SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Financial Collapse of 2001 Unwinding -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: THE ANT who wrote (5572)5/16/2020 12:54:22 AM
From: Elroy Jetson  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13795
 
The unknown question is whether we see a second wave more deadly than the first, as with the 1918 pandemic.

Just a crapshoot as no one knows.



To: THE ANT who wrote (5572)5/16/2020 2:15:07 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 13795
 
The expectation was for the poor countries to suffer. They didn't. It would have made a field day to show the slums and a couple of shots of some coffins. It would fit the narrative of how superior the developed countries are.

At the end fo the day, the Africans refused to die. And the developed countries' scientific community has eggs splattered all over their faces as what we witnessed was scientists. fight for the limelights, for their 15 minutes of fame, aligning themselves with their political narratives, and -most important- for bribes from Bill Gates.




To: THE ANT who wrote (5572)5/20/2020 1:11:27 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13795
 
Just like the Israeli Professor told us. euroweeklynews.com

Covid-19 fast dying out. A quick scan on the news you can see the headlines are:
How the counting was done?
Were people infected in January?
What happens if you go eat out.




To: THE ANT who wrote (5572)5/21/2020 12:21:15 PM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13795
 
I was right, says prof who predicted pandemic would play itself out in 70 days

Isaac Ben-Israel says virus disappears everywhere at same speed, rendering interventions irrelevant. Public health expert: He ‘has no clue about epidemiology and public health’

An Israeli professor who made waves in early April for insisting that the coronavirus will play itself out after 70 days regardless of intervention levels says that he has been proved right, and that claims the virus will return in force for a second wave are just speculation.

“It’s very amusing that people talk about a second wave,” Isaac Ben-Israel, a prominent mathematician, chairman of Israel’s Space Agency, and a former general, told The Times of Israel. “How do they know there will be a second wave? And how do they know that it will come in the winter?”

However, a public health expert disputed Ben-Israel’s claims and said he “has no clue about epidemiology and public health.”

Ben-Israel said that since he crunched figures on the pandemic some six weeks ago and publicized his theory that COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days and declines to almost zero after 70 days, he has been vindicated — and concluded that the “hysteria” he sees around him is “as contagious as biological diseases.”

What is more, he is now arguing that surprise over the radically different mortality rates among infected people in different countries is misplaced, and is putting forward a counterintuitive claim.

“There is a natural assumption that fewer infections means fewer deaths but it’s not correct,” he said, arguing: “There is no explainable relationship between the number of people infected and the number of people who die. The ratio between deaths and infections differs sometimes by a factor of 100 or more between different countries.”

He asserted that mortality rates are unfathomable by any understood logic.

In a study published in Hebrew on April 8 and in English on April 16, Ben-Israel, head of the Security Studies program at Tel Aviv University and chairman of the National Council for Research and Development, claimed that the duration of a country’s COVID-19 outbreak is set and won’t vary based on what actions it takes.

On April 19 he wrote of Israel: “It turns out that the peak of the virus’s spread has been behind us for about two weeks now, and will probably fade within two more weeks.”

On May 2, just under two weeks later, the number of newly infected people per day dropped to under 100 for the first time since late March, and has remained below that figure.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proclaimed that Israel’s coronavirus stats reflect a “major success,” but Ben-Israel disagrees, claiming that they just reflect the virus running its natural course.

He said: “This isn’t because Israel did anything special; the same thing happened in Taiwan where they had no lockdown.”

Many medical professionals have raised their eyebrows over Ben-Israel’s claims. The public health expert Nadav Davidovitch, asked to comment for this article, said he agrees with Ben-Israel’s sentiment that “hysteria” must be avoided but added: “He is an excellent scientist, yet he has no clue about epidemiology and public health.”

Ben-Israel doesn’t have a medical background, but claimed that simple mathematics can yield an understanding of the virus’s pattern. He argued that this pattern proves that lockdowns are “unnecessary no matter what,” and have been a needless disruption to life and a waste of money.

Ben-Israel has supported social distancing and hygiene measures but said that they only have a limited impact on infection rates. He argued that this is now shown to be true because he can’t draw a clear correlation between a country’s hygiene level and a significant change in the pattern of infection rates.

