Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,511
- Likes
- 971
Right, better "safe" than sorry. Is dodgy speculation different from conformist non-dodgy speculation?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
[No Politics] What you need to know about CoVID-19 by SARS-CoV-2 [No Politics]
- Thread starter andymok
- Start date
- Status
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,511
- Likes
- 971
Yes to the latter - in science. Non-conformist non-dodgy can be better still.
Einstein said to speculate freely. Newton said never speculate. Einstein's speculations on gravity advanced understanding of it way beyond Newton's.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/speculation-9780190615055?cc=au&lang=en&#
Mostly no in law but circumstantial-evidence(speculation) has been used successfully.
Last edited:
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,511
- Likes
- 971
I have been practicing law for 40 years. If you think that circumstantial evidence is speculation then I have lost all hope. I want you on my next jury pool. You are a defense attorney's dream come true. All evidence other than direct eyewitness testimony is circumstantial. Including all 21st century expert testimony.
I only have a couple of basic law subjects under my belt so I cannot delve deeply into legal definitions and their application. My view of speculation relates particularly to the scientific and engineering definitions.
I know that witnesses cannot acceptably speculate in most legal litigation because they are constrained to experienced( often unreliable) facts but circumstantial evidence needs inference and speculation to be to be assessed by others, as to its worth. A different jury can and does give a different result - jury selection and trial location is a game regularly played out.
The legal process can be enhanced by science but science is seldom enhanced by law.
On ASR re this Covid-19 thread I will mainly lean toward a science/engineering view.
Should you wish to take it into the legal realm you will need to explain your posits for this forum.
I know that witnesses cannot acceptably speculate in most legal litigation because they are constrained to experienced( often unreliable) facts but circumstantial evidence needs inference and speculation to be to be assessed by others, as to its worth. A different jury can and does give a different result - jury selection and trial location is a game regularly played out.
The legal process can be enhanced by science but science is seldom enhanced by law.
On ASR re this Covid-19 thread I will mainly lean toward a science/engineering view.
Should you wish to take it into the legal realm you will need to explain your posits for this forum.
Last edited:
maty
Major Contributor
Germany's Covid-19 expert: 'For many, I'm the evil guy crippling the economy'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-drosten-germany-coronavirus-expert-interview
[ Germany’s leading coronavirus expert Christian Drosten on Merkel’s leadership, the UK response and the ‘prevention paradox’ ]
[ Q: Germany will start to lift its lockdown gradually from Monday. What happens next?
A: At the moment, we are seeing half-empty ICUs in Germany. This is because we started diagnostics early and on a broad scale, and we stopped the epidemic – that is, we brought the reproduction number [a key measure of the spread of the virus] below 1. Now, what I call the “prevention paradox” has set in. People are claiming we over-reacted, there is political and economic pressure to return to normal. The federal plan is to lift lockdown slightly, but because the German states, or Länder, set their own rules, I fear we’re going to see a lot of creativity in the interpretation of that plan. I worry that the reproduction number will start to climb again, and we will have a second wave.
Q: If the lockdown were kept in place longer, could the disease be eradicated?
A: There is a group of modellers in Germany who suggest that by prolonging lockdown here for another few weeks, we could really suppress virus circulation to a considerable degree – bringing the reproduction number below 0.2. I tend to support them but I haven’t completely made up my mind. The reproduction number is just an average, an indication. It doesn’t tell you about pockets of high prevalence such as senior citizens’ homes, where it will take longer to eradicate the disease, and from where we could see a rapid resurgence even if lockdown were extended.
Q: If there were such a resurgence, could it be contained?
A: Yes, but it can’t happen based on human contact-tracing alone. We now have evidence that almost half of infection events happen before the person passing on the infection develops symptoms – and people are infectious starting two days prior to that. That means that human contact-tracers working with patients to identify those they’ve been exposed to are in a race against time. They need help to catch all those potentially exposed as quickly as possible – and that will require electronic contact-tracing... ]
[ Q: Should all countries be testing everybody?
A: I’m not sure. Even in Germany, with our huge testing capacity, and most of it directed to people reporting symptoms, we have not had a positivity rate above 8%. So I think targeted testing might be best, for people who are really vulnerable – staff in hospitals and care homes, for example. This is not fully in place even in Germany, though we’re moving towards it. The other target should be patients in the first week of symptoms, especially elderly patients who tend to come to hospital too late at the moment – when their lips are already blue and they need intubation. And we need some kind of sentinel surveillance system, to sample the population regularly and follow the development of the reproduction number. ]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-drosten-germany-coronavirus-expert-interview
[ Germany’s leading coronavirus expert Christian Drosten on Merkel’s leadership, the UK response and the ‘prevention paradox’ ]
[ Q: Germany will start to lift its lockdown gradually from Monday. What happens next?
