Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[Doghouse Reilly]

As Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) was quoted in National Review today,

“They don’t turn the Javits Center into a field hospital for the flu. They don’t bring in ice trucks to back up the morgue for the flu.”

But those things are preparations for a presumed pending catastrophe, not evidence that one has happened yet, or will happen.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Well, it is not fallacy if that authority happens to be someone that should know these things. We doubt Facci's numbers for other reasons than his scientific credentials.


If you really meant global then you will have to eat that crow pretty soon. Admit it, you didn't even check what are current numbers of cases, infected, died and trends for world in general and various countries in particular.

I personally use this site as source:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Have nice tasty crow in two weeks or so.


Because Trump followers have motivation to downplay threat of COVID-19 and Trump administration has means to do it.

No, I did check the figures. I don't care if I eat crow, obviously I hope I don't because I don't want all those people to die, but I'm not personally invested in being right, I just want to know the truth. And based on the figures being given and the projections and studies coming out with 0.1-0.6% death rates, I am questioning things and I think it's weird that I'm being criticized for that when these are not fringe sources.

 

[Meadmaker]

But those things are preparations for a presumed pending catastrophe, not evidence that one has happened yet, or will happen.

You are in denial. Open your eyes.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

You're being pedantic!

Welcome to the world of science*!

This is what I was referring to:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/health/coronavirus-lower-death-rate/index.html



Should I not believe this research? If not, why not?

(my hilite)

Here, in the SMM&T board, you should believe anything.

Did you track down the particular The Lancet Infectious Diseases paper? Did you read it yourself? What do you think of its assumptions? Logic? Methods? Input data? (etc)

I think you mentioned 0.1% as the %-age of people infected with covid-19 who will die of it, here in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong).

0.66% > 0.1%

*One way to think of science is organized pedantry.

 

[JeanTate]

Surely that places an upper limit of 2.93% and the true figure is less than or equal.
It could be way less even with a high frequency testing regime.

Maybe for South Korea.

How relevant is that for India (population ~1.3 billion), say? A refugee camp near Coxs Bazaar (in Bangladesh)? In Yemen?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Suppose the global death toll, today (31 March 2020) is 40k.

Suppose it's doubling every four days*.

On 4 April, it will be 80k.

8 April, 160k.

12 April, 320k.

Looks like we won't have to wait for long.

*From the WHO situation reports, Grand Total :
19 March: 8,778
23 March: 14,509
27 March: 23,335

Well, it won't keep doubling forever, obviously. Out of curiosity what total death toll would we have to see for you to think "Well, I guess it turned out to not be much more than a normal flu epidemic"? In other words, at what point does it become undeniable that more people died than would have from a flu? I don't mean rate of spread or rate of increase, or projections, I mean a specific final minimum number. We obviously aren't there yet.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Well that's scary as hell https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/aircraft-carrier-coronavirus-outbreak/index.html

Aircraft Carrier with coronavirus spreading through it

 

[Olmstead]

I want MORE aggressive than that.

I want them walking my aisles and to tell that guy with shelf liner and command strips in his cart "that's not essential, go the **** home!"

"No, officer. I'm actually here buying bread. I just saw these on the way to the bread section and ... Yes, I suppose I did get a little lost on the way to the bread section ..."

Anyway, if you want them to go that far, it'd be easier and probably cheaper to have stores remove non-essential items from their shelves. Might cause some goodwill issues though.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

You are in denial. Open your eyes.

I see the same thing that's happened before, only ramped up because of panic. Tents, hospitals at 300% capacity, etc. What is different? So far, the numbers aren't different.

Israel 2015

https://www.timesofisrael.com/influx-of-patients-crowds-hospitals-across-country/

Boston 2013:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1823425

Across the US, 2017:

https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/?amp=true

 

[JeanTate]

The study I just posted says 0.6 0.66% so 2.93% seems absurd.

FTFY.

And what population is The Lancet Infectious Diseases paper based on, South Korea's? The UK's? Samoa's?

I may think your logic is absurd. But, here in the SMM&T board, we're expected to do better than make these sorts of absurd statements!

 

[casebro]

Um ... no.

Quite apart from the fact that there would be huge uncertainties on such data (too much time has passed, for example), there's the selection effect of a very small sample (~100 people), in just one environment, with a (very likely) unrepresentative demographic. And so on.

