Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "US update" video.

  1.  @changeshifter4852  Yeah our national response has been... minimal and contradictory, at best. But I am not aware of a single state -- even the Dem states -- that are actually counting cases properly with random invitation surveys. . Indian did one in May. Santa Cruz did one in April. That's it? . It's my #1 complaint since I used to count birds for the Forest Service and UH/Manoa. Why is it more important to know the number of cuckoos along the Gila than the number of virus cases in the country? . Cuckoos are valuable but the virus is killing people who could otherwise be caring for cuckoos.
    11
  2.  @changeshifter4852  I would like to defend the honor of the typical American by pointing out that we don't have any national or state program to monitor virus numbers. Thus, we don't know the risk. So people guess. . We need random invitation surveys. That is the only way to estimate cases, and thus inform us about risk, so we can behave. . Thank you all for your stories, they matter!
    8
  3.  @lindadouglas4047  I think it would also be acceptable to be a role model of reason and logic, and not wear a mask if one has had a confirmed infection that is well cleared. . There are many virtues in the world :) Education is a good one. . I personally like some types of mask such as the fisherman's UV balaclava, and intend to keep wearing it for warmth and sun protection, at least. . Let us hope for a future in which the immune are not shamed for their inability to catch or spread a virus.
    4
  4. I think if you have good quality masks, that may be sufficient to be a safe activity. If you don't have an N95 make sure you have layers and wrap around the edges.
    4
  5. a good argument for a UBI, at least a temporary one
    3
  6. most of the deaths are counted, but the infections are mostly not counted.
    3
  7. still has a death rate about 2.5x the flu
    3
  8. @Lolly Pop I apologize if I seemed to be rude to Linda Douglas. . To re-state my case in less florid terms: "Although it may be comforting to others for a person to wear a mask when there is no medical benefit, I would say it is also true that educating others on the mechanics of the disease by not wearing a mask when there is no medical benefit could be beneficial to the community's mood and behavior."
    2
  9. It seems to be too rare to affect the population numbers, at least so far. For individuals of course it matters a great deal.
    2
  10.  @thankmelater1254  Well that would be incorrect, or correct, depending on what he means . Certainly the death numbers are not baked into the case numbers. However, deaths are somewhat baked into cases. It's a matter of the book vs the cover. . I have been bugging people for 9 months about the need to estimate numbers with actual scientific surveys. Nothing is actually baked into the numbers if the numbers are half-baked.
    2
  11.  @thankmelater1254  Bottom line, you are correct that death numbers are not baked into case numbers. . Thus, the new CDC result means that the death rate is 1/8th the estimate derived from testing totals.
    2
  12. nah, not unless they touch someone else's virus
    2
  13. I believe it is an estimate of all infections, including asymp
    2
  14. School is not being held in person in my state (NM). . Students have the options to remain enrolled, transfer to another school, or home school. Enrollment has dropped 21k, of which 12k have not told the school districts if they are transferring or just not showing up to the sessions.
    2
  15. Any information that is not collected by a proper random invitation survey is unlikely to consistently reflect reality. .
    2
  16. yes it is flattening dramatically. . johns hopkins has a map of all the states with trend lines . https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states .
    2
  17. Interesting. Indiana estimated 0.26% in April, using a nice random-sample study. . Iceland also did a fine random sample study, I see. I am hoping Joe Biden's new crew will start a proper monitoring program in the US.
    2
  18. indeed, astonishing. . we're not even trying to monitor the case numbers in the US. (with some rare exceptions such as the CDC study). . Random surveys are cheap and easy so what's the holdup?
    2
  19. not necessarily, as antibodies decline and disappear after about 3 months
    2
  20. Asymptomatic people are infectious when they first catch it, for a number of days, and they are about 50% as infectious as a symptomatic person. (that estimate varies but seems to be less than 100%).
    2
  21. Another great example of why we need proper sampling to estimate true numbers! . Random invitation surveys are the way to go. We should do them weekly here in the US.
    2
  22.  @NapoleonGelignite  That would be well worth it! . It would take an actual study, not just looking at the raw numbers, that's all I meant. A scientific study should be able to detect herd immunity in some places today. There was a city in Brazil that had way over 50% by some indications...
    2
  23. Indeed! We need random invitation surveys; they can count the missed cases of all sorts.
    1
  24.  Carpe Diem  Yes, that's why they need to be done weekly. . Surveys are very inexpensive and easy to conduct. Only need a few thousand samples per week would vastly improve the information. . We are asking people to change their lives but we can't quantify the risk? That's unacceptable. .
    1
  25. When you go to an ER, do they let you in to look around? Did you have to call in advance, or just show up?
    1
  26.  @KellyS_77  Yes. And we would also be monitoring the virus infection numbers. We're not even trying to count the cases today. . I used to count things for a living. Not one state is doing the proper random sample studies to estimate prevalence.
    1
  27.  @jocelynstuff1947  NPR just had a program about the immense popularity of remote medicine today.
    1
  28. I don't see that Germany is anomalous... 67th in deaths per million, but 77th in test cases per million on worldometers.. but of course these numbers are not designed to be representative, perhaps you have seen a proper study?
    1
  29. why wear gloves? I think it depends and they could be helpful or harmful
    1
  30. @Dont Tripp Yes, median 5.4 days at one point I heard. . Since the most contagious time = 2 days before symptoms to 3 days afters symptoms onset, the most important quarantine days would be days 3-8 after a possible exposure. .
