Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19) and Tinnitus

[Ed209]

More information on that petition can be found here for those who are unaware of its existence:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ion-urging-officials-let-Covid-19-spread.html

Whether this is the right course of action or not, who knows!

Do we try and control the virus again by pushing ourselves into economic ruin, potentially killing more people as a byproduct?

Or do we lockdown once more in another attempt to contain the virus and limit the lives that will be lost to it? In this scenario, what happens after the lockdown is lifted again? Do we lockdown again? When does it end?

The fact is, nobody knows. We are still guessing.

It's also important to note - from a UK perspective - that not only will there no longer be any financial support, but all the payment holidays from landlords and banks, etc, are coming to an end. This could be a disaster in the making, and I sincerely hope that our government is fully considering the consequences of their actions from all angles.

There will be some tough times ahead.

 

[Bartoli]

I'd go as far as to say that most people believe the virus is fake in the UK as the sheer amount of conspiracy posts across social media and elsewhere is staggering.

I think it may seem that way, but it may be that the vast majority of people is sick of the COVID-19-speak and doesn't actively engage in posts about COVID-19 on social media whilst there's quite a militant minority of non-believers that are zealously spreading their false messages. At least that's what I hope. If not then please stop the Earth, I'm getting off.

 

[Ed209]

I think it may seem that way, but it may be that the vast majority of people is sick of the COVID-19-speak and doesn't actively engage in posts about COVID-19 on social media whilst there's quite a militant minority of non-believers that are zealously spreading their false messages. At least that's what I hope. If not then please stop the Earth, I'm getting off.

I believe it goes a lot deeper than that, unfortunately. There have been mass protests involving thousands upon thousands of people all across the country. Here's one example that happened twice to my knowledge:

https://time.com/5893673/london-protests-covid19-lockdown/

Just look at the images or watch the video footage. It is packed. I watched some of the live stream and the speakers there were talking such nonsense that I could only hold my head in my hands as hoards of people cheered them on. A lot of the speakers were celebrities and high profile conspiracy theorists such as David Icke.

On a personal level, I'm also in the minority amongst friends and family as well. Most now believe it's either fake or a government conspiracy. I'm the only voice that's trying to counteract the nonsense they've been conditioned to believe but it's a losing battle. One of my closest friends calls it the fake virus.

Obviously, this is geographically dependent and experiences will differ.

 

[linearb]

This is one of the problems. I'd go as far as to say that most people believe the virus is fake in the UK as the sheer amount of conspiracy posts across social media and elsewhere is staggering.

I think that some of the fringe views on this are just being magnified on social media, both because QAnon types use the internet incessantly, and because of botnets, etc. I have attempted to look into this a little and I can't really substantiate the idea that most people in the UK are on board with the nutters, I think it's a vocal minority of dunces. Here's some data you may find reassurring

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/public-opinion-covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic

85% vaccine adoption and generally positive view of the lockdown-enforcing government, plus a majority belief that things are going to stay just as f'd as they are now into December seems like people mostly taking things seriously.

However, your gov't, like mine, fucked up the messaging on masks right out of the gate, so that's causing you some issues: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/15/most-brits-just-wont-wear-face-masks-heres-why.html

In the US, given that we're into our third wave, you can pretty clearly see the impact of masks. Places like Vermont where I am that have >80% use in public (whether by mandate, or not) are not seeing the kind of exponential growth that other swaths of similarly populated rural areas where masks have been downplayed are.

A second national lockdown in this country would take many jobs and industries to breaking point, and this would lead to millions of job losses and businesses going bust (there are already local lockdowns, including where I live). The first lockdown came with financial support to help people get through

Well, three counterpoints. Like I said, we do know more about the virus now, and I think if people are using masks, and obviously bad ideas like indoor bars and concerts remain closed, then a second lockdown might not accomplish too much. On the other hand, if a specific area is suddenly having huge spread, local lockdowns on a more limited protocol might make sense.

The other counterpoint though is that both the UK and the US could absolutely afford to just do another 2-3 rounds of stimulus to keep things as they were march-may for a while longer. I am conflicted on how useful this is, again because as long as there is ~30% of the population that thinks this is a hoax and is going to protest it with assault rifles, then keeping people home is of lesser value. Much of the existing CARES act was misappropriated or grafted away, but we're looking at something that was less than 50% of the US budget for one year; we could absolutely afford to do that, there's just no political will because it sounds like socialism.

What we're seeing is that "forcing" reopens doesn't work. The hybrid school models we're seeing a lot of places are things that parents are complaining about because:
* they don't actually keep teachers or students too much safer
* they are confusing and disruptive to work-all-day parents
* the quality of the remote learning is mostly garbage in places that are also trying to do in person teaching

Schools that are entirely remote, I am mostly hearing better things about in terms of instruction, if they have the IT to support it and are in areas where most kids have decent internet access. My sister has worked in an inner city school through part of this: guess what, inner city low-income kids are getting a lot more screwed by the situation than mid-to-high income suburban kids whose parents can work from home or afford nannies. Shocking, right?

