upworthy
Wellness

Medical associations 'jointly and emphatically condemn' statements from Bakersfield doctors on lockdown

Medical associations 'jointly and emphatically condemn' statements from Bakersfield doctors on lockdown

Two doctors who run an urgent care clinic in Bakersfield, California have made a viral sensation of themselves by going against the recommendations of experts in epidemiology and advocating for the immediate reopening of the country.

In a video that's been shared widely across social media, Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi claim that, based on their testing numbers at their five clinics in Bakersfield, COVID-19 has a comparable infection and death rate as the seasonal flu. Therefore, they say, lockdowns aren't warranted and should end immediately.


One look at New York or New Jersey's hospitals in recent weeks, or a cursory peek at the stats showing that COVID-19 has killed more Americans than the average flu season just this month alone (54,000 deaths in April so far—flu kills an estimated 12,000 to 61,000 in the U.S. annually), really ought to be enough for people to view these "no worse than the flu" claims with skepticism. But Americans who are struggling with being unable to work or are just tired of staying home have glommed onto these doctors' claims as gospel truth and used them as proof that the response to the pandemic has been overblown.

This seems like a good time to remind people that a dissenting voice should not automatically be convincing just because it says what you want to hear. Not when that voice is weighed against thousands upon thousands of other professional voices—including the vast majority of infectious disease experts who have made this their life's work—who say something different. Not when statisticians and epidemiologists point out the flaws in these doctors' methodology and erroneous conclusions. And not when the professional organizations in these doctors' own field call them out for misinformation.

In a joint statement, the nation's two largest emergency medicine associations have roundly condemned Drs. Erickon and Massihi's "reckless and untested musings":

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. 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.

COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.

You can choose what professional medical associations made up of tens of thousands of physicians say, or you can believe two random doctors from Bakersfield. (Or any of a handful of dissenting voices on the internet—do not @ me with your YouTube "research," please.) Or you could recognize that in the modern scientific era, a majority consensus in specific areas of expertise is where you should place your bets.

We aren't living in the time of Galileo, where a lone scientific voice tried to break through and was punished for it. Science has evolved, as has the methodology for determining what's legitimate and what's not. We live in a time where lone dissenters in science are either 1) innovative pioneers whose work is checked, verified, and added to the body of knowledge, or 2) quacks or hacks whose work is debunked or discredited for not being scientifically sound.

But let's say you're convinced these doctors are onto something with their data. They do sound quite scientific and doctory, after all, and you've heard that a few other (notably preliminary, non-peer-reviewed) studies have come to similar conclusions.

Carl Bergstrom, a professor of biology at University of Washington, explained in a detailed Twitter thread why the data extrapolation from the two doctors doesn't make sense.

Bergstrom wrote:

"Unfortunately the misleading claims of those two doctors in Bakersfield keep making the rounds, so I want to very briefly address the problem with what they are saying. I won't get into their possible motives, past political activity, etc.

What they did was simple: they looked at the fraction of patients who tested positive for #COVID19 at the clinics they own. They found 340 out of 5213 tests were positive, about 6.6% Then they assume the same fraction of the whole population are infected.

From there, they scale up to the state level and claim 12% incidence statewide. The news story says it is using the same calculation, but it can't be—how did they get from 6.6% to 12%? Perhaps they estimating infected *ever* versus infected *currently*. It's not clear.

Using that 12% infected figure, and a known 1400 deaths in California, they assume 1400 out of 4.7 million have died. That gives them an infection fatality rate of 0.03%. That is, they think that if 10,000 are infected, 3 will die on average.

The problem with this approach is that during a pandemic, the people who come into an urgent care clinic are not a random sample of the population. A large fraction of them are coming in precisely because they suspect that they have the disease. This generates sampling bias.

Estimating that fraction infected from patients at an urgent care facility is a bit like estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court. It's not a random sample, and it gives a highly biased estimate.

Moreover the estimate does not pass even a basic plausibility check.

In New York City, 12,067 people are known to have died from the virus, out of a population of 8.4 million.

