2020 Apr 2, 4:35pm
1,088 views 68 comments
« First « Previous Comments 29 - 68 of 68 Last »
No one has calculated the cost side of the equation, and we are dicey on the benefits side. Decisions made this blindly are rarely prudent.
Clearly the number of deaths between now and say the end of June is WAY lower with the lock down than without.
Reality saysIn reality, hospital intensive care can save about 5% - 15% of those put on ventilators/intubation. i.e. 85% to 95% of those get put on ventilators / intubation will die . . . making hospital care essentially into hospice care for this diseaseWhere'd these numbers come from?
In reality, hospital intensive care can save about 5% - 15% of those put on ventilators/intubation. i.e. 85% to 95% of those get put on ventilators / intubation will die . . . making hospital care essentially into hospice care for this disease
A secondary question along with the same logic would be how many people didn't die because of hospital capacity overload? The answer could easily be tens of thousands of lives saved.
Perhaps a better measurement than lives would be years of life saved. Considering 80% of Italian deaths had 3 months or less to live without CV, the number of life-years saved is probably underwhelming.The question the MSM won't discuss though is how many people will die from the destruction of the economy? Or perhaps more relevant, how many living years will be robbed from the lives of peoples' lower standard of living?
Reality saysLock-down would actually prevent the virus from burning itself out and artificially select the more deadly strain (because the hospitals are not locked down), and create a secondary surge that is more deadly than the first.I'll say this, you're not stupid and you can put together some pretty creative arguments. But they make almost zero sense. It's as if you are Steve Bannon starting with the goal of coming up with an almost believable argument that this is all a liberal conspiracy. Can you give me a simplified version of the problem (like I did in the very first comment of this thread), where this somehow makes even a little sense. I understand the individual words, but there is no logic tying it together. IT's just a conclusion looking for an argument.
Lock-down would actually prevent the virus from burning itself out and artificially select the more deadly strain (because the hospitals are not locked down), and create a secondary surge that is more deadly than the first.
The reason is Darwinian selection: if the society is left open, all strains of virus have equal chance of infecting people initially, and more deadly ones would be taken out by the people dying. In a lock-down, because the society at large is locked down, whereas the hospitals are not, people self-select to go to hospitals when they are severely ill (or near death), consequently the more deadly strains (and the people carrying them) would have a Darwinian advantage in communicating to new hosts (compared to strains that do not make people deathly ill).
How is this worse with a lockdown.
Under normal spread R is estimated at between 2 and 3. If people carried on as normal, 60 or 70% of us would have gotten the disease within a few months period. There would also be an acute overload of healthcare systems. A "mitigation" strategy would be to keep R between 1 and some value N that led to a more manageable epidemic, keeping hospitals from getting as overloaded but still letting about the same number of people to get I'll.
A strategic mitigation is to do that, but also impose stricter isolation of at-risk individuals, banking on building here immunity in the low-risk population and keeping a majority of at-risk folks from ever getting sick, needing hospitalization, or death.
The measures countries are currently using are not to just flatten the curve but to "suppress" the epidemic spread and get R<1 before a majority of the population get the virus. If they succeed to get R<1 to a substantial level then the epidemic will end with a small fraction of the population having contracted it. The fraction depends on how early and strong suppression methods were in each area.
How is this worse with a lockdown. ? Either way, lock down or not, the hospitals are full and the deadliest strains are attacking the hospital staff and doctors. But then in the non lockdown version, when the hospital workers go to social gatherings, dates, parties, restaurants, movie theaters, casinos, etc, they're putting those deadly versions out to the public. In the lock down reality they are less able to spread those deadly strains. What is the benefit of all at once ? If less hospital workers are exposed, it could only be becasue more people are dying without going to the hospital, becasue of the overload, Is that your point ?
The hospital staff usually would not be able to infect outsiders because most outsiders having 99+% chance of having been exposed to milder strains of the same year already that are sufficiently similar that human immunity can take care of it (likewise for hospital staff themselves).
Pretty well thought out. Backing your way from the conclusion you wish to reach. As I see it, the following is the biggest flaw.
