73% Of Inmates At An Ohio Prison Test Positive For Coronavirus. 0 deaths so far
npr.org
npr.org
The link you replied to says 100% of inmates at Pickaway have been tested. There are separate columns for "Probable" and "Confirmed COVID-19 Related Inmate Deaths".
Pickaway has a prisoner population of 2100. If 7 died in the last month from non-Covid causes, that would mean half the prison normally dies in a 14 year period.
that's actually how we'll know in the end no matter how trump tries to hide the real numbers. (but at that point he will have been reelected anyway)
Before anything can be implied about population death rate:
1. need to wait about 3 weeks
2. need to know the age demographics
3. need to know if at-risk inmates were isolated
Edit: on reflection, R0 itself doesn’t mean anything about how quickly people get infected. I think a fast rate of infection through the facility could be implied.
E.g. if you put 1 infected person in a crowded bus for a day long trip, the R0 within that group would probably be close to number of passengers.
Could be you had one person that infected 200 fellow prisoners over a couple of days. After that you only need a week to infect everyone.
Strikes me we probably I was well need to be really careful drawing naive inferences from epidemiological numbers. That said suspect limiting group contact sizes is really important because of stuff like this. In order to keep random highly infectious people from infecting large numbers of people in one setting.
[0] Yes, this is hyperbole, but not by a lot.
I still wonder if possible long term effects are being factored into the decision making to just let healthy people get COVID-19.
Haven’t read it, just remembered seeing it linked in a blog.
SARS-CoV is known to be neuroinvasive.
> physiological
Lung tissue scarring can cause difficulty breathing for years, for one thing.
Just because you survive something, doesn't mean you are "OK" ... you may have reduced heart and/or lung capacity after COVID-19, not to mention other issues that can result.
COVID deaths have already been frequently written off in general as natural causes or "pneumonia" etc as of late because either the victim wasn't tested or there was a desire to minimize the # of reported cases.
Could my lawyer argue successfully that a year or whatever in prison was tantamount to a death sentence?
Is there any precedent for that?
There's something to be said for being young and healthy, it seems.
The thought is really, really frightening how many people had a very undeniable experience of their local Tinfoil-Hat being proven right not once, but 3-5 times so far.
From the WHO recommending to sustain Airtravel to China and it's refusal to declare the outbreak a pandemic, to renowned Virologists stating that facemask usage is ineffective until the evidence was too overwhelming. From Governments in the span of 3 weeks changing their tone from overconfidence to desperation. Statistics released by research groups that could very easily be disproven by anyone with first semester statistics knowledge...
If anything this will change the world and it is scary to me how much this loss of trust will cost us.
I know a couple of well educated and rational people that are already stating they will not take a vaccine once it's available, simply because they "can't" trust any data and study done on it.
"Where are the adults?"
Source? I saw nothing of that. What I did saw was health officials dissuading the public from buying gloves and masks because they were in very short supply and the spike in demand was forcing frontline workers, those who actually need gloves and masks, to macguyver theirselves alternative protective equipment.
At most, I've only saw health officials state that mask usage among the general public was not an assurance of immunity because wearing a mask provided a false sense of protection, and could even be counterproductive because it motivated users to keep touching their faces.
The discussion raged for weeks, before "masks for as many as possible, healthcare workers prioritized" became the public concensus.
This is just an example, but there are so many more that it becomes hard to show no sympathy to people who have "fact fatigue".
The 'source' is the authorities of most of the Western World.
Dr. Tam, the National Medical Honcho in Canada made the declaration that 'masks were not going to help' ... until the WHO and other nations changed their mind and she followed suit.
Masks were officially not recommended, then recommended but not required, and then required in some places.
I read imperial college reports and they raised my trust to experts. It was clear which assumptions they use and whether they aim for worst case, best case or what. I also seen experts debunk bad articles quickly, even through those got less traction and popularity.
> I know a couple of well educated and rational people that are already stating they will not take a vaccine once it's available, simply because they "can't" trust any data and study done on it.
I mean, are they as rational as and as educated as they consider themselves to be?
> "Where are the adults?"
All around. Plenty of them everywhere. They dont always get to win and they often loose political faith against intentionally bad actors. And intentionally bad actors are bigger threat right now then mistaken experts or immature people.
I read..."
This really doesn't matter for my point, there clearly are sources of truth out there, some more perfect than others, but they are not in effect shaping the discourse nor the policies. They are just voices in a crowd of equally credentialed institutions that have been caught doing very bad science, which is hurting public perception in general. It's even worse, the scientific institutions that are doing the best work often keep quiet because they don't have the clear evidence to support certain claims yet, leaving the field open to the ones marching forward with dubious relations. The Stanford Study being the best example.
My point is that the loss of public trust will be very damaging.
But again, shaping where? In America not at all, as a matter of politics. In Germany, they seem to be listened to and shaping both discourse and policies. In UK, experts put up the fight and ended up being listened to. Not the first moment, but politics turned around.
> They are just voices in a crowd of equally credentialed institutions that have been caught doing very bad science
But that is the thing ... this does not seem to me to be the case. There was plenty of good scientific discussion. It more of seems to be the case that you had to cherry-pick studies other experts criticized a lot and then ignore said criticism.
