COVID-19: Analysis, Statistics, Dangers, Outlook, Conclusions

[mathguy]

COVID-19 ESSAY - PART 1 of 2


DOCUMENT ABSTRACT
This will be an essay on SARS-COV-2 and the resulting COVID-19 sickness. It will be one of the most comprehensive and lengthy pieces of data available on this site regarding COVID-19. I am doing this here, just as I do in other places, online forums, news outlets, etc... b/c I believe it's imperative that people begin to understand the truly phenomenal nature of the perfect storm of events that lead us to this point, which has become rather absurd in totality.

The goal is to create this essay in the most easily digestible format while also providing concrete links, inserted images, CDC, WHO, and NIH (National Institute of Health) data. Many of the links will be links to articles that either link to the studies themselves (with my comments), or contain images themselves, which have been done by numerous skeptical scientists and/or doctors. Some links will be directly to CDC, WHO, NIH data. Some will be to preprint server studies such as medRxiv and bioRxiv (however, there are many other preprint repositories).

---

PREPRINT STUDY SERVERS

So, what are preprints anyway? Preprints are complete public drafts of scientific documents not yet certified by peer review. These documents ensure that the findings of the research community are widely disseminated, priorities of discoveries are established and they invite feedback and discussion to help improve the work. Read more about preprint servers & relationship to COVID-19 here.

Preprint servers exists for many disciplines: biology, physics, computer science, mathematics, chemistry, etc etc... We are concerned mostly with medical or biological sciences preprints.

The main preprint repos include: bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, SSRN, and a few others. PubMed is the largest repo in the world of medical peer reviewed and preprint data. The explosion of research around SARS-COV-2 is unparalleled in our history. Zenodo which aggregates data from preprints, including the largest repository in the world, PubMed, contains 178,000+ entries currently for the search term: SARS-COV-2. That is unreal! All in a span of months! Normally those preprint for a medical field are receiving something on the order of 1,000-2000+ per month and that's for ALL specialties or topic areas within that medical/biological field.

In a span of months we now have countless tens of thousands of studies on the main private preprints (bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv...) for COVID alone and then we have a total of nearly 180,000 entries on the open platform PubMed, for one single topic (COVID), all in a span of a few months! It is truly unprecedented and beyond imagination!

---

LINKS TO PREPRINT SERVER RESOURCES: Preprints and Rapid Communication of COVID-19 Research

MAJOR PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM PREPRINTS

The preceding topic section above about the sheer volume of studies is so incredible that there are now numerous sites/studies devoted to fishing out the bad science as a result of this situation. The irony is that there are even preprint studies themselves ABOUT COVID-19 itself but instead they are discussing how bad the veracity of the study data is in certain other COVID studies!

Take this article here from BMC Medicine which discusses that very issue, bad data, rushed scientific studies, incorrect methodologies or statistical models, all of which result in horrible conclusions many times. Here is an excerpt from the intro of that BMC Medicine link:

Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern. ^[1]

This is something Dr. John Ioannidis has lamented about for months. He is a champion of the veracity of scientific data. He is recognized as "one of the most cited scientists in the world". You can read all about that stuff and his awards and fame for pioneering good scientific studies on Wikipedia. He is very famous for a paper he wrote in 2005, titled, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".

Want another example of just how ridiculous the bad science has gotten (which leaks out to the news outlets)? Here is another entry about this very thing and a medical journal being put together expressly for this purpose (to fix this bad data or retract the studies - btw many studies already have had to be pulled from preprint servers): "New journal will vet Covid-19 preprints, calling out misinformation and highlighting credible research". Here is another excerpt from that link showing how bad it can be with all of the frenetic and rushed science, especially when the media gets involved and gets their grubby hands on it:

The wild, wild west of Covid-19 preprints is about to get a new sheriff. On Monday, the MIT Press is announcing the launch of an open access journal that will publish reviews of preprints related to Covid-19, in an effort to quickly and authoritatively call out misinformation as well as highlight important, credible research.

“Preprints have been a tremendous boon for scientific communication, but they come with some dangers, as we’ve seen with some that have been based on faulty methods,” said Nick Lindsay, director of journals at the MIT Press, which will publish Rapid Reviews: Covid-19. “We want to debunk research that’s poor and elevate research that’s good.”

