Originally posted by Blakemore
What's worse, page after page of Sorgo and DDM or Surter and Thanos?
A meaningful contribution as always, XYZ.
To DDM: Despite the fact that you laughed off my request and pretty much ignored it twice, I'll respond to your vid regardless.
Originally posted by dadudemon
if it does not talk about random controlled trials and real world outcomes, anything you talk about is completely irrelevant because sneezing into a petri dish, coughing into a petri dish? does not represent a real world outcome.
There is solid reason to believe that loads of the research cited in the SSC post has external validity. Meaning, not all of it is even in a lab setting.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I cited two different articles which talked exactly about what I was mentioning before + i asked you to read the two meta-analyses and you haven't done so
Neither of the meta-analyses you cited possess any external validity when it comes to recommendations for the public. Both of them? They relate solely to heath care workers/employees. You actually agreed to this. The consensus is that masks provide prevention against expulsion of droplets.
Originally posted by dadudemon
did i talk about indians and masks?
Originally posted by Gehenna
Both India and the Philippines have relatively low state capacity in comparison to a country in America or, say, Europe so it's not simple and/or easy to implement such a broad-stroke policy as a mask mandate.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And from the governments India: super high enforcement. Philippines: super high enforcement.
Originally posted by dadudemon
so you tried to pull a red herring
Originally posted by dadudemon
its a waste of time to talk about lab controlled petri dish sneezing and coughing
Nope.
Lab research can possess external validity. If masks prevent the spreading of droplets, which they do, this is an indication of their utility in non-lab settings.
Originally posted by dadudemon
if they strictly locked down, then they should've had peak infections 4-8 days later because the median time from exposure to symptom onset is 4-5 days.
Now, what you'd expect to see? A sooner peak as a result of a drop in mobility. And this is precisely what they find:
a 10% decrease in cell phone mobility was associated with a reduction of 3.3 days in the median time to peak until the peak occurrence
So, the reason you see the discrepancy between median incubation period and the time to peak in those provinces is explained, seen here:
The median/mean incubation period until first symptoms appears to be slightly more than 5 days. There was an additional lag, estimated in Italy to be 5–6 days, until test results led to a diagnosis. These intervals imply that the effect of the tight lockdown on transmission of virus was considerably shorter than our computed estimates of time to peak, because the peak of the infection curve would have occurred around 10 days earlier than the peak in official diagnoses.
Originally posted by dadudemon
if you look at daily new deaths in italy, they just continued and continued more than a month later
It would appear they fell off precipitously after the lockdowns and peaked in late March, which is precisely when the study says the lockdowns forced a peak. With that, they seemed to work effectively to utterly curtail the spreading of the virus.
Originally posted by dadudemon
what about sweden?
In Denmark, Finland, and Norway? Deaths per capita were smaller and lockdowns were imposed in those aforementioned countries.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It looks like locking down empirically bent the curve for Italy and it looks like not locking down cost Sweden in comparison to its more similar neighbors.
No, DDM.
What it looks like? Locking down empirically bent the curve for Italy and it appears not locking down, and this is important, cost Sweden more in comparison to it's comparable neighbors.
Originally posted by dadudemon
the best proposal, which is what sweden did
I brought up Italy but, obviously, a comparison to Italy is insufficient.
Originally posted by dadudemon
it doesn't matter what you're asking about but rather the real-world result
Why did this result arise? The research you've cited (this one: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00577-8) says the following:
However, UHC implementation removed the association between changes in unemployment and cancer mortality, implying that UHC could have had a protective effect against the possible impact of unemployment.
The principal means by which increased unemployment is likely to have an adverse eff ect on cancer mortality is through reduced access to health care
Clearly? This is not really an issue in countries that have universal healthcare and in America; Improvements to UI, the reduction in consumer expenditure (matched by an increase in savings rate), and the stimulus check makes it more viable to cover out-of-pocket costs for individuals who have lost their coverage due to unemployment.
Originally posted by dadudemon
this is because economic ruin kills people.
In this particular case, the actual reason is due to health coverage. The direct implication is essentially that, with universal healthcare, this would be a non-issue. I will add that you have not demonstrated this phenomenon taking place during the pandemic and it would be of great importance to show that these were deaths that were not (relatively) easily preventable.
In other words, that lockdowns were inevitably slated to result in those deaths.
Originally posted by dadudemon
it turns out that your argument about universal health care is irrelevant to a study.
Back in reality, it seems that this isn't the case at all and it turns out it's of direct relevance.
Originally posted by dadudemon
they knew they were making a trade-off of lives now or lives later.
Originally posted by dadudemon
the WHO said, in april, we cannot stop the flu but we can actually stop the coronavirus.
