Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "International coronavirus situation" video.

  1. Not Canada. They haven't done any randomized sample surveys (afaik). . New Zealand hasn't done them either, but when you're near zero you don't need them.
    2
  2.  @KenJackson_US  Yes, good explanation! I'll call that reason 1. . I also think it's because 2) we have no scientific information on prevalence of the disease in our county, city, state, or nation, and 3) they soft pedelled masks when it first hit.
    2
  3. They should also fine the Health Department for every day they don't do random sample surveys. . There's only one way to estimate prevalence, and that's it. It's cheap and easy. . When the adults are malfeasant, the kids do tend to rebel.
    2
  4. It definitely protects. They should say it does not "prevent." . In a meta-analysis, masks gave 14% risk reduction, eye wear 10%, and keeping at least 1m from someone 10%.
    1
  5. That's nice, but what we really need is randomized sample surveys. That's the only way to estimate prevalence.
    1
  6.  @tartman540  If it's not a scam (and I don't think it is), why are nations failing to do random sample surveys? . That's the only way to estimate prevalence. It's easy and cheap. I can see why people question the leadership that ignores basic science (which is most governments today).
    1
  7.  @pakde8002  The antibody story is hyped. All diseases show a drop in antibodies, but we become immune to many of them, even so. . Antibodies are part of a flexible system with various types of memory to make them easy to recall when needed.
    1
  8. No governors understand basic science though. (or am I missing some random sample surveys?).
    1
  9. that was fake news
    1
  10. Pretty much EVERY country shows this pattern. Look at worldometers graphs
    1
  11. false
    1
  12. The 1918 epidemic is a classic case study in disease evolution. . Novel diseases should evolve to be less deadly (if they are not vector borne). 1918 is the exception that proves the rule. .
    1
  13. It means very little in terms of immunity. Antibodies are designed to fade, but we have memory cells. . Antibodies fade, it's what they do.
    1
  14. That is quite possible, although it seems to have fairly low virulence today so maybe not a lot lower.
    1
  15. That's normal after any disease. It doesn't mean we lose immunity.
    1
  16. I guess they are winning! https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
    1
  17. That's not accurate
    1
  18. we should do random sample testing to estimate the total infections, THEN do the math. . without that, we have no number to plug into the "infected" variable.
    1
  19. There's no evidence that Covid immunity is short-lived. (The antibody decline is not such evidence, as that occurs with every type of disease, many of which we become immune to).
    1
  20. probably not a reliable source of news, since that information is very hard to obtain and basically requires challenge experiments. . Nobody is doing challenge experiments with people.
    1
  21. Yes, I agree. Also, knowing the actual risk (% of infected people in your city or county) would be super useful. . We don't have that data for anywhere in the US, that I know of.
    1
  22.  @norwegianvikinggranny1004  it's also good, in that many people have had it and are no longer at much risk
    1
  23. why do people think mutation gives super powers?
    1
  24. It would be rational to quantify risk and benefit. Our leadership is not doing that. To estimate risk we need random sample surveys. . Barring that, people have to take their best guess, which will be all over the place. It's not insane to say "give me a good reason."
    1
  25. probably not
    1
  26. The false postiive rate is less than 0.6%.
    1
  27. Have they done random sample testing? That's what we need to estimate risk quantitatively.
    1
  28. People don't have the information to think for themselves. They need to know prevalence of active cases, which requires random sample surveys. . Only three nations have done that: UK, Iceland, and Thailand, afaik.
    1
  29. We have great people but our govt is fubar since 1963.
    1
  30. Our state epidemiologist said some people are instructed by their doctor to not wear masks, for various medical reasons. . Don't worry too too much about other people, it's not healthy. I mean, try to educate, but don't freak if two people don't have them. Maybe they are recovered and no risk to anyone.
    1
  31. This is not the fog of war, it's a lack of random sample surveys. . That's the only way to estimate prevalence. Without it, we can only guess and argue.
    1
  32. fake news. all viruses mutate, we get immune to most of them
    1
  33. It should not actually be exponential (that's only an approximation for the very early phases). . It could be logistic, but that's not guaranteed, as it is also an idealization (albeit with the more realistic assumption that there is a limit). . I don't know Gompertz function.
    1
  34. ok, I see the Gompertz function is a form of the generalized logistic curve, similar to the simple logistic curve but it allows the early phase and late phase asymptotes to be different speeds. . Good show there, educating the public! I see the Laureate is also questioning the benefit of lockdowns but I haven't had a chance to listen to that yet.
    1
  35. The research does not actually say that. The Guardian headline was hyped to the point of being almost false.
    1
  36. antibodies are only one aspect of immunity. they are designed to fade
    1
  37. Do you think Iran has released accurate death numbers?
    1
  38.  @stevepirie8130  We can't delay elections, there is no mechanism in our laws for that. . (thankfully)
    1
  39.  @draganap3241  Well said. The media is hyping this antibody fading story as if it were unexpected, or even bad. It's normal. . Mutations are also normal for every living thing. They don't give super powers! (not usually lol)
    1
  40. contain does not mean eradicate
    1
  41. So what? The # of negatives is meaningless. The # of positives is close to meaningless. . The tests are only meaningful to those getting them. . There is one way to estimate population prevalence, that's random sample surveys. If FL isn't doing that their numbers aren't worth looking at, except perhaps to note the trend.
    1
  42. Good point! We want to know active cases in our town or city, so we can actually have useful risk estimation. . That requires random sample surveys, but we're not doing that. The usual test numbers are irrelevant; the samples were not selected randomly, so they cannot be used for inference about the population.
    1
  43. None of the numbers purport to show "active" cases -- which is what we want to know, as you say. . For that we need random sample surveys. There is no other way to estimate it.
    1
  44.  @mastercommander4535  Define "wave."
    1
  45.  @stevepirie8130  That would require advanced math, such as counting and multiplication. (and a cheap, easy random sample study). So it's unlikely.
    1
  46. The number that die is not a part of the formula for herd immunity.
    1