Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's an excellent thread, and his first three counter-arguments are well made. The fourth, however, is too dependent on restaurant stats.

Restaurants are perhaps the most discretionary consumer choice out there. Some considered a luxury. It's not surprising consumers would pull back from that purchase in the face of a possible pandemic. They're also a leading indicator of consumer sentiment, and that sentiment wasn't exactly robust before the emergence of Covid-19. One of the first elective expenditures people drop in a recession are restaurant purchases.

A better example would be nail and hair salons, which many women do not view as discretionary spending. I've heard a black market for home delivery of these services has sprung up in our area. I'd bet if allowed to continue, those businesses would have seen a decrease in revenue, but would continue to enjoy a steady flow of customers. The same would apply to non-essential medical procedures like dermatology, plastic surgery, orthodontics. Those offices would likely have continued to see a decreased but significant revenue stream.

Golf courses around here have been raided by police because members have been informally playing (walking, no carts) rounds. Same with outdoor tennis facilities.

Liquor stores in New Jersey are enjoying a huge windfall because PA's stores are closed. People are waiting in lines, in cramped spaces, to buy in mass quantities.

If you need to see an eye doctor because something is compromising your vision, you're going to see that doctor.

I know from firsthand experience that people will continue to purchase non-essential health services right through the teeth of a pandemic. They didn't even stop doing so after the governor's order. This was why our governor issued a scary follow-up order in which he said he'd shut down non-essential health care providers using police. Many nevertheless persisted even after that. Finally, the governor did two things. First, he issued a shelter in place decree, which gave consumers significant pause. Second, they ordered that to provide any kind of care, health care providers would have to use a form of water and air filtration none of them could possibly have, and wear PPE the state knew none of them could acquire. That scared employees and made the exercise of trying to remain open entirely cost prohibitive.

If Trump says "We're open for business" on May 1, there are three forms of consumer response:

1. Balls out. "Let's do everything just like before!" This will be a low information consumer, probably 35% of people.
2. Cautious. "Let's wait a couple weeks and see if it's safe." This is probably 40% of people. They'll start consuming, but only in order of necessity first, putting things like restaurant purchases or movies at bottom of list.
3. Scared. "I'm not going near anyone." This is another stripe of low information consumer. Neurotic. This is the temporary hole in the economy we'll have going forward. Will only emerge from cocoon via peer pressure over several months. But this person will resume normal activities eventually, as FOMO and the human biological urge to follow and be with others will be overwhelming.

I see tremendous pent up demand being unleashed in summer if this thing peaks and fades a bit by early May. Keep in mind -- in past pandemics, people did not have social media. They didn't know the town down the road, where the virus had not been as severe, was open and people were enjoying themselves in cafes. Now, the shut-ins will see their friends having a blast on Instagram and Facebook. The pull to resume normal activities will be like crack. And shit will be really cheap for a while, just like after 2008.

I see many reasons to be depressed about the next few months, but I also see huge potential upside. Particularly if that malaria + z pak therapy (or some other one) gives a clear method by which to keep people off ventilators.

You should put exactly zero hope in that "treatment."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You should put exactly zero hope in that "treatment."

I've spoken to four different docs who say it does actually work. And these are hardcore Trump haters.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/michig...aved-her-life/

If you read the stories saying the proof is weak, you're swallowing a bit of sophistry. The proof is weak when compared to empirical studies done over a longer term. There are no analogues but for frenzied studies done on novel viruses like MERS or SARS. The only apt comparison to the few studies we have would be equally small studies performed on SARS and MERS within the month or two after those diseases emerged. Those studies would be similarly incomplete.

To compare a study done under emergent conditions with a novel virus to studies done over a long period of time is classic apples and oranges.

To a degree, we must rely on "anecdata" in regard to any new treatment offered for Covid-19.

I think some in the media understand that. Some are dumb and don't. The latter are to be ignored, the former loathed.

And all of their arguments are a bit silly. When someone points a gun at your head, you don't get to say, "Wait. I'll need time to run a rigorous assessment of possible reactions to see what my best reply is." You play the best hand you can come up with in the moment.

Logic dictates we throw every drug we have at this thing and explore all options. The malaria drug is showing promise, and its cheap and easy to produce. And please don't sing me a song about how it's killing lupus patients. It's not. That's a facile argument. There's a factory pumping that drug out like mad an hour from my house. The docs I've spoken to about it also say the risk of a heart attack on it, while real, is the size of a rounding error.

