Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Andy, I don't have the energy to requote and edit that huge post.

Anyway, I spent all my time in college looking at journals and research for projects and I came to the conclusion long ago with all of those articles there is one thing in common. The do some background and briefing and state their hypothesis to test. They then cram in like 17 pages of models, and data, and statistical analysis that requires someone with 5 different PhD's to understand. Then they get to the actual recommendations and analysis section that the lay person can understand. That's where I live. On a sidenote I had every intention and desire of becoming a EE in college but I never could get the whole high level calculus thing down pat, so I greatly respect you for that, I had to change it up and do something different.

With that being said, I appreciate the effort and time put in by experts, who actually do the analysis and don't inject extra into the facts. I know those people exist. However they are a rare breed. Expert is a word that is so easily thrown around and so many people who are "experts" are just educated guessers.

I don't doubt the economy would suffer from a massive bunch of sick people, but as seems to be par for the course, in a time of crisis, people tend to overreact and predict far more doom and gloom than is actually the outcome. Look at the last recession, gas was going to be $20 per gallon, SUV's were dead, extravagant spending was never returning, and life as we know it was going to change. None of that even remotely happened. So when reading all of these articles and all of this information, I can't help but wonder how much of it will pan out, and how much is just an overabundance of caution because all the experts would rather say something worse and it not pan out, then sway towards the middle or even on the lighter side and it be much worse than they said.

Honestly, I love to poke the proverbial bear and get thought out meaningful responses from everyone rather than just a quick few lines of opinion. I like to see what leads everyone to their conclusions and the thought process behind it. I do believe that there is a takeaway from ever person, every interaction, and I am always open to new information even though you might think the exact opposite from my posts.

I'm just gonna quote Andy to response to the bits about doctors and CPA's.

ApolloAndy said:
It's SO absurd to say, peer reviewed, scientific conclusions are occasionally wrong and therefore my gut is equal to decades of study, training, and experience.

Gonch: Cool, you switched doctors, but you still went to another doctor. Let's stop pretending that experts' experience is less meaningful than our feelings and ideologies.

Jeff said:

Gonch: Cool, you switched doctors, but you still went to another doctor. Let's stop pretending that experts' experience is less meaningful than our feelings and ideologies.

Not really.

1. I'd ignored/disagreed with 'expert' advice...based on the idea that I trusted how I felt more than their opinion of what to do.

2. I sought out an expert with an differing opinion. So which expert was 'right'? There's still a vetting process. A credential is only worth the paper it's printed on.

What do you do when experts disagree?

It's SO absurd to say, peer reviewed, scientific conclusions are occasionally wrong and therefore my gut is equal to decades of study, training, and experience.

Unfortunately, this is the exact logic our President has popularized. This ideology is now found more widespread throughout American society then Coronavirus. It is all Trump's fault.

The Standford study put the actual number of cases at 50-80 times higher than confirmed.

Here's a USC/LA County study that puts it at 28-55 times the number.

Interestingly, they came to a similar "4% of the adult population has been infected" conclusion that the Stanford study did.

Based on Lord Gonchar's updated post, it goes back to my original question... was it here longer than we thought? Not last fall, but December/January timeframe? Would that have given it a chance to spread throughout the general population?

Or... is the virus really as contagious as experts have said and only got here in February or March, but the populations' reaction wasn't as deadly as originally thought?

I'm not against science. I completely believe in it, in that while something can be proven, it needs to be proven again and again before it should be accepted as fact. There is nothing wrong with asking those questions. It's going to be months or maybe even years before we have an understanding what actually happened.

The problem I have is the amount of posters both here and on social media that think their opinion or an expert that shares their opinion is 'fact.' We simply do not know at this point.

I couldn't give you an honest answer, but take this as you wish.

In December I was sick for about 3 weeks. It was isolated to my respiratory system. I was highly irritated to the point where I could feel the rawness when I would cough. I had a decent cough and for a few days was coughing up mucus with blood mixed with it. I also had decent fever that came and went for a short period of time. I hit the mucinex up, got better and moved on.

Don't know what I picked up, but there is that data point for you.

The data point you're missing is that you were in China in December.