Finally -- whatever the gov't does, huge parts of the service sector just ARE NOT coming back any time soon. You have 40-50% of this country that is seriously concerned about this virus, and another 10-20 that's uncertain but taking precautions. Industries like restauraunts and hospitalty operate on razor thin margins. So far, most restaurants around here have stayed "open" but they are curbside only, with significantly reduced staff. Movie theaters seem unlikely to ever return in the way they have classicaly existed; for one thing, they were already a dinosaur industry, and for another, they continued as long as they did because they had a contractual death grip with producers to get exclusive access. Those contracts have been shattered to enable HBO to do stuff like sell new movies as $20-a-pop streams.

Now, add to that, in the US we've had an eviction moratorium which will expire 1/1/21. Many of these service workers and other COVID-unemployed people are not going to have jobs then, and will become homeless during what is looking like a cold and deadly winter. State coffers for unemployment and other social relief are depleted or are being rapidly depleted.

]

The virus is now endemic. It will still be here waiting to infect us when the next lockdown is lifted, so it's akin to kicking the can down the road. It doesn't solve anything but rather delays the inevitable, in my opinion. Only a vaccine at this point can stop its spread and we know they take years to develop safely.

Well, this is where I get to "you do you", with people, but, my read is that if I am careful, socially distance, and use a ported n95 with changable filters when I am indoors in places that are not my home, I am unlikely to get this virus. I'm willing to keep doing this and skipping bars and restaurants etc indefinitely, until we do have a vaccine (which seems likely by ~2022 / 2023 if not next year).

This pandemic is a difficult situation with no clear solutions. I have noticed that there are now experts petitioning our government not to go through with another lockdown.

Are they virology experts or financial experts? To the extent these groups are generally internally aligned but divided in opinion between each other, I tend to side with the virologists because this is a public health issue. On the other hand, when the consensus among virologists is that certain strategies are not actually that effective and so we should listen to the fintech guys about what the implications there are, fine.

Basically, if we'd been letting the fintech guys call all the shots from day 1, I think we might already be at herd immunity levels in large parts of the US, with a couple million dead and a lot more walking wounded.

It's worth noting that ebola and bubonic plague are also endemic in the human population, but they don't cause many problems.

 

[Ed209]

I think that some of the fringe views on this are just being magnified on social media, both because QAnon types use the internet incessantly, and because of botnets, etc. I have attempted to look into this a little and I can't really substantiate the idea that most people in the UK are on board with the nutters, I think it's a vocal minority of dunces. Here's some data you may find reassurring

Well, not most in the literal sense, but rather the colloquial one, as in it feels that way. I'm surrounded by far too many people who talk nonsense and don't research anything, and we're not talking about just social media here but real life.

In the US, given that we're into our third wave, you can pretty clearly see the impact of masks. Places like Vermont where I am that have >80% use in public (whether by mandate, or not) are not seeing the kind of exponential growth that other swaths of similarly populated rural areas where masks have been downplayed are.

I was in one of my local shops a few days ago and I was the only one wearing a mask out of about 20-30 people. I can guarantee you that if I spoke to any one of them they'd have said the virus was nonsense. That's just the way it is getting round by me. People are becoming dumber by the day.

Well, three counterpoints. L I said, we do know more about the virus now, and I think if people are using masks, and obviously bad ideas like indoor bars and concerts remain closed, then a second lockdown might not accomplish too much. On the other hand, if a specific area is suddenly having huge spread, local lockdowns on a more limited protocol might make sense.

The other counterpoint though is that both the UK and the US could absolutely afford to just do another 2-3 rounds of stimulus to keep things as they were march-may for a while longer. I am conflicted on how useful this is, again because as long as there is ~30% of the population that thinks this is a hoax and is going to protest it with assault rifles, then keeping people home is of lesser value. Much of the existing CARES act was misappropriated or grafted away, but we're looking at something that was less than 50% of the US budget for one year; we could absolutely afford to do that, there's just no political will because it sounds like socialism.

During the lockdowns here, mask-wearing is still an ongoing issue. It just feels unsustainable to me, but I'll reiterate that I'm certainly not an expert and these are merely my opinions. I can see points from both perspectives. The local lockdowns haven't stopped the virus spreading in this country, but that's partly because of Boris Johnson's bizarre rules, none of which make any sense whatsoever. I fear a national lockdown now would cause catastrophic damage to the wellbeing of many.

Well, this is where I get to "you do you", with people, but, my read is that if I am careful, socially distance, and use a ported n95 with changeable filters when I am indoors in places that are not my home, I am unlikely to get this virus. I'm willing to keep doing this and skipping bars and restaurants etc indefinitely, until we do have a vaccine (which seems likely by ~2022 / 2023 if not next year).

