Covid-19: Evidence Over Hysteria

[Steve]

Good article full of actual data:
COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria

 

[tankasnowgod]

Good article full of actual data:
COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria

Zero Hedge featured that? Nice. They were one of the ones beating the "PANDEMIC" drum from when it was only about 500 cases in China (to be fair, though, it seemed that 100% of MSM and 98.9% of Alterna Media did the same).

Hopefully, things might reverse course.....

 

[yerrag]

Glad ZeroHedge posted it after it was taken down at Medium, where it was originally posted. It was "in violation of community guidelines."

 

[Goobz]

I'm pretty sure that article is complete drivel, which was only up briefly before actual epidemiologists pointed out it's glaring flaws:
Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter

 

[theLaw]

The response to this article has arguably been more telling than even the material itself.

If you lead with a personal attack/insult on someone, it instantly outs you as being driven by emotion instead of facts/evidence, and you've now contaminated your argument.

After reading through the critiques of the article, nearly every one included some disparaging remarks about the author.

With a questionable conclusion you can dig into the data for clarification or better understanding, but with a person attack/insult, there's no alternative way to view it than being simply disrespectful.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

The response to this article has arguably been more telling than even the material itself.

If you lead with a personal attack/insult on someone, it instantly outs you as being driven by emotion instead of facts/evidence, and you've now contaminated your argument.

After reading through the critiques of the article, nearly every one included some disparaging remarks about the author.

With a questionable conclusion you can dig into the data for clarification or better understanding, but with a person attack/insult, there's no alternative way to view it than being simply disrespectful.

No one has made a personal attack. The article was called drivel, because it is.

 

[theLaw]

No onehas made a personal attack, you are hallucinating one. The article was called drivel, because it is.

There were many people online who personally attacked the author in the comments section and on Twitter. My last post was not directed at any one person here, but at those individuals. If I am posting about someone directly, I always use their handle or "reply".

Having said that, you've just made my point. Instead of critiquing the article in a constructive way by refuting the data/conclusions, you've chosen to disparage it with an insult.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Others have done it, I am not going to repeat their arguments.

 

[Steve]

For anyone interested, the article has now been posted on Zerohedge:

COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria

I posted that originally, but then I started reading the comments, and so many people said the data sucked & should be taken down that I crawled back into my state of Covid confusion. I have no idea what to believe at this point.....except I'm still pretty sure this is the greatest over-reaction the world has ever seen.

 

[theLaw]

I posted that originally, but then I started reading the comments, and so many people said the data sucked & should be taken down that I crawled back into my state of Covid confusion. I have no idea what to believe at this point.....except I'm still pretty sure this is the greatest over-reaction the world has ever seen.

I assume the death-rate will present a more accurate picture in a few months.

But then everyone will just be patting themselves on the back for "taking action" early to reduce the spread.

Sadly, this is a perfect story for the media; they can't get it wrong.

 

[achillea]

Appears to me that many of the disparagers say little to nothing about the bad science of the article. Looks to me that they will be the first ones to line up for Bill Gates' and Fauci's vaccinations.

Save me Nanny

just so happens the one main criticizer is writng a book

Calling bull****: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World Hardcover – August 4, 2020
by Carl Bergstrom (Author), Jevin West (Author)

From his twitter page Prof. Biol.
@UW
. Information flow in biology, society, & science. I love corvids. he/him

 

[Tim Lundeen]

"I’d suggest that we stay focused on the abuse of data for politics – including COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Focus on ending lock-downs. Focus on preserving constitutional rights. That means ending the pandemic. Plain and simple." -- Dr James Lyons-Weiler

Another View on Influenza vs. COVID-19 Death Rates

 

[Goobz]

Appears to me that many of the disparagers say little to nothing about the bad science of the article.

Having said that, you've just made my point. Instead of critiquing the article in a constructive way by refuting the data/conclusions, you've chosen to disparage it with an insult.

Maybe it wasn’t clear in my original post, but that twitter link goes to a series of tweets (27 or so) which goes through the article, pointing out its very obvious flaws.

And that screenshot I posted, would have been obvious I thought. Any article quoting “1% of cases will be severe” right next to “2.3% will die” shouldn’t need much debunking.

I’d also just caution the approach of “these guys are insulting this work so those doing the insulting must be wrong.” Sometimes some ideas that go viral are so bad that they deserve to be criticised bluntly. (Ideas that is, not people)

 

[theLaw]

Sometimes some ideas that go viral are so bad that they deserve to be criticised bluntly. (Ideas that is, not people)

Criticism and insults are distinctly different.

One is constructive and the other is disrespectful (by design).

People are free to use whichever they like, but they will also be judged for their decision.

 

[Goobz]

Criticism and insults are distinctly different.

One is constructive and the other is disrespectful (by design).

People are free to use whichever they like, but they will also be judged for their decision.

Well sure, people are free to judge whatever they want. But that’s missing the point imo. Why not judge the science and the article itself, instead? Did you read the twitter response to it, where they debunk it in detail?

We can’t find the truth based off looking at who is (apparently) insulting who.

