patrick.net

I think these graphs about flattening the curve are pulled out of bureaucrat'a asses. The graphs show that flattening of the curve decreases the total # of infected persons by order or more of magnitude (area below curve), which can not be true. One needs to extend this flattening to years to be realitic, unless there is total lockdown and infection is stamped out.

These numbers are based on someone's best guess and seems highly inflated. Only 300-500 cases confirmed, while there is a huge fluctuation between 9000 and 19000 cases projected, a difference of 10,000 is a lot of cases.

We need to know what is behind these numbers. Is our government trying to scare the hell out of us to seize more power for themselves? I don't believe these ruling elites like the democratic system. They would much prefer the Chinese system. That is why you see people in the media defending the Chinese. Whatever you do, don't call it the Chinese virus, even though the epicenter was Wuhan.

San Mateo County is seeing decreasing cases and has no major problems with ICUs and beds. Thank the MDs and nurses for their hard work during these times, but don't be an alarmist shill. Look at the raw numbers instead. Europe has peaked and the US is as about to within 2 weeks if not sooner.

An extra tax of $1200 per person local tax will see the curve flatten to almost zero, says the bureaucrat.

ThreeBays says

370k infected in California = 0.9% of the population.
18000 infected in Sata Clara County = 0.9% of the population.

Sounds like my estimate is pretty close to the county's.

No. SC is the anomaly. There are many counties in CA with 0-100 infections. Those will all go to zero quickly. You won't get 1% of CA due to distancing. Maybe 0.2% at best. Of course over a long enough time line that may happen but that wouldn't be a problem for the hospitals to handle as long as they don't get all the cases at once. Herd immunity will eventually take over. Warm weather will help too. This is a serious illness but it's no apocalypse. Watch the CA numbers which have stalled and declined since hitting 1k new daily infections.

mell says

Watch the CA numbers which have stalled and declined since hitting 1k new daily infections.

DO you have a good source for California ? La Times has good data but not the history. Trying to confirm what you're saying. Seems unlikely to me, although I did here a i day decrease (in the level of increase) yesterday I think it was, on the radio.

:
Unfortunately. I think California is actually surging.

The county reported an additional 257 cases Friday, bringing the total to 1,481. Of the total, 678 cases were reported over the last 48 hours.

“In less than a week ... we’ve more than tripled the number of people here in L.A. County who are positive for COVID-19,” Ferrer said. She warned that if the county did not slow the spread of the virus, the region’s healthcare system would be overwhelmed.

The mortality rate in L.A. County is about 1.8%, which is higher than the mortality rate in New York City and the U.S. overall, Ferrer said. One factor in that is that Los Angeles County has tested far few people than New York, meaning it does not have as good a sense of the number of people with the virus. Almost 11,000 people had been tested in L.A. County as of Thursday, Ferrer said. By contrast, New York City had reported 25,000 confirmed positive cases, she said.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-27/california-facing-perilous-two-weeks-as-coronavirus-cases-deaths-surge

ThreeBays says

mell says

No. SC is the anomaly. There are many counties in CA with 0-100 infections. Those will all go to zero quickly. You won't get 1% of CA due to distancing. Maybe 0.2% at best. Of course over a long enough time line that may happen but that wouldn't be a problem for the hospitals to handle as long as they don't get all the cases at once. Herd immunity will eventually take over. Warm weather will help too. This is a serious illness but it's no apocalypse. Watch the CA numbers which have stalled and declined since hitting 1k new daily infections.

You're probably right, the southern counties have a lot less so around 1% in the Bay Area, but less throughout the state.

Herd immunity would require most of us getting it eventually.

Eventually yes. Although the death rate is more serious than many circulating infectious it would not have found a fraction of the amount of coverage if it would not be that infectious and happening all at once everywhere. If we get herd immunity over time that would be best. People will still die from it but it would be just one more of the occasional infectious hazards and once a vaccine is in play it would be similar to pneumococcal vaccines that seniors and at risk adults are advised to take. Until then we will practice social distancimg when there are outbreaks but we prob won't need shelter in places anymore after the first wave or two.

By the way last 3 days for CA were roughly 1100, 774, 758 (yesteday/today) new infections. It's looking promising, the social distancing seems to be working and we can likely avoid another New York. Still waiting on that warmer weather though, it's insane how cold and rainy it has been this spring in the bay area so far.

ThreeBays says

Without the shelter-in-place orders these graphs would have kept going up exponentially.

Wrong. It didnt do that in sweden.

marcus says

Unfortunately. I think California is actually surging.

Have the street people been wiped out yet?

Given that tests are bunk, how much can we really know know about new CV cases? Or do our work?

Seems like CV deaths and number of ventilator bound patients is our best current measurement of success.

For all Cuomo's posturing, NY still has ventilators available. Havent looked closely enough to suggest any conclusions from that tho.

No information AT ALL about the homeless and Covid-19, except that they are a new protected class that have no requirements of any kind. How is that kept out of the news?

In any true pandemic, the publicity efforts would be geared towards preventing panic, not promoting panic, so the promotion of panic is itself an indicator that this is willful programmed event.

Enough people NEED to get infected so that we get herd immunity. Which means that if you flatten the curve, this has to go on for a long time.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/flattening-the-coronavirus-curve-is-not-enough/

Second, flattening the curve assumes that you actually don’t go too far and that much of the population actually becomes infected and then immune. Immunity from Covid-19 is still an open scientific question but, let’s assume that is more likely to be true than not. If you reduce the infection rate too far, then most of the population does not become infected and that means that once you stop policies such as social distancing the virus can emerge once more and we all have to do this again. It is a reasonable assumption that we only want to intervene once. (Richard Baldwin describes the logic here.) The concerns are that China, Japan, and South Korea may have actually pushed social distancing too far. Israel and now Italy are going even further to keep the virus out altogether.

The reason there is a cost to this is that you are actually more socially useful if you get the virus and are no longer a carrier for the purposes of infection. That means that other people and society do not have to fear interactions with you. In other words, achieving ‘herd immunity’ is an investment in the future. It is like a vaccine but alas you have to actually get the virus rