[Parallax]

makes it exceedingly easy to do the old "telling lies with truths". Particularly if you have an agenda

Exactly.

Raw statistics:
Drownings last year: 3

Statistics couched different ways:
"Oh my God! THREE people drowned last year."
"Only 3 drownings last year. Down significantly from previous years".

[photoptimist]

I fail to understand how some people apparently do not seem to understand data or its limitations

what am I missing ?



I'm just " a poor simple country lawyer " but if my opponent used this " data " against me in court to prove how poorly my " client " was adhering to "rules and regulations "

All I would need to do to blow their argument out of court is to read the above to totally discredit the argument



from the comments I have been reading I am confused

are parts of " Country X " acting " foolishly "

I won't disagree with that statement but I cannot use this data to prove it

another thought



this is part of the data, it gives no information as to the " density " of those areas

are we talking about thousands of people in a small area or smaller numbers of people in a large area and those people maintaining social distance from each other ?

can that be told from the data ?

Google's data certainly comes with many caveats. Some of the caveats may be methodological due to how the data is collected. Some of the caveats may reflect legal concerns -- Google does not want liability if people or policy makers use the data and some people die. Some of the caveats may reflect social concerns -- political correctness mandates that we can't say anything bad about anyone's behavior.

Ultimately, this data is what it is, flaws and all. We can either try use the data to the best of our abilities or we can fly blind because none of the data we have now can really stand up in court against a standard of "reasonable doubt."

Eventually, science will figure out what we should have done about controlling COVID-19 (and similar pandemics). However, it will take several years of careful study, careful data collection, careful analysis, and careful peer review. That won't help us save any lives in this pandemic but it might help in the next one.

What's sad is that science already figured out what we should do about controlling pandemics after the 1918 flu, various polio epidemics, SARs, MERs, etc. etc. However, too few wanted to listen to those inconvenient recommendations. It was a lot nicer to believe COVID-19 was just the flu, just an affliction in a distant land, and was going to miraculously disappear.

[Parallax]

The tests are reliable for only one thing. A positive tests tells that a person has it, or has been exposed.

A negative test result is meaningless -
Monday 10:00a.m. a person gets tested.
Monday 10:30a.m. he gets exposed on his way back home.
Tuesday the test results show negative.

[reeftool]

As I read and watch news reports every day, the one thing that stands out in all of this is that nobody knows a darn thing about this virus. The experts throw around big words and impressive sounding explanations about RNA, DNA, and things none of us understand. Everything seems to change daily. First it was spread by close contact. Then by nearby contact (less than 6 feet). A few suggest it is now airborne. Nobody really knows.

It is now thought that many get this virus and show no symptoms but spread it. Others get mild cold like symptoms and some get very, very sick and need intensive care. Nobody knows the reason why for that, either. Age and physical condition are factors but a lot of older people get a mild case and there are younger , healthy people dying. Every theory of this disease and treatments are based on statistics. Most medical treatments are based on statistics. They know the survival rates of cancer patients only by statistics. 80% of people respond to a certain chemo drug. Add radiation to that and iit's 90%. Add surgery and it's up to 98%. We went through all this when my wife battled breast cancer a few years back. An honest doctor will be up front and tell you that's all the have and they have no way of determining whether you are in the survivor group or the other.

As much of this is frustrating, the ONLY thing right now that can stop this is for people not to catch it. This isn't a movie or TV show where some genius researcher is going to pull a cure out of his ass. We are seeing how limited our technology really is. It's nothing more than a bunch or flashy toys and gadgets. If by chance a cure is found today, it's already too late for this epidemic. Known drugs that seem to help are being denied as treatment as different authorities, who know nothing, argue about whether they will be effective. Since most medical treatment is based on statistics anyhow, whether or not they are helpful will never be known

[Serkevan]

The experts throw around big words and impressive sounding explanations about RNA, DNA, and things none of us understand. Everything seems to change daily. First it was spread by close contact. Then by nearby contact (less than 6 feet). A few suggest it is now airborne. Nobody really knows.

Not quite, and you will notice that many experts are very cautious when throwing out terminology because at the beginning there are mostly educated guesses. Science is either good or fast, you cannot have it both ways. It's already a testament to humanity's technological and scientific prowess that we have the amount of knowledge we have of the virus this quickly.

It is now thought that many get this virus and show no symptoms but spread it. Others get mild cold like symptoms and some get very, very sick and need intensive care.

That was, AFAIK, known from the beginning as it's very similar to SARS - only less virulent, which means on one hand that the fatality rate per case is lower (that's good) but also that incubation is longer and there are higher chances of asymptomatic/mild cases (which is bad as it makes the disease much more infectious and difficult to stop).

Nobody knows the reason why for that, either. Age and physical condition are factors but a lot of older people get a mild case and there are younger , healthy people dying. Every theory of this disease and treatments are based on statistics. Most medical treatments are based on statistics. They know the survival rates of cancer patients only by statistics. 80% of people respond to a certain chemo drug. Add radiation to that and iit's 90%. Add surgery and it's up to 98%. We went through all this when my wife battled breast cancer a few years back. An honest doctor will be up front and tell you that's all the have and they have no way of determining whether you are in the survivor group or the other.

