The researchers were ordered to stop testing because the swabs were not collected for coronavirus, it was an ethical violation. Also the labs were not certified for that kind of testing.
That winds me up. Useful info chucked during a global emergency.
It underlines the need to define carefully what the patient/contributor is consenting to, and to work with ethics review boards. It is not difficult to get right. Using exigency to bypass ethical standards and other rules is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
I agree that sometimes it can be justified post hoc, but you have to be very careful with that, as it can lead to reluctance for people to participate in future studies, because they can't trust the researchers to keep their word.
Another chart to show to the "It's just flu, killing people who would have died anyway" morons. Twice as many extra New Yorkers have been killed by COVID-19 in the last month than died on 9/11.
EVQ4wURX0AUyfu5.jpeg (121.07 KiB) Viewed 7167 times
Something something hammer something something nail
Excess deaths in Covid-19 pandemic. Dashed line is expected deaths based on previous years. Green line is deaths attributed to Covid-19. Black line is actual reported deaths.
Opti wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:32 pm
I can only add as an anecdote that I had atypical 'flu' here in southern Spain, first couple of weeks in January. I passed through Malaga airport at exactly the same time as the Wuhan football team. I was so ill I had no choice but to self-isolate. But I probably just had flu. Probably.
As a matter of interest, did you have the flu vaccine before your travels?
Herainestold wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:44 am
Excess deaths in Covid-19 pandemic. Dashed line is expected deaths based on previous years. Green line is deaths attributed to Covid-19. Black line is actual reported deaths.
But it's ok because the CDC says that the coronavirus is notthe leading cause of death in the US which is true if you average over the whole period of the pandemic but maybe not if you estimate normal daily death rates from heart disease and cancer and then compare it nearly 2000 people dying per day from covid-19.
People with heart disease and cancer will of course be being killed by covid when they otherwise may have survived for many more years. Of course everyone dies sooner or later but covid is causing a lot of people to die now.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina
I see the disgraceful Matt Hancock is trying to suggest NHS have been mis/overusing PPE
Anywhere in a hospital is a tremendous infection risk right now, not just wards with known coronavirus patients. The kind of distancing needed to control the spread is not possible in the context of giving medical care, and doctors, nurses and other workers will be exposed to patients from all over the place. If they get it, not only are they at risk, but they risk making the hospitals a vector by infecting their patients, many of whom are particularly vulnerable. And that's not on specialist coronavirus wards. That's on all wards.
EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:35 am
I see the disgraceful Matt Hancock is trying to suggest NHS have been mis/overusing PPE
Anywhere in a hospital is a tremendous infection risk right now, not just wards with known coronavirus patients. The kind of distancing needed to control the spread is not possible in the context of giving medical care, and doctors, nurses and other workers will be exposed to patients from all over the place. If they get it, not only are they at risk, but they risk making the hospitals a vector by infecting their patients, many of whom are particularly vulnerable. And that's not on specialist coronavirus wards. That's on all wards.
Herainestold wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:44 am
Excess deaths in Covid-19 pandemic. Dashed line is expected deaths based on previous years. Green line is deaths attributed to Covid-19. Black line is actual reported deaths.
I feel like we need confidence intervals on the expected deaths line.
I feel like it won't make a substantial difference to the conclusion.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina
Herainestold wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:44 am
Excess deaths in Covid-19 pandemic. Dashed line is expected deaths based on previous years. Green line is deaths attributed to Covid-19. Black line is actual reported deaths.
In terms of how far from normal we are, the current announced death rate - likely somewhat below the real one - is about the same as the combined Anglo-French death rate during the Battle of the Somme
sTeamTraen wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:03 am
Another chart to show to the "It's just flu, killing people who would have died anyway" morons. Twice as many extra New Yorkers have been killed by COVID-19 in the last month than died on 9/11.
f.ck off Priti Patel, ""I'm sorry if people feel there have been failings," isn't an apology, it's a f.cking accusation of over-sensitivity.
The PPE shortages are well documented. Claiming there had been distribution difficulties is no damn excuse. It's your foul government that has been responsible for distribution for the last decade. Stop pretending that people aren't dying because of your failures, and stop undercounting those who have done so.
[/rant]
I realise posting this here is no more productive than shouting it, but I needed to get it out of my system before I went and did something violent.
EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:10 pm
f.ck off Priti Patel, ""I'm sorry if people feel there have been failings," isn't an apology, it's a f.cking accusation of over-sensitivity...
f.ck me. "I'm sorry you feel that way"?
Is Priti Patel just in government to draw fire away from everyone else?
EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:10 pm
f.ck off Priti Patel, ""I'm sorry if people feel there have been failings," isn't an apology, it's a f.cking accusation of over-sensitivity...
f.ck me. "I'm sorry you feel that way"?
Is Priti Patel just in government to draw fire away from everyone else?