To prepare his theory early last month, he examined figures from countries that experienced coronavirus early, and concluded that it follows the same 40-day-to-peak and 70-day-to-resolution pattern no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it.

Ben-Israel told The Times of Israel it is now clear that “it follows the pattern everywhere.” He added: “I don’t have an explanation for this data but I think it’s very clear. It’s a universal pattern.”

But Davidovitch, director of the School of Public Health at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, said that Ben-Israel is mistaken, and referred to Sweden, a country famous for shunning a mandatory lockdown, and commented: “He’s not correct. In Sweden there is still an outbreak.”

Ben-Israel didn’t specify a particular start date that he uses for his calculations, and said that initially, with regard to Israel, he counted from the first case. For other countries, however, he began counting when cases were “significant,” though he didn’t offer a clear quantification of what this means. He said it is reasonable to begin counting when a country passes 100 cases to assess his theory.

Sweden reached 100 cases on March 6, and 40 days later, on April 15, there were 482 new daily cases. This wasn’t the peak, and the level of new cases there rose and fell. The peak was 812 new cases on April 24, but on several days between April 8 and May 7 new daily cases exceeded 700, punctuated by several days with fewer than 350 new cases. On May 15, the 70-day mark, it still had 625 new daily cases.

By contrast, other countries appeared to closely follow Ben-Israel’s pattern. Belgium, which was hit hard by the virus, passed 100 cases on March 6. Day 40 was April 15, and was the peak in terms of daily new cases, with 2,454. Day 70 was May 3, when new cases were down to 1,389.

Israel peaked in terms of new cases on April 2. Ben-Israel said that initially, he treated the first case as day one in his calculations. This would mean that the peak came after 41 days. But if counting begins when the country saw 100 cases, just 21 days had elapsed by April 2.

Ben-Israel said that his preferred statistics are more technical and claimed they would show that his theory holds, even in the case of Sweden, but declined to share them.

Davidovitch said that even if Ben-Israel had been correct, it wouldn’t justify any critique of state policy, which was never aimed at speeding up the end of the outbreak, but rather about avoiding a sharp curve and limiting the number of cases. “Nobody thought that the lockdown measures were being taken to get rid of the virus,” he said. “They were about reducing infection rates and not overwhelming healthcare. If he thinks these measures were to get rid of the virus he’s mistaken.”

Regarding Ben-Israel’s claim that there is no explainable relationship between the number of people infected and the number of people who die, Davidovitch said this is “very simplistic” and that some aspects of the correlation are understood while others aren’t. “Nobody said it’s only about infection rates,” he said.

Davidovitch said that contrary to Ben-Israel’s claim, there is sound logic to the idea of a second wave, “as it happened in the past [with other viruses] and we’re very far from herd immunity.”

He added: “I’m not a prophet and I’ll be happy if there’s no second wave, but it’s not right to disregard this possibility.”
timesofisrael.com



To: THE ANT who wrote (5572)6/2/2020 11:53:50 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13795
 
“The swabs that were performed over the last 10 days showed a viral load in quantitative terms that was absolutely infinitesimal compared to the ones carried out a month or two months ago,” he told RAI television.

“In reality, the virus clinically no longer exists in Italy,” said Alberto Zangrillo, the head of the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan in the northern region of Lombardy, which has borne the brunt of Italy’s coronavirus contagion.~

New coronavirus losing potency, top Italian doctor says

reuters.com



To: THE ANT who wrote (5572)6/6/2020 12:32:16 PM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13795
 
The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history.

The now retracted paper halted hydroxychloroquine trials. Studies like this determine how people live or die tomorrow

James Heathers
Fri 5 Jun 2020 08.50 BSTLast modified on Fri 5 Jun 2020 09.33 BST

‘At its best, peer review is a slow and careful evaluation of new research by appropriate experts. ... At its worst, it is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority’. Photograph: George Frey/AFP/Getty Images
The Lancet is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world. Recently, they published an article on Covid patients receiving hydroxychloroquine with a dire conclusion: the drug increases heartbeat irregularities and decreases hospital survival rates. This result was treated as authoritative, and major drug trials were immediately halted – because why treat anyone with an unsafe drug?

