Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[Belz...]

I would think that Gates really does know what he’s talking about. You might want to talk directly to the experts but that doesn’t mean the experts are going to be experts at explaining things to you.

That's certainly true.

Unless somebody with serious credentials can explain why Bill Gates is full of **** then I will take Bill Gates seriously on this topic.

I certainly wouldn't be that person, and hopefully you don't think that's what I was saying.

How many production lines are you building to produce possible vaccines?

Again, what does that have to do with epidemiology expertise, Darat?

Do you think Elon Musk is a rocket scientist just because he owns a line of rockets?

 

[lomiller]

There may have been a time in December when the Chinese could have driven SARS-COV-2 to extinction.

Nope. There was no way to identify asymptomatic carriers nor was there a way to differentiate mild cases from people who simply had a cold.

 

[JeanTate]

There may have been a time - late January, up to mid-February? - when the world could have driven SARS-COV-2 to extinction (or effectively so). Led by the US. Now somewhere between 240k and 1.9 million of those living in the USA will die avoidable deaths. Ditto tens of millions elsewhere in the world.

There may have been a time in December when the Chinese could have driven SARS-COV-2 to extinction.

Indeed.

 

[William Parcher]

"You're basically right next to the nuclear reactor."

An anesthesiologist talks about performing one of the pandemic’s most dangerous jobs, the intubation of coronavirus patients.

Cory Deburghgraeve...... "I could be the last person some of these patients ever see, or the last voice they hear. A lot of people will never come off the ventilator. That’s the reality of this virus. I force myself to think about that for a few seconds each time I walk into the ICU to do an intubation."

"This is my entire job now. Airways. Coronavirus airways. I’m working 14 hours a night and six nights a week. When patients aren’t getting enough oxygen, I place a tube down their airway so we can put them on a vent. It buys their body time to fight the virus. It’s also probably the most dangerous procedure a doctor can do when it comes to personal exposure. I’m getting within a few inches of the patient’s face. I’m leaning in toward the mouth, placing my fingers on the gums, opening up the airway. All it takes is a cough. A gag. If anything goes badly, you can have a room full of virus."......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/05/youre-basically-right-next-nuclear-reactor

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

With any disease, there will be bungling in how to react. You will never get the perfect reaction. This also excuses the initial reactions of the West, and even Trump's, but the more experienced we are with what we are dealing with, the less can be excused.

The West had plenty of time to prepare, but only did something when the virus was all over the place.

Surely you jest? When Trump fired Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer from the National Security Council and completely reorganized under John Bolton it meant no senior administration official is now focused solely on global health security. This completely gutted our pandemic and bioterrorism attack response capability. This left us completely unprepared and defenseless against coronavirus!

There is absolutely no excuse for this. You can pretend that it was just inexperience, but when you fire the experienced people and surround yourself with yes men who have no experience, then it is not a valid excuse! It is in fact inexcusable incompetence that will likely cost us many lives worldwide! This is NOT politics. This is simply idiocy. Not ideology! It is rational objective critique of actions and inaction made by an incompetent clown. Not because of the ridiculous troll things the twit tweets about. We all know that is just to get publicity. I am instead referring to real life actions affecting national security and the health and lives many Americans.

There is a time when we need to admit the buck really does stop there, and stop with the excuses. There is no excuse.

 

[JeanTate]

We're not solving a math problem though.

All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

DR is saying he thinks the model his interlocutors are using is wrong.

Yes, science is not mathematics.

However, for practical purposes models can be "good enough".

For example, where, when, and for how long questions about the next (several hundred) total solar eclipses can be answered by looking at one or other model based on physics and astronomy. And those answers will certainly be good enough for anyone wanting to see a total solar eclipse for themselves, including those scientists who want to do research into solar eclipses (or during one).

In this thread the branch of science we are looking into more than any other (perhaps) is epidemiology. Broadly, epidemiological models are good enough for things like campaigns to eradicate polio, or contain and stop outbreaks of Ebola. And yes, more than just epidemiology goes into the models; for example, many results from the work of those scientists who study viruses.

What I found astonishing (at first) and more lately really frustrating is an apparent reluctance by some who have posted to this thread (and its ancestors) to be prepared to discuss - or even consider - the science. Some of the comments about estimates/predictions/whatever being "unfalsifiable", for example ... not only do such comments reflect a poor understanding of the nature of science (sadly, an all too common misunderstanding), but they baldly and boldly assert that at least a large part of epidemiology is nonsense.