This was absolutely done for political reason, but politicians doing it were already known for lying. The fans of these politicians are unmovable and their trust wont change either way. Their primary motivation seems to be destruction of government institutions anyway, it is not like that would changed.
> The Stanford Study being the best example.
The Stanford Study was being criticized from get go and the conflict of interests was pointed out quick. This particular study is good example of study being promoted for political reasons. And the people doing that should not be trusted. If the "one outlier in Stanford says it, therefore it is true" idea dies, that is a good thing for science. Institutional pedestals are bad for science, but knee jerk eagerness to promote outlier instead of consensus is even worst.
You should absolutely mistrust those who were involved in apparently bad studies. I just dont understand how outlier non-peer reviewed studies that got criticized quickly imply that you cant trust anything and anyone ever.
That is the irrational part and uneducated part. It implies not understanding how science work, how peer review works, how common disagreements are in science, how scientific consensus emerges, why it is important and how it fails. It implies uncritically trusting feel good outliers studies before they were peer reviewed and before multiple other studies were confirming results.
Yes. The public is irrational, uneducated, doesn't understand how science works and they have been told conflicting information by the media and politicians that "came from the experts", so now people's trust in science is falling too. I think that's what the parent is lamenting. We need better leaders and editors.
> I know a couple of well educated and rational people that are already stating they will not take a vaccine once it's available, simply because they "can't" trust any data and study done on it."
And the point is, they are neither rational nor educated. Too much of irrational is defended by "he is rational person" even when the person in question is demonstrably not acting rationally and demonstrably does not know what he is talking about.
Had there been new vaccine defended by only one study that has not been even peer reviewed yet, they and you absolutely should not trust it. You absolutely should not trust vaccine because author wrote article in popular non scientific journal either.
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/us/man-released-jail-coronavi...
Or is this just the classic engineers thinking they know better in all fields, rather than just the one they're educated in?
Do you know how students learn when they get graduate degrees? They read papers as primary and almost exclusive sources. Even coming from other backgrounds. And the nature of literature is such that after a time a capable person is able to gain mastery in this manner.
Literature for COVID19 has been around since january. Some of us have been following it obsessively. And this isn't some esoteric theory that requires a deep understanding like mathematics or physics. You don't need breadth in such a field to drill down on a specific problem - you don't need to understand anything about c++ or Scala to write an algorithm in python, to put it in programmer terms.
It's perfectly plausible that many of the autodidacts that tend to be attracted to HN can actually contribute meaningfully through comment.
Edit: doctors and medical scientists also come here.
It's disappointing that NPR doesn't report any of this nuance.
You can see that the submitter tried to spin this article by adding "0 deaths so far", apparently trying to suggest that "the coronavirus" is not as deadly as we think. But for this determination it's very relevant which coronavirus we are talking about.
I don't doubt that 73% of the inmates carry a coronavirus that causes the common cold. But that information doesn't tell us anything about the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Since different coronaviruses have different rates of infectiousness, your conclusion of 100% in a few days is also only just a guess. If you test, you must test properly.
Source?
On March 11, Twitter ordered all employees to work from home, in what I believe was the first complete office closure. (Other companies had closed specific Seattle offices earlier in the month, but I don't know if that counts.)
Sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/douggollan/2020/03/09/fauci-say...
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/keeping-o...
I feel that's a gross misrepresentation of the statement. Essentially his point was that high-risk population (read older people with “serious underlying conditions.”) should go to extreme steps to avoid contracting the disease, but those who are not then could go on with their lives.
If that wasn't clear by itself, the very same article you posted includes this quote from Fauci stated in the prior day:
> Yesterday, Fauci told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, “Elderly with underlying conditions, heart disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes (should) not wait, but right now, to sort of take look at things that are at high risk, crowded places, getting on airplanes, and absolutely don’t get on a cruise ship.”
The point stands. Tech companies decided that their (overwhelmingly young and healthy) workforce should not, in fact, go on with their lives. They were sacrificing work when Fauci thought sacrificing even leisure was premature.
Regardless, your point of "in hindsight, a certain expert was wrong in one specific instance" == "no experts can ever be trusted" is a much too sweeping generalization. Same as the assertion that "tech" got things right consistently. Didn't Tesla drag its heels for a very long time?
My first "real" job was tech support for a small regional ISP (these were the dial up days). Despite being in a fairly rural area and the frustration that could cause, without a doubt the worst customers I had to deal with were always doctors and lawyers.
unvalidated
what's to say that downvoters aren't also misinformed in their decision to downvote?
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhanceme...
P.S. looks like that article has been modified since I last read it, based on the new literature I'm pretty convinced that COVID19 is likely to be deadlier the second time around. This is really, really bad. Vaccine is unlikely for this reason as well. Our only real hope it seems is to find or develop a prophylactic and/or treatment and stay in some form of isolation until then.
Edit: there is nothing factually incorrect about what I'm saying and all of these bits and pieces have been floating around for months.
The fact that a virologist hasn't connected these particular dots on live TV yet doesn't preclude us from speculating. We all have access to the same literature.