Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-16-2020, 07:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
One, these a few cases out of nearly 80,000 cases considered recovered to date. So if it is reinfection it is rare.

Two, the article states clearly that the experts think its being reinfection is possible but unlikely:
Quote:
Some experts said it could be bi-phasic, meaning the disease could appear to go away before recurring. ... Dr Edward Wright, a virologist at Sussex University's School of Life Sciences, told The Independent: "There's still a lot we don't know about this virus and there could be several reasons why a person could test positive, then negative, then positive again. It could have been a mistake in the diagnostic test, or there are some examples of viruses becoming persistent - coronaviruses are not known to become persistent but we just don't know yet.

"Getting reinfected is unlikely, but it's also not something that can be ruled out."
A small handful out of 80,000, if the case, would not mean "goodbye herd immunity", any more than the occasional vaccine non-responder means that immunizations cannot achieve herd immunity.
  #102  
Old 03-16-2020, 08:01 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,579
The call to consider the various cost agains the benefits in a methodical way got some press today in the NYT.
Quote:
As an America desperate to stem the coronavirus outbreak put in place sweeping restrictions last week on every facet of public life, the University of Wyoming economist Linda Thunstrom asked what felt like a taboo question: “Are we overreacting?’’

It helped that Dr. Thunstrom was in her kitchen, drinking coffee with her husband, Jason Shogren, a fellow economist who studies how much Americans are willing to pay to reduce risk of threats like terrorism, food-borne illness and climate change.

Calculating the economic costs of curtailing social interaction compared with the lives saved, he agreed, might yield a useful metric for policymakers. The U.S. government routinely performs such analyses when assessing new regulations, with the “statistical value of life” currently pegged by one government agency at about $9 million.

Still, Dr. Thunstrom asked, “Do we even want to look at that? Is it too callous?” ...

...Besides the financial ramifications of such policies, their concerns touch on how society’s most marginalized groups may fare and on the effect of government-enforced curfews on democratic ideals. ...

... “We need to give the response to the virus our full attention,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “But we’re following every rabbit that pops out of its hole, as opposed to trying to prioritize responses that have the most impact.” ...
Surprised they did not share a back of the envelope set of calculations ...
  #103  
Old 03-16-2020, 10:31 PM
drivekiller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I was about to say what KK Fusion just said - any argument of "The fact that people and nations are reacting so strongly proves that it's serious" smacks of circular logic. People who say "The flu kills more" are asking why it is necessary for society and governments to react so strongly, and to reply "Because they are reacting strongly" provides no useful response reply at all.
raw numbers versus percentages
  #104  
Old 03-16-2020, 11:35 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The call to consider the various cost agains the benefits in a methodical way got some press today in the NYT.
Surprised they did not share a back of the envelope set of calculations ...
70% infected at .45% mortality rate results in 1 million Americans dead at $9 million each is $9 trillion, or about half US GDP. Avoiding that justifies a pretty significant economic sacrifice even when just looking at cold numbers.
  #105  
Old 03-17-2020, 12:04 AM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 809
So my mother, who is of a certain vintage, informs me that she doesn't remember polio being as big a deal as corona virus. My own memories don't go back that far.

Is their a valid comparison to be made there?
  #106  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:47 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,154
As well as deaths, we need to consider the number of people seriously or critically ill. Large numbers can easily overwhelm the hospital system. Serious cases can take 3-6 weeks to recover.

The United States has fewer hospital beds per 1000 population than Italy, France, and Spain - and far fewer than Korea and China.

List of countries by hospital beds

China could set up effective temporary hospitals and draw on massive resources from unaffected parts of the country. Without that, the death rate would have been far higher. In Italy they have been forced to use triage and deny treatment to patients less likely to survive.

People with many other illnesses who need hospital care are also seriously affected if there are not enough beds, equipment, and medical staff available because those resources are being used by coronavirus patients.

That's why social distancing is needed to 'flatten the peak' of the infection and spread the hospital load over a longer period of time.

Last edited by GreenWyvern; 03-17-2020 at 01:49 AM.
  #107  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:53 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
So my mother, who is of a certain vintage, informs me that she doesn't remember polio being as big a deal as corona virus. My own memories don't go back that far.