When there are different strains out there, your assumption that the lesser strains have infected 99%+ of the population before there are significant numbers of people dying in hospitals is a rather huge assumption. That fact that hospitals workers are are such a small percentage of the population matches up with the fact that a small percentage of people with the deadliest strains are going to the hospital and infecting the hospital. Since a hospital is a magnet for these cases, it doesn't easily follow that they wouldn't propagate at the hospital before the population had acquired immunity from less deadly strains.
And of course the other big flaw, all or most of this is making many assumptions about the different strains. Are they all equally contagious ? Most of the media discussion has implied that it's not as much about deadlier stains as it is about some people being more vulnerable. The stats seem to back up that premise.
Are you a software developer of some sort ? (that is if you're not Steve Bannon?)
What are the biggest errors in thinking about the Corona virus ?We won't know this for at least several weeks, possibly month.
The media is full of idiots and paid liars. Your premise would run directly counter to the common virologist observation that most virii evolve to become more benign over time due to hosts' deaths (and sick hosts being shunned by the rest of the herd) taking out the more deadly strains.
Not backing away at all. Are you trying to lie deliberately? Marcus?
Just an intelligent person with solid math and science background
I leave it to the reader to decide if any of Mister Reality's theories are correct regarding how St. Louis handled the Spanish Flu pandemic.
Why would lockdown magically cure those 8 people?
Your argument sounds like the argument of someone who thought we should not have locked down, now trying to fight against all the evidence that it was right to lock down. DO I have the following right ?"The reason why it's growing like this now is that the hospitals are petri dishes for the most deadly strains of the virus. And since we have lockdown the population itself isn't out there as a buffer against the deadly strain(s) that's being shared by the hospital workers."Certainly you can't be saying that the number dying would be less without the lock down, because by your own theory the way that buffer works is by killing virus hosts of the more deadly strain. ,And there is little reason to believe it wouldn't be higher, or even much higher.
How deadly a strain is relative to how contagious is it would have to be known to have even the slightest idea as to whether your theory has merit, and even then what is your conclusion ? Of course there are unfortunate aspects of having healthy hospital workers treating people with highly contagious diseases that they might share either directly or very indirectly with people that are most vulnerable. WE know that most people that get even the deadly strains are not killed by it (if they aren't old or having other susceptibilities). Most people even when they get the more deadly strains pass it on to others, who pass it on to others. The lockdown greatly limits how many people the infected hospital works sees before they self quarantine (if they have symptoms or are tested - they should be tested frequently).
Yes, I know, you want to argue that the population is somehow immune by then anyway. Again, you would have to know so much that we don't about contagion relative ...
Why would lockdown magically cure those 8 people? It wouldn't. They either die or get better. The point was that the presence of the virus ended before everyone was exposed.It wasn't meant to be anything more than a (contrived) counter example to the idea that a lockdown can't work or that the same number of people must die, with or without the lockdown.
As for the second peak...Commercial businesses were allowed to open beginning November 13, with St. Louis’s 100,000 schoolchildren returning to their classrooms the day after that. The ban on public meetings would remain in place until Monday, November 17. Starkloff was quick to point out to businesses and the public that the state of public health emergency was still in effect, allowing him to reinstate the measures if necessary.For the next two weeks, the infection rate gradually declined, lulling residents into what proved to be a false sense of security. Keeping a vigilant eye on new case tallies, Starkloff spotted a spike on November 27, when more than 700 cases were reported for the previous 24-hour period, half of them children.31 After a hurried conference with other health department personnel, city officers, and public school authorities, Starkloff announced that he was closing schools once again.As far as muh area under the curve goes...Because of ...
If that's how that article presented the 2nd peak, then the article was classic FUD. Nov 13 vs. Nov 27 was only 14days apart. Both dates belonged to the same peak in the graph, which was showing a second peak many months after the first peak.
I did not write what you put between quotation marks. See, Marcus, one thing about a person capable of independent thought process is that I do not regurgitate what other people say. In fact, I hadn't even read what you put between the quotation marks there. You will have to ask whoever wrote those to explain to you what he or she meant.
DO I have the following right ?
