Coronavirus Thread

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

By understanding what statistics mean and when they're being misrepresented?

And how do you know when the statistics are being misrepresented? You might take a chance and Google deadly medications. The chart I posted is not the only rating of deadly medications out there, and on none NONE of them does hydroxychloroquine appear. I will ask you the same question I posed to @armeck : If you were a Covid patient with little hope for recovery, and your doctor suggested you take hydroxychloroqine, would you say no?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Answer this question honestly for me: If you were a Covid patient with little hope for recovery, and your doctor suggested you take hydroxychloroqine, would you say no?

For a science based sports site, we sometimes lack to understand science. Across a broad group of people, there is no evidence it works. But within smaller groups, who knows? Maybe older females with certain genes do see a benefit. Maybe others don’t. Our understanding of this virus has changed ten different times already. Our understanding of climate science has changed twenty times. What foods are good or bad for you has changed thirty times. There are over a dozen known strains of the virus already. Which strains of the virus did they study here? Nobody knows.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

For a science based sports site, we sometimes lack to understand science. Across a broad group of people, there is no evidence it works. But within smaller groups, who knows? Maybe older females with certain genes do see a benefit. Maybe others don’t. Our understanding of this virus has changed ten different times already. Our understanding of climate science has changed twenty times. What foods are good or bad for you has changed thirty times.

I think you vastly underestimate the number of changes of opinion on all those issues.
I look forward to seeing the answer by those two to my question. If they would turn down a treatment just because Trump said it might work, and a bunch of media people and a few other doctors have said it won't, then they are damn fools......or just liars, refusing to accept that possibility.

 

[IEEEWreck]

And how do you know when the statistics are being misrepresented? You might take a chance and Google deadly medications. The chart I posted is not the only rating of deadly medications out there, and on none NONE of them does hydroxychloroquine appear. I will ask you the same question I posed to @armeck : If you were a Covid patient with little hope for recovery, and your doctor suggested you take hydroxychloroqine, would you say no?

In the end I suppose you never really know, do you?

I hope that I'd have the courage to die as I've lived, confessing the gospel of Jesus Christ and those parts of creation which God has seen fit to reveal to me.

I hope I'd ask why my doctor suggested hydroxychloroquine, just the same as I'd ask why they recommend apricot pits to treat cancer or sacrificing goats to Ishtar to ward off disease.

The syren call of what we want to be true because it is easy and convenient is strong, but that way lies death and damnation. Satan rejected God because he found creation insufficiently convenient to his druthers. God helping, even in the hour of my death I would find the courage not to follow him.

 

[IEEEWreck]

And how do you know when the statistics are being misrepresented? You might take a chance and Google deadly medications. The chart I posted is not the only rating of deadly medications out there, and on none NONE of them does hydroxychloroquine appear.

Sorry about the double post, but this should be answered too. It's because God saw fit to give me a brain, and to ask questions like "how do the total number of adverse reactions of the drugs on this list compare to the total number of patients prescribed hydroxychloroquine at all? Or the drugs that are most toxic.

Things like that.

 

[Milwaukee]

In the end I suppose you never really know, do you?

I hope that I'd have the courage to die as I've lived, confessing the gospel of Jesus Christ and those parts of creation which God has seen fit to reveal to me.

I hope I'd ask why my doctor suggested hydroxychloroquine, just the same as I'd ask why they recommend apricot pits to treat cancer or sacrificing goats to Ishtar to ward off disease.

The syren call of what we want to be true because it is easy and convenient is strong, but that way lies death and damnation. Satan rejected God because he found creation insufficiently convenient to his druthers. God helping, even in the hour of my death I would find the courage not to follow him.

Jesus Christ

 

[takethepoints]

Quietly France has now caught up to Spain to tie as #3 in deaths in Europe with about 28,000. Italy is still second with 32,000. Also quietly, the UK has flown into first place with 38,000 deaths.

On a population adjusted basis, those countries deaths are 2-3x higher than in the US.

As you've pointed out before, other countries stats are different then ours. My guess = our death count is low because we aren't counting as comprehensively as the Europeans. I'll scout around; I know the Belgians already say that everybody's counts (except theirs, of course) are inaccurate. I suspect they are right.