The Covid-19 pandemic has produced a fire hose of preprints (papers posted to servers such as bioRxiv and medRxiv without peer review), many of questionable validity. The poster child for that is a bioRxiv preprint that suggested the new coronavirus had somehow been engineered from HIV; it was quickly withdrawn. But many other preprints, while not clearly wrong, used weak methodology, such as small numbers of patients or inadequate controls, as in an experiment concluding that a commercially available immunoglobulin might protect against the disease. ^[2]

---

AN ALTERNATE POSTULATE BY A GROUP OF VIROLOGISTS/SCIENTISTS

Below is a link to an article that discusses a mid-May webinar done by a panel of leading epidemiologists lead by, Dr. Stoian Alexov. The entire panel concluded that the virus is not actually responsible for any deaths. This is not as wild as you might think. Why? B/c, once again, there is still no bonafide way to actually tell if someone dies of COVID-19 (whether it's that they died WITH IT or they died BECAUSE OF IT - either way we don't really know exactly what causes death). So it's not as "crazy" or "wild" as one might think. We know the SARS-COV-2 virus exists. No one disputes this fact. Nor do we dispute that COVID-19 develops in some patients. The issue is that with all these death reports (most of them now in the US - which ironically is the only country with the financial and man power to continue such an effort of compilation) we don't *really* know what they are dying of or how much COVID-19 plays a part.

Many patients are over 80 with multiple complications. In fact, the global average currently is about age 80-85 AND an average of ~3 (usually a low of 1 up to a high of 5) potentially fatal comorbid conditions. Meaning, we aren't just talking about healthy old people. We are talking about very elderly people with serious complications already in play. Another interesting thing is that over 35% of all deaths come from nursing homes. Not surprising as most who die are, sadly.... "at deaths door with multiple potentially fatal underlying conditions". Now, does that mean it doesn't happen to others? Of course it does. People also die of a pebble that falls on their head or in an airplane crash or from the flu or from rape or gang violence and so on. Does that mean you don't go outside? No. That's the point there; not that there aren't edge cases.

Article Link: “No one has died from the coronavirus”, Important revelations shared by Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association

Key Excerpts (check link to find complete data yourself):



Here we have Dr. Klaus Püschel backing up Dr. Stoian Alexov as well. Dr. Alexov is a physician with 30yrs of experience, president of the BPA, a member of the ESP's Advisory Board, and head of the histopathology department at the Oncology Hospital in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia.

---

CURRENT COVID-19 DANGER/LETHALITY STATISTICS

July 14th, 2020 study posted on MedRxiv by Stanford team: The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

Read the "Abstract" section of the link to get the relevant data. This is data not from one study. This is a compiled study consisting of data from nearly 50 different global seroprevalence studies (prevalence of antibodies in blood serum). I will break down the gist of the fatality numbers and the their true IFR vs CFR below the "NOTES" section.

NOTES:

• IFR = Infection Fatality Rate = number of people believed to have died of something divided into the true number of infected cases (not just known cases which are very, very limited in the first year of a new disease)
• CFR = Case Fatality Rate = number of people believed to have died of something divided into the list of known, tested positive, cases

The CFR is obviously a very bad estimate and terribly misleading until you have a much truer picture of just how pervasive a virus either is or isn't among the population.

For example, if there are 300+ Million people who have or already had it globally then the virus is less deadly than your chance of dying from a traffic accident. Even if it's not quite the 300+MN that Dr. John Ioannidis and his Stanford team believe it currently is (if not higher) we do obviously know it's fantastically higher than only the ~15-17MN cases tested globally. Of course. Because we only test a tiny fraction of the population. In the beginning it was strictly elderly and people with serious symptoms so the introduction rate of cases was pretty low and was fairly slow.

TOTAL AVERAGE IFR REGARDLESS OF AGE (ACROSS ~32 GLOBAL EPICENTERS): .24% (this is still thought to be high as we still don't know how pervasive the virus is in the population but that's where it stands now for ALL ages. The overall range for seasonal flu is ~.12%-.18% across ALL age ranges (for comparison).

