coronavirus

[edgmatt]

Good to know. 

@TheDrake - classifying this guy a "loon" because he's big on herbology is poor.  Just give the link, no need for name calling.

As far as credibility; this guy and LetterRip are just two guys on the internet, from where I sit.  I don't dismiss anything they say outright, nor do I grab on to it for dear life.  I take what they say into account.

Anyway, thanks for the input, fellas.  It's appreciated.

[TheDrake]

Most alternative medicine people are loons, not because they advocate for some herbal supplements, but because they have an inherent fear and distrust of Western medicine, particularly pharmaceuticals. All people on the internet are credible by definiton? I don't recommend taking everything you come across into account. It's going to cost a lot of time and effort at best. Like in this case, where you're not only "taking it into account" but also using his ravings to support your position.

[edgmatt]

All people on the internet are credible by definiton?

Did I say that?  Go back and read what I wrote.

[edgmatt]

What's my position?  All I did was post a thing I read and asked for opinions.  Stop projecting stuff onto me.

[TheDrake]

As far as credibility; this guy and LetterRip are just two guys on the internet

To, me, your assertion is that two guys on the internet are equally credible. Possibly you could mean that they are equally not credible.

Your link was called "good read". That is your position that I alluded to. To me, that means that you found the information credible. Not "crazy person" or "I wonder about this". Conceivably, "good read" could qualify as "I found this entertaining because so much was wrong with it" but that's not how I took it.

[edgmatt]

I mean exactly what I say.

This is what I said:  "As far as credibility; this guy and LetterRip are just two guys on the internet, from where I sit. I don't dismiss anything they say outright, nor do I grab on to it for dear life.  I take what they say into account.

That doesn't mean I take them as absolutely credible right away, but it also doesn't mean that I dismiss what they say right away.  This isn't hard.

I also said it's a good READ.  That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.  I post some stuff that LetterRip or other people here write in posts to my friends sometimes, and I don't usually agree with what he says or what most people say here, but when I post it to my freind, I say "what do you think of this?".

I found the information worth reading.  As it's been pointed out NUMEROUS times here, I don't have a clue on this sort of stuff.  When I read that thing I posted, some of it was like reading a different language.  When I read some of LetterRip's post, it was the same.

You're the one jumping to conclusions about my posts, sure as could be that you know exactly what i mean, exactly what my stance is, and that's all you need to know.  Sit back and read it completely and think about it just a little bit, then give me a little bit of charitable thought before you post.

[LetterRip]

When you lack background in a topic, it is really difficult to judge credibility.  People tend to resort to rhetorical factors (this person sounds like an expert), relevant background (has spent X years doing research in Y field), credentialism (they have a PhD or MD or they attended a prestigious school), and confirmation biases (this sounds like what I already believe).  A somewhat better fallback method is expert consensus, but groups and individual often try and deliberately undermine that as well - either offering up false sense of conflict within the field (we had 1000 scientists sign this petition - failing to mention that almost none of them have a relevant background in the topic), or accusing the field of corruption (claiming researchers are making big bucks off the government tit, or that researchers are lying/hiding cures to make money off of selling treatments), or simply misleading interpretations or citations (cherry picking citations of poor quality supporting the claim and ignoring large bodies of research contradicting the claim), or creating organizations that have a legitimate sounding name that is confusingly similar to existing well respected organization.

Honestly I'm not sure there is a good way to know what the consensus is on a topic (of course study design of how the consensus was measured and then looking for critiques of the methodology is a good place to start - I think lay persons can generally understand that some scientists are more knowledgable than others, alas I think people give far too much weight to certain types of credentials - Harvard MD, etc. than is warranted - MDs of any stripe usually have only slightly better than lay understanding of lots of medical topics, especially if their board examinations are 10+ years in the past.  MDs are experts at diagnosis, but rarely do they have expert understanding of the underlying science or statistics.  Prestigious schools like Harvard tend to have a mix of well connected individuals and also tend to have a greater research focus, so they are slightly more likely to grasp the science and math compared to MDs from other schools but only those admissions that were based on their research rather than their connections) ,or when it is reasonable to trust someone going against a consensus.

[rightleft22]

I think people give far too much weight to certain types of credentials - Harvard MD,....

I think people give far to much weight to blogger's... and the guy who's friends neighbor uncle...

[LetterRip]

I think people give far too much weight to certain types of credentials - Harvard MD,....

I think people give far to much weight to blogger's... and the guy who's friends neighbor uncle...

That too...

[edgmatt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuRLFLoLL0

I don't have a transcript so it's hard to quote, but he says:

"Substantial data showing:
- Miscarriages increased by 300% over the 5 year avg.
- Almost 300% increase in cancer over the 5 year avg.
- Neurological, over 1,000% increase. 82,000/year to 860,000 in one year.

