upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
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
Carl T. Bergstrom/Twitter

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.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
coronavirus
WellnessTechnologyEducation & Information
Education

Gen Z is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents but Denmark has a solution

"Since the late 1800s, every generation has outperformed their parents."

Gen Z; Millennials; technology; cell phones; social media; teens and technology; teens social media
Photo credit: Canva

Gen Z is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents. Denmark has the solution.

Nearly every parent hopes their child will be better off than they are: smarter, more secure, and more well-adjusted. Many parents see this as a stamp of successful parenting, but something has changed for children growing up today. While younger generations are known for their empathy, their cognitive capabilities seem to be lagging behind those of previous generations for the first time in history.

Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, a teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist who focuses on human learning, appeared before Congress to discuss concerns about cognitive development in children. In his address to the members of Congress, he says, "A sad fact that our generation has to face is this: our kids are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Since we've been standardizing and measuring cognitive development since the late 1800s, every generation has outperformed their parents, and that's exactly what we want. We want sharper kids."

kids, intelligence, sharp kids, generations, education, cognitive abilities Student smiling in a classroom, working on a laptop.Photo credit: Canva

Horvath explains that the reason this happens is that each generation has gone to school longer than the previous generation. Gen Z is no exception to the longer duration of time spent in school, but they're the first ones who aren't meeting this normal increase in cognitive development. According to the cognitive neuroscientist, the decline is due to the introduction of screens in the classroom, which started around 2010.

"Across 80 countries, as Jean was just saying, if you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly. To the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two-thirds of a standard deviation less than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school," Horvath reveals.

In most cases, the decline in performance doesn't result in better strategies. The neuroscientist shares that the standardized testing has been adjusted to accommodate lower expectations and shorter attention spans. This is an approach that educators, scientists, and researchers went to Capitol Hill to express wasn't working. But not every country is taking the approach of lowering standards to meet lowered cognitive ability. Denmark went in the opposite direction when it realized their students were slipping behind.

France24 recently interviewed educators in Denmark following their seemingly novel approach to students struggling with cognitive development. Since the beginning of the 2025/2026 school year, Denmark has not only been having students turn in their cellphones, but they've also taken tablets, laptops, and computers out of the classroom. No more digital learning for the majority of the school day. Danes went old school by bringing back physical textbooks, workbooks, and writing assignments. The results have been undeniable. Even the students can't seem to deny the success of the countrywide shift in educational approach.

"I think the biggest issue has been that, because we kind of got rid of the books and started using screens instead, that we've noticed that a lot of the kids have trouble concentrating, so it's pretty easy to swipe with three fingers over to a different screen and have a video game going, for example, in class," Copenhagen English teacher, Islam Dijab tells France24.

Now, instead of computers being part of every lesson, Denmark uses computers very sparingly and with strict supervision. One student says that it has been nice not having screen time at school because she loves to read and write. But it wasn't just the lack of attention span children were developing, they were also developing low self-esteem and poor mental health due to the amount of time spent on devices.

kids, intelligence, sharp kids, generations, education, cognitive abilities Students focused and ready to learn in the classroom.Photo credit: Canva

The data showing the negative impact of screens on teens' brains has prompted a nationwide change in Denmark that extends outside of the classroom. Afterschool activities are eliminating or extremely limiting electronic use. There is also a national No Phone Day that encourages everyone to put away their devices for the day, and Imran Rashid, a physician and digital health expert, is petitioning parliament to ban social media use for children under the age of 15. The no phone movement in Denmark is a nationwide effort that hopes to right the ship before another generation feels the effects.

From Your Site Articles
teens social media
EducationSchools
Internet

Man visits his empty home and discovers squatters, so he moves in with them

Talk about toxic roomies.

squatters, squatters' rights, homeowner rights, Marco Velazquez, property dispute, Illinois law, moving in with squatters, viral story, real estate nightmare, eviction
Canva

A couple moves boxes into their new home

Picture it: you buy a new home knowing it's a bit of a fixer upper, but it's yours. You're expecting to move in slowly while you work on the house, but when you make your way to your new-to-you home, someone is already living there. Or maybe you're selling a home that's been sitting vacant and when the realtor gets there to show the property, someone has moved in. What do you do?

The logical answer would be to call the police because, clearly, there are intruders in your home who have made it their own. You have all the paperwork showing you own the property so it should be a no brainer. Wrong.

Marco Velazquez had this very situation happen when trying to sell a vacant home that he owns. When he reached out to the local authorities, he was informed that the people who moved into his home unlawfully cannot be forced out.

Under the current law in Illinois where the incident took place, squatters have rights and the police cannot forcibly remove squatters from the home. It's unclear if the squatters were scammed or if they were aware the property was not legally theirs as they presented police officers with mortgage paperwork, but the mortgage company listed did not exist.

squatters, squatters' rights, homeowner rights, Marco Velazquez, property dispute, Illinois law, moving in with squatters, viral story, real estate nightmare, eviction Row of boarded-up homesCanva

No matter how the couple came about living in the home, it wasn't legally theirs. There needed to be a resolution, but they weren't interested in leaving. That's when the homeowner decided to come up with something a little out of the box: Velazquez decided if the people in his home couldn't be removed, they'd be getting a new roommate–him.

"I said I'm not moving out and I said at one point they gotta leave, they gotta get tired of us being in the property. I called a couple of friends to stay overnight and I knew they were not gonna like that," Velazquez says to ABC 7 Chicago.

The homeowner moved in with his wife and several friends, bringing air mattresses and blankets determined to tire out the squatters. However, it quickly became apparent that the illegal tenants were not planning to move out. In actuality, the morning after Velazquez moved in, the squatters demanded he pay them $8,000 for them to move out. While the stunt of moving in with squatters was a Hail Mary, Velazquez knew that the arrangement wasn't safe and heard stories of squatters staying for months.

squatters, squatters' rights, homeowner rights, Marco Velazquez, property dispute, Illinois law, moving in with squatters, viral story, real estate nightmare, eviction A man walks down a alleyCanva

Instead of continuing to wait out the squatters, the man started negotiations with the couple to get them out of his house so it could be sold. He paid the couple $4,300 to leave his home. Shortly after the pair moved out, he learned that the woman had previously been arrested after squatting in someone else's home. Velazquez is hoping that he can also bring charges against the woman and her male partner for squatting in his home.

"We didn't want to give them money but we heard really bad stories about squatters taking over properties six, eight, ten months, even a year," Velazquez says. "I heard stories before about squatters. I never thought it was going to happen to me."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.

From Your Site Articles
InternetPop Culture
Science

Helicopters dump 6,000 logs into rivers in the Pacific Northwest, fixing a decades-old mistake

Forty years ago, restoration workers thought logs were the problem. They were wrong.

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest
Photo credit: Canva

Restoration workers now see how "critical" wood is to the natural habitat.

For decades, river restoration in the Northwestern United States followed a simple rule: if you saw logs in the water, take them out. Clean streams were seen as healthy streams, fast-moving water was seen as optimal, and wood was treated like a "barrier" to natural processes, particularly those of the local fish.

Now, helicopters are flying thousands of tree trunks back into rivers to undo that thinking.

In central Washington, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever attempted in the region is underway. More than 6,000 logs are being placed along roughly 38 kilometers, or 24 miles, of rivers and streams across the Yakama Reservation and surrounding ceded lands.

Nearly 40 years ago, Scott Nicolai was doing the opposite kind of work, all in the name of restoration.

"(Back then) the fish heads — what I call the fisheries folks — we stood on the banks, and we looked at the stream," Nicolai, a Yakama Nation habitat biologist, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "If we saw a big log jam, we thought, 'Oh, that's a barrier to fish. We want the stream to flow.'"

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest Fish find shelter for spawning in the nooks and crannies of wood. Photo credit: Canva

At the time, logs were removed in an effort to simplify the habitat. However, it soon became clear that wood provided vital "complexity," creating sheltered pockets for salmon and bull trout to spawn and supporting algae that feed aquatic insects. Logs also slow water, spread it across floodplains, and allow it to soak into the groundwater. That water is then slowly released back into streams, helping keep them flowing and cooler during hot, dry periods.

