Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Georgia was not "CAUGHT" fudging numbers, as John D implies. It did make a mistake in tabulating numbers several months ago, readily acknowledged doing so, and corrected it.

So far as I know, most or all of the instances of other states supposedly "fudging" are similar.

There have been allegations of oddities the other way. In the previous thread, Lowpe and one other person noted that North Carolina and Virginia treat multiple tests of a single person with Covid as multiple "positives." Others have noted (there and in this thread) that states receive greater funding for each additional case, at least creating an incentive for higher reporting. I don't know if there is "fudging" in those instances, for the same reason I'm skeptical of most of the cases John D cites. I don't assume any malus (or fudging) there, either.

John, you're pretty partisan. You excuse and tout states with 10x morality while roasting those with 1/10th mortality. Yesterday, you posted a link and held it out to say something that it didn't say. And you're using obnoxious terms to refer to leaders that you disagree with.

When NY, NJ and other states (and countries) were getting crushed, there was essentially unanimous support for them and their leaders and their health departments. With one exception, members of this community did not demean any other country or state or its leaders. We understood that they were facing a novel, difficult and terrible crisis. There were many posts supporting John personally. But he (and some others) see things through partisan eyeglasses - to him, the Red States are mismanaging and fudging and so on.

They're still doing much better, and many of us (not all) agreed that remaining closed down indefinitely wasn't an option. So perhaps these states too will end up in similar situations as NY eventually. If so it'll mostly be because smart and caring people faced tough choices that didn't work out. Just like New York.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

An illustration showing just how novel and surprising this was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

....So, they were caught having made a mistake. Semantics.

...

Haven't you (or at least other people around here) called out this particular instance of the WHO essentially engaging in BS artistry?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

....So, they were caught having made a mistake. Semantics.

...

Haven't you (or at least other people around here) called out this particular instance of the WHO essentially engaging in BS artistry?

1. We all know the difference between making a mistake, acknowledging it and correcting it, on the one hand, and "fudging" numbers (implying bad faith) on the other.

2. I don't understand your WHO comment/question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To BBfanboy: I doubt that's the case. I haven't heard anyone say anything like that. There are levels of responsibility and people defer to hierarchies, which are there for a reason, but to this point I've generally heard, "We'll help if needed and to the extent we can."

Signals are sent from the top. This fact is a key component of organizational psychology and culture. That's certainly as true of organizations like FEMA as it is for any other organization.

And what's the top doing? Cutting funding for testing and not taking it seriously, trying to wish it away or pretending it doesn't exist, and so on.

There has been no tangible federal response to COVID-19 that is worthy of mention. Please share what you've heard otherwise, as I'd be happy to be wrong... but aside from the CDC website I'm just not seeing it. The feds aren't physically doing anything of note.

What could they be doing? Certainly, for the most part states will have to manage on their own. But the feds could contribute emergency/disaster resources and assets, like the Navy (belatedly) did for NYC with that hospital ship. The feds could've built up a stockpile of ICU/ventilator resources that could travel around the country to wherever the next hot spot is, such as Texas's situation right now, but they didn't. Those in charge seem to have purposefully made the "to the extent that we can" part of your synopsis mean "we can't help you because we don't have the capability."

To that end, where's the massive testing regime? There's no reason that the richest nation in the history of humanity couldn't have created a gigantic testing and contact tracing regime at any point within the last 7 months if it had wanted to, with the resources coming from the federal level, that would have been able to be tapped into by the states as needed - and that would have us returning to a semblance of pre-COVID life sooner than whenever we're on track for now. Which is looking like "not until there's a vaccine."

California had a large stockpile of equipment but five million dollars per year was too much to maintain it. New York city had a stockpile, it disappeared before this time as well. Why should it be up to the Federal government?

I'd say that the examples you gave are a really good reason for why there should be resources at the federal level. Especially since the states you mentioned have constitutional mandates to have a balanced budget (which makes sense, since they can't control their own currency as they don't have one).

Anyway, what did they even have stockpiled?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

....So, they were caught having made a mistake. Semantics.

...

Haven't you (or at least other people around here) called out this particular instance of the WHO essentially engaging in BS artistry?

1. We all know the difference between making a mistake, acknowledging it and correcting it, on the one hand, and "fudging" numbers (implying bad faith) on the other.

2. I don't understand your WHO comment/question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Politicians and Governments (at whatever level) are very rarely evil. I think that the vast majority are not stupid. Most try to act in what they see as the best interests of their 'constituents' (even if we might sometimes disagree significantly on the means by which that is achieved). But that doesn't mean that they are honest.