HeyIsntThatRob? said:

Based on Lord Gonchar's updated post, it goes back to my original question... was it here longer than we thought? Not last fall, but December/January timeframe? Would that have given it a chance to spread throughout the general population?

Or... is the virus really as contagious as experts have said and only got here in February or March, but the populations' reaction wasn't as deadly as originally thought?

I'm not against science. I completely believe in it, in that while something can be proven, it needs to be proven again and again before it should be accepted as fact.

Right. Exactly. "That Stanford study" didn't prove anything, not just because it was a limited study, but also because the peer review process poked a lot of holes in its case. I think the peer review is suggesting (at least the fairly robust rebuttal of "that Stanford study") that neither was Corona here before Jan nor is it not nearly as deadly. The peer review is suggesting that the study is wrong. "The Stanford study" was never peer reviewed before the media went crazy on it, so it never should have been presented as "the science says..."

Kstr 737 said:

Unfortunately, this is the exact logic our President has popularized. This ideology is now found more widespread throughout American society then Coronavirus. It is all Trump's fault.

This attitude was around long before Trump. We were seeing it with climate change for at least two decades. I don't know if evolution (about a century old) and heliocentric model of solar system (about 5 centuries old) are the same or different.

TheMillenniumRider said:

With that being said, I appreciate the effort and time put in by experts, who actually do the analysis and don't inject extra into the facts. I know those people exist. However they are a rare breed. Expert is a word that is so easily thrown around and so many people who are "experts" are just educated guessers.

I agree that the word "expert" has become meaningless (probably in equal parts due to science defiance and due to non-experts posers like Dr. Phil). But I'm curious about how you come to that conclusion for peer reviewed, published findings. What do you mean by "injecting extra into the facts" and why do you assume that most of the time these peer reviewed study authors are doing it?

I have a question I can't seem to find the answer to - and I need to be sure to word this correctly.

How many COVID-19 positive people do we actually 'save' with our health care? Here's where I'm headed with this:

We talk about flattening the curve as to not overwhlem the system, but how many people does the system actually save? And I mean that in the sense of people that would have recovered on their own (or did) and in the sense of people that died while under care.

Here's an NPR story that says:

"Most coronavirus patients who end up on ventilators go on to die, according to several small studies from the U.S., China and Europe."

So how much 'success' does the health care industry have in saving people that otherwise would have died from their COVID-19 infections? Or worded differently, what's the mortality rate for those that receive some kind of active care vs those that don't. (and I define 'active care" as active intervention intended to change someone's outcome - not just testing them positive and sending them home to recover)

Obviously, the next thought is a different way at looking at the mortality numbers and the actual effectiveness of flattening the curve.

Thinking out loud. Looking for other ideas along these lines.

(and don't give me "but it's also about people with other conditions that can't get in because the hospitals are full of Coronavirus patients - I get that, but it's a different part of the discussion from where I'm letting my mind wander here)

Kstr 737 said:

The data point you're missing is that you were in China in December.

I wasn't in China, but I am in the hotel business and was in the middle of peak season, so I am around all walks.

ApolloAndy said:
I don't know if evolution (about a century old) and heliocentric model or solar system (about 5 centuries old) are the same or different.

People probably thought Copernicus was crazy...until he was right.

ApolloAndy said:

I agree that the word "expert" has become meaningless (probably in equal parts due to science defiance and due to non-experts posers like Dr. Phil). But I'm curious about how you come to that conclusion for peer reviewed, published findings. What do you mean by "injecting extra into the facts" and why do you assume that most of the time these peer reviewed study authors are doing it?

When I say injecting extras, it might not be exactly that, it could also be omissions. Just tampering or altering in general.

What always comes to my mind is who is paying for the research. Take a look at the studies conducted by scientists in the 70's regarding co2 emissions and their effect on climate. Exxon paid for the studies, the team found that it could be harmful, and it was all pushed aside and kept quiet. Who on earth wants to publish a study that kills their business model.

I'm not saying this is happening with the above linked study, but of course it comes to mind.

