******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
So sorry - 'point 3(i) should not read the word 'mythology' - but 'METHODOLOGY.." i) This is modelling data. Yes this METHODOLOGY does have a role - but it then critically depends upon what assumptions and what inputs you enable to enter the model. And actually for the most part, the authors are very humble about it (see my point iii) below. " I blame Apple's automatisms - not any latent bias on this particular point.. H On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:06 PM hari kumar <hari6.ku...@gmail.com> wrote: > re: Message: 11 > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 16:03:08 +0100 > From: RKOB <ak...@rkob.net> > To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition > <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> > Subject: [Marxism] New Study claims that Fatality Rate in Wuhan was > much lower > Message-ID: <8d6064fc-2929-18c8-22ee-2a72d9a04...@rkob.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > One of my comrades with medical background drew my attention to an > interesting new study from Chinese scientists. It says that the fatality > rate of COVID-19 in Wuhan has been 1.4%, i.e. substantially lower than > initially reported (4.5%) > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7 > ________________________________________________________ > Dear Michael: > > 1) The overtly fascist Modi government has long attacked even any > semblance of opposition in Kashmir. It does not need the COVID 19 excuse; > and nor does the Kashmiri opposition, get fooled by pretences this has > anything to do with COVID-19. But you have written a lot on this matter - > which broadly I agree with - so you know this. > > 2) Algeria - like Chile - yes there may be national variations. > > 3) Your article linked to below is of marked interest. It is a letter - > which does go through a peer review process, but in my experience is > usually not quite as 'sharp'. > Nonetheless, thank you for alerting us to this. > There are a couple of things about this that, however, warrant a close > reading. It does not show what superficially may be thought to show: " > fatality rate was much lower in Wuhan". > > i) This is modelling data. Yes this mythology does have a role - but it > then critically depends upon what assumptions and what inputs you enable to > enter the model. And actually for the most part, the authors are very > humble about it (see my point iii) below. > > ii) One thing they do not really come clean about is the following issue. > As I read it, this is > a paper that *only* uses data of people who flew out of Wuhan - and > were not part of the Wuhan susceptible pool for the final data-set. So if I > understand it right, it sets them up as a 'captive' population. Thus - > you would I assume - want this population to have the advantage of 100% > testing - to put that set of data into the modelling. But is this what > happened? Actually it is buried away, in 'supplementary Tables' - that it > is not what happened. it is not known what proportion of those passengers > flown out were indeed tested: > > "See: *Supplementary Tables 1–9. ** Japan, Singapore, South Korea, > Germany, Belgium and Malaysia had tested all the passengers and a few > pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic cases were confirmed. For other countries, > it is unknown whether they had tested all the passengers or only those > showing symptoms. “ Supplementary Table 3. [See: Supplementary > Information *- https://static- <https://static-> > content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41591-020-0822- > <http://content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41591-020-0822-> > 7/MediaObjects/41591_2020_822_MOESM1_ESM.pdf * > > iii) To avid this becoming an overlong mail, I only then ask that the > final section of the letter be looked at carefully. They themselves > acknowledge many limitations, which is why I said they were humble about > this finding. They say this: "Several important caveats are worth > mentioning, as follows. First, and most importantly, our modeled estimates > have necessarily relied on numerous strong assumptions". > > As I had said in my article, there is a lot we (collectively) and > more especially I (the narrow me) still do not know. We need to > be cautious. And once more I am not an ID specialist. I know a reasonable > amount of trail-based epidemiology, but the epidemiology involved in > ID gets more and more distinct. > > In solidarity, Hari Kumar > > PS: Louis: I am sorry if this again turns out to be too narrowly spaced. I > tried to obey your injunctions > > to format better. If still poorly formatted, I will again try something > different. > > >> >> >> -- >> Revolution?r-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG >> (?sterreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net) >> www.rkob.net >> ak...@rkob.net >> Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314 >> >> >> >> -- >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _________________________________________________________ >> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm >> To change your settings: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu//listinfo/marxism >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of Marxism Digest, Vol 197, Issue 39 >> **************************************** >> > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
