Trevor Bedford: ‘zero chance’ virus was circulating last fall
-
wrote on 13 Apr 2020, 16:12 last edited by
Yes it's likely that without that piece, in which VDH's thoughts were re-characterized, you and presumably many others wouldn't have been calling VDH out for "promoting" this.
I got a sense that the one-sentence paragraph in the middle of that piece, "VDH is not affiliated with the study", was edited in sometime after publication.
-
wrote on 13 Apr 2020, 16:14 last edited by jon-nyc
Really VDH was tangential. Presumably those quotes are real?
Anyway, It’s a theory that’s been drifting about and Trevor’s post seemed interesting.
-
wrote on 13 Apr 2020, 16:20 last edited by
Yeah I don't really think he promoted the theory.
-
wrote on 13 Apr 2020, 16:25 last edited by
That’s fine, Horace. This wasn’t about attacking VDH.
He’s definitely backed off now.
-
wrote on 13 Apr 2020, 16:27 last edited by
No, it wasn't about attacking him. My contribution to the thread was about correcting the accidental mischaracterization. It is indeed fine. We can move on, now that your accidental mischaracterization has been corrected.
-
wrote on 14 Apr 2020, 02:30 last edited by
Wait, Bedford states that CA Herd Theory is empirically false, but then provides no empirical evidence. He gives empirical evidence on Washington and Seattle, but then just supposes the same would be true for CA. He hypothesized...
-
wrote on 14 Apr 2020, 03:07 last edited by
"Oddly, the more one agreed to go on California radio or be interviewed to correct the glaring media errors, the more the media ignored the correction and instead wanted to know about “your ongoing lab studies” and “herd immunity.”
Ya can't win for losing. An apt old saying that comes to mind.
Or, for VDH, "it's all Greek to me" might be a good comeback.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 00:57 last edited by jon-nyc
Stanford study completed, estimated 1-3% have been exposed in Silicon Valley area.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
A long way from herd immunity.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 01:14 last edited by
Don’t love the fact that they recruited through FB ads. probably catches the attention of people who think they might have had it.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 11:48 last edited by
It’s even worse, they did some post adjustment afterward to make up for the fact that the volunteers weren’t properly distributed geographically. Makes sense, but the further people were from the test sites the more likely they tested positive, so they end up adjusting everything upward.
Why is that an issue? Again, self-selected volunteers. It’s already a problem that people who think they might have had something would be more likely to seek confirmation. But that seems doubly true if you had to travel an hour to a test site.
The good news is there are many other serological studies happening now, so we should get some better data.