A California Plan Briefing update to YouTube viewers presenting the latest CoVid-19 local, state, national and international data and analysis. Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. Kern County, 20 years in microbiology, biochemistry, epidemiology training. They own a health urgent care business with 7 clinics called, Accelerated Urgent Care, in Bakersfield.
The California plan briefing panned by health officials
There were no MSM, or Google first page searches that support their findings, in any way, that we can find. The criticism of their California plan has been ongoing since their live briefing. The criticisms however do not mention, or specifically refute their overall findings. The expert critics cited and quoted in the pres,s base their comments on the idea that the findings in the briefing are all extrapolated from only the Dr.'s personal clinical research and testing in Kern County. The breifing however barely mentions their data as our notes, taken as we watched show.
JoshWho Video Platform
Before we looked for point by point refutation to their briefing, we reviewed the video and wrote our California plan notes below. Then we examined the contrary evidence, which we cite after our extensive notes on the briefing. The vast overwhelming criticism leaves out most of the science cited in the briefing. So most of the article here is our notes and our hope that official experts will offer more than their authority over science, and enter into a discussion of viral science, research and testing with hard data, not just models.
California Plan Briefing Question; Are We following Science?
HERE IS AN IMPORTANT POINT: All data used in the briefing is from the CDC files, internationally, nationally, state by state. Internal California data is added and compared. Then county and regional data, which includes theirs, is compared to all other CDC, National, International State and County data and applied to regional analysis.
Current Situation in California
- Large amount of time spent in testing and reporting on Covid-19. Meanwhile "Large volume drop in other than Covid related care."
- "UCU's are essentially empty."
- Hospitals are shutting down floors, furloughing patients and physicians.
- "In New York, hospitals are at maximum capacity, in California they are at minimum capacity."
- ER physicians around the country say, Because the focus is on Covid, people with heart disease, cancer hypertension, and other critical issues are choosing not to come in out of fear. Treating thiese patients is hampered by lack of available staff due to covid paperwork and obligations and patient fear of contracting the disease by showing up for appointments and scheduled proceedures.
California plan, Lockdowns and health policy science
Travel restrictions were a good first step based on fear, caution and incomplete data. Holding in place was good to have a starting point to asses data. Long term holding in place is not health science. Health practice concerning quarantine is based on isolating the ill from the rest of the population. Lockdown is different. Dr. E. "We've never seen where we quarantine the healthy. Where you take people without symptoms and without disease and lock them in their home"
CALIFORNIA DATA OVER THE LAST 2 MONTHS
In Kern County 6.5% of the population tested positive for covid. This indicates a wide spread viral infection, similar to the flu
- In Caifornia 12% tested positive for Covid. That extrapolates out to 4.7 million cases in CA. It is very widespread. That is good news. Based on the death rate compared to infection rate the ratio of infection to death is, 0.03 chance of death. "Does that necessitate, sheltering in place,... shutting down the medical system. Does that necessitate people being out of work?"
- "96% of people in California recover... with no continuing medical problems." So far over the last 2 months, the more people have tested for covid, the higher the infection rate becomes, but the mortality rate stays the same. This indicates that the 0.03 rate may be lower over time as new results come in.
NATIONAL STATISTICS STATE BY STATE NY specifically
So far millions of cases state by state and low death rate, similar to CA.
New York is a critical state for statistical examination. 39% of 649,000 tests. NY state tested tested positive for covid. Extrapolated out that means likely 6 million cases of covid in NY state. 19,410 deaths. q.0% chance of dying of Covid-19 in NY state. 82% recovery of those diagnosed with CoVid-19
CoVid-19 DATA COMPARED TO FLU SIMPLEX A & B
CoVid-19 US current cases at video publihing time, 802,590 cases. 4 million tests. 19% positive rate based on testing. Current infection and death rate stats are similar to the flu 2017-2018 stats. We have a flu vaccine. 50% of the public does not want it when offered.
- Spain 0.05% chance of death 90$ recovery rate without urgent care, ventilator. Similar in scope and result to US.. These 2 countries are similar.
- Sweden Norway
- Norway has lockdown Sweden no lockdown. Both have similar results with Norway being slightly but not statistically significantly higher death rate to infection within 0.05%
COVID SECONDARY HEALTH EFFECTS FROM LOCKDOWN
- Rise in child molestations intoxicated family or other household
- Loss of income
- Spousal abuse up Alcoholism, anxiety, depression, suicide, medical community suffering in general from low volume of patients in CA facilities.
- In US, Compared to 2017-18 stats Covid-19 more ifections less death rate overall compared to infection rate.
