Gps wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm
My point however was that the number of people dying during the flue pandamic? of 2018 are about the same as the number of people now dying from corona.
Oh I see, you are comparing the number of COVD-19 deaths
now with the number of deaths of the 2018 flu epidemics.
So, we know that the death toll in 2018 must have been governed by the boundary conditions of the time, which are subject to change over time: this is why we see a varying death toll by week. Conditions vary due to human interventions but also naturally. Seasonality is a boundary condition, but so is yearly vaccinations campaigns for flu which, both in Italy and the UK, are offered to subjects at risk every year.
Similarly, the death toll from COVID-19 is governed by the boundary conditions, which are time varying as well. Among the factors that play, there is social distancing, mask mandates, vaccinations. If the COVID-19 death toll
as of now is weekly compatible to that of the 2018 epidemics this would suggest that the measure put in place are being effective. If the conditions change, we shall expect this to impact the death-toll. I'd say that this is the natural conclusion of this line of reasoning. Note that actually one can test for the compatibility of of the current rate with that of the 2018 epidemics: it would work similar to my last post, I haven't got around doing it but I could do. My message here is: this can be answered
quantitiatively, and I think quantitative analysis should precede any position on the matter: I would wait to run the numbers before making claims.
Gps wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm
I don't like you taking an flue average, because we can't do that yet with corona. We probably can in a few years.
The data we are using are the
total deaths, for any cause. So, we have built a baseline model using the historic data. This allows to tells us if 2020/2021 is anomalous with respect the total deaths statistics. This is the natural way to do what goes by the name of
anomaly detection, and I'd say we have found evidence that tells us that 2020/2021 is anomalous (or better, we fail to find evidence to support the inverse claim, statistics actually makes use of inverse logic). This way of doing things answer this question: is 2020/2021 different from what we are used to? The answer appears to be yes (or better, the data cannot support the answer no).
Let's fast forward 10 years into the future. We have full statistics for flu and COVID-19. A similar analysis as that we done before, but comparing now two distributions (not a distribution and an event) will tell us how similar they are. Maybe we will compare the distribution of deaths from COVID-19 to that of the flu. Note that this comparison will factor in all the boundary conditions applying in 10 years in the future, including the impact of new therapies and vaccines.
There is nothing wrong in using the average for COVID-19, but it is also something you would do to answer a different question: how COVID-19 and flu compare now that, 10 years in the future, we have equivalent tools to deal with them?
Gps wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm
Our governments however (and the mainstream media), still are in that panic mode. Were all gonna die.
Why is a vaccine the only way out (I am quoting one of the assholes in my government) when everybody by now could know there are drugs that can help if you get covid.
HCQ with some more, or Ivermectin. Is it because the pharmaceutical companies, can't make much money from those drugs?
The media and the governments are not listening to the doctors and the scientist though, but do listen the pharmaceutical companies, who are not even liable if their vaccines cause side effects, and are making profits on the vaccines.
Classic media, I am not too finely tuned on them as I don't consume them. However, there is a point to be made here. That of the other substances that you mention: they are under current and frequent use.
For example,
here you can see that AIFA, the Italian Medicines Agency, lists several of them for treatment of COVID-19. Some are recommended, some are not. Some were recommended in the past and are not anymore now that they have been used extensively and evidence on their effectiveness has been accumulated. There is a common denominator among those: they treat the condition after it has developed, ease the symptoms and raise probability of survival and reduce the likelihood of needing intensive care. They do this with varying level of effectiveness.
If one compare this with a vaccine, which does all of the above but also reduces transmission and contagion in the first place, one understands why a vaccine has quite a logistic appeal: it will reduce the load on hospitals further without needing to relying on the other measures (social distancing et al).
Now, numerous questions are brought about the statement above. However, it is somewhat unsatisfactory (if I do say so myself) that the mere possibility of posing these questions is seemingly treated as a proof that the statement above cannot hold. A common thing I see in this thread when these questions are brought about is that of the reliance on figures of authority (not the mainstream authority, but an alternative authority), which are brought in to provide the answer. This goes by the name of "principle of authority": this person is so clever that what they say must be right. This principle animated much of the philosophical discourse in Europe up until the 1600s, when Galileo broke with it introducing the so called "Scientific Method". Definitely not the only one of the modern Scientific Paradigms, but essentially it can be summarized with: "do you have a question? the answer is in the data". The Scientific idea is to have the facts and data to speak at face value, because authoritative figures are not necessarily right. For example, the impressive CV of Dr. Hodkinson does not replace the need for deep scrutiny of his points. After all even Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Whilst I seen a lot of skepticism towards the mainstream, I do not see the same towards the alternative authority, even when the articles linked make use of sensationalistic titling and some details that turn out to be false, details that would be treated by those who propose these very sources as Red Flags had they come from the mainstream (for example, sources wrongfully listing some of Dr. Hodkinson qualifications), as we seen in some example. This strikes me as unbalanced and prone to failure, given that we know that, logically, the degree of truth in a proposition is independent from who say it.
Hence, the sources brought about in this thread, that now are far too many to mention one by one, appear to me to be often low quality: they try to convince me about something by appealing to authority, to somebody that seems to have figured everything out. I instead just want access to the data, run the numbers, and see for myself: this is the true meaning of research. The second best thing would be to presented with the conclusion alongside all the information, including the raw data, needed to verify said conclusions independently. Thankfully many good sources of data have also been linked, and I might very well dive into those in the near future, time permitting. Taken from this point of view, this thread becomes actually quite interesting and maybe a way to practice some stats more. So thanks to all of you that linked the raw data, you know who you are. For somebody like me, the raw data is about the only interesting stuff. But then I am a nerd writing about acoustics in his spare time, so maybe that's why (
SHAMELESS PLUG LINK IN MY SIGNATURE).
Finally, the argument about Big-Pharma: it goes two ways. For example, one of the substances that were mentioned, hydroxychloroquine, is undergoing a
very substantial market growth. By one of the skeptical lines of reasoning presented in this thread, the
Cui Bono? line fo reasoning, should we be suspicious? What this market growth tells us? Who is profiting? Is maybe some lobbying happening? Again, I say grabbing the data, the most fundamental source, is by far the only reasonable way to answer any question which might be raised by
Cui Bono?. But I also say that the corporations that produce those medications seems to be treated asymmetrically from those that make vaccines in this discourse, despite them being in for profits too. This also strikes me as unbalanced, and perhaps strikes many more similarly and hence the critiques that are raised.
So yeah, if I manage to dig into more data, and I find some interesting stuff, and I find the time to polish it into a coherent post you will see me back over here. I thought this was going to be a train wreck, and in many ways it is, but I also found some unexpected stimulation...