Jump to content
Axiom of Choice

Coronavirus - discussion of what ifs and hypotheticals

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I wasn't trying to be snide.  I thought you simply did not read in detail what I wrote.  I still think that.  You've made several post hoc changes in an effort to justify faulty claims.  What is the polite why to point out that none of them are believable?  For example:

  • You claim 78,000 will die given certain assumptions with a given infection rate, I point out that given those assumptions the total number of deaths will be around 30,000.  Your response - ok, just triple the infection rate then.  This is obviously a sloppy post hoc change to get the number you already claimed.  
  • I say you are not reading my posts and give as evidence the fact that I referenced a study and you then referenced it back to me after a few exchanges.  In the post that I referenced the study originally, I gave information that came from the table within the full study that is not available in the abstract.  Your response - I was trying to be polite to make sure you were looking at the data in the report and not merely reading the abstract. 
  • You claim that you have seen no evidence at all that shows an IFR below 1%.  However, there are multiple claims linked & posted in this thread from professional epidemiologists based on extrapolations from data that give IFRs well below 1%.  Even the study you linked, the one you claimed you linked out of politeness to make sure that I was looking at the data, states "we obtain an overall IFR estimate for China of 0.66%." Your response - I did in fact see all of this evidence, i just reject it.  

The reason there is no point in continuing the discussion is because no progress can be made due to post hoc changes and goal post moving.   April 15 will come, the US will be no where near 50,000 deaths from CV, and my guess is that the goal posts will be moved and victory claimed.  

What? I really don't understand this post. 

  • You claim 78,000 will die given certain assumptions with a given infection rate, I point out that given those assumptions the total number of deaths will be around 30,000.  Your response - ok, just triple the infection rate then.  This is obviously a sloppy post hoc change to get the number you already claimed.  I don't think I did that? I admitted I had an error in my chart. You were correct in so far as predicted fatality count under those assumptions for the younger age groups. I did suggest that your  assumption on # of infected was low. That isn't an post hoc change on my part. My assumption has always been 50%-70% exposure in population groups that aren't restricted. 
  • I say you are not reading my posts and give as evidence the fact that I referenced a study and you then referenced it back to me after a few exchanges.  In the post that I referenced the study originally, I gave information that came from the table within the full study that is not available in the abstract.  Your response - I was trying to be polite to make sure you were looking at the data in the report and not merely reading the abstract. I guess I didn't catch that you provided anything not from the abstract. I'm not sure that really matters though. Is it offensive to include the link to whole study for some reason? I even explicitly said in my original post that the link went to the fully study and contained the methodology portion. I don't understand your issue here. 
  • You claim that you have seen no evidence at all that shows an IFR below 1%.  However, there are multiple claims linked & posted in this thread from professional epidemiologists based on extrapolations from data that give IFRs well below 1%.  Even the study you linked, the one you claimed you linked out of politeness to make sure that I was looking at the data, states "we obtain an overall IFR estimate for China of 0.66%." Your response - I did in fact see all of this evidence, i just reject it.  I provided you an analysis of the evidence you presented. Again, you claimed that I was using outlier data. You haven't supported that assertion. But, I suppose you are correct that some evidence exists and I overstated things. My apologies.

As to me claiming victory. . . see, again, it seems to me that you're taking this personal. This is a discussion, not a competition. I've said multiple times that I actually agree with the strategy you suggested in your original post. I just want to do it after we have more data and have this better contained. Why the hostility? 

I hope you are right. I hope that our actions have been enough. I can't say that enough. I feel that I've been very consistent in my position in this thread. But, you're right, there appears to be no point in continuing a dialogue with you. 

Share this post


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

Hypothetical, could a city or hospital begin rejecting patients If they are outside an agreed upon radius from the location? The hospitals are going to be slammed with patients from the city so why should rural or suburban patients get priority when their town leaders did nothing to promote expansion of those resources in their area.

Why should urban patients get priority given that their proximity to each other exacerbates the spread of the virus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lobwedgephil said:

He didn't say 20k deaths, he said unlikely to be higher and could be much lower. But you can keep saying the U.S. is going to have 10-50k deaths a day from this. 

 

 

I said that 50k deaths by the end of April is good possibility based on our delayed actions. I've said that we may reach 10k dead a day near the peak based on our current actions. I've said if we had done nothing, the Imperial College Report had us peaking at 55k dead a day. I don't believe that will happen now because of the various efforts made by local communities around the country.  

