Jump to content
InkaUtexas

DT: COVID-19 - NO POLITICS ALLOWED

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

A $4 mask > no mask. I think the issue folks are having with your stance is they, and I, suspect any "solutions" to the price gouging will result in the "no mask" scenario. Of course we will have defeated price gouging, but if you don't allow for profit off of shortages then you will face more shortages.

 

The shortage is the enemy, the high price a symptom (and, arguably, a cure).

Agreed to an extent, but price gouging is still price gouging.  Raising prices to meet your rising production cost is a completely different thing. 

Here is a seemingly obvious case of gouging.  Some private buyers bought a bunch of masks and are now trying to auction them off

https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/750000-medical-masks-sit-in-houston-warehouse-due-to-price-gouging-allegations/285-4dedce13-a246-406c-9a68-f42cdb6b7cd1

They should be prosecuted by the AG office and I have no issue with that. A manufacturer that has to increase production to meet demand that is selling straight to the medical community while also raising prices to cover increased costs (overtime including maybe even hazard pay, increased transportation cost, increased energy costs) is a comepltely differen thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep trying ...

"Our strategy in these analyses was to fix R0 at some value and analyze how the system dynamics changed when altering the other parameters, providing an opportunity to determine if the information gained from R0 estimates was relevant. We chose R0 = 1.5 as a baseline because it is a value that has been applied to previous influenza pandemics "

@JBJ

Edited by BTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

SIAP

wonder what an “I told you so” from the entire world feels like...

 

Attention seeker who licked toilet seat and joked about getting coronavirus now has coronavirus

 Comment

coronavirus challenge
A young American who licked a toilet seat to take part in the ‘coronavirus challenge’ has reportedly since come down with the disease (Picture: TikTok)
 
Author image
Jacob GeanousWednesday 25 Mar 2020 1:39 pm

A clout-chaser who licked a toilet seat and joked about catching coronavirus has reportedly done just that.

The unidentified youngster gained internet notoriety after he filmed himself putting his mouth on the toilet as part of the ‘coronavirus challenge,’ which has seen people licking objects in the face of the global pandemic. The footage was later posted to TikTok

That person has since reportedly contracted Covid-19, according to Piers Morgan. 

‘You may remember also the other idiot, this is also in America, as part of the coronavirus challenge some morons are doing, went into his local toilet cubicle and licked the bowl,’ Morgan said on Good Morning Britain.

‘I think this called karma – he’s got coronavirus.’ 

coronavirus crisis
The ‘coronavirus challenge’ has seen young people all over the world lick public objects despite the worsening public health crisis (Picture: TikTok)

Health experts have branded the internet challenge to be ‘highly irresponsible’ and said it will lead to the spread of the viral infection. It reportedly began after a woman was filmed licking an airplane toilet seat as someone in the background said, ‘It’s corona time’.......

Darwin....You Da Man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

For the most part, capitalism works okay.  I have a problem with price gouging during a crisis.  You should too.

Ever thought that input commodities may be scarce as well?  that's part of the function of price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hate said:

Agreed to an extent, but price gouging is still price gouging.  Raising prices to meet your rising production cost is a completely different thing. 

Here is a seemingly obvious case of gouging.  Some private buyers bought a bunch of masks and are now trying to auction them off

https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/750000-medical-masks-sit-in-houston-warehouse-due-to-price-gouging-allegations/285-4dedce13-a246-406c-9a68-f42cdb6b7cd1

They should be prosecuted by the AG office and I have no issue with that. A manufacturer that has to increase production to meet demand that is selling straight to the medical community while also raising prices to cover increased costs (overtime including maybe even hazard pay, increased transportation cost, increased energy costs) is a comepltely differen thing. 

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

I don't think fair is the question, but whether it is ethical. Not to mention legal at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

You know it. Somewhere, right now, Dahobbs is shitting himself in agony and wondering if this potentially impacts support for his straight-line assumptions that we're going to see 10,000 deaths per day in the US as of April 10, or, you know, 15 days from now.

Seriously? I couldn't read the FT times link, but here is another article discussing his comments. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

The main thing to note is that the new estimate that the UK will be handle the virus is based on the fact that they went into lock down. It is also based on additional data that "suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected" and as a result they "revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus" to 3 from 2.5. 

I'm more interested in the paper on the model utilized in the Oxford study. It is really interesting. The primary difference between this and prior modeling (and my own assumptions) is that it uses a much lower number for the percentage of the population susceptible to serious illness. I've been wondering myself if there was any model utilizing lower severity assumptions that would match with observed fatalities and timeline. It is nice to know it exists and is a possibility.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

However, Ferguson had some criticism of that model, saying its assumptions on severity weren't consistent with the observed data. Hopefully he is wrong. Hopefully I am wrong.  