Imagine someone watching a court case, and trying to decide who is guilty based off facial expressions and politeness, whilst ignoring the actual evidence that was presented.

 

[mayweatherking]

1% or 2.3% or whatever it is of everyone is still severe and they can't handle those cases that come in, have you seen the videos from inside the italian hospitals? i swear people act like having a "low impact" is not a big deal, bro like 1000 people died in 1 day in italy and they dont have enough supplies for everyone even after a lockdown. people suffocating for air and not being able to breathe. ya'll are going to get old one day too. people lack compassion until it impacts them directly. messed up world. it's not a problem unless it's your problem.

i read zerohedge and mostly for entertainment because it's extremely sensationalist, everyday they post some new market chart showing how the global economy is on its way to collapse. they just post stuff that isn't mainstream and will get clicks. they were posting before about how it was a problem before it went mainstream.

 

[theLaw]

Well sure, people are free to judge whatever they want. But that’s missing the point imo. Why not judge the science and the article itself, instead? Did you read the twitter response to it, where they debunk it in detail?

We can’t find the truth based off looking at who is (apparently) insulting who.

Imagine someone watching a court case, and trying to decide who is guilty based off facial expressions and politeness, whilst ignoring the actual evidence that was presented.

The problem with that approach is a signal to noise ratio, because we all only have a limited amount of time to invest in researching any particular claims, so profiling becomes a valuable part of finding accurate data. The way that someone debates or criticizes is actually a valuable insight into their particular motivation IMO. Some people want to debate, while others would just prefer to argue (in the sense of being proactively disagreeable). Trolling is probably the best example. In fact, you can easily just argue with someone simply by refusing to agree on terms in a debate.

If your're referring to the twitter response from Carl Bergstrom, yes, I did read it. It mentions a few disagreements on how the some of the data was interpreted, but nothing even close to what I would label "debunk(ed) in detail". In fact, out of the 14 bullet points, the author uses no less than 6 of them to insult the author instead of deal with his claims.

In a court case, you must decide who is a reliable party for this very reason. If a party tells five lies, then expecting the sixth to be true is simply unreasonable, but you can spend the time if you have the resources to do so.

Personally, I don't have time to research each and every piece of data, so I have to find reliable sources I can trust based on their track record for accuracy. If I spot a bias for any reason, then that's a breech of trust.

Cheers!

 

[Constatine]

And that screenshot I posted, would have been obvious I thought. Any article quoting “1% of cases will be severe” right next to “2.3% will die” shouldn’t need much debunking.

1.3% of these people will suffer a mild case of death.

 

[Giraffe]

I'm pretty sure that article is complete drivel, which was only up briefly before actual epidemiologists pointed out it's glaring flaws:
Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter

This is how I read the graph:

Only 5% of the tests are positive, and of those tested positive:

• 80% will have only mild symptoms
• 20% will require hospitalization (= 15% severe cases + 5 % critical cases)
  (1/5 of those 5% who are tested positive are severe --> 1 % of all tested people will get severely sick.)
  
• Almost half of the critical cases will die. (That is this 2,3 % of the positive cases.)

Comment: Since basically only people with symptoms get tested in the first place, the real number is probably lower.

From the article discussed here:

93% of people who think they are positive aren’t

Looking at the success in S. Korea and Singapore, the important tool in our war chest is measurement. If we are concerned about the general non-infected population, what is the probability those who show symptoms actually test positive? What is the chance that the cough from your neighbor is COVID-19?

This “conversion rate” will show whether or not you have a cold (another coronavirus) or are heading into isolation for two weeks. Global data shows that ~95% of people who are tested aren’t positive. The positivity rate varies by country.

• UK: 7,132 concluded tests, of which 13 positive (0.2% positivity rate).
• UK: 48,492 tests, of which 1,950 (4.0% positivity rate)
• Italy: 9,462 tests, of which 470 positive (at least 5.0% positivity rate).
• Italy: 3,300 tests, of which 99 positive (3.0% positivity rate)
• Iceland: 3,787 tests, of which 218 positive (5.7% positive rate)
• France: 762 tests, of which 17 positive, 179 awaiting results (at least 2.2% positivity rate).
• Austria: 321 tests, of which 2 positive, awaiting results: unknown (at least 0.6% positivity rate).
• South Korea: 66,652 tests with 1766 positives 25,568 awaiting results (4.3% positivity rate).
• United States: 445 concluded tests, of which 14 positive (3.1% positivity rate)

 

[achillea]

What I cannot understand is that the article is many pages with lots of charts that come from many sources, many quotes from so many so called experts and yet the article is torn apart for displaying what so many others have said. So what if the guy makes a mistake, look at the charts yourself and try to make sense of them.
This is a case of Covert 19 not Covid 19.
Did you look at the projections for the economy after 2 months??? I have many friends who own small businesses that cannot wait more than 2 weeks. They have stock to pay for, rent or mortgages on their space, insurance etc. The Fed gave 1 Trillion to the market and the banks and the big corporations.
This is an attempt at global take over.
Like the author of the article said...do not comply. This is war against humanity. Do you really believe the planes flew into the Towers, This is the same fiction and that is all the author is trying to get over.