The thing about exponential growth curves, particularly ones that double in 3 or 4 days, is that just a couple of days makes a huge difference in our trajectory. If we had done a nation wide shut down, particularly, had we done one sooner, we could have contained this to a thousand dead or less. I don't know how it'll play out now; I'm just providing projections based on the information I have. I have provided my assumptions, and explained and supported them with evidence. I don't care about being right. I'd prefer not to be. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Why should urban patients get priority given that their proximity to each other exacerbates the spread of the virus?

 Not just urban necessarily. I feel like if I was in NY and I got the sniffles I might consider driving to Boston Or Philadelphia or, hell, anywhere but the tri-state area. I can’t imagine there aren’t people currently in NYC with means thinking the same thing. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

 It just urban necessarily. I feel like if I was in NY and I got the sniffles I might consider driving to Boston Or Philadelphia or, hell, anywhere but the tri-state area. 

Don’t ruin my facetious response with a serious answer!

Share this post


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

What? I really don't understand this post. 

  • You claim 78,000 will die given certain assumptions with a given infection rate, I point out that given those assumptions the total number of deaths will be around 30,000.  Your response - ok, just triple the infection rate then.  This is obviously a sloppy post hoc change to get the number you already claimed.  I don't think I did that? I admitted I had an error in my chart. You were correct in so far as predicted fatality count under those assumptions for the younger age groups. I did suggest that your  assumption on # of infected was low. That isn't an post hoc change on my part. My assumption has always been 50%-70% exposure in population groups that aren't restricted. 
  • I say you are not reading my posts and give as evidence the fact that I referenced a study and you then referenced it back to me after a few exchanges.  In the post that I referenced the study originally, I gave information that came from the table within the full study that is not available in the abstract.  Your response - I was trying to be polite to make sure you were looking at the data in the report and not merely reading the abstract. I guess I didn't catch that you provided anything not from the abstract. I'm not sure that really matters though. Is it offensive to include the link to whole study for some reason? I even explicitly said in my original post that the link went to the fully study and contained the methodology portion. I don't understand your issue here. 
  • You claim that you have seen no evidence at all that shows an IFR below 1%.  However, there are multiple claims linked & posted in this thread from professional epidemiologists based on extrapolations from data that give IFRs well below 1%.  Even the study you linked, the one you claimed you linked out of politeness to make sure that I was looking at the data, states "we obtain an overall IFR estimate for China of 0.66%." Your response - I did in fact see all of this evidence, i just reject it.  I provided you an analysis of the evidence you presented. Again, you claimed that I was using outlier data. You haven't supported that assertion. But, I suppose you are correct that some evidence exists and I overstated things. My apologies.

As to me claiming victory. . . see, again, it seems to me that you're taking this personal. This is a discussion, not a competition. I've said multiple times that I actually agree with the strategy you suggested in your original post. I just want to do it after we have more data and have this better contained. Why the hostility? 

I hope you are right. I hope that our actions have been enough. I can't say that enough. I feel that I've been very consistent in my position in this thread. But, you're right, there appears to be no point in continuing a dialogue with you. 

It can be difficult to not come across as hostile or taking things personally in text only debates.   I don't feel any hostility towards you nor anyone else.  We are all just trying to make sense of the situation by posting points and counter points as we see them with strangers on the internet, probably while stuck on long, dry conference calls.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Why should urban patients get priority given that their proximity to each other exacerbates the spread of the virus?

Hey it can go the other way around too, ha. City ppl rushing to the sticks to get away from high population, even people going from Austin to San Antonio (or Dallas to Fort Worth). I’m just picturing a response in a couple weeks where if it gets as bad as it’s projected and people are searching for the best care available. City dwellers (like me) rightfully or wrongly, saying my taxes pay for this hospital, why do these freeloaders get to come in here and take advantage. They knew what they were getting into when they moved to the sticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 11:17 AM, Brisketexan said:

 

With the holy grail continuing to be a vaccine.  Is it a dream to have a vaccine ready and actually deployed sometime this fall?  Maybe.  But it's a good dream.

We would love that but I don't see how it's possible with the threat of immune enhancement of the vaccine isn't made just right. That process usually takes years. Maybe they can safely rush in 18 months but I don't see any way it can be done properly in 6 months. 