MEDIAN IFR REGARDLESS OF AGE IN LOWER MORTALITY STUDY AREAS: .1% (technically on par or even less than the seasonal flu - and this is not complete data yet).
MEDIAN IFR REGARDLESS OF AGE IN MEDIUM MORTALITY STUDY AREAS: .27% (~1.5-2x that of seasonal flu for areas where mortality is high - likely this is due to age ranges, medical care, social dynamics, etc...)
MEDIAN IFR REGARDLESS OF AGE IN HIGH MORTALITY STUDY AREAS: .90% (~6-8x that of seasonal flu for global areas with high mortality - again likely heavily affected by age range, medical access, expertise, social issues....)

MEDIAN IFR FOR AGE <70 (GLOBAL AVERAGE): Across all ~32 global studies the IFR ranged from 0.0% to .57% with a median IFR of .04% across all global areas. For comparison the seasonal flu is 3 to 4 times as deadly for those under age 70.


FATALITY CHANCES BASED ON CURRENT DATA ACROSS ~50 SEROPREVALENCE STUDIES:

• Fatality Chances (disregarding age - includes all ages): .24% (1.5-2 times the rate of flu) (this is also very likely to keep going down as we learn even more about how common the virus is in the population)
• Fatality Chances (everyone under age 70): .04% (seasonal flu is >2-4 times as likely to kill you)
• Fatality Chances (under 40): Literally so low to write it here would be a silly joke. It is so low you are literally more likely to get killed in a routine car accident before you died of this. I believe the last one I saw a week or two ago for age <50 was .002485%.

Even our own CDC had to revise it's original rates of 3% (way back) down to 1% then .6% something, then .4%, then .3%, and then down to .26% recently!

As you go lower to age 40, 30, 20, etc... it gets astronomically low (hence the reason the study data above ranges from as low as "0.00%"). At the .0024875% level for those at the 50yr age range we are talking about something so low that the common seasonal flu would kill you 50 times over before you would come near death with this infection. That's IF it even became symptomatic. We know that about 35%-40% of all cases are entirely asymptomatic.

Another interesting thing to consider is that of all deaths approaching 40% of them have been in nursing homes. As I've said before that has an average age of >80 with an average of ~3 comorbid conditions of some serious (i.e. complications already existing which could become life threatening at any point).

Now, that said, does that mean young people don't die? NO! They do. Just like they do in airplane crashes, car accidents, heart attacks, cancer, the flu, shock, violent crimes, diabetes, etc etc. The point is it has become a PANIC driven fear caused by the media. I will explain more about that in some to links to psychological data and why the critics are not able to get their voice heard. There are many reasons folks.

[mathguy]

COVID-19 ESSAY - PART 2 of 2


WHY? WHY IS THIS CONTINUING IF ALL OF THIS IS TRUE?

Well, there are some very good reasons and that is a very good question. I've had a theory about this and it appears others have too. Here is an article more or less explaining exactly what I've been espousing about "social viral phenoms" beginning with the advent of quick access to data circa 1995 and getting worse as time goes on, the mass social media movement, and large panic frenzy behavior.

This is written by a psychiatrist in, "The American Institute for Economic Research - When Will The Madness End?".

Image excerpts from that article (read the article - it's very good):




We really are creating an living in a sort of "mass panic situation" perpetuated and caused simply by all the people themselves. You don't realize you are even a part of the thing quite possibly. It's not like it's a "conspiracy". No, no. Not at all. It's just what happens when millions upon millions get freaked out by science, or doctors, with uncertain information, and given the nature of social media and information exchange today at light speed paces. It's similar to when there is a huge stock market sell-off. If everyone just stood still and didn't panic sell nothing would happen and many companies would recover (as many indeed do, many of them recover and go on to become the worlds leading organizations). However, you can't control the "herd" impulse among that many hundreds of millions of people globally. So you end up with a runaway train of selling and devaluation. It's a very similar situation and if you read that article you will see that doctor talking about something resembling the same thing.

---

BAD SCIENCE, RUSHED SCIENCE

There is something known as the Uncertainty Excuse Principal in Science. You will see this scientist talk about it here: Uncertainty Excuse for Bad Science Article & Video Discussion. Basically what is happening is we are seeing science rushed all over the place to try to fix this crazy panic over a relatively mild virus. In the frenzy, which is perpetuated by media, we have some very bad science being done.