Is their a valid comparison to be made there?
Polio infects the digestive system, not the respiratory system, so it is not transferred from person to person so easily.
  #108  
Old 03-17-2020, 02:39 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
Exactly right. He, once again, won't answer questions or attempt to refute opposing arguments. But linking to poor quality YouTube videos. That he can do.
What questions have I refused to answer? I think I am posing questions that others refuse to answer. My point that this is mostly pushing elderly people towards the Pearly Gates has largely gone unrefuted. Maybe we should spend gojillions of dollars and destroy young peoples' lives to prevent that. I have not said otherwise, although admittedly I am leaning that way. That's why we have discussion boards, you know, to discuss.

I have an elderly mother, and certainly do not want her to die. Everyone here has a family. I think it a fair question to ask what the opportunity costs are to what we are doing. We make economic tradeoffs for lives all of the time. I gave the car example upthread. But it seems that this discussion simply cannot be had because nobody in charge will even mention it for fear of being flamed like I am.
  #109  
Old 03-17-2020, 04:06 AM
Pardel-Lux's Avatar
Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
They have cancelled the experiment now, we have no control group no more. What took them so long?
__________________
How happy many people could be if they only cared about other people's business as little as they care about their own! - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
  #110  
Old 03-17-2020, 06:38 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
So my mother, who is of a certain vintage, informs me that she doesn't remember polio being as big a deal as corona virus. My own memories don't go back that far.

Is their a valid comparison to be made there?
Probably a better comparison is tuberculosis, something my own mother (also of a certain vintage) had as a child and which her father suffered from as an adult. In the 19thC in some countries it was responsible for up to 25% of deaths, and up through the mid-20thC tuberculosis was considered a significant health hazard; immigrants were rigorously tested and people were advised (sometimes under force) to quarantine themselves in sanitaria and to avoid spitting in the street as this spread the disease.
  #111  
Old 03-17-2020, 07:35 AM
Hamlet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What questions have I refused to answer?
"Do you actually let the stats decide your opinion on the appropriateness of the reaction level? Is there a fatality rate at which you'll conclude the US is not "overreacting"? Is there a total number of cases? Rate of contagiousness?

I agree, we don't have great idea of the actual stats in the US yet (probably because testing has been fucked up). So I'm wondering if your opinion on whether the US is "over-reacting" is based on those stats, or something else. If the death rate is 2%, is that enough? 2.5% Is a million cases overall enough? 10 million? 100 million? IS a 1.5% infection rate too high? 2.5%?

Where is your line drawn?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
I think I am posing questions that others refuse to answer.
I do not doubt that YOU think that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
My point that this is mostly pushing elderly people towards the Pearly Gates has largely gone unrefuted.
Other than monstro pointing out it's not just "elderly people", MandaJo pointing out the fact that the quality of life of some "elderly people" is well beyond that of some "not elderly people", monstro and GreenWyvern pointing out the effects go well beyond just death, and my attempts to get you to commit to the statistices you're using. Yeah, other than those, your points is "unrefuted".

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
I think it a fair question to ask what the opportunity costs are to what we are doing.
Sure it is. But asking it, not giving any answers yourself, refusing to deal with the particulars, and only linking to poor quality idiotic TV movies from the 80's isn't the way to do it.
  #112  
Old 03-17-2020, 07:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
70% infected at .45% mortality rate results in 1 million Americans dead at $9 million each is $9 trillion, or about half US GDP. Avoiding that justifies a pretty significant economic sacrifice even when just looking at cold numbers.
So start with that set of assumptions. (Although these analyses don’t generally value each life at $9M, nowhere close, see the explanation about QALY as part of the approach).

The next step is making some educated guesses of how much different sorts of interventions would reduce that and at what price tags and risks to human lives and quality.

Remember the consensus is that it is a pandemic with sustained community spread. The “flatten the curve” concept is to spread out the number of cases to prevent the, or reduce the degree of overwhelming healthcare capacity, not change the number.

So how many deaths and admissions different between social distancing short of the type that causes the magnitudes of harms we are going see, inclusive but not limited to a focus on keeping the most vulnerable protected, and the extreme “shelter in place” measures?

The harms are not just money. They translate into lives and health and education and deaths as well.
  #113  
Old 03-17-2020, 08:16 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
opportunity costs
You know what plan would have had the lowest opportunity costs? Early testing and quarantining. As soon as word had gotten out about COVID-19, the CDC should have been alerting hospitals to do testing on patients presenting with certain symptoms and then those patients and families should have been isolated under supervision. Civil liberty violation, you say? Of course. But it would have been cheap and it would have prevented the situation we are in now.

