That’s from the WaPo graphic above. It’s a daily count.
94/100,000 - where is that from?
(actually, maybe I know… right now the COVID death toll in the total LA population is .0938% so I guess that’s the 94 number?)
I see panic in articles saying why we shouldn’t send our kids back to school at all and I see panic in reporting case numbers rather than deaths or hospitalizations.
Indeed… I don’t now how many times I have seen the media’s celebrity spokespersons reporting how a young person with no underlying health problems has died of covid, but then we see in a picture that the healthy young victim was clearly overweight…
Other than people with metabolic syndrome being at high risk because they already have fibrosis of their organs to being with. Healthy A+ and AB+ blood types are at very high risk because they don’t naturally have Anti-A isoantibodies in their blood which latch onto the SARS spike protein and prevents viral entry but blood types with these Anti-A isoantibodies can still have a viral load and spread the virus because of the nature of these SARS viruses.
I’m A+ and I was the only one who developed acute pneumonia while in ketosis. My older A+ brother has his medication which is also a very effective antiviral and he cleared the virus in less than a week.
Chile is a perfect example. Their population is mostly O+ and less than 10% being A+. The A+ population is slowly getting silently massacred by healthy O+ asymptomatic silent spreaders which increase the viral load towards others without knowing.
I’ve been thinking about running off into the wild because I’d rather deal with wild animals than have to deal with another round of this virus.
That’s an over-generalization. It depends on the number of new cases, etc. Red/green/yellow zones, etc. If anything, our experience is that there wasn’t enough “panic” early on. Now, some schools are opening up for in-person instruction and some are doing pretty well and some are not.
I was a supporter of hard and early lockdowns but at this point I’ve changed my mind. Looking at New Zealand; I know they have lovely COVID numbers and I would really really like to see such a dynamic and personable woman leader succeed - but are they going to just keep locking down every time the virus shows up again? In that case it’s not just the shutdowns themselves but the expectation that at any point, things could come to a grinding halt.
By the time we could have made use of panic mode, the virus was already pretty widespread. It’s been in Europe since at least December, in the US since January or February (and there are sewage study showing it was in Brazil in November). Early on we had what I thought we all agreed was a commendable goal of flattening the curve. Various graph experts reminded us that the area under the curve was still the same with or without flattening (except for the excess deaths from hospital overcrowding) and that it wasn’t going to be pretty. But somehow that has morphed into the goal of stopping the virus, which is a completely different aim.
“Panic” to me means that the case number (not the death number, not the hospitalization number) has been front-page news since March. It means that there are children in cities who have spent months indoors, it means that we’re so bent on stopping the virus that we’re not taking into account the toll on poor families, on children, on our mental and physical health. I know that some schools are opening, but at least where I am, they’re closed for the first two months of the school year, leaving single parents totally stranded, and many families are preparing for a full year of chaos and uncertainty. The privileged folks I know are traveling and isolating; the poor and working class are kind of screwed.
Good question about New Zealand, but it’s really just been the one fast up-and-back-down. Now, I do note that there are 53 cases in the last week, which is actually a substantial increase, i.e. they were virtually down to zero for a good while.
Nevertheless, the point about a little more “panic” early on stands - as with the New York City area.
I think this makes sense to all of us - so as not to overburden the medical system.
It would only be true if the virus didn’t change and we never got better at treating the disease. And of course the appearance of a good vaccine would blow that all away. Even without a vaccine, a person is much better off getting infected now, versus February or March; we really have come a long way. While I haven’t checked on exact figures, the number of deaths per new virus cases has got to be way down.
You’ve said this a lot, but it sure ain’t the case in the U.S. Virus eradication was never really looked at, and indeed after a point in time it simply wasn’t going to happen. But the U.S. hasn’t even done well overall with mere virus mitigation. There are a handful of states where it’s been “slow and steady” - they’ve done a good job at keeping the numbers low. More, even among the states that didn’t have much going on for quite a few months, had the virus balloon in the summer. If there are exceptions to this among the “lowest numbers of cases” states, I vote for Maine and New Hampshire. Probably aided by location and low population density, they had small early up-and-downs, then have really kept the numbers super-low since.
How much of the lower number of cases in certain states will remain that way once the colder weather comes and we can’t be outside as much? 
Re: getting rid of rather than flattening the curve, I agree, not everyone thinks we have to eliminate the virus but it’s built into so much of the rhetoric. In NZ, the official line is “We have got rid of Covid before … We can do all of that again.” as if any increase in cases is a problem rather than an inevitability within a human society. I’m not going to go back and look now, I think Gabe uses that language (of destroying the virus) early on in this thread and I think that expectation is built into a lot of the policy-making.
Earlier shutdown in NY - and maybe more extreme and shorter - probably would have prevented many of the elder home deaths, because I think a lot of decisions were made in haste (and panic). But it’s really difficult to make that call early enough to make a difference. NZ did have enough warning time to do that, but shutting down Auckland every time there are new cases (they’re in the middle of the second lockdown now) - can you imagine how that would (will?) work in NYC?
Although we’re learning some things as we go, the death percentage is going down largely because we’re testing SO much more. When you look at some of the sewage studies (in Boston, for instance) it looks like the virus has been pretty widespread for a long while - but with less testing you only get the case numbers of people who are ill enough to require treatment. In the NE US, you had to meet many qualifications before being able to get a test this spring. I had a colleague who had 3 of the 4 symptoms and was not allowed to get a test (she later tested positive) so the death rate looked particularly bleak early on.