Again, the problem here is that you are reliant upon others following the rules, and many simply don't. When I go shopping for food, people walk right up to me all the time, so the message of social distancing seems to have completely eroded away. At the same time, it's scary how many local businesses I know have gone under with no support from the government. How are people supposed to pay their mortgages and feed their families? This is becoming an increasingly common occurrence as well.

Are they virology experts or financial experts? To the extent these groups are generally internally aligned but divided in opinion between each other, I tend to side with the virologists because this is a public health issue. On the other hand, when the consensus among virologists is that certain strategies are not actually that effective and so we should listen to the fintech guys about what the implications there are, fine.

It's known as the Great Barrington Declaration and was written by three Drs. They are:

• Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University who specialises in biostatistics, scan statistics, disease surveillance, pharmacoepidemiology, and pharmacovigilance.

• Sunetra Gupta, a professor of epidemiology at Oxford.

• Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford.

It has so far been signed by over 13,000 scientists and medics, including Michael Levitt, the Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist and professor of structural biology at Stanford University. Although, there are reports that some of the signatures were not vetted and are clearly fake, so I wouldn't put too much faith in the "13,000" figure. However, these are almost certainly legit:

• Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (University of Mainz)
• Dr Rajiv Bhatia (Physician, USA)
• Professor Stephen Bremner (University of Sussex)
• Professor Anthony J Brookes (University of Leicester)
• Dr Helen Colhoun (University of Edinburgh)
• Professor Angus Dalgleish (St. George's, University of London)
• Dr Sylvia Fogel (Harvard)
• Dr Eitan Friedman (Tel Aviv University)
• Dr Uri Gavish (Biomedical consultant)
• Professor Motti Gerlic (Tel Aviv University)
• Dr Gabriela Gomes (University of Strathclyde)
• Professor Mike Hulme (University of Cambridge)
• Dr Michael Jackson (University of Canterbury, New Zealand)
• Dr David Katz (Yale University)
• Dr Andrius Kavaliunas (Karolinska Institute)
• Dr Laura Lazzeroni (Stanford)
• Dr Michael Levitt (Stanford)
• Professor David Livermore (University of East Anglia)
• Dr Jonas Ludvigsson (Örebro University Hospital, Sweden)
• Dr Paul McKeigue (University of Edinburgh)
• Dr Cody Meissner (Tufts University)
• Professor Ariel Munitz (Tel Aviv University)
• Professor Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu (Queen Mary University of London)
• Professor Partha P. Majumder (Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata)
• Professor Udi Qimron (Tel Aviv University)
• Professor Matthew Ratcliffe (University of York)
• Dr Mario Recker (University of Exeter)
• Dr Eyal Shahar (University of Arizona)
• Professor Karol Sikora (Rutherford Health)
• Dr Rodney Sturdivant (Baylor University)
• Dr Simon Thornley (University of Auckland)
• Professor Ellen Townsend (University of Nottingham)
• Professor Lisa White (Oxford University)
• Professor Simon Wood (University of Edinburgh)

This doesn't mean that they are right, but their opinions should certainly carry some gravitas and are worth regarding and debating.

What I don't like about our governments' often bizarre decisions - like closing bars at 10 pm - is that they say they are backed by scientific evidence, but when other experts ask for this evidence, they refuse to share it. We can't have more than six people in a house, but we can mix in vast numbers whilst getting drunk in a bar, as long as we leave by 10 pm! Yea, makes a lot of sense

You're clearly an intelligent guy which makes debating this stuff a lot easier. If they are going to lock the country down again then further financial stimulus is a must, but I can't see how we'll ever recover if we do. It will take a very long time. Let's just agree that the entire situation is a humongous mess.

 

[Bill Bauer]

Young people getting severe cases.

Their survival rate is 99.997%.

elderly people dying

As you can see from the links I posted, the flu seasons of 1957 and 1968 were three times deadlier, and this didn't even make the first 25 pages of the newspapers.

I like to think that when most scientists agree on something

Those who speak up are being harassed (their videos are being taken down, their Twitter accounts get suspended, etc.). Most people don't need drama in their life. So the fact that people are quiet doesn't mean there is agreement.

To be honest the potential for lasting lung damage is what scares me the most.

Read the article that I linked to in my earlier message. Regular flu damages the heart and kidneys of something like 20% of the patients.

a government has no benefit in shutting down half of its economy

LOL

what makes you think this is all a big lie somehow?

the nonexistent excess mortality (see my post above) as well as nonexistent differences (see my post above) with the past flu seasons (e.g., this year's flu being a lot less deadly than the flu back in 1957 and 1968, when it hasn't occurred to anyone to make a big deal out of it), together with the nonexistent differences of the rate of complications (see my post above that links to the relevant scientific paper)

+ the experience of Sweden.

 

[linearb]

Again, the problem here is that you are reliant upon others following the rules, and many simply don't. When I go shopping for food, people walk right up to me all the time

Well, that's why I said "ported n95", and, eyegear if necessary. The mask I use is an Envomask with an exhaust port (that I have filtered) and changable filters. It's not a "protect you" mask, it's a "this protects me from your stupidity mask".