This is something Dr. John Ioannidis, the Stanford professor chair, and the man who wrote the seminal paper, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", in 2005 discusses frequently. That paper is considered one of the most extraordinary developments in science. And not just medical science, it's about how the data in all scientific studies can be quite flawed. It is lauded as a major reason for lifting the standards of research over the past nearly 2 decades in all disciplines and various scientific fields.

Science studies going VIRAL (case for bad science, rushed science, bad data): When science goes viral: The research response during three months of the COVID-19 outbreak.
This link is not really about the infection itself, it's a link to study data about the astronomical growth in preprint server studies (something I mentioned earlier in this essay).

---

SKEPTICISMS FROM SCIENTISTS & PUBLICATIONS

I will finish this section with some links to articles, screenshots, and a few viewpoints from skeptical scientists and I will then finish up with a conclusion below that in a new large bold face section heading.

Up to 300 Million People May Be Infected by Covid-19, Stanford Guru John Ioannidis Says

Images below are from the Lockdown Skeptics website. This is an AWESOME website if you want to read all kinds of articles, data, links to studies, news stories, all over the world, debunking some of the mass panic that is going around:

Page 9 of Lockdown Skeptics Website:



Page 2 of Lockdown Skeptics Website:


Lockdown Lunacy Facts Data Link

CDC Antibody Studies Confirm Huge Gap Between COVID-19 Infections and Known Cases

LOCKDOWN LUNACY 3.0—It’s over.
Some very good info at this link. You should also read the section which talks about IFR and the part that shows how warped the public perception is in some simple survey studies vs reality (i.e. where people think were: for example, 250 TIMES as many people has died vs CDC confirmed data). Crazy.

Great image cap from the link above (look at auto accidents like I said - age stratified risk group 0-44!):
up to about age 50 you are LITERALLY more likely to die from auto accident and about 3 times more likely in general to do die of "some other accidental injury"!




This data below is a tad outdated b/c the CDC estimates have been downgrades even further, but this shows just how ridiculous the media coverage about the "horrible danger" is lately.
THE CDC SLASHED THE COVID-19 FATALITY RATE TO A FRACTION OF EARLIER ESTIMATE USED TO JUSTIFY LOCKDOWNS

The COVID-19 Panic Shows Us Why Science Needs Skeptics
AUDIO VERSION - The COVID-19 Panic Shows Us Why Science Needs Skeptics

Deep analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic: A complex interaction of scientific, political, economic and psychological facts and fakes

Politics Influences the Science of COVID-19 by Dr Josh Mitteldorf

Did the Lockdowns Save Thousands of Lives? A Soho Forum Debate (a 1.5hr long video debated by Dr. Marty Makary supporting lockdowns and Dr. Knut Wittkowski who debunked lockdowns)

John Ioannidis and Medical Tribalism in the Era of Covid-19 - The critical questions the Stanford professor is raising about Covid-19 have gotten lost amid partisan bickering.
Again, this is what I've been talking about with the political polarization such that anyone with a critical viewpoint is seen as dissenting from the group (unfortunately at this point that means mostly the liberal group which wants to blacken the Republicans eyes with the elections nearing). The trouble is that politics and science should not be aligned with each. I don't have party affiliation, not technically, though I tend to lean for voting for Democrats, and I do not like Trump at all. However, that doesn't mean it's okay to try to align a proper scientific viewpoint, skepticism, concerns, or valid questions, with political ideologies or agendas.

---

CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

The virus is real. No proper scientist denies any such thing. No proper scientist believes some sort of "hoax" is going on, whether political, or otherwise. Unfortunately what IS happening is that the media, our modern technology, social media influence, the novelty of a new pathogen, and the constant mention of death (notice how it's no longer as much death and just about "cases" - which is obvious too!), have lead to a "perfect storm" of events that have caused a worldwide panic and frenzy.

There are also many political aspects in play as I've said already. One scientific viewpoint is seen as aligning with Republicans (or, worse, Trump). The other is seen as aligning with liberals, or Democrats. That is really, really awful situation b/c they two are entirely separate and this is a prime example of exactly why Dr. Ioannidis wrote his seminal paper on bad science practices in 2005.

Do people die? Yes, unfortunately. Do we REALLY know yet what they actually die of, what caused it, etc...? No, we really don't. Are some, or even many, of them caused by SARS-COV-2 developing into COVID-19 and then causing lung or renal failure as a result of a cytokine storm caused by the immune system? Yes, almost undoubtedly. The actual number is still very much in question. Many people are likely just dying b/c they were going to die anyway (remember, the avg age is >80 with ~3 comorbid infections). Meaning that virtually any type of infection or pathogen could take them over the edge and cause systemic failure. However, yes, I do concede that much more than simply an "insignificant" number of people have died directly from getting it (much as they would if they had gotten a variety of H1N1 flu).

So, yes, people do die. Most of them who likely die as a CAUSE, not just HAVING it, but CAUSED by it (causation vs association), are probably: very elderly (>75-80), have multiple existing conditions, or they're young with comorbidities, or they're young and simply unlucky, maybe it's a genetic predisposition we are not yet aware of, for example. The bottom line is the VAST majority of people, VAST, VAST, VAST, are either asymptomatic, never get it, have mild to moderate symptoms, and they get over it. Some people will get very sick but this is small percentage. Even among elderly it's not some sort of death sentence. Not at all. Most of them will also get over it. There are many people documented well over 100 years of age in decent health (considering their age) who have recovered. I've seen cases of people 105, 108, 110, 112, even 116 years old who are completely fine now.

The big problem here is everyone being so scared of some killer germ. It's not any more killer germ than the common cold or flu. In fact we are very likely going to find out (as much of the study data proves already and as times goes on) that it's considerably less fatal than the flu. For people under 50 years of age it if virtually inconsequential to even discuss as a form of deadly infection. Again, it happens, yes. You hear the story about the guy or girl in excellent shape who was 27, yadda yadda, the guy in S.A who went to party, got sick and "died of COVID".

First of all, yes, that happens with ANY disease. On that same day there was also a track star somewhere who dropped dead running laps (even their doc just gave them a perfect bill of health). On that same day many people in perfect health died of flu infections. On that same day many young people died of cancer or a freak heat stroke or a freak brain hemorrhage and so on. We just don't hear about those b/c they focus on telling us about this thing. And it scares people. The reality though is the totality of people dead under 50 years of age is so low that it is insignificant when compared to other disease (or even auto accidents like I mentioned a few times). Even the totality of people dead over age 70 is not all that alarming considering their age, the comorbid conditions, AND the fact that we still don't know EXACTLY what it is that ultimately kills them. We don't. There is no test for that and we don't know. Read the links above the web seminar of leading virologists who believe "no one has actually died OF COVID". I don't know if I would go quite that far, it's certainly a factor, but it's an interesting viewpoint nonetheless.

What should we be doing? I think it's wise to wash your hands all the time. Wearing a mask helps but to be honest it's only delaying what must happen in the end in order to reach herd immunity. We likely already have herd immunity in certain global locales based on serology tests for antibodies. If it makes you comfortable wear one. I wear it because it's required. Now, yes, I'm not going to walk up to a person coughing and sneezing without a mask. Then again, I wouldn't do that in flu season or in a docs office with sick kids or parents either.

Bottom line?

If you are under 50 and you are healthy there is damn near ZERO chance you will ever experience anything as a result of SARS-COV-2 OR COVID-19. If you are over 60, particularly if you are over 65-75, I would certainly say you might want to exercise caution in populated areas, breathing too close to people or in crowded areas, touching extremely dirty fomite areas, and so on. The reason elderly people succumb, though again we don't really know if it's "COVID" doing this, but what happens is the lungs experience a cytokine storm. This happens when the alveoli lining the lungs which allow us to get breathable oxygen into our red hemoglobin cells which transport the oxygen for cellular respiration, metabolic activities, get clogged up. They send a signal to the immune system to produce cytokines which will help fight the infection and are part of the B cell/killer T cell immune response. When the cytokine swarms the alveoli sites they get all clogged up with pus, they swell, etc... Guess what happens if 75% of the alveoli in your lungs are clogged up with pus, cytokines, swollen, B/C cells from the immune response to inoculate the virus, etc...? Right. You can't get oxygen into your hemoglobin cells. This is why you hear about stories where people are breathing quickly and fast, gasping. It's because they get oxygen as their alveoli are compromised badly. It's not fluid or stuff like that in the lungs. Not at all. However, the issue is we still don't really know exactly what, how, or if COVID is the causative reason for many of the various symptoms. The science is still very flaky on that aspect.

