Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[animaltested]

10 minutes ago, Heimdallr said:

The CDC and the Trump administration are projecting the daily death toll to nearly double and be around 3000 per day by June. 

From "we have it total under control", to a 9/11 per day. 

BuT tHe cOmMoN fLu 

[mission27]

1 minute ago, animaltested said:

From "we have it total under control", to a 9/11 per day. 

BuT tHe cOmMoN fLu 

bipolar is real

[animaltested]

2 minutes ago, mission27 said:

They are purposefully releasing overly pessimistic projections that show a huge spike in cases so that when the spike doesn't materialize they can say how great of a job they did

Its counter programming to all the blow back over the last few weeks about going over 60k cases

gaslightception.

Gaslight to gaslight in the future.

[mission27]

1 minute ago, animaltested said:

gaslightception.

Gaslight to gaslight in the future.

The sad thing is NYT is so gung ho about this the end is near narrative that they didn't bother to do any digging or provide any context and just published a model nobody knows anything about with a sensationalist headline 

The symbiotic relationship between the White House and the media, despite how much they pretend to despise each other, is sick

[MikeT14]

6 minutes ago, mission27 said:

They are purposefully releasing overly pessimistic projections that show a huge spike in cases so that when the spike doesn't materialize they can say how great of a job they did

Its counter programming to all the blow back over the last few weeks about going over 60k cases

I get it, but it's still just so sad to see. 

[N4L]

The people who are saying "we need to reopen asap" need to explicitly state the number of dead bodies they are comfortable with. Is 50k the acceptable number? 100K? 500k? What is the level that lawmakers should deep 'acceptable'?? 

I know it sounds like an overreaction on my part when you say it like that, but taking anything other than this position is unrealistic. This is what the 'lets reopen immediately' crowd is missing. There will be hundreds of thousands of more deaths in the US over the next 4-5 months if we do not continue down the only method we currently have to stop the spread, a nearly full lockdown, strict social distancing, and preventative measures (masks, handwashing etc). 

I understand that it is not black and white, there are certain groups of people that should be able to take measured risks if they adhere to the guidelines, certain business types that are not necessarily 'essential' that could 'open up' and be 'fine' but the problem is that the people who are calling for 'opening up' don't seem to want to adhere to these guidelines, which is extremely ignorant 

[animaltested]

9 minutes ago, mission27 said:

The sad thing is NYT is so gung ho about this the end is near narrative that they didn't bother to do any digging or provide any context and just published a model nobody knows anything about with a sensationalist headline 

The symbiotic relationship between the White House and the media, despite how much they pretend to despise each other, is sick

Very gross.

This should be the time for investigations and committees to dig around and find that gaps and holes in the US's response plan, and any errors or misjudgments that let this thing get out of hand. BUT it looks like both the WH and media is going to be playing whack-a-mole with the CCP for the foreseeable future.  Yuck.

Edited May 4, 2020 by animaltested

[Shanedorf]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I think the most likely scenario is the one where mission doesn't have a model.

Even the death rates aren't accurate yet, New York Times wrote about it here:

U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Is Far Higher Than Reported, C.D.C. Data Suggests

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/28/us/coronavirus-death-toll-total.html?

"The new data is partial and most likely undercounts the recent death toll significantly. But it still illustrates how the coronavirus is causing a surge in deaths in the places it has struck, probably killing more people than the reported statistics capture. These increases belie arguments that the virus is only killing people who would have died anyway from other causes. Instead, the virus has brought a pattern of deaths unlike anything seen in recent years.

In New York City, the home of the biggest outbreak, the number of deaths over this period is more than three times the normal number.
(Recent data suggests it could have reached six times higher than normal.)

 

Its just too early to be making any proclamations/predictions about curves, trends and totals.
As noted earlier, it took almost 2 years post - 911 to have a final death toll for one event, on one day, in one country.
But here we are in the middle of a novel global pandemic making claims about mortality and future risks ?

[naptownskinsfan]

4 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I used sporting events because I cannot think of any other example of crowds.  Lol.  I have been in a place with more than a hundred people like three times in my life, and twice were at Lambeau Field, once when I was a kid and couldn't even go on Splash ****ing Mountain because I was too little and that's all I remember about it. 

Churches for one- hundreds to maybe even a thousand people gathered at one time.  A lot of churches will need to make adjustments, and some just don't have the facilities to spread them out- thankfully mine does.  Conventions, business meetings/seminars, etc. 

[mission27]

2 minutes ago, N4L said:

The people who are saying "we need to reopen asap" need to explicitly state the number of dead bodies they are comfortable with. Is 50k the acceptable number? 100K? 500k? What is the level that lawmakers should deep 'acceptable'?? 

I know it sounds like an overreaction on my part when you say it like that, but taking anything other than this position is unrealistic. This is what the 'lets reopen immediately' crowd is missing. There will be hundreds of thousands of more deaths in the US over the next 4-5 months if we do not continue down the only method we currently have to stop the spread, a nearly full lockdown, strict social distancing, and preventative measures (masks, handwashing etc). 

I understand that it is not black and white, there are certain groups of people that should be able to take measured risks if they adhere to the guidelines, certain business types that are not necessarily 'essential' that could 'open up' and be 'fine' but the problem is that the people who are calling for 'opening up' don't seem to want to adhere to these guidelines, which is extremely ignorant 

My personal educated guess is that in order to get to herd immunity probably something like 250m Americans would need to get COVID-19 in the next year which would lead to about 750k deaths.  If you re-open in a more responsible way (keep large events shut down, masks, handwashing) I think you are unlikely to get to herd immunity this year, but you probably do see a few hundred thousand deaths some of which are theoretically preventable... call it 300k by the end of the year or a little less than halfway to immunity. Continuous lockdown through the end of the year and beyond may keep deaths somewhere in the range of 100k to 150k this year.  So yes a gradual responsible re-opening probably kills about twice as many people, which might be an extra 100k or more lives lost. 