I think we should congratulate her for getting through the whole thing without using her trademark evil smirk - even when talking about the evils of abuse / harassment while being the subject of a multitude of bullying complaints.
EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:10 pm
f.ck off Priti Patel, ""I'm sorry if people feel there have been failings," isn't an apology, it's a f.cking accusation of over-sensitivity...
f.ck me. "I'm sorry you feel that way"?
Is Priti Patel just in government to draw fire away from everyone else?
I suppose one good thing about the Tory party is that it brings all the people with absolutely no redeeming features into one place, so we know where they are.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:10 pm
f.ck off Priti Patel, ""I'm sorry if people feel there have been failings," isn't an apology, it's a f.cking accusation of over-sensitivity...
f.ck me. "I'm sorry you feel that way"?
Is Priti Patel just in government to draw fire away from everyone else?
I think we should congratulate her for getting through the whole thing without using her trademark evil smirk - even when talking about the evils of abuse / harassment while being the subject of a multitude of bullying complaints.
But wait a minute. When she was accused of smirking on the news when she was being challenged, she said that was just her resting face.
Is Priti Patel just in government to draw fire away from everyone else?
I think we should congratulate her for getting through the whole thing without using her trademark evil smirk - even when talking about the evils of abuse / harassment while being the subject of a multitude of bullying complaints.
But wait a minute. When she was accused of smirking on the news when she was being challenged, she said that was just her resting face.
I think we should congratulate her for getting through the whole thing without using her trademark evil smirk - even when talking about the evils of abuse / harassment while being the subject of a multitude of bullying complaints.
But wait a minute. When she was accused of smirking on the news when she was being challenged, she said that was just her resting face.
Well she strikes me as someone for whom the description "two faced" is numerically insufficient
Janus was two faced. So you can say,
The members of this government remind me of someone.
Who? Janus
Yes, a massive one, each and every one of them.
if you say "who" as "Hugh" then it works better
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
badger wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:21 am
Am getting loads of "if you got sick in Nov or Dec then you probably had the coronavirus" stuff at the moment.
Is there any handy debunking available that anyone's seen that I can counter with. Have had a google and come up empty handed. It's taking me an age to explain death and infection rates to them without sounding rude.
Just extrapolate the published curves backwards. It's obvious that they can only start at the end of 2019, which then means that in November or December there must have been very few cases - not enough to allow lots of people to explain their illnesses as Covid-19.
Note that some samples from then may well test positive, but remember that all such tests have a false positive rate.
Is Priti Patel just in government to draw fire away from everyone else?
I think we should congratulate her for getting through the whole thing without using her trademark evil smirk - even when talking about the evils of abuse / harassment while being the subject of a multitude of bullying complaints.
But wait a minute. When she was accused of smirking on the news when she was being challenged, she said that was just her resting face.
EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:44 pm
In terms of how far from normal we are, the current announced death rate - likely somewhat below the real one - is about the same as the combined Anglo-French death rate during the Battle of the Somme
If you are well enough, and have the time (sewing masks is more important), then I would appreciate, by PM if appropriate, your workings and references for that. It's the kind of statistic that is memorable, indeed worthy of a headline, and I'd like to use it, but I'd like to make sure it is correct.
Note: I am not trying to slyly insinuate you are wrong - I would just very much like to see how the comparison is generated.
I think we should congratulate her for getting through the whole thing without using her trademark evil smirk - even when talking about the evils of abuse / harassment while being the subject of a multitude of bullying complaints.
But wait a minute. When she was accused of smirking on the news when she was being challenged, she said that was just her resting face.
She's like the incredible hulk, her secret is, she's *always* smirking. Also, she isn't credible.
I'm not sure if Priti Patel has stated explicitly that her resting face expression is one interpreted by others as a smirk; and indeed, even if it is, it is possible that she got through a high-stress event without once relaxing enough for her face to adopt its normal relaxed/resting expression.
Her trademark expression is certainly unsettling for many others, and that could possibly be a way of gaining psychological advantage, whether accidental or intended. All the time we criticise her expression, her policies remain unexamined.
EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:44 pm
In terms of how far from normal we are, the current announced death rate - likely somewhat below the real one - is about the same as the combined Anglo-French death rate during the Battle of the Somme
If you are well enough, and have the time (sewing masks is more important), then I would appreciate, by PM if appropriate, your workings and references for that. It's the kind of statistic that is memorable, indeed worthy of a headline, and I'd like to use it, but I'd like to make sure it is correct.
Note: I am not trying to slyly insinuate you are wrong - I would just very much like to see how the comparison is generated.
Since I've got the time and it's quite easy calculation...
The Battle of the Somme lasted from July to November 1916, 141 days; during which, according to Wikipedia, British and French suffered 146,000 fatalities, which averages at about 1040 deaths per day.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
