An open letter to wejo

fisky, the mortality rate for Covid 19 is slightly lower than flu. Those who say otherwise are misinterpreting the statistics.

Par for the course wrote:

How about instead of nitpicking the calls to action, you lay out your own bold plan to combat misinformation? Would it be easier to acknowledge your responsibility (especially during this time), if you didn't even have a suggested course of action to nitpick and toss aside?

As I said, we review ALL posts reported to us. Our moderators also are on these forums and delete posts we think should be deleted.

We actively delete posts that are knowingly false and many others. If there is a post you think we have missed email us directly.

Erik our web guy, his wife is a doctor in an ICU in Iowa. My wife is pregnant and due in May, Steve's wife is pregnant and due in May and we are hearing the steps hospitals are taking to make sure they are prepared for a likely surge in COVID patients.

To say we don't think this is serious isn't accurate. People are going to disagree on what we should allow (Someone ripped into me asking yesterday in what places is running banned, but I think it is a legitimate question), but if you contact me directly or just use the "Report a post" button we will review the post. We now also track posts moderators OK'd.

uninterested reader wrote:(1) There are epidemiology experts doing real analysis which you can find on the web.

(2) All you people using this epidemic to virtue signal are both useless and disgusting.

Here's a link that suggests, based on a range of four scenarios, 200,000 to 1.7 million fatalities in the US:

Do you have a link to a better source?

(2) What you call "virtue signalling" (possibly the most irritating phrase in English these days) is actually me signalling my very real, very deep fear. Not virtue.

[quote]

I was making an argument. The posters comment had two parts 1) "commentary that diminishes the importance of this crisis" and 2) "is harmful to the public health." [...]

The counter argument can easily be made that is not the case. The views that you disagree with on here can be called out." [quote]

I know you were making an argument. I know that the poster's comment had two parts. What is astonishing to most of us is that you ignored the part about public health in your reply to them, and that you are still ignoring the part about public health. You seem obsessed with defending the way this board is moderated, and things like "views" that people "disagree with" or ideas being "called out" Right now, almost every responsible person is focused on public health.

What many here are saying, and I urge you to please try to take this message in, is:

Letsrun could help lessen the effects of the COVID-19 crisis. It isn't doing so.

To return to this posters claim: diminishing the importance of this crisis is harmful to public health. Lets run's moderation strategy is to facilitate that diminishment.

Webbasedreading wrote:

[quote]

What many here are saying, and I urge you to please try to take this message in, is:

Letsrun could help lessen the effects of the COVID-19 crisis. It isn't doing so.

To return to this posters claim: diminishing the importance of this crisis is harmful to public health. Lets run's moderation strategy is to facilitate that diminishment.

You're being alarmist. How can you make such claims? Based on what exactly?

As a matter of transparency, Wejo, let's say you read this post (below). What action would you take (or not take) and why? You could help your community understand your moderating process and your stance on views, facts, and the crisis many on your forum seem concerned about.

Here's the post:

"This is what I hear all the time from people, and I don't understand it. If you are worried, what stops you from staying home and never seeing me? I can't spread it to you if I never see you. Why can't person 1 exist in his world at home locked down, off the grid and 'safe' while person 2 chooses to go risk death at parties, with all the other like minded souls, and both be happy? This is how the free world works. If the hospitals overrun and all the person 2s die, that was their choice. But you seek to take away the choice of a short, happy life so that you won't be infected, ignoring the fact you already have the choice to stay home and not be infected. So I'm confused. "

It's from this thread:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9895056&page=4

"You're being alarmist. How can you make such claims? Based on what exactly?"

The claim is that:

1) minimizing the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis threatens public health

2) many posts on Letsrun minimize the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis

3) Letsrun's moderation strategy could counter those claims, and help ameliorate this crisis.

See my post above for one example (that took about 1 minute to locate) of a post that minimizes the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis. I think Letsrun can and should do more to help ameliorate this crisis. I think that claim is not alarmist; I think it is also based on easy-to-find evidence. We may disagree on what Letsrun should do, or whether some or many posts on Letsrun minimize the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis.

However, the claim rests on straightforward logic and evidence that I and many others have pointed to often.

Webbasedreading wrote:

"You're being alarmist. How can you make such claims? Based on what exactly?"

The claim is that:

1) minimizing the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis threatens public health

2) many posts on Letsrun minimize the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis

3) Letsrun's moderation strategy could counter those claims, and help ameliorate this crisis.

See my post above for one example (that took about 1 minute to locate) of a post that minimizes the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis. I think Letsrun can and should do more to help ameliorate this crisis. I think that claim is not alarmist; I think it is also based on easy-to-find evidence. We may disagree on what Letsrun should do, or whether some or many posts on Letsrun minimize the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis.

