COVID-19 Talk

[CAPE]

Just now, DCTeacherman said:

I would take the over on that even if we were maintaining lockdowns everywhere. 

Probably a good bet, especially since the "lockdowns" will begin relaxing in many places over the coming weeks.

[mappy]

4 minutes ago, Wonderdog said:

Cuomo mentioned it yesterday according to the article I read. Results were of course extrapolated. 

i see that now. sorry i was a bit surprised by 2.7 million and thought PD3 had a typo. wow.

[mappy]

Just now, wxtrix said:

link to there being 2.7 million cases in NY.

and this post is full of disinformation.

he isn't wrong - i had to go look for it myself. 

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/2-7-million-in-new-york-may-have-been-infected-study-finds-nj-poised-to-top-100k-cases/2388182/

Up to 2.7 million New Yorkers may have been infected with coronavirus -- more than 10 times the number of confirmed cases, according to preliminary results from the state's first antibody study. 

 

 

[mappy]

 

[ErinInTheSky]

Yeah New York's seroprevalence study gave us some of the most interesting news of this entire pandemic. I'll repost what I posted yesterday about it:

 

Including probable deaths, this yields an  IFR of about 0.7% (between 0.5%-1%, as some things can drive it up, like many people infected have yet to die, and some can drive it down, like not all probable home covid deaths are covid deaths).

This is perfectly harmonious with most research out there. Many studies have shown 0.7% as the true IFR. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

**So this is terrible news for the herd immunity crowd.**

Why? If the IFR is 0.7%, let's just say 20% of the country gets infected. 65,600,000 people. 

That would mean that 459k people would die. That's just at 20%. Herd immunity requires 85%.

[CAPE]

1 minute ago, mappy said:

he isn't wrong - i had to go look for it myself. 

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/2-7-million-in-new-york-may-have-been-infected-study-finds-nj-poised-to-top-100k-cases/2388182/

Up to 2.7 million New Yorkers may have been infected with coronavirus -- more than 10 times the number of confirmed cases, according to preliminary results from the state's first antibody study. 

 

 

 Yeah but he should have provided a source, and his posts are always an incoherent mixture of misinformation and weird ramblings, with an  occasional fact mixed in.

[mappy]

Just now, C.A.P.E. said:

 Yeah but he should have provided a source, and his posts are always an incoherent mixture of misinformation and weird ramblings, with an  occasional fact mixed in.

i understand that, and he should. 

[Wonderdog]

Excuse me.

[CAPE]

Just now, Wonderdog said:

Excuse me.

lol not you.

relax.

[Wonderdog]

Just now, C.A.P.E. said:

lol not you.

relax.

Yeah just saw that. Mea Culpa.

[mappy]

4 minutes ago, Wonderdog said:

Yeah just saw that. Mea Culpa.

sigh

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

11 minutes ago, supernovasky said:

Yeah New York's seroprevalence study gave us some of the most interesting news of this entire pandemic. I'll repost what I posted yesterday about it:

 

Including probable deaths, this yields an  IFR of about 0.7% (between 0.5%-1%, as some things can drive it up, like many people infected have yet to die, and some can drive it down, like not all probable home covid deaths are covid deaths).

This is perfectly harmonious with most research out there. Many studies have shown 0.7% as the true IFR. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

**So this is terrible news for the herd immunity crowd.**

Why? If the IFR is 0.7%, let's just say 20% of the country gets infected. 65,600,000 people. 

That would mean that 459k people would die. That's just at 20%. Herd immunity requires 85%.

I saw a virologist on twitter saying herd immunity could be 60%, but that might be a moot point cause the virus would likely overshoot the % needed for herd immunity.  

[ErinInTheSky]

Just now, DCTeacherman said:

I saw a virologist on twitter saying herd immunity could be 60%, but that might be a moot point cause the virus would likely overshoot the % needed for herd immunity.  

Depends on R0. If it's in the 1.2-2.2 range, 60%. If it's in that 5+ range, 85%. Probably somewhere in the middle but at this point it doesn't make a difference, point is it would be much much much worse than it is right now.

[ErinInTheSky]

Today Georgia reopens.

 

Things to watch: 

- How much economic activity returns

- How much infection rates change in 2 and a half weeks (circle May 12)

[psuhoffman]

53 minutes ago, 40westwx said:

 

I think it is safe to assume that New York city is the worse case scenario.  here are the numbers:

 

~15000 deaths

~2700000 cases (and growing at really fast clip)

Thats 0.5% Infection Mortality Rate

.1% vs .5% is statistically insignificant when you are evaluating infection mortality rates in large population centers.  For the CDC, we are talking about the population of the united states.  

In other words if you were to take in to account statistical variance, .1% and .5% really mean the same thing   

1. You conveniently didn’t factor in the people currently infected who will eventually die. 

2. You used confirmed deaths not estimated total which skews the results.

3. You keep using the absolute lowest estimated end of the mortality range from the covid study along with the high end of the flu mortality range for your comp. That isn’t an honest comparison.

4. You clearly do not know what “statistically significant” means. 

5. Even if we did accept your skewed comparison (and I’m not) .5 and .1 is VERY different in a huge population. And it can be statistically significant in a large enough study population size.  

