This is an important video.
The interviewer is generally competent. This always helps. The man being interviewed is an epidemiologist who specializes in statistical analysis of data. He is just the kind of person who we want to be interviewed these days. He is also a person who has gone into print about the failure rate of most academic articles in the field. He says that over half of them have serious flaws. So, he is a skeptic. But he is also on the faculty of Stanford University, so he is a well-informed skeptic.
He is also a specialist. Like all specialists, he is like a man with a hammer: everything looks like a nail. From beginning to end, and all the way through, he keeps coming back to the same theme, we have to test. We don't know what is going on if we don't have accurate tests.
There is a problem with his analysis. He never defines who "we" are. Who, exactly, should run the tests? Who should pay for them? Should there be compulsion involved? He hasn't answered these questions.
The other question he doesn't answer is this: What should we do after we get the results? Again, who are "we"?
The statement that grabbed me [23:30 to 26] is this: he said we have three weeks -- maximum -- to get accurate data and impose isolation. "We need to make decisions." The interview was made on March 23.
The long-term effects of lockdowns of everyone are negative. It must not go on for 18 months.
Here's my assessment: there is no possible way that we are going to see comprehensive testing in the next three weeks. No way. Zero. It should have been done two months ago. We were promised by the president that it would begin two weeks ago. Nothing is being done.
Let's begin with a nonscientific statistical analysis. Do you know anybody who has had a coronavirus test? Have you had the test? No? Is it because you're not interested? Is it because they are not available? Is it both? It's probably both. You want to do it on your own, and you couldn't do it if you did want to do it on your own. There is no compulsion for you to get the test, and there is no ability for people in your community to respond to any such compulsion.
My daughter got the test. It took three days to get the results. She didn't get it in the parking lot of a local Walmart or CVS. She got it at Vanderbilt University. She had a severe cough, so she had a reason to get the test. She turned out to be negative. That was good news. Meanwhile, the city of Nashville is locked down. Should it be?
The video is calming. But it is calming only on either or both of these scenarios: (1) Full testing will be implemented across the United States in less than three weeks, and the federal government will then take appropriate, effective action. (2) The coronavirus will die out of its own accord in summer, irrespective of what governments do.
We had better hope number two comes true. That's because there is no chance that the first scenario will come true.
Sadly, this video has had fewer than 10,000 views. Of those, I have no idea how many finished the entire video. Probably fewer than half.
SUMMARY
Is this threat real?
This is the #1 challenge in the world. It is a major threat.
"We need to act with alacrity."
Problem: We have unreliable data. There are major gaps.
"We need to act immediately."
It is a threat with unknown potential.
Testing?
Ideally, everyone must be tested. [This is of course impossible. There are 7.5 billion people.]
We need a random sample of the population. [Conducted by whom? Which populations?]
Cruise ship: 20% infection, 1% deaths. Median age: 65
It's probably lower than 1% for American: 0.05 to 1%.
Iceland: 360,000 total population, 3,500 infected, 1 death
Italy: older, smokers. Too many people were admitted to the hospitals who were not dying. No room for the ones who came later. About 3,000 medical personnel were infected. They had to leave. He blamed large gathering at a sports event in one town. We don't know the rate of infection.
Social distancing?
It worked in Taiwan and S. Korea, yes. But there was extensive testing.
We do not know if it works. "We need to do something."
We need better data.
We must make decisions within 3 weeks. [Again, no definition of who "we" are, what we can do, what we should do, or for how long.]
Shutting people in their homes is a solution. But risk is economic if it continues long: 18 months. More than millions at stake: billions. We must get the best data. We must have information "very soon."
Shortages of Face Masks?
Do not panic (public). Shortage is in hospitals. Large majority of hospitals will not be effective. Some will be at risk. We need mobile supplies. Get these to specific hospitals. [How?]
He is somewhat optimistic.
Is this Just Another Flu?
This is a novel coronavirus.
In the past, we have not tracked the four common coronaviruses. Maybe 30 to 60 million are infected in the USA every year by the flu. Maybe 25,000 to 60,000 deaths. [I had not known this.] We have not paid attention to the coronaviruses hidden by the flu. No one tracks them.
Elderly people are at risk.
This disease is new. We don't know how severe it is. Big debate among experts. We have no denominator -- no data on the number infected.
Just a Bump?
Maybe.
Deaths: 10,000 of 325 million would be statistical "noise." We do not know how many. It may be more or less.
"We need data."
Ignore anecdotes. Media are making this worse.
In a crisis environment, more corners will be cut. Example: vaccine. Don't cut out tests! He is pro-vaccine. Science is the way to solve problems.
Preparedness is a good thing.
He blames no one [governors].
Response
We must remain united -- politics.
"We need to learn." Other issues are taking over the agenda. The right goal is to save lives.
We don't know the infection rate.
Lockdowns are risky: closed spaces. Kids are at home. It depends on when the kids are infected. We do not know. We need data.
We must avoid medieval medicine.
Quarantine oldsters?
Maybe. It depends on where we are in the infection.
"We need data."
What biases are at work?
"It's too early." We must make the assessment later. Leaders fear to be negligent. Domino effect. Leaders follow leaders.
Media follow this story. Pandemic of news stories. Anecdotes. We need evidence.
He will not blame the WHO. "They had to do something."
Don't accuse anyone for having taken action. Too little or too much? We don't know.
What is the lesson?
Next time, we need data. Mobilize science. More testing. More random samples of the population.
He says this pandemic may not be severe. If it isn't, we [the scientific establishment] must not lose the confidence of the public. "We've heard that before."
Lockdowns
Lockdown was late. Different countries had different approaches. Data are not random.
What about lockdowns? How much longer?
We need more data. Two or three weeks -- maximum. He doesn't know.
He is locked down.
The decision-makers are blind.
[End of interview.]
CONCLUSION
The scientific experts do not know what is going on. He admits this. He says we need testing. He did not mention that the government's response should be to the results of the testing. He said this has to be done in three weeks. We don't have three weeks now. We have fewer than three weeks.
Basically, the message I got was this: we had better hope that this virus visibly peaks in the next three weeks, and then starts down dramatically. Otherwise, the lockdowns will probably increase.
I don't think there is any chance that we will know if the coronavirus peaks in three weeks. Why not? Because we don't have the data now. What we have are anecdotes, which he says we should not rely on. But that's all we've got, so that's what is going to be reported.
The number of deaths will continue to escalate. The public will continue to panic. This is not going to end in three weeks.
That's my takeaway. What's yours?
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.