Time passing is exactly my point. "For each 100 people of normal demographic, what are the outcomes of exposure casual exposure to Covid? " Not self selected for already showing signs like SK, not old folks cloistered on a liner, not drunken Danes plying beer pong by 'coughing' a ball soaked in other peoples saliva. 100 is small, but it is available. Or maybe combine it with the choir and that gov meeting? all in the same time frame and locale? 200? 250? ONE county board of health ?

 

[Arcade22]

For starters it's not " just like the flu", it's " in addition to the flu ", and why we have field hospitals in Central Park..

I think this is a point that many people don't get. The flu isn't going anywhere nor have any other disease gone on vacation.

 

[Steve]

Well that's scary as hell https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/aircraft-carrier-coronavirus-outbreak/index.html

Why "scary"?

 

[JeanTate]

But those things are preparations for a presumed pending catastrophe, not evidence that one has happened yet, or will happen.

Ah the joys and delights of not understanding what "exponential" means!

While I don't live in New York (the state, or city), I sure am glad Andrew Cuomo is Governor there, not you.

Out of curiosity, were you the NY Governor, when would you erect hospital tents in Central Park? Order ice trucks as morgues?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

FTFY.

And what population is The Lancet Infectious Diseases paper based on, South Korea's? The UK's? Samoa's?

I may think your logic is absurd. But, here in the SMM&T board, we're expected to do better than make these sorts of absurd statements!

No, if you read it it's based on a broad range of populations. So a study based on a broad range is superior to one less broad. That's my logic.

 

[Meadmaker]

I see the same thing that's happened before, only ramped up because of panic. Tents, hospitals at 300% capacity, etc. What is different? So far, the numbers aren't different.

Israel 2015

https://www.timesofisrael.com/influx-of-patients-crowds-hospitals-across-country/

Boston 2013:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1823425

Across the US, 2017:

https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/?amp=true

That's a good point, at least on the surface.

You aren't going to be persuaded except by incontrovertible evidence. It would be very nice if it turned out you were right.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Thanks.


Welcome to the world of science*!

(my hilite)

Here, in the SMM&T board, you should believe anything.

Did you track down the particular The Lancet Infectious Diseases paper? Did you read it yourself? What do you think of its assumptions? Logic? Methods? Input data? (etc)

I think you mentioned 0.1% as the %-age of people infected with covid-19 who will die of it, here in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong).

0.66% > 0.1%

*One way to think of science is organized pedantry.

Yes, I did read the study, I use https://sci-hub.tw to read science papers. I found it to be solid, although I'm not a trained scientist. As for the .1% rate, I made it clear that that is what Dr Fauci's projection was, not my own.

 

[Arcade22]

That's a good point, at least on the surface.

You aren't going to be persuaded except by incontrovertible evidence. It would be very nice if it turned out you were right.

You'd be relieved if all experts and professionals were wrong and some random person on a forum was right?

 

[Horhang]

I suspect it's all population density. Which is what social distancing is all about. I'm in San Diego. I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but last week 203 cases in the county, most in the city proper. 1/15,000. Next city east, La Mesa, ONE case, per 60K.

There is some kind of cube root to density in the transmissibility. I think those slow peaks mentioned above for Iowa just might be valid.

(Well Duh!, I'm overstating the obvious. But making for a deeper understanding, maybe?)

Also in San Diego County. Been getting my local data from these two sites:
Statewide data from here

https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/

Local data from here updated “about 4PM every day:

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/cont...mmunity_epidemiology/dc/2019-nCoV/status.html

 

[JeanTate]

Well, it won't keep doubling forever, obviously.

Indeed.

For crows, only until ~mid-April.

Out of curiosity what total death toll would we have to see for you to think "Well, I guess it turned out to not be much more than a normal flu epidemic"? In other words, at what point does it become undeniable that more people died than would have from a flu? I don't mean rate of spread or rate of increase, or projections, I mean a specific final minimum number.

I don't have numbers for the estimated yearly (actually seasonal) number of deaths attributed to the flu, for the US, to hand*. So I can't give you an answer.

From memory, it's ~40k.

We obviously aren't there yet.

Indeed.

And if we'd prepared - in a manner consistent with plans etc clearly defined after SARS (and in many ways long before) - we in the US would never be there. As will likely be true in Singapore. Taiwan. Hong Kong. Macau. Possibly South Korea.

*Do you have what you consider to be a reliable source of these numbers?