How does COVID-19 spread? One would think one should know that if one were purporting to model the disease and tell civilization what it must do, like end all economic and social activity. But alas, surprise, surprise, that is not quite the case. We made a simple argument a couple of months ago regarding adult to adult spreads by pleural effusions from infected individuals. Even in that case we know little.
However in Nature today they discuss children under 10 as a prime disease vector. They state:
Even less well understood is whether infected children spread the virus in a similar way to adults. A study
of a cluster of cases in the French Alps describes one nine-year-old
who attended three schools and a skiing class while showing symptoms of
COVID-19, but did not infect a single person. “It would be almost
unheard of for an adult to be exposed to that many people and not infect
anyone else,” ... a virologist at the
University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, led an as-yet
unpublished meta-analysis of several household studies, including some
from countries that had not closed schools at the time, such as
Singapore. ...children are rarely the first person to bring
the infection into a home; they had the first identified case in only
roughly 8% of households. By comparison, children had the first
identified case during outbreaks of H5N1 avian influenza in some 50% of
households, the study reports.... Others have suggested that children are more routinely exposed to
other coronaviruses, such as those that cause the common cold, which
protects them from serious disease. “But that doesn’t seem to hold much
water, because even newborn babies don’t seem to get very severe
disease” from the COVID-19 coronavirus,... children might mount a more appropriate immune response to the
infection , strong enough to fight the virus, but not so strong that it
causes major damage to their organs. ...preliminary analysis of 300
individuals infected with COVID-19 has found that children produce much
lower levels of cytokines, proteins released by the immune system.
Patients of all ages with severe disease tend to have higher cytokine
levels, ... .still needs to tease out the cause and effect.
“Are they sicker because they have higher cytokine levels, or do they
have higher cytokine levels because they are sicker?”
Thus perhaps it is the kids who are the prime propagators, showing little if any symptoms, yet splashing the virus all about. Just a thought.
But the real conclusion is that there is no definitive methods of propagation. The recent comment by the NY Gov that 66% of the cases were from those who stayed at home is not surprising. It just adds to the understanding that we really do not yet understand the phenomenon.
Yet models that fail to incorporate the physical phenomenon are useless. Worse, they use corrupted data and with no basis in a valid phenomenon make projections that are not only ineffective but can produce gross human and societal harm. None of the modellers seem to even recognize this no less admit it.
Thursday, May 7, 2020
Data, Data, Data
One of the major defects in the current COVID outbreak is the lack of truthful and/or usable data. The major issues are:
1. Timeliness: This is a broad category of time related issues. Such as:
a. when was the patient first requesting a test
b. when was the test scheduled
c. when was the test performed
d. when were the test results finalized
e. when were the test results reported
2. Demographics: This is a description of the demographic profile of the patient. Such as:
a. Age
b. Occupation if any
c. Race
d. Gender
e. Ethnicity
f. Family setting
g. Income
h. Education
3. Medical History: This is a history of patient and family
a. Pre-existing conditions
b. Presenting symptoms
c. Family history
d. Patient history
4. Testing Protocol: Details on what tests etc
a. Test Assay and Vendor
b. Test Location
c. Test Laboratory
d. Test False Negatives and Positives
e. Person doing test
f. Location of Test analysis
and so forth. Now Technology Review looks at this issue and suggests a Government controlled review. They state:
Getting this data means going to the health department website of each jurisdiction in question (and the neighboring ones), pulling up the information separately, and then trying to collate it all. You’ll have to pray the information is up to date, since there’s no guarantee. And you might even have to contact the departments directly and make a special request if you’re looking for numbers and information not readily available on their websites. The entire process will be a long, drawn-out, frustrating affair. And you might not even get what you want. Why? Because public health is a decentralized system in the US. In the case of covid-19, there’s no consistent standard for how states should collect and report the data. Individual states and their own health departments decide how they want to handle testing—including how to collect, organize, and report the results. And that can be a problem....Most experts agree that in an ideal situation, the federal government would lead the management of public health data for a crisis like this—but that is highly unlikely to happen. Given that some models suggest we’ll need to implement response measures against the pandemic into 2022, though, Miri doesn’t think it’s too late to push forward a national initiative. It’s just a matter of funding such measures, and persuading states to accept more oversight. That’s not always an easy sell, but the pandemic’s effects may have softened state officials up a bit.
