Really disappointed with the amount of anti-science nonsense coming out of some LCHF/keto folks


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #21

Great to hear a lot of people agreeing with me, and I’m not surprised to hear a lot of people who believe themselves to be skeptics. I wasn’t aiming to start a flame war and it’s very nice to see people debating politely for the most part. A few points on the policy and politics of this issue:

  • Here in Australia, this issue hasn’t been politicized. One of the world’s more conservative governments reluctantly implemented a lockdown and a far-reaching welfare scheme to help people affected by said lockdown. Our government reacted very late – they could have sealed borders in February and/or have locked down a couple of weeks before they did – but when push came to shove this is a public health issue.
  • Based on the facts, there were only 3 alternatives: elimination (a la New Zealand’s stated approach), suppression, and “herd immunity.” All of these are basically just different levels of suppression, existing on a spectrum. Here’s the Group of 8 Report that came out in late April, commissioned by the government to advise on the way forward after lockdown.
  • Primarily in the US, but also elsewhere, this matter has been politicized. This is unsurprising but deeply unhelpful, and in my view the US will suffer immensely. We will see the sad results in just a few weeks now that many states have opened up from lockdown.

Now to drill down a tiny bit, without getting too much into the weeds, I note that there’s a lot of misinformation being tossed around here. Let me unpack a bit of it:

  • The mortality rate: someone in favour of lockdown, above, suggested 10% of infected people might die. Other people, who are against lockdown, argue that the mortality rate is minuscule. Neither of these is solidly grounded in fact, except to say the following: you need to take into account the necessity of a functioning health care system. I think the 10% figure was a hypothetical. See, as I said in my OP, even Sweden has basic suppression measures in place like a ban on large gatherings because they know that if you don’t do anything, you will overwhelm your health care system and then the mortality rate will shoot up. 20% of infected people require hospitalization; in the absence of capacity, who knows what the death rate would be. Unlikely to be all of them, likely to be much more than “the flu.”
  • Ah yes, the flu argument, and the argument that we allow driving even though there are road fatalities. Indeed. Well, again, if we knew how rampant infection would affect the health care system, if we could guarantee it wouldn’t cripple our society, then I’d agree with you. But then you have Italy and New York. Italy tried the softly, softly approach and they were forced into lockdown when the virus incapacitated their country. You really want to try that?
  • The economy: as if any of us wants a recession! Look, we’re dealing with a bunch of bad option here. The argument’s been made that more people will die from economic fallout than ever would have died from the virus. Poppycock and balderdash. No evidence whatsoever for this claim.
  • "Proof" that the mortality rates are low: you can’t point to numbers in your county or your country being low, while you’re under lockdown, and say that this proves the virus isn’t that bad. You’re actually pointing to evidence that lockdown works.
  • Conspiracy theories: don’t send me a video by a fascist professor who says that the virus confers “immunity for life” and who states as fact that this virus came out of the Wuhan lab. There’s no evidence for any of this. Wow, so she’s a professor. The low carb “expert” who has been peddling this professor has been hitting back at detractors by saying “well so you know more than a full professor?” This is a classic fallacy called “argument from authority.” Low carb people should know better than to think that “authority” is proof of anything. It also amazes me that they can’t do better than finding an actual fascist; it kind of shows you how desperate these “skeptics” are.
  • "Being put on a ventilator is a death sentence": yes, somebody actually said this above. Again, another thing that is not evidence-based. I personally know a man in his 70s who was ventilated and survived. It’s true to say the ventilator isn’t a treatment – all it does is give the body more time to fight the virus. 50% of those who are ventilated survive. What would the numbers be if they weren’t ventilated? Someone else will have to trawl through the Lancet and find that info for us. Suffice to say I’m quite sure the number would be much lower than 50%.

Listen guys, don’t think that because we’ve reached different conclusions that we are any less skeptical than you are. Low carb people are by our nature skeptical. But I am interested in facts. If you deny the moon landing happened, you’re not braver than I am or smarter than I am or “more skeptical” than I am. You just aren’t evidence-based.

There will always be “experts” who will support conspiracy theories. In this case, it seems that the best they can come up with is a nutty professor who also happens to be kind of a Nazi. Please. Do better.


(Full Metal KETO AF) #22

Well actually you can because irrelevant of the number of actual number of confirmed infected (we don’t even know the true number) there’s only been less than two percent death rate. This doesn’t even take into account the number of people who got it and never presented any symptoms or had very light symptoms they wrote off as a sore throat for a day or two. Any suspicious deaths would have been tested for the viral infection. So the actual death rate is inflated here in Santa Cruz. I myself believe I already had it before it was a big panic here as many other Bay Area people do. I have major risk factors, immune suppression, over 60 and A+ blood. :cowboy_hat_face:


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #23

Wrong. Unless you can cite something different.