However, the claim rests on straightforward logic and evidence that I and many others have pointed to often.

I don't see your posts as being what you claim "straigthforward logic and evidence"

Your tone is alarmist. You people worry me. Confused Government strategies worry me. Yes lots of people will die in the next few weeks, but a sense of proportion is required in analysing the statistics. Those who die are going to die soon anyway, just a few weeks or months sooner than if there was no Covid 19 Pandemic. Please be realistic about this. I think that's what wejo and the mods are doing, allowing these views to be aired to counter the alarmism that is taking over the world right now.

I don't see your posts as being what you claim "straigthforward logic and evidence"

Your tone is alarmist. You people worry me. Confused Government strategies worry me. Yes lots of people will die in the next few weeks, but a sense of proportion is required in analysing the statistics. Those who die are going to die soon anyway, just a few weeks or months sooner than if there was no Covid 19 Pandemic. Please be realistic about this. I think that's what wejo and the mods are doing, allowing these views to be aired to counter the alarmism that is taking over the world right now.[/quote]

1. You do not know who is going to die and when. It's irresponsible to say you do. It's also sociopathic to be so casual about death, regardless of age.

2. I'm personally not in favor of banning the idiots but it is correct that they are causing harm during a public health crisis--and it is unquestionably a public health crisis.

3. Sense of proportion in analyzing the statistics is a stupid, stupid thing to do and is why we are where we are today. You don't analyze in real time, you do so retrospectively to learn. We are watching complex systems in action. Statistics models work, until they don't (and when they don't you better hope it's not "game over"). Mitigating strategies continue to be the most important thing to prevent further spread. Re-infection, immunity, vaccines, more infections, death--all in the future. Can't predict, don't bother trying. Following numbers helps guide us but doesn't give us the total picture. We need persistent preventative action.

I used this analogy a while back but look at the Baltimore Ravens--all season had success going for it on 4th down.... then they get to the playoffs (when it's one loss and you're out) and their "model" for success fails miserably....embarassingly so.

What do we mean by the term Death Rate? wrote:

fisky, the mortality rate for Covid 19 is slightly lower than flu. Those who say otherwise are misinterpreting the statistics.

How often does a flu kill 7 people on one cruise ship? The Diamond Princess cruise ship had about 1% fatality of those infected with the coronavirus and 0.2% of the total population of the ship. With no action taken there's no reason to think the virus won't infect 40% of the population or more. If the fatality rate is 1% that would be 1.3 million deaths in America. If you're extremely optimistic that the real fatality rate is only 0.1% that's still 130,000 deaths.

Hardloper wrote:

What do we mean by the term Death Rate? wrote:

fisky, the mortality rate for Covid 19 is slightly lower than flu. Those who say otherwise are misinterpreting the statistics.

How often does a flu kill 7 people on one cruise ship? The Diamond Princess cruise ship had about 1% fatality of those infected with the coronavirus and 0.2% of the total population of the ship. With no action taken there's no reason to think the virus won't infect 40% of the population or more. If the fatality rate is 1% that would be 1.3 million deaths in America. If you're extremely optimistic that the real fatality rate is only 0.1% that's still 130,000 deaths.

1% is the normal mortality rate for Covid 19 is it not?

The virus could infect 80% of the World's population over the next year or more.

Yes Covid 19 may indeed be a factor in the deaths of over 1 million Americans in 2020.

Aren't the board monitors just allowing open discussion?

By saying the are allowing and promoting lies you omit the fact they they are allowing all points of view.

They are promoting open discussion. It's supposed to get confrontational within reason and sometimes lies, extremism, and downright nutty crap is offered.

Handle it.

fartlekpa wrote:

I don't see your posts as being what you claim "straigthforward logic and evidence"

Your tone is alarmist. You people worry me. Confused Government strategies worry me. Yes lots of people will die in the next few weeks, but a sense of proportion is required in analysing the statistics. Those who die are going to die soon anyway, just a few weeks or months sooner than if there was no Covid 19 Pandemic. Please be realistic about this. I think that's what wejo and the mods are doing, allowing these views to be aired to counter the alarmism that is taking over the world right now.

1. You do not know who is going to die and when. It's irresponsible to say you do. It's also sociopathic to be so casual about death, regardless of age.

2. I'm personally not in favor of banning the idiots but it is correct that they are causing harm during a public health crisis--and it is unquestionably a public health crisis.