The next cheapest option would have been for the federal government to alert the public early on (let's say, February) about the snotstorm heading our way and to invest the zillions of dollars they threw into the failing stock market into quadrapling our hospital bed capacity. China was able to do it, so why can't we? Imagine every major city converting old school buildings and warehouses into temporary hospitals, each equipped with hundreds of beds and ventilators. Who is going to run such facilities, you ask? Let's offer handsome salaries to retired nurses and doctors. Let's waive student loan debt for recent nursing school graduates. Let's offer unpaid orderly positions for pre-med students in exchange for free housing and lodging and prioritization for federal jobs and student loan repayment assistance.

Meanwhile, the CDC could have been doing widespread testing so that we would have a better idea which areas should be prioritized for expanded medical response. Equipped with this knowledge, local governments could have then come up with more spatially refined executive decisions. Like, instead of shutting down the entire state, only those towns/cities with outbreaks would be under a shutdown. And the shutdowns would only have to last as long as it would take to build up the hospital bed capacity. Once you've got your extra 8,000 beds or whatever, everyone could go back to business as usual.

Too bad this option isn't being considered on a national level, right? The president is leaving it up to states and cities to mobilize resources. No one should be talking about cutting everyone a check for a $1000 at this point. They should be directing monies towards a nation-wide medical response the likes we've never seen. That is how you both boost and protect the economy. Not by throwing money at the masses in hopes it keeps them from being mad at you and your party for shitting the bed for the past two months.

Now consider the options we have left. The current plan, where we have a patchwork quilt of draconian and not so draconian measures with no real long-term strategy for disease control and mitigation other than hope we don't have a situation as bad as Italy or Spain's. Or the plan you seem to be espousing, which is to sit around and crunch numbers on opportunity costs until we find an option that makes us feel good. Well, that plan shipped a long time ago when the president dismantled the pandemic response team. Playing out different scenarios is what those folks do for a living. When you elect politicians who dismantle things like pandemic response teams, you don't get to wring your hands over all the money being devoted to saving old folks. Hand-wringing is a luxury we can't afford now.

You don't want your tax dollars going to saving old people? Contact your congresspeople and tell them you want resources being put into hospital expansion rather than saving banks and Wall Street. Because more hospital beds will benefit everyone AND the economy. What we are doing now is making up stuff as we go along because our leader and his party don't have a clear vision on what the actual problem is. This is what we get for putting anti-intellectuals in charge.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?
  #114  
Old 03-17-2020, 09:01 AM
Kimera757 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
This is certainly the oddest situation like this in my lifetime. I mean, this sort of utter panic didn't happen with SARS, which is of course another coronavirus that was capable of killing people with alarming efficiency.
I believe this is the most dangerous pandemic since the invention of Facebook. (West Nile 1999; SARS 2002-2004; H1N1 2009 [post-Facebook]; zika virus 2015-2016. I couldn't find a date for another outbreak of avian flu, but it was sung about in a political video about years 2005 and 2006.) Even if media organizations reported responsibly, random people on social media are not. People will form their camps there: "It's going to destroy civilization! It's trivial! It's a conspiracy!" And other camps, plus shake and add trolls for "flavor".

The people who have the most to worry about (the elderly) aren't very social media-literate, and the influx of stories can overwhelm more social media-savvy people. My now-elderly mother, who literally can't figure out how Google works, is getting audio, video and image files (often of text) through Whats App. These purport to be from official organizations that, for some reason, don't use spell checkers. She insists they're legitimate.
  #115  
Old 03-17-2020, 09:19 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, what steps would we take if we had the Black Death of the 1300s facing us?
Uh, I don't know. Have sanitation workers drive around in garbage trucks yelling "bring out your dead" so they can be neatly disposed of in incinerators or lime pits?



I'm not sure what ridiculous argument you are trying to make.

COVID-19 spreads through person to person contact. So the way to avoid spreading it and turning it into the Black Death of 2020 is to reduce human contact.

I assume based on your posts that you think this is "no big deal" because you a) believe only old people get seriously ill from COVID-19 and b) don't really understand terms like "exponential". Since March 4, the number of cases in the US have increased by on average 33% EVERY DAY. Or DOUBLES every 3-4 days or so. In two weeks, they have gone from 150 to 4500. Another two weeks it will go from 4500 to 185,000. 4 weeks after that it will be 10 million. You get the idea.