VERY FINAL THOUGHTS

Your risk of dying, or even getting sick, if you are under 50ish or so, and healthy is so astronomically low it's not even worth mentioning. You have fucking nothing to worry about. Seriously. It's just fucking silly at this point.
Your risk of dying if you are >60-65ish, due to respiratory issues, is STILL very, very, EXCEEDINGLY low. Just look at some of the data in links and things I posted above if it worries you. What you have to realized is that even when you look at charts that might make >60 start to look like, "woah, it really begins to go up bigtime, and gets really bad at 70+, 75+, etc...". The issue there is, again, we also talking about lots of nursing home deaths, people in bad health, genetic predispositions, etc...

Like I said earlier, we are finding that nearly 40% of all deaths that we THINK are caused by COVID are happening in nursing homes with an avg age of 80yrs AND (that's important - not totally healthy), no, AND ~3 comorbid conditions that could complicate matters. So keep that in mind. Your chance of death with SARS-COV-2, or even if it turns into COVID-19 (those are two different things), is still VERY VERY low.

The IFR rate for ALL ages per the Stanford data above, the other studies, and our own revised CDC data, is now at .26%. For ALL ages. That means including everyone from infancy to >100yrs old the total risk is just 1.5-2 times that of the flu. That's the total overall risk. So even if you are 65, keep that in mind when you look at the charts and data above.

---

ESSAY RESOURCES

• ASAPbio [COVID-19 LINKS]
• WAME - World Association of Medical Editors [COVID-19 Literature]
• PrePubMed Statistics & Compilations
• CDC - COVID LINKS AND DATA
• Nextstrain NCOV Global Genomic Data Repo
• NIH - U.S. National Institue of Health COVID Portal
• Zenodo Open Science And Data Sharing Project
• LinksMedicus COVID News, Articles, Archives

[ProSlacker]

Covid-19 isn't a binary equation.

Even if it is the case that you are unlikely to die, that doesn't mean that you will not become very sick and possibly be hospitalized. Complications, lost wages from missing work, and large medical bills could happen.

I doubt we have all the evidence at this point, and can draw definitive conclusions.

I'll continue to try to be safe until the infection rate drops dramatically.

[mathguy]

Covid-19 isn't a binary equation.

Even if it is the case that you are unlikely to die, that doesn't mean that you will not become very sick and possibly be hospitalized. Complications, lost wages from missing work, and large medical bills could happen.

I doubt we have all the evidence at this point, and can draw definitive conclusions.

I'll continue to try to be safe until the infection rate drops dramatically.

You're right it's not a binary option. Very true.

However, infection rates likely aren't dropping anytime soon unless, like many skeptics believe, we already reached a level of saturation that is beginning to provide herd immunity effects.

The infection rate thing is totally absurd though. The way the media spins it in particular.

Large and massive infection is exactly what we need and want. As long as deaths stay relatively flat, even linear, and don't follow the same exponential or quadratic curve that infections have we are golden. It means the fatality is getting lower and lower. Lower than what I've shared above.

Seriously this is very much a mass psychology issue. People are afraid of something that was based on horrendous models by a well known scientist (Neil Ferguson @ the Imperial College) that were egregiously wrong and have been proven wrong many times already. He also has a penchant for outlandish predictions.

It's a shame that his initial model claiming almost 4MN+ deaths (just in US + UK) is what drove most of this unnecessary policy and panic. He was FANTASTICALLY wrong on that call just as he has been on H1N1, bird flu, swine flu, mad cow disease, etc...

"Unlikely to die" is an understatement of EPIC proportions though. If you are under 50-55 it's like saying, well, I could walk to the grocery store later for some oranges, sure I "might be unlikely to die in a car accident, but I could get hurt, and lose wages, etc...".

It's truly that silly. Look at the data. You are 3 times more likely to die of any "other accidental death" that you are of COVID. You are on par to die in a yearly traffic accident with COVID. Under 50 and COVID is just a total joke and unbelievably silly with respect to, say, the common flu. Even at 70 it's ridiculously low chances unless you have comorbid conditions.