3. Sense of proportion in analyzing the statistics is a stupid, stupid thing to do and is why we are where we are today. You don't analyze in real time, you do so retrospectively to learn. We are watching complex systems in action. Statistics models work, until they don't (and when they don't you better hope it's not "game over"). Mitigating strategies continue to be the most important thing to prevent further spread. Re-infection, immunity, vaccines, more infections, death--all in the future. Can't predict, don't bother trying. Following numbers helps guide us but doesn't give us the total picture. We need persistent preventative action.

I used this analogy a while back but look at the Baltimore Ravens--all season had success going for it on 4th down.... then they get to the playoffs (when it's one loss and you're out) and their "model" for success fails miserably....embarassingly so.[/quote]

1, Old people with pre existing medical conditions are greatly at risk. What evidence do you have that younger healthier people are greatly at risk?

So you think I'm a sociopath because I wish to counter what I consider alarmism? I think I'm a realist.

2, Who is causing harm on these boards? I say there is a lot of fear mongering going on, possibly by posters over a certain age? Are these fears justified or just causing more problems?

3, We can't predict where the clusters of infection are going to be next week. But the mortality rate has been greatly exaggerated by some people in high positions who have a responsiblity not to spread misinformation. And what preventative action do you think is realistic if the air pollution and the wind speed and direction is unpredictable?

I don't follow the Baltimore Ravens. Actually, I've never heard of them until now.

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." ― William O. Douglas

Thank You, Brojos for these message boards. We will need LetsRun and your careful rational moderation of the comments more than ever in the coming weeks.

I am telling you as a healthcare provider faced with real time risk that the fear is justified. You are calling it fear mongering b/c it isn't standing in front of you. And you likely haven't had to deal with death in your profession, otherwise you wouldn't be so cavalier. It's either utter ignorance or sociopathy. Pick your poison. Focusing on the age of the people who get it is like saying "hey it's no big deal, only old people get it".

The true mortality rate won't be known for a while...again retrospectively. But so far it's at minimum 1%, higher in some areas, particularly those overwhelmed with patients. Again it's more than mortality rate--need for critical care is much much higher than just about everything else. Younger people are definitely affected--we've seen it in every country. A number of healthcare providers under 60 have gotten it. Many have been critically ill or have died.

fartlekpa wrote:

The true mortality rate won't be known for a while...again retrospectively. But so far it's at minimum 1%, higher in some areas

Oh, BS. Another alarmist who doesn't know how to math. Show me your statistics and how they were calculated. I bet you are another one who didn't pass Statistics 101 and have no idea how to calculate random sampling for populations. I hope you nurse better than you math.

wejo wrote:

The counter argument can easily be made that is not the case. The views that you disagree with on here can be called out. That is the bonus of an open forum. We may get to a better place with people pointing out the errors of others views rather than just letting them stand on their own. On the NY Times comments section if someone points a view you think is detrimental to the public health, you can't really argue with it directly. Here you can.

Society generally gets to a better place with discussion in my view.

I keep going back and forth about this. The problem is that it's so much easier to troll or post disinformation than to write an accurate and thoughtful post about what's happening or why it's disinformation.

The simplest difference between this virus and a normal flu is the effect it's going to have on the population. Unchecked, the coronavirus will quickly overwhelm hospitals and cause a catastrophic number of deaths to people not only suffering from the virus but also seeking standard medical treatment.

The simplest justification for extremely harsh social distancing is that the virus can be passed by asymptomatic individuals, and infections grow at an exponential rate.

Explaining exponential growth (ok, indistinguishable from a sigmoid at the early stages) to people isn't always easy. It doesn't matter how things are now, it matters how things are going to be in the future given the continuation of current behavior.

I have a good friend who is a nurse who was hanging out with friends after work even yesterday. She tells me she's not sick, and I have to remind her that half of all cases are asymptomatic, and that asymptomatics can spread the virus. She says we're both in perfect health, but she smokes, and she gave me a cold a week and a half ago that I'm still getting over. She tells me the odds of her or her friends having it right now are low, and I agree -- but if everyone thinks that way then it will quickly spread well past catastrophic levels. A facebook friend asked if they knew anyone with coronavirus or if this thing is overblown -- but it doesn't matter if it's rare in the population so much as whether it's common enough to be catastrophic for the local hospitals.

How many people need to shout down a crackpot before the messaging is neutralized?

fartlekpa wrote:

Focusing on the age of the people who get it is like saying "hey it's no big deal, only old people get it".

Did you even bother to read my posts? I said most people are likely going to be infected and the total number of deaths are likely going to be over 1 million in the US, maybe well over 1 million.

Show me a containment strategy that is economically feasible? Where is the money supposed to come from to finance these grand plans?

David S wrote:

How many people need to shout down a crackpot before the messaging is neutralized?

So far the only crackpots have been all you end of the world alarmists. When are you going to realize that you are not a god and don't know anything?