A: At the moment, we are seeing half-empty ICUs in Germany. This is because we started diagnostics early and on a broad scale, and we stopped the epidemic – that is, we brought the reproduction number [a key measure of the spread of the virus] below 1. Now, what I call the “prevention paradox” has set in. People are claiming we over-reacted, there is political and economic pressure to return to normal. The federal plan is to lift lockdown slightly, but because the German states, or Länder, set their own rules, I fear we’re going to see a lot of creativity in the interpretation of that plan. I worry that the reproduction number will start to climb again, and we will have a second wave.
Q: If the lockdown were kept in place longer, could the disease be eradicated?
A: There is a group of modellers in Germany who suggest that by prolonging lockdown here for another few weeks, we could really suppress virus circulation to a considerable degree – bringing the reproduction number below 0.2. I tend to support them but I haven’t completely made up my mind. The reproduction number is just an average, an indication. It doesn’t tell you about pockets of high prevalence such as senior citizens’ homes, where it will take longer to eradicate the disease, and from where we could see a rapid resurgence even if lockdown were extended.
Q: If there were such a resurgence, could it be contained?
A: Yes, but it can’t happen based on human contact-tracing alone. We now have evidence that almost half of infection events happen before the person passing on the infection develops symptoms – and people are infectious starting two days prior to that. That means that human contact-tracers working with patients to identify those they’ve been exposed to are in a race against time. They need help to catch all those potentially exposed as quickly as possible – and that will require electronic contact-tracing... ]
[ Q: Should all countries be testing everybody?
A: I’m not sure. Even in Germany, with our huge testing capacity, and most of it directed to people reporting symptoms, we have not had a positivity rate above 8%. So I think targeted testing might be best, for people who are really vulnerable – staff in hospitals and care homes, for example. This is not fully in place even in Germany, though we’re moving towards it. The other target should be patients in the first week of symptoms, especially elderly patients who tend to come to hospital too late at the moment – when their lips are already blue and they need intubation. And we need some kind of sentinel surveillance system, to sample the population regularly and follow the development of the reproduction number. ]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten
Last edited:
Germany preparing for possible 2nd wave:
http://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/2020042...as-lockdown-begins-to-ease-coronavirus-merkel
http://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/2020042...as-lockdown-begins-to-ease-coronavirus-merkel
Dave Zan
Active Member
I find this a bizarre post from someone who says he is a scientist.
You presumably understand how mathematical models work - make assumptions or estimates, calculate the outcomes.
And yet you respond to a model of a hypothetical scenario as if the process deserves some sort of criticism.
It has often struck me the way people can be clever and perceptive in one area and yet so much the opposite in some other.
Like perfectly competent professionals in weird cults, or scientific prize winners with crackpot ideas outside their field.
We are still not-very-evolved primates, make decisions on instinct and then use fine reason to try to justify our prejudices.
I can understand some scepticism about media sensationalism when the number of cases of Covid19 was small.
And a tendency to double down rather than admit a mistake as the number increased.
But there are now over a 1,000,000 confirmed cases in the USA already and, as you yourself have emphasised, many more unreported cases.
Probably several times that number.
Also 60,000 deaths, and that too is a substantial underestimate.
Not to mention many more deaths yet to occur from the ~420,000 new confirmed cases in the past 2 weeks.
And the sickness and debility for those who survive but with serious consequences.
Is it not time to admit that media "panic" may actually have some basis in reality?
I hesitated to even write this reply, I am a fan of the Darwin Awards and don't usually waste my time.
But there's no schadenfreude to watch the sad situation in the US.
I am concerned out of simple human sympathy for any person.
But also for the people I have never met face to face but have known from posts and email.
People who have unselfishly helped me with advice and information.
People who have donated their time and, in Amir's case, money.
And finally for friends I have from the years I spent in the US.
So I really want to convince Americans not to screw this up any worse.
Anyway, now that's off my chest, on a more cheerful note.
Australia has already reached >1,000 tests per confirmed case.
Now we really ramp it up.
News just in is that we have obtained sufficient kits to multiply tests by 20.
I am now more confident that we can really drive this virus extinct in Australia.
Still not sure but definitely more relaxed.
Best wishes
David
Last edited:
US Covid-19 deaths now exceed the American death-toll for the whole of the Vietnam war.
A few months vs many years. I cannot see the over-reaction with the present danger.
Tell me the difference between lost sons and lost parents/grandparents in family and community.
A few months vs many years. I cannot see the over-reaction with the present danger.
Tell me the difference between lost sons and lost parents/grandparents in family and community.
Last edited:
maty
Major Contributor
It is always right to remember the precautions we need to take to avoid relaxation.