- 9/28/2021....In Project Salis (no clue if i spelled that right), DoD Document, 71% of new cases are in the fully vaxed, and 60% of hospitalizations are from the fully vaxed."

That's just at the first few minutes, the doctors go on to discuss their observations.  The first doctor talks about cancer increases, and cancers that are in remissions suddenly blossom and take off again right after the vaccine is administered.

They talk about P53 gene and go into detail about stuff that's way too detailed for me to quote here.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuRLFLoLL0

I don't have a transcript so it's hard to quote, but he says:

"Substantial data showing:
- Miscarriages increased by 300% over the 5 year avg.
- Almost 300% increase in cancer over the 5 year avg.
- Neurological, over 1,000% increase. 82,000/year to 860,000 in one year.

- 9/28/2021....In Project Salis (no clue if i spelled that right), DoD Document, 71% of new cases are in the fully vaxed, and 60% of hospitalizations are from the fully vaxed."

That's just at the first few minutes, the doctors go on to discuss their observations.  The first doctor talks about cancer increases, and cancers that are in remissions suddenly blossom and take off again right after the vaccine is administered.

They talk about P53 gene and go into detail about stuff that's way too detailed for me to quote here.

Anywhere with links to the data they are citing? Because many of those are side effects of having covid. If they counting people who got sick and had negative outcomes in their "negative" societal data then we have huge issues with their methodology.

[TheDrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuRLFLoLL0

I don't have a transcript so it's hard to quote, but he says:

"Substantial data showing:
- Miscarriages increased by 300% over the 5 year avg.
- Almost 300% increase in cancer over the 5 year avg.
- Neurological, over 1,000% increase. 82,000/year to 860,000 in one year.

- 9/28/2021....In Project Salis (no clue if i spelled that right), DoD Document, 71% of new cases are in the fully vaxed, and 60% of hospitalizations are from the fully vaxed."

That's just at the first few minutes, the doctors go on to discuss their observations.  The first doctor talks about cancer increases, and cancers that are in remissions suddenly blossom and take off again right after the vaccine is administered.

They talk about P53 gene and go into detail about stuff that's way too detailed for me to quote here.

Did you bother to even look for a rebuttal? That might be a good first step.

by the way, just googling "project salis" would immediately give you the correct spelling "Project Salus".

Who are these doctors? What is their background? Are they herbalists and chiropractors, or are they oncologists discussing cancer rates? Why are we hearing about "the past five years" if we're trying to pin it on vaccines?

A rudimentary search on "cancer rates increased covid" will show you:

COVID-19 pandemic has led to more advanced-stage cancer diagnoses, physician survey finds

That's just for starters. Stop researching things based on the YouTube videos that anti-vaxxers are sharing on social media.

[Lloyd Perna]

You realize that youtube video is of congressional testimony right?

[TheDrake]

I'm well aware that Congresspeople can invite crackpots to testify. There are crackpots and Q-spiracists who have been ELECTED to Congress. In this case, however, it was NOT congressional testimony. If I understand correctly, it was Ron Johnson's carefully selected cornucopia of loons.

Covid 19: A stupid opinion

Notable attendees at both events included Dr. Robert Malone, a doctor and infectious disease researcher removed from Twitter for spreading COVID-19 misinformation, and Christina Parks, who holds a Ph.D. in cellular and molecular biology and is a staunch critic of COVID vaccines.

about those miscarriages and cancers

The database was cited by Ohio attorney Thomas Renz on Jan. 24 during a COVID-19 panel discussion led by U.S. Rep. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. During the five-hour hearing, titled "COVID-19: A second opinion," Renz said that three "whistleblowers" he represents provided him with these figures based on medical codes from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database.

But Peter Graves, spokesperson for the Defense Health Agency’s Armed Forces Surveillance Division, told PolitiFact by email that "in response to concerns mentioned in news reports" the division reviewed data in the DMED "and found that the data was incorrect for the years 2016-2020."

Officials compared numbers in the DMED with source data in the DMSS and found that the total number of medical diagnoses from those years "represented only a small fraction of actual medical diagnoses." The 2021 numbers, however, were up-to-date, giving the "appearance of significant increased occurrence of all medical diagnoses in 2021 because of the underreported data for 2016-2020," Graves said.

[LetterRip]

\
- 9/28/2021....In Project Salis (no clue if i spelled that right), DoD Document, 71% of new cases are in the fully vaxed, and 60% of hospitalizations are from the fully vaxed."

