5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Good morning. I'm struggling to understand why a guy with your intelligence would even post this. I've always thought you were a, hmmmm, that's interesting, kinda guy. You know, like someone that would figure out how to use solar to economically power a house. I'm wondering when we can buy an SMR at Dollar Tree and plug it into the main panel.

To humor you, my answer is... If it was used in a massive uncontrolled study like we're seeing in India, and it had the same incredible results, then yes I would add it to my protocol.

Hi Bill,

Re:  a massive uncontrolled study

I'm not a medical person, I'm an engineer.  If you brought me a massive uncontrolled study, I would put it where it belongs:  In the trash.

Jerry Baumchen

Edit to add:  It is something I would expect from Rudy Giuliani.

 

Edited by JerryBaumchen
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

But regardless, you are kinda making my point. One can make an argument "proving" their point by using data that shows what they want. There are many ways to look at the data. And all of it is constantly changing.  

Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth.

Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here.

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

If there is a conflict that will require significant head scratching.

When a RCT disproves anecdotes, there is no conflict. No head scratching required. That's the entire point of doing the RCT.

 

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Will you look at the anecdotal info and at least be open to the idea that it can work? 

What does it mean to be "open to the idea that it can work"? It means being open to the idea of doing an RCT and accepting the results.

 

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

The basic question is: At what point does a massive uncontrolled study become credible info? The people involved are well known and highly credible.

This is indeed a very basic question. Simply making an uncontrolled study larger does not increase the reliability of its conclusions.

91-DIVOC-states-normalized-Florida (2).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Please read the article and links about India and let us know your thoughts. Note that it was published in June and you've probably never seen it before. That should make one wonder.

Already did. My thoughts can be summed up in 4 words: correlation is not causation.

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

If there is a conflict that will require significant head scratching.

There won't be any conflict because the RCT result will most definitely be more reliable than any uncontrolled study.

Edited by olofscience
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  a massive uncontrolled study

I'm not a medical person, I'm an engineer.  If you brought me a massive uncontrolled study, I would put it where it belongs:  In the trash.

Jerry Baumchen

Edit to add:  It is something I would expect from Rudy Giuliani.

 

Actually, some things can only be studied in situ (consider the study that showed that increasing the minimum wage in similar markets didn’t lead to inflation, job loss, or business closings. It was done with economic data available when one of Pennsylvania/NJ/NY raised their minimum wage, and another didn’t. Since they’re all close to each other, the economics of adjacent areas along the border don’t differ a lot. 
The Nobel in economics was awarded this year to three researchers for helping to figure out how to make these natural experiments valid. There’s a lot of scoping of data and validity definition that needs to be done, which is probably why they got the prize I dare say. 
Whether this can be applied to the natural experiment being described (Ivermectin in India) is up to people with a whole lot more credentials than I have. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nwt said:

Here is another honest view of the same data: Total COVID deaths, adjusted for population. The idea that FL is somehow winning is laughable.

91-DIVOC-states-normalized-Florida (3).png

Don't know why you posted this. I used that exact graph as an example of how data can be used to drive a point.

My exact words were, "Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182." So, NO, I did not say that FL is winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Don't know why you posted this. I used that exact graph as an example of how data can be used to drive a point.

Here, you seem to have missed this:

3 hours ago, nwt said:

Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth.

Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nwt said:

Here, you seem to have missed this:

 

   3 hours ago, nwt said:

Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth.

Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here.

********************************************************************************

No clue where you are going except deeper into a hole that you dug for yourself. I did see the comment and it made no sense because the data I pointed out was normalized. You then chose to post the exact graph I spoke about, and surprise, it's normalized!

This is exactly what was said, "Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182."

"Then look at Daily, Raw totals that shows the 7-day averages one sees that CA is worse at 61, with FL at 1."

The first is normalized and the second isn't. My point was that one can find data to make their point, These type arguments are just silly.

As of today, FL is doing better than CA in rolling weekly average death count. That data is not normalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, billeisele said:

You then chose to post the exact graph I spoke about, and surprise, it's normalized!

The graph you posted was not normalized. Anyway, that isn't important--it's just a distraction from the actual point.

 

50 minutes ago, billeisele said:

No clue where you are going

You're being deliberately obtuse.

 

50 minutes ago, billeisele said:

My point was that one can find data to make their point, These type arguments are just silly.

You seem to be making the absurd implication that all arguments based in data are equally fallacious, simply by virtue of the fact they are using data. This is what I've been refuting in the comments you've been ignoring.

Why stop at data? Why not generalize it completely and say "oh look, here's an argument.... and here's another argument that says the opposite! Both can't be right, so they must both be wrong--therefore all arguments must be silly! Checkmate, science!"

Edited by nwt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billeisele said:

What have we learned: The shot doesn't prevent COVID but it does reduce symptoms, there are potential negative side effects of the shot...  

... Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader.

 

Not sure where you learned that.

Vaccines definitely prevent Covid. Not perfectly, but they clearly reduce the chance of someone getting ill if they are exposed.

As of a couple weeks ago, the vax rate was a bit over 55%.
Breakthrough cases were around 20%.
So a bit over half the population is accounting for one fifth of the cases.

