Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

I have been wondering if our mitigation efforts have worked as well as hoped.  Maybe the Covid 19 models were just wildly off base to start with, and all of the onerous mitigation was just nonsense?  You guys know that I don't believe that, but something the Governor said yesterday got me thinking.  He said that the flu was virtually stopped in it's tracks this year by the Covid 19 mitigation.  Hmm.

The following graph is my attempt to demonstrate this.  The weekly flu data from 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 is readily available from a very cool interface maintained by the CDC:  

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/fluportaldashboard.html 

This data is for positive flu tests by week from clinical labs and public health facilities.  As such, this data vastly underestimates the actual extent of the flu in a given year.  Most folks don't get sick enough with the flu to go to a clinic or be tested.  Hopefully this data is a reasonable proxy for the actual prevalence of influenza each season though.  

2017-2018 was a bad year for the flu.  2019-2020 was shaping up to be just as bad.  I have added a "Social Distancing Time-frame" window to the data that more or less correlates with national Covid 19 mitigation efforts.  Based on the 2018 curve, I have guesstimated the trajectory of the 2019-2020 flu without the Covid 19 mitigation efforts of social distancing, masks, business closures and so on.  The difference between my guesstimate and the actual 2020 flu data appears to show that the Covid 19 mitigation efforts have really kicked the flu's butt as a side-effect.  I believe that this suggests that we'd be in a lot worse shape with respect to Covid 19 without the mitigation efforts.

Jim

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

Hi James,

Sorry to hear you have been put off work.  At least your employer will keep paying your health insurance.  That has me wondering though, with some many people losing their job and possibly their health insurance, I wonder if that will increase support for a move away from employer-based health insurance towards universal health insurance?

Maurice

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

I just knew I would be greeted by a deluge of BS regarding the disinfectant comment and trying to make hay with it when I got around to checking in......

You idjits didnt disappoint me LOL

Sorry to break up your fun but it appears you need a correction or two

Trump asked about light and disinfectant injected into the body. There are two existing therapies. UV therapy as well as ozone therapy. The one that has the left all riled up is ozone therapy. This has been used for cancer patients. O3 gas is infused into the body as a DISINFECTANT to improve the intake of oxygen while ramping up the immune system, thus more efficiently killing bacteria and viruses. You can google it if you want. Trump asked the expert off to the side if testing was being done relative to applying this to the coronavirus. But of course NBC CBS CNN and company would take his words out of context to make it sound like he looked at the camera and said “hey let’s all drink bleach”. Disinfectant inside the body is indeed dangerous and should only be done by a doctor.

A footnote: if you take high amounts of vitamin C yourself, you will wind up with a buildup of hydrogen peroxide inside the body. Hydrogen peroxide is a DISINFECTANT. This is why vitamin C is so effective against viruses on its own.

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Jim said,  "I believe that this suggests that we'd be in a lot worse shape with respect to COVID 19 without the mitigation efforts."

James, would you care to speculate on the number of deaths without mitigation efforts? Would it have been significantly more? I don't think anyone can answer that question with absolute certainty. They can speculate using models, but as we have seen throughout this entire matter, the models have been consistently wrong.

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Rod, I certainly think Trump is mistaken when he touts some of his figures on a daily basis regarding how many people "may" have died if certain steps hadn't been taken. I think the biggest problem is that the "shut down" was based on wildly inaccurate data(millions dying) and was more of an emotional response. It's obvious that if we had known that 50,000+ US deaths would have occurred over this time period, there definitely would not have been such drastic action taken.

From the article: "Redlener said that the issue with models is they come up with an answer to a question, such as what the fatality rate is, or when the apex of cases will be. "The problem is forecasting is increasingly inaccurate because of the variables," he told Newsweek. "[They] come up with an answer, but the answer does not necessarily reflect specificity, because of the assumptions that go into the formula. If you put in uncertain numbers and assumptions that can't really be proved, the conclusions are not necessarily accurate."  

I'm inclined to think that this applies to the social distancing conclusions regarding its effect.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I sure see it differently.  Flattening the curve worked in most places.  We did not overwhelmed the healthcare system on a national basis. 

Also, we'll have a lot more than 50,000 deaths when this is over with.  The deaths will continue to come in at the clip of 10,000 per week or more for at least several more weeks.  If we are really lucky, the infections will abate with summer, like the flu.  If not, it will be at least 10,000 a week until we have an effective therapy.

The state of New York currently has over 1000 deaths per million citizens.  They are obviously not yet done dying in New York either.  The only difference between New York and the rest of us is a much slower natural infection rate because we are more spread out.  We have slowed the infection rate out even more with mitigation.  Now we need for one of these therapies to work and work well.  Otherwise time and the virus will eventually take their toll.

I'm in favor of cautiously opening up states like Colorado because the infection and death rates are now manageable.  We earned a manageable rate over the last five weeks, and, as I posted at length yesterday, I am pleased that the re-opening will be calculated and cautious.  It's not like the folks in Colorado are any more naturally resistant to the virus than those in NYC.

Jim     

Originally Posted by James Brown

I sure see it differently.  Flattening the curve worked in most places.  We did not overwhelmed the healthcare system on a national basis. 

Also, we'll have a lot more than 50,000 deaths when this is over with.  The deaths will continue to come in at the clip of 10,000 per week or more for at least several more weeks.  If we are really lucky, the infections will abate with summer, like the flu.  If not, it will be at least 10,000 a week until we have an effective therapy.

The state of New York currently has over 1000 deaths per million citizens.  They are obviously not yet done dying in New York either.  The only difference between New York and the rest of us is a much slower natural infection rate because we are more spread out.  We have slowed the infection rate out even more with mitigation.  Now we need for one of these therapies to work and work well.  Otherwise time and the virus will eventually take their toll.

I'm in favor of cautiously opening up states like Colorado because the infection and death rates are now manageable.  We earned a manageable rate over the last five weeks, and, as I posted at length yesterday, I am pleased that the re-opening will be calculated and cautious.  It's not like the folks in Colorado are any more naturally resistant to the virus than those in NYC.

Jim     

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Anyone have any thoughts on this? https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR02FfJ4CVXNBn7hal_8Zyods8At1WUnsUWjHDJCDHdwdSRcYHpsKins5Cw