The problem is people hear about news stories of some younger person, or some edge case scenario, and they out tons of weight into it. However, what they are not realizing is for that one item, or even hundreds, there are also many other freak accidents, diseases, sicknesses, that creep up on younger people in the grand scheme of nearly 8BN people, every single day. You don't think this of the flu, or even cancer, or heart disease, or stroke, because you have lived your life with it. Yet those things are all happening at phenomenally higher rates and sheer numbers as well. It's just that the media and people don't focus on them and make a big deal out of it. With this we do bc the public is in a sort of mass delusional panic (read the psychiatrist article above on treating those issues for 20yrs) created by an initial response that was highly incorrect, highly exaggerated, and scared the hell out of people.

It would be like being worried that going to kill the bee nest in under you awning is going to kill or maim you. Seriously. People do die of allergic reactions. Get very sick. All kinds of things, every year many people die of bee stings. It's just a tiny percentage out of 8BN people. We don't care. We *know* it's not a big deal. This is one thing where media and the mass delusional effect has caused major stress and fear over a virtual beehive.

[TornAsunder]

Very interesting reading. What are your thoughts on the excess deaths we are seeing in populations? Also, the belief that the vast majority of people will recover without complications is likely correct, but what if this virus is one our immune system will defeat but not destroy. There are several viral infections that can smolder for months or years. We have no way of knowing if there is a long term negative effect from having this illness.

[lovingcamela]

Very interesting reading. What are your thoughts on the excess deaths we are seeing in populations? Also, the belief that the vast majority of people will recover without complications is likely correct, but what if this virus is one our immune system will defeat but not destroy. There are several viral infections that can smolder for months or years. We have no way of knowing if there is a long term negative effect from having this illness.

Right now the science seems to be mostly directed toward transmission, acute treatment and vaccines. It may be awhile until the long term complications come to light. I did do a search of covid groups and found dozens of them on FB. Longhaulers they are called where symptoms linger, exhaustion is daily and pain becomes chronic. I’ve only seen a couple of articles on it, one stated 1/3 of the recoveries are experiencing this. Not good.

We also have to keep reminding ourselves that all the mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing is not just about our personal fight not to get it, but also that the hospitals need us to act responsibly. My nurse friend is on the front lines and she says it’s mainly people not respecting these guidelines. People in poor health get really sick while healthy people have mild symptoms.

There is a great resource for covid information and it’s a podcast called This Week In Virology. I’ve mentioned it before so apologies if I am redundant.

[lovingcamela]

What I would love for MG to do...heh heh...is to collect data here! Couldn’t that happen with polls? I guess I’m pleasantly surprised that there are not any people reporting they have covid on the boards. Does that have to do with viral load of a one on one encounter versus being at a party of 50 people?

[mathguy]

Thanks for the comments and replies. I will respond to your inquiries and the insights you were interested in hearing when I have time; likely late tonight, or tomorrow.

[slocum]

If the "alternate postulate" is true, wouldn't we expect to see zero excess morbidity? Or maybe negative excess morbidity due to a decrease in traffic and work-related fatalities during lockdowns? (Just curious - not trying to be confrontational.)

[Klarnax]

Tldr;

The majority of covid deaths come from infections acquired in nursing homes and hospitals ��

[TornAsunder]

A few other thoughts. Most people are terrible judges of personal risk. Using the car death analogy is nortiously deceptive, as lifetime risk of car death is almost 1 percent, and yearly risk is around 1 in 9000. Car deaths are more common in young adults. Most people are much more comfortable riding in a car than being in a commercial aircraft, which is statistically much safer.
The argument that Covid 19 is not the cause of deaths is also deceptive. The same argument is made about HIV, which doesn't actually kill anyone, but the destruction of the immune system it causes certainly will.
The long and short is the excess deaths we are seeing, greater than the average reported flu deaths, is certainly due to something new, Covid19.
There is not confirmed evidence at this time that infection will lead to future immunity, so the rush to get everone sick now to get the pandemic over with is probably not sound advice.
I admit, by nature i am a cautious person.
You have made a well reasoned argument, and i hope in time you are proven correct, but at this point i would recommed continued caution.