Looking at three examples from the UK:

1) For along time in our daily briefings from the government they were showing a slide comparing the UK with other European countries. It was frequently referred to as an example of how the UK response was performing well. When over time the UK overtook Italy/Spain/France the slide was discarded with and the political message changed to it being 'premature to draw country by country comparisions'

2) Our government set itself a target of performing 100k daily tests by a certain date. When it came towards that date the testing numbers shot up. It then became apparent that they were basing the numbers to a large extent on tests sent by post, many of which were faulty, many never returned.

3) The government's line is still that a 'protective ring' was placed around UK care homes. That is demonstrably false.

I don't dispute that the UK government has been trying to do it's best by the country. But the simple fact is that it is clear that they really dropped the ball. I would suggest that it is similarly clear that where possible they are trying to suppress that.

It's completely sensible to question the media and its motives as has been done at length in this thread and the previous one. But by the same measure it is completely naive to unquestioningly assume the honesty/probity of politicians, governments and the institutions under their control or influence (on both sides of the 'left/right' divide).

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To BBfanboy: I doubt that's the case. I haven't heard anyone say anything like that. There are levels of responsibility and people defer to hierarchies, which are there for a reason, but to this point I've generally heard, "We'll help if needed and to the extent we can."

Signals are sent from the top. This fact is a key component of organizational psychology and culture. That's certainly as true of organizations like FEMA as it is for any other organization.

And what's the top doing? Cutting funding for testing and not taking it seriously, trying to wish it away or pretending it doesn't exist, and so on.

There has been no tangible federal response to COVID-19 that is worthy of mention. Please share what you've heard otherwise, as I'd be happy to be wrong... but aside from the CDC website I'm just not seeing it. The feds aren't physically doing anything of note.

What could they be doing? Certainly, for the most part states will have to manage on their own. But the feds could contribute emergency/disaster resources and assets, like the Navy (belatedly) did for NYC with that hospital ship. The feds could've built up a stockpile of ICU/ventilator resources that could travel around the country to wherever the next hot spot is, such as Texas's situation right now, but they didn't. Those in charge seem to have purposefully made the "to the extent that we can" part of your synopsis mean "we can't help you because we don't have the capability."

To that end, where's the massive testing regime? There's no reason that the richest nation in the history of humanity couldn't have created a gigantic testing and contact tracing regime at any point within the last 7 months if it had wanted to, with the resources coming from the federal level, that would have been able to be tapped into by the states as needed - and that would have us returning to a semblance of pre-COVID life sooner than whenever we're on track for now. Which is looking like "not until there's a vaccine."

California had a large stockpile of equipment but five million dollars per year was too much to maintain it. New York city had a stockpile, it disappeared before this time as well. Why should it be up to the Federal government?

I'd say that the examples you gave are a really good reason for why there should be resources at the federal level. Especially since the states you mentioned have constitutional mandates to have a balanced budget (which makes sense, since they can't control their own currency as they don't have one).

Anyway, what did they even have stockpiled?

They had ventilators, masks, and other equipment. I had posted on this previously. It would only have cost California five million US dollars per year to maintain the stockpile so don't tell me that California could not have afforded it. So why should the Federal government control the resources when the state and local governments should have it so it can be immediately used if it is needed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I have some European friends that are frankly baffled by events in the UK. The dispute over the testing numbers, then SpAd-gate...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Where there's evidence of dishonesty or bad faith, let's call it out. But in this thread there are all kinds of allegations of shameful conduct, stupidity and of maliciousness/bad faith leaders when, IMO, the person making the post doesn't know. They're relying on information from other sources that may or may not be credible and may or may not be biased.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I have some European friends that are frankly baffled by events in the UK. The dispute over the testing numbers, then SpAd-gate...

What is SpAd-gate? I couldn't get anything about it on Google.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I have some European friends that are frankly baffled by events in the UK. The dispute over the testing numbers, then SpAd-gate...

What is SpAd-gate? I couldn't get anything about it on Google.

I think he is talking about Dominic Cummings.

In UK politics SpAd is an abbreviation for 'Special Advisor' - i.e. a high level non-elected official working within the government but outside of the in theory impartial Civil Service. In theory (again!) they are supposed to be entirely subordinate to the elected officials they serve.

Happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Politicians and Governments (at whatever level) are very rarely evil. I think that the vast majority are not stupid. Most try to act in what they see as the best interests of their 'constituents' (even if we might sometimes disagree significantly on the means by which that is achieved). But that doesn't mean that they are honest.

Looking at three examples from the UK:

1) For along time in our daily briefings from the government they were showing a slide comparing the UK with other European countries. It was frequently referred to as an example of how the UK response was performing well. When over time the UK overtook Italy/Spain/France the slide was discarded with and the political message changed to it being 'premature to draw country by country comparisions'

2) Our government set itself a target of performing 100k daily tests by a certain date. When it came towards that date the testing numbers shot up. It then became apparent that they were basing the numbers to a large extent on tests sent by post, many of which were faulty, many never returned.

