151–160 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worst case. Instead of quickly developing herd immunity, the US ends up with persistent low level outbreaks over two to three years like the 1918 flu. If that happens the rest of the world will quarantine us.
What are you trying to say? If the rest of the world would develop hard immunity, they would have no need to quarantine you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But talk about lack of data. This is looking at the spread of a different virus - a virus that certainly does not have the infectiousness of the Covid virus. So the this pure speculation.
It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. The question remains however why we ought to treat concerns about data about the virus different than concerns about data about the response to the virus. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shu…
Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster.
Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years?
An extreme provokes an extreme response? Of course?
Human lives are more important than economies. And economies can't function with massive loss of life anyway. Even more, this is a massive exogenous shock. Once it's done, the various players can pick up the pieces. Until then, it should be treated like a war. Society trumps economics (hopefully, otherwise both are headed for disaster, 1 million deaths+ was the Imperial College Report estimate for what happens if the US does nothing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That rate is highly unlikely to hold. There's enough stay in place restrictions in effect to drive it down after about a week or so. FWIW, at this point, it looks like NYC is going to take a huge hit and the other outbreaks (Seattle, California) will look mild comparitively.
> There's enough stay in place restrictions in effect to drive it down after about a week or so. Why do you think that?
Common sense needs to prevail over mania, numbers over hyperbole and science over conjecture. But even then, this is hard if our data is collected poorly and then poorly disseminated. So what is the answer then? Maybe a strengthening of resolve against all forms of panic? Is there a single event in history has been solved by panic?
Some historians attribute the French Revolution at least partly to a mass hysteria of the idea that aristocrats were planning on starving the populace during a grain shortage. And feudalism was abolished as a result.
I doubt they decided their rules of law while feeling panic. It was likely done over a long period of time with careful thought and consideration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you need a randomized double blind study for? You're not sure the people on the ship died of COVID? As for adjustment factors, if you just adjusted for age, you'd get about 50% less mortality if the ship had the same age distribution as the country. So that's 5 million dead. However there are over a million people in the U.S. that are medically compromised and would have a very high fatality rate with COVID.…
> What do you need a randomized double blind study for? You're not sure the people on the ship died of COVID? Er, you're not trying to figure out how the ship victims already died, you're trying to predict how many other people might die of the same cause. To do that kind of thing well, you need a hypothesis, and then you need to test it properly. > As for adjustment factors, if you just adjusted for age, you'd get a…
What would be the randomized double blind trial that you would run, and what information would it give us?
> Basically, an epidemic is not a linear system, so you can't model it with linear functions. Look into the "SIR model" for a standard way to do that kind of thing. I'm not trained in this field so I'd look for a medical/science forum if you have questions.
I'm familiar with the SIR model. What you'll find is that if R0>1, the SIR model converges to a state where S=1/R0, I=0, and R=1-1/R0. In this epidemic, R0 is approximately 2.5, of course depending on conditions. That means in the U.S. population, 60% will end in state R, which means 60% of people will get the virus. That's the 198 million number from above. It's actually a little worse than that because the SIR model doesn't have a "Dead" state, so more than 60% of the population has to get the virus in order for 60% of the end state population to have recovered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Washington state doesn't have a statewide lockdown, I don't know if even Seattle has a lockdown. California is doing the best but there are still crowds defying the lockdown at beaches and parks. Just as much, grocery stores are open as usual and even with most people trying to do social distancing, I'm doubtful you're clamping that hard on the infection, unfortunately. I think the best is that when fatalities spike…
Washington does as of 5:00 pm PDT today.
Tweet is from 6:50pm: https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1242267557295321090
https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslee-announces-stay-home-sta...
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/proclamation...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…
Bruce Aylward's visit to China made it sound like they were testing everyone too. Germany is at 0.42 and South Korea is at 1.24 now that more diagnosed people have had time to die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. The question remains however why we ought to treat concerns about data about the virus different than concerns about data about the response to the virus. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shu…
It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty dow…
They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120)
This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places.
There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.
I published a paper on outbreaks in a hospital setting and the problem is there is not a single RCT on methods to stop outbreaks. The problem is no organization is willing to approve a trial where you don't follow your protocols and commonly accepted methods to control the spread (ex. closing common areas, isolating patients, cohorting staff, enhanced cleaning). There is a good blog post about 'Riding the Wave' that…
Or look to Taiwan and Japan with economies running and infection rates under control (at present).
Your “perhaps the outbreak would have ended itself” will be shown to be false in multiple countries that lack the resources to manage their infection transmission rates... We have heard of Iran, but wait until we find out what happens in other poor countries...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so do the math. 5% of positives required intensive care. If 197 million Americans get this, That means 10 million people go to intensive care. There are 60,000 ICU beds in the U.S. If 10 million people need the ICU, effectively none get a ventilator and they all die. Now it's true that the cruise ship passengers skewed significantly older, but on the other hand, they were all ambulatory and healthy enough to b…
>Now it's true that the cruise ship passengers skewed significantly older, but on the other hand, they were all ambulatory and healthy enough to be taking a cruise. While yes this is true technically, I'm not sure the bar for "healthy enough" is as high as you're making out it is. In my experience (apologies for the anecdote), significantly obese people are quite capable of going on a cruise almost always.