Military has a 98% vaccination rate. 
So case rate among unvaccinated (2% of military)
2% * X = 29% -> X = 14.5%

Case rate among vaccinated (98% of military)
98% * Y = 71% -> Y = .7%

So unvaccinated are 14.5/.7 = 20.7 times more likely to get infected.

Hospitalization rate
2% * A = 40% -> A = 20%
98% * B = 60% -> B = .6%

The unvaccinated are 20/.6 = 33.3 times more likely to be hospitalized.

So either they appear to either deliberately be trying to deceive you; or they appear to be so incompetent that they don't understand very basic science relevant to what they are talking about.

Note that the 98% is vaccination rate among all branches for December, so a few months earlier in might be slightly different and give slightly different ratios (By July 80% of DoD were vaccinated, 94% of airforce was vaccinated by end of september), but the effect size is so large that it will have no effect on the overall point

Also the vaccination takes time to fully kick in, so the vaccinated people who caught it were predominatnely quite likely those who hadn't built up to full immunity and should be in a separate group 'recently vaccinated'.

In either case, you should not be using these people as a source for science.

[LetterRip]

"Substantial data showing:
- Miscarriages increased by 300% over the 5 year avg.

Yes, as a result of COVID infection, not vaccination,

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255994

- Almost 300% increase in cancer over the 5 year avg.

Yes, as a result of decreased screening due to hospitals being overnwhelmed by COVID-19 - precancerous polyps aren't found, resulting in increased cancer instead of eliminating it in the precancerous state.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-covid-cancer-effect/

- Neurological, over 1,000% increase. 82,000/year to 860,000 in one year.

Yep, this is again well known effect of COVID-19 infection called 'long COVID'

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/researchers-highlight-covid-19-neurological-symptoms-need-rigorous-studies

Again - either they appear to be incompetent or appear to be deliberately deceiving you.

[TheDrake]

Another thing one might ask is, if cancer rates really went up that much (300%?) do you really think the only evidence would be in one defense department database?

I mean, LR points out that diagnoses dropped and then presumably rebounded, but only 30%. And there was no corresponding resurgence, at least not yet.

But 300%? As a result of vaccination? That should show up EVERYWHERE! 3x as many man. Thousands of oncologists would be remarking on it. The American Cancer Society would put out a statement. And, it wouldn't be confined to the US. Australia, Austria, Argentina would all have dramatically visible increases, and that's just some of the ones that start with "A".

Do you wonder why this testimony only talks about ONE source of cancer rates? I mean, they prepared for this hearing and everything, right? Surely they looked at more than one database? So why cherrypick this relatively obscure one, I wonder?

[edgmatt]

Probably because that is the only data base they have complete access too, because it's theirs.  I don't think it's cherry picked.

How do we know the increasein these things is from covid (and not the vaccine)?  Was there a test done on these things among vaxxed and unvaxxed?  I'm asking in sincerity.  I don't think "most likely" is going to cut it.

Part of my "research" is to post on this discussion site and talk about the sort of information I post and is out there.  Usually I get  pretty intelligent responses, but, as with any discussion, there are people who are more interested in proving the other guy wrong than actually finding the truth.  Still, it's helpful.

I haven't heard of Covid causing cancer that's in remission to suddenly flare up again.  Is that a new phenomenon?

Again - either they appear to be incompetent or appear to be deliberately deceiving you.

There's probably at least one more option there.

Who are these doctors? What is their background?

If you watch the video, the first guy announces who they are (military medical personal of various ranks, background all in the medical field) or the person who is talking is stopped and asked who she is and what her credentials are.

[ScottF]

Yes, as a result of decreased screening due to hospitals being overnwhelmed by COVID-19 - precancerous polyps aren't found, resulting in increased cancer instead of eliminating it in the precancerous state.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-covid-cancer-effect/

Huh? Did you even read the article you linked to? People skipped screenings because they were afraid to go to a clinic/hospital, or in some cases even leave their own home due to mass hysteria.

... appear to be incompetent or appear to be deliberately deceiving you.

I'm sure there were cases of certain facilities being too busy for screenings, but your "as a result of hospitals being overwhelmed" is what seems deliberately deceiving.

[TheDrake]

Probably because that is the only data base they have complete access too, because it's theirs.  I don't think it's cherry picked.

How do we know the increasein these things is from covid (and not the vaccine)?  Was there a test done on these things among vaxxed and unvaxxed?  I'm asking in sincerity.  I don't think "most likely" is going to cut it.

Part of my "research" is to post on this discussion site and talk about the sort of information I post and is out there.  Usually I get  pretty intelligent responses, but, as with any discussion, there are people who are more interested in proving the other guy wrong than actually finding the truth.  Still, it's helpful.

I haven't heard of Covid causing cancer that's in remission to suddenly flare up again.  Is that a new phenomenon?

Again - either they appear to be incompetent or appear to be deliberately deceiving you.

There's probably at least one more option there.

Who are these doctors? What is their background?

If you watch the video, the first guy announces who they are (military medical personal of various ranks, background all in the medical field) or the person who is talking is stopped and asked who she is and what her credentials are.

I'm not going to waste my time watching a video that lacks any identifying characteristics, not even a description by the person who uploaded it. I assume they did that to avoid having YouTube rightfully point out what a turd it is, or just remove it outright. I can't know for sure what the subject is, I tied the video to the Senator's event by the claims about huge percent increases.

I'm curious though, edgmatt, why did you think that was plausible in the first place?

[LetterRip]

I'm sure there were cases of certain facilities being too busy for screenings, but your "as a result of hospitals being overwhelmed" is what seems deliberately deceiving.

Many hospitals completely canceled non-emergency appointments for extremely long periods.  Cancer screenings are non-emergency.

For cancer patients, the unintended consequences start with those who don’t even know they have the disease yet. Studies suggest the pandemic led to a roughly 80% drop in routine screening appointments that could catch new cancers in March and April. Rates recovered somewhat in the late spring, but one paper still estimated approximately 60% fewer breast, colon and cervical cancer exams from mid-March to mid-June compared with years prior. That translates to hundreds of thousands of missed exams nationally—and, among those who do have undetected cancer or precursors to it, the loss of potential early diagnoses and interventions.

Part of the problem, Wagner says, is that the vast majority of cancer screenings can’t happen virtually. Most screenings require an in-person procedure like a colonoscopy (for colon cancer), mammogram (for breast cancer) or a pap smear (for cervical cancer). Some clinics can test for colon cancer with a stool sample patients send in from home, and dermatologists may be able to look at an unusual mole remotely—but that’s about where the list ends.

https://time.com/5884236/coronavirus-pandemic-cancer-care/

So in fact, hospitals and doctors overwhelmed by COVID-19 - cancelled or rescheduled large numbers cancer screenings and other non-emergency appointments.

[Crunch]

Recent news out of Johns Hopkins:

This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies.

The bottom line:

An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.

More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.

In other words, they did nothing. In fact, they did worse than nothing actually once you factor in the economic cost.

The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.

I can tell you right now that only a month or two ago voicing such thoughts would have seen Facebook, Twitter, et al banning you permanently. It was double-plus-ungood, in fact I think it was linked to white supremacy (I kid you not). Over and over and over we see the absolute bullsh1t of "the experts". The law of averages would suggest they'd be right at least some of the time but they have an astonishing consistency in being 100% wrong about, well, everything.

[TheDrake]

Already being clear that the "study" is flawed. First, this was drafted by economists, not exactly a group you'd expect to examine public health. That's not reason alone to discount the results.

Johns Hopkins though, right? Not exactly.

Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university’s world-renowned medical school.

But the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.

Isn't that strange? Especially since the real university had a study that showed three million European lives saved.

So how did they define a "lockdown"?

One of Ferguson’s primary criticisms of the Johns Hopkins study was that it painted the term “lockdown” with too broad a brush.

The Johns Hopkins study defined a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention.” Under this metric, a country whose only COVID stricture is a five-day mandatory quarantine is treated exactly the same as a country experiencing curfews and blanket closures on public venues.

But you gotta respect their objectivity right?

Easily the most famous author is Steve Hanke, a renowned currency researcher who has certainly made no secret of his opinion on lockdowns. Just last week, he posted a cartoon to Twitter showing a semi-truck about to crush an effigy of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dressed up as Adolf Hitler.

In other words, Crunch, the study you cite is only good for your confirmation bias.

For those who might like to read about additional flaws

[Fenring]

At this point in history "flawed study" is merely repeating oneself.

[ScottF]

I'm sure there were cases of certain facilities being too busy for screenings, but your "as a result of hospitals being overwhelmed" is what seems deliberately deceiving.

Many hospitals completely canceled non-emergency appointments for extremely long periods.  Cancer screenings are non-emergency.

For cancer patients, the unintended consequences start with those who don’t even know they have the disease yet. Studies suggest the pandemic led to a roughly 80% drop in routine screening appointments that could catch new cancers in March and April. Rates recovered somewhat in the late spring, but one paper still estimated approximately 60% fewer breast, colon and cervical cancer exams from mid-March to mid-June compared with years prior. That translates to hundreds of thousands of missed exams nationally—and, among those who do have undetected cancer or precursors to it, the loss of potential early diagnoses and interventions.