Tie this into Gonch's post, let us review data that looks at how many people died, vs how many would have died without intervention from healthcare. If they find that it is almost the same, or that healthcare wasn't super effective, who is going to publish that, and who is going to try and cover it up. We wouldn;t want to shake confidence in modern medicine, that would cause a lot of lost revenue for those pharma companies and doctors, hospitals, etc.

Lord Gonchar said:

I have a question I can't seem to find the answer to - and I need to be sure to word this correctly.

How many COVID-19 positive people do we actually 'save' with our health care? Here's where I'm headed with this:

We talk about flattening the curve as to not overwhlem the system, but how many people does the system actually save? And I mean that in the sense of people that would have recovered on their own (or did) and in the sense of people that died while under care.

That's a great question and I don't know that we know the exact answer. One of my nerd friends on Facebook asked this exact question a few days ago and I've been hearing that about 20% of people on a ventilator recover, so that's super bad, but about 95% of patients who are hospitalized survive, so that's pretty good. Neither of these have a control group to compare, so who knows what the baseline is? Ventilators are a super last ditch effort for people who are on their last breath.

Lord Gonchar said: on.

What do you do when experts disagree?

This is a strawman argument. Experts are generally in agreement about what to do right now in the context of this problem. They also have no solutions for long term resolution other than testing, treatment and eventually a vaccine. And even in the doctor analogy, my point stands: you still got a second opinion from a doctor, not a software developer.

The obsession with actual case counts misses the point. Look at the per capita fatality rates, because they're still trending up and are what they are. If they're a latent indicator of infection rates, that's not comforting at all.

I don;t know how anyone can even begin to surmise what the fatality rates are. I keep seeing new claims about infection rates, mortality rates, case counts, so on and so forth. Washington Post just published an article today claiming that of a sample test group of those who test positive, 88% show no symptoms.

All that tells me is that a whole heap more people have had this and haven't even known. If that is in fact true then we could be much further along toward herd immunity than we realize. That would mean everyone is in a better position than previously thought.

Or it was botched and done wrong and this has no real world implications.

Beats me, every day someone comes out with some different information. The only thing experts agree on right now is that we have a problem and we need to handle it. How to handle it ranges from screw it, go back to normal, to everyone stay home for 18 months until we can vaccinate. This also includes every possibility in between. Since they can't agree on exactly how to proceed in a good fashion we have just adopted everyone stay home instead.

There is no expert saying "screw it, go back to normal."

I don't see any real disagreement amongst the actual experts at all. In fact, the advice on how to proceed has been crystal clear for weeks.

Am I missing something?

I don't know. It's not hard to find different opinions - at least to what the appropriate level of action is. The experts in the various countries around the world guided them to react in different ways, at different rates, and with differing urgency.

Is this guy an expert?

And what kind of expert? One on viruses? One on the economy? One on the impact of viruses on the economy? A public health expert?

What we really need is a "where on the slider do we put the marker" expert.

I think the problem is we don't all particularly have the same goal. I'm not necessarily looking to save as many lives as possible, for example.

The next line I want to type is, "If were we only worried about saving as many lives as possible, we'd have gone into a month-long mandatory lockdown and saved a lot of lives. But we didn't."

However, as soon as my fingers start typing that, I realize we're around the circle for the 8th or 9th time.

You can't be right or wrong unless you have a goal and you compare your actions to that goal. I think a lot of the stupidness of this discussion is that we're all not aiming for the same target.

If my ultimate end game for this was to save as many people as possible, I'd not only be echoing what those experts championing social distancing are, I'd be markedly angry that we weren't doing more.

Jeff said:

This is a strawman argument. Experts are generally in agreement about what to do right now in the context of this problem.

Maybe, but it was a more general question. I suspect you deflected because the idea doesn't fit with the way you neatly put things into their boxes.

Flat out, your retort was, "You don't ignore your doctors because they're experts."

Well, not only do I ignore my doctor, I go to multiple doctors that give me differing answers.

I imagine there's lots of situations where 'experts' (or the accredited or experienced ot whatever) disagree. I'm sure of it. But that simply doesn't jive with the idea that experts are right and we should listen to them...so it's a strawman. (which is a strawman in and of itself - the diabolical double strawman! Dun dun dun!)