Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Easy Truth

C & C: Coronavirus #4

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 merjet, Repeating what I informed Eiuol. The first table on the page is limited solely to the TEN MOST infected countries PER CAPITA (of the 2009 Swine Flu). It says so in the heading. Not seen reported here the USA and its 60.8 million cases? If you had scrolled down to "North America" you would.

The ten countries and territories with most confirmed cases per capita
Pos. Country Population[nb 1] Confirmed
cases
Confirmed cases
per 1,000 inhabitants
1 21px-Flag_of_Iceland.svg.png Iceland 306,694 8,650 28.20
2 23px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png Belgium 10,414,336 214,531[200] 20.59
3 23px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png Portugal 10,707,924 166,922 15.59
23px-Flag_of_the_Cook_Islands.svg.png Cook Islands 11,870 106 8.93
23px-Flag_of_Macau.svg.png Macao 559,846 2,625 4.68
23px-Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg.png Hong Kong 7,055,071 31,554 4.47
4 23px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png Spain 46,700,000 155,051 3.32
5 23px-Flag_of_Kuwait.svg.png Kuwait 2,691,158 8,622 3.20
6 23px-Flag_of_Brunei.svg.png Brunei 338,190 972 2.87
23px-Flag_of_Jersey.svg.png Jersey 91,626 234 2.55
7 23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany 82,080,000 192,348 2.34
8 23px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png South Korea 48,600,000 107,939 2.22
9 23px-Flag_of_Palau.svg.png Palau 20,796 46 2.21
23px-Flag_of_the_Cayman_Islands.svg.png Cayman Islands 49,035 105 2.14
10 23px-Flag_of_Malta.svg.png Malta 405,165 718 1.77
  World 6,790,062,216 25,584,595 3.76
Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

merjet, Repeating what I informed Eiuol. The first table on the page is limited solely to the TEN MOST infected countries PER CAPITA (of the 2009 Swine Flu). It says so in the heading. Not seen reported here the USA and its 60.8 million cases? If you had scrolled down to "North America" you would. ...

Irrelevant. The number in question is 1.4 billion (link). 

Share this post


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

It says so in the heading.

You have to read the last line. The last line says the population of the world, and confirmed cases of the world, and confirmed cases per 1000 of the world. You can verify that even because the numbers clearly don't add up to the numbers in the bottom row. The top 10 cases don't add up to 25 million. On top of that obviously the top 10 countries don't add up to 6 billion population.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Not seen reported here the USA and its 60.8 million cases?

I saw the number in the link on Wikipedia for 60 million infected in the US. (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html), but they didn't give any source even on the CDC, so I can't verify it. 

EDIT: with that CDC number, they estimate 12k deaths in the span of one year. There are already 33k deaths from covid in the US in three months. The dashboard here:

https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov/

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the study for 1 billion here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151238/

The thing to remember about it is that this is not an estimate of confirmed cases of infection. It is an estimate of number of people infected, including asymptomatic infections. That is, it is confirmed number of cases plus an additional number of cases that were unreported or undetected. We would always expect more total infections than confirmed cases. 

Although there is a range of estimates here, that isn't because the criteria for infection are unknown or poorly understood. The reason is that there are so many variables to take into consideration and the best you can do is a lower and upper bound. Even with the difficulty of exact measurement, virtually all measures of covid that are possible so far that I've seen have been worse (you can pick whatever measurement you prefer, it will be worse for covid). 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington is now projecting 68,841 COVID-19 deaths (range 30,188 - 175,965) in the USA by August 4, 2020. Link. The 68,841 is very close to twice the number through yesterday. Several days ago their projection was about 60,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, merjet said:

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington is now projecting 68,841 COVID-19 deaths (range 30,188 - 175,965) in the USA by August 4, 2020. Link. The 68,841 is very close to twice the number through yesterday. Several days ago their projection was about 60,000.

The numbers changed quickly.  Only 5 hours later, it is 60,308 (range 34,063 to 140,381).

