Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[mistakey]

11 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

Who said it wasnt bad. Specifically.

there were people doubting that we'd even reach 60k people dead.  fourthreemafia and outpost came out in the very beginning and said people were being doomsayers.  its pretty apparent if you go back thru the thread.  been called a pessimist since day 1 and its consistently staying the same level of bad, and will until we get a better treatment than remdesivir or a vaccine.

[GSUeagles14]

2 minutes ago, mistakey said:

there were people doubting that we'd even reach 60k people dead.  fourthreemafia and outpost came out in the very beginning and said people were being doomsayers.  its pretty apparent if you go back thru the thread.  been called a pessimist since day 1 and its consistently staying the same level of bad, and will until we get a better treatment than remdesivir or a vaccine.

i dont recall the # 60K ever being said, but even then thats not a magic marker for things being bad. Seems like youve created a strawman.

Things have absolutely improved as well, this is no where near as bad as the original projections said. if someone doesnt  believe so theyre delusional,  a pessimist and being doomsayers.

 

 

[mission27]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-innate-immunity.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[mistakey]

Just now, GSUeagles14 said:

i dont recall the # 60K ever being said, but even then thats not a magic marker for things being bad. Seems like youve created a strawman.

Things have absolutely improved as well, this is no where near as bad as the original projections said. if someone doesnt  believe so theyre delusional,  a pessimist and being doomsayers.

 

 

no, the 60k is the IHME prediction model that everyone said was too high, and we hit the marker 3 months early.  gtfo strawman
things have improved from a death standpoint, but its gotten pretty grim from a social standpoint. and its only gotten better from the death standpoint because of the large social sacrifices.  and those are going to go away... so... uh... 
 

we still havent invoked the dpa for PPE (except for testing swabs).  remdesivir only slightly improves deaths and 33% of hospital stays.  if/when there is a second wave, it wont be much better than the first unless we get a better treatment fast.  queue states opening up . . .

[animaltested]

LOL at Florida stopping the publishing of the death count. This on top of not counting people dying in their state, only state residents.

Cant have a high death count, if you don't count in the first place.

 

[TVScout]

2 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

Haven't quite a few people died after returning from Vietnam as a result of the war?

 

Agent Orange is an enemy of mankind:

https://www.nd.gov/veterans/news/agent-orange-its-affecting-veterans-and-their-kids

[mission27]

17 minutes ago, mistakey said:

no, the 60k is the IHME prediction model that everyone said was too high, and we hit the marker 3 months early.  gtfo strawman

The IHME model was way too high on hospital, ICU, and ventilator use, by a factor of like 10x

It was low on deaths and the only people who said otherwise were the typical knuckleheads tbh

EDIT: The Imperial College model is the one that overshot on deaths. They said up to 2-3m Americans could die in a matter of months. Given what we now know about case fatality rate, every single American could be exposed to this and deaths would likely be somewhere around 1m people, and that is unrealistic given we'd get to herd immunity somewhere around 2/3rds of that number

Edited May 1, 2020 by mission27

[ramssuperbowl99]

9 minutes ago, mission27 said:

They said up to 2-3m Americans could die in a matter of months.

If nothing was done to isolate people and exponential growth occurred until herd immunity took over (which, based on the R0 would be after 5/6ths of the population not 2/3rds). 

That result was never intended to be taken at face value.

[mission27]

21 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If nothing was done to isolate people and exponential growth occurred until herd immunity took over (which, based on the R0 would be after 5/6ths of the population not 2/3rds). 

That result was never intended to be taken at face value.

Well it depends if you believe R0 is in the 2-3 range or the 5-6 range, jury is still out

Either way, 300m x CFR of 0.3 to 0.5 (at the high end) = 900k to 1.5m people if everyone got it. 500k to 1.2m if you factor in herd immunity.  Clearly a huge number, we're talking about probably 10-20x the number of deaths we've seen so far (which makes sense given it appear about 5% of the US population has been exposed) but way less than the Imperial estimate

2 to 3 million people estimate was based on a 2-3% CFR. CFR is nowhere near that high, period, probably around a tenth of that number so even if way more people get it than Imperial assumed the deaths wouldn't be remotely close to 2 to 3 million

That model came out before most of the serology tests and studies that confirm lower CFR, so its understandable that it was off base, but does make you question if we rushed too quickly to do certain things based on a half baked study with a lot of loose assumptions 

EDIT: And of course this is the upper bound if we reach herd immunity, we do more limited distancing until there is a vaccine hopefully in 2021, you probably dont get anywhere near those numbers tbh

Edited May 1, 2020 by mission27

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

Well it depends if you believe R0 is in the 2-3 range or the 5-6 range, jury is still out

Yeah I was using 5.7. Most recent estimate I've seen.