Well, I'll take this as a sign of where we are at in this. Maybe it's wrong to put quotation marks around a paraphrasing of someones argument. How could it not be obvious that I did not think you said exactly that ? I was paraphrasing. Was this not an indication of anything to you ?
Reality saysDO I have the following right ?
Was asking if if my paraphrasing is correct. In any case, it's very clear where we are in this argument. "I hadn't even read what you put between the quotation marks there."Gotcha, I'm done.
DO I have the following right ?"The reason why it's growing like this now is that the hospitals are petri dishes for the most deadly strains of the virus. And since we have lockdown the population itself isn't out there as a buffer against the deadly strain(s) that's being shared by the hospital workers."
Marcus, you are proving to be a shameless lying propagandist with little knowledge in science or math but resorting to silly word games to facilitate your lies. At this point, I'm inclined to disbelieve your claim to be a public school math teacher, but likely a paid shill that one day may well hang upside down from a lamp-post if this lock-down continues for any significant length. To answer your titular question of the thread: the biggest error in thinking regarding Covid-19 is that whoever cooked up this hoax exploiting a bad flu season mistakenly thought destroying the economy under the pretense of a pandemic would automatically make Trump unpopular due to bad economy,
Schools should be open. Workplaces should be open. For anybody under 60-65,life should be normalFor those over 60-65, there should be voluntary "Senior Hours" at Pharmacies and Groceries the first couple of hours in the morning to give the old folks a chance and piss off hoarders.No visiting assisted living, senior care facilities, nursing homes. They can set up skype chats. Retirees should stay at home, and there should be fines for repeat frivolous trips or gathering to play cards and shit for the elderly.International Travel to places currently experiencing increasing levels or peak spread should be banned. It gets lifted a week or so after the trajectory clearly has plateaued.Other than that, Life's a Bitch So Keep on Trucki
But when someone is too self absorbed to even care or listen to a person they are communicating with
I know you have neither the honesty nor the integrity to admit that I was arguing in good faith.
I found this video useful for explaining more of the viruses' lifecycle that we should be considering here.
Why the insertion of "petri dishes" and "buffer"? neither words I ever used, then for you to build your core argument on them being expendables therefore they'd all be dead by definition of being expendables.
Let’s flatten the coronavirus confusion curveThe Ben Shapiro-owned Daily Wire was one of several rightwing US news sites to put out stories on Thursday claiming that Ferguson had “changed his tune” on how many deaths there would be from coronavirus. The Daily Wire, under the headline “Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Admits He Was Wrong, Drastically Revises Model”, claimed Ferguson had “revealed” that “far more people likely have the virus than his team figured”, and that Ferguson had “admitted” his model had been wrong and had revised down his UK death estimates from 500,000 to 20,000. This is just utterly false.And while the Daily Wire eventually corrected its story — though still with an incorrect headline — Berenson has doubled down on his take. He decided Ferguson was guilty of a “walkback of the walkback”, and showed once again that he either hadn’t properly read or hadn’t properly understood the Imperial report.Contrary to what Berenson says about there being “NO scenario” in the modelling “in which critical care beds are not overwhelmed”, there is indeed one. It’s the green line, here, which you can barely see, running along just below the red line that shows surge critical care bed capacity
On the idea that most of us have already been infected...this idea seems to have suddenly come into the thinking is largely the result of a somewhat controversial paper, not yet peer-reviewed, from a team at Oxford university led by Professor Sunetra GuptaThere has been a lot of pushback against these projections, which looked at only 15 days’ worth of data in both countries. Indeed a group of academics wrote to the FT, which published the findings of the report, that the paper’s findings had “no empirical justification” and that they had “major concerns” about the kind of sensationalist headlines it had generated....the Oxford paper’s projections were not “consistent with the observed data”, and that “we’re nowhere near Gupta’s scenario in terms of the extent of infection”.We also asked Sir David Spiegelhalter, the former president of the UK’s Royal Statistical Society and pretty much the closest person you can find to a statistics rock star for this thoughts, and he said he “ (didn’t) really have anything to say” about it except that it “seemed largely a theoretical work, which generated the 60% only by rather extreme assumptions”.
« First « Previous Comments 29 - 68 of 68 Last »