If 10% of cases are serious enough to need hospitalization, that is one million people. There are not enough hospital beds in America to treat an additional 1 million people over a two month period on top of however many people get sick or injured normally during that time. So a significant portion of those people will die (way more than 2%).

Some charts and graphs:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

There is no vaccine or natural immunity to COVID-19 so the only way to slow down the spread is to either isolate the sick and/or limit contact between people in general.
  #116  
Old 03-17-2020, 09:26 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
So my mother, who is of a certain vintage, informs me that she doesn't remember polio being as big a deal as corona virus. My own memories don't go back that far.

Is their a valid comparison to be made there?
There were polio epidemics basically every year for the first half of the 1900s, and at their worst they infected tens of thousands in the US and killed a couple of thousand. So no.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #117  
Old 03-17-2020, 09:49 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I assume based on your posts that you think this is "no big deal" because you a) believe only old people get seriously ill from COVID-19 and b) don't really understand terms like "exponential". Since March 4, the number of cases in the US have increased by on average 33% EVERY DAY. Or DOUBLES every 3-4 days or so. In two weeks, they have gone from 150 to 4500. Another two weeks it will go from 4500 to 185,000. 4 weeks after that it will be 10 million. You get the idea.
I'm not sure if this is relevant to your dispute with UV, which I've not been following closely, but I believe your claim that the spread is exponential is incorrect.

Firstly, it's likely that some percentage of the population is either immune or at least highly resistant to the virus would initially spread disproportionately among those most vulnerable to it, and the rate of spread would slow when it turns to those less vulnerable.

Second, the number of available targets per infected individual decreases as the number of infected individuals increases. For example, if someone is the first case in his country/city/community, then everyone he comes into contact with is a potential target and a target of him alone. Let's suppose that's 50 people. If half the city is already carriers, then it's obviously impossible for the number of potential targets in that city to be 50 times the number already carrying the virus. There will be some spread outside the city, obviously, but it won't be nearly 50 times the number of cases in the city. And so on.

Again, this may not have a bearing on your particular issue, and I certainly agree that as there are more cases the number of new cases is likely to rise. But it might be worth noting that from a technical standpoint, it's clearly incorrect that you can extrapolate an exponential growth rate from the early stages of an epidemic.
  #118  
Old 03-17-2020, 09:58 AM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
You know what plan would have had the lowest opportunity costs? Early testing and quarantining. As soon as word had gotten out about COVID-19, the CDC should have been alerting hospitals to do testing on patients presenting with certain symptoms and then those patients and families should have been isolated under supervision. Civil liberty violation, you say? Of course. But it would have been cheap and it would have prevented the situation we are in now.

The next cheapest option would have been for the federal government to alert the public early on (let's say, February) about the snotstorm heading our way and to invest the zillions of dollars they threw into the failing stock market into quadrapling our hospital bed capacity. China was able to do it, so why can't we? Imagine every major city converting old school buildings and warehouses into temporary hospitals, each equipped with hundreds of beds and ventilators. Who is going to run such facilities, you ask? Let's offer handsome salaries to retired nurses and doctors. Let's waive student loan debt for recent nursing school graduates. Let's offer unpaid orderly positions for pre-med students in exchange for free housing and lodging and prioritization for federal jobs and student loan repayment assistance.

Meanwhile, the CDC could have been doing widespread testing so that we would have a better idea which areas should be prioritized for expanded medical response. Equipped with this knowledge, local governments could have then come up with more spatially refined executive decisions. Like, instead of shutting down the entire state, only those towns/cities with outbreaks would be under a shutdown. And the shutdowns would only have to last as long as it would take to build up the hospital bed capacity. Once you've got your extra 8,000 beds or whatever, everyone could go back to business as usual.

Too bad this option isn't being considered on a national level, right? The president is leaving it up to states and cities to mobilize resources. No one should be talking about cutting everyone a check for a $1000 at this point. They should be directing monies towards a nation-wide medical response the likes we've never seen. That is how you both boost and protect the economy. Not by throwing money at the masses in hopes it keeps them from being mad at you and your party for shitting the bed for the past two months.