Also, you mentioned that the 'Main Stream Media" isn't reporting the success of Ivermectin.
You then link the "Desert Review" and a story about it.

I'd never read that source, so I took a look. Not a just the story, but at the other stories on the site.
Then a look at the 'media bias' fact check site.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-desert-review-bias/


From the link:
 

Quote

Regarding Ivermectin, The Desert Review covers it extensively to the point where you would think this is an Ivermectin promotion source. Perhaps it is as nearly every article talks about the positive virtues of Ivermectin such as this Gaslighting Ivermectin, vaccines and the pandemic for profit and this The great Ivermectin deworming hoax. Many pro-Ivermectin opinion articles are written by Justus R. Hope, MD., who admits this name is a pseudonym underneath the articles he writes.

So yeah, I'll pass on the horse de-wormer.

When the manufacturer, "Big Pharma" says not to use it, when they could make millions promoting it, then I tend to think it's not that good of an idea.

Edit to add: Vaccinated people who get sick can still spread the virus. 
But they aren't as sick for as long, so they have less chance to spread it.
And the 'virus shedding' bullshit is just that.
Vaccinated people ONLY spread the virus if they are infected.

You didn't state that specifically, and I'm not sure if you were implying it or not.

 

Edited by wolfriverjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billeisele said:

I didn't use that chart, it shows COVID cases.

So I could not help but notice that you found some data you liked and stated, without any qualifications, "the recent FL spike was worse that the prior two but lower than the spike CA experienced."

Then, when that data was refuted, you posted "One can make an argument "proving" their point by using data that shows what they want. There are many ways to look at the data."

It sure seems like such qualifications about data being misrepresentable are only applied to data you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billeisele said:

What have we learned: The shot doesn't prevent COVID but it does reduce symptoms, there are potential negative side effects of the shot, natural immunity is real but not the same in each person that had COVID, monoclonal antibody treatment works, Ivermectin works, masks help but are not a magic shield, distancing helps, isolation helps but is not a fun way to live, and boosting the immune system helps. Politicians, much of mainstream media, and big pharma are not our friends. Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader.

We've covered Ivermectin already.  Others have covered most of the others. I'll cover this one:

"Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader."  That is true, just as drunk or not, you can kill someone with your car.  Still, if your goal is to NOT kill anyone with your car, avoiding drunk driving is the hot ticket.  Getting vaccinated significantly reduces your odds of spreading COVID.  So does masking.  So does distancing.  So does testing.  If, using all those things, Re gets below 1, the pandemic is over.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nwt said:

Why not generalize it completely and say "oh look, here's an argument.... and here's another argument that says the opposite! Both can't be right, so they must both be wrong--therefore all arguments must be silly! Checkmate, science!"

Fox News one time slogan........."We report. You decide".

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, billvon said:

So I could not help but notice that you found some data you liked and stated, without any qualifications, "the recent FL spike was worse that the prior two but lower than the spike CA experienced."

Then, when that data was refuted, you posted "One can make an argument "proving" their point by using data that shows what they want. There are many ways to look at the data."

It sure seems like such qualifications about data being misrepresentable are only applied to data you disagree with.

The data in the chart can't be refuted (using the presumption that the CDC data is correct). It's quite clear. Someone earlier went off the track, most likely due to poor reading comprehension skills, and tried, but failed miserably, to refute what was clearly stated.

In the 7-day moving average chart, below, the CA spike in the middle was high. The most recent FL spike was their highest but lower than CA. The point being that since the data is not normalized for population it's not apples to apples. But one could still state - Hey look, FL is great and CA sux, and not be incorrect, based on the limitations of the data. When one takes that same data and normalizes it, the spikes appear differently, as shown in the second chart below.

What the earlier poster, and now you, stated is far off from the point in my post. In my post I said, "One could use this (data) to argue their point or use the data to realize that what's occurring is complicated and there is no one specific solution" and, "There are others ways to look at the same data." The approach CA is using is different than the approach FL is using. It will be interesting to watch this data and see what occurs. Who knows what is best. If/when another variant comes along things may swing widely.

In the two charts mentioned in the original post the purpose was to show that one can find a data set to make a point. Arguing a position based on one data set is silly. I was not searching for data that "I liked" as you stated. I was showing that there is data that one could use to argue a point.

At the end I stated, "US COVID cases have occurred in 14% of the population. COVID cases that resulted in death, 1.6%. Overall COVID deaths are 0.23% of the population."

"Fighting amongst each other is worthless."

Yet here we are, discussing things that weren't said.

  

image.png.6f4ff8ac0f7ad1c12d570e3a4c4432ef.png

 

image.png.a867fd96642a45c8206b559914de9e4d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Interesting statement. What is the cite to show that?

Well, if a vaccinated person doesn't get sick, then they can't spread it.

When a breakthrough infection does occur, the person is sick for a shorter period of time.
So they are infectious for a shorter time.

Less chance of getting sick, shorter time frame of being infectious if one does get sick.
Lower chance of spreading.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Interesting statement. What is the cite to show that?