¿Hay que limpiar las llaves al llegar a casa por el coronavirus? ¿Y quitarse los zapatos? ¿Qué hago con las gafas?
[Spanish] https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/qu...-coronavirus-llaves-limpiar_0_1016298529.html
Do I have to clean my keys when I get home because of the coronavirus? And take off your shoes? What do I do with the glasses?
https://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&u=https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/quitarse-zapatos-llegar-coronavirus-llaves-limpiar_0_1016298529.html
¿Hay que limpiar las llaves al llegar a casa por el coronavirus? ¿Y quitarse los zapatos? ¿Qué hago con las gafas?
[Spanish] https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/qu...-coronavirus-llaves-limpiar_0_1016298529.html
Do I have to clean my keys when I get home because of the coronavirus? And take off your shoes? What do I do with the glasses?
https://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&u=https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/quitarse-zapatos-llegar-coronavirus-llaves-limpiar_0_1016298529.html
What practical relevance has the attack of this virus to legal thinking practises - 40 years of practise or otherwise? There is no legal manual on how to fix it, and law is about precedent in the main. No conclusive precedent yet.
When the dust has settled the lawyers will be all over it. They may just kick-start economic recovery.
Last edited:
maty
Major Contributor
Adiós al «oasis» alemán
[Spanish] https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/notic...dios-oasis-aleman/00031587554478398844764.htm
Goodbye to the German "oasis"
https://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&u=https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2020/04/22/adios-oasis-aleman/00031587554478398844764.htm
[ "Reports of COVID-19 related outbreaks in nursing homes and hospitals are increasing." And, in some of them, "the number of deaths is relatively high," daily reports of RKI cases repeat in recent days. It is the "beginning of a new development" of the coronavirus that "inevitably" will lead to an increase in mortality in Germany, says the director of the Institute of Virology at the Charité hospital in Berlin, Christian Drosten, in one of his daily interviews for the Das Coronavirus-Update podcast, which has made him one of the most influential people in Germany. An increase that the figures already reflect.
While on April 1 there were 732 deaths from the virus and the proportion of infections and deaths was 1.1%, a week later it reached 1.8% and on April 26, it stands at 3.7% . That day, with 154,175 infections, Germany exceeded the figure of 5,600 deaths from COVID-19. In the first figures of this Wednesday, deaths exceeded 6,100.
In addition to the entry of the virus into hospitals and residences, another ingredient is added that could worsen the German situation - and that of other countries -: the arrival of "a new direct wave of infection."
This is what Drosten predicts from a study on the incidence of temperature in the virus that states that it will be low. "We have to have a maximum number of cases that occur between June and August," says the virologist in one of his interviews. So "what to do now?" He asks and answers: protect older people and keep them away from the summer wave, without visits from grandchildren or social activities. Because the situation "is serious." ]
[ In the same sense, the RKI warns about the de-escalation that began in Germany last Monday and that Spain plans to apply in several phases . "It must be emphasized that there is still no significant immunity in the population" and therefore, "an uncontrolled relaxation of measures and a return to" pre-pandemic behavior "would lead to a further increase in the daily number of cases," warns the institute... ]
[ How Germany managed to contain the impact of the disease
The low cases at the beginning of the pandemic, says the Robert Koch Institut in its epidemiological reports, are mainly due to two reasons: the diagnostic capacity and the age of those infected.
"The reason why we have so many fewer deaths in Germany than in Italy or Spain has to do with the number of laboratory diagnoses we are doing here, the number of PCR tests that allow us to treat patients in the first week contagion, which is when the virus is still combatable," explains virologist Christian Drosten. Copying the Korean method and the also successful strategy of the Veneto region, Italy, since the beginning of the pandemic Germany began to do daily tests in large quantities, and to isolate and monitor the evolution of the disease from positive cases. With this, he was able to detect not only severe cases but also those that are asymptomatic or with a mild course of the disease, which are usually in younger people, says Drosten... ]
And when they consistently give incorrect results or when we don't have correct inputs, we discard them.
Your first statement is incorrect. Here's an example of a simple and crucial data input that we are all perfectly aware is true: we do not know what percentage of people are or were infected. And the continual substitution of "detections" for "cases" is fantastically dishonest.
I don't think any ' insiders ' are claiming to ' know ' , there's projections or best guess, investigations and a lot of wait and see.
24 hour news and the internet mean there's pressure on some to share every germination of a idea and to present it as facts . People need hope and those in charge have to show they are in control.
Imo a lot of the scientific community and their work are being used by politicians to fill a information void.
Where's my fainting couch?
FWIW I have been an insider in crisis management planning. Population stability management involves controlled, purposed and limited(need to know) information release.
Yes when there's information to withhold.
- Status
Similar threads
