COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (4 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Coronavirus death toll may be much higher than reported in hard-hit locations - based on evidence that overall deaths are substantially higher (as much as 50%) with no explanation other than the pandemic.

I'm trying to figure out if the 50% higher than normal fatalities translates to 50% higher CV19 fatalities than previously reported. I mean, it could be, but I'm not sure that's actually correct.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm trying to figure out if the 50% higher than normal fatalities translates to 50% higher CV19 fatalities than previously reported. I mean, it could be, but I'm not sure that's actually correct.

I don't think it's a scientific certainty but it's a very strong correlation.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

I'm trying to figure out if the 50% higher than normal fatalities translates to 50% higher CV19 fatalities than previously reported. I mean, it could be, but I'm not sure that's actually correct.

Surely some of it is people not getting medical attention for fear of catching the virus, and some of those would have died anyway, but probably not all.

It is going to be hard to nail down the number, but we shouldn’t totally disregard those other deaths, nor should we count them all.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't think it's a scientific certainty but it's a very strong correlation.

Oh, there's no doubting the correlation. Just making sure the 50% increase do to uncounted fatalities is reasonably estimated. Could be higher or lower. I actually suspect the figures are underreported by more than 50% because there are no doubt deaths due to being indirectly caused by COVID.

 

[AARPSaint]

I think YouTube are in charge of their own platform, and if they don't want it to be used as a platform for amplifying dangerous misinformation that will result in lives needlessly being lost, they're free to act accordingly. And if they want to use the WHO as a basis for reference for doing so, that's a sensible approach.

As for the WHO advice, let's take the mask example. It's being presented incorrectly in this thread. The WHO advice, as I linked to above, is that wearing medical masks "is one of the prevention measures that can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19", but caution that "the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection, and other measures should also be adopted". They also note that there is limited evidence that healthy individuals wearing masks in households or among contacts of sick patients, or as attendees of mass gathering may be beneficial, but that there is currently (emphasis added) no evidence that wearing a mask by health persons in the wider community setting is beneficial as a preventive measure.

They go on to say medical masks should be reserved for health care workers, as there is the risk of it being counter-productive (creating a false sense of security leading to a reduction in practice of other essential measures such as hand hygiene and distancing, along with increasing touching of the face), and where there are supply problems exacerbates problems with the supply to health care workers.

They also note that "In some countries masks are worn in accordance with local customs or in accordance with advice by national authorities in the context of COVID-19. In these situations, best practices should be followed about how to wear, remove, and dispose of them, and for hand hygiene after removal."

And they also say "The use of masks made of other materials (e.g., cotton fabric), also known as nonmedical masks, in the community setting has not been well evaluated. There is no current evidence to make a recommendation for or against their use in this setting."

Summarising that as "healthy people should not wear masks" is flat out wrong. The actual advice is rational, evidence-based, and nuanced.

What is the big deal about wearing a freaking mask? Prudence dictates wearing one, unless you really don't give a flying you-know-what about your fellow human beings. Why can't people understand that it's not a question of protecting yourself from the virus? It's a question of hindering the spread from you, the mask wearer, if you happen to be asymptomatic, from infecting others. It is deeply disturbing that people are so callous, so inconsiderate, so selfish that they can't put on a bandanna or a dust mask to impede this plague from spreading.

The freedom to swing your arm ends with your neighbor's nose. And, if you hit her/his nose, you're probably not 6 feet away.

 

[St. Widge]

No they haven’t, but I know the health department issued a statement saying they didn’t agree with some of the things the doctors said they agreed with them on and had a different take on the conversation the doctors had with their director. I know YouTube has a policy against leaving up videos with Corvid misinformation, so I’ll assume they felt it fell within that category.

Most of those decisions are made by algorithms, so the reason YouTube hasn’t responded to requests for comments is they are probably figuring out why it was removed themselves.

Good point. I had forgotten that YouTube uses algorithms to remove content. Given the amount of content, there is really no other way to do it in order to not allow stuff like porn and copyrighted materials on their site. And I'm sure they don't want to be a source of disinformation so I have no issue with them excluding any content they deem harmful since they are a private business. And, they aren't and don't pretend to be journalists or a news organization. They are just a conduit to get videos in a single place that allows the content creators to get more views.

 

[St. Widge]

Well, the point is that there can be competent sources that have conflicting medical advice. If YouTube is saying they are going to silence medical advice that is in opposition to WHO, a lot of us see this as an issue. Most of the people on this thread would say you are being unwise to downright evil if you go out without a mask.

How about YouTube lets people post what they want and leave it to the viewer as to what they want to see and what advice to follow?
If Arathrael only want to follow WHO advice, go ahead, and other people can choose other experts to follow.

I mean, YouTube is a private business so they can really limit any content that they want. And they aren't journalists so even journalistic ethics don't apply to them. If they think it's to their advantage, to filter certain content that's their decision to make. Of course, you can always choose not to use their service if you don't like it. But most people just use it to watch cat videos anyway.