There is however an excellent alternative to a Government approach. My thought would be how the IETF works for the Internet. The Government continuously demonstrates gross ineptitude. What we need is an open, dynamic, transparent approach. The IETF approach is an excellent example. This way one would have an dynamic entity open to all comers and acting in a demonstrable dynamic and real time manner. One need look no farther than the complexities of the Internet and understand how it evolved withing the expanse of the IETF.
Notwithstanding, a common database is critical and the data should be open to all comers. There are many minds out there who can examine the data from a different and possibly beneficial perspective. Governments have demonstrated an inability to produce. Worse yet, the WHO has lost all credibility that no one believes anything they say or worse, whatever they say must be false. Likewise the CDC cannot produce or disseminate timely data. The MMWR is a classic example of a weekly report frozen in a political quagmire.
1. Timeliness: This is a broad category of time related issues. Such as:
a. when was the patient first requesting a test
b. when was the test scheduled
c. when was the test performed
d. when were the test results finalized
e. when were the test results reported
2. Demographics: This is a description of the demographic profile of the patient. Such as:
a. Age
b. Occupation if any
c. Race
d. Gender
e. Ethnicity
f. Family setting
g. Income
h. Education
3. Medical History: This is a history of patient and family
a. Pre-existing conditions
b. Presenting symptoms
c. Family history
d. Patient history
4. Testing Protocol: Details on what tests etc
a. Test Assay and Vendor
b. Test Location
c. Test Laboratory
d. Test False Negatives and Positives
e. Person doing test
f. Location of Test analysis
and so forth. Now Technology Review looks at this issue and suggests a Government controlled review. They state:
Getting this data means going to the health department website of each jurisdiction in question (and the neighboring ones), pulling up the information separately, and then trying to collate it all. You’ll have to pray the information is up to date, since there’s no guarantee. And you might even have to contact the departments directly and make a special request if you’re looking for numbers and information not readily available on their websites. The entire process will be a long, drawn-out, frustrating affair. And you might not even get what you want. Why? Because public health is a decentralized system in the US. In the case of covid-19, there’s no consistent standard for how states should collect and report the data. Individual states and their own health departments decide how they want to handle testing—including how to collect, organize, and report the results. And that can be a problem....Most experts agree that in an ideal situation, the federal government would lead the management of public health data for a crisis like this—but that is highly unlikely to happen. Given that some models suggest we’ll need to implement response measures against the pandemic into 2022, though, Miri doesn’t think it’s too late to push forward a national initiative. It’s just a matter of funding such measures, and persuading states to accept more oversight. That’s not always an easy sell, but the pandemic’s effects may have softened state officials up a bit.
There is however an excellent alternative to a Government approach. My thought would be how the IETF works for the Internet. The Government continuously demonstrates gross ineptitude. What we need is an open, dynamic, transparent approach. The IETF approach is an excellent example. This way one would have an dynamic entity open to all comers and acting in a demonstrable dynamic and real time manner. One need look no farther than the complexities of the Internet and understand how it evolved withing the expanse of the IETF.
Notwithstanding, a common database is critical and the data should be open to all comers. There are many minds out there who can examine the data from a different and possibly beneficial perspective. Governments have demonstrated an inability to produce. Worse yet, the WHO has lost all credibility that no one believes anything they say or worse, whatever they say must be false. Likewise the CDC cannot produce or disseminate timely data. The MMWR is a classic example of a weekly report frozen in a political quagmire.
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Law by the Few
Recently one of the Harvard Law School types wrote a paper in The Atlantic proposing what he terms "Common-good constitutionalism" He describes it as follows:
Common-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them. Instead it draws upon an immemorial tradition that includes, in addition to positive law, sources such as the ius gentium— the law of nations or the “general law” common to all civilized legal systems— and principles of objective natural morality, including legal morality in the sense used by the American legal theorist Lon Fuller: the inner logic that the activity of law should follow in order to function well as law.