Now consider the options we have left. The current plan, where we have a patchwork quilt of draconian and not so draconian measures with no real long-term strategy for disease control and mitigation other than hope we don't have a situation as bad as Italy or Spain's. Or the plan you seem to be espousing, which is to sit around and crunch numbers on opportunity costs until we find an option that makes us feel good. Well, that plan shipped a long time ago when the president dismantled the pandemic response team. Playing out different scenarios is what those folks do for a living. When you elect politicians who dismantle things like pandemic response teams, you don't get to wring your hands over all the money being devoted to saving old folks. Hand-wringing is a luxury we can't afford now.

You don't want your tax dollars going to saving old people? Contact your congresspeople and tell them you want resources being put into hospital expansion rather than saving banks and Wall Street. Because more hospital beds will benefit everyone AND the economy. What we are doing now is making up stuff as we go along because our leader and his party don't have a clear vision on what the actual problem is. This is what we get for putting anti-intellectuals in charge.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
This was beautiful.
  #119  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:06 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,435
Fothingay-Phipps, your point seems pretty picauyne compared to what msmith was saying, which is that the costs of a shitload of people getting sick all at the same time is considerable. It is expected that 70% if us could be infected over the next 18 months. We can reach that target through a combination of linear and exponential infection rate growth quite easily.

Doesn't matter if the infection rate is continally exponential growth or not. The point is that a shitload of people are already infected and it will be even more tomorrow and the day after that.


Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?

Last edited by monstro; 03-17-2020 at 10:09 AM.
  #120  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:42 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
I believe this is the most dangerous pandemic since the invention of Facebook. (West Nile 1999; SARS 2002-2004; H1N1 2009 [post-Facebook]; zika virus 2015-2016. I couldn't find a date for another outbreak of avian flu, but it was sung about in a political video about years 2005 and 2006.) Even if media organizations reported responsibly, random people on social media are not. People will form their camps there: "It's going to destroy civilization! It's trivial! It's a conspiracy!" And other camps, plus shake and add trolls for "flavor".
I would argue the last time we had a pandemic that was as bad as this will likely end up being was the polio crisis.

It is worth noting that was only stopped because a vaccine was invented.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #121  
Old 03-17-2020, 06:44 PM
Zyada is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Foat Wuth!
Posts: 5,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
So my mother, who is of a certain vintage, informs me that she doesn't remember polio being as big a deal as corona virus. My own memories don't go back that far.

Is their a valid comparison to be made there?
How old is your mother? My father was just old enough to get it as a child, not old enough to experience the epidemic the way an adult would. And he would have been in his mid-80s now if he was still alive.
  #122  
Old 03-17-2020, 06:48 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyada View Post
How old is your mother? My father was just old enough to get it as a child, not old enough to experience the epidemic the way an adult would. And he would have been in his mid-80s now if he was still alive.
That's about the same age as my mother.

I was just wondering about the relative casualty rate for Covid 19 v Polio.
  #123  
Old 03-17-2020, 07:43 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I'm not sure if this is relevant to your dispute with UV, which I've not been following closely, but I believe your claim that the spread is exponential is incorrect.

Firstly, it's likely that some percentage of the population is either immune or at least highly resistant to the virus would initially spread disproportionately among those most vulnerable to it, and the rate of spread would slow when it turns to those less vulnerable.
Not only is this not at all likely, it is patently untrue. This is a new virus, meaning there is no preexisting immunity in the population. Cite.

Also, it appears that the virus is spreading more rapidly in those with mild symptoms, or not yet showing symptoms.

And just because you contract the virus from someone who only has mild symptoms does not mean that you will experience mild symptoms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
“Just because you get the disease from someone with mild symptoms does not mean yours are going to be mild,” Dr. Shaman said. “You could still end up in the I.C.U.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Second, the number of available targets per infected individual decreases as the number of infected individuals increases. For example, if someone is the first case in his country/city/community, then everyone he comes into contact with is a potential target and a target of him alone. Let's suppose that's 50 people. If half the city is already carriers, then it's obviously impossible for the number of potential targets in that city to be 50 times the number already carrying the virus. There will be some spread outside the city, obviously, but it won't be nearly 50 times the number of cases in the city. And so on.
The first half of your objection is trivial. You are basically saying that exponential growth stops once everyone is infected (or dead). No shit. The point is that we are trying to avoid everyone getting infected...or at least slow the rate of new infections down so as to not overwhelm the hospitals and available medical treatment.