They have to be extra cautious with this one because of the recent anti-vaccine sentiment. Rushing this and fucking it up where immune enhancement takes place and more people start dying because of the vaccine and all of a sudden you've damaged the reputation further for a lot of the ignorant masses who don't understand how this works and believe the anti-vax propaganda. Then more people refuse to vaccinate their kids and we start having polio outbreaks again. 

Unfortunately I think this is just a significant threat we will have to go about our every day lives living with for at least 24 months. Call it the penalty for being a country full of stupid mother fuckers who chose to be led by a reality tv game show host. 

Share this post


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

 Not just urban necessarily. I feel like if I was in NY and I got the sniffles I might consider driving to Boston Or Philadelphia or, hell, anywhere but the tri-state area. I can’t imagine there aren’t people currently in NYC with means thinking the same thing. 

Everybody in NYC with means flew to the Caribbean already

Share this post


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

Everybody in NYC with means flew to the Caribbean already

Of course, enough Bacardi 151 will kill the virus.  

Share this post


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

We would love that but I don't see how it's possible with the threat of immune enhancement of the vaccine isn't made just right. That process usually takes years. Maybe they can safely rush in 18 months but I don't see any way it can be done properly in 6 months. 

They have to be extra cautious with this one because of the recent anti-vaccine sentiment. Rushing this and fucking it up where immune enhancement takes place and more people start dying because of the vaccine and all of a sudden you've damaged the reputation further for a lot of the ignorant masses who don't understand how this works and believe the anti-vax propaganda. Then more people refuse to vaccinate their kids and we start having polio outbreaks again. 

Unfortunately I think this is just a significant threat we will have to go about our every day lives living with for at least 24 months. Call it the penalty for being a country full of stupid mother fuckers who chose to be led by a reality tv game show host. 

Why would the world pay a price for America electing a reality tv host in the form of a global pandemic  and why are you talking mother fucking politics on the Daily Texan board? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just adding this here from Neil Ferguson since it came up. He says exactly what I was saying above:

24 minutes ago, Loco said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Italy has had the largest impact in terms of total number of deaths from CV, and today's total looks like it will be the highest they've recorded.  But on some positive news, the rate of deaths has slowed considerably from unabated projections.  Most projections showed doubling every 3-4 days, but going back to March 15, Italy is nowhere near even the slower doubling every four day rate.  In order to achieve doubling every four days, the daily amount should increase by ratio of 2^1/4 (about 1.19) day over day.  Italy is averaging much lower than that since March 15.

  deaths/day, Italy
15-Mar 368
16-Mar 349
17-Mar 345
18-Mar 475
19-Mar 427
20-Mar 627
21-Mar 793
22-Mar 651
23-Mar 601
24-Mar 743
25-Mar 683
26-Mar 712

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

Even with the high death toll expected for today, it will likely only be around one-third as much as predicted by doubling every four days since March 15.  More data should come out to give some explanation for why the slower rate than predicted; of course, it seems likely quarantine & lock down will be a contributing factor.  However, all of Italy did not go into lock down until March 9 (although Lombardy and other parts of Italy implemented restrictions earlier than this) and death rate should lag case rate by a few weeks, so there may be factors involved other than solely isolation measures.  

 

 

Edited by Axiom of Choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

This site is interesting. It contains projections put together by  Christopher J.L. Murray, MD, DPhil, Chair and Professor of Health Metrics Sciences and Director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington. 

Quote

 

This study used data on confirmed COVID-19 deaths by day from WHO websites and local and national governments; data on hospital capacity and utilization for US states; and observed COVID-19 utilization data from select locations to develop a statistical model forecasting deaths and hospital utilization against capacity by state for the US over the next 4 months.

He has us peaking at 2,341 deaths per day in mid-April and at 59,000 deaths by the end of April. Note, this is a projection based on our current actions (e.g., shelter-in-place). He has it broken up by state. He has the outbreak slowing to a trickle in August, with the US totaling 81,000 deaths.  Unfortunately, we've been outpacing the projected deaths by a decent amount (either at the top end of his range or just above it). The full total range listed is between 38,000 and 162,000 total deaths. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

2,000 deaths per day seems within reach at this point. We're at 500 per day now and I assume death numbers trail new cases by 7-10 days.  New cases are more than 4x over the last 10 days, so you would think that we could potentially see 2K deaths per day in less than 2 weeks.