I believe that JBJ's model works on a similar framework, so I'd be curious about his take on the above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BTW said:

Keep trying ...

"Our strategy in these analyses was to fix R0 at some value and analyze how the system dynamics changed when altering the other parameters, providing an opportunity to determine if the information gained from R0 estimates was relevant. We chose R0 = 1.5 as a baseline because it is a value that has been applied to previous influenza pandemics "

@JBJ

This help?

https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2020posts/how-scientists-quantify-outbreaks.html

"H1N1 Influenza, 2009    1.46 to 1.48
Seasonal Influenza    2 to 3

On the other hand, the influenza virus is less infectious, with its R0 ranging from 2 to 3. Influenza, therefore, does not cause the same explosive outbreaks as measles, but it persists due to its ability to mutate and evade the human immune system."

Not that it matters because base reproduction rate is only indirectly related to effective reprodution rate which is only indirectly related to transmission rate.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

well look who placed out of ECON 301

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

This help?

https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2020posts/how-scientists-quantify-outbreaks.html

"H1N1 Influenza, 2009    1.46 to 1.48
Seasonal Influenza    2 to 3

On the other hand, the influenza virus is less infectious, with its R0 ranging from 2 to 3. Influenza, therefore, does not cause the same explosive outbreaks as measles, but it persists due to its ability to mutate and evade the human immune system."

Not that it matters because base reproduction rate is only indirectly related to transmission rate.

Is it possible that seasonal influenza is multiple simultaneous strains so the combined R0 is 2-3 but individual strains are under 2.0? Any chance you're both right and we can move on? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Price isn't based on cost.  (Good) pricing is based on value and what someone is willing-to-pay.  Right now people are willing to pay more because the value that masks create is higher.

As to the question of if a price is fair, that's different.  It's fair if the market thinks it's fair and pays the price.

To an extent.  Price is based on cost when input commodities are scarce.  One input commodity is labor.  One input commodity is material.  If both materials and labor are scarce, then prices are higher for a given product.  The marginal utility of the product at a given time is also a factor.  Right now, marginal utility is high, and doing 10-100x the amount of production combined with possible material and labor shortages (labor shortages due to overtime, possibly having to limit the amount of workers on a floor at one time, etc) and you get higher prices.   

 

Could it be gouging?  Naturally.  But I'd imagine as things get ramped up going forward that price curve will drop.   They could also be charging 2 different prices in theory.  They may be charging regular pricing direct to govt agencies and hospital groups but charging an astronomically higher price to the Fondren's of the world to disincentivize them from purchasing a critical product.  

 

But that's just an idea.  It has to be evil capitalists.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Fuck you. Technically what I am speaking about isn't even politics.  Price gouging is happening.  Shortages are happening.  Its a current event and topical.  Your desire for a safe space is going to kill you. Information and pushback against wrong is more important than ever right now.

Nah right back at you. Your intent was to go politics as per your usual antics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Ever thought that input commodities may be scarce as well?  that's part of the function of price

What do believe the inputs are for N95 masks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Don't sweat it, just take care of yourselves and then make up for it big time and cherish all the future trip.s together x100000000.

Yeah, I hear ya.  A little bit selfish on my part as well.  He was coming  back east for several events this Spring, and Summer, hopefully the Summer things go as planned (weddings, bachelor parties)

Edited by Onboard 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

What do believe the inputs are for N95 masks?

Do you not understand that when every country and company in the world is buying up shit to make this as fast as they can that there just might be a short term dearth in material to make it?  You ever seen what happens to gasoline prices during a hurricane?   My God man, this is pretty damn simple economics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nah right back at you. Your intent was to go politics as per your usual antics. 

And your intent was to be a dumb rube who is high as a kite as per your usual antics.  

Price gouging isn't a political topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

methinks that Imperial College London guy and his paper is going to become somewhat infamous

Y'all are seriously misinterpreting statements. He is lowering the total BECAUSE THEY WENT INTO LOCK DOWN. The large numbers from the original paper were based on doing nothing or light measures. Here are the actual estimates from the paper:

  • 550k when doing nothing
  • 120k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing of entire population
  • 71k dead with case isolation, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities
  • 48k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities.

They just went into almost total lock down. Which scenario do you think that lines up with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Do you not understand that when every country and company in the world is buying up shit to make this as fast as they can that there just might be a short term dearth in material to make it?  You ever seen what happens to gasoline prices during a hurricane?   My God man, this is pretty damn simple economics.  

So answer the question. What do you believe the inputs are?