 

[takethepoints]

Heeere's Aaron!

https://theincidentaleconomist.com/...esting-study-and-what-it-means-for-reopening/

This has the preliminary results from the massive Indiana random sample survey to determine (and it's about time someone did it) the actual extent of SARS-Cov-2 infections in that state. There's good news, bad news, and expected news. Good = despite an estimated 185K infections in the state, that's lower then the study's authors were expecting. Social distancing worked. Bad = social distancing worked. The lower infection rate means that, while the disease has plateaued, there are a lot more people out here who could be infected then was thought. I.e., we did slow the virus down, but at the cost of seeing a much larger then anticipated set of people who can act as hosts as restrictions are lifted. Expected = the IFR is .00578, about the same as was found in NYC and Miami. That's not good, but at least it is consistent. If that's the actual IFR, then, if we don't develop a vaccine, the number of potential deaths as the infection spreads is lower then we might have feared. But still pretty bad.

Since the feds won't step up to the plate and do this, every state in the Union needs to. And, yes, I'm looking at you, Brian Kemp. Again.

 

[takethepoints]

For a science based sports site, we sometimes lack to understand science. Across a broad group of people, there is no evidence it works. But within smaller groups, who knows? Maybe older females with certain genes do see a benefit. Maybe others don’t. Our understanding of this virus has changed ten different times already. Our understanding of climate science has changed twenty times. What foods are good or bad for you has changed thirty times. There are over a dozen known strains of the virus already. Which strains of the virus did they study here? Nobody knows.

Now, come on. One of the basics of any statistical study is that the bigger the sample - and, of course, the more carefully it is selected - the greater the power of the tests and the more likely you can trust the results for sub-groups of the study. You are correct that power is no guarantee of exact (precise, yes; exact, no) results and that one shouldn't trust small discrepancies found in large samples; we should be looking for substantial effects, no mater how large the sample. Oth, ignoring negative results and looking for a sub-sample that shows a substantial effect is "p-hacking"; i.e. dredging different groups within the data to find something significant to report. It is true that we don't know a lot about the virus, but we don't need to know everything to determine if a drug works to suppress it or not. Usually, we should avoid dichotomous decisions, but not in this case.

I might add that the radical skepticism in this post isn't useful. If the data is well collected and analyzed, we can learn a lot from it. That is science and a very exacting master it is.

 

[IEEEWreck]

I might add that the radical skepticism in this post isn't useful. If the data is well collected and analyzed, we can learn a lot from it. That is science and a very exacting master it is.

I suspect you have hit upon the heart of the matter here. Skepticism is not a sliding scale to be applied to each issue as seems fitting to you. What you know or don't know is as true for each thing as it is for any thing.

Hell, I'd advocate for a somewhat more lax standard than traditional Descartes- Bacon- Newton scientific skepticism. An excellent example is aerospace engineering. We don't understand a rather shocking amount of the source of lift. But we can still build planes despite that.

But you get neither to pure knowledge nor to the engineer's effective knowledge if you don't deploy an even approach of doubt to all things.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

In the end I suppose you never really know, do you?

I hope that I'd have the courage to die as I've lived, confessing the gospel of Jesus Christ and those parts of creation which God has seen fit to reveal to me.

I hope I'd ask why my doctor suggested hydroxychloroquine, just the same as I'd ask why they recommend apricot pits to treat cancer or sacrificing goats to Ishtar to ward off disease.

The syren call of what we want to be true because it is easy and convenient is strong, but that way lies death and damnation. Satan rejected God because he found creation insufficiently convenient to his druthers. God helping, even in the hour of my death I would find the courage not to follow him.

WOW !!! I am frankly left almost speechless at that sanctimonious drivel. So you are comparing taking hydroxychloroquine to sacrificing a goat to Ishtar? UNBELIEVABLE !!!
The FACT is that SOME patients have responded very favorably to the use of the drug, and no amount of studies, no matter how worthwhile or thorough can deny that. Not that this is in any sense comparable to what I am about to say, but "studies" for centuries said the sun revolved around the earth, until God gave Copernicus the wisdom to prove the opposite, although he was certainly not the first to make that claim. As a Christian, I believe that God alone determines the length of our days, and no medication can change that. But God has also given us brains, and He does not want us to "commit suicide". If you would not take a drug that MIGHT save your life, then IMO you would be opening yourself up to suicide and, to use your bizarre reference, bowing to Ishtar, rather than to God. Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that hydroxychloroquine WILL save your life, but the fact that it MIGHT, means that God has given you a very clear choice.

