******************** 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.
*****************************************************************
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