This is a rate of 0.14% of all people. Not just infected people. All people. That gives us a lower bound on the death rate in New York. Not an estimate, a lower bound.

The death rate for infected people is obviously higher than 0.14%, because not everyone in New York has been infected. And yet that 0.14% lower bound is nearly *five times as high* as the 0.03% that the Bakersfield duo are claiming. They've used absurd methodology to arrive at an implausible number.

If the pandemic were not so severely politicized, this would be a non-issue from the start."

The comparisons to the flu really need to stop. No flu season has had 54,000 confirmed cases in a month. No flu season has resulted in refrigerator trucks being backed into loading docks at hospitals to have a place to put the deceased.

When people say, "We don't shut down the country for the flu," well, yeah. Exactly. Because this isn't the flu. Even if COVID-19 did have a similar infection and mortality rate as the flu, we don't have a vaccine and we don't have a proven treatment for this virus.

And the vast majority of people who study infectious disease and pandemics full-time have come to the same conclusions—not just in the U.S., but worldwide. That's why the vast majority of countries around the world have gone on lockdowns. And those that did so early and began testing and contact tracing early have managed to contain their outbreaks. Even here at home, with the far higher death count than anywhere else in the world, we've managed to start flattening the curve with our mitigation lockdown measures.

Obviously, no one thinks we can stay as stringently locked down as we've been until we get a vaccine. We do need to get the economy moving again—but when it's safer to do so than now. We haven't even had a drop off in cases and deaths yet as a nation. Many states are opening up weeks too early, according to the best modeling available. Literally just weeks, but weeks in a pandemic can make or break an outbreak.

There's much that we're still figuring out about this virus, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. Years of planning and simulations and studying outbreaks and disease around the world have led to the responses we've seen around the world. It's not for "the average flu." It's not some nefarious plot to steal people's freedom. It's an attempt to save as many lives as we can from a disease we can't control and can't treat.

We've made economic sacrifices to do so, absolutely. And if we open up too early, we'll just have to do it all over again, and the sacrifices we've made so far will be for naught.

That's the resounding message from infectious disease experts around the world, no matter what two random doctors in Bakersfield say.

@callmebelly/TikTok

An excellent reminder to show kindness and patience.

Listening to a baby cry during a flight might be aggravating, but it’s nothing compared to the moans, groans, and eyerolls that the baby's parents must endure from other passengers when it happens. No matter what tips and tricks are used to try to soothe a little one’s temperament while 30,000 miles in the air, crying is almost inevitable. So, while having to ease their own child’s anxiety, moms and dads also must suffer being the pariah of the trip. What a nightmare.

Recently, one mom was apparently trying so hard to avoid upsetting her fellow flight members that she went above and beyond to essentially apologize ahead of time if her baby began to cry on its first flight. It was a gesture that, while thoughtful, had folks really feeling for how stressed that poor mom must be.

In a clip posted to his TikTok, one of the passengers—Elliot—explained that the mom handed out small care packages to those nearby.

“She’s already so busy and took the time to make these bags for everyone,” Elliot said, before panning the camera to reveal a Ziplock bag full of candy, along with a note that made him “want to cry.”

The note read: “It’s my first flight. I made a deal to be on my best behaviour—but I can’t make any guarantees. I might cry if I get scared or if my ears start to hurt. Here are some treats to make your flight enjoyable. Thank you for being patient with us. Have a great flight.”

Like Elliot, those who watched the video felt some ambivalence at the well intentioned act. Many felt remorse that she would feel the need to appease people in this way.

“This is so sweet but also … kind of breaks my heart that we live in a world in which parents feel the need to do that.”

“Because jerk people have shamed parents into believing that they need to apologize for their kids' absolutely normal behavior. What a gem of a mom.”

“You know that sweet mom worried about this trip so much.”

“That poor mom probably spent nights awake … nervous about that flight, thinking of ways to keep strangers happy.”

"That's a mom trying so hard."

Many rallied behind the mom, arguing that making others feel more comfortable with her child being on board was in no way her responsibility.