The consequences of removing this "critical part of the system" (in addition to overgrazing, railroad construction, and splash dam logging) were made all too clear over the years as the rivers dried up and wildlife populations declined.

"We're trying to learn from our mistakes and find a better way to manage," said Phil Rigdon, director of the Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources.

That's why Nicolai is now helping lead a project for the Yakama Nation aimed at rebuilding river complexity by returning logs to their rightful place. Many of these streams are now unreachable by road, which is why helicopters are used. Logs are flown from staging areas and carefully placed at precise drop locations marked with pink and blue flagging tape.

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest Many of these streams are now unreachable by road, which is why helicopters are used.Photo credit: Canva

The wood comes from forest-thinning projects led by The Nature Conservancy and includes species such as Douglas fir, grand fir, and cedar. Although some of the timber could have been sold, it is instead being used as river infrastructure.

For tribal leaders, the work carries even deeper meaning. During the helicopter flights, they gathered along the Little Naches River for a ceremony and prayer.

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest Tribal leaders gathered by the Little Naches River for a ceremony and prayer.Photo credit: Canva

"It was very simple: to bring what was rightfully part of this land back to us," said former tribal chairman Jerry Meninick.

The aftermath of the original restoration project illustrates how human concepts, such as the belief in the superiority of "cleanliness," can be limited and sometimes cause more harm than good. The miracle of nature, however, is that when left to her own devices, she can heal herself.

From Your Site Articles
animals and wildlife
ScienceConservation
Community

These 4 words can keep a conversation flowing forever no matter how bad you are at small talk

There's literally no way to screw this up.

Couple, talking, coffee, conversation, chatting
Credit: Canva

A couple talking over coffee.

Many people find making small talk to be an excruciating experience. They think it’s boring to talk with a stranger about the weather, sports, or weekend plans. They may also feel like they don’t have anything to contribute to the conversation, or they don’t understand the point of having one in the first place.

However, those who excel at making small talk have a tremendous advantage in their professional and romantic relationships, as well as forming new friendships. Most importantly, small talk is a window to transition into medium talk or, eventually, deep, meaningful conversations. The problem is that many people get stuck in small talk, and things stall before progressing to something beneficial.

conversation, friends, small talk, chatting Two women chatting in front of a fire. Credit: Atlantic Ambience/Pexels

How to get better at small talk

The great thing is that, like anything, making small talk is a skill that we can all improve by learning some simple conversation techniques. One technique that is great for keeping a conversation going, like hitting a ball back and forth past a net in tennis, is a simple statement:

"It reminds me of…”

A Redditor recently shared some great examples of how the phrase can be used to turn a mundane topic, such as the weather, into something much more fun:

Them: "It's been really rainy, huh?"

You:

Option 1 (Personal Story): "Yeah, it reminds me of a time I went on a run in the rain and nearly got hit by a car."

Option 2 (Music / Pop Culture): "It reminds me of every Adele song. When I'm driving, I feel like I'm in a music video."

Option 3 (Family): "It reminds me of my dad, he used to love playing with us in the rain as kids."

Option 4 (Thing you watched / World News): "It reminds me of this documentary I saw where they're trying to make it rain in the Sahara Desert.”

Option 5 (Place you lived): “It reminds me of when I lived in Australia, it barely ever rained there. I actually love this weather.”


- YouTube www.youtube.com

You see in this example that using “It reminds me of…” opened up the conversation to five potential new and more exciting topics. The “You” in the story could have responded with, “Yeah, it sure is rainy,” and the conversation would have ended right there. But instead, branching off the topic of rain into something a bit deeper took the conversation to the next level. You get extra points if you can take the “reminds me of” into a topic that you assume the other person will be interested in.

What’s a polite way to change the topic in a conversation?