Unknowns:

  • NY appears to be flattening their new case curve somewhat which may overly impact the national curve. It will be important to see the national curve with NY and perhaps WA out of the picture. If national curve rises dramatically, then who knows.
  • Perhaps the death rate will continue to drop as we identify more positives with little to mild cases. Let's hope.
  • IF hospitals reach over-capacity or more elderly care centers get infected, who knows how that would raise the death rates.
Edited by Nice Guy Eddie

Share this post


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

I highly doubt we get to 50,000 deaths before mid April ( @Dahobbs original prediction), but think we do exceed @crimsonlonghorn's prediction of 50,000 deaths by 12/31/20.  

Mid-april seems like a stretch to get to 50K deaths.  That would a daily growth of deaths by 16%, give or take.  500 yesterday, 580 today, 670 on Monday and so on.  But a sustained daily death count growth of 6% will get us to 50K by April 30th.  That seems within possibility especially if hospitals get packed.

Share this post


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

I highly doubt we get to 50,000 deaths before mid April ( @Dahobbs original prediction), but think we do exceed @crimsonlonghorn's prediction of 50,000 deaths by 12/31/20.  

We are ahead of schedule. I had us at 254 on the 26th. We hit 268. I had us at 320 on the 27th. We hit 400. I had us at 400 on the 28th. We hit 500+.  Even if our average daily increase drops from 26% to 16%, we'll still hit 50,000k by the 15. If by the end of today we exceed 2,700 total deaths, we'll still be on pace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

2,000 deaths per day seems within reach at this point. We're at 500 per day now and I assume death numbers trail new cases by 7-10 days.  New cases are more than 4x over the last 10 days, so you would think that we could potentially see 2K deaths per day in less than 2 weeks.

Unknowns:

  • NY appears to be flattening their new case curve somewhat which may overly impact the national curve. It will be important to see the national curve with NY and perhaps WA out of the picture. If national curve rises dramatically, then who knows.
  • Perhaps the death rate will continue to drop as we identify more positives with little to mild cases. Let's hope.
  • IF hospitals reach over-capacity or more elderly care centers get infected, who knows how that would raise the death rates.

CFR has actually been increasing the last 4 days or so. We were at 1.5%. We are now at 1.8%. Not that I think CFR especially matters at this point. Even if the eventually IFR ends up being the same as flu (which it will not be) at .1%, the problem we have is how quickly it spreads. Having all our flu deaths for a year hit in one month would still be a problem for the healthcare system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston saw its number of confirmed COVID-19 cases more than triple Saturday, ballooning from 69 to 232 as testing revealed more cases, but Mayor Sylvester Turner warned that efforts to further increase testing have been stymied by the federal government.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-s-tally-of-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-15163784.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CFR has actually been increasing the last 4 days or so. We were at 1.5%. We are now at 1.8%. Not that I think CFR especially matters at this point. Even if the eventually IFR ends up being the same as flu (which it will not be) at .1%, the problem we have is how quickly it spreads. Having all our flu deaths for a year hit in one month would still be a problem for the healthcare system. 

Let’s not forget, and I know weve talked about this on here already, is what’s a true COVID death or what’s a true heart disease, diabetes whatever death? Who knows how many who died yesterday had 1 foot in the grave that just so happened to contract covid. In a normal world we would never have heard about these deaths because they don’t have a daily death count we’re now accustomed to.


As where we stand as a world, we’re at a death total of 30k people. On paper it’s a lot. In reality it’s still only 2/3 of my home town in central Minnesota in the entire world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

NY is still many states' future. NJ is at 11K total cases but only 30 deaths per day. That is close to where NY was on the 21st.    Will NJ's deaths get up to 250/day by next weekend?  If so, we are on track for 50K by the end of April.

 

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NY is still many states' future. NJ is at 11K total cases but only 30 deaths per day. That is close to where NY was on the 21st.    Will NJ's deaths get up to 250/day by next weekend?  If so, we are on track for 50K by the end of April.
 

Nj is more ny than a majority of ny. And no other area in the country is even close to the density than that particular region

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


Let’s not forget, and I know weve talked about this on here already, is what’s a true COVID death or what’s a true heart disease, diabetes whatever death? Who knows how many who died yesterday had 1 foot in the grave that just so happened to contract covid. In a normal world we would never have heard about these deaths because they don’t have a daily death count we’re now accustomed to.