“No mom should be apologizing. Adults can control their emotions … babies not …. Hugging this mom from a distance.”

“Dear new parents: no you don’t have to do this. Your babies have the right to exist. We all know babies cry. We know you try your best.”

Luckily, there are just as many stories of fellow passengers being completely compassionate towards parents with small children—from simply choosing to throw on their headphones during a tantrum (instead of throwing one themselves) to going out of their way to comfort a baby (and taking the load of a parent in the process). These little acts of kindness make more of an impact than we probably realize. Perhaps if we incorporated more of this “it takes a village” mindset, flying could be a little bit more pleasant for everyone involved.

@amberandjoshofficial/TikTok, Photo credit: Canva

Other parents had no idea this was a "universal experience."

Parenting looks astronomically different than it did when we were kids, and we know one of the major culprits of that is technology. Back in the day, there was no such thing as a “tablet kid,” there wasn’t an app that tracked a kid’s every move, you couldn’t get answers to your burning parenting questions from endless online forms and parent groups. Twas a different time, indeed.

Of course, these modern day conveniences have all kinds of pros and cons attached to them, as one dad, Josh (@amberandjoshofficial) demonstrated in a now-viral video posted to his TikTok. In the video, we see him try—and fail—to use the age-old parenting saying that’s always bought them juuuuust a little more time from demanding kiddos, otherwise known as “just a minute.”

That is, until now. Turns out, in the age of Alexa, “just a minute” doesn’t cut it. Because kids can and will be using that robot against you, just like his own daughter did. Poor Josh was just trying to finish washing the dishes before getting the glass of milk she requested. But unfortunately for him, as soon as he replied with “just a minute,” she immediately asked Alexa to “set the timer.” Ruthless.

“Accountability has never been higher," Josh wrote in his caption. And other parents who watched the video couldn’t help but agree.

“I had no idea this was a universal experience 😂”

“No this is literally verbatim my life 😂😂😂”

"Oh so it’s not just our house. It’s relieving and also scary to know we’re not alone 😂”

“Haha this is so accurate. I’ve had the conversation with my kids that it’s a figure of speech – they still do it 😂”

“NOT MY ALEXA RESPONDING WHILE I WATCHED THIS VIDEO”

A few fellow parents chimed in with some lighthearted “tips,” such as explaining that “one minute is more of a vibe than a unit of time,” or swapping it for “one more moment” instead.

Another suggested that he “keep that same energy when they want more time on their game.”

And hey, maybe higher accountability isn’t totally a bad thing. It didn’t exactly instill trust when our parents stretched “just a minute” into eternity, especially when it turned into not actually doing what they said they would.

That's apparently not the only way Alexa has potentially helped parents, either. A study conducted by Kantar for Amazon found that 95% of parents agreed that having Alexa at home has helped reduce screen time, while another 90% felt Alexa helped their kids stay mentally active, learn new things, and become more independent. As with all technology, it can be easy to develop too much of a reliance on this gadget, but (when used responsibly) there are some definitive perks, it seems.

So there you have it, folks. Let’s just chalk it up to being more thing that’s a relic of a bygone era. But hey, change is the only constant, right?

By the way, Josh and his wife Amber have even more wholesome and fun family content where that came from on their TikTok. Check it out here.

@cosmo_andtheoddparents/TikTok

He wuvs his vet.

Not every dog might jump with joy after seeing their vet out in public. But for Cosmo the Golden Retriever, it was practically Christmas all over again when he spotted his own vet, Dr. Jones, at a brewery.

In an adorable clip posted to TikTok, we see Cosmo in pure, unadulterated bliss as he snuggles with an equally happy Dr. Jones, who, considering he’s still in his scrubs, might have just gotten out of work to grab a quick pint.

Watch:

Ugh, the cuteness is too much to handle! People in the comments could barely contain their secondhand joy.

“He looked over like, “Mom, do you see who this is?” one person wrote, while another said, “What in the Hallmark movie? Adorable!!”

One person even joked, “Did we all check the vet’s hand for a wedding ring? (Said as a married woman. Looking out for you all, or something.)”