Using “this reminds me of…” is also a polite way to move the topics in another direction, especially when it's a topic that you don’t want to discuss or one that makes you feel a bit uncomfortable. Or, if it’s a situation where the other person is monologuing on one topic for a very long time, this makes it easy to transition away from their diatribe.

conversation, small talk, chatting, cafe Two guys chat at a cafe. Credit: Helena Lopes/Pexels

Ultimately, the phrase is an excellent way for you to save the person you’re talking to from being stuck in the small talk rut as well. It shows you understand that when someone brings up the weather, they are merely getting things started with something both of you have in common. They probably don’t want to talk about the weather for 30 minutes, unless they are a meteorologist. “It reminds me of…” is an invitation to go a bit deeper and shows the other person that you’d like to learn more about them.

This article originally appeared in April. It has been updated.


From Your Site Articles
small talk
CommunityJoy
Health

Mastering the simple '90-10 rule' can make a hard life feel a lot more joyous

You have more control over how you feel than you think.

90-10 rule, happiness, life hacks, woman happy, woman angry, blonde woman
via Canva/Photos

A woman is both happy and angry.

In the field of human psychology, there is a popular concept known as the illusion of control, which states that people believe they have greater control over the events in their lives than they do. If you think about it, a lot of our lives are controlled by chance, whether it's our genetics, the families we were born into, the time and place where we were born, and chance encounters that change the trajectory of our lives, such as the moment we met our spouse or someone with a job opportunity.

People who have it good are more likely to attribute their good fortunes to their effort, while those who are having difficulty getting by are more likely to blame bad luck. No matter how we delude ourselves, one thing is certain: many situations we find ourselves in throughout life are out of our control, and our real power lies in our ability to react.

Knowing how to react to situations beyond our control is the crux of the 90-10 rule.

What is the 90-10 rule?

The 90-10 rule, attributed to Stephen Covey in the bestseller “7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” states that 10% of life is made up of what happens to you, and 90% is decided by how you react.

People often explain the 90-10 rule by sharing a story of a mishap at breakfast.

You are having breakfast in business attire, and your young daughter spills coffee on your shirt. You reprimand her and your spouse for putting the cup of coffee too close to the table's ledge. Your daughter gets upset and misses her school bus. So you have to drive her to school, and because you’re speeding, you get a $180 ticket. You arrive at work late, and the day spirals from there. When you get home from work, you have an annoyed wife and child.

Why did you have a bad day?

A) Did the coffee cause it?

B) Did your daughter cause it?

C) Did the policeman cause it?

D) Did you cause it?

The answer is "D".

In an alternative universe, the coffee spills on your shirt, and you forgive your daughter. You change your shirt, your daughter makes the bus, and you get to work five minutes early. Now, instead of having a day that spiraled out of control, taking a moment to see the spilled coffee as an accident changed the entire day.

What happens when people skillfully respond to events out of their control over a long period? Their lives will be completely different than if they chose to take things out of their control personally.

Here are 3 ways to apply the 90-10 rule.

The key is not to take minor inconveniences personally.

1. If someone says something negative about you, do not be a sponge. Let the attack roll off like water off a duck's back. You do not have to let the negative comments affect you.

2. If someone cuts you off in traffic, don’t take it personally; who cares if you get to work 10 seconds later? There's no point in letting it ruin your day.

3. If you get to the airport and find out your flight is delayed, don’t get mad at the person working at the ticket counter. It’s beyond their control. The plane will arrive at some point, whether you get worked up or not.

airport, airplane, happy man airport, luggage, flights, A man walking through the airport.via Canva/Photos

The 90-10 rule mirrors the "Let them" theory championed by Mel Robbins, a podcast host, author, motivational speaker, and former lawyer. The first thing is to acknowledge that others are imperfect and that you cannot change them. “People can only meet you as deeply as they've met themselves. Most people haven't gone to therapy, they haven't looked at their issues, and frankly, they don't want to. Let them. Let your parents be less than what you deserved," Robbins said in a viral video. "Let your family life be something that isn't a fairy tale. Try to remind yourself that they're just doing the best they can with the resources and the life experiences they have."

Remember, you can’t control everything, but you can choose how you react to minor annoyances. Choose to respond in a skillful, thoughtful manner without taking things seriously, and you can quickly get past the minor annoyances without causing the adverse ripple effect that can ruin your entire day.

This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.



From Your Site Articles
psychology
HealthMental Health
Trending Stories