Common sense? The vaccine, or basically any vaccine does not prevent infection. It does prevent or lessen disease. We still have a lot of infections to come in this pandemic. We would have far less if more people were protected by a vaccine that gives their bodies a head start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Billisle is saying is that if asymptomatic people can spread the disease, then either vaxxed or unvaxxed can be asymptomatic and spread the disease.

Bill, note that I'm by no means antivax -- I strongly think that people who don't take the vaccine are taking a chance both with their and with their contacts' health. The chance of having a reaction to the vax that equals the disease of COVID is extremely small, especially in adults.

When you consider the potential of unknowingly spreading the disease to someone who is not as robustly healthy, and is impacted by the disease they caught from you (the rhetorical you -- I don't know your current condition), then the desirability of vaccination increases hugely. Yes, you might be uncomfortable for 48 hours; yes, you might not have caught the disease. That's what insurance is about. It's up to you to insure your home -- if it is damaged, that impact is (mostly) absorbed by you. If you get sick with COVID, then the impact is more likely to be absorbed by more people -- the ones you come in contact with, and, if you go to the hospital, then the local health care system.

I've never had a car accident where the seat belt helped me, but I still wear it.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, if a vaccinated person doesn't get sick, then they can't spread it.

When a breakthrough infection does occur, the person is sick for a shorter period of time.
So they are infectious for a shorter time.

Less chance of getting sick, shorter time frame of being infectious if one does get sick.
Lower chance of spreading.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html

Joe - good morning. Don't know if you still hunt but we're having a great deer season here.

Fundamentally we agree. It would be interesting to read more current data. The article is from June and much has been learned since then. 

Had this same convo with some med personnel recently. Their conclusion was that, "we really don't know, too many variables."

A couple things they said were: Many/most vaccinated peeps have little to no symptoms so they could be spreaders and no one knows it. Many/most unvaccinated peeps have symptoms, they seek treatment and isolate, and, thus, are a lesser risk.

Interesting points but no one really knows.

Going one step further. If the shot, in fact, is effective at reducing the chance of getting Covid then that's good, and it does appear to do that. On a normalized basis one would conclude that fewer vaxed peeps will get COVID thus they are a lower risk for spreading.

If there was one of those gosh darn gold standard RCT's done and it showed that result then one could make that claim. Otherwise all we have is anecdotal info that, according to some, is worthless. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bill,

I was never much of a hunter. More pistols, a bit of gunsmithing and a fair amount of hand loading ammo.
After working as a range officer at the local range, I realized that the only way you'd get me out in the woods on opening day of deer season (weekend before Thanksgiving in Wisconsin) is in something with armor plate.
The vast majority of the hunters coming down to sight in their rifles during what we call 'silly season' are safe, conscientious, careful and thoughtful. But there are enough that aren't that scared the living daylights out of me each and every year that I don't want to be anywhere near them carrying a loaded rifle.

The asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) spread is what makes Covid so dangerous.
That's why mask recommendations for everyone are important.
My chances for getting sick and spreading the virus are rather small. 
But I still usually wear a mask in public. 

 

Anecdotes aren't completely useless. 
But they aren't a substitute for actual data.

All the data on Ivermectin is that it's of little or no use against Covid.
When the anecdotes come from a clearly biased source (with article written under a fake name), I tend to be skeptical.
When those promoting it tend to promote other 'cures' that are proven fake, then my skepticism goes through the roof.

Sort of 'you are known by the company you keep'.

Aaron Rogers promoted Ivermectin AND Homeopathy.

That little anecdote (not data) makes me more skeptical of Ivermectin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Common sense? The vaccine, or basically any vaccine does not prevent infection. It does prevent or lessen disease. We still have a lot of infections to come in this pandemic. We would have far less if more people were protected by a vaccine that gives their bodies a head start.

Good morning. I've been whacked for saying that anecdotal info has value. I don't agree with that opinion but none the less, it has been repeatedly stated. One guy, that I respect, even said he would throw it in the trash, boom, crushed.

I don't want to start a whole other convo about the definition of "vaccine" or their effectiveness. We all know that the definition was changed by the CDC.

Yes, the current shots are doing a great job at preventing severe disease. Good stuff.

About the head start thing. There are other options to making oneself less prone to severe problems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The vast majority of the hunters coming down to sight in their rifles during what we call 'silly season' are safe, conscientious, careful and thoughtful. But there are enough that aren't that scared the living daylights out of me each and every year that I don't want to be anywhere near them carrying a loaded rifle.

One of the issues with population increase (which our economic systems). A 1% instance of really awful gun owners in a population of 100 means it's probably one or two people -- they can be damaging, but there just aren't that many.

In a population of 10,000, that's closer to 100 people. All of a sudden, it's a lot easier to meet one, unless everyone has their own assigned territory. And if they're not bad gun owners, but bad something else, well, now they have FB, What'sApp, and lots of other ways to communicate, too.

Taking that logic and move it to our inceasingly populated country, and especially cities, and you can begin to see why low-probability problems can become worrisome, even if they're still low-probability. Because you're closer together, and a single instance can have a huge impact.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5