[Updated 3-22-2020 8 AM]
Medium has an
excellent piece out. You'll see some of the data I have presented here in it. One of the closing messages:
Local governments and politicians are inflicting massive harm and disruption with little evidence to support their draconian edicts. Every local government is in a mimetic race to one-up each other in authoritarian city ordinances to show us who has more “abundance of caution”. Politicians are competing, not on more evidence or more COVID-19 cures but more caution. As unemployment rises and families feel unbearably burdened already, they feel pressure to “fix” the situation they created with even more radical and “creative” policy solutions. This only creates more problems and an even larger snowball effect. The first place to start is to stop killing the patient and focus on what works.
Yes sir. The responses have been "virtue signaling" writ large.
[update]
I wake up this morning to the article being pulled by Medium. Allegedly there are serious errors in the paper. I can't check because I didn't download the original (which goes back to my criticism of media changing and removing items from the internet). But I wanted to draw the reader's attention to one of the critiques:
Do you see the problem with the critique? No? Yes?
Alrighty then, the author stated in a headline:
1% of cases will be severe
Followed by:
~1% of percent of everyone who is tested for COVID-19 with the US will have a severe case [my underlines]
The accompanying chart is headlined:
Coronavirus [COVID1-19]: The Severity of diagnosed cases in China
Since we cannot go back to the original article to get how the author got his 1% we don't know if that claim is supported by later data or extrapolation from current available data. However; as it stands, this particular critique is unfounded. Right on it's face.
In my post about
the math I gave the mean, sd, me and variance for the numbers as on that day. I showed that mathematically, China and Italy were/are statistical outliers. We should pay attention to them, but it is
unlikely they will be the example of what to expect world wide. I put the variance on there so that the reader can know how bad it *could* get. Those numbers were for deaths rather than "severe cases" which is in dispute here.
Per my "math" post, the US death rate is 1.5%. Not the 2.3% seen in China. Could it go up? variance says yes. Will it go up? Nobody knows. But here's the rub as I've pointed out
earlier. If there are far more undiagnosed cases of Wuhan than we known (the known unknowns) then the actual case numbers skyrockets and the percentage of those with severe cases shrinks dramatically.
Anyway it's too bad that the piece is unavailable. Now you can't read it. Now you can't follow the links in it to primary sources and you can't engage in the open debate. The gatekeepers have decided
for you. For your own benefit of course.