[lovingcamela]

A few other thoughts. Most people are terrible judges of personal risk. Using the car death analogy is nortiously deceptive, as lifetime risk of car death is almost 1 percent, and yearly risk is around 1 in 9000. Car deaths are more common in young adults. Most people are much more comfortable riding in a car than being in a commercial aircraft, which is statistically much safer.
The argument that Covid 19 is not the cause of deaths is also deceptive. The same argument is made about HIV, which doesn't actually kill anyone, but the destruction of the immune system it causes certainly will.
The long and short is the excess deaths we are seeing, greater than the average reported flu deaths, is certainly due to something new, Covid19.
There is not confirmed evidence at this time that infection will lead to future immunity, so the rush to get everone sick now to get the pandemic over with is probably not sound advice.
I admit, by nature i am a cautious person.
You have made a well reasoned argument, and i hope in time you are proven correct, but at this point i would recommed continued caution.

Solid

[mathguy]

A few other thoughts. Most people are terrible judges of personal risk. Using the car death analogy is nortiously deceptive, as lifetime risk of car death is almost 1 percent, and yearly risk is around 1 in 9000. Car deaths are more common in young adults. Most people are much more comfortable riding in a car than being in a commercial aircraft, which is statistically much safer.
The argument that Covid 19 is not the cause of deaths is also deceptive. The same argument is made about HIV, which doesn't actually kill anyone, but the destruction of the immune system it causes certainly will.
The long and short is the excess deaths we are seeing, greater than the average reported flu deaths, is certainly due to something new, Covid19.
There is not confirmed evidence at this time that infection will lead to future immunity, so the rush to get everone sick now to get the pandemic over with is probably not sound advice.
I admit, by nature i am a cautious person.
You have made a well reasoned argument, and i hope in time you are proven correct, but at this point i would recommed continued caution.

TA, thanks for this reply. You obviously read my essay. I enjoy that you've been unbiased and open-minded!

I plan to address users who asked for insights and I'd like to touch on a couple of things you mentioned. I still don't have time at this moment to properly do it but hopefully later tonight/tomorrow. Even if we are extremely emphatic about our hypotheses and research we have to keep an open mind. Any scientist who doesn't is a quack.

Now, yes, I do happen to emphatically believe I'm correct, and I agree with most other skeptical scientists, however, I fully concede that I/we could be wrong. That being said, when I return to offer additional insights, I want talk about a couple of your points. Specifically, the car accident analogy, immunity, and the final comment about recommending continued caution (not that that is a bad idea at all - I believe my essay points that out but caveats it with an age cap).

Yep, I too would say don't go walking into someones coughing fit space without a mask; regardless of age, however, I'd say that of the flu or any pathogen. The last part of your comment brings me to an issue that is very psychology based & is likely at play in society, most particularly, and ironically, as a result of the modern google/social media/info era.

Thanks very much for your compliment at the end. I too agree with Camela that you've made a solid post!
I will come back to touch on the elements I mentioned as well as the insights others have asked about.


Note: It's too bad we don't have an area more heavily trafficked to discuss this b/c it's of critical importance that this data, discussion, hypotheses, even if "seen" as dissenting scientists (many the most respected in the world), that this gets out there. If any of you know anything about the discussion around "cancel culture" in America right now, that's very much like what is happening among the opposing scientific (and psychological - mass social panic) theories which attempt debunking the current socially accepted prima-facie "Fauci/Birx" view of the pandemic. Unfortunately that's also largely driven by political agendas rather than science :/ It's a total mess. :/

The more this gets out, even on a "hobby board", the better. People will share it. It will have its own viral nature. We need that now more than ever. So share it with anyone you know, everywhere you know. Feel free to copy it word for word or modify it (so long as you make known any modifications please & properly cite them).

[kind69]

Extremely flawed analysis and harmful advice. Urge everyone reading this to do the exact opposite of what this guy is recommending. Unbelievable

[lovingcamela]

First....It’s really hard for me to read online, but I did skim MG’s abstract. My bad. I’ve already exhausted myself reading up on Covid, listened to podcasts that I don’t feel like I need more education.

One thing that I did not see mentioned, but could have because I admit to skimming and which I find extremely important is that people in their 40’s or 50’s that have diabetes and/or are obese are at a huge risk for severe infection. That’s a lot of people in the US. Maybe they don’t die, but they will be sick perhaps indefinitely, have enormous hospitals bills and not be able to work. Their doctors won’t know how to treat them and will throw varieties of steroids and pharmaceuticals at them. If there is treatment that works and it is a pharmaceutical it may not always be available with covid is contracted wide spread.