You can go ahead and link me this. I'd like to observe why they believe there's a distinction.
Originally posted by dadudemon
i really don't know what to say here because the data speaks for itself to me. after the lockdowns ended on the states and after the lockdown ended on the country, R0 decreased.
In the brief https://nesbittburns.bmo.com/getimage.asp?content_id=84862, they merely give us two points of R0. I'd favor to see it graphed out for each state with lines indicating when lockdowns began and ended. It's pretty suspect that they would highlight minuscule differences in R0 post-lockdown, based on two point estimates, and do this all before half of the states have actually left lockdown at all. This seems, to be frank? Fucking worthless to me and isn't even a study.
Concluding, California needs to be compared to a counterfactual. Sweden also.
But for Sweden?
We have solid counterfactuals via it's fellow Nordics.
We (UK) have got our rate of infections under control via lockdown.
Rate of Infection was getting completely out of control prior to Lockdown when the Government was simply asking us to wash our hands regularly and social distance. So we tried it the Swedish method for a few weeks but became clear it was going to be a complete disaster.
Originally posted by BlakemoreTo be honest DDM's misrepresented stats, cherry picked data and gaslighting has become the most embarrassing thing on KMC. Except perhaps for his coiterie of confused and ignorant yes men, who are used to idiotic and wrong explanations of events from youtube. Compared to the likes of Kent Hovind, Alex Jones, Tim Pool etc. DDM's amateurish gaslighting and word salads are only moderately moronic.
What's worse, page after page of Sorgo and DDM or Surter and Thanos?
Originally posted by Gehenna
A meaningful contribution as always, XYZ.To DDM: Despite the fact that you laughed off my request and pretty much ignored it twice, I'll respond to your vid regardless.
There is solid reason to believe that loads of the research cited in the SSC post has external validity. Meaning, not all of it is even in a lab setting.
Neither of the meta-analyses you cited possess any external validity when it comes to recommendations for the public. Both of them? They relate solely to heath care workers/employees. You actually agreed to this. The consensus is that masks provide prevention against expulsion of droplets.
Misreading that you had mentioned lockdowns for India and mask wearing for Mexico and Philippines, I wrote:
And you repled with:
With that said, I continued with my misread because the parallel structure of these sentences aligned with my mistake.
No, it was just me misreading your response. If India had lower mask wearing than I thought and opened early, which they did, this fits within my position.
Nope.
Lab research can possess external validity. If masks prevent the spreading of droplets, which they do, this is an indication of their utility in non-lab settings.
Now, what you'd expect to see? A sooner peak as a result of a drop in mobility. And this is precisely what they find:
So, the reason you see the discrepancy between median incubation period and the time to peak in those provinces is explained, seen here:
It would appear they fell off precipitously after the lockdowns and peaked in late March, which is precisely when the study says the lockdowns forced a peak. With that, they seemed to work effectively to utterly curtail the spreading of the virus.
It seems we could compare Sweden to countries that are more similar, such as Denmark, Finland, and Norway.
In Denmark, Finland, and Norway? Deaths per capita were smaller and lockdowns were imposed in those aforementioned countries.
No, DDM.
What it looks like? Locking down empirically bent the curve for Italy and it appears not locking down, and this is important, cost Sweden more in comparison to it's comparable neighbors.
So then explain to me why Sweden had worse outcomes than Norway or Denmark. Not to mention, how are you certain the Swedish prescription is the most optimal prescription? Is there any research you're citing?
I brought up Italy but, obviously, a comparison to Italy is insufficient.
Why did this result arise? The research you've cited (this one: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00577-8) says the following:
Clearly? This is not really an issue in countries that have universal healthcare and in America; Improvements to UI, the reduction in consumer expenditure (matched by an increase in savings rate), and the stimulus check makes it more viable to cover out-of-pocket costs for individuals who have lost their coverage due to unemployment.
In this particular case, the actual reason is due to health coverage. The direct implication is essentially that, with universal healthcare, this would be a non-issue. I will add that you have not demonstrated this phenomenon taking place during the pandemic and it would be of great importance to show that these were deaths that were not (relatively) easily preventable.
In other words, that lockdowns were inevitably slated to result in those deaths.
Back in reality, it seems that this isn't the case at all and it turns out it's of direct relevance.
For this? There's a legit convo to be had concerning when to reopen the economy when it comes to harm mitigation. I'd wager nobody disagrees with this. However, DDM, you're making unsubstantiated claims like "lockdowns do absolutely nothing", "masks do absolutely nothing", and more.
You can go ahead and link me this. I'd like to observe why they believe there's a distinction.
