Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[AlabamAlum]

I like protests. It’s an American institution. But the violence and thievery takes away from their cause. I AM SO UPSET THAT MAN WAS KILLED I WILL STEAL A TV FROM TARGET!

[Dr. Strangelove]

I find PDJT's "war" with Twitter to be completely absurd in almost every way. First, an EO to undo legislation is comical. Second, the premise of the EO is laughably bad. Third, the D reaction is hilarious given their own stated desire to regulate social media (and get rid of Section 230!). The messenger truly matters. Heh. Fourth, Twitter then confirms pretty much what we all expect to happen -- an extensive censoring of conservative voices/opinions -- by flagging a PDJT post (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...ying-violence/) of zero consequence. Fifth, social media IS the messaging forum that allows Rs to get around dealing with the preposterous media. So, why not attack it, right? JFC.

Ted Cruz sent a letter to Barr today calling for a criminal investigation into whether Twitter is violating sanctions by allowing Iranian politicians to have accounts. In the past he's said they all should be banned from the platform.

https://www.axios.com/exclusive-cruz-calls-for-criminal-investigation-of-twitter-3bec3098-3fbf-45b2-a5bf-cbda7cace940.html

At some point I wonder if Twitter (and Facebook, Snapchat, whatever) just throw up their hands and say fuck it, we'll be a publisher then.

[Dr. Strangelove]

BTW, proving that everything can get even dumber, to get around Twitter flagging his post from his personal account, Trump had the official account of the White House post the exact same thing. That post has now been flagged by Twitter as well.

So that people unfamiliar with Twitter understand, Trump's posts have not been deleted. They've put up a disclaimer that you have to click past to see his actual post. In this instance they say what he wrote "glorifies violence" in a violation of platform policy but aren't removing it entirely because he's a public figure. But it also means that his post can't be retweeted (shared with others) or "liked" or commented on.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Among interesting developments yesterday evening and this morning (among those not already mentioned):

The Justice Department indicted 28 North Korean and 5 Chinese nationals yesterday charging them with money laundering to move money to NK's nuclear development program. The amount cited was $2.5B. Not chump change. Aside from the criminal acts that these people were charged with and will never be tried, if there is any doubt that the Chicoms are using NK as a foil to further there strategic military interests, that should be removed. My position is that the US should do everything it can to discourage China's extraordinary strategery on multiple levels; I think there is interest among other western democracies to join US led efforts.

FL announced an $878m hit on tax revenues for April. This is going to be background noise for months but the loss of tax revenues to states and municipalities over the next 6 months is going to crater state and local budgets. Illinois is at the top of the in big trouble list. There are others. Political differences on federal bailouts for states makes the continuation of expected state level services and pension payments questionable. Something is going to have to give if state governments are to avoid defaults and that may be the end result because cutting services and pensions will be resisted until it's too late. More background noise that is truly meaningful in terms of quality of life issues going forward.

More insight regarding R(O) and managing re-opeinng strategies in my next post.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I'm involved in an interesting discussion among my medical group involving this article. Worth a read. It resonated with me but it is flawed when you get right down to it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ns_143253.html

The gist is that panic and bad models drove global lock-downs that have destroyed economies, produced depression level unemployment and were entirely unnecessary. The author's argument rests heavily on the Sweden experience and neglects the realty of global and regional R(O) - which is behind the continued new case numbers of infections. Our medical group discussion is asking how accurate is R(O), R(t) and how can it properly be used to shape public health policy .... I'll get to my research on that question next.

I think we understand R(O) and R(t) here ..... at least I thought I did. Maybe not. R(O) and its derivative R(t) are absolutely essential epidemiological bench marks for informing public health policy. No one in the virology and epidemiology world disputes this. It's not a hard figure to understand but as a means of informing public health policy it is not widely used. There are others of equal utility but R(O) is fundamental. The problem is the question is it accurate? Initial R(O) estimates started out very high, based on clearly flawed China data and less flawed Italy data, and in the neighborhood of 5-7. We also learned that if you don't age stratify data you will over or underestimate R(O). IOW there were early problems with this key epidemiological figure used to inform various public health policy responses. This may be a reason public health officials aren't using it much and/or we don't see it discussed in the lay media and only in academic circles.