I'm also in a less populated area in general, and, remember -- people here are allowed to carry guns, many do, you never know who they are, basically everyone in this state is likely carrying something that can be construed as a weapon, and while overall I think this creates a bunch of dumb escalation behavior mostly in the USA broadly, in states like mine which have a slightly libertarian cultural bent as well as a population that's fairly armed to the teeth (especially the further you get from the few large cities), this does tend to create a sort of passive, non-confrontational interaction paradigm between philosophically divided groups. So, I am not especially concerned about anyone getting in my face, and if they do and I feel like my safety is threatened, then I hope that person decides to de-escalate the situation before I de-escalate it for them

I am not interested in getting this virus, so, my plan is "don't". Unless we already had it... (antibody tests were negative, but months after the fact. My lung was f'd up for 3 months so if that's a flu it's one hell of one).

 

[Ed209]

Well, that's why I said "ported n95", and, eyegear if necessary. The mask I use is an Envomask with an exhaust port (that I have filtered) and changable filters. It's not a "protect you" mask, it's a "this protects me from your stupidity mask".

Yea, that makes sense from a personal perspective. I was talking about our country as a whole, though, and specifically the economy. If the government could get everyone using N95s and visors, or just regular masks, then we may be in business. I don't watch the news, but according to my wife Boris said we wouldn't recover from another lockdown, and that it would be a disaster. But it's looking more and more likely that that's what will happen.

Today they introduced a 3-tiered approach to each city. Tier 1 is medium risk, tier 2 is high risk, and tier 3 is very high risk. Each one has a different set of rules.

Never before has this meme been any more true:

 

[Ed209]

I am not interested in getting this virus, so, my plan is "don't". Unless we already had it... (antibody tests were negative, but months after the fact. My lung was f'd up for 3 months so if that's a flu it's one hell of one).

Same for my wife and I and we have almost certainly had it. My mom's antibody test was positive but both of ours were negative. However, those tests are pretty meaningless.

 

[carlover]

I have not got a clue about how to deal with it. All I know is I never want LONG COVID, which seems a living hell. I don't want that on top of my tinnitus, thanks.

 

[Bartoli]

Their survival rate is 99.997%.

Do you happen to know the rates of permanent lung and heart damage as well? Survival is just that. It doesn't reflect their quality of life.

It somehow makes me think of our plight. Once we stop visiting the doctors we are put in the habituation group. Once you made it out of the hospital you survived.

+ the experience of Sweden.

Are you talking about the same Sweden? Their death rate is about the same as the US. Not so good, then.

About the excess mortality: as you said yourself this was a weaker flu year. Because of this, the number of COVID-19 deaths are probably higher because of the margin before we move into the excess mortality category.

 

[Ed209]

I have not got a clue about how to deal with it. All I know is I never want LONG COVID, which seems a living hell. I don't want that on top of my tinnitus, thanks.

That's what my mom has. Struggles to breathe getting up the stairs, etc.

 

[carlover]

That's what my mom has. Struggles to breathe getting up the stairs, etc.

I am sorry your mum is going through that. It must be tough. I hope she gets over it.

 

[linearb]

Boris said we wouldn't recover from another lockdown

If Boris had just gotten the NHS care everyone else in his risk group got, you might have a new PM by now... probably would!

I've seen lots of dumb speculation this could permanently mess up Trump's ability to golf. There would be some cosmic irony in that. "Man downplays risks of gravity, trips over own shoes".

 

[linearb]

Ha

 

[Ed209]

If Boris had just gotten the NHS care everyone else in his risk group got, you might have a new PM by now... probably would!

True.

 

[DaveN]

My brother had it back in April, he is in his late 20's. He has no preexisting health conditions. Since testing positive in April, he has tested negative 8 times. In the past few months he has had severe migraines, stomach pain, insomnia (3 hours max a night), labored breathing, low grade fever, doctors found swelling in the membrane that protects his heart, and now he has had 5 nocturnal seizures and counting. The seizures happened within the past 2 weeks. He was admitted to the hospital over the weekend for the most recent seizures and got to come home yesterday. The worst thing he has complained about (as many other post-COVID-19 patients) is the lethargic 'brain fog'... my brother is a very smart, social and well spoken guy, seeing someone like him struggle to explain something or not know what word to use is just really shitty to see honestly. He literally hasn't been the same in months. Since the seizures his migraines have been worse, the brain fog has been worse, and now he has tinnitus.

We should (hopefully) be getting answers re: seizures because they had him do an MRI, EEG, sleep study and a couple of other tests while he was admitted. There are a few 'long-haulers' like him who experience a slew of issues after having COVID-19.

I just want to see him get better, but with the list of problems growing or worsening,coupled with my own good ol fashioned anxiety/depression, I am really starting to feel very real fear about what my brother's life will be like in the long-term.