I wish Biden had touted the drug. We'd be able to have much more honest conversations about it.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's an excellent thread, and his first three counter-arguments are well made. The fourth, however, is too dependent on restaurant stats.

Restaurants are perhaps the most discretionary consumer choice out there. Some considered a luxury. It's not surprising consumers would pull back from that purchase in the face of a possible pandemic. They're also a leading indicator of consumer sentiment, and that sentiment wasn't exactly robust before the emergence of Covid-19. One of the first elective expenditures people drop in a recession are restaurant purchases.

A better example would be nail and hair salons, which many women do not view as discretionary spending. I've heard a black market for home delivery of these services has sprung up in our area. I'd bet if allowed to continue, those businesses would have seen a decrease in revenue, but would continue to enjoy a steady flow of customers. The same would apply to non-essential medical procedures like dermatology, plastic surgery, orthodontics. Those offices would likely have continued to see a decreased but significant revenue stream.

Golf courses around here have been raided by police because members have been informally playing (walking, no carts) rounds. Same with outdoor tennis facilities.

Liquor stores in New Jersey are enjoying a huge windfall because PA's stores are closed. People are waiting in lines, in cramped spaces, to buy in mass quantities.

If you need to see an eye doctor because something is compromising your vision, you're going to see that doctor.

I know from firsthand experience that people will continue to purchase non-essential health services right through the teeth of a pandemic. They didn't even stop doing so after the governor's order. This was why our governor issued a scary follow-up order in which he said he'd shut down non-essential health care providers using police. Many nevertheless persisted even after that. Finally, the governor did two things. First, he issued a shelter in place decree, which gave consumers significant pause. Second, they ordered that to provide any kind of care, health care providers would have to use a form of water and air filtration none of them could possibly have, and wear PPE the state knew none of them could acquire. That scared employees and made the exercise of trying to remain open entirely cost prohibitive.

If Trump says "We're open for business" on May 1, there are three forms of consumer response:

1. Balls out. "Let's do everything just like before!" This will be a low information consumer, probably 35% of people.
2. Cautious. "Let's wait a couple weeks and see if it's safe." This is probably 40% of people. They'll start consuming, but only in order of necessity first, putting things like restaurant purchases or movies at bottom of list.
3. Scared. "I'm not going near anyone." This is another stripe of low information consumer. Neurotic. This is the temporary hole in the economy we'll have going forward. Will only emerge from cocoon via peer pressure over several months. But this person will resume normal activities eventually, as FOMO and the human biological urge to follow and be with others will be overwhelming.

I see tremendous pent up demand being unleashed in summer if this thing peaks and fades a bit by early May. Keep in mind -- in past pandemics, people did not have social media. They didn't know the town down the road, where the virus had not been as severe, was open and people were enjoying themselves in cafes. Now, the shut-ins will see their friends having a blast on Instagram and Facebook. The pull to resume normal activities will be like crack. And shit will be really cheap for a while, just like after 2008.

I see many reasons to be depressed about the next few months, but I also see huge potential upside. Particularly if that malaria + z pak therapy (or some other one) gives a clear method by which to keep people off ventilators.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've spoken to four different docs who say it does actually work. And these are hardcore Trump haters.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/michig...aved-her-life/

If you read the stories saying the proof is weak, you're swallowing a bit of sophistry. The proof is weak when compared to empirical studies done over a longer term. There are no analogues but for frenzied studies done on novel viruses like MERS or SARS. The only apt comparison to the few studies we have would be equally small studies performed on SARS and MERS within the month or two after those diseases emerged. Those studies would be similarly incomplete.

To compare a study done under emergent conditions with a novel virus to studies done over a long period of time is classic apples and oranges.

To a degree, we must rely on "anecdata" in regard to any new treatment offered for Covid-19.

I think some in the media understand that. Some are dumb and don't. The latter are to be ignored, the former loathed.

And all of their arguments are a bit silly. When someone points a gun at your head, you don't get to say, "Wait. I'll need time to run a rigorous assessment of possible reactions to see what my best reply is." You play the best hand you can come up with in the moment.

Logic dictates we throw every drug we have at this thing and explore all options. The malaria drug is showing promise, and its cheap and easy to produce. And please don't sing me a song about how it's killing lupus patients. It's not. That's a facile argument. There's a factory pumping that drug out like mad an hour from my house. The docs I've spoken to about it also say the risk of a heart attack on it, while real, is the size of a rounding error.