Why do you think gasoline prices rise in NC when a hurricane hits it when there is no associated loss of refining capacity or production?  Demand skyrockets. Same for water. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the imperial model revision, why is nobody focused on his assertion that half of the dead would have died within the next 6 months anyway from something else?  What is the data driving that?

we need real numbers in more places. The more guesses and estimates in the equation, the less accurate it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

With the imperial model revision, why is nobody focused on his assertion that half of the dead would have died within the next 6 months anyway from something else?  What is the data driving that?

we need real numbers in more places. The more guesses and estimates in the equation, the less accurate it is. 

good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

wasnt the Imperial College the one that said 2M dead in US.  now  he is saying UK is likely to have 1/10th of his original estimate?

Since everyone is commenting on this article, can one of you Times subscribers post the actual article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

 

we need real numbers in more places. The more guesses and estimates in the equation, the less accurate it is. 

In order to get that we need more testing data + large scale antibody testing.   Hell in New York alone mass antibody testing could tell us A LOT about this disease.  It's not perfect considering how much more dense it is + public transportation (i.e., you would expect it to spread faster there), but it would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Its hard not to go CR on that, but you do have a manufacturer that has no or few additional input costs, yet is charging many times their normal price for a necessity during a crisis simply because demand is higher.  I'm sure the stock price of the mask manufacturer and its CEO's pay are on the rise.  Capitalism at work.

 

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm not storming any plants.  It used to be $7 for a box of masks.  Now its $4 a mask.  The company isn't even attempting to "mask" the fact that it is gouging on the masks.

But 3M is doubling production to 100 million a month and shifting away from manufacturing masks for industrial purposes, so we will be gouged right into the arms of a new monopoly.

We are in a state of emergency.  This is no time to squeeze additional profits out.

 

The manufacturer, 3M, didn't increase prices.  But some retailers may have been gouging:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/22/masks-ppe-3m-coronavirus/

3M spokeswoman Jennifer Ehrlich said the company “has not changed the prices it charges for 3M respirators as a result of the covid-19 outbreak, but the company cannot control the prices dealers or retailers charge for 3M respirators.” 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/business/3m-ceo-n95-masks-target/index.html

Roman also said 3M is working with federal and state authorities to curb counterfeiting and price gouging of its products and devices, including the masks.

"We are in the process of working with large e-marketplace operators on a coordinated strategy and action plan to identify and remove counterfeiters and price gougers and to refer them to the appropriate law enforcement authorities," Roman wrote in a letter Tuesday to Attorney General William Barr...

 

...Roman also said

Spoiler

roman_milbodyplz.jpg

 

Edited by clapclapclap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Since everyone is commenting on this article, can one of you Times subscribers post the actual article?

 

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Seriously? I couldn't read the FT times link, but here is another article discussing his comments. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

The main thing to note is that the new estimate that the UK will be handle the virus is based on the fact that they went into lock down. It is also based on additional data that "suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected" and as a result they "revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus" to 3 from 2.5. 

I'm more interested in the paper on the model utilized in the Oxford study. It is really interesting. The primary difference between this and prior modeling (and my own assumptions) is that it uses a much lower number for the percentage of the population susceptible to serious illness. I've been wondering myself if there was any model utilizing lower severity assumptions that would match with observed fatalities and timeline. It is nice to know it exists and is a possibility.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

However, Ferguson had some criticism of that model, saying its assumptions on severity weren't consistent with the observed data. Hopefully he is wrong. Hopefully I am wrong.  

I believe that JBJ's model works on a similar framework, so I'd be curious about his take on the above. 

Above, I provided a different article with his comments that isn't behind a pay wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

So answer the question. What do you believe the inputs are?

Why do you think gasoline prices rise in NC when a hurricane hits it when there is no associated loss of refining capacity or production?  Demand skyrockets. Same for water. 

And there's short term supply shortages... WTF are you even trying to argue about.  You're completely ignoring one of the fundamental factors of price.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Y'all are seriously misinterpreting statements. He is lowering the total BECAUSE THEY WENT INTO LOCK DOWN. The large numbers from the original paper were based on doing nothing or light measures. Here are the actual estimates from the paper:

  • 550k when doing nothing
  • 120k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing of entire population
  • 71k dead with case isolation, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities
  • 48k dead with case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, social distancing, and closure of schools and universities.

They just went into almost total lock down. Which scenario do you think that lines up with?

you and I are going to disagree on this but now he's going to less than half of the 48K even though they just went in to almost total lockdown?

my opinion and it is that only, is that he needed to adjust because his first assumption was way off based on what he is seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

you and I are going to disagree on this but now he's going to less than half of the 48K even though they just went in to almost total lockdown?

my opinion and it is that only, is that he needed to adjust because his first assumption was way off based on what he is seeing.