 

[Ed209]

My brother had it back in April, he is in his late 20's. He has no preexisting health conditions. Since testing positive in April, he has tested negative 8 times. In the past few months he has had severe migraines, stomach pain, insomnia (3 hours max a night), labored breathing, low grade fever, doctors found swelling in the membrane that protects his heart, and now he has had 5 nocturnal seizures and counting. The seizures happened within the past 2 weeks. He was admitted to the hospital over the weekend for the most recent seizures and got to come home yesterday. The worst thing he has complained about (as many other post-COVID-19 patients) is the lethargic 'brain fog'... my brother is a very smart, social and well spoken guy, seeing someone like him struggle to explain something or not know what word to use is just really shitty to see honestly. He literally hasn't been the same in months. Since the seizures his migraines have been worse, the brain fog has been worse, and now he has tinnitus.

We should (hopefully) be getting answers re: seizures because they had him do an MRI, EEG, sleep study and a couple of other tests while he was admitted. There are a few 'long-haulers' like him who experience a slew of issues after having COVID-19.

I just want to see him get better, but with the list of problems growing or worsening,coupled with my own good ol fashioned anxiety/depression, I am really starting to feel very real fear about what my brother's life will be like in the long-term.

My sympathies. I know what's it like to have a relative altered by COVID-19, it's not nice at all.

 

[DaveN]

My sympathies. I know what's it like to have a relative altered by COVID-19, it's not nice at all.

Thanks so much Ed! I really hate to sound whiny, but I really just hate feeling helpless and like there isn't anything I can do to help him. It sucks. I couldn't begin to imagine how he feels or how someone feels right now who's lost someone to COVID-19. I know wishing things go 'back to normal' is a pipe dream, but honestly I'll settle for things to just suck a little less for a few...

Ok, enough with my sad-sack nonsense, thanks again for the reply, Ed!

Best wishes and good health to you and yours!

 

[Ed209]

A friend just sent me this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54526660

I'm not sure why they are stating he is the first patient, though. Wasn't there a study done in Manchester that already concluded this could be the case?

EDIT: just checked:

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discov...ion-reported-by-discharged-covid-19-patients/

Not sure why the BBC are stating he is the first one to notice this. Is this a case of lazy reporting?

 

[linearb]

A friend just sent me this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54526660

I'm not sure why they are stating he is the first patient, though. Wasn't there a study done in Manchester that already concluded this could be the case?

EDIT: just checked:

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discov...ion-reported-by-discharged-covid-19-patients/

Not sure why the BBC are stating he is the first one to notice this. Is this a case of lazy reporting?

The second case is talking about general hearing loss and tinnitus following covid; the first is taking specifically about a case of SSNHL during COVID, which lots of viruses can do.

One event of sshnl scares me a lot less than a study of 120 people that found hearing loss in 16% and tinnitus in 8% of people. Who didn't have these issues before COVID. That's another thing the flu doesn't do at nearly the same occurrence...

 

[Ed209]

The second case is talking about general hearing loss and tinnitus following covid; the first is taking specifically about a case of SSNHL during COVID, which lots of viruses can do.

One event of sshnl scares me a lot less than a study of 120 people that found hearing loss in 16% and tinnitus in 8% of people. Who didn't have these issues before COVID. That's another thing the flu doesn't do at nearly the same occurrence...

That's true, and SSHL often has no known cause, so in this case, COVID-19 could be a red herring. We know that some people can go to bed and wake up with a sudden hearing loss that has no explanation, but in this instance it's more than likely the result of the virus.

I was sent this whilst I was out getting some supplies from the pharmacy, so I only really read the first paragraph or so, but I thought it would have been smart to mention the study from Manchester.

 

[Ed209]

So, Liverpool is given the highest tier of restrictions and this is the reaction by some of the residents there:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...partying-crowds-have-shamed-the-city-12103771

Stupidity at its finest. Just watch the video of the idiots.

As you can see, people are clearly following the rules for tier 3 in Liverpool . This is a city that has the third-highest hospital admission rate in Europe. It's obvious that many simply do not care in the UK.

"This event had a particularly big impact on me because it made clear that this second lockdown that Liverpool will find itself in from tomorrow will have the potential to unleash a very dangerous wave of riots and uprising of people that don't believe in coronavirus restrictions.

"This video might just be the start."

A senior intensive care doctor also criticised the gathering, telling Sky News: "I am dreading we are heading towards a disaster.

"Then you see crowds behaving such a way. I am really disgusted and devastated."

 

[linearb]

It's known as the Great Barrington Declaration

it's worth noting this was prepared by a libertarian think tank with a clear ties to Koch brothers related groups. I would certainly not call this a nonpartisan piece of scientific evidence; it's policy suggestions from the brain of 1%er think tanks spoken through the mouths of willing credentialed people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economic_Research

AIER owns American Investment Services Inc., whose private fund, valued at around $285 million in 2020, includes holdings in a wide range of fossil fuel companies incl. Chevron and ExxonMobil, along with tobacco giant Philip Morris International, Microsoft, Alphabet Inc. and many others

I don't trust any of these companies with my health; therefore I'd feel unwise to trust the steering of an economic group seeking to ensure these success of these companies to be putting out unbiased or necessarily reasonable ideas as relates to my health. This is not simply "durr, big companies bad"; the AIER fund is literally comprised of some of the most toxic entities in the US. If you dropped MS in favor of Palantir and Facebook I'd say "wow it's a whose-who of the companies destroying the environment and fabric of society".