Which is fine ... after all, here in this SMM&T board we have many threads in which it is baldly and boldly asserted that relativity (both special and general) is nonsense, or that plasma astrophysics is all wrong. Even that epidemiology is wrong when it comes to community measels vaccination.

What seems to be unusual here is an apparent, persistent reluctance to actually engage in discussion. You know, pink elephants, zombies, and thousands of sandbags in preparation for a Category 5 hurricane with Miami in its crosshairs.

 

[JeanTate]

On March 5, the USA had reported a total of 9 deaths from COVID-19. On April 5, the USA reported a total of 7020 deaths.

Fortunately, the strong social distancing and lockdown of non-essential businesses will, with luck, have reduced R below 1 for at least the last couple weeks and probably less than 2 for earlier in March when social distancing was increasingly encouraged.

Hard to say what the impact of that is since the effect on deaths lags about 3 weeks but we should be seeing that soon. Within the next week or so.

I hope you are right, I really do.

Lately the word "hotspot" has been used in reporting about COVID-19 in the US, with New York being the current one.

In New York* R may now be ~1, as a result of the various "social" measures.

But is it ~1 in Florida? In New Orleans? In Texas? In Mississippi? Who knows? But unlikely. Perhaps actions and decisions by local, state, and Federal governments, over the next few weeks, will ensure that R is ~1 in those places by late April, say.

*Because it's the name for both a city and a state, there's lots of ambiguity. Also, many places where a lot of people commute to work in the Big Apple (or used to) are on Long Island (outside NYC), in CT, and in NJ. Many of these places are reporting COVID-19 deaths which are rising at ~the same rate as those in NYC.

 

[Roboramma]

Interesting. If that's the case, it's not being communicated effectively by the powers that be. But as long as the virus still exists, couldn't it just start over again until all the people who were going to get it, got it?

That's why mitigation requires more than just lockdowns, but also testing and contact tracing (followed by isolation of those who test positive).

Here's a nice rundown:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...trategy-suppress-then-test-trace-isolate.html

From internet comments I’ve seen some confusion on the suppress then “test, trace, isolate” strategy. The “flattening the curve” metaphor suggested that lockdown was all about spreading infections over time to keep the medical system operational. But more importantly, the purpose of lockdown is to reduce the infection rate, R, below 1. A virus needs hosts. Take away the hosts and it fades away. We can take away hosts by making people immune, either with a vaccine or through surviving exposure. We can also take away hosts by hiding–that’s what lockdown is for. If enough people hide, then the virus burns out and fades away.

Of course, hiding leaves us vulnerable to multiple rounds of infection. That’s where the second part of the strategy, test, trace and isolate comes into play. When the infection is running wild, as it is now, we don’t have enough tests to keep up with the virus. But after suppression we can put test, trace and isolate into effect very quickly as outbreaks flare up but before the virus runs out of control again. Increasing our test capacity dramatically makes this strategy even more viable.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, it is rather distasteful when you put it like that. My only defense is that I'm betting on the fewest people dying, so I gain when good things happen, whereas the counterparty/parties stand to gain when there is extra suffering.

Yeah, I honestly do feel a little weird about making a bet that I only win if people die. But since the bet doesn't impact on the odds of the outcome, when I think about it rationally I think it's okay. And I am in favor of betting as a way of helping us keep track of things. You had a point when you said it wasn't clear how to decide who is right if a high outcome would necessarily show that the alarmist viewpoint is right but a low outcome would be attributed to mitigation strategies. And I certainly think that the mitigation strategies will have some effect on the overall numbers.

But it seems like there's a number in the middle, which we've settled on, that shows that there was reason to be concerned, even if the mitigation strategies did have some effect on lowering numbers. If it gets that high, clearly something is going on. And if not, I'm happy to admit I was wrong.

 

[crescent]

Okay - big ugly spreadsheet post.

History: On March 20, I started a spreadsheet. I took the total number of deaths in America as of that day (from the Worldmeter site), and multiplied times 1.2, compounding each day (a 20% daily increase). I picked 1.2 more or less out of my butt, because just looking at the numbers for the previous week 1.2 seemed to be a bit lower than the actual rate of growth. Also, it made a nice comparison to 1.1, which seemed to be about the daily rate of growth for the worldwide total deaths (but I didn't put that into a spreadsheet because I was really just playing around).

