jfnixon

Nation-sized leverage? Piffle. Pass a law that Big Pharma can't price higher in the US than the lowest price negotiated elsewhere. Boom, problem solved.

Not at all. Hospitals shut down elective procedures, not because they were running out of room, but because they were ordered to do so. That freed capacity may have been necessary in NYC, and maybe not, but nowhere else was it necessary.

The response was primarily by Th cells, not the TC cells, so yes, this isn't immunity, but it would speed to body's adaptive immune system response.

OTOH, the killer feature of Covid-19 seems to be triggering an out-of-control adaptive immune response. That's probably why kids aren't dying, as their adaptive immune response is still developing.

NYC and surroundings are very different than FL are very different than California. I agree NYC was a complete disaster, but it doesn't follow that Dallas would have met the same fate.

There is still a piper to pay for the lockdowns, and that is the patients who will die due to untreated heart disease, missed cancer treatments and surgeries, mental health problems, und so weiter. Not to mention all the people who will now find their disease at a later date and suffer a worse prognosis for it. The lockdowns could have created more deaths and suffering than were prevented, but we won't know for some time.

If the employer wants to manage the cellphone, then I don't use my personal phone for work. Period.

I'll be "that guy" and point out we know the climate simulations have similar issues.

Then public policy should heavily discount results based on academic code, if it shown to be poorly engineered. I'd go further and say you can't trust the papers based on the results of badly engineered simulations. As a poster said earlier "I think there should be fairly high standards of scientific rigor even in published code, especially if this might impact public policy actions, like we should expect high rigor in biological and epidemiological studies."

If you read the lockdownskeptics cite, "hard to debug" is not the problem. Non-determinism in the output is the issue, and if this is indeed the case, why would anyone trust the results? Do a bunch of runs and average is not a good answer.

Bingo for the Japan observation.

I think this is backwards. We have been using infection rates as a proxy for death rates, since deaths are a lagging indicator. It is certain we are missing a huge percentage of cases, and expanding testing will uncover those. It is completely unclear that uncovering more mild and asymptomatic cases will result in more deaths, so new cases are a bad proxy for future deaths.

Australia (and New Zealand) have no clear strategy to defeat the virus. They have won the opening battle and are claiming the war is over. Unless Oz and NZ cut themselves off from the rest of the planet, no, the virus war isn't over.

Herd immunity through vaccine or infection is the only rational strategy for a disease like C19. There is no vaccine, and possibly will never be a vaccine. Sorry to be a realist.

The question was not "do you have evidence the truth wins more often than lies for the species as a whole"; there was no specific context implied as I read it. So, do you have evidence lies win more often than the truth for the species as a whole?

Therefore we should let those with power choose what everyone can say and hear? Sorry, I'm not following.

"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?"

The existence of technology as well as science.