risk avoidance. At our peril. Do you disagree with that opinion?

Which I think also has been TSwizzle's point in this thread. Even though he's argued for it badly. I do think he has a point.

Yeah, it is nice to think that. Over 600,000 confirmed deaths, but we were being overly cautious.

Meanwhile New Zealand and Australia paid what for a death toll that was 35 people per million as opposed to our 1840 people per million or about 50 times the number of dead people.

It's even more disproportionate than that.

The death toll in NZ was 5.3 per million (26 deaths, 4,917,000 population)

The Australian toll is massively distorted by the outbreaks in the city of Melbourne; 820 of the 910 total deaths nationwide were in the state of Victoria.
Victoria has had 122.7 deaths per million (820 deaths, 6,681,000 population); The rest of Australia, excluding VIC, has had 4.8 deaths per million (90 deaths, 18,679,000 population)

My home state of Queensland has had 1.4 deaths per million (7 deaths, 5,185,000 population).

Overall, the Australian death toll due to Covid-19 is actually negative, when you look at the 'excess deaths' figures. In 2020 there were about 2,000 fewer deaths from non-COVID respiratory illnesses in Australia than the average toll for the preceding five years. The hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing and lock-downs saved roughly two lives for every one lost to COVID-19, with 116,345 deaths from any cause recorded between Jan 1st and October 27th, 2020, compared to an average of 117,484 deaths over the same period for the preceding five years.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-16/deaths-from-respiratory-illnesses-lower-than-usual-amid-covid-19/13041324

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a good video on people's shit ability to calculate risk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43J7hD9I0jY

Regarding the video... Interesting, but I disagree.

First, Where is this guy getting his statistics of 0.15% mortality. I know he cited some "John Joanidis" but how does that jive with the observed mortality rate of the virus in Mexico and Peru where the reported fatality rate is around 9.4%?

Secondly... We should only care about one bad symptom, Death, and all the other symptoms are completely unimportant? No. Even when Covid-19 doesn't kill you it is often quite nasty and has lots of other rotten and LONG lasting symptoms.

Thirdly, because we are unlikely to experience the "one bad symptom," we should just ignore people with aggravating conditions who are much more likely to experience that deadly symptom (because our selfish whims outweigh the lives of others). No. It isn't crazy to try to protect the weak and vulnerable by making some sacrifices in our lives.

I think you proved his point. That our culture is overly extreme on this. That's it's a good vs evil black and white dichotomy and you're either with us or against us. And since you identified him as being on the other side, you went full on pinning all manner of other implied beliefs onto him.

He's not arguing "the other side". He's saying that our western post-war culture sucks balls at calculating risks and that we habitually exaggerate risk. We downplay the costs of risk avoidance. At our peril. Do you disagree with that opinion?

Which I think also has been TSwizzle's point in this thread. Even though he's argued for it badly. I do think he has a point.

The mortality rates in places like Mexico are bad data--most cases aren't being diagnosed in the first place. I don't think his 0.15% is right, either--but let's suppose it is. That's almost exactly a 1 in 600 chance of dying (if action isn't taken against Covid the end result is pretty much everyone is infected.) That's four times the fatality rate of what is considered an extremely dangerous sport that few would choose to participate in: base jumping. Reality is probably twice that.

And lots of survivors have lasting damage--not to mention a substantially-increased all-cause mortality in the 6 months after infection. (And nothing says the risk goes away--there hasn't been time to gather data over a longer period yet.) It's not a you're fine/you die choice--the actual risk is even higher.

And consider another point of his--we "overestimate" the risk when we have no control over it. To some extent he's right, but there's a good reason for us to rate risks higher when they are beyond our control: When they are in our control we can do something about them. For example, the chance of dying in a traffic accident. By never driving drunk I know my risk is below average. Furthermore, traffic accidents are substantially non-random even when you take alcohol out of the picture. The average (as in median in ability) driver is substantially above the average (as in mean ability) driver. Risks we control tend to have this sort of distribution--the risk to the prudent participant is well below the average risk of the activity.

He is also right that we exaggerate rare risks. But Covid isn't a rare risk.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But if the application has not been made, then the situation is even worse: the FDA will never approve it, and then the Biden administration's policy is to never release the vaccines. It was 20 million back in April, and I'm not sure how many now. But even if they're not making more, how about the people who are getting seriously sick or even dying of covid, who could be saved by these vaccines?

I do not get it.

The FDA can't make them apply and can't approve it without an application.

I think the plan is to give/sell the stockpile to other countries that have approved it.

I know that the FDA can't make them apply. That is not my point. My point is that if they have not applied, then that only means more people dying waiting for something that will not happen, on the part of the administration, if they are waiting for FDA approval. If they are not, then what are they waiting for?

You think the plan is to give/sell the stockpile to other countries that have approved it. But then again, that could have been done back in April. It could be done right now. And yet the government keeps stalling, while people keep getting sick - people who could have been protected. What is the motivation for that?

 

[Patooka]

Alameda County has changed its methodology to record coronavirus deaths, causing its fatality figures to decrease by 25%.

The official COVID-19 death count in Alameda County fell from 1,634 to 1,223 after officials changed the criteria for fatalities to match state and national definitions, the county’s public health department said in a news release.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/alameda-county-changes-covid-19-death-reporting/2563332/

Here is a more in depth report.

"It is important to note that earlier adoption of the State reporting definition would not have changed the course of the pandemic, nor would it have affected the key measures, including case rate, test positivity and hospitalizations, that drove public health responses to the pandemic," the county said in its statement.

Gee, I wonder why TSwizzle left that part out? So if Alameda County simply followed the rest of the State in reporting of Covid deaths, the US death toll would have dropped from over half a million...to over half a million.

Jesus, it's almost as though there should be a disclaimer next to any of TSwizzle's sources that states, "Note, salt is required before reading further."