As with many other things, for a given system it is typically impossible to predict the behaviour of one part of the system while it's possible to work on statistical models that are relatively accurate. This is true for medicine, physicis, engineering or chemistry. In the case of medicine, there are far too many variables to predict the exact outcome of a given disease on a given patient. My cousin's cancer diagnosis went from T0 with 100% cure chance to T3 possibly T4 in a span of three weeks, because his particular tumor decided to behave unlike 99% of tumors in that class and be a very active, very virulent lump of death. Fortunately, after very quick decisions by his doctors and going through chemo, immunotherapy and two surgeries he has pulled through... sans bladder, but with his life.

We are seeing how limited our technology really is. It's nothing more than a bunch or flashy toys and gadgets. If by chance a cure is found today, it's already too late for this epidemic.

I absolutely disagree. We are armed with veritable arsenals of knowledge and this pandemic would have probably killed hundreds of thousands already if it hit us a century ago. Point in case: 1918 flu (H1N1) vs 2009 flu (same strain), or how smallpox doesn't wreak havoc in Europe anymore, infant mortality is at its lowest levels in recorded history in many countries, etc. etc. etc.

Known drugs that seem to help are being denied as treatment as different authorities, who know nothing, argue about whether they will be effective. Since most medical treatment is based on statistics anyhow, whether or not they are helpful will never be known

Again, disagreed. Your same argument can be used to say that, since we know nothing, we also don't know if it makes the situation worse, which is a risk that healthcare systems absolutely cannot take right now. Also, medical treatment MUST be based on statistics, what alternatives do you want? Anecdotal evidence?

[Fluegel]

I agree with Serkevan's comment.

It is useless to administer medication used for other treatments to patients who carry the virus.
Please note that all these substances are toxic. It depends on the amount whether they are useful or dangerous.

[Serkevan]

I agree with Serkevan's comment.

It is useless to administer medication used for other treatments to patients who carry the virus.
Please note that all these substances are toxic. It depends on the amount whether they are useful or dangerous.

Exactly, we have to tread very carefully. As fast as possible, but still carefully. And I understand the frustration that people can feel, of course I do... but there is a reason why things are done in a certain way, and taking shortcuts is dangerous.

[Racer X 69]

As I read and watch news reports every day, the one thing that stands out in all of this is that nobody knows a darn thing about this virus.

Pretty much.

One of many reasons why I don't watch or listen read the sensationalist mainstream news anymore. Nothing but a bunch of no nothing talking heads regurgitating the same old nonsense.

The experts throw around big words and impressive sounding explanations about RNA, DNA, and things none of us understand.

Experts are those who are formerly perts.

It would be better if everyone would be alert. We need more lerts.

[Parallax]

Experts are those who are formerly perts.

This works verbally better than in writing but:
Ex is a has-been
spurt is a drip under pressure.

[aslyfox]

[ peeking around the corner ]

is it safe ?

who is mad at me ?

I did go off on a rant

but

You Tube

You Tube

so apologies if I went off

You Tube

You Tube

[aslyfox]

The tests are reliable for only one thing. A positive tests tells that a person has it, or has been exposed.

A negative test result is meaningless -
Monday 10:00a.m. a person gets tested.
Monday 10:30a.m. he gets exposed on his way back home.
Tuesday the test results show negative.

have I missed something ?

it is certainly possible

the reason I ask is that " certain people " I see on the retangular screen in the corner of the room are gaga over " immunity "

one you have it, you ain't going to get it again

and further through " science " we can take from you and give that to X and X won't get it either

has there been any scientific proof of that for this virus

as opposed to the old " go see Joey and catch chicken pox now instead of later "

or are " certain people " just rushing things once again ?

[aslyfox]

. . . Every theory of this disease . . .

years and years ago I learned to translate certain words

one was " theory "

" theory " = guess

then you went on to prove or disproved the guess

and over time, and with repetition, you and others established how reliable the guess is

pure H2O changes from a solid liquid form to a gaseous form at 212 0 F, 100 0 C

is the guess

well, not quite

at different air pressures ( altitudes ) that changes

and where precision matters that can matter a lot

[Parallax]

the reason I ask is that " certain people " I see on the retangular screen in the corner of the room are gaga over " immunity "

one you have it, you ain't going to get it again

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that supports that. It is far too early to tell and, considering lifetime immunity occurs with a minuscule percentage of known viruses, the odds are against it being the case with this one.

[aslyfox]

T. . . . It is far too early to tell and, considering lifetime immunity occurs with a minuscule percentage of known viruses, the odds are against it being the case with this one.

that is what I thought

[Serkevan]

years and years ago I learned to translate certain words

one was " theory "

" theory " = guess

then you went on to prove or disproved the guess

and over time, and with repetition, you and others established how reliable the guess is

pure H2O changes from a solid liquid form to a gaseous form at 212 0 F, 100 0 C

is the guess

well, not quite

at different air pressures ( altitudes ) that changes

and where precision matters that can matter a lot

A slight correction: in science, "theory" is a comprehensive set of knowledge that is as close to the "truth" as we can get.

In this case, "water boils at 100 ºC" is a hypothesis, that can be tested and proven or disproved.