According to Hannah Dweikat, Cosmo’s owner, the two actually share quite a history. She tells Upworthy that when Cosmo was but a wee pup, he “gave a scare” after eating a Sago Palm seed, which are highly toxic to dogs, from a plant in their backyard, which of course resulted in him being rushed to the animal hospital and staying there over the weekend.

While that’s every pet owner’s worst nightmare, and certainly a scary situation for the poor fur baby, Dweikat says that “the calm and patient demeanor” of Dr. Jones and his staff put Cosmo at ease. And because of this, “Cosmo has always loved going to see his friends—especially because they give him lots of treats and snuggles.”

Cosmo and Dr. Jones’ buddyship has also blossomed thanks to proximity, as Dweikat only lives down the street from the clinic. “Which means we get to see Dr. Jones and his staff out in public at times and Cosmo takes every chance he can get to say hi,” she explains. This time, however, she was able to capture it all on video. Yay for us!

What makes a good vet?

While not every vet, however gifted, will be able to elicit this type of reaction from their patients, having a calming presence like Dr. Jones is certainly a good sign for pet owners to be on the lookout for when shopping around for their own vet. But that’s not the only quality a good vet needs. According to Saint Matthews University, a vet also needs to have high stamina (both physically and mentally), as well as an ability to tolerate unpleasant situations (you can’t faint at the sight of blood or vomit), a high level of emotional intelligence (maybe all doctors should possess this skill, but especially those who work with animals), adaptability, a sense of enthusiasm, and finally, excellent communication skills.

Dr. Jones seems to have these attributes in spades, and his patients clearly love him for it. None so much as Cosmo, obviously.

By the way, if you’re in need of even more content featuring this precious pup, you can follow Cosmo on both TikTok and Instagram.

A curious sign in the Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport.

A brilliant LGBTQ rights advocate in Texas found a clever way to skewer the state’s anti-trans politicians by creating a fake sign stating that the state government was verifying people’s genitals through AI. The signs were posted in bathrooms at the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. The prank was a great way to show travelers that when trans rights are under fire, everyone's rights are, too.

The signs look precisely like a government warning and infer that the toilet's flushing sensor holds some device to photograph bathroom user’s genitals. Taking pictures of someone’s genitals is a massive violation of people’s privacy, but if the state wants to monitor if trans people are using the bathroom, how else could it tell?


The prank warning sign has a phone number for people to call to have their photos removed from the database, and it goes to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's office. Back in 2016 and 2017, Patrick pushed for a law that would limit transgender people's ability to use the bathroom that matches their identity.

Here's what the prank sign reads:

Electronic Genital Verification (EGV)

Your genitalia may be photographed electronically during your use of this facility as part of the Electronic Genital Verification (EGV) pilot program at the direction of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. In the future, EGV will help keep Texans safe while protecting your privacy by screening for potentially improper restroom access using machine vision and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in lieu of traditional genital inspections.

At this time, images collected will be used solely for model training purposes and will not be used for law enforcement or shared with entities except as pursuant to a subpoena, court order or as otherwise compelled by a legal process.
Your participation in this program is voluntary.

You have the right to request removal of your data by calling the EGV program office at (512) 463-0001 during normal operating hours (Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM).

Michael Dear, a security camera expert, posted about encountering one of the signs at the airport.


The prank even caught the attention of the DFW airport. “This is not a DFW-produced or authorized sign, and we have no information about its origins,” DFW media relations manager Cynthia Vega told Snopes. “However, we are investigating to ensure that none is posted, and we will remove any unauthorized signs if found.”

The idea of the government inspecting its citizen's genitals seems outlandish and totalitarian. However, a bill that made it through the Ohio State House of Representatives in June 2022 calls for just that. The bill would have required high school athletes to prove their gender by submitting to intrusive inspections of their genitalia and other invasive tests. Although the bill was never signed into law, it begs the question: What poses a more significant threat to high schoolers, transgender female athletes (less than 100 people nationwide), or statewide government genital inspections?