I ran out the spreadsheet for sixty days (the total for May 19 was 14,368,616 deaths). But the rate of spread was actually a fair bit above 20%, so the numbers got off pretty quickly. Here's the numbers from that first set of calculations compared to actual numbers:

date|projected|actual
date|deaths|deaths
20-Mar|255|255
21-Mar|306|301
22-Mar|367|458
23-Mar|441|555
24-Mar|528|780
25-Mar|634|1027
26-Mar|761|1295
27-Mar|913|1695
28-Mar|1096|2220
29-Mar|1315|2583
30-Mar|1578|3141
31-Mar|1894|4053

By March 31, the two columns were pretty far off. In a bad way - actual deaths by then were more than twice as high as projected. The death total was increasing at well above 20% daily.

So I restarted the column on March 31. I posted that to the forum, but I had started it with the total as of mid-day. I should have picked an end-of-day total instead. So that's what I have below (starting with end of day numbers for March 31, so it is a bit off compared to the numbers I posted last week). This is the calculation of a 20% daily increase in total deaths for the U.S., run out for three weeks of projection with the actual included up to yesterday:

Date|20% growth| Actual
date|projection| Numbers 31-Mar | 4053| 4053 1-Apr | 4864| 5102 2-Apr | 5836| 6076 3-Apr | 7003| 7121 4-Apr | 8404| 8451 5-Apr | 10,085| 9616 6-Apr | 12,102
7-Apr | 14,522
8-Apr | 17,427
9-Apr | 20,913
10-Apr | 25,095
11-Apr | 30,114
12-Apr | 36,137
13-Apr | 43,364
14-Apr | 52,037
15-Apr | 62,445
16-Apr | 74,934
17-Apr | 89,920
18-Apr | 107,904
19-Apr | 129,485
20-Apr | 155,382
21-Apr | 186,459

This is actually "better" so far - things are sticking closer to 20% growth. I mean, 20% daily growth in total deaths is horrible - but the numbers since March 31 suggests that the rate of acceleration of total deaths is slowing down. Most days, more people die than did the previous day - but not by as wide of a margin.

(The table does look very good, I could not figure out how to make a decent looking table in the forum post. I would be happy if someone with better forum-format juju could make it look prettier.)(ETA: Nevermind, I made it look better by looking at the formatting in one of Novaphile's posts. Now it looks better)

 

[Steve]

Something I've been meaning to post - Bill Gates.

This bloke is a living legend. He's seen that the big problem for vaccines will be getting them produced when we find one, so he's going ahead and building facilities to produce seven potential vaccines so he can throw away the ones not needed and provide the world with the right one immediately.

Legend.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...accines-to-fight-coronavirus-2020-4?r=US&IR=T

He's an IT guy. Why should his opinion on a pandemic and how we respond to it be worth more than yours or mine?

Gates is not an expert in epidemiology. No one here has claimed that he is, and Gates has not claimed that he is. Gates is not offering his opinion on how the pandemic should be handled so his expertise, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

The Gates foundation has sufficient expertise to be able to build and operate the vaccine research and production facilities that he is offering. Gates will not be personally building or operating them so, again, his personal expertise, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

The vaccine facilities proposed by Gates will be designed, built, equipped, and operated by the appropriate experts.

The whole issue of Gates personal expertise is a person composed of nothing but horse bedding.

I never said that The Atheist claimed Gates had expertise. The issue of expertise is something _I_ brought up to point out that we should be careful about who we listen to. It's not a strawman. It's my OWN ARGUMENT!

TA noted that Gates (implied: through his foundation and with the expertise of medical and construction experts) is building facilities to create vaccines.

You respond that Gates is not an expert.

I say that is a strawman (ie; irrelevant) because
- no-one has claimed that he is an expert in these fields
- he does not need to be an expert to do what he is doing.

You reply that you brought up the idea that he is not an expert so you could argue about it.

This does not seem to be a very productive use of your time, but go ahead if you like.

 

[marting]

This is actually "better" so far - things are sticking closer to 20% growth. I mean, 20% daily growth in total deaths is horrible - but the numbers since March 31 suggests that the rate of acceleration of total deaths is slowing down. Most days, more people die than did the previous day - but not by as wide of a margin.

Nice table. Thanks.

It's going pretty much as expected. One can estimate the R (from 3 weeks previous) by this:

R=((Daily increase/decrease fractional)/(Daily deaths)) ^ (delay between initial infection and infection of others)

Still to early on the curve to nail the peak or make any good estimate of what the current R is.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Yes, science is not mathematics.

