You are going after a medical doctor here who knows his onions
Which would be great for him, if the doctor knew what he was talking about, and got in line with what the CDC and the AMA are saying now, and therefore wasn't wrong in how he's doing his calculations... while projecting that error in risk analysis into his opinions. And, of course, if the nation were in fact at risk of being overrun by onions ? (Funny because true... as it happens, I've also done a bit of work on the genetics of onions. If that's really what you want to talk about, you got the right guy).
Neither being true, I expect... I will note I unmarked... just checked, and, yep... still unmarked... this list some time ago... and my participation here has been limited to replying to those who have been engaging me by posting TO ME here. In all fairness... it is they sustaining the conversation... not me.
If you prefer to stop this list from properly [and accurately] considering what appears it may be the single most important event we've faced in a generation or two... as it is putting lives at risk now, and has only now begun impacting the economy (here)... with politics (here) soon to follow.... as it is challenging social stability (as China says is true there, already)... hey, that's your call.
I'd rather get past the issues in getting the basics CORRECT, too... and then move on to the impacts, and the policy changes necessary to minimize them... the politics, the economics, and the social imperatives.
But... reality is... we're not capable of doing ANY of those things correctly... if the risks are calculated wrongly.
I do recognize that Ski, with changes in the focus in his posting in the last week, does appear to have a genuine interest in trying to understand something that he CLEARLY does not understand. I expect he's acting in good faith in making the effort.
That's obviously why he continues to engage me... and why I bother making an effort trying to explain it...
The only other reason I persist... is that the error made is DIRECTLY HARMFUL TO PEOPLE...
It misleads people into wrongly understanding their risks... while underestimating those risks by an order of magnitude... as many of the links I've provided show. Here's another:
JAMA Comment from:
2019 Novel Coronavirus—Important Information for Clinicians
February 8, 2020
Fatality Rate Comparison between SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV Adjustments.
Jairo Campos, M.D. |
SARS and MERS fatality rates used here are "end epidemic" rates against a 2019-nCoV fatality rate that is an "epidemic outbreak" rate. An adjustment formula is possible using the denominator(total number of deaths) in the fatality rate formula from a previous date found by the subtraction of the average of days between the date of case notification and the date of death notification. This is specially valuable as the curve hasn't reached its peak and has predictive "end epidemic" rate value.
The AMA doesn't want doctors making that EXACT error in under-estimating the risks, it seems... but they don't appear to be any more successful than I, or others, have been in explaining it clearly. Theirs is far more of a word salad than mine have been...its logically disconnected, and its technically incorrect... probably due to over editing.
So, figuring how to explain it SIMPLY ENOUGH... but in a way everyone understands... IS IMPORTANT.
Once I DO figure out how to communicate that clearly enough... the point isn't "I Win"... it is that I'll write a letter to the CDC and the AMA... explaining the difficulty THEY HAVE right now in a failure to communicate... while showing them how to overcome it...
I'll check with the legal team... but, as a non-lawyer, just looking at the logic on the surface of it... if I went to a doctor to ask his professional advice about my coronavirus risks and how I should perhaps be preparing now, while preparing is not that hard... and I was told "its just another flu bug, nothing more to worry about"... when it is now well established as fact that the current coronavirus mortality risk is 20 times to 50 times greater "on average" than "just another flu bug" ? And, of course, the real risk is much higher than that "averaged" value for us older, male, codgers. In my "non-legal expert" opinion... that might be actionable malpractice.
|