As where we stand as a world, we’re at a death total of 30k people. On paper it’s a lot. In reality it’s still only 2/3 of my home town in central Minnesota in the entire world

You raise several interesting points: 1) classifying a "COVID" death is subjective, as is classifying many types of deaths really. If someone with a significant co-morbidity (heart disease, kidney failure, cancer, etc) dies with COVID, they are likely classified as a COVID death in the current US regime. Last year, if they died with the flu, or a cold, or strept throat, they would likely be classified as dying from complications from heart disease, or cancer, or kidney disease.  2) There is likely heterogeneity and randomness in this classification scheme across jurisdictions in a country, and certainly across countries.  I am somewhat leery of across-country death rate comparisons for this reason.  3) One way to mitigate the effects described in 1) is to look at total deaths of all kinds to get a sense of how many "extra" deaths we are experiencing above and beyond the normal trend.  Unfortunately, we won't know those stats until it's too late to really act effectively - it will just be an ex-post assessment of severity.  

Share this post


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

We are ahead of schedule. I had us at 254 on the 26th. We hit 268. I had us at 320 on the 27th. We hit 400. I had us at 400 on the 28th. We hit 500+.  Even if our average daily increase drops from 26% to 16%, we'll still hit 50,000k by the 15. If by the end of today we exceed 2,700 total deaths, we'll still be on pace. 

I'm betting on (hoping for?) a curve bend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


Let’s not forget, and I know weve talked about this on here already, is what’s a true COVID death or what’s a true heart disease, diabetes whatever death? Who knows how many who died yesterday had 1 foot in the grave that just so happened to contract covid. In a normal world we would never have heard about these deaths because they don’t have a daily death count we’re now accustomed to.


As where we stand as a world, we’re at a death total of 30k people. On paper it’s a lot. In reality it’s still only 2/3 of my home town in central Minnesota in the entire world

As we stand. You can't evaluate a pandemic based on where we are. You have to evaluate based on where we are going. The numbers are going to get big. Really really big. 

As to the first part of your post, it is likely true that a decent percentage of people that die due to this would have died this year anyway. But, we have plenty of case reports of people who were ostensibly healthy that ultimately succumbed to think that large percentage wouldn't have. 

US usually averages 7,700 death a day nationwide.  We hit over 6% of that number from coronavirus alone yesterday. That is big. It will get bigger. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

We are ahead of schedule. I had us at 254 on the 26th. We hit 268. I had us at 320 on the 27th. We hit 400. I had us at 400 on the 28th. We hit 500+.  Even if our average daily increase drops from 26% to 16%, we'll still hit 50,000k by the 15. If by the end of today we exceed 2,700 total deaths, we'll still be on pace. 

It is easy to outpace numbers in the early days because they are relatively small.  The doubling curves start to bend for countries that have been reporting deaths for around 3-4 weeks.  In Italy the first deaths were recorded at the end of February and the daily death rate has now taken about 12 days to double.  In Spain, the first deaths were recorded about a week after that (March 6), and the daily death rate has only gone up around 25% from March 24 to March 28.  Our first sustained period of reported CV deaths starts on March 13, so if we follow the pattern of harder hit countries of Italy and Spain, we should see slowing of the rates in a week or so.  The report you linked shows a slowing of the doubling rate as well and predicts around 31,000 deaths by April 15.  

Edited by Axiom of Choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

It is easy to outpace numbers in the early days because they are relatively small.  The doubling curves start to bend for countries that have been reporting deaths for around 3-4 weeks.  In Italy the first deaths were recorded at the end of February and the daily death rate has now taken about 12 days to double.  In Spain, the first deaths were recorded about a week after that (March 6), and the daily death rate has only gone up around 25% from March 24 to March 28.  Our first sustained period of reported CV deaths starts on March 13, so if we follow the pattern of harder hit countries of Italy and Spain, we should see slowing of the rates in a week or so.  The report you linked shows a slowing of the doubling rate as well and predicts around 31,000 deaths by April 15.  

The doubling period isn't reducing just because the numbers got bigger. It is reducing in those countries because they took action, every single one of them. We should start to see a reduction as well because of the various community efforts to slow the spread of the virus. The only question at this point is how much we've actually slowed it. New York's numbers should start to drop in a week or two because they've been shut down for awhile. The rest of the country, not so much. 