3) The government's line is still that a 'protective ring' was placed around UK care homes. That is demonstrably false.

I don't dispute that the UK government has been trying to do it's best by the country. But the simple fact is that it is clear that they really dropped the ball. I would suggest that it is similarly clear that where possible they are trying to suppress that.

It's completely sensible to question the media and its motives as has been done at length in this thread and the previous one. But by the same measure it is completely naive to unquestioningly assume the honesty/probity of politicians, governments and the institutions under their control or influence (on both sides of the 'left/right' divide).

I have some European friends that are frankly baffled by events in the UK. The dispute over the testing numbers, then SpAd-gate...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Ha just realised that by talking about the UK I've dragged Scotland (and NI/Wales) into what were almost universally English failings .

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To BBfanboy: I doubt that's the case. I haven't heard anyone say anything like that. There are levels of responsibility and people defer to hierarchies, which are there for a reason, but to this point I've generally heard, "We'll help if needed and to the extent we can."

Signals are sent from the top. This fact is a key component of organizational psychology and culture. That's certainly as true of organizations like FEMA as it is for any other organization.

And what's the top doing? Cutting funding for testing and not taking it seriously, trying to wish it away or pretending it doesn't exist, and so on.

There has been no tangible federal response to COVID-19 that is worthy of mention. Please share what you've heard otherwise, as I'd be happy to be wrong... but aside from the CDC website I'm just not seeing it. The feds aren't physically doing anything of note.

What could they be doing? Certainly, for the most part states will have to manage on their own. But the feds could contribute emergency/disaster resources and assets, like the Navy (belatedly) did for NYC with that hospital ship. The feds could've built up a stockpile of ICU/ventilator resources that could travel around the country to wherever the next hot spot is, such as Texas's situation right now, but they didn't. Those in charge seem to have purposefully made the "to the extent that we can" part of your synopsis mean "we can't help you because we don't have the capability."

To that end, where's the massive testing regime? There's no reason that the richest nation in the history of humanity couldn't have created a gigantic testing and contact tracing regime at any point within the last 7 months if it had wanted to, with the resources coming from the federal level, that would have been able to be tapped into by the states as needed - and that would have us returning to a semblance of pre-COVID life sooner than whenever we're on track for now. Which is looking like "not until there's a vaccine."

California had a large stockpile of equipment but five million dollars per year was too much to maintain it. New York city had a stockpile, it disappeared before this time as well. Why should it be up to the Federal government?

I'd say that the examples you gave are a really good reason for why there should be resources at the federal level. Especially since the states you mentioned have constitutional mandates to have a balanced budget (which makes sense, since they can't control their own currency as they don't have one).

Anyway, what did they even have stockpiled?

They had ventilators, masks, and other equipment. I had posted on this previously. It would only have cost California five million US dollars per year to maintain the stockpile so don't tell me that California could not have afforded it. So why should the Federal government control the resources when the state and local governments should have it so it can be immediately used if it is needed?

My thought was not so much that the Federal Government should hold the stockpile (although a national security argument could be made for that); I was thinking instead of 50 states all checking with each other (2500 lines of communications?), it would be simple for FEMA to declare key medical equipment "national assets in the event of an emergency" and require every state to report weekly the location and availability of those assets in their state. From that database, states could check on the whereabouts of stuff they need for an emergency and ask FEMA to arrange transfer. FEMA would be the central point of contact because several states could simultaneously need the same equipment. So now you have 51 lines of communication rather than 2500.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Politicians and Governments (at whatever level) are very rarely evil. I think that the vast majority are not stupid. Most try to act in what they see as the best interests of their 'constituents' (even if we might sometimes disagree significantly on the means by which that is achieved). But that doesn't mean that they are honest.

Looking at three examples from the UK:

1) For along time in our daily briefings from the government they were showing a slide comparing the UK with other European countries. It was frequently referred to as an example of how the UK response was performing well. When over time the UK overtook Italy/Spain/France the slide was discarded with and the political message changed to it being 'premature to draw country by country comparisions'

2) Our government set itself a target of performing 100k daily tests by a certain date. When it came towards that date the testing numbers shot up. It then became apparent that they were basing the numbers to a large extent on tests sent by post, many of which were faulty, many never returned.

3) The government's line is still that a 'protective ring' was placed around UK care homes. That is demonstrably false.

I don't dispute that the UK government has been trying to do it's best by the country. But the simple fact is that it is clear that they really dropped the ball. I would suggest that it is similarly clear that where possible they are trying to suppress that.