The second half of your statement makes no sense. Because it only takes one person to spread the virus, and because there are lots and lots of cities and communities of people in the world, why do you believe that there can't be more than 50 times the number of cases outside of your hypothetical city?

This is especially true with modern travel. In the last few months, I've traveled to every New England state, Florida, Utah, Colorado, British Columbia, and the Bahamas. I'm just one person. That's why they are shutting travel down and telling people to stay home.
  #124  
Old 03-17-2020, 08:13 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
So my mother, who is of a certain vintage, informs me that she doesn't remember polio being as big a deal as corona virus. My own memories don't go back that far.

Is their a valid comparison to be made there?
I'll observe, not compare. My aunt, born just over a century ago, had childhood polio and hobbled on crutches. My next door neighbor girl, and the daughter of one of my dad's co-workers, both my own age and whose families we socialized with, survived in iron lungs. Infantile paralysis, polio, was common, obvious, and terrible, a constant horror for parents during the 20th century's first half. The Koprowski, Salk, and Sabin vaccines changed the world.

COVID has just begun.
  #125  
Old 03-17-2020, 09:58 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
... Also, it appears that the virus is spreading more rapidly in those with mild symptoms, or not yet showing symptoms. ...
Your cite does not support your claim.

Quote:
Several experts interviewed by CNN said while it's unclear exactly what percentage of the transmission in the outbreak is fueled by people who are obviously sick versus those who have no symptoms or very mild symptoms, it's become clear that transmission by people who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic is responsible for more transmission than previously thought.
is not ... NOT ... even if that was a consensus of most experts ... a claim that you made.

As far as growth ... it is NOT that "that exponential growth stops once everyone is infected (or dead)". A very basic model of growth is the SIR model - there are three compartments: those susceptible to the disease (S); those infected with it and spreading it (I); and those who have immunity to it such as because of having recovered from infection (inclusive of asymptomatic infection). As R increases there is less exposure of S to I and growth slows down. It is the basic of herd immunity. Yeah F-P is still mistaken - but you aint quite right either.
  #126  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:09 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 17,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Your cite does not support your claim.

is not ... NOT ... even if that was a consensus of most experts ... a claim that you made.

As far as growth ... it is NOT that "that exponential growth stops once everyone is infected (or dead)". A very basic model of growth is the SIR model - there are three compartments: those susceptible to the disease (S); those infected with it and spreading it (I); and those who have immunity to it such as because of having recovered from infection (inclusive of asymptomatic infection). As R increases there is less exposure of S to I and growth slows down. It is the basic of herd immunity. Yeah F-P is still mistaken - but you aint quite right either.
Mine does:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=891961
  #127  
Old 03-18-2020, 12:22 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,579
Almost but not quite. Not "more rapidly." More commonly - which makes perfect sense because once people are sick they quarantine.
Quote:
These undocumented infections are about half as contagious as documented infections because people are not coughing and sneezing.

Yet they were found to be responsible for about two-thirds of documented infections – because they are so abundant. ...

... “We’re seeing just the tip of the iceberg. How much is submerged – five times? Ten times? We can argue about what the exact number is, but if you’re not in a place where you can proactively sample and test, the majority of infections will be undetected.”
Many times more than we know are infected also of course implies that the infection fatality rate would be several times smaller. It remains a key question: how big is the iceberg?
  #128  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:08 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Almost but not quite. Not "more rapidly." More commonly...
In the context of a virus spreading through the community, what’s the difference between “more rapidly” and “more commonly”?
  #129  
Old 03-18-2020, 02:37 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Your cite does not support your claim.
Did you read the whole article?
Quote:
"Asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic transmission are a major factor in transmission for Covid-19," said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and longtime adviser to the CDC. "They're going to be the drivers of spread in the community."
Quote:
On Tuesday, Dr. Sandra Ciesek, director of the Institute of Medical Virology in Frankfurt, Germany, tested 24 passengers who had just flown in from Israel. Seven of the 24 passengers tested positive for coronavirus. Four of those had no symptoms, and Ciesek was surprised to find that the viral load of the specimens from the asymptomatic patients was higher than the viral load of the specimens from the three patients who did have symptoms.

Viral load is a measure of the concentration of the virus in someone's respiratory secretions. A higher load means that someone is more likely to spread the infection to other people.
Quote:
...Of the 135 people in the Tianjin cluster, between 62% and 77% caught it from someone was pre-symptomatic.