 

[FGG]

NJ man gets cochlear implant due to hearing loss from COVID-19

 

[linearb]

@Ed209
https://theberkshireedge.com/great-...r-feeling-heat-on-both-sides-of-the-atlantic/

Great Barrington — A controversial declaration issued earlier this month at a Great Barrington-based think tank on the COVID-19 pandemic has caused an international stir, with commentators and epidemiologists condemning it and perhaps hundreds of fake signatures added to it.

The American Institute for Economic Research, a free-market think tank on Division Street, held a private forum Oct. 3 that included epidemiologists, economists and journalists. Prominently featured at the AIER forum was professor Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist in the Oxford University Department of Zoology.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

"The interviewer gave a very simple example of a grandparent looking after a school-age child, highlighting one household member (the child) who would not be expected to suffer from COVID-19 much, who would attend a large gathering with other young people on a daily basis, but where the other household member (the grandparent) should be 'protected'.

"But the reply from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya in the video was not really understandable and had no practical details of how this would be done.
...

"But we don't yet have these additional 'tools' (the vaccine and antivirals) for COVID-19, to assist with this 'Focused Protection' approach.

"A similar approach may also work for COVID-19 one day...

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10...ls-signature-list-after-report-of-fake-names/

A controversial anti-lockdown declaration and petition whose principal authors and signatories from around the world include four Stanford University doctors has pulled its online signature list following a report that it included dozens of fake names.

Sky News, a British television and online news outlet, reported "Dr. Johnny Bananas" and "Dr. Person Fakename" were among those listed as supporting the online Great Barrington Declaration open letter

.

So, this thing reeks of bullshit. I'd call it "moderately well done psyops" in that it passes an initial sniff if you don't actually read the whole thing in detail and then start pulling on the threads of who actually wrote it, and why.

That brings me back to what I said here, initially:

Are they virology experts or financial experts? To the extent these groups are generally internally aligned but divided in opinion between each other, I tend to side with the virologists because this is a public health issue.

The "[Not So] Great Barrington Declararation" is exactly what I was fishing for here: it's an economic policy suggestion, dreamed up by a bunch of Koch-tied right wing think tanks, to protect the profits of a handful of specific corners of the economy. It is not a scientific document, and not only does it not have the "mass consensus" claimed, many of the "signatures" appear to be completely fake.

This is information as warfare, not information as data. Like much else surrounding this issue, sadly.

 

[Ed209]

@Ed209
https://theberkshireedge.com/great-...r-feeling-heat-on-both-sides-of-the-atlantic/

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10...ls-signature-list-after-report-of-fake-names/

So, this thing reeks of bullshit. I'd call it "moderately well done psyops" in that it passes an initial sniff if you don't actually read the whole thing in detail and then start pulling on the threads of who actually wrote it, and why.

That brings me back to what I said here, initially:

The "[Not So] Great Barrington Declararation" is exactly what I was fishing for here: it's an economic policy suggestion, dreamed up by a bunch of Koch-tied right wing think tanks, to protect the profits of a handful of specific corners of the economy. It is not a scientific document, and not only does it not have the "mass consensus" claimed, many of the "signatures" appear to be completely fake.

This is information as warfare, not information as data. Like much else surrounding this issue, sadly.

I was waiting for this response, but you made me wait longer than I expected

The fact is, this entire situation is now politically driven quite heavily from all sides and perspectives. It's actually getting out of hand, especially over here in the UK. It's hard to cut through the crap.

I saw some of Sunetra Gupta's earlier TV appearances and she clearly knew her stuff and seemed very genuine (she is a professor at Oxford after all). This was months ago before the second wave was on the radar. We put this country into the largest debt since the Second World War to flatten the curve which was the right thing to do. However, as time goes on, another full lockdown is no longer such a simple proposition. In fact, there's a chance that doing so could be more catastrophic than taking other measures. If our economy is destroyed then there will be little to no money to fund our NHS, for example, and many will be left homeless and jobless. It's a perilous situation to be in and I don't think anybody knows what action to take for the best. I certainly don't, and I wouldn't want to be in the government's shoes either.

What I don't like, though, that's been developing over the last few weeks, is the government's unwillingness to share their data with other scientists, about why they (and SAGA) are making the decisions they are. For example, we are all allowed to go to work and to school/university (potentially surrounded by hundreds, or thousands), but we are not allowed to go to somebody's house if there's six people. We can however go and get drunk at a bar, again surrounded by many, as long the bar closes at 10 pm. When other scientists questioned the government on this, their official response was that the data they have shows that most infections occur after 10 pm when people are out. People then asked to see this data so that they could see what they were basing their decisions upon, their answer was a very clear, no. I do not understand why they can't be open and share the science that their decisions are being based upon. I found it staggering, to be honest.