 

[IEEEWreck]

WOW !!! I am frankly left almost speechless at that sanctimonious drivel. So you are comparing taking hydroxychloroquine to sacrificing a goat to Ishtar? UNBELIEVABLE !!!
The FACT is that SOME patients have responded very favorably to the use of the drug, and no amount of studies, no matter how worthwhile or thorough can deny that. Not that this is in any sense comparable to what I am about to say, but "studies" for centuries said the sun revolved around the earth, until God gave Copernicus the wisdom to prove the opposite, although he was certainly not the first to make that claim. As a Christian, I believe that God alone determines the length of our days, and no medication can change that. But God has also given us brains, and He does not want us to "commit suicide". If you would not take a drug that MIGHT save your life, then IMO you would be opening yourself up to suicide and, to use your bizarre reference, bowing to Ishtar, rather than to God. Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that hydroxychloroquine WILL save your life, but the fact that it MIGHT, means that God has given you a very clear choice.

Might is a dangerous word. The difference between discerning God's creation and falling into idolatry is wrapped up in our ability to parse might.

The apostle Paul tells us that the Greeks, having not the benefit of the law, but perceiving in the nature of creation the mandates of the law, are a law unto themselves. Yet we may set against this example any of the unrighteous who neither perceive the nature of creation nor receive the law and fall into idolatry.

Thus the difference between understanding God and rejecting Him beyond our reception of His word lies in our ability to discern the truth.

You claim that HCQ has helped some patients. I say that not only is such causality impossible to discern from the evidence presented, but that down that path lies damnation. For as surely as the Canaanites misattributed the works of God to their idol Baal, we may be misled to attribute all manner of things to false causes upon the testimony of the most esteemed and brightest. It is only through profound scientific skepticism that we may discern that which the Lord has set out in creation from that which the deceiver sets before us.

You say God numbers our days despite any medication. I say God provides us salvation and medication, and that a man may as much reject his mortal salvation as he rejects God's eternal salvation. For it is written, (From the Gospel according to John)
[5] Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
[6] When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
[7] Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.
[8] His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
[9] Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
[10] But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
[11] These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
[12] Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
[13] Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
[14] Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
[15] And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.
[16] Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

The disciples knew that if Lazarus died, he did well for he died in Christ. Yet Christ demonstrated to them that a man who walks in the day stumbeleth not. Lazarus trusted in Christ, and so was called from the tomb. Likewise God appointed bread mold to recall from the grave many who succumb to disease because they walk in the light. But those who walk in darkness reject what the Lord has appointed and stumble and fall.

The crucial difference is that the only way we can know outside God's word is the careful and skeptical examination of replicatable data. The unsupported claims of the best doctors of the age are worth no more than the exhortations of the priests of Ishtar.

And the most careful examination of creation reveals that HCQ doesn't help. Rejecting that repeatable data for the "experience" of even the most qualified is a rejection of our own ability to perceive truth, and thus equivalent to accepting the claims of idolators.

Accepting HCQ as a treatment requires rejecting the best known treatment regimen. That is the same as choosing to walk in darkness.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Now, come on. One of the basics of any statistical study is that the bigger the sample - and, of course, the more carefully it is selected - the greater the power of the tests and the more likely you can trust the results for sub-groups of the study. You are correct that power is no guarantee of exact (precise, yes; exact, no) results and that one shouldn't trust small discrepancies found in large samples; we should be looking for substantial effects, no mater how large the sample. Oth, ignoring negative results and looking for a sub-sample that shows a substantial effect is "p-hacking"; i.e. dredging different groups within the data to find something significant to report. It is true that we don't know a lot about the virus, but we don't need to know everything to determine if a drug works to suppress it or not. Usually, we should avoid dichotomous decisions, but not in this case.

I might add that the radical skepticism in this post isn't useful. If the data is well collected and analyzed, we can learn a lot from it. That is science and a very exacting master it is.

That’s what I said. We have no evidence that it works. But that understanding may indeed change over time. That’s the painful truth.

 

[Milwaukee]

Lmao I’m dyin

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Might is a dangerous word. The difference between discerning God's creation and falling into idolatry is wrapped up in our ability to parse might.

The apostle Paul tells us that the Greeks, having not the benefit of the law, but perceiving in the nature of creation the mandates of the law, are a law unto themselves. Yet we may set against this example any of the unrighteous who neither perceive the nature of creation nor receive the law and fall into idolatry.

Thus the difference between understanding God and rejecting Him beyond our reception of His word lies in our ability to discern the truth.