 

[tomwaits]

I mean, YouTube is a private business so they can really limit any content that they want. And they aren't journalists so even journalistic ethics don't apply to them. If they think it's to their advantage, to filter certain content that's their decision to make. Of course, you can always choose not to use their service if you don't like it. But most people just use it to watch cat videos anyway.

For sure, I am not calling for the government to take action against YouTube for deleting content. That is the only situation where 1st amendment rights come in to play. I can openly criticize YouTube as much as I want and that has nothing to do with their rights.

 

[sfidc3]

Oh no doubt. I wouldn't have taken it down either. But...there could be some legal rumblings behind the scenes that got it shut down. So, I dunno.

As for the Blaze. Nope, not reading that. Don't really care what they think.

False and/or misleading medical information being disseminated un-checked? Liability issue perhaps?

 

[nolastyle]

Agreed, AARPSaint. Opening up in the very near future is almost certain at this point. I'm hoping that most businesses will start to refuse service for those not wearing some sort of face-covering inside an establishment. If you can't be bothered to protect your neighbors, you can take your business elsewhere.

Also, a joint statement from the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. I've never seen such strong language from official medical organizations.

ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.

 

[AARPSaint]

Good point. I had forgotten that YouTube uses algorithms to remove content. Given the amount of content, there is really no other way to do it in order to not allow stuff like porn and copyrighted materials on their site. And I'm sure they don't want to be a source of disinformation so I have no issue with them excluding any content they deem harmful since they are a private business. And, they aren't and don't pretend to be journalists or a news organization. They are just a conduit to get videos in a single place that allows the content creators to get more views.

We can complain about "the media," but the internet has produced a lot of misinformation with almost no editorial oversight. And there doesn't seem to be much law concerning posting whatever nonsense you want to on the interwebs. I believe that libel and slander is difficult to prove, but internet falsehoods would seem even more elusive in that regard.

Medical and indeed academic work is peer reviewed if it is to be considered worthwhile. The lack of editorial input on the internet does not seem to be leading readers to reliable information in a lot of cases and instead appears to be spreading a lot of balderdash.

 

[Dago]

We can complain about "the media," but the internet has produced a lot of misinformation with almost no editorial oversight. And there doesn't seem to be much law concerning posting whatever nonsense you want to on the interwebs. I believe that libel and slander is difficult to prove, but internet falsehoods would seem even more elusive in that regard.

Medical and indeed academic work is peer reviewed if it is to be considered worthwhile. The lack of editorial input on the internet does not seem to be leading readers to reliable information in a lot of cases and instead appears to be spreading a lot of balderdash.

I read an article on the internet that says that everything you posted is wrong

 

[St. Widge]

For sure, I am not calling for the government to take action against YouTube for deleting content. That is the only situation where 1st amendment rights come in to play. I can openly criticize YouTube as much as I want and that has nothing to do with their rights.

I totally agree you can bad mouth them all you want. Well, as much as Andrus says you can here at least.

But part of this is practical. YouTube has to have an automated system to filter content because of how much content they have from so many sources. I don't think we even know yet if this was an auto filter or they purposely took it down. But, I can see why they would want to take down anything that was a controversial medical opinion. From a legal standpoint, they don't want to get sued if a bad legal opinion on their site gets someone injured or killed. They would probably win any suit for that (it will depend on the jurisdiction likely), but they would still have to pay all those legal fees and there are places where it doesn't matter if a case is dumb or not, it you get in front of a jury you lose, so they would likely have to settle many bullshirt claims.

 

[tomwaits]

I totally agree you can bad mouth them all you want. Well, as much as Andrus says you can here at least.

But part of this is practical. YouTube has to have an automated system to filter content because of how much content they have from so many sources. I don't think we even know yet if this was an auto filter or they purposely took it down. But, I can see why they would want to take down anything that was a controversial medical opinion. From a legal standpoint, they don't want to get sued if a bad legal opinion on their site gets someone injured or killed. They would probably win any suit for that (it will depend on the jurisdiction likely), but they would still have to pay all those legal fees and there are places where it doesn't matter if a case is dumb or not, it you get in front of a jury you lose, so they would likely have to settle many bullshirt claims.

I don't think YouTube can be sued for something like that. There is a ton of bad advice in, I would guess, hundreds of thousands of videos that could cause harm.
I think when YouTube goes into filtering content then that should increase their liability if something they didn't filter out results in harm. At that point they are telling us that they are taking out bad content, that could imply the content they didn't remove is safe.

I know a lot of this was debated when Facebook was giving depositions to Congress and they were debating if these social media sites are platforms or publishers.

 

[Taurus]

Lots of links and stories on the vaccine/treatment front here:

BioCentury - COVID-19 Resource Center

Biotech Industry News, Data and Analysis

www.biocentury.com