In the brief https://nesbittburns.bmo.com/getimage.asp?content_id=84862, they merely give us two points of R0. I'd favor to see it graphed out for each state with lines indicating when lockdowns began and ended. It's pretty suspect that they would highlight minuscule differences in R0 post-lockdown, based on two point estimates, and do this all before half of the states have actually left lockdown at all. This seems, to be frank? Fucking worthless to me and isn't even a study.
Concluding, California needs to be compared to a counterfactual. Sweden also.
But for Sweden?
We have solid counterfactuals via it's fellow Nordics. [/B]
Originally posted by Darth Thor
We (UK) have got our rate of infections under control via lockdown.Rate of Infection was getting completely out of control prior to Lockdown when the Government was simply asking us to wash our hands regularly and social distance. So we tried it the Swedish method for a few weeks but became clear it was going to be a complete disaster.
The UK locked down March 26th.
You didn't hit your peak daily deaths until April 21st, almost an entire month later.
If the lockdowns worked, you would have hit your peak much sooner and then saw a sharp drop in daily deaths 11-21 days later. You didn't experience a sharp drop in daily deaths at all.
And, in fact, it looks like your daily deaths figure is completely independent of you deaths - I find no correlation.
However, I can tell from the data that your daily deaths DID take longer to subside compared to countries that did not lockdown.
But not very many countries are like the UK.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
We (UK) have got our rate of infections under control via lockdown.Rate of Infection was getting completely out of control prior to Lockdown when the Government was simply asking us to wash our hands regularly and social distance. So we tried it the Swedish method for a few weeks but became clear it was going to be a complete disaster.
It's great to hear that other countries are handling their pandemic better than the US is. We've failed.
We're not only on track to hit the 147K in August, we'll likely be a bit ahead as the IHME model warned us back in May:
Originally posted by Robtard
The new model is 147K by/in August (doubling in about two weeks). If so, we could have over 200K as soone as November if we don't get a vaccine, which Fauci said was possible in regards to the 200k. More than a few people are saying we're going to have a second outbreak round despite the summer.Remember, this wasn't supposed to even come close to 30K like the Flu. Then it wasn't supposed to hit 50k, then 75k.
We're at around 143K dead as of today.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The UK locked down March 26th.You didn't hit your peak daily deaths until April 21st, almost an entire month later.
If the lockdowns worked, you would have hit your peak much sooner and then saw a sharp drop in daily deaths 11-21 days later. You didn't experience a sharp drop in daily deaths at all.
And, in fact, it looks like your daily deaths figure is completely independent of you deaths - I find no correlation.
However, I can tell from the data that your daily deaths DID take longer to subside compared to countries that did not lockdown.
But not very many countries are like the UK.
Because theres approximately a 4 week delay from when you change the rules to when it effects daily deaths.
Our daily death is under 50 now. At its peak it was 1000 a day. So its pretty clear lockdown worked.
But thing is our government funded businesses to keep paying workers whilst in lockdown rather than just funding the stock market.
Now its been mandatory to wear masks in public transports. And from this Friday it will be mandatory to wear masks in shops. We are expecting that will massively slow down a second wave.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's great to hear that other countries are handling their pandemic better than the US is. We've failed.We're not only on track to hit the 147K in August, we'll likely be a bit ahead as the IHME model warned us back in May:
We're at around 143K dead as of today.
We went into lockdown way too late. Thats why our total deaths are a third of yours, even though we have about a 6th if the population (but tbf we are much more densely populated).
But thankfully we seem to have learned the right lessons, admit where we had it wrong, and got it under some kind of control now.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Because theres approximately a 4 week delay from when you change the rules to when it effects daily deaths.
No. There's a 4-5 day delay. And at 11 days, 97.5% of people will show symptoms and almost all deaths happen within 21 days. You would see a policy impact within 2-3 days, a significant inmpact with in 4-8 days, and a massive drop around 11-21 days in deaths: massive massive drop.
That's if lockdowns worked. We have never seen this in any data sets.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Our daily death is under 50 now. At its peak it was 1000 a day. So its pretty clear lockdown worked.
That would be a confirmation bias, not an actual fit to the data.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Now its been mandatory to wear masks in public transports. And from this Friday it will be mandatory to wear masks in shops. We are expecting that will massively slow down a second wave.
Why mandate masks now when almost all the people who were going to die, have died? You need masks (N95s in homes with infected people with extremely strict mask protocols) and absolute lockdowns in early feb if you wanted to use those policies. Implementing any of those policies, now, is like polishing a turd - too late, it's just shit.
Watch the youtube vids I posted. I cover this content thoroughly.
Coronavirus live news: no sign of infection slowing across Americas; UK records 110 new deaths