    1
  31. Cases in the community = risk of catching it when we go out and about. . I'd say that matters more than any other single number for estimating risk and adjusting our behaviour accordingly.
    1
  32. yes about half way! mooooving along!
    1
  33.  @rogerstarkey5390  Hmm... ok fair point. . To rephrase... immune people refusing to wear masks could help educate the community about viral transmission and the concept of cost vs benefit. . Sometimes the screw that refuses to be hammered is the one that teaches the world that not everything is a nail. .
    1
  34.  @rogerstarkey5390  OK, risk benefit: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Chapter I. 1) Not everyone likes wearing a mask. (I like them, but many people do not. I only wear them an hour a week, so no big deal, plus they can be fun, they're not all medical looking. Armor up troops!) . 2) Getting people to do things they don't like takes some 'political capital' or 'social capital. Yes? Some effort is required? There's a limit to authority? . 3) Social capital is a limiting factor today in virus response. If everyone did the right thing, the virus would decline rapidly. Agreed? . 4) Therefore, it will kill people to spend social capital on things that make very very little difference to infection probabilities, such as wearing a mask when you are immune, as long as there are more effective measures. . This does not apply to China. If we assume planners have unlimited power to command behavior, then this risk/ benefit calculation changes completely. . Feel free to critique any part of this, even if you agree!
    1
  35.  @johnblake443  interesting. source?
    1
  36.  @surelyyoujokemeinfailure7531  The second link says 300k excess deaths, 200k associated with Covid ... and many of the others possibly from side effects of lockdowns and other restrictions meant to help against Covid. Doh! And double Doh!! . I was struggling to understand the first link's graph. Are deaths really below average for the entire year 2019? I think their key is not clear. . In any case it shows excess deaths only during the peak of the first and third waves, very interesting.
    1
  37. Healthy Ads: Don't eat Cholesterol Healthy Ads: Eat Fake Fat Instead! Vitamin D: I am made of cholesterol?
    1
  38.  @jerrycann9072  Yes, good discussion. On top of those factors, I would add the virus evolving to become less deadly, as an additional hypothesis. This would be expected with most novel non-vector-born diseases. . This will take serious study and time to evaluate.
    1
  39. Who said they are "baked in"? .
    1
  40. Multiply R times all the percent immunity (from survivors + vaccines + other types of immunity). . If R becomes less than 1 in this calculation, then herd immunity has arrived for that situation/ time/ place.
    1
  41.  @rednammoc  What what? Are you saying France, Sweden, Spain, Gibraltar, and Belgium have substandard healthcare, compared to the US? . I don't think that would be fair to Europe. Our systems are very similar, except in how they are funded.
    1
  42. The government isn't even bothering to count the cases, so it's hard to blame individuals who are skeptical. I'm not, but I do understand how a general lack of relevant information can lead to guessing games.
    1
  43. yes!
    1
  44. Yes... many estimates are converging on 0.1 to 1%, often the lower part of that range.
    1
  45.  Burt Burlingham  You are correct. PCR tests for past infection, not present illness. It is quite accurate but our interpretation needs to align with the test. . On the other hand, the test positive numbers are not representative of the nation, and (as the CDC says) can miss most of the cases, and also it can double count cases (or more). . The test total is not a proper estimate and should not be used as it is used to monitor the virus progression.
    1
  46.  @sandraheaton1084  YEah the peak in new test cases was Nov 20th. . https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ . My state had the same peak day curiously. Huge wave. . My county is still getting cases like mad, still hasn't peaked yet it seems. As we are well aware of thanks to channels like this, there is no actual monitoring program in the US, so the patterns are in fact not well known.
    1
  47. Thank you for your report praising the media. . I am not sure I share your general confidence, but perhaps they got it right for once.
    1
  48.  @EvilMonkey7818  Excellent points. I haven't been able to find the actual CDC report so idk how they got that 100m number, but antibody tests sounds likely.
    1
  49.  @rogerstarkey5390  Sure, that is reasonable, given a general lack information. . However, if we wish to respond to risk with rational measures, do we not need quantitative assessment of the risk? . Ask yourself why the nation is bouncing around from low cases to "spikes and surges the likes of which have not been seen since the First Age of Men and Elves..." . Perhaps because we have our eyes closed. Maybe we are not drunk, just blind. . A program of random surveys would give us eyes on the problem. Then we can take a stiff scotch and sit on the porch with the schnauzer, knowing that the orcs have at least been counted, if not defeated.
    1
  50.  @EvilMonkey7818  Yes, the 100m is about 8x the test positives in the US, as per the CDC study, showing the value of a proper survey! . Imagine if we got our Sports News same level of accuracy we have had most of the past year: . News: "The Buffaloes beat the Seahawks 20 to 21 on Sunday Night..." . News 8 months later: "Correction... make that 160 to 21." . The UK is doing random sample surveys weekly I believe. I hope BIden starts them soon. Cheap, quick, voluntary, visionary.
    1
  51. thanks for sharing the story
    1
  52. Add 0.6% to the testing totals, and you account for a high estimate of false positives. . However if you got a positive test, then the chance of a false positive really is a major consideration.
    1
  53.  @nomikes4392  Danish report: Mask benefit is between 47% and -24%.
    1
  54.  @katy9860  I like the combination. Home tests. Rapid testing at drive-through centers. Rapid mail in testing. . And also a monitoring program with random surveys. That is cheap and easy and the only way to estimate total cases.
    1
  55. hope they recover well
    1
  56. It is hard to see a 30% reduction in R against a background where R varies from what, 0.5 to 5? .
    1