The healthy don't need to shelter in place?
-
My experience with urgent care docs, limited as it is, leads me to believe they are not our best and brightest.
@Mik said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
My experience with urgent care docs, limited as it is, leads me to believe they are not our best and brightest.
I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that it's the most work with the worst hours.
-
I put it in quotes for a reason, the backlog of untested symptomatic patients has seemed more urgent.
@jon-nyc said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
I put it in quotes for a reason, the backlog of untested symptomatic patients has seemed more urgent.
Right. It's odd that tests which don't actually mean much regardless how they turn out, are considered more important than tests which could direct social policy which affects everybody.
-
I had this conversation with Klaus a week or so ago (IOW, eons in pandemic time). I don't think it would have much of an effect on our actions in the short or medium term.
At least if you consider the range of feasible outcomes, not the range of theoretically conceivable outcomes.
-
You speak of directing social actions as if it's a thing distinct from shaping public opinion. I think these numbers have power to shape public opinion. Every study that comes out which implies lots of people having it and having no issues from it seems to make a splash.
-
@Mik said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
My experience with urgent care docs, limited as it is, leads me to believe they are not our best and brightest.
I don't mean this as an insult of any sort, but the field of medicine simply does not select for numeracy. Certainly some subfields do, and certainly some physicians are highly or reasonably numerate, but there's nothing about the course of study in itself that filters out those not particularly good with numbers.
@jon-nyc said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
@Mik said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
My experience with urgent care docs, limited as it is, leads me to believe they are not our best and brightest.
I don't mean this as an insult of any sort, but the field of medicine simply does not select for numeracy. Certainly some subfields do, and certainly some physicians are highly or reasonably numerate, but there's nothing about the course of study in itself that filters out those not particularly good with numbers.
This has been my experience over the last several decades with a number of doctors. Even simple stuff like how many four week cycles are there in a year. I went round and round with my gyn when in my mid 20s. He kept prescribing for 12 cycles per year. I finally asked him to divide 52 by 4. He had a blank look, so I gave him the answer: 13.
Three years ago in the ER, the docs asked if I had taken any fever reducing meds. I said I had taken 8-hour Tylenol at 650 mg. They went crazy. I tried to explain this is a delayed release product that lasts for 8 hours, not 4. They didn't understand that it would be comparable to taking 325 mg for four hours, and then repeating after the first four hours. They knew lots of things, but got hung up on that. More than one doc was in that conversation, and none of them grasped the delayed release idea.
Lots of other examples over the years, but those two are classics. I still laugh about the 52 divided by 4. I got a free pill pack for that one!
-
My previous primary care physician, an MIT graduate, was one of the guys in NASA's Houston backroom during Apollo that was calculating spacecraft trajectories. He, and the guys he worked with were arguably some of the best practical mathematicians you would ever need.
The Apollo program ended so he decided to go to medical school.
-
@jon-nyc said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
They run an urgent care clinic. They extrapolate from the percentage of positive tests in their clinic to the entire state of California, and deduce that 4MM Californians have the virus, ergo the death rate is really small.
Yes, they did that, They assumed that the people who go to an urgent care clinic with Covid symptoms are a representative sample for the whole population.
No really, seriously, they did that.
Exactly. I'm amazed that this is getting any press.His comment about Fauci not seeing a patient in 20 years may be true on its face, but so what?
Also, this guy probably hasn't been in an ICU in 20 years, so there's that.
And in the short interview on the news channel, he gets into some tinfoil hat territory.
@George-K said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
@jon-nyc said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
And in the short interview on the news channel, he gets into some tinfoil hat territory.
Basically, he's incorrectly extrapolated data, disparaged the head of the NIAID, and ended with a conspiracy theory.
NEXT!
-
Obviously, these guys are guilty of wrongthink.
YouTube has taken down the video for violating its terms of service. It was taken down within minutes of their appearance on Laura Ingraham. Apparently, saying something that disagrees with WHO policy is a violation of terms of service.
-
Was Laura taking them to task for generalizing from the sample of symptomatic patients seeking medical help to the population at large???
-
I think Youtube should really make decision whether they want to be publisher or utility company. I personally would prefer the latter, together with a "remove video only if forced by law" policy. If they want to be a publisher - fine, too, but then they also need to accept responsibility (including legal) for every video on their platform. But the current state of removing videos in an ad hoc manner, based on the news of the day and the direction of the wind, is just pathetic.
-
I think Youtube should really make decision whether they want to be publisher or utility company. I personally would prefer the latter, together with a "remove video only if forced by law" policy. If they want to be a publisher - fine, too, but then they also need to accept responsibility (including legal) for every video on their platform. But the current state of removing videos in an ad hoc manner, based on the news of the day and the direction of the wind, is just pathetic.
@Klaus said in The healthy don't need to shelter in place?:
I think Youtube should really make decision whether they want to be publisher or utility company. I personally would prefer the latter, together with a "remove video only if forced by law" policy. If they want to be a publisher - fine, too, but then they also need to accept responsibility (including legal) for every video on their platform. But the current state of removing videos in an ad hoc manner, based on the news of the day and the direction of the wind, is just pathetic.
Facebook is the same.