Common-good constitutionalism is also not legal liberalism or libertarianism. Its main aim is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. A corollary is that to act outside or against inherent norms of good rule is to act tyrannically, forfeiting the right to rule, but the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to “protect liberty” as an end in itself. Constraints on power are good only derivatively, insofar as they contribute to the common good; the emphasis should not be on liberty as an abstract object of quasi-religious devotion, but on particular human liberties whose protection is a duty of justice or prudence on the part of the ruler.
This elitist approach assumes that there exists some select group of the ordained who can decide what is the common good. Such a group would thus have a say on what we can and cannot do.
The Founders were in many ways the result of the Individualist school based on Natural Rights and the resulting Natural Law. As I have noted regarding Natural Rights, we humans have a sense of what we have a right to, driven by the genetic makeup of our limbic system. Western political individualism is embedded in our very own genetic code. However there is always a class of people who want to dominate others. Fortunately our Founders understood this and as such we have the Bill of Rights. These rights are the expression of Natural Rights, limits on man made laws so as not to trample on our person.
Individualism is a powerful driver for the overall success of the United States. We have always had groups of people who want to destroy that fabric, ranging from Marxists, Communists, Socialists, and the select group of self appointed academics. This above statement is a cl*ear indication that we have imminent dangers arising from the Academy, all too frequently from those who deem their opinions are better than any other individual. The come from echo chambers whose members deem themselves as holders of truth.
Regrettably students can be manipulated to see this as a path to success, namely believing in and proselytizing this construct. Originalism is a view of the Constitution, but more importantly the essence of our Natural Rights can only be defended and secured if we recognize these characters who seek to destroy it and secure for themselves abject power.
Common-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them. Instead it draws upon an immemorial tradition that includes, in addition to positive law, sources such as the ius gentium— the law of nations or the “general law” common to all civilized legal systems— and principles of objective natural morality, including legal morality in the sense used by the American legal theorist Lon Fuller: the inner logic that the activity of law should follow in order to function well as law.
Common-good constitutionalism is also not legal liberalism or libertarianism. Its main aim is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. A corollary is that to act outside or against inherent norms of good rule is to act tyrannically, forfeiting the right to rule, but the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to “protect liberty” as an end in itself. Constraints on power are good only derivatively, insofar as they contribute to the common good; the emphasis should not be on liberty as an abstract object of quasi-religious devotion, but on particular human liberties whose protection is a duty of justice or prudence on the part of the ruler.
This elitist approach assumes that there exists some select group of the ordained who can decide what is the common good. Such a group would thus have a say on what we can and cannot do.
The Founders were in many ways the result of the Individualist school based on Natural Rights and the resulting Natural Law. As I have noted regarding Natural Rights, we humans have a sense of what we have a right to, driven by the genetic makeup of our limbic system. Western political individualism is embedded in our very own genetic code. However there is always a class of people who want to dominate others. Fortunately our Founders understood this and as such we have the Bill of Rights. These rights are the expression of Natural Rights, limits on man made laws so as not to trample on our person.
Individualism is a powerful driver for the overall success of the United States. We have always had groups of people who want to destroy that fabric, ranging from Marxists, Communists, Socialists, and the select group of self appointed academics. This above statement is a cl*ear indication that we have imminent dangers arising from the Academy, all too frequently from those who deem their opinions are better than any other individual. The come from echo chambers whose members deem themselves as holders of truth.
Regrettably students can be manipulated to see this as a path to success, namely believing in and proselytizing this construct. Originalism is a view of the Constitution, but more importantly the essence of our Natural Rights can only be defended and secured if we recognize these characters who seek to destroy it and secure for themselves abject power.
NJ 2020 05 06
OK, here we go. The deaths are as follows:
No real surprises. But look below:
Yes, we have had resurrections on Non LTC patients, 238 Lazarus type resurrections! Miracles will never cease. I took the LTC deaths separate from the total and behold a negative number for the non LTC. Try and explain this one folks. It must be something really God like in New Jersey.