That wasn't his first assumption; it was his second.  His first suggested to go herd immunity as soon as possible and encourage spread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Ever thought that input commodities may be scarce as well?  that's part of the function of price

You're about third person who has pointed that out to him, so I'd like to think that he's thought of that by now, but OTOH, he's still railing against capitalism, so maybe he hasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

You're about third person who has pointed that out to him, so I'd like to think that he's thought of that by now, but OTOH, he's still railing against capitalism, so maybe he hasn't.

Yeah, I know.  Sometimes it's hard to resist  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

That wasn't his first assumption; it was his second.  His first suggested to go herd immunity as soon as possible and encourage spread.

ha.  he's got 3 different shots to be right then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

you and I are going to disagree on this but now he's going to less than half of the 48K even though they just went in to almost total lockdown?

my opinion and it is that only, is that he needed to adjust because his first assumption was way off based on what he is seeing.

I'm not quite sure I understand your question.  Of course you have to revise estimates as new data comes in, but please at least pay attention to what those revisions reflect. 

(1) It appears that their total lock down is actually a more severe action than he originally modeled. It shouldn't be surprising this results in a reduced fatality count.

(2) He revised the R0 from 2.5 to 3 based on new data. This would have also affected his results, although it isn't clear from the article what precisely it did to his model.

 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You're about third person who has pointed that out to him, so I'd like to think that he's thought of that by now, but OTOH, he's still railing against capitalism, so maybe he hasn't.

wait. the mask fairy doesn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not quite sure I understand your question.  Of course you have to revise estimates as new data comes in, but please at least pay attention to what those revisions reflect. 

(1) It appears that their total lock down is actually a more severe action than he originally modeled. It shouldn't be surprising this results in a reduced fatality count.

(2) He revised the R0 from 2.5 to 3 based on data, which would have also affected his results, although it isn't clear from the article what precisely it did to his model.

 

My opinion is that there is a lot of fuzziness/unknown as to what total lockdown means and how someone might model it, how strictly it is adhered to, etc.   there is some reality in what he is doing and I don't think he is being disingenous at all but I do believe he is seeing what others are seeing.  I'll leave it at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Skipper said:

In order to get that we need more testing data + large scale antibody testing.   Hell in New York alone mass antibody testing could tell us A LOT about this disease.  It's not perfect considering how much more dense it is + public transportation (i.e., you would expect it to spread faster there), but it would help.

Or create a good random sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XYZ said:

Or create a good random sample.

I'd like to think the Japan boat was a good random sample as a worst case scenario but then again I don't have any data on the age ratios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to hear 3M hasn't increased its price, although they certainly could and still potentially be completely justified, as I'd be surprised if their marginal costs are not higher for a massive unplanned run, compared to what they would otherwise be.

And it's true that 3M cannot legally tell the various wholesalers, retailers, and distribution channel partners in their downstream sales channels, how to price the masks.  That would be illegal collusion and is strictly forbidden.

So if one or more of those retailers or channel partners are gouging during a national emergency, that's within the purview of the Feds to investigate and prosecute.

 

Edited by utee94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, davidg said:

Yeah but if you end up getting sick the UTHSC is where you want to be if you have a  pulmonary illness.  They know their shit there and have for years.

^^^This.right.here^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

My opinion is that there is a lot of fuzziness/unknown as to what total lockdown means and how someone might model it, how strictly it is adhered to, etc.   there is some reality in what he is doing and I don't think he is being disingenous at all but I do believe he is seeing what others are seeing.  I'll leave it at that.

 

I really don't understand what you're saying, particularly the bold. As opposed to what? 

As to the first part, I can only assume that his modeling for the different scenarios assumes that things like social distancing are actually happening. I'm sure he could adjust it based on an adherence percentage, but I'm not sure how useful that would be. I don't see in the paper the precise details of how he modeled the different scenarios (i.e., what changes were made to reflect "social distancing"). I'm sure that is outlined somewhere, but we only have portions of drafts and not all the underlying documentation. It does say it is an "individual based simulation model," so it appears he modeled down to the individual level. Social distancing would thus prevent the individual agents from getting within 6' (at least outside a household). Quarantine would prevent infected individuals from leaving their household. School closures would prevent gatherings at schools and universities. Basically, imagine it is a really detailed version of sim city.  

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You're about third person who has pointed that out to him, so I'd like to think that he's thought of that by now, but OTOH, he's still railing against capitalism, so maybe he hasn't.

Or you know, you could read clapclapclap's post where manufacturers have not raised prices, but retailers have, and are, in fact, gouging. 

And I continue to be anti-gouging. You guys are giving excuses for a roughly 1000% increase in price. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geez.  NJ just raised their infected total by 50% according to 2 websites.  Over 6800 now.  Hope it's a reporting mistake.

Those 2 states alone have 56% of the countries confirmed cases

 

 

 

And 42% of the deaths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...