Part of the problem, Wagner says, is that the vast majority of cancer screenings can’t happen virtually. Most screenings require an in-person procedure like a colonoscopy (for colon cancer), mammogram (for breast cancer) or a pap smear (for cervical cancer). Some clinics can test for colon cancer with a stool sample patients send in from home, and dermatologists may be able to look at an unusual mole remotely—but that’s about where the list ends.

https://time.com/5884236/coronavirus-pandemic-cancer-care/

So in fact, hospitals and doctors overwhelmed by COVID-19 - cancelled or rescheduled large numbers cancer screenings and other non-emergency appointments.

I don't think the two facts are mutually exclusive. Hospitals did cancel/reschedule routine screenings AND many people also refused to visit at all, for the same reasons that led to "emergency room visits plunging" during the pandemic.

Saying categorically that the decline in cancer screenings was because of over-run hospitals is, at best, naive.

[ScottF]

At this point in history "flawed study" is merely repeating oneself.

Like the elusive Jackelope, I continue to look for the flawless study, regardless of its conclusions.

[ScottF]

I'm sure there were cases of certain facilities being too busy for screenings, but your "as a result of hospitals being overwhelmed" is what seems deliberately deceiving.

Many hospitals completely canceled non-emergency appointments for extremely long periods.  Cancer screenings are non-emergency.

For cancer patients, the unintended consequences start with those who don’t even know they have the disease yet. Studies suggest the pandemic led to a roughly 80% drop in routine screening appointments that could catch new cancers in March and April. Rates recovered somewhat in the late spring, but one paper still estimated approximately 60% fewer breast, colon and cervical cancer exams from mid-March to mid-June compared with years prior. That translates to hundreds of thousands of missed exams nationally—and, among those who do have undetected cancer or precursors to it, the loss of potential early diagnoses and interventions.

Part of the problem, Wagner says, is that the vast majority of cancer screenings can’t happen virtually. Most screenings require an in-person procedure like a colonoscopy (for colon cancer), mammogram (for breast cancer) or a pap smear (for cervical cancer). Some clinics can test for colon cancer with a stool sample patients send in from home, and dermatologists may be able to look at an unusual mole remotely—but that’s about where the list ends.

https://time.com/5884236/coronavirus-pandemic-cancer-care/

So in fact, hospitals and doctors overwhelmed by COVID-19 - cancelled or rescheduled large numbers cancer screenings and other non-emergency appointments.

I don't think the two facts are mutually exclusive. Hospitals did cancel/reschedule routine screenings AND many people also refused to visit at all, for the same reasons that led to "emergency room visits plunging" during the pandemic.

Saying categorically that the decline in cancer screenings was because of over-run hospitals is, at best, naive.

Actually the emergency visit reductions are likely not a result of covid fear. I stand behind my original argument, but that point isn't defensible.

[LetterRip]

There are degrees of flaw.

Some flaws or so glaring that they make the results meaningless or contradict the actual result if the study were properly done.

Again this is the 'Serena Williams and I can both play tennis', many studies having flaws, doesn't imply that all studies are equally damaged by those flaws.  Flaws that have major impact should lead to a study being ignored. Flaws that have little or no impact can be ignored.

The studies being used to dismiss COVID-19 are generally so flawed as to be useless.

[LetterRip]

Firstly, I think that people should at least skim the goddam study, rather than, as the current answers do, post one of:

This confirms my prejudices and must be right
This contradicts my prejudices and must be wrong
This is written by economists. How dare they?
Comparisons with sparsely populated, isolated countries as if they were somehow models that could be emulated.
Here’s the paper.

A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Secondly, the headline conclusions from this paper are worthless. Its supposed to be a meta-analysis, but the methodology is extremely sloppy. They’ve basically just taken a weighted average of the headline conclusions of a bunch of different studies. That’s … not how this is supposed to be done.

Some specifics:

The studies they’ve selected are all difference-in-difference studies, which means they’re comparing places with lockdowns with references that did not. That’s fine, but the choice of reference is absolutely crucial. Their meta-analysis just ignores what reference was used and how valid the comparison was. For example, if you compared New York and Kansas in the first wave of COVID, the obvious problem is that one of them had active community transmission on a massive scale and the other did not. One of their studies finds an increase in COVID death rates during lockdown, which … umm, yeah.

Several of the studies included find enormous effects of lockdowns. Fuller et al finds a 35% reduction in deaths, whereas the authors claim that Chisadza et all find 0% (more on that in a moment). It tells us basically nothing to take a weighted average of these numbers. We need to understand why the conclusions are so different.