The nature of the immune system
The immune system Is built by exposure to antigens, virus and bacteria. This naturally occurs in child development by exposure to the world A child as it develops develops it's immune system and would be harmed by isolation from antigens. Sheltering in place weakens the immune system, as does over reliance on disinfectants over time with overuse. The longer the lockdown the weaker the immune system.
COMPARING DR FAUCCI ORIGINAL THEORETICAL DATA LEADING TO INITIAL LOCKDOWN, TO 2 MONTHS OF COMPILED DATA
Theoretical data based on new factors discovered in this covid strain aroused legitimate concern because the unique viral factors had never existed before. Therefore initial caution was arguably warranted till more data was available on this specific virus. Now we have that data. Both doctors agree that the initial actions were warranted and brilliant.
Medical response based on 2 month old models and procedures are still national health policies and defacto law.
Inflated covid death rates are being listed due to testing all deaths occurring in the state and nationally, which have any related symptoms for Covid-19. This is not done with the common flu. In addition, deaths that occur in people who die with heart, pnumonia, and other diseases, that test positive for covid, are listed as a covid related death. This is never done in cases where similar patients, test positive for flu, but have a primary ailment for which they are under treatment. Normally in that situation, deaths are not listed as dying from the flu, but from the primary disease of the patients is being treated for. Doctors are reporting that they are being pressured, in house, (usually meaning hospital administration) to report covid as a cause of death on certificates, as part of their diagnostic list. This is highly unusual in the profession.
California Plan; OPENING THE ECONOMY CONCLUSIONS
California plan calls for widespread testing, Because the hospitals are at under capacity and people are afraid to come in for testing, much more testing must be done as fast as possible in order to assure that lockdown is lifted appropriately. Hospitals need to serve a normal capacity to mitigate the secondary health issues from loss of income, mental health, chronic conditions that have been delayed treatment and testing must be encouraged. Dern county and others are in a position to double thier testing capacity as well as resume more normal healthcare going forward.
From there it is up to the capacity of the labs to process the tests. This usually takes 2 days in Kern County. It used to take up to 12 but resources are now in place for more capacity. With testing as a framework a California or any plan can take shape.
- Quarantine the infected and isolate the vulnerable
- Herd immunity
- Statistically death rates are comparable in lockdown and no lockdown, around the world. Secondary death rates from lockdown will be higher however and weaken the immune system in the society due to it's needed contact with the environment..
- Lots of outdoor activity. No masks unless necessary in certain siuations. more masks around the vulnerable.
- We must be exposed to all bacteria and viruses to build up immunity to combat harmful ones. Opening sooner rather than later based on this data is warranted now. Isolating completely for 2-3 months will weaken our immune system and cause a rise in virulent infections in the coming months, and a new public health hazard. This must be avoided.This is basic virology and immunology science.
- We need to work diligently to find a vaccine
- Reopen hospital immediately for normal use
- Report delivered in conjunction with health leaders including, GDPH Georgia Department of Public Health, leaders in Sacramento, ,local Kern County health officials.
- Calling on Governor Newsom to confer publicly, and consider lifting complete lockdown in California, or give a scientific data based reason not to lift.
- , Begin opening up slowly, Schools immediately on their regular schedule. Restaurants begin outdoor and safe spacing where necessary. Sporting events more slowly as they are less essential. Right now big businesses are allowed to open but small businesses are not, although the same safe spacing requirements are being met. this must be put on a more scientific basis.
California Plan for Opening restaurants and other businesses scientifically
This Kern County specifically, and a California plan in general presented, begins with testing of all employees. People could show up for work could get results in 3 minutes. In general, if you have no symptoms you should be allowed to work, and get tested as soon as it is available. Symptomatic people should be getting tested first.
The data available in this report is not based on double blind clinical trial. These can take years to be conclusive. this is standard research procedure with a proven health management outcome. The double blind study is more of an academic model for teaching but is not important in forming immediate health decisions which are always based on common medical scientific practice followed here in this briefing.
- Open up public parks and public areas immediately. Slowly in more infected areas with safe spacing enforced etc.
- Old model data was inaccurate in predicting death rates.
- The measures taken to combat the initial spread were reasonable and brilliantly conceived.
- The new data must now be used to follow up and that means opening up slowly and steadily. "We have predictable negatives from lockdown" in many areas other than hard hit places that are CoVid-19 hotbeds, like NYC. Covid however specifically has unpredictable negatives which is why testing is important in opening up.
- According to currently available statistics from lockdown and non lockdown, on average out of 100 people four will die. Three of the four who die have comorbidity factors which are often the primary cause and would normally be listed on a death certificate as the cause of death.We Examine a general refutation of this briefing widely panned in this article citing official health experts.
