next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
bGxlYWd1ZXMgYXJlIHdvcmtpbmcgZmxhdCBvdXQgYW This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B542D56D7B42AACA3A76A8EA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A Canadian Epidemiologist from the U. of Ottawa writes concerning the video by Dr.Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who run a private medical clinic called Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, California. He doesn't think much of their statistics, epidemiology or public health! As for "herd immunity", well . . . Check it out here: http://blog.deonandan.com/wordpress/2020/04/covid19-lets-talk-about-the-bakersfield-duo.html Lois Codling On 5/1/2020 4:36 PM, Angus MacLean wrote: > As I understand, two, perhaps three, of the early deaths in Cape > Breton were of persons moved from Care Homes to the C.B. Regional. > Angus > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca <naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca> > on behalf of David Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> > *Sent:* May 1, 2020 9:12 AM > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca> > *Subject:* Re: [NatureNS] Covid lock down > > Dear All, > > Sorry to have to drag this on but Stephen seriously misquoted me > on naturens and I wish to set the record straight. So for > clarification I have copied and pasted what I actually said; in > quotation marks below. > > "Hi Rick and all. > > On that point I agree with you if the extrapolation to population > from samples tested was based on targeted testing not random testing > (I assumed perhaps incorrectly that his samples were random), but I > was especially taken by his comments about adverse effects of social > isolation; events that will haunt some people for a lifetime." > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Please note the IF. It remains to be established whether or not > those samples were random. He is a researcher as well as an MD so, > unless you have proof, I think you should reserve judgment. The > figures I have seen elsewhere for Covid mortality were about 4% I > think BUT=====as he points out often those who get covid are already > compromised by other medical conditions. I do not imply that MDs are > infallible but he likely knows more about this disease than either you > or I and strangely, I learn much from those more informed than I am. > > And once again I am especially concerned about the secondary and > unintended consequences of this lock down. Shutting down much of an > economy, here and across Canada, will have huge negative consequences. > If in good times there are many homeless, what will be the > consequences of turning the economy to idle ? > > I notice that as of April 28, 21 of 27 deaths have been in one > Nursing Home in the Central region. Were the other 6 deaths also in > Nursing Homes ? As usual there are information gaps. The high > incidence of death in Nursing Homes may be age related but some > component may be attributable to concurrent medical problems. This may > in time come to light as estimates. > > Or it may be that chronic under funding of Nursing Homes, which > lead to burn out and loss of many qualified staff by 2017 may have > worsened to the point of chaos. > > Dave Webster, Kentville > > > > On 4/30/2020 8:48 PM, Stephen Shaw wrote: >> Hi Nancy, >> Strange?— no. You must have missed Rick Whitman’s reply to David, >> and David’s response acknowledging that Rick was correct in >> pinpointing the fatal flaw in the banned video talk. The “analysis” >> the guy in the video gives is nonsense, but he sounds slick enough -- >> he presumably is deliberately intending to mislead the audience, us: >> that is, he has a hidden agenda to push. The argument the guy gives >> may sound convincing but it is not, so perhaps numbers may help. >> >> Say that epidemiologists round up 100 people whom they have good >> reason think probably have (or have had) covid-19, test them and find >> that 99 actually do have covid. On video logic, they'd want to say, >> extrapolating, that 99 percent of the larger population must have >> been infected, a huge number, 39 million folk in California. If a >> relatively low number of people in CA have died (~1200 they said) it >> sounds as if a only tiny fraction of those infected have died, so the >> death rate must be extremely low — heck, it’s no worse than flu. >> This is a totally biased, bogus and wrong conclusion because it’s >> not based on random sampling. It doesn’t matter if they calculate a >> 12% rate not 99%, it is just as phoney an analysis and wrong. >> >> If the surveyors instead round up 10,000 people randomly from the >> population (with no prior knowledge of whether they are or are not >> infected), test this larger number and find that the same 99 people >> are infected, they will estimate correctly that only about 1 percent >> of the larger population is actually infected, now very small >> proportion (99 out of 10,000 = 0.99% ≈ 1%). Since this number is >> way lower than the bogus video estimate while the number of dead >> stays the same, 1200, the actual death rate must be much higher than >> the bogus video estimates claim. >> >> To know the true current infection rate would be really useful, but >> needs random sampling and is not going to happen widely in present >> circumstances, if at all. As you saw from the local front-line >> doctor’s touching e-mail here recently, she and colleagues are >> working flat out already, and it is also clear from TV reports that >> medics are pushed to find test and PPE materials both here and in >> USA. If you perform random tests on 10,000 people and find that most >> are not infected, those tests are not useful in the sense that they >> do not help diagnose those patients who actually are infected, and >> are actually harmful in taking time, money and supplies away from >> already overworked heath care personal. Not going to happen in the >> current situation. >> >> It would be useful, though, to have non-bogus estimates to see what >> the current infection rate really is, to gauge whether countries are >> heading upwards towards 80% of the population infected as suggested >> by earlier UK modeling, should no lock-down precautions be taken. Or >> are we now heading to an 80% overall infection anyway