I wish Biden had touted the drug. We'd be able to have much more honest conversations about it.

Friend of mine had a bad case that was resolved and sent home from hospital after 10 days last two being such treatment.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Friend of mine had a bad case l was resolved and sent home from hospital after 10 days last two beingsuch treatment.

It works to a significant degree and they know it. They're giving to people here.

The problem is, if you get it too late, it does not work. Once the cytokine storm has gone too far, it appears there's no way back.

BUT, here's how our delightful media engages in sleight of hand: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...isn-t-n1177556

The article should be titled, "Hydroxychloroquine Found Only Effective if Used Early." That's entirely factual, and if our media cared, rather than wanted to see a fight, and more deaths to increase ratings, they'd write the story that way. Because if people read a story like that, they'd seek the drug early, before they wound up burdening an ICU by having to be put on a ventilator.

But no -- our media isn't going to be honest at all. On the right, Fox will talk about how the drug is miracle cure. It's not. On the left, they'll shade stories however they can to suggest it's not effective. It is.

Politics. Tribalism. We've got a gun pointed at our heads and we're still at it. Amazing.

ETA: I've a family member who practiced cancer medicine, among a few other specialties, for over 50 years. I asked this person about the heart attack risk. Response was, "Minimal. They hand it out like candy in Africa." I have clients who are originally from and regularly travel back to Africa. They verified that statement. I asked about whether a z pak had any adverse side effects. The doc in my family told me that choice of the z pak is not predicated solely on its ability to avoid secondary bacterial pneumonia, but also because for reasons unknown, z pak will uniquely decrease inflammation. See that in the media? Fuck no.

Here's an enormous steaming pile of sophistry: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/7/2120953...clinical-trial That cat should go to law school. A common man reading that article would have no idea how cleverly he'd just been victimized by someone dishonestly re-framing an issue to avoid addressing the important question.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It fucking works and they know it. They're giving to people here.

The problem is, if you get it too late, it does not work. Once the cytokine storm has gone too far, it appears there's no way back.

BUT, here's how our delightful media engages in sleight of hand: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...isn-t-n1177556

The article should be titled, "Hydroxychloroquine Found Only Effective if Used Early." That's entirely factual, and if our media cared, rather than wanted to see a fight, and more deaths to increase ratings, they'd write the story that way. Because if people read a story like that, they'd seek the drug early, before they wound up burdening an ER by having to be put on a ventilator.

But no -- our media isn't going to be honest at all. On the right, Fox will talk about how the drug is miracle cure. It's not. On the left, they'll shade stories however they can to suggest it's not effective. It is.

Politics. Tribalism. We've got a gun pointed at our heads and we're still at it. Amazing.

This wasn't early. It was used late. Two doses, one a day then home, then resolved. This was not someone who had a cytokine storm but rather someone who had had recent bouts with pneumonia before the one that came FROM covid-19.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

This wasn't early. It was used late. Two doses, one a day then home, then resolved. This was not someone who had a cytokine storm but rather someone who had had recent bouts with pneumonia before the one that came FROM covid-19.

Wow, well then he's lucky. The people I know on the floors with Covid patients have said hydrozychloroquine hasn't worked very well once a person needs the ventilator.

To return from that with co-morbidities is pretty amazing.

But I'm not sure it's a good idea to let the public believe the drug can rescue people in those straits. The anecdata suggests your friend is an outlier.

Which leads to the next argument you'll hear from the media: "The malaria drug is not a proven cure... It seems some people spontaneously recover from Covid and we can't prove the drug was the cause." That'll be the moment people entirely give up on believing anything the media says.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've spoken to four different docs who say it does actually work. And these are hardcore Trump haters.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/michig...aved-her-life/

If you read the stories saying the proof is weak, you're swallowing a bit of sophistry. The proof is weak when compared to empirical studies done over a longer term. There are no analogues but for frenzied studies done on novel viruses like MERS or SARS. The only apt comparison to the few studies we have would be equally small studies performed on SARS and MERS within the month or two after those diseases emerged. Those studies would be similarly incomplete.

To compare a study done under emergent conditions with a novel virus to studies done over a long period of time is classic apples and oranges.

To a degree, we must rely on "anecdata" in regard to any new treatment offered for Covid-19.

I think some in the media understand that. Some are dumb and don't. The latter are to be ignored, the former loathed.