For comparison the number of flu deaths in the 2017-18 season is estimated at 61,000, the highest number in the last 9 years (link).

Edited by merjet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers may never be precise enough to make a utilitarian judgement. As far as overcrowding of hospitals, that has been experienced in multiple countries. It seems that although stressed it was handled.

Would the peak been far higher if the expensive lockdowns had not happened? Even with broad strokes using utilitarian measures, the question still remains if the 12 trillion that we will be spending could have been spent in a more utilitarian way (whatever that is). That seems to be the current conflict in the news.

None of these conversations bring up individual rights. Only this groups outcome vs. that one.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/media/doctors-oz-phil-drew-fox-news/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

This is the most widely comprehensive read on coronavirus out there, at least read the abstract: 

This is not a credible source. No author, no credentials, bad style, bad grammar, bad use of punctuation, misspellings. 

That isn't even an abstract, it's too long to be an abstract. It's written so badly. 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot the messenger? You do that often. Not  a "credible source" excuses one further application.

Clearly this is not an English speaker, and his/her vocab is eccentric but apart from the odd political bits he's clearly proficient. An abstract appears as a brief synopsis, and is headed as such at the beginning.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wittkowski has been upsetting some with the proven science of herd immunity:

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Not  a "credible source" excuses one further application.

Anyone can list facts. Not everyone can analyze facts competently. In lieu of a degree, I need to know something about what they have done at the very least. There is neither a degree nor an author listed. If somebody cannot even write competently, if somebody cannot spell check a long document, then this only shows that they don't know how to analyze facts properly. Without any of these things, it's just some random guy in his basement who cannot keep an abstract under 250 words. 

If I wanted to read about how the mainstream media manipulates people, I would just read Noam Chomsky, because he actually has credentials. 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

Wittkowski has been upsetting some with the proven science of herd immunity

One problem is his confidence in his precise predictions. One glaring innacuracy is the 10000 deaths he mentions. It is more than 30k right now.

"Dr. Wittkowski’s modelling predicted that COVID-19 would cause less than 10,000 deaths in the U.S. As of this writing, deaths exceed 22,000."

https://www.theindependent.com/opinion/letters/herd-immunity-argument-is-faulty/article_a0011b76-7f4d-11ea-989a-934aea08ef6b.html

Share this post


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

One problem is his confidence in his precise predictions. One glaring innacuracy is the 10000 deaths he mentions. It is more than 30k right now.

"Dr. Wittkowski’s modelling predicted that COVID-19 would cause less than 10,000 deaths in the U.S. As of this writing, deaths exceed 22,000."

https://www.theindependent.com/opinion/letters/herd-immunity-argument-is-faulty/article_a0011b76-7f4d-11ea-989a-934aea08ef6b.html

The tough consideration  - the higher number 30,000 deaths *because of* a wrongful policy?

As *result of* the general and forced containment (to flatten the curve, but so lengthening the virus period)?

Which model would be "better" at conserving lives? I can't know. But I'll go with the proper, settled science about viruses and logic.

His model advocates a one month isolation of those at most risk: elderly, fragile, those with pre-existing conditions, etc ; conversely, everybody has been and is being isolated - together - and subsequent high numbers.

He bluntly concedes that people will die, just like the flu has always done, but as we know most of deaths have been in that high risk group. They should self-protect and be protected, not the rest of a population.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Anyone can list facts. Not everyone can analyze facts competently. In lieu of a degree, I need to know something about what they have done at the very least. There is neither a degree nor an author listed. If somebody cannot even write competently, if somebody cannot spell check a long document, then this only shows that they don't know how to analyze facts properly. Without any of these things, it's just some random guy in his basement who cannot keep an abstract under 250 words. 

If I wanted to read about how the mainstream media manipulates people, I would just read Noam Chomsky, because he actually has credentials. 

 

We have most definitely different methods. My first assessment is - are the facts and the premise of an author's writing plausible?

Does it or could it fit with reality and my knowledge of reality? A guy in a basement could be exactly correct. Chomsky could be (and is mostly) consistently wrong (and some elements of an article one will often disagree with, like with this writer).