It's completely sensible to question the media and its motives as has been done at length in this thread and the previous one. But by the same measure it is completely naive to unquestioningly assume the honesty/probity of politicians, governments and the institutions under their control or influence (on both sides of the 'left/right' divide).

I have some European friends that are frankly baffled by events in the UK. The dispute over the testing numbers, then SpAd-gate...

Ha just realised that by talking about the UK I've dragged Scotland (and NI/Wales) into what were almost universally English failings .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Where there's evidence of dishonesty or bad faith, let's call it out. But in this thread there are all kinds of allegations of shameful conduct, stupidity and of maliciousness/bad faith leaders when, IMO, the person making the post doesn't know. They're relying on information from other sources that may or may not be credible and may or may not be biased.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Oh Crap! Not another one!

https://globalnews.ca/news/7123249/china-new-swine-flu-detected/

quote:

Researchers in China have discovered a new type of swine flu that is capable of triggering a pandemic, according to a study in the US science journal PNAS, although experts said there is no imminent threat.

Named G4, it is genetically descended from the H1N1 strain that caused a pandemic in 2009.

It possesses “all the essential hallmarks of being highly adapted to infect humans”, said the authors, scientists at Chinese universities and China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in the study published on Monday.

Between 2011 and 2018, researchers took 30,000 nasal swabs from pigs in slaughterhouses in 10 Chinese provinces and in a veterinary hospital, allowing them to isolate 179 swine flu viruses.

The majority were of a new kind that has been dominant among pigs since 2016.
.
.
.
G4 was observed to be highly infectious, replicating in human cells and causing more serious symptoms in ferrets than other viruses do.

Tests also showed that any immunity humans gain from exposure to seasonal flu does not provide protection from G4.

More than one in 10 swine workers in the new study had already been infected, according to antibody blood tests which showed exposure to the virus.

The tests also showed that as many as 4.4% of the general population also appeared to have been exposed.

The virus has therefore already passed from animals to humans but there is no evidence yet that it can be passed from human to human – the scientists’ main worry.

The World Health Organization (WHO) will read the Chinese study carefully, spokesman Christian Lindmeier told a Geneva briefing on Tuesday, saying it was important to collaborate on findings and keep tabs on animal populations.

“It also highlights we cannot let our guard down on influenza and need to be vigilant and continue surveillance even in the coronavirus pandemic,” he added.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told a daily news conference on Tuesday that China was closely following developments. “We will take all necessary measures to prevent the spread and outbreak of any virus,” he said.

The study highlights the risks of viruses crossing the species barrier into humans, especially in densely populated regions in China, where millions live close to farms, breeding facilities, slaughterhouses and wet markets.
.
.
.
“It is of concern that human infection of G4 virus will further human adaptation and increase the risk of a human pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

The authors called for urgent measures to monitor people working with pigs.

James Wood, head of the department of veterinary medicine at Cambridge University, said: “The work comes as a salutary reminder that we are constantly at risk of new emergence of zoonotic pathogens and that farmed animals – with which humans have greater contact than with wildlife – may act as the source for important pandemic viruses.”

A zoonotic infection is caused by a pathogen that has jumped from a non-human animal into a human.

Although it is capable of infecting humans, there is no imminent risk of a new pandemic, said Carl Bergstrom, a biologist at the University of Washington.
“There’s no evidence that G4 is circulating in humans, despite five years of extensive exposure,” he said on Twitter. “That’s the key context to keep in mind.”

quote:

no evidence yet that it can be passed from human to human

quote:

The FDA strongly encourages the inclusion of diverse populations in all phases of clinical development, including populations most affected by COVID-19, specifically racial and ethnic minorities, as well as adequate representation in late phase trials of elderly individuals and those with medical comorbidities. Sponsors are also encouraged to include studies in their development plans that would provide data to support use during pregnancy, as well as plan for pediatric assessments of safety and effectiveness.

The guidance also discusses the importance of ensuring that the sizes of clinical trials are large enough to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine. It conveys that the FDA would expect that a COVID-19 vaccine would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who are vaccinated.

quote:

Who is allowed to enter Europe?
As of July 1, European nations (all members of the European Union, as well as the non-E.U. European nations of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) are expected to begin opening their borders to residents of Algeria, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Rwanda, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia and Uruguay. Residents of Andorra, San Marino, Monaco and the Vatican will also be allowed entry. China is on the list, “subject to confirmation of reciprocity” — that is, if the country will open its borders to European travelers. The official press statement noted that individual European nations may decide to take a progressive approach to lifting restrictions on travel from the listed countries. Residents of the United States, where the spread of Covid-19 has not been controlled, are not allowed to enter the European Union unless they qualify for an exception.