Here's some more recent information:
Quote:
In the period before the Chinese government threw up a massive barricade around the province of Hubei to block the coronavirus’ escape, almost 9 out of 10 infections were transmitted by carriers who were still healthy, according to a new simulation of the virus’ spread.

Compared with a person who was sick enough to have his or her infection confirmed in the pandemic’s early days, an infected person with symptoms mild enough to escape official documentation was about half as likely to infect another person, the analysis found.

But since these “undocumented” carriers so outnumbered those whose infections were confirmed, their effect was far greater, the researchers who conducted the simulation found. They concluded that in the outbreak’s earliest days — between Jan. 10 and Jan. 23 — people well enough to have stayed out of the hospital probably played a key role in the coronavirus’ explosive spread.
The same article also indicates what works and what does not:
Quote:
On a landscape where unseen spreaders are both numerous and difficult to detect and avoid, the researchers warned that measures such as screening people for fever or illness at public events or national borders will do little to slow the virus’ spread. While more disruptive to the public, restrictions on travel and social interaction that cover healthy as well as sick people will have more success, they said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
...As far as growth ... it is NOT that "that exponential growth stops once everyone is infected (or dead)". A very basic model of growth is the SIR model - there are three compartments: those susceptible to the disease (S); those infected with it and spreading it (I); and those who have immunity to it such as because of having recovered from infection (inclusive of asymptomatic infection). As R increases there is less exposure of S to I and growth slows down. It is the basic of herd immunity. Yeah F-P is still mistaken - but you aint quite right either.
From your link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
R(t) is the compartment used for those individuals who have been infected and then removed from the disease, either due to immunization or due to death. Those in this category are not able to be infected again or to transmit the infection to others.
I'm not sure what your point is.

There are currently just over 7,000 reported cases in the U.S. The population of the U.S. is over 300 million.

There are plenty of uninfected people in the country (S) such that exponential growth can continue for longer than any of us would like.

Yes, of course as R increases, exponential growth will slow. However, in the absence of a vaccine or other controls (like social distancing), the only way that R can increase to the point that it affects that exponential growth is for a significant fraction of the population to become infected. This will likely result in the death of millions of people.
  #130  
Old 03-19-2020, 04:41 AM
Pardel-Lux's Avatar
Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
[...] This is what we get for putting anti-intellectuals in charge.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Congratulations and thank you for this very well written post.
__________________
How happy many people could be if they only cared about other people's business as little as they care about their own! - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
  #131  
Old 03-19-2020, 04:52 AM
Pardel-Lux's Avatar
Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
In the context of a virus spreading through the community, what’s the difference between “more rapidly” and “more commonly”?
One possible difference, as I understand it:
More rapidly: One person gets infected in the morning. He feels unwell in the evening (that is rapidity). He stays at home the next morning, has only had the chance to infect X people before self-quarantining.
More commonly: One person gets infected in the morning of day one. He feels well at least one week, maybe two or does not show any simptoms at all, but can still transmit the virus to others (Y) that may (or may not) develop simptoms. Those people will also transmit the virus to more people (Z) before feeling unwell. More people get infected and more people get sick than in the first case.
Y > X
Y + Z > X
__________________
How happy many people could be if they only cared about other people's business as little as they care about their own! - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
  #132  
Old 03-19-2020, 03:48 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
...Also, it appears that the virus is spreading more rapidly in those with mild symptoms, or not yet showing symptoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
In the context of a virus spreading through the community, what’s the difference between “more rapidly” and “more commonly”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pardel-Lux View Post
One possible difference, as I understand it:
More rapidly: One person gets infected in the morning. He feels unwell in the evening (that is rapidity). He stays at home the next morning, has only had the chance to infect X people before self-quarantining.
More commonly: One person gets infected in the morning of day one. He feels well at least one week, maybe two or does not show any simptoms at all, but can still transmit the virus to others (Y) that may (or may not) develop simptoms. Those people will also transmit the virus to more people (Z) before feeling unwell. More people get infected and more people get sick than in the first case.
Nobody was talking about how rapidly someone develops symptoms after being infected.

We were talking about how rapidly the virus is spreading through the community.
  #133  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Did you read the whole article? ...
Yes I did.

When I read "more rapidly" I understand it to mean that individuals who are asymptomatic are more contagious than those who are symptomatic. Best estimate is closer to half as contagious.