And all of their arguments are a bit silly. When someone points a gun at your head, you don't get to say, "Wait. I'll need time to run a rigorous assessment of possible reactions to see what my best reply is." You play the best hand you can come up with in the moment.

Logic dictates we throw every drug we have at this thing and explore all options. The malaria drug is showing promise, and its cheap and easy to produce. And please don't sing me a song about how it's killing lupus patients. It's not. That's a facile argument. There's a factory pumping that drug out like mad an hour from my house. The docs I've spoken to about it also say the risk of a heart attack on it, while real, is the size of a rounding error.

I wish Biden had touted the drug. We'd be able to have much more honest conversations about it.

Yes, because what we need right now is more politicians touting untested drugs.

Are you even listening to yourself? The proof is not "weak," it's entirely anecdotal. You dismiss the risk of heart attacks as "real" but "the size of a rounding error." Any "proof" is -- likewise -- no more than a rounding error. And not necessarily real. That's why you want hospitals to figure it out, and not to do medicine on the basis of what you read in the New York Post. Do you really think the doctors in all the hospitals treating all the people dying from this virus aren't interested in "exploring all options"? That if they only read the New York Post then lives would be saved? Get real. My wife is treating Covid-19 patients at a teaching hospital, and I eagerly anticipate the day when she comes home at says this is helping people. Hasn't happened yet.

The strong desire for a miracle cure is completely understandable, and it's great TV, but it is depressing to see so many people succumbing to wishful thinking. It's getting people killed. Imagine if Trump spent all that energy telling people to avoid contact with each other.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, because what we need right now is more politicians touting untested drugs.

Are you even listening to yourself? The proof is not "weak," it's entirely anecdotal. You dismiss the risk of heart attacks as "real" but "the size of a rounding error." Any "proof" is -- likewise -- no more than a rounding error. And not necessarily real. That's why you want hospitals to figure it out, and not to do medicine on the basis of what you read in the New York Post. Do you really think the doctors in all the hospitals treating all the people dying from this virus aren't interested in "exploring all options"? That if they only read the New York Post then lives would be saved? Get real. My wife is treating Covid-19 patients at a teaching hospital, and I eagerly anticipate the day when she comes home at says this is helping people. Hasn't happened yet.

The strong desire for a miracle cure is completely understandable, and it's great TV, but it is depressing to see so many people succumbing to wishful thinking. It's getting people killed. Imagine if Trump spent all that energy telling people to avoid contact with each other.

is her hospital trying it?

In other news some NYC docs are considering NOT using ventilators as the death rate for people who go on them is 80%.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Please think about this for just a second. Assume the following data (from a 10-day old article in US News) is right:

By decade, the risk of hospitalization from infection with the new coronavirus is: Zero for kids under 10; 0.1% for kids 10 to 19; 1% for people aged 20 to 29; 3.4% for people aged 30 to 39; 4.3% for people in their 40s; 8.2% for those in their 50s; 11.8% for people aged 60 to 69; 16.6% for those in their 70s; and 18.4% for those in their 80s or above.

As for the death rate, the risk was near zero for people under 40, crept up to 0.2% for people 40 to 49, to 0.6% for 50-somethings, just under 2% for people in their 60s, 4.3% for those in their 70s, and 7.8% for those in their 80s, the findings showed.

You give the malaria drug to 100 infected people in their 40s. Only six are hospitalized. Good result? No, the opposite. That's 6% hospitalization instead of of baseline 4.3%. But that's 94 people who go around saying, I took the malaria drug and it cured me!

You give the malaria drug to 100 hospitalized people in their 40s. Fifteen of them die. Good result? No, the opposite. From the data above, you would expect the mortality rate to be a third of that. But now you have 85 people who say, I was hospitalized and I took the malaria drug and it cured me!

Is it any surprise that you see a ton of anecdotal evidence of people who took the drug and say it made them better? No. If we tried the same thing with placebos, you could get the same result without risking the health of people with lupus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is her hospital trying it?

In other news some NYC docs are considering NOT using ventilators as the death rate for people who go on them is 80%.