(For the peanut gallery, you can calculate the % of the population required to be immune for herd immunity to take over as: 1-(1/R0))

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

Either way, 300m x CFR of 0.3 to 0.5 (at the high end) = 900k to 1.5m people if everyone got it. 500k to 1.2m if you factor in herd immunity.  Clearly a huge number, we're talking about probably 10-20x the number of deaths we've seen so far (which makes sense given it appear about 5% of the US population has been exposed) but way less than the Imperial estimate

2 to 3 million people estimate was based on a 2-3% CFR. CFR is nowhere near that high, period, probably around a tenth of that number so even if way more people get it than Imperial assumed the deaths wouldn't be remotely close to 2 to 3 million

That model came out before most of the serology tests and studies that confirm lower CFR, so its understandable that it was off base, but does make you question if we rushed too quickly to do certain things based on a half baked study with a lot of loose assumptions 

I don't think this makes us question anything in terms of timing. The model used the most up to date data we had and told us that based on what we knew at the time, the "do nothing and let herd immunity take over" plan wasn't going to work. That's the only real conclusion you should take away from that type of early type of forecasting.

And in that regard, the model did everything it should have: it got us the **** inside.

 

[mission27]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I don't think this makes us question anything in terms of timing. The model used the most up to date data we had and told us that based on what we knew at the time, the "do nothing and let herd immunity take over" plan wasn't going to work. That's the only real conclusion you should take away from that type of early type of forecasting.

And in that regard, the model did everything it should have: it got us the **** inside.

 

I personally think there was highly compelling evidence in early March that CFR was far below 1% tbh.  MoL was saying this at the time and getting a lot of **** for it, which whatever, but it was also a widely held belief in the epidemiological community.  The CFR assumption in the Imperial model was not particularly justifiable even at the time.

Anyway, bottom line, yes it got people to lockdown.  I personally think a good argument could be made that pursuing a more balanced approach with more limited social distancing that balanced public health / need to not overwhelm hospitals with other considerations - which was generally the goal of most countries outside of China prior to March 9th - would have been a better approach.  Going from zero public health response to a full lockdown of the entire world in 10 days was pretty extreme. 

And I think people rushing to take the most extreme measures in response to a flawed study that had not been peer reviewed is fundamentally similar to giving a bunch of people a medicine with anecdotal evidence of success but no hard research.  I get why it happened, because people were under pressure without a lot of time, but that doesn't mean it was the right decision. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Anyway, bottom line, yes it got people to lockdown.

And that was the point. We had to make a decision at the time, we locked things down, and in hindsight that was overwhelmingly the correct decision given what we saw in NYC, Washington, etc. etc. 

Anything else that model got right was a bonus.

 

Oh, and btw, if I ever got good enough at modeling stuff that I thought of a 2-fold issue as a serious problem, I'd probably retire.

[naptownskinsfan]

1 hour ago, mission27 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-innate-immunity.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Very interesting.  Funny how science works.  

[naptownskinsfan]

516 nursing home deaths in Maryland from Covid-19.  Our confirmed death count, updated this morning, is 1098.  

Per an article yesterday, 65% of Pennsylvania deaths have occurred at nursing homes. 

I also believe Virginia's latest number was close to 50% as well.  

For one, I'm glad my grandmother never went into one.  If she did, I would've taken her out when this first got to our country.  One of my employees did the same thing when her mom was in a rehab center.  

Second, at least in Maryland, they are locking the doors in the nursing homes instead of trying to spread these people out and trying to isolate cases.  I know some of them can not be moved effectively, but some can, and we've got to save lives, right?  

Third, I wonder if this is the case in most states, and what that means for arguments for/against reopening jobs.

[mission27]

2 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

516 nursing home deaths in Maryland from Covid-19.  Our confirmed death count, updated this morning, is 1098.  

Per an article yesterday, 65% of Pennsylvania deaths have occurred at nursing homes. 

I also believe Virginia's latest number was close to 50% as well.  

For one, I'm glad my grandmother never went into one.  If she did, I would've taken her out when this first got to our country.  One of my employees did the same thing when her mom was in a rehab center.  

Second, at least in Maryland, they are locking the doors in the nursing homes instead of trying to spread these people out and trying to isolate cases.  I know some of them can not be moved effectively, but some can, and we've got to save lives, right?  

Third, I wonder if this is the case in most states, and what that means for arguments for/against reopening jobs.

Yeah its horrible whats happening at nursing homes but realistically this is going to get into the nursing homes and once it does it spreads like wildfire

So when you consider a majority of deaths are at these senior living facilities, its an even strong argument imo for re-opening, and hopefully we can turn some of our focus to helping people who are in these facilities