Why not be transparent?

There are reports that Google, Reddit, and other social media platforms have been censoring the GBD. I honestly don't know what to believe anymore as there's clearly a huge political battle going on behind the scenes that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. I can only talk about this country when I say they've been secretive with the way they've gone about things.

All this left and right nonsense is really getting in the way of an open and honest debate as to what we should do in our country. Local leaders want more power to execute decisions for the benefit of their citizens - since they know more than anyone else about their own areas - but this was denied as they want to continue a top down approach.

Some good points are made here:

It is hard to find any mention of it on Reddit, the world's best-known discussion website. The two most popular subreddits devoted to the virus — r/COVID19 and r/Coronavirus — have excised all references to it, with the moderators of the latter denouncing it as 'spam'. A similar line has been taken by nearly all left--leaning newspapers. The Guardian ran an article on the declaration last Saturday, but only to flag up that its more than 400,000 signatories included a handful of dubious--sounding 'experts', such as 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Prof Cominic Dummings'. Hardly surprising, given that lockdown zealots have been openly encouraging their followers on social media to sign up with fake names.

But it gets worse. On Monday, Professor Gupta appeared on BBC News to talk about the new lockdown measures in the north of England. Just before she went on air, one of the producers told her not to mention the declaration. Naturally, she ignored this instruction, but where did it come from? At the end of last month, Professor Susan Michie, a member of Sage, took to Twitter to complain that she'd been invited on to the Todayprogramme to discuss focused protection on the understanding that the scientists behind it would be portrayed as beyond the pale, only for Professor Gupta to make a compelling, logical argument. 'I'd got prior agreement from R4 about the framing of the item,' she wrote. 'I was assured that this would not be held as an even-handed debate.' On whose authority had she been given that assurance?

I suspect Ofcom's 'coronavirus guidance' has something to do with it. This guidance, published when the lockdown was announced in March, warns broadcasters to exercise extreme caution before criticising the response by the public health authorities or interviewing any sceptics. The organisation I set up last February, the Free Speech Union, is currently trying to judicially review this guidance, but in the interim the BBC no longer needs to suppress discussion of the declaration because the WHO, the most respectable public health authority in the world, has done a U-turn on lockdowns. This was made clear last week by Professor David Nabarro, one of six coronavirus envoys appointed by the WHO's director-general. 'We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,' he told Andrew Neil.

I have to make clear that I'm still neutral in all of this, but had to point out some of the bizarre things that have been happening recently. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't it seems.

Infections are everywhere by us again. I had three messages from some of my students' parents to say that there have been positive cases in their kids' classrooms. My mother-in-law has been in contact with a co-worker who just tested positive, and my sister-in-law just found out that a child she carried around today tested positive as well. She is the manager of a nursery.

 

[Ed209]

Here are three excerpts from interviews with those who wrote it. This is what came from an interview with Martin Kulldorff and I think he makes a good point:

When I spoke to Martin Kulldorff last week, he told me that the Great Barrington Declaration is merely a restatement of the principles of public health. Lockdown, he argued, is a 'terrible experiment' that throws those principles 'out of the window' by focusing solely on one disease at the expense of all other health problems.

Censorship presents a serious problem for science. Science thrives in a climate of free speech and open disagreement, where testable propositions can be put forward and rebutted. Now we have the likes of Google deciding the correct science in advance. These tech firms then shield the public from anything that diverges from that view. But as more and more scientists warn against the dangers of lockdown – not only the Great Barrington scientists but also representatives from the WHO and members of the UK's SAGE – categorising dissent as 'misinformation' will soon become untenable.

This is from Jay Bhattacharya:

The United States has followed a strategy similar to the United Kingdom and many other countries and have attempted a more or less complete lockdown: ignoring the age-targeted approach we are advocating. It is to be regretted that attempts to scientific knowledge have been politicized in the context of an epidemic that has touched every human on the face of the earth. It is inevitable that it would become political.

"I don't actually know the politics of my colleagues. I am pretty sure if we did, we probably would disagree. But what is striking to me, that despite this diverse background, we have come to agreement on what science is telling us. This is a science-based approach aimed at minimizing the harm to the population at large. It is a way to reduce the harm to the vulnerable and the younger population.

I believe science works. It can work slower than one hopes, but I am hopeful that we can persuade people to listen to us. I have regretted this attempt to suppress scientific discussion because some ideals are too dangerous to discuss. This idea is not dangerous. If you ask me, it is dangerous to do what we currently are doing; but I don't want to suppress discussion. If I learn from people who disagree with me, all the better.

There is a split in the population. Some are very scared and others are dreading the loss of their livelihood and opportunities for their children. Giving freedom to both is very important to public health. Public health should address health by giving accurate information.