You need the ventilators at some point because the virus does so much damage to your lungs. The ventilators are not treating the virus, they are trying to help the patient survive the damage the virus does to your lungs. You need to be careful with ventilators generally, because people who go on them are very, very sick, to the point that they can't get enough oxygen breathing for themselves, and all sorts of things can go wrong, both because they have other problems and because people are not designed to breathe through tubes stuck down their throats.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Trump says "We're open for business" on May 1, there are three forms of consumer response:

1. Balls out. "Let's do everything just like before!" This will be a low information consumer, probably 35% of people.
2. Cautious. "Let's wait a couple weeks and see if it's safe." This is probably 40% of people. They'll start consuming, but only in order of necessity first, putting things like restaurant purchases or movies at bottom of list.
3. Scared. "I'm not going near anyone." This is another stripe of low information consumer. Neurotic. This is the temporary hole in the economy we'll have going forward. Will only emerge from cocoon via peer pressure over several months. But this person will resume normal activities eventually, as FOMO and the human biological urge to follow and be with others will be overwhelming.

As a single human tired of internet offerings, I see that first night being the best night to go to a bar ever.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Please think about this for just a second. Assume the following data (from a 10-day old article in US News) is right:



You give the malaria drug to 100 infected people in their 40s. Only six are hospitalized. Good result? No, the opposite. That's 6% hospitalization instead of of baseline 4.3%. But that's 94 people who go around saying, I took the malaria drug and it cured me!

You give the malaria drug to 100 hospitalized people in their 40s. Fifteen of them die. Good result? No, the opposite. From the data above, you would expect the mortality rate to be a third of that. But now you have 85 people who say, I was hospitalized and I took the malaria drug and it cured me!

Is it any surprise that you see a ton of anecdotal evidence of people who took the drug and say it made them better? No. If we tried the same thing with placebos, you could get the same result without risking the health of people with lupus.

That’s a nice strawman.

Now deal with this:

1. There is no huge data set. All we have is anecdata. These are the cards. Play the hand. Don’t argue about how great it’d be if we had a better hand. No shit it’d be better.

2. Icky and I have both known people who have had excellent results on this drug. I’ve spoken to docs who have seen it cause people on oxygen to come off oxygen. I’ve also had docs tell me lupus patients on it have bizarrely done well with Covid despite being compromised. Guess what drug they were on.

I noted a few posts back that the next bit of sophistry we’d see was a placebo effect argument. You’ve crafted a strawman and topped it with that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

As a single human tired of internet offerings, I see that first night being the best night to go to a bar ever.

Might be time for you and Paigs to finally take that plunge?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is her hospital trying it?

In other news some NYC docs are considering NOT using ventilators as the death rate for people who go on them is 80%.

They are here, and it’s resoundingly being said, “It’s not a miracle cure, but it seems to work for a lot of people.”

But Ty’s strawman is much more compelling.

Because when a gun is pointed at you, and there appears to be a move that you could make which might improve your chances of not getting shot, based on the best educated assumption you have, and anecdotes from others who’ve survived using that move, you should nevertheless refrain from making that move until you have detailed, extensive, time-consuming studies about wheyher it’s really the best move.

In other words, you’re fucking dead.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, because what we need right now is more politicians touting untested drugs.

Are you even listening to yourself? The proof is not "weak," it's entirely anecdotal. You dismiss the risk of heart attacks as "real" but "the size of a rounding error." Any "proof" is -- likewise -- no more than a rounding error. And not necessarily real. That's why you want hospitals to figure it out, and not to do medicine on the basis of what you read in the New York Post. Do you really think the doctors in all the hospitals treating all the people dying from this virus aren't interested in "exploring all options"? That if they only read the New York Post then lives would be saved? Get real. My wife is treating Covid-19 patients at a teaching hospital, and I eagerly anticipate the day when she comes home at says this is helping people. Hasn't happened yet.

The strong desire for a miracle cure is completely understandable, and it's great TV, but it is depressing to see so many people succumbing to wishful thinking. It's getting people killed. Imagine if Trump spent all that energy telling people to avoid contact with each other.

Well then Icky and I apparently live in a different world than you. Are we both full of shut here? Are his friends lying to him? His buddy miraculously came back after 10 days based on a placebo effect? My doctor friends are lying to me? Maybe. Maybe they are. Maybe Icky’s crazy.

But then maybe Cuomo’s crazy too, because he’s even green lit the use of the drug. Maybe Modi’s nuts too, because he tried to keep all of the drug in country.

It’s all placebo effect.

And yes, the heart attack issue is a rounding error. It’s something like 3% of people who take the drug who have arrhythmia. Millions of Africans take it all the time. Ya think docs would give it to them if it had a significant chance of harming large numbers of them? No. Of course not. Just as with Covid, the risk/benefit of taking that chance vs. getting malaria is a fucking no brainer.