The averages in the paper are weighted by precision, which would be fine if the precisions were reasonable. But they’re not, and I cannot figure out how they were derived. The authors give the Fuller study a weight of 11, based on a standard error of 9%, but the Chisadza study a weight of 7390 based on a standard error of 0%. So, no statistical exercise has a standard error of 0%. That’s just implausible. So, that 0.2% headline number is based almost entirely on the Chisadza study. The highest other weight is 256. So I went and looked up Chisadza et al. You can find it here: Government Effectiveness and the COVID-19 Pandemic
So, that’s not what Chisadza says at all. What she says is this: “The number of deaths increases with partially relaxed lockdown restrictions, but decreases with severe restrictions.” She also quote standard errors and amazingly enough they are not zero. Its possible someone more statistically literate than I am, or just with more time, can figure out how Herby et al have reached the opposite conclusion from Chisadza’s data than the one she did, but I smell a rat.

Finally, although it doesn’t affect the results, although they don’t dive into the data for the individual studies they do assign them quality scores. The scoring criteria seem a bit … biased. Somehow, amazingly, the studies that find beneficial affects from lockdowns are assigned low quality scores. Among the “quality” citeria are one that favors social scientists over medics (yes, I kid you not), and another than favors studies that find no effect on deaths in the first 14 days (because of course COVID always takes 2 weeks to kill you).
There’s more, but honestly at this point I don’t think its worth reading this thing any more.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-the-recently-published-study-by-Johns-Hopkins-University-that-concluded-that-the-lockdowns-in-the-U-S-and-Europe-during-the-early-phase-of-the-pandemic-in-2020-reduced-COVID-19-mortality-by/answer/Simon-Kinahan#comments

[LetterRip]

Also, this was just a Cato institute employees own collection of his writings, it wasn't published in a journal, even if he gave it a fancy name.  So it only 'published' to the same extent everything you post on ornery is 'published'.  He has simply given it the trappings of academic research to fool the ignorant.

[TheDeamon]

The hard had isn't permanent.

Imagine not being able to reverse gaining a degree of immunity to a disease.  How terrible!

Get the measels if you aren't vaccinated from it already. There is growing evidence that it somehow "resets" the immune system for many of the people it infects.

Covid19, and it's "close cousin" MERS also seem to be good candidates. MERS was already understood that immunity for the infected only lasted about 6 to 9 months for most people. It's part of why I was expecting boosters to be a thing for Covid19 months before any of the Covid19 vaccines rolled out.

[TheDeamon]

A lot of music IS political speech, you know. Do you mean except in their lyrics?

A lot?  I can only think of Greenday songs that are political, and I still like em because the music is good.  Oh, i guess Rage against the Machine is on that list too.

Unless you're talking about songs that are very intentionally patriotic like Lee Greendwoods proud to be an American?  I mean I like the song, but I'm not playing those sorts of things in my car on the way to work.

A lot of 80's punk was Libertarian/Conservative in nature, even if they didn't present themselves as such in most other respects.

[msquared]

Well we broke 900,000 deaths yesterday.  Only 25 days this time for that next 60,000.  However, it looks like the death rate is declining.

Basically 23 months in and almost 1 million people in the US dead.

[ScottF]

Imagine how worse it would have been if Biden hadn't stopped the virus. "Anyone who … is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America.”

BTW get ready for the Science on masks to change yet again later today as the democrats increasingly realize they're getting smashed in the polls.

[rightleft22]

What a mess....
Masks are most affective when everyone wears them and any mandates were never going to last.  Just another pile of dog poop for the Dem's to step in when they didn't have to.

[ScottF]

In hindsight, I can't really imagine them handling it any other way. They're literally the party of compassion, protection and government safety nets. Covid fear, lubricated with a fully compliant media, represented the ultimate proving ground to implement that philosophy at scale.

[cherrypoptart]

Japan as usual has the answers.

https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2234.html

"Mask-wearing and other virus-related rules have never been legally enforced in Japan, and vaccination certificates are currently not being used widely.

Instead, the government has released guidelines on how to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, which are widely followed by the vast majority of people."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Japan never even had any mask mandates. Never had any legally enforced covid rules.

Okay, it probably won't work in America I'll grant you that but the fact is that masks work and only if pretty much everyone is wearing them. Masks help stop the spread when vaccinations fail. So how do you get to there without laws? Maybe you don't. But if you do it's with a sense of communal responsibility, peer pressure, and yes that's right something we don't have much of anymore... shame.

If we've already decided that the mask mandates are goners then if we still do want masking all that's left to try is a public relations campaign to get voluntary compliance, and by voluntary of course I mean what I just outlined which is relying on a sense of responsibility, peer pressure, and shame.