And this is what Sunetra Gupta had to say:

I am secure in my own politics and they don't align with any libertarian thinking. All of this should stand up outside of any political leanings. The very fact that this is at a space that does not align with my own political thinking is a declaration how fundamental and important that this whole process is.

"I remember one of my daughters saying in mid-March: 'We are going to go on lockdown' and I remember saying: 'No, that simply cannot happen.' I was thinking what will happen to the person living in the slum? When this did happen, I had to step back and look at the situation scientifically. The two meet in this declaration.

"We should have started thinking about all the damage that could be done or would be done; if we simply went about following the single goal of getting rid or suppressing this virus.

"This one goal has sucked everyone in and created this space where you can virtual signal madly. If we look around; we can see 130 million people who are going to starve to death as a result of this."

Whether I agree or disagree with them, there's one thing I'm certain about, and that's their right to express their views without being censored on every platform out there. I know first-hand that the professors at Oxford and Cambridge are pretty much all left-leaning liberals, so this would go against their political views. It's not as if these people are from some warped backstreet organisations, they are all from the most prestigious universities in the world, and there are now many professors at these institutions who have signed the petition.

I'm not going to argue if they're right or wrong because I haven't got a clue. I am merely saying that they should have the right to a free and open scientific debate without being censored by the big tech firms and media. There's a lot of fascism creeping in and I don't like it.

 

[Ed209]

This is the type of insanity that is being advised in this country:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-54551789

Students self-isolating at the University of York have been told to wait in their room in the event of a fire and let others out first.

The university's Health and Safety Services told students to wait for a minute before leaving "to allow non-isolating individuals to exit".

In total 288 staff and students at the university have tested positive for coronavirus.

The university said it had since "updated and changed" its guidance.

However, it has not yet made it clear if the advice to self-isolating students is still applicable.

The instruction was sent out in a email to self-isolating students earlier this week.

It said the "additional guidance" had been developed to "maintain social-distancing from non-isolating residents".

'Nearest refuge'

The guidance stated: "If you are self isolating and the fire system in your accommodation building is activated please follow these procedures to ensure your safety.

"When the alarm sounds; stay in your room for one minute then make your way to the nearest refuge (this will allow non-isolating individuals to exit the building)."

Self-isolating students were then asked to contact the university's Security Services from a refuge area and wait to be told if they needed to evacuate the building.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service said officials had contacted the university after being made aware of the guidance.

A University of York spokesperson said: "Our advice and guidance has been updated and changed.

"We take the health and safety of our students and staff extremely seriously.

"All students are required to undertake a mandatory fire safety induction and this clearly states that all students should evacuate the building immediately, meeting at the designated fire assembly point.

"Students are reminded that in gathering at the fire assembly point, they should adhere to social distancing guidelines."

 

[linearb]

@Ed209 one school putting out bad guidance and retracting it a day later is silly but hardly a sign of some systemic problem (though I'd grant we have plenty). When you have a lack of strong top down leadership at the national level, you don't get a coherent set of policies and suddenly you have college admins with no virological training making policy decisions.

The removal from reddit is because the news and corona reddits have a very explicit list of what are considered neutral sources, and have taken a real hard line against conspiracy theorists etc. AEIR is not QAnon, of course, but I would suggest the people profiting from AEIR policies are very much allowing the Q machine to keep going, to the extent it's helpful to them. I think anyone would be very hard pressed to make the case that AEIR is a neutral information source when they are a self-stated thinktank that sits on vast capital.

I stand by the idea that this is a political policy document which is massively controversial and unpopular in most scientific circles, and also that the math we have indicates going for "herd immunity" in the US is unrealistic. I don't mean "we'd be sacrificing too many people", I mean "it's actually not possible because at least in the north wayyyyy too many people are wearing masks and distancing and would never ever be on board with deliberate exposure". Herd immunity doesn't work at 50%, you just kill a bunch of people. Some number of scientists always go against the grain; AEIR can also pull people with PhDs out of a hat who are willing to dispute the basics of climate science and other things that should be long-settled based on available data, and close to half of this country doesn't even believe in evolution.

I don't disagree that we're in crazy uncertain times where it's hard to know what to follow, but in this specific case I am very happy to dismiss it out of hand because every piece of Koch-backed "science" in the last 40 years has led to regressive policies, environmental destruction and worker suffering.

I think a larger market crash is happening / already playing out, and we're seeing a lot of shell games as people try to exit various verticals before they fall apart. I think "reopen" pushes have more to do with short term gains pre-crash than with fixing the market. That's just my read from the ground, but, look at what tech (for instance) is doing -- huge verticals are doing massively well during COVID and profiting tremendously. Usually when this happens it's an opportunity to grow, expand, etc -- but what we're seeing is that people are just pocketing money and maintaining larger than usual cash reserves. That's a pretty obvious set of tea leaves, no?

I think this fall is going to be dark as hell, election aside: homelessness, violence, disease, death. Stay safe!!