However, for practical purposes models can be "good enough".

For example, where, when, and for how long questions about the next (several hundred) total solar eclipses can be answered by looking at one or other model based on physics and astronomy. And those answers will certainly be good enough for anyone wanting to see a total solar eclipse for themselves, including those scientists who want to do research into solar eclipses (or during one).

Yes, agreed. I like models. I like science.

In this thread the branch of science we are looking into more than any other (perhaps) is epidemiology. Broadly, epidemiological models are good enough for things like campaigns to eradicate polio, or contain and stop outbreaks of Ebola. And yes, more than just epidemiology goes into the models; for example, many results from the work of those scientists who study viruses.

Agreed. But people tend to forget that models are just simplified versions of a very specific part of reality. No matter how many variables you include and how you set them, you are leaving out a massive number of unpredictable inputs that exist in reality. But it's better than just guessing without a model.

What I found astonishing (at first) and more lately really frustrating is an apparent reluctance by some who have posted to this thread (and its ancestors) to be prepared to discuss - or even consider - the science.

Agreed. But this is mostly a political forum at this point, so...

Some of the comments about estimates/predictions/whatever being "unfalsifiable", for example ... not only do such comments reflect a poor understanding of the nature of science (sadly, an all too common misunderstanding), but they baldly and boldly assert that at least a large part of epidemiology is nonsense.

i thought that noting something a prediction as being unfalsifiable is good science (as long as what is being claimed is really unfalsifiable).

Which is fine ... after all, here in this SMM&T board we have many threads in which it is baldly and boldly asserted that relativity (both special and general) is nonsense, or that plasma astrophysics is all wrong. Even that epidemiology is wrong when it comes to community measels vaccination.

In the right context they can turn into good threads. It depends on the character of the bold asserter. In the (all too rare) case they listen to the counter explanations and ask proper questions they can be productive. But in the vast majority of cases, I agree with your assessment.

 

[JeanTate]

Nice table. Thanks.

It's going pretty much as expected. One can estimate the R (from 3 weeks previous) by this:

R=((Daily increase/decrease fractional)/(Daily deaths)) ^ (delay between initial infection and infection of others)

Still to early on the curve to nail the peak or make any good estimate of what the current R is.

It might be helpful if you could show a “worked example”. Using actual data from crescent’s table.

 

[marting]

It might be helpful if you could show a “worked example”. Using actual data from crescent’s table.

Good point. Will do that and also for Italy which if further ahead so the way the 3 week delay in R changes is clearer.

 

[pipelineaudio]

great, this 'doctor" shiva is making the rounds of cultural and political leaders in Hawaii. https://youtu.be/WwMLMXV6mcU

 

[The Atheist]

Excellent statistical piece here on NYC having reached the peak: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26917

It links to a lengthy .pdf, of which, the tl;dr version is that what NYC belatedly did in shutting down is causing the rates to flatten, and hopefully with a next trend of reduction.

Bad news for other areas in the report, unfortunately.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

You know what I think. As we've both mentioned several times, your state has just about the worst population on paper for Covid-19 - high obesity, loads of diabetes, but it's not happening.

Which is good!

I see there are a few other states showing remarkably low infection & mortality rates, but it might just be part of spreading in from the coasts.

California isn't exactly in NYC's position and you think LA & NY would be pretty similar impact.

LA sunnier than NY in February/March?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed reference to post sent to C&CT forum

Much sunnier, I should know, I live here. It's raining today but we've had lots of sunshine lately. Everyone in this thread keeps saying that makes no difference though.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Let's do one year, no problem.

You have a deal.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Yeah, I honestly do feel a little weird about making a bet that I only win if people die. But since the bet doesn't impact on the odds of the outcome, when I think about it rationally I think it's okay. And I am in favor of betting as a way of helping us keep track of things. You had a point when you said it wasn't clear how to decide who is right if a high outcome would necessarily show that the alarmist viewpoint is right but a low outcome would be attributed to mitigation strategies. And I certainly think that the mitigation strategies will have some effect on the overall numbers.

But it seems like there's a number in the middle, which we've settled on, that shows that there was reason to be concerned, even if the mitigation strategies did have some effect on lowering numbers. If it gets that high, clearly something is going on. And if not, I'm happy to admit I was wrong.

I agree, it's more a way to keep track of things and prevent goalpost shifts. Nothing morally wrong with it.