Yes, a safe and effective vaccine changes the whole discussion but it’s so hard to know when that will be available.
This actually lines up (seasonally) pretty much exactly with how viruses behave closer to the equator.
And unfortunately the corollary to that means…
Past experiences with viruses show the opposite - we’ll likely see cases going up in the winter in the northern hemisphere just as happens for other corona viruses and influenza.
You know she’s just the leader/face of the government, right? She does what the party decides. They don’t have a stupid/highly-corruptible presidential system, they have representative govt.
This is an interesting thread on why “lock downs don’t have any impact” may not be correct, and it throws a lot of Sweden data in there too. For instance, did you know that more than half of the households in Sweden are single-occupant? I did not. And would this cause an issue with how easily the epidemic would travel through Sweden? It would.
It’s complexities like this that are the reason I say things like “I don’t know” and “I THINK it’s this, but it might not be”.
https://twitter.com/joel_c_miller/status/1295638559739633665?s=03
Sadly, I no longer follow many good people because of covid. Once they decided they are “right” about covid, I ceased following them, as I can no longer trust them about anything if they have that much hubris: it has to also affect their analysis of low carb/cholesterol/eating/anything else. I now doubt them.
This is yet another reason to be careful with any analysis of covid-19:
“Long-Haulers Are Redefining COVID-19”
A few quotes:
Another:
How many people are like this? I’m not sure anyone knows.
I’m not quite sure of your point relative to me wanting to see her succeed. I should reconsider wanting her to succeed because she’s “just the leader of the government”? (or just the face, which is a very different thing…). She’s the leader of the party and spokesperson for the ministers, among other things. I’m assuming she sets the tone and has incredible influence on what her party decides. For various reasons - not just because she’s a woman, though I’m sure that’s in the mix for me - I would love to see her thrive. Can you explain your comment?
Sigh… I’m in the same situation, though it has to do with the way I see what have always been my staple newspapers and to some extent my usual political party in the US.
I think it’s human nature to try to make sense of the world and then hang tightly onto the feeling of “right,” especially if you think you’re being attacked for those views or if you perceive some danger from others disagreeing.
Have you read The Righteous Mind? It’s on my to-read list. I’m really hoping it’s relatively non-partisan.
Hypofibrinolytic state and high thrombin generation may play a major role in SARS‐COV2 associated thrombosis
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jth.15016
This is a minefield anybody with the search for the ‘truth’ has to navigate. Though a lot of the time, the ‘truth’ seems to be a subjective matter. And in the past, I have subscribed to, and unsubscribe to several news/content sources.
Though I do value competence. If an outlet/person is great on a certain subject, digs deep, provides sources for claims, endeavours to not allow personal bias to influence a news piece, then on that single subject I will pay attention to them. I now have people I listen to on single issues only. I follow a certain rougue economist, but if he dips into Covid I treat it as an opinion piece only. Or perhaps won’t even listen to/read it.
I of course still listen to what the mainstream media pump out. Though so much of that is propaganda. Like the Belarus story. Here in the UK the BBC 'report’s it one way, RT (Russia today) completely the opposite. Claiming only one of these sources is propaganda is ignorant at best. The ‘truth’ is what people want it to be most of the time.
I now listen to what people say with an open mind. Paying more attention as to why they are saying what they are saying, rather than what they actually claim. You can find more ‘truth’ in understanding their motive for certain claims.
In regards to your Keto sources, perhaps they are letting their in built bias against the medical establishment effect their judgement on Covid. And perhaps you are right to give little credit to their views on Covid. However, they do have cause to be suspicious of the establishment medical profession, and their views on Covid does not mean their views on dietary health are any less valid then they were before Covid. I mean, I wouldn’t listen to my economist give his views on nutrition or Covid. I find him competent on economics. And economics is the only subject in which I give him my time. If he drifts into politics or Covid, I either listen cautiously, or switch off. I have my own sources for them subjects. Ones which I have invested plenty of time in establishing competence.
That was a bit of a long winded way of saying that perhaps you might not want to ditch your keto guys if they have given you no cause to doubt them on Keto. There is absolutely no source that is ‘right’ on everything…
Rereading this excellent post from a month ago, I find myself even more in agreement with it, and I am increasingly questioning all the “facts” we’ve been peddled all this time. Frankly a lot of it sounded like half-baked nonsense from the start (“it’s irrelevant how high your cholesterol levels go, pay no attention to it, just keep drinking melted tallow for breakfast, anyone who tells you that might not be a great idea is just SAD.”)
Worst of all, the kinds of “gurus” who peddle the worst of this lunacy are often self-proclaimed “gurus,” without much in the way of medical training. You know, like engineers who fancy themselves nutrition researchers, just without the labs or the degrees or the training or… much of anything, really.
It is scandalous that these characters have been given the platform they’ve been given. The fact that luminaries like Tim Noakes get on stage with them is nearly unforgivable. Because now we have a situation in which we thought we were being guided by science, and the sort of humility scientific reasoning is supposed to engender, but instead we’ve got all this bull crap muddying the water now and mixing in with legit, serious low carb doctors and researchers.
Bad enough that I am being driven to question everything all over again, and ask myself if there’s evidence to support every single thing we thought we knew about low carb years ago.
Worse is that newbies to low carb are going to be discouraged by the proliferation of junk science masquerading as the cutting edge.
Anyone can slap together a powerpoint and get on stage at a low carb conference; doesn’t make the joker an expert and it doesn’t mean that what they say is true.
And if they do say things that are demonstrably true? Stopped clocks are right twice a day, too.