In attempting persuasion, the most powerful weapons are facts. Here's a fact. Pretty much everyone who has gotten covid and died of it got it from someone not wearing a mask. Maybe we need some generic public shaming campaigns like the ones by the Red Cross against "mask slackers" during the Spanish Flu pandemic in which that fact is pointed out, played up, and driven home. People aren't brave if they aren't wearing masks, they are sociopaths and collectively are mass murderers who are spreading the virus around and helping it to mutate. They are prolonging the pandemic and killing Americans including innocent children. Over 900,000 dead and just about every one of them was killed by someone not wearing a mask, often just like with most murders by someone they knew such as close friends and family members including those who supposedly loved them.

Maybe we could use some Starship Troopers level propaganda about fighting humanity's common enemy which is aptly enough, "the bug".

Would you like to know more?

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4

I wish I had the talent to deep fake a video like this and have everyone including the kid wearing masks, saying, "I'm doing my part."

"Masking doesn't guarantee citizenship. It doesn't guarantee anything. But it's the one thing we can all do to help fight the bug. Wear a mask where appropriate. Don't be a bug spreader. And don't let your body be used as a bug factory and evolution chamber. The only good bug is a dead bug."

[TheDeamon]

Japan seems to have some genetic factors working in their favor. Something also very strongly working against America specifically? (pre)Diabetes seems to be one of the singularly strongest emerging common factor for many of the deceased that can be traced absent more extensive (genetic) testing.

Japan in 2019 was ranked 137 of 195 in 2019. With an incidence rate of 5.9%. The US ranked 43rd, at 10.8% of the population.

[msquared]

Cherry

That is funny.

[cherrypoptart]

I like to have fun even when I'm being serious.

 

[TheDrake]

Japan never even had any mask mandates. Never had any legally enforced covid rules.

It's like you didn't even read any of the discussion about Japan that happened last time you brought it up.

But the starship troopers video is a funny one. The state videos are probably the only redeeming part of that horrible insult to a great book.

[cherrypoptart]

I read it and it's all plausible enough so even granting everything different about Japan is all true it still doesn't mean that masking up won't make any difference for us or doesn't make a huge difference for them. Even if no matter what they'll be better off than we will they are still better off with their masking approach than they'd be without it and we're better off with masks on than off. I understand a lot of Americans don't like them and don't want to wear them for various reasons and the simple fact is a lot more people are going to get sick and die because of it. Some people figure that's worth it if it means not wearing masks and others figure wearing masks is worth it if it saves hundreds of thousands of lives, reduces variants, and ends the pandemic more quickly.

It seems like the anti-maskers look at it as if taking off the masks means the pandemic is over already. The masks are the face of the pandemic. It's an infantile mentality in which since the masks are so closely associated with the pandemic people get it into their heads that the masks ARE the pandemic and so with the masks gone, the pandemic is gone too. The pandemic started with people putting on masks so all it takes to end the pandemic is for people to take them off again. I see a lot of that attitude on Drudge with the stories he chooses. I wish it worked that way but most likely it won't.

[rightleft22]

I read it and it's all plausible enough so even granting everything different about Japan is all true it still doesn't mean that masking up won't make any difference for us or doesn't make a huge difference for them. Even if no matter what they'll be better off than we will they are still better off with their masking approach than they'd be without it and we're better off with masks on than off. I understand a lot of Americans don't like them and don't want to wear them for various reasons and the simple fact is a lot more people are going to get sick and die because of it. Some people figure that's worth it if it means not wearing masks and others figure wearing masks is worth it if it saves hundreds of thousands of lives, reduces variants, and ends the pandemic more quickly.

It seems like the anti-maskers look at it as if taking off the masks means the pandemic is over already. The masks are the face of the pandemic. It's an infantile mentality in which since the masks are so closely associated with the pandemic people get it into their heads that the masks ARE the pandemic and so with the masks gone, the pandemic is gone too. The pandemic started with people putting on masks so all it takes to end the pandemic is for people to take them off again. I see a lot of that attitude on Drudge with the stories he chooses. I wish it worked that way but most likely it won't.

I agree that masks are the face of the pandemic but think more connected to some definition of FREEDOM then to the corvid. Masks = Corvid = Not Free

I applaud your sticktoitiveness but that battle has been lost 

[TheDrake]

As of August, estimates suggest that 1/3 of Americans have already had covid. Then there's the portion of the 2/3 that are vaccinated. We're heading toward the endemic stage, where we no longer have to be concerned about hospitals being overwhelmed. Mask wearing may continue by individuals. I think it is likely I might wear one around in public indefinitely when it makes sense - meaning not in restaurants but yes in grocery stores. I can be hopeful in others, but mandating is going away whether public or private, because enough people will have one form of immunity, or the other, or they are dead. I guess I'll probably shop more at the Korean markets...