The 14 day numbers remain negative but one Guesses that the Gov has yet to say anything here.
The state prevalence continues to drop.
as does the county.
Overall we have the annoying feeling that the data is so corrupted that making any decision will be an affront to any science oriented person. But alas, we must follow the science, whatever that means.
Overall we have the annoying feeling that the data is so corrupted that making any decision will be an affront to any science oriented person. But alas, we must follow the science, whatever that means.
Transparency?
In a recent letter to Science the authors request:
Given the necessity for rapid response to the coronavirus
pandemic, we need many eyes to review and collectively vet model
assumptions, parameterizations, and algorithms to ensure the most
accurate modeling possible. Transparency engenders public trust and is
the best defense against misunderstanding, misuse, and deliberate
misinformation about models and their results. We need to engage as many
experts as possible for improving the ability of models to represent
epidemiological, social, and economic dynamics so that we can best
respond to the crisis and plan effectively to mitigate its wider
impacts. We strongly urge all scientists modeling the
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its consequences for
health and society to rapidly and openly publish their code (along with
specifying the type of data required, model parameterizations, and any
available documentation) so that it is accessible to all scientists
around the world. We offer sincere thanks to the many teams that are
already sharing their models openly. Proprietary black boxes and code
withheld for competitive motivations have no place in the global crisis
we face today. As soon as possible, please place your code in a trusted
digital repository so that it is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.
We have been asking for this for months now. Like the stuff that character in London put out. I gather he is gone. Now the key point is the data. As I have been noting the data is recklessly unreliable. Thus model or no model there is no way to validate the results. New Jersey is a prime example and one wonders if one can trust anything from New York.
There also is a fundamental question that we seem to have no answer. Namely; how is the disease transmitted. I can see the argument regarding person to person by exhaling virion laden liquid drops. But frankly after hundreds of papers there is no real answer. Isolation should have wiped out the disease. Face masks are nice but in every scene we see people without gloves. I have argued that the hands are the primary path of transmission but that is based solely on common cold vectors.
Having just said the above, one then must question any model lacking a phenomenological structure. Regression models are useless since the rely on corrupt data. Regrettably these academics may be causing more long term deaths than the disease. Why? Just think of all the cancer patients not getting care. Take melanoma for one. A highly aggressive skin cancer, of increasing prevalence, yet controllable is caught early. But now one cannot go to a dermatologist. The list of cancers go on and on. Cancer centers are closed, until the Govs decide they had culled the herd?
Science demands transparency and the ability for others to analyze and critique the results. A trustworthy scientist must reveal all of their data and the means and methods to reach a conclusion. Knowledge is attained in this often combative process. Unlike the London Prof who seems to be playing Three Card Month with the world, as well as apparently all others this is not science, it is cultism.
Science demands transparency and the ability for others to analyze and critique the results. A trustworthy scientist must reveal all of their data and the means and methods to reach a conclusion. Knowledge is attained in this often combative process. Unlike the London Prof who seems to be playing Three Card Month with the world, as well as apparently all others this is not science, it is cultism.
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
NJ 2020 05 05
First, the number of tests were small at the beginning so the incidence is weighted much too low.
Second, the testing is extensive now but only for those with symptoms. So we still have a substantial bias.
Third, nowhere do we ever consider the False Negatives and False positives.
Fourth, there are a multiplicity of test types and sites. Nowhere do we consider the inter test variances.
Overall this is one of the most unscientific and unreliable data I have ever seen. No one seems to be speaking of this but our future and lives depend upon it.
Fifth, the characters at Univ Washington are using this in some linear regression fiasco to modify their projections. Garbage in Garbage out!
Sixth, and this is critical, I suspect that since there was little testing up front, the early incidence is under-represented in reality. Namely, I suspect that the actual incidence was much higher so that the "curve" is more flattened out and symmetric.
Seventh, and this is even more critical, none of the alleged "models" are phenomenological. That is they failed to reflect actual and most likely all physical phenomena, as well as bereft of any demographic and psychographic metrics. The models are more akin to econometric models which also for the most part a curve fitting ex-post facto models.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