The link below is a tough to get through study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin who developed a model by which they calculated initial R(O) for each state by looking back at both daily and death case numbers and arriving at an allegedly more accurate value of initial R(O). That number when calculated using the researcher's method is forward looking and should both inform how significant mitigation and containment measures should be or should have been and how re-opening decisions can be made and then managed, importantly, regionally or state by state

R(O) values so calculated varied from a low of < 1.0 in KS to a high in NY, MI and some NE states approaching 4. While we know R(O) is static, it still changes based on daily data input for new case #'s. It can therefore be recalculated based on formulas the researchers developed on a daily basis. Researchers also found that initial R(O) values for each state were strongly correlated with peak deaths. Likewise, ongoing death rates by state are correlated with and shape R(O) re-calculations.

My take is that R(t) - something I've utilized in my thinking - while it contributes to an idea of containment, it may not be sufficient by itself to rely on it as conclusive. Moreover, when one sees R(t) < 1.0 it may or may not be cause for rejoicing or, in our case here, nodding, "yes, I told you so," may not be the correct response. To properly inform policy, other measures need to inform it - FL, among others, uses regional and local hospital admissions, ED stats for ILI and COVID-19 sx and percent positives of all tests. At the R(t) live site all of us have seen, there is a set of graphs when you scroll down that shows each state's R(t) values. You can also look at case numbers by clicking the show case numbers tab. You might see an R(t) of 0.85 and think yeah, that's good, containment! .... but case numbers are rising with the rate of rise (the slope) being important to inform the appropriateness of on-going re-opening strategies on a state and on a local basis.

The bottom line for me is that multiple data points should be informing the active formulation of public health policy and if you're reading only the media reports you would be inclined to think that's not happening. In FL it is but you have to dig for the data points. Can't speak for other states, although I'm not confident GA is doing much other than acting based on gut instinct. That state is not publishing data on dashboards like FL is. So, ????

The other important thing is that initial calculations of R(O) were seriously flawed if the U of WI researchers are correct. The global R(O) was thought to be as high as 5, maybe higher, and scared the shit out of everyone. Mean US R(O) was thought to be between 2.5 and 3, later reduced to 1.5 to 2.5. Some experts pegged it at 4. Those numbers though aren't particularly useful. That's because researchers are learning R(O) is highly variable between states. Cannot generalize for the purpose of informing PH policy at any level They were also woefully incorrect; the researchers advance a solid method to calculate it that produces allegedly (and I can't find any reason to not believe them) accurate R(O) values by state. They go on to prove their accuracy by running some impressive simulations detailed in the article.

An important value of initial R(O) going forward though is to predict how many folks need to be vaccinated to achieve containment and elimination of the virus. For example, if R₀ = 2, immunization needs to be achieved in 50% of the population. However, if R₀ = 5 the proportion rises steeply, to 80%. This kind of approach is critical to determining where vaccines should be distributed (e.g. more heavily in NY, less heavily in KS). The U of Wi research paper is here:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...653v2.full.pdf

Here's a good article on R(O) that I found in trying to make sure I had a fundamental understanding of it.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-w...ers-r0-and-re/

[Dr. Strangelove]

Me knowing Jeff's not finished discussing R(0) and there's more to come

[Jeff Buchanan]

Heh! Get busy DSL, read my post. You''ll learn some important shit.

[iam416]

They've put up a disclaimer that you have to click past to see his actual post. In this instance they say what he wrote "glorifies violence" in a violation of platform policy but aren't removing it entirely because he's a public figure. But it also means that his post can't be retweeted (shared with others) or "liked" or commented on.

Correct. And if that post constitutes "glorifying violence" and they're serious about their policy then they'll have, literally, millions of posts to flag. And that's the problem. They won't. This is about PDJT and selectively applying rules to him. And that's why their response was so assinine -- it validates pretty much exactly what PDJT and his followers think -- you're going to target US. Of course, it's also true.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Correct. And if that post constitutes "glorifying violence" and they're serious about their policy then they'll have, literally, millions of posts to flag. And that's the problem. They won't. This is about PDJT and selectively applying rules to him. And that's why their response was so assinine -- it validates pretty much exactly what PDJT and his followers think -- you're going to target US. Of course, it's also true.

Charles Cooke (From NR) and Ted Cruz are debating this on (heh) Twitter right now.