Therefore, a writer, the source, the credentials, publication and pedigree are of minimal or secondary significance.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

 

If I wanted to read about how the mainstream media manipulates people, I would just read Noam Chomsky, because he actually has credentials. 

 

"How" the MSM manipulates minds is quite evident -  cultivating alarm and high drama, via feelings, appeals to altruistic and collective and victimhood narratives - WHY they are, during this period of all periods, is clearly and can only be to further ideological-political ends. As this is at the cost of the economy and therefore, people's lives, nothing can be as downright dirty and immoral.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video inside.

Spoiler

 

I watched this last weekend at the behest of a friend that recommended it.

When asked for some thoughts on it, these are along the lines I replied with:

  1. Much of it is based on information that is outside my area of expertise, thus, without deeper research and analysis, I am unable to assess the expertise of the presenters.
  2. Everyone involved in the making of this presentation has an agenda. The reporter is selling his conclusion. He has included the interviews he found relevant to that end. Without the breadth of knowledge to assess point one, contradictions that may have been readily identified in disregarded information becomes moot..
  3. The call for action against the CCP conspiracy is a bit easier to address. Look at how the politicians are handling the heightened focus on the 2019-nCoViD presence in their jurisdiction and imagine an attempt to apply the same stance to the situation presented.

Personally, having waded through a few "deep state", or "conspiratorial hypothesis'' myself, this one count's on the ignorance, (or perhaps more knowledgeable) of the viewer to provide it the legs it has. (2.8 million views since April 7, with 46K thumbs up and 2.7K thumbs down)

Share this post


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

My first assessment is - are the facts and the premise of an author's writing plausible?

Your second assessment should be "does the author know how to integrate these facts?" 

The answer in this case is emphatically no. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha. Even better, you integrate the facts for yourself. Or don't if they can't be.  There's benefit to be had in exercising the mind with newer information, rather than simply taking in an ordered argument, don't you think?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Stanford research currently show that Covid-19 mortality is like the flu.

That research is not current. It is a month old, single study. Not that it's invalid, but you need several studies. Did you catch where the study has been published? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...the greatest mass delusion in history".

Author: Porter Stansberry, founder of Stansberry Research and magazine "American Consequences" (Editor-in-Chief: PJ O'Rourke, well known author, libertarian and humorist). Enough credentials to satisfy Eiuol?

Article published yesterday. Another thinker pursuing the disastrous coronavirus lie. (Oh no: he writes that "God gave us the ability to reason..." A conservative! Now you can automatically debunk the article, unread!)

 https://click.exct.stansberryresearch.com/?qs=a62d76af13923fc2042fd878aee987a02c93449b9f88d22e4f6602dd79b10c6e8c7a6b0c66f56f586f67ed235614c09da1d5e0eaeb6da355

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Enough credentials to satisfy Eiuol?

Of course, why wouldn't it be? This is exactly what I'm encouraging you to do: read better sources from better thinkers.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

Of course, why wouldn't it be? This is exactly what I'm encouraging you to do: read better sources from better thinkers.

No thanks. That's the type of rigidly closed approach I'm sometimes seeing from Objectivists. Everything published and heard can be "grist to one's mill", either to add to your knowledge and bolster it, or as challenge to your thinking. Personally, I have always read many sources about many things, from unknown/unlikely writers as well as top thinkers with interest, to be evaluated independently.

For instance, you can't tell me that some parts of that anonymous writer's extensive screed above aren't new to you, that you could have learned from, (if isolated from some dubious opinions). And isolated from minor irrelevances, like who or what he/she 'is', and has done.

"The onus is on the asserter to validate his assertion" - as is commonly pronounced, has its place. BUT - not as a fixed principle, allowing one to block or evade one's further thinking. It shouldn't constrain a reader/listener from verifying the assertion against reality and his knowledge, for himself, if he thinks there could be even a little merit in it.  

Edited by whYNOT

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.

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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...