Interesting to see docs, risk specialists and science profs share their ideas.
Here’s a few links that might interest:
Doc John discussing whether it makes sense to flatten. John has credibility with me because: (a) when he writes about niches I know very well (exercise), he makes sense; and (b) he’s willing to share observations that work against his financial and business interests.
Doc John extracting from a Swedish report that’s similar in tone to his blog – link to the report itself included in his post.
As an aside, the best thing I learned from Doc John was an observation, “good luck with convincing the endurance cohort of that reality.”
Another way of saying… when truth bumps into a core belief, expect the core belief to win.
Carl B, Biology Prof, countering the view that there is the same “area under the curve” whether it is flat, or not => less of an overshoot means less death. Not directly in response to Doc John’s blog but explaining important considerations.
.@BenShapiro wants to know what the point of flattening the curve was, given that the same number of people get infected either way.
But the same number DO NOT get infected either way. My brief response here: https://t.co/TFax0hHYQT pic.twitter.com/6qGgBZLWqg
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) May 7, 2020
- multiple commentators, all more experienced than me
- all arguments emotionally appealing to a lay audience
- no consensus
- debate over future outcomes of complex systems
My take => proven exponential growth of a pathogen that is not well understood by the experts => therefore, lean heavily towards precaution. The burden of proof falls to the risk seekers.
Also saw an interesting comment out of Sweden => a senior public health official was surprised they couldn’t keep the virus out of elderly care facilities, facilities which were locked down. We saw the same thing in Colorado, just down the street from me and elsewhere.
External quarantine starting in NYC:
NYC is now doing something really big: offering hotel rooms to people with mild/mod covid-19 who need to relocate in order to keep their household from being infected.
Patients need to be referred by one of the below health providers. This is an early phase and will be expanded. pic.twitter.com/nesna9ANmj
— Mark D. Levine (@MarkLevineNYC) May 4, 2020
Study on COVID and kids coming:
Evidence on covid19 in kids is mixed; some studies suggest children don’t get infected, others suggest they do but are mostly developing mild or no symptoms. So NIH announced this week a large study to help determine rate of infection among U.S. children. https://t.co/WG8HWtpULc
— Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) May 7, 2020
I’ll end the tweet summary with a useful reminder from Taleb:
Solid statistical inference lies in destroying BS with a single but powerful data point. Disconfirmatory empiricism.https://t.co/SiVkEb7nUP
— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) May 7, 2020
Sometimes, all I need to do is find is one counter example to demolish my faulty thinking.
Neiman Marcus followed J Crew’s recent bankruptcy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.