[iam416]

I haven't checked Twitter this morning. I follow Cooke so I look forward to the stimulating debate.

[iam416]

Cooke is entirely right about the law (as he agrees with me entirely). And Cooke is entirely right about the stupidity of flagging this particularly PDJT post (as he agrees with me entirely).

For the five reasons I stated, this "issue" -- in the course its taken -- ranks amongst the most idiotic of the year in a year where the Idiocy Battle Royale is basically 30 Andre the Giants.

[lineygoblue]

100477268_10163633595565322_1808734273079869440_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&amp;_nc_sid=110474&amp;_nc_ohc=F-XpTScXxtIAX_CVloo&amp;_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&amp;oh=a75e53fcfbaed727f326b6fa3dd8e9a0&amp;oe=5EF52FCC.jpg

[iam416]

Obama weighs in and calls the Minneapolis tragedy “normal.” Lol.

[lineygoblue]

The people who choose to go out looting as a 'protest' need to look at Detroit to see what happens because of their lawlessness. There are areas in Detroit where there are still burned-out buildings from the 1967 riots. They were never bulldozed or anything. They're still there. The businesses that were there did one of two things, they either grabbed whatever insurance money they had and moved to the suburbs, or they never reopened, because they didn't have the money to do so. That will happen anywhere there is rioting.

During one looting spree a couple years ago, one looter was shown on TV saying, "Well, these places have insurance, let them pay for it". How foolish. Any smart business owner isn't going to reopen in a place that is susceptible to rioting. IF they have insurance, they're going to bank that money, board up what's left of the building, and never come back. They aren't going to spend that money and rebuild on the same site. .

But, that's "justice" in America today.

And FTR, .. the Minneapolis cop, if found guilty, needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Its inexcusable.

Obama weighs in and calls the Minneapolis tragedy “normal.” Lol.

I didn't see his quote, but did he call for calm and an end to the rioting? Seems like a responsible former president should be leading that effort.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Per R(t) live, there is an unmistakable uptick in those values associated with re-openings in several stats. GA is one of them. Is this the beginning of the "2nd wave?"

Actually, national reporting on the actual rise of new cases is muted. That's because seven and three day rolling averages for new cases isn't increasing along with R(t). This points out the fault in the national reporting but in this case, because most journalists don't have a clue about R(t), they could be missing a juicy story. In this case, they're not missing anything. Let's look at that apparent anomaly.

First recall that R(t) is a value that reflects a time sensitive count of how many people, one infected person will infect. It is not = R(O) which is a static value of that same count. From the information I provided to you yesterday, you'll recall, assuming you read it, the initial R(O) is an important value as it suggests the degree of mitigation and consolidation required at the outbreak of a pandemic. Also recall that initial R(O) values were mostly incorrect. Researchers have fixed those errors and now know that they vary by state and region. KS's R(O) is < 0 and NY is close to 7.

What R(t) values do well is reflect how mitigation and containment measures are working by state or region, when to relax them and when to consider re-introducing them. It's important to understand, for example, what GA's initial R(O) value was calculated to be in the study I referenced yesterday (<2.0) to determine if it's R(t) of 5/29 (1.01) suggests a need to consider re-introducing more stringent mitigation measures.

If R(t) is a time sensitive refection of what physical mitigation measures and human behaviors have on R(O) then R(t) X R(O) will calculate that value ....... 2 X 1.02 = 2.02. IOW 1 infected person in GA will infect .02 more people than GA's initial R(O). 1000 infected persons will infect 2020 others instead of 2000 and so forth. Thus a small change in R(t) like we're seeing in GA is not particularly consequential and GA's GR in new cases remains stable to downward sloping.

OTH, a small increase in R(t) for NYC with initial R(O) of 7 , for example, would be more consequential, e.g., a 0.02 increase in that state's R(t) would produce 8 new infections per one infected New Yorker and 800/1000 New Yorkers. By that same analysis, you can see increases are logarithmic with upward sloping splines reflecting considerable increases in GR. Fortunately, NY has done an excellent job mitigating and containing the virus if one believes that R(t) value as of 5/29 of 0.80 describes it. The initial NY R(O) of 7 arrived at by the researcher I reviewed yesterday here should suggest more draconian and longer mitigation measures - something it appears Cuomo has mandated. Good for him, I guess.