We Examine Experts Published Criticism
Most of it is from this article.
We examine their quotes from that article. But first here is a quote that we believes sums up their fate in the medical community short term. It is from a Bakersfield Kern County publication, Bakersfield Observed, "And if you think these two doctors won't face some form of retribution from the more established Kern County medical establishment, my money says you should think again."
They will be likely condemned by all publicly financed and regulated institutions that the MSM can bring to bear against them. They may only have a prayer of a chance to stay in business, unless their statistics are given a chance to play out in order to prove or disprove their method.
The Main Critical Points From Experts: Quotes
The article from KQED News is typical of those in even the last 24 hours. The Doctors are considered opportunists who only sound scientific, are outside of orthodox thinking, out to made a buck, and appeal to a right wing fringe Fox News and alternative media audience.
"They dressed in scrubs. They sounded scientific. And last week’s message from two Bakersfield doctors was exactly what many stuck-at-home Americans wanted to hear: COVID-19 is no worse than influenza, its death rates are low and we should all go back to work and school.." Can't argue with that.
They sum up the official criticism "major flaws in the doctors’ methodology – namely that only a tiny percentage of Californians have actually been tested, a group that is more likely to test positive and is not representative of the larger population." It sounds valid except that all testing for the flu, that they compared the current tests to also test those likely infected. They so state this in the video. In fact the current covid testing is applied more broadly than normal.
From there most criticism centers around their limited clinic testing range. Their testing was included, but the breifing did not center on their testing conclusions They were included to reinforce all available data presented and available at the time of the briefing from regional, state by state, national and international, official CDC related sources. This from the article.
The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling"
Agan, from any objective observation of the video; Their tests were included in the briefing to reinforce their ability to test, and their testing method conformity to testing procedure, practices and data results worldwide.
An egotistical tech mogul was cited as a reason to believe they are only in it for money fame and the media exposure.
Elon Musk, the Tesla founder who wants to reopen his Fremont manufacturing plant this week, praised the doctors on Twitter, to his more than 33 million followers. And on Monday night, the doctors were featured on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, reaching a huge conservative national audience.
But is this a valid or scientific criticism? The next one is full of scientific authority from the academic world. It is from the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Bergstrom it is reported they; “emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Messihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”
Here is an excerpt from the article typical of all of them.
“This pandemic has been so severely politicized in this country that evidence, no matter how poor, gets amplified enormously if it benefits one side or another,” said Bergstrom, who also was one of the first experts to critique the doctors’ study on Twitter. “We always hoped this crisis wouldn’t come, but that if it did we’d all be in this together. That’s been a huge surprise for all of us doing infectious disease epidemiology. It’s amazing to have to deal with this misinformation that’s being spread around for political purposes and the ways that interferes with adequate public health response.”
State Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, a pediatrician who chairs the Senate Health Committee, said lawmakers who favor reopening the state had not yet cited the Bakersfield doctors’ conclusions as a justification to do so. But if they did, he said, they’d “be on pretty weak ground.”
The doctors “basically hyped a bunch of data and weren’t transparent about their methods. And they really played on the fact that they’re physicians. I think it’s quite disingenuous of them,” Pan said. “Then we have to push back on any media that promotes this information. They’re really doing this as a way to fish for attention.”
A Kern County public health spokeswoman told reporters that officials did not support the doctors’ call to reopen the region. Other epidemiologists echoed that sentiment.
Criticism Summary: A False Premise, Long on Self Authoritative Consensus, Short On Overall Method And Specific Data Refutation
As you can see, no scientific data was brought against the two doctors. Only the premise that the briefing was based on their clinical testing studies, and the ridiculous basis that would be, and it would, if true. In this regard, the ratio of their content regarding personal clinical testing relative to the overall briefing, is roughly equal to the death rate vs infection of covid among the world wide tested population. And this premise relative to the scope of the briefing, seems to be killing them in the medical field as well.
U.S. and CALIFORNIA PLAN, PUBLIC FORUM DISCUSSION
A panel discussion with no moderators hosted by one or more independent of MSM channels. The two doctors on one side and 2 people from the CDC or perhaps CDC and another official health organization. each team adds 2 more experts in the field to their side for a total of six experts. Each one would take turns moderating 6 different aspects of the virus from vaccines to herd immunity. I could sit through a few hours of this over one or more of these discussions.
How Bout It JoshWho video channel, or MSNBC? IRUUR1 will host of course. How about Facebook and Twitter. A panel discussion with audience chat. The one or more channels agreeable to both sides, and who make the offer, could have a simple discussion worked up by the end of the week and ready for the following week or next weekend.