Although I would argue that assertion is reliant on the idea that we will get a vaccine at the end of the year or 18 months.  If we never have a vaccine, or dont have one before we reach herd immunity, then the same number of people are going to get the virus and die no matter what you do unless hospitals become completely overwhelmed; this is the idea behind flattening the curve, which is a very well known public health concept.  Flattening the curve isn't meant to keep overall number of cases lower - the area under the flat curve is the same - it is meant to spread them out to save our hospitals. 

Personally I think even if there is a vaccine at the end of this imaginary 18 month timeline, the cost of an 18 month lockdown is worse than the loss of lifes.  I understand some feel differently, but if you're in that camp, please understand that an 18 month lockdown and elimination of the virus was not what those of us who want to go back to our lives were sold on.  It was never the public health rationale.  Its a new idea, extremely radical as far as public health responses go, and not a policy any country or state or city is currently pursuing.  So while you are entitled to your opinion if that is your opinion

Btw I know you aren't necessarily personally arguing for an 18 month lockdown.  But whenever you re-open... today, a month from now, 3 months from now, 6 months from now... unless we have a vaccine more people are going to die than if you stayed locked down.  So unless you support a lockdown until a vaccine exists you are also implicitly saying you are willing to sacrifice some lives to avoid that.  And if that's the case, I'd turn the question back on you - what is the acceptable number of deaths and what would your standards be for re-opening?  Because without a vaccine there will never be a day where re-opening doesn't increase the number of cases and deaths in the short term.  I'm genuinely curious how those who are not in favor of re-opening look at this, because it seems very clear to me that any rational person has to have some level of deaths that would be acceptable to avoid some level of lockdown, and some standards for what re-opening would look like, and that most of the differences come down to risk tolerance and emotions and ideology rather than a fundamental disagreement over whether a tradeoff exists.

[ramssuperbowl99]

31 minutes ago, mission27 said:

35 minutes ago, pwny said:

It also would be capable of recreating the entire data set if you only plugged in the first half of the data.

Do you understand how models work?

Have you ever seen a real world model? 

That degree of accuracy is called over fitting

@pwny is accurate. Pretty common to validate models using dataset broken into a test dataset for model fitting and a live dataset with the remainder to demonstrate performance.

You don't have a model. So far, you've shown that you have pictures of a color coded excel spreadsheet.

[naptownskinsfan]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

God forbid kids get the virus with that 99.999% survival rate for them.

We have to go back to them being hungry because their parents can't feed them, abused because their parents are cooped up with them and the mental strain on them not being able to socialize. 

There is literally a child abuse pandemic going on because of this, but God forbid kids get the virus because their parents go to work. 

In the case of Covid-19, the cure is worse than the disease.  Children and parents of children (20-30) aren't any less likely to die from the virus than any other number of ways they could die, and if they are more likely, it's probably a 2% higher likelihood.  So we're risking mental strain, hunger, poverty and abuse for the ~2 percent chance their parents might die? 

I have worked normal hours since this has started.  I've kept my distance from others, washed my hands frequently, sanitized surfaces religiously and doubled my cleanliness at work.  Thankfully I haven't gotten it (that I'm aware of), and God willing I won't, but if we're keeping the country shut down for the safety of children who have some 99.99% survival rate, the virus has already won. 

Like hell, man.  This isn't a zombie apocalypse.  This can't go on forever.  Take stronger precautions and get to work. 

Agreed.  I posted this late last week, but the UN is projecting an additional 150 million people around the world will be at starvation hunger levels by the end of the year due to Covid-19.  All along the east coast, most states are also seeing a 50% death rate or higher from nursing homes/assisted living, because they are shutting the doors and letting it run wild through them.  How many of those cases eventually become death?  Other countries rely on aid from the US and other countries, aid they aren't going to get right now, and then hardly anyone is thinking about food banks here in our community.  They suffered the same way through the last financial recession.  

We had a case of Covid-19 at work, and no one else got it, despite working in some closer proximities than one would like.  Handwashing and proper sanitization really does help with this.  

I originally left work because I didn't want to get this and spread it at home, and because I do so much for my grandmother.  I'm still worried about returning to work when we reopen, as I am in a situation where thousands of people are walking by each day in an enclosed space, but there is no reason why most places can't begin the process of opening up. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, naptownskinsfan said:

Agreed.  I posted this late last week, but the UN is projecting an additional 150 million people around the world will be at starvation hunger levels by the end of the year due to Covid-19. 

I'm asking about the context for this figure again. What assumptions did the UN make when they projected this?

[mission27]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

@pwny is accurate. Pretty common to validate models using dataset broken into a test dataset for model fitting and a live dataset with the remainder to demonstrate performance.

mission understands + does this for a living.

pwny suggested you would be able to 're-create' the second set of the data set from the first. Any model that is that accurate is overfitted. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, mission27 said:

mission understands + does this for a living.

pwny suggested you would be able to 're-create' the second set of the data set from the first. Any model that is that accurate is overfitted. 

Which I took to mean "would fit the second set of data quite well". And on a 50/50 split it should tbh.