Now, that Lancet study has been retracted, withdrawn from the literature entirely, at the request of three of its authors who “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources”. Given the seriousness of the topic and the consequences of the paper, this is one of the most consequential retractions in modern history.

It is natural to ask how this is possible. How did a paper of such consequence get discarded like a used tissue by some of its authors only days after publication? If the authors don’t trust it now, how did it get published in the first place?

The answer is quite simple. It happened because peer review, the formal process of reviewing scientific work before it is accepted for publication, is not designed to detect anomalous data. It makes no difference if the anomalies are due to inaccuracies, miscalculations, or outright fraud. This is not what peer review is for. While it is the internationally recognised badge of “settled science”, its value is far more complicated.

At its best, peer review is a slow and careful evaluation of new research by appropriate experts. It involves multiple rounds of revision that removes errors, strengthens analyses, and noticeably improves manuscripts.

At its worst, it is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.

Regardless of how any individual paper is reviewed – and the experience is usually somewhere between the above extremes – the sad truth is peer review in its entirety is struggling, and retractions like this drag its flaws into an incredibly bright spotlight.

The ballistics of this problem are well known. To start with, peer review is entirely unrewarded. The internal currency of science consists entirely of producing new papers, which form the cornerstone of your scientific reputation. There is no emphasis on reviewing the work of others.

If you spend several days in a continuous back-and-forth technical exchange with authors, trying to improve their manuscript, adding new analyses, shoring up conclusions, no one will ever know your name. Neither are you paid. Peer review originally fitted under an amorphous idea of academic “service” – the tasks that scientists were supposed to perform as members of their community. This is a nice idea, but is almost invariably maintained by researchers with excellent job security. Some senior scientists are notorious for peer reviewing manuscripts rarely or even never – because it interferes with the task of producing more of their own research.


Coronavirus: the week explained - sign up for our email newsletter


Read more

However, even if reliable volunteers for peer review can be found, it is increasingly clear that it is insufficient. The vast majority of peer-reviewed articles are never checked for any form of analytical consistency, nor can they be – journals do not require manuscripts to have accompanying data or analytical code and often will not help you obtain them from authors if you wish to see them. Authors usually have zero formal, moral, or legal requirements to share the data and analytical methods behind their experiments. Finally, if you locate a problem in a published paper and bring it to either of these parties, often the median response is no response at all – silence.

This is usually not because authors or editors are negligent or uncaring. Usually, it is because they are trying to keep up with the component difficulties of keeping their scientific careers and journals respectively afloat. Unfortunately, those goals are directly in opposition – authors publishing as much as possible means back-breaking amounts of submissions for journals. Increasingly time-poor researchers, busy with their own publications, often decline invitations to review. Subsequently, peer review is then cursory or non-analytical.

Advertisement

And even still, we often muddle through. Until we encounter extraordinary circumstances.


Unreliable data: how doubt snowballed over Covid-19 drug research that swept the world


Read more

Peer review during a pandemic faces a brutal dilemma – the moral importance of releasing important information with planetary consequences quickly, versus the scientific importance of evaluating the presented work fully – while trying to recruit scientists, already busier than usual due to their disrupted lives, to review work for free. And, after this process is complete, publications face immediate scrutiny by a much larger group of engaged scientific readers than usual, who treat publications which affect the health of every living human being with the scrutiny they deserve.

The consequences are extreme. The consequences for any of us, on discovering a persistent cough and respiratory difficulties, are directly determined by this research. Papers like today’s retraction determine how people live or die tomorrow. They affect what drugs are recommended, what treatments are available, and how we get them sooner.

The immediate solution to this problem of extreme opacity, which allows flawed papers to hide in plain sight, has been advocated for years: require more transparency, mandate more scrutiny. Prioritise publishing papers which present data and analytical code alongside a manuscript. Re-analyse papers for their accuracy before publication, instead of just assessing their potential importance. Engage expert statistical reviewers where necessary, pay them if you must. Be immediately responsive to criticism, and enforce this same standard on authors. The alternative is more retractions, more missteps, more wasted time, more loss of public trust … and more death.

• James Heathers is a research scientist at Northeastern University in Boston MA. He studies biosignal methodology and metascience