[Fenring]

As of August, estimates suggest that 1/3 of Americans have already had covid. Then there's the portion of the 2/3 that are vaccinated. We're heading toward the endemic stage, where we no longer have to be concerned about hospitals being overwhelmed. Mask wearing may continue by individuals. I think it is likely I might wear one around in public indefinitely when it makes sense - meaning not in restaurants but yes in grocery stores. I can be hopeful in others, but mandating is going away whether public or private, because enough people will have one form of immunity, or the other, or they are dead. I guess I'll probably shop more at the Korean markets...

The going-forward situation requires a much more subtle analysis than what has come so far. DO SOMETHING!!!! has to be replaced with considering what is actually best, both individually and collectively. Masking may continue to help, but on the other hand if you're wearing a mask chances are it means you're concerned, and despite ScottF's disposition, for most people when they are concerned they are nervous and anxious. Thinking about a bad thing frequently means you're fretting. So long-term, what is safer, having a mask which may occasionally help, or lowering everyone's stress levels by clearing up the social scene and giving things a relaxed atmosphere? I bet you (when we all get to heaven and can do any calculations instantly) that being anxious is far more deleterious to health - even to the chances of contracting a disease - than the chance you catch something but in a sound state of mind. Just a thought.

[rightleft22]

As of August, estimates suggest that 1/3 of Americans have already had covid. Then there's the portion of the 2/3 that are vaccinated. We're heading toward the endemic stage, where we no longer have to be concerned about hospitals being overwhelmed. Mask wearing may continue by individuals. I think it is likely I might wear one around in public indefinitely when it makes sense - meaning not in restaurants but yes in grocery stores. I can be hopeful in others, but mandating is going away whether public or private, because enough people will have one form of immunity, or the other, or they are dead. I guess I'll probably shop more at the Korean markets...

The going-forward situation requires a much more subtle analysis than what has come so far. DO SOMETHING!!!! has to be replaced with considering what is actually best, both individually and collectively. Masking may continue to help, but on the other hand if you're wearing a mask chances are it means you're concerned, and despite ScottF's disposition, for most people when they are concerned they are nervous and anxious. Thinking about a bad thing frequently means you're fretting. So long-term, what is safer, having a mask which may occasionally help, or lowering everyone's stress levels by clearing up the social scene and giving things a relaxed atmosphere? I bet you (when we all get to heaven and can do any calculations instantly) that being anxious is far more deleterious to health - even to the chances of contracting a disease - than the chance you catch something but in a sound state of mind. Just a thought.

That's a interesting point
The statement that wearing mask = concern needs to be expanded.
- Wearing a mask protects others from you
- verses thinking that wearing a mask protects you from others. 

Put another way my concern is for you and or my concern is for myself. I suspect that if the focus is on the latter the anxiety level would be different then if focused on former. 

[ScottF]

The going-forward situation requires a much more subtle analysis than what has come so far. DO SOMETHING!!!! has to be replaced with considering what is actually best, both individually and collectively. Masking may continue to help, but on the other hand if you're wearing a mask chances are it means you're concerned, and despite ScottF's disposition, for most people when they are concerned they are nervous and anxious. Thinking about a bad thing frequently means you're fretting. So long-term, what is safer, having a mask which may occasionally help, or lowering everyone's stress levels by clearing up the social scene and giving things a relaxed atmosphere? I bet you (when we all get to heaven and can do any calculations instantly) that being anxious is far more deleterious to health - even to the chances of contracting a disease - than the chance you catch something but in a sound state of mind. Just a thought.

Not to mention the other serious effects of living in a permanent state of stress or anxiety. Alchohol, drugs, etc. The question remains how long people who are highly anxious about covid will remain so. The good news is the media appears to be getting bored of it and seems to have shifted almost entirely to the political aspects. I think that, along with masks disappearing, should naturally lower the psychological temperature as the months and years go by.

[Fenring]

That's a interesting point
The statement that wearing mask = concern needs to be expanded.
- Wearing a mask protects others from you
- verses thinking that wearing a mask protects you from others. 

Put another way my concern is for you and or my concern is for myself. I suspect that if the focus is on the latter the anxiety level would be different then if focused on former.

My proposition is that going around masked among masked people makes everyone nervous. So long as you're not twisting my words into meaning something I didn't say, but merely saying your own version of it, I'll merely disagree with you. I don't think you can reduce human activities into a simple binary "if this is how I'm thinking of it". Thinking doesn't work that way.

[Fenring]

I think that, along with masks disappearing, should naturally lower the psychological temperature as the months and years go by.

I can mention the several cases I'm aware of involving someone getting covid, and being much more scared that they got it (it finally happened TO ME!!!) than concerned about the severity of their symptoms. That's not to say that some people don't have serious symptoms, but when even people with light symptoms are acting as if they got the plague it's really a bad mental health situation. And they didn't get that idea all on their own...