You obviously missed my post about false equivalencies and data manipulation.  When you do these “fun with numbers” games you aren’t fooling anyone, it’s just insulting.  People on THIS board aren’t stupid.  Maybe you should try your luck with those tactics somewhere like 4chan.  

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

3 minutes ago, supernovasky said:

Today Georgia reopens.

 

Things to watch: 

- How much economic activity returns

- How much infection rates change in 2 and a half weeks (circle May 12)

I don’t know that you’re allowing enough time to see the trends.  People will take time to slowly come out, it’s not like everyone in Georgia is going to a restaurant on Monday.  My guess is trends would evident more on the 6-8+ week time frame. 

[ErinInTheSky]

Just now, DCTeacherman said:

I don’t know that you’re allowing enough time to see the trends.  People will take time to slowly come out, it’s not like everyone in Georgia is going to a restaurant on Monday.  My guess is trends would evident more on the 6-8+ week time frame. 

I think that is kind of factored in in "how much economic activity returns".

 

But you're right.

[mappy]

Just now, wxtrix said:

the rest of it isn't factual at all.

i wasn't defending his post. just that number, that i too did not believe. until i went searching for it. PD3 would serve himself better if he posts links when he throws out numbers.

[Inverted_Trough]

The difference between 0.01 and 0.05 is very significant in epidimololgy.  The percentage of people that are vulnerable is another factor.

[psuhoffman]

It’s that some are taking a study that pretty much confirms how awful unmitigated spread would be and are somehow manipulating some numbers and ignoring others to twist it into a case for exactly that!  

Bottom line is even if we take the absolute best case pie in the sky estimate for each factor, lowest estimated Mortality, lowest possible herd quotient, we would still get well over a million deaths from a scenario of unmitigated spread. And that’s accepting the best case.  

But this game is getting exhausting.  I’m sure once the efforts to spin the data get old the conversation will return to relativism and utilitarian arguments like,  is a million people really that many in the grand scheme or libertarian ones like “but what about my personal rights”. It’s onviouslt not going to end no matter how much statistical evidence emerges because some people just don’t like it and that’s all that matters. 

[psuhoffman]

Oh and one last thing...before the “but the economy” arguments start up again. The economy has already been tanked. It’s too late.  There is no way to flip a switch and just undo what’s been done.  And even if we open and go herd immunity the economy will be further damaged by the 200 million sick people and 25 million people that would end up hospitalized in the unmitigated spread scenario (again using best case scenarios) and the 1-2 million deaths.  We are going to suffer economically for a while no matter what we do now.  So that is a really crappy justification for accepting a strategy with  higher projected fatalities. 

[BxEngine]

49 minutes ago, mappy said:

he isn't wrong - i had to go look for it myself. 

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/2-7-million-in-new-york-may-have-been-infected-study-finds-nj-poised-to-top-100k-cases/2388182/

Up to 2.7 million New Yorkers may have been infected with coronavirus -- more than 10 times the number of confirmed cases, according to preliminary results from the state's first antibody study. 

 

 

He is wrong. He stated NYC. Thats for all of NY state. 

[mappy]

8 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

He is wrong. He stated NYC. Thats for all of NY state. 

ooo good point. thanks

[BxEngine]

Just now, mappy said:

ooo good point. thanks

Hes off by roughly 1 million people. Which of course according to him is data noise since .1% of the population dying and .5% arent different.

[Eskimo Joe]

18 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Oh and one last thing...before the “but the economy” arguments start up again. The economy has already been tanked. It’s too late.  There is no way to flip a switch and just undo what’s been done.  And even if we open and go herd immunity the economy will be further damaged by the 200 million sick people and 25 million people that would end up hospitalized in the unmitigated spread scenario (again using best case scenarios) and the 1-2 million deaths.  We are going to suffer economically for a while no matter what we do now.  So that is a really crappy justification for accepting a strategy with  higher projected fatalities. 

Folks forget that even if you get sick, go to the hospital and live, you're likely coming out with some form of medical debt. The more folks with debt, the less they're going to buy.

[snowfan]

 

[weatherCCB]

Fear is the greatest motivator of people.  Until people feel safe and think we have this under control. You can open up all the shops, restaurants, clubs, ect. But no one is going to go in large #s.   You want to get the economy back open ?   Take care of the health crisis and the economy will gradually recover. Just my opinion .  

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

5 minutes ago, weatherCCB said:

Fear is the greatest motivator of people.  Until people feel safe and think we have this under control. You can open up all the shops, restaurants, clubs, ect. But no one is going to go in large #s.   You want to get the economy back open ?   Take care of the health crisis and the economy will gradually recover. Just my opinion .  

Agree, you can “open up” all you want but if you do it incorrectly and people turn on the news and see their local hospital flooded with dying covid patients the economy isn’t going to be in great shape. 

[Eskimo Joe]

 

[psuhoffman]

39 minutes ago, Eskimo Joe said:

Folks forget that even if you get sick, go to the hospital and live, you're likely coming out with some form of medical debt. The more folks with debt, the less they're going to buy.

Plus people aren’t doing most normal economic activity when they are sick. And the loss of much of entertainment and service industry is going to hurt bad no matter what we do.  

There are a LOT of factors people are failing to accurately incorporate into their theories. And that’s why it’s dangerous to think we know better than the experts. I’m sure there are factors I don’t know or am missing also but I’m not the one suggesting I know better than them.