But if we are talking about which population in aggregate is responsible for more of the spread, then the asymptomatic, minimally symptomatic, and prodromal, in aggregate are spreading it more, simply because there are so many more of them, most uncounted and unrecognized, and because those more symptomatic are not out and about at all.
  #134  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:52 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
How many Americans (A) have died because of the flu this year? How many have (B) died due to COVID-19?

Until B > A, morons will think "No big deal" no matter how many scientists or doctors or other "Fake News" people tell us different.
Sorry to be cynical, but in about three months time, when there are somewhere between half a million and 2.5 million dead in just the USA alone (if we do nothing), we won't be hearing the "no big deal" argument so much any more.

Last edited by El_Kabong; 03-19-2020 at 10:57 PM.
  #135  
Old 03-20-2020, 08:07 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
How many Americans (A) have died because of the flu this year? How many have (B) died due to COVID-19?
What I haven't seen is mention of how this is too early to measure mortality. The disease has not run its course in most of the recently infected and many of the people shown as infected today may be dead next week.
  #136  
Old 03-20-2020, 10:27 PM
Morgyn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In the time stream
Posts: 6,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I tend not to argue with people who say that. Maybe a little back and forth to see where it goes, but if someone doesn't understand that while they're correct, the lack of seat belt made no difference, it's because they never got into a (serious) car accident. Some people can grasp that, many other's can't or won't.


Someone on FB said that yesterday. The person is normally pretty smart and level headed so if may have been a sarcastic comment. In either case, I responded that the reason Y2K didn't amount to much is because a lot of programmers spent a lot of time writing, testing and pushing out patches to make sure everything went as smoothly as possible.
If we had simply ignored it, the way people want to ignore this, we would have had a lot of problems. Maybe not 'planes dropping out of the sky' problems. But a lot more problems than people realized.
The other day I was making that same point on my FB wall, and mentioned that my sister-in-law was part of that effort, only to have a Doper (I don't recall his screen name) chime in saying the following:

Quote:
I was in that effort. Largest client gig was a hospital system. Only found four systems out of literally thousands that would have failed. Two of *those,* however, would have killed people: ER surgical suite oxygen supply, and ICU oxygen supply.
He literally saved lives from the Y2K bug.
  #137  
Old 03-21-2020, 08:15 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Korea shows why there is a need to test more; however, the death rate I have seen reported is still higher than the flu.
I agree it might be higher than the flu but the death rate in Korea is closer the the truth than 5% or whatever other extraordinarily high number people are throwing around.

But even in Korea, the health care system was so overloaded that diagnosis of COVID 19 in mild cases is almost impossible because health care worker had to take care of people who were really ill. If you had a manageable symptoms, you were encouraged just to stay home and stay isolated.
  #138  
Old 03-21-2020, 08:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Two reasons:
  • The mortality rate for COVID-19 is at least an order of magnitude greater than that of influenza.
  • The number of cases of COVID-19 are increasing exponentially.
Note that "exponentially" is not a synonym for "a lot." It's a mathematical term.

When a danger is growing exponentially, everything looks fine until it doesn’t



The problem isn't the current number of cases. It's how many cases we will have in a few weeks or months.

More detail here:
Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now
most humans can't grokk exponential growth.
This is the closest I have gotten to getting most people to understanding it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcskckuosxQ
  #139  
Old 03-21-2020, 08:20 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,311
In the end, we will never know if we overreacted.

It will be painfully clear if we underreacted.
  #140  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:18 PM
carrps is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
This was beautiful.
I want to give monstro's post a standing ovation.
  #141  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:19 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What questions have I refused to answer? I think I am posing questions that others refuse to answer. My point that this is mostly pushing elderly people towards the Pearly Gates has largely gone unrefuted. Maybe we should spend gojillions of dollars and destroy young peoples' lives to prevent that.
There’s ways to fix economic distress. There’s no way to fix dead.
  #142  
Old 03-27-2020, 09:19 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,674
This is how you counter that argument...

The number of CDC confirmed cases in the first 65 days:

H1N1:
April 15, 2009: first infection detected in US
June 19, 2009: 21,449 cases, 87 deaths in US

COVID-19:
Jan. 20, 2020: first infection detected in US
March 25, 2020: 69,344 cases, 1,050 deaths in the US
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017