88% death rate among Covid-19 patients in the New York City area who had to be placed on mechanical devices to help them breathe.
Source

However, the severity of lung damage (such as presence of ARDS) has great influence:


(Full Metal KETO AF) #24

The article I posted has a 1 in 3 chance of survival and I chose a liberal source as to not bring up political issues but I have also seen reports of 1 in 5 in other places. Basically if you end up on a ventilator you’re pretty well screwed. :cowboy_hat_face:


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #25

@gabe Ordinary common seasonal flu kills 100’s of thousands of people worldwide every year, year after year. It infects and hospitalizes millions. The Asian Flu of 1957-8, the Hong Kong Flu of 1968 and the common flu of 2018-19 (yes, one year ago!) hospitalized and killed more people than COVID-19 to date. Yet, no drastic measures were implemented to ‘cower-in-place’ and destroy the world economy. It is not ‘conspiracy theory mongering’ to ask why. It is not ‘conspiracy theory mongering’ to wonder who benefits from the current panic. Nor to wonder why draconian ‘lockdowns’ have been and will be continued to be imposed when other less detrimental responses would suffice. And reduce the collateral damage significantly.


(Doug) #26

Indeed - Sweden is much closer to the stay-at-home orders that countries with fairly severe infections have, than to doing nothing.

Taiwan acted fast and strongly - now they’re sitting there with 7 deaths and 440 cases. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and really - Germany too - have been very successful. Taiwan normally had over 2 million people regularly going back and forth to China, so they got right on it.


(Vic) #27

South Dakota has only 39 deaths in almost 3663 K infected And they did not implement social distancing stay at home or anything

Italy has over 220K infected with 31 Deaths

Italy has been held up bu all the news as The ones to follow and was doing everything right we need to do what they did we need to follow their example

This is what I heard every day in the beginning, I would hear it all day as I was in the hospital at the time

If Italy was as populated as the US the equivalent number would be 186K dead

I am not sure what any of that means as you look at many areas you will find the death number are all over the place


(Full Metal KETO AF) #28

Dude! :rofl::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::grin::cowboy_hat_face:


(Ellenor Bjornsdottir (spare me thy resistant starch spiel)) #29

I’m checking out, folks


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #30

Thanks for this, hadn’t seen this stat. Actually it’s ~50% admitted to ICU survive; looks like the odds on a ventilator might be even lower. Doubtful this is caused by the ventilator, it’s just that covid patients who require ventilation are in bad shape to begin with.

Yes it is. The reason why is that covid is substantially more deadly and much more contagious. A nasty combination.

Yep. Taiwan sealed their borders on January 1 if I recall correctly. At least, they prevented arrivals from Hubei at that point. Can’t be stuffed googling that. But yeah, they were totally on it.


(Doug) #31

Chris, where are you from? If it’s a U.S. state then unless it’s New York (especially) or a relatively few others, then the virus outbreak is still probably in the very early stages. How many deaths do you think there will be, in total? ((Like after a year, for example.)

I think it’s easy to over-estimate the effect of stay-at-home orders, etc. The global economy and people’s behavior were already rapidly changing, regardless of what a given gov’t did or did not do. From raw materials through finished goods to retail, there’s a huge cascading effect. I also think it’s easy to over-estimate how much lifting stay-at-home orders, etc., will spur the economy. We will see…

No. What is “bollocks” is people pretending not to know what that model said. Here’s what it said: " In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour… Now, we all know that lots has been done, and that people have substantially altered their behavior. Of course things are better than the “worst case” scenario if no actions were taken… Meanwhile, even at that early date the rate of transmission, etc., that was estimated have turned out to be quite accurate.

Likewise, there were people (almost all of them arguing for less stay-at-home restrictions, etc.), who came up with ludicrously low estimates of death numbers. Now here is where the anti-science, anti-evidence, and some really goofy, apparent inability to look at simple series of numbers and come up with a rational conclusion comes in. This is where the agendas come in, and the nonsense…

I’m talking about stuff like Richard Epstein, fairly famous New York University law professor, widely held to be “a smart guy” - predicted 500 deaths in the U.S., then changed it to 5000. So here we are, 83,000+ deaths… From this, are we to somehow assume that all the U.S. should have locked down much more severely than it did?

I would say obviously not - and the same erroneous principle is at work in both cases, i.e. just because we can come up with a cherry-picked example (whether it be by deliberately taking things out of context, or by quoting somebody that apparently was hitting the metaphorical Crack Pipe), it has no necessary bearing, here.