You claim that HCQ has helped some patients. I say that not only is such causality impossible to discern from the evidence presented, but that down that path lies damnation. For as surely as the Canaanites misattributed the works of God to their idol Baal, we may be misled to attribute all manner of things to false causes upon the testimony of the most esteemed and brightest. It is only through profound scientific skepticism that we may discern that which the Lord has set out in creation from that which the deceiver sets before us.

You say God numbers our days despite any medication. I say God provides us salvation and medication, and that a man may as much reject his mortal salvation as he rejects God's eternal salvation. For it is written, (From the Gospel according to John)
[5] Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
[6] When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
[7] Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.
[8] His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
[9] Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
[10] But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
[11] These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
[12] Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
[13] Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
[14] Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
[15] And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.
[16] Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

The disciples knew that if Lazarus died, he did well for he died in Christ. Yet Christ demonstrated to them that a man who walks in the day stumbeleth not. Lazarus trusted in Christ, and so was called from the tomb. Likewise God appointed bread mold to recall from the grave many who succumb to disease because they walk in the light. But those who walk in darkness reject what the Lord has appointed and stumble and fall.

The crucial difference is that the only way we can know outside God's word is the careful and skeptical examination of replicatable data. The unsupported claims of the best doctors of the age are worth no more than the exhortations of the priests of Ishtar.

And the most careful examination of creation reveals that HCQ doesn't help. Rejecting that repeatable data for the "experience" of even the most qualified is a rejection of our own ability to perceive truth, and thus equivalent to accepting the claims of idolators.

Accepting HCQ as a treatment requires rejecting the best known treatment regimen. That is the same as choosing to walk in darkness.

I am not going to get into a Biblical debate with you here. I will merely comment on your last sentence: "Accepting HCQ as a treatment requires rejecting the best known treatment regimen. That is the same as choosing to walk in darkness." Accepting HCQ as a treatment does not require rejecting anything; it requires accepting that there may be additional treatment regimens. Refusing HCQ as a treatment, however, does require rejecting other possible treatments IN ADDITION TO the "accepted" ones and especially if those "accepted" ones are not working. I hope you don't seriously think that everybody responds the same way to "accepted" treatments. Just because something may work in most cases, does not guarantee that it works in all. The doctors and patients who have tried HCQ with positive results I am sure did not reject the "accepted" ones, but perhaps their bodies did. I take a medication for a totally unrelated problem which is the standard "accepted" medication for my problem, and it has produced virtually zero positive effects for me. Do I continue to take it? Yes, because currently that's all there is. Would I try something new that seems to work in certain others IF, and only if, my doctor suggested it? OF COURSE I WOULD. To reject alternative medications that are not just simply witch-doctor-type treatments would be the "walking in darkness" approach you refer to. The FACT is that there is enough anecdotal success throughout the world to support its use and is not a witch-doctor approach. To totally deny that is to "walk in darkness".

 

[684Bee]

Lmao I’m dyin

We should all listen to the experts.

Why?

Cause they’re the experts, dammit! Can’t you see that?!?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Lmao I’m dyin

That is a prime example of the "accepted" method not turning out to be the "best" one after all.

 

[LibertyTurns]

We should all listen to the experts.

Why?

Cause they’re the experts, dammit! Can’t you see that?!?

You mean another renowned government expert stared at the evidence for months that was apparent to nearly everyone around him & finally realized he was wrong all along? Call me shocked. There’s an endless supply of these type of career government experts & people don’t understand their real expertise is staying on the dole. One thing is certain, the media & politicians will find some other expert to replace him and we’ll listen to another 3-4 months of mindless drivel/needless handwringing regarding opening up the country.

 

[684Bee]

You mean another renowned government expert stared at the evidence for months that was apparent to nearly everyone around him & finally realized he was wrong all along? Call me shocked. There’s an endless supply of these type of career government experts & people don’t understand their real expertise is staying on the dole. One thing is certain, the media & politicians will find some other expert to replace him and we’ll listen to another 3-4 months of mindless drivel/needless handwringing regarding opening up the country.

Let’s see how much face time Fauci gets on the prime news shows now that he’s changed his tune. I’m guessing not much.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Lmao I’m dyin

For July 4th, we should have a national celebration by blowing up and demolishing the CDC and NIH headquarters. Fireworks and everything. Put it on all the networks. Let Ric Flair and The Rock host it.

‘Merica