Sometimes, the best way to expose hysteria is not to shout back even louder but to encourage everyone to laugh at it. Kudos to the creator of the genital verification prank for using humor to make an essential point about privacy.

Image credits: Public domain (left) Zoran Veselinovic (right)

There's nothing like a power key change to take a song to the next level.

Music affects us emotionally and psychologically in so many ways. A minor key can make us sad and wistful, a dissonant chord can trigger fear, and a joyful, jaunty tune can pull us out of a funk. But a musical device that used to be a staple in pop music has largely fallen by the wayside, much to the dismay of everyone who's ever raised a finger to the sky when Whitney Houston belted out, "Don't…make…me…CLOOOOSE one more doooor."

That's right. The power key change. Bon Jovi did it in "Livin' on a Prayer," Michael Jackson in "Man in the Mirror," and Celine Dion in "My Heart Will Go On." Taking a verse or a chorus up a notch by modulating the key was a way for pop stars to give their songs extra oomph for decades. We loved it because it made us feel things. And some of us are realizing just how much we miss the chills and thrills those modulations gave us.

Self-proclaimed "geriatric millennial" Chrissy Allen posted an impassioned plea to "bring back key changes" with examples from popular songs of the 80s and 90s, and it's resonating with those who remember.

Her movements are so familiar and people in the comments felt it in their bones.

"Ah yes! The classic last chorus modulation (or if you're Michael Jackson, like 8x). Expected and unexpected all at once."

"Key changes make you feel like life is worth it, the future is bright and nothing is going to stop your fearless heart! Such a dopamine boost 🔥 Other songs can't compete with that."

"This is pure dopamine. Like, just the good stuff, all lean no fat, pharmaceutical grade brain chemicals. 🤌🏽"

"If there is no key change, when do they stand up from their stool?"

"And the beat dropping WITH the key change is the *chef’s kiss*"

"Total goosebumps the whole time."

For real, though. Watch Whitney pull this key change out of her hat and see if it doesn't give you goosebumps.

Whitney Houston's key change in "I Have Nothing" is legendary.youtu.be

It's not that nobody does the key change anymore, but it's definitely fallen out of favor. As Chris Dalla Riva writes in Tedium, "The act of shifting a song’s key up either a half step or a whole step (i.e. one or two notes on the keyboard) near the end of the song, was the most popular key change for decades. In fact, 52 percent of key changes found in number one hits between 1958 and 1990 employ this change. You can hear it on “My Girl,” “I Wanna Dance With Somebody,” and “Livin’ on a Prayer,” among many others."

But something happened in the 90s that shifted musicians away from key changes. The rise of Hip-Hop music, which Riva explains "focuses more on rhythms and lyricism than on melody and harmony," was one change. Another was the way music is written, recorded, and produced. Computer programs have fundamentally changed the way music is made, and those changes don't lend themselves to changing a key mid-song.

Riva gives an example:

"Imagine that I’m Sting and I sit down to write a song in the early ’80s for my group The Police. While composing, it’s likely that I’ll work linearly. What this means is I’ll write section-by-section. First, I’ll write a verse, then a chorus, then another verse, and so on. One way to create intrigue as I get to a new section is to change something. Maybe the lyrics. Maybe the melody. Or maybe the key.

"Every Breath You Take" changes key at the bridge.youtu.be

On “Every Breath You Take,” Sting does the third. Most of the song is built around a laid back groove in Ab major, but then on the bridge, the energy kicks up as the song shifts to the key of B major. Because songwriters in the pre-digital age were writing linearly, shifting the key in a new section was a natural compositional technique.

"But in the computer age, this linear style doesn’t make as much sense." Riva explains that "digital recording software generally encourages a vertical rather than linear songwriting approach."

Some people say the key change is for singers who can actually sing as they lament the popularity of autotune technology. But there are some genuinely incredible singers in this day and age. We cannot live in the era of Kelly Clarkson and Pink and Ariana Grande and complain about a loss of singing ability. Maybe those pop divas will join the movement to bring key changes back in full force. We need those dopamine hits now more than ever.