#32

Careful you don’t pop a valve there old boy.


(Vic) #33

[quote=" > The lockdowns and total evisceration of the world economy were based on a model calculated by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London. His numbers have turned out to be total bollocks.

No. What is “bollocks” is people pretending not to know what that model said. Here’s what it said: " In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour… Now, we all know that lots has been done, and that people have substantially altered their behavior. Of course things are better than the “worst case” scenario if no actions were taken… Meanwhile, even at that early date the rate of transmission, etc., that was estimated have turned out to be quite accurate.
[/quote]

You do realize the models were the number with Lock down accounted for this is what they said many times in the beginning


(Doug) #34

Italy acted late - and they realized it was late and acted very strongly. The outbreak was already out of control. Italy has a lot denser population than the U.S. - like 5 or 6 times as dense. It makes a big difference - look at the U.S. - there’s New York City (as far as virus cases and deaths) and then there’s everywhere else, to a large extent, at least for now. New York state (a few days ago) had over 25% of the cases in the U.S. and 35% of the deaths. If you take NY out, the rest of the U.S. is still trending upwards in cases and deaths.

South Dakota isn’t densely populated at all - Italy is almost 50 times as dense. I live in Georgia and we’re more “in the middle” as far as cases and deaths, ~35,000 deaths/1500 deaths as of now. Things have been vastly slower here too than versus NYC, for example. It’s really been very “smooth” overall - a steady gain in virus cases and deaths. We had stay-at-home orders that have been partially lifted now; too early to see any effect, there.

We’ll see… I do think that Italy would act a lot sooner if they could do it all over.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #35

Do you have a citation to back up that statement? On the Diamond Princess with 3711 passengers (mostly elderly) and crew, 712 (at last count) got infected, of whom 14 subsequently died (1.96% of infected and .38% of exposed). On the USS Theodore Roosevelt with its mostly young and healthy crew of 4500, 1156 got infected (as of May 5) and 1 (41 year old - health status unknown - subsequently died), (0.86% of infected and 0.02% of exposed). So, the elderly and presumably more immuno-compromised on the Diamond Princess were at much higher risk than the younger and presumably much healthier sailors on the Theodore Roosevelt. Those numbers are not ‘substantially more deadly and more contagious’.


(Doug) #36

There were many models, dozens, actually, that came from the Imperial College, as well as a practically unlimited number from other places.

The frequently-quoted numbers, there, are the 2.2 million/510,000 deaths in the U.S. and the U.K. ones. This is almost exactly taking the deaths from the Spanish Flu and projecting them onto today’s larger population. Even those - and these are the ones “with nothing done; worst case…” - are only ~0.67% of the U.S. population and ~0.75% of the U.K. population. This really is not “out of line” for an early estimate.

As things are now, the U.K. has 32,000+ deaths and likely a good many more from Covid-19 (there are ~17,000 deaths above the normal death rate that as of now have not been attributed to Covid-19). These deaths have essentially been in the last 2 months (the U.K. had less than 600 a month ago). Do you think the U.K. would change its policies if they could start all over at the beginning - do the same, or go with less restrictions or increased restrictions?


(Vic) #37

I don’t know I was in the hospital for about 8 days in the very beginning and all I saw all day long CNN, CNBC MSN, Italy really got it right look at what they are doing why are we not doing what they are doing, Italy really knows how to handle this we need to model after Italy on and on and on

I am still in the cap of it will spread no matter what we do, The death % is much lower the reported and because its a new disease we have no immunity so the infected rate will be much higher but many never know they had it

We have everyone going out with these masks they said in the beginning do nothing unless they are the N95 but now they don’t talk about that anymore Its just for show though it does not protect

We def cant shelter in place for several years till there is a vaccine already there is much damage to the economy it will even at this point not fully recover

Yes some will die, I am not without compassion for that, But what good would it be to survive and have nothing left to live for, Already there are many families ruined destroyed, suicides, and more and this is the stuff thats in the early stages

Many companies are going to be hurt thus the employees hurt many are going to shut down many locations and some are filing for bankruptcy now Jees CA is getting a loan to pay unemployment payments

This is worse then you think


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #38

Admit your error. Or not. I couldn’t care less.


(Doug) #39

I agree that it will spread, no matter what - obviously, most people aren’t totally isolated, i.e. there’s some risk there. Personally, I’m hoping for a vaccine or effective antiviral medication before I get it, and before those more vulnerable than me get it. I think the death rate for the whole U.S. will end up between 0.15% and 1%. I realize that’s a wide range, but it’s still pretty early to tell.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #40

No. The model itself was/is bollocks.