The report I linked to had a range of total deaths on April 15th between 19,000 and 51,000. Unfortunately for us, we've been at or exceeded the top end of its estimates the last week or so. That should be concerning to everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The doubling period isn't reducing just because the numbers got bigger. It is reducing in those countries because they took action, every single one of them. We should start to see a reduction as well because of the various community efforts to slow the spread of the virus. The only question at this point is how much we've actually slowed it. New York's numbers should start to drop in a week or two because they've been shut down for awhile. The rest of the country, not so much. 

The report I linked to had a range of total deaths on April 15th between 19,000 and 51,000. Unfortunately for us, we've been at or exceeded the top end of its estimates the last week or so. That should be concerning to everyone. 

I don't think the period slowed solely because the numbers got bigger.  I think they slowed for a number of reasons, a large one being isolation measures as you've mentioned.  The point is that the doubling rates when the number of deaths get higher has a much larger impact on the total number of deaths than the rates early on.   And the rates seem to slow substantially at a certain length of time when the daily rates get larger.  For example, if we take the total number and daily rate for Italy at March 15 and project out with a doubling of daily death rate every 4 days, they would be at over 25,000 deaths and over 4000 deaths per day.  But since the rate slowed over the past 10 days, the numbers are far below these.  The rates early on in the outbreak have far less impact on the overall numbers.  This is why the US being at 400 a day earlier than projected doesn't have much impact on the total if the rate cools next week.  So far, no country has maintained the death rate of 2^(n/4) for more than a few weeks.    

Edited by Axiom of Choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I don't think the period slowed merely because the numbers got bigger.  I think they slowed for a number of reasons, a large one being isolation measures as you've mentioned.  The point is that the doubling rates when the number of deaths get higher has a much larger impact on the total number of deaths than the rates early on.   And the rates seem to slow substantially at a certain length of time when the daily rates get larger.  For example, if we take the total number and daily rate for Italy at March 15 and project out with a doubling of daily death rate every 4 days, they would be at over 25,000 deaths and over 4000 deaths per day.  But since the rate slowed over the past 10 days, the numbers are far below these.  The rates early on in the outbreak have far less impact on the overall numbers.  This is why it us being out 400 a day early doesn't have much impact on the total if the rate cools further out.  So far, no country has maintained the death rate of 2^(n/4) for more than a few weeks.    

Right, I think we are saying the same thing. My concern is that it isn't clear at all to me that our efforts have been terribly effective. Italy had to do a complete nationwide shutdown to get the reduction they have seen (and they did it much earlier on). We haven't been that organized. Some places have been better than others and may start seeing the other side of this thing soon. Then there is Florida. . . I'm really afraid of what is going to happen in that state. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, I think we are saying the same thing. My concern is that it isn't clear at all to me that our efforts have been terribly effective. Italy had to do a complete nationwide shutdown to get the reduction they have seen (and they did it much earlier on). We haven't been that organized. Some places have been better than others and may start seeing the other side of this thing soon. Then there is Florida. . . I'm really afraid of what is going to happen in that state. 
 

Hopefully Italy is starting its plateau. The graph has angled to the right a tick..which is good

b75218f794c63d1231d25342c667ac4c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the question posed in the OP, I found this on another forum:

Quote

1. The data does not show a difference in the rate of spread between countries that have enacted draconian social distancing versus the countries that mostly just use face masks, gloves and frequent hand and surface cleaning/disinfection.
2. It costs about 10 times less to equip an entire population with 3 masks, 3 pairs of gloves and a gallon of rubbing alcohol per day compared to a draconian lockdown.
3. The cost of the protective equipment and cleaners is less than 5 dollars per day and person. Compare that to the 1200 dollars that the goverment is dumping on everyone and the 2+ trillion in corporate wellfare.

Author went to post a lot more details to support his position, but the assertions are sufficient to get a thought experiment going...

Share this post


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

Back to the question posed in the OP, I found this on another forum:

Author went to post a lot more details to support his position, but the assertions are sufficient to get a thought experiment going...

Care to share a link with the detail? Hard to evaluate something like that without more information. 

Anyway, my instinct is that comparing countries that went draconian versus face masks, gloves, and frequent cleaning is misplaced.

(1) I'm not aware of any country that only did the latter. Rather, those measures were combined with extensive testing (include frequent temperature readings), contact tracing, and isolation of infected individuals. 

(2) The countries that have survived on lighter measures enacted everything quickly and early on. The countries that have gone more draconian did so because they waited until the infection was already prevalent in the country, making the lighter measures less practical and effective.

I do think that once heavily infected countries get their outbreaks under control that they will need to transition to (1) as they slowly open back up. If the US had started acting in January, I absolutely believe we could have gone with lighter measures AND ended up with a small fraction of our eventual death toll. 

Side note, I'm wondering if the heavy prevalence of smart toilets in japan has contributed to the slow spread there. Apparently fecal-to-oral (from wiping and not adequately washing hands) may be one of the prime transmission vectors. Dirty hands touch surfaces/other people, ending up on their hands and eventually their faces. Japan's toilets are not only bidets, but have many advanced sanitation features such as self cleaning sprayers, angled sprays to avoid blow back, and even drying functions. It seems to me that a "hands-free" toilet like this would greatly cut down or eliminate the fecal-to-oral transmission vector. Some variant of these toilets are in 80% of Japanese households. 

Share this post


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

Back to the question posed in the OP, I found this on another forum:

Author went to post a lot more details to support his position, but the assertions are sufficient to get a thought experiment going...

Well in order to generate that much PPE and other important materials, we would need some sort of nationwide defense production act to get business moving. I agree that we'd be much better off if we were acting proactively rather than reactively, but that's not really the hand we've been dealt.

Share this post


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

Well in order to generate that much PPE and other important materials, we would need some sort of nationwide defense production act to get business moving. I agree that we'd be much better off if we were acting proactively rather than reactively, but that's not really the hand we've been dealt.

Yeah, we don't have enough PPE for critical hospital staff, let alone the entire country.

Honestly, the only argument I can still see that we overreacted is that we were already too late in acting to create real, meaningful change in a timely fashion; so, at that point, might as well create a more balanced plan of action since it was ostensibly "too late" to flatten this before shelter in place wrecks the economy.

But I don't see how you can hold this opinion when you look at literally any hospital across the nation. The only thing we can do now is try to give hospitals a chance to catch their breath and stock up on life-saving supplies. After that we can talk about getting back to something approaching normal.

Edited by aggie08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

But I don't see how you can hold this opinion when you look at literally any hospital across the nation. The only thing we can do now is try to give hospitals a chance to catch their breath and stock up on life-saving supplies. After that we can talk about getting back to something approaching normal.

I think you misunderstood my point - we SHOULD be using the national defense production act to force more corporations into producing as much PPE and life savings supplies as possible. As opposed to what we're currently doing, allowing the market to decide the prices resulting in states bidding against eachother, further driving prices up.

Share this post


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

I think you misunderstood my point - we SHOULD be using the national defense production act to force more corporations into producing as much PPE and life savings supplies as possible. As opposed to what we're currently doing, allowing the market to decide the prices resulting in states bidding against eachother, further driving prices up.

No, I agree with you. I was addressing the underlying argument of this thread using your premise that we're already laughably behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bernorange said:

Bern, I know you know I love Ron Paul and think he's quite often unfairly maligned, but still, posting anything from that site as a citation is folly. Even if it's factually sound, the source will still cause a lot of people to discount it and therefore they'll just ignore your argument, too.   

Edited by crimsonlonghorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP author I referenced is a good dude (ie. fairly smart and level headed).  He's a swiss national and former stock broker (or was it investment banker?).  RPF as a whole is a mixed bag, but I provided the link for the details in the OP (as requested), not for the slap fights that ensued in "discussion".

BTW, germane to the topic:

Quote

Austria will require shoppers to wear basic face masks in supermarkets in a bid to slow the still too-rapid spread of the coronavirus, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said on Monday.

...

“As of the moment, these masks are handed out in front of supermarkets it will be compulsory to wear them in supermarkets,” Kurz said, adding that the aim in the medium-term was for people to wear them in public more generally as well.

While the masks would not protect the wearer against infection, they would stop them sneezing or coughing on others and potentially infecting them, he added.

...

Austria is also carrying out tests on a representative sample of 2,000 people to get a clearer understanding of how much of the population has been exposed to the virus, Kurz said, adding that Austria was one of the first countries in Europe to do so. The results will be available at the end of the week.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-austria/austria-to-make-basic-face-masks-compulsory-in-supermarkets-idUSKBN21H16A

Edited by bernorange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...
While social life in Europe and much of the U.S. now centers on the home after governments imposed increasingly drastic curbs on freedom of movement, Sweden left offices and stores open, issued recommendations rather than restrictions, and waited to see what happens.

Businesses, kindergartens and schools remain open. After a long winter, Stockholm’s street cafés and outdoor bars swelled with people over the weekend, and the city’s old town drew large crowds as locals ventured out to enjoy the good weather. The only mandatory changes are a ban on meetings of more than 50 people and an order forcing bars and restaurants to only serve seated customers so as to avoid overcrowding.
...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/guid/37500c6e-737b-11ea-aa1e-fe177e78275d?siteid=rss&rss=1

Share this post


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

Sweden has had a higher number of deaths as a percentage of their population than the United States. And that stat is escalating quickly. So, let's not anoint their strategy just yet. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



...
While social life in Europe and much of the U.S. now centers on the home after governments imposed increasingly drastic curbs on freedom of movement, Sweden left offices and stores open, issued recommendations rather than restrictions, and waited to see what happens.
Businesses, kindergartens and schools remain open. After a long winter, Stockholm’s street cafés and outdoor bars swelled with people over the weekend, and the city’s old town drew large crowds as locals ventured out to enjoy the good weather. The only mandatory changes are a ban on meetings of more than 50 people and an order forcing bars and restaurants to only serve seated customers so as to avoid overcrowding.
...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/guid/37500c6e-737b-11ea-aa1e-fe177e78275d?siteid=rss&rss=1


Ballsy. Stupid, but ballsy.

Share this post


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

... So, let's not anoint their strategy just yet. ...

Just to be clear.  i provided information on a country trying an alternative approach.  I didn't offer any value judgement on it.  If we are to discuss a subject like this, it's good to have some data to work with, no?  If they maintain their approach and accrue higher covid19 deaths, and their health care system gets overwhelmed and non-covid19 patients suffer damages as a result, but their economy doesn't crater and so on, it will be interesting to judge the merits of their approach a long ways down the line.  I really don't think we are far enough along to judge the wisdom of either approach (but then I expect the long term ramifications of what the Fed is currently doing won't be known for a good while).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Just to be clear.  i provided information on a country trying an alternative approach.  I didn't offer any value judgement on it.  If we are to discuss a subject like this, it's good to have some data to work with, no?  If they maintain their approach and accrue higher covid19 deaths, and their health care system gets overwhelmed and non-covid19 patients suffer damages as a result, but their economy doesn't crater and so on, it will be interesting to judge the merits of their approach a long ways down the line.  I really don't think we are far enough along to judge the wisdom of either approach (but then I expect the long term ramifications of what the Fed is currently doing won't be known for a good while).

Right, I appreciate the information. I was just providing additional context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the salient question to ask is, even if they've had a higher death toll, are they better or worse off overall as a society than they would have been had they adopted the opposite approach and shut everything down? 

This is the part where the "every life matters!" crowd will shut down the question rather than try to answer it. 

 

Edited by crimsonlonghorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden has about 1/3 the population of Texas and is comparable to the US in almost no regards. What works for them wouldn't work the same way here, if it would even work at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

I think the salient question to ask is, even if they've had a higher death toll, are they better or worse off overall as a society than they would have been had they adopted the opposite approach and shut everything down? 

This is the part where the "every life matters!" crowd will shut down the question rather than try to answer it. 

 

Happy to do the calculation. You can even see I made a run at it earlier in this thread. At minimum the projected deaths in the US (2.2 million) would cause roughly 2 trillion in damages, not including things like pain and suffering or lost value to families, and under the questionable assumption that the rest of the economy keeps chugging along. I invite you to provide your own calculations along with your assumptions.

Btw, we hit almost 900 new deaths today and over 4k total. It is Tuesday. Where will we be on Friday?

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bernorange said:

The OP author I referenced is a good dude (ie. fairly smart and level headed).  He's a swiss national and former stock broker (or was it investment banker?).  RPF as a whole is a mixed bag, but I provided the link for the details in the OP (as requested), not for the slap fights that ensued in "discussion".

BTW, germane to the topic:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-austria/austria-to-make-basic-face-masks-compulsory-in-supermarkets-idUSKBN21H16A

This brought out the lulz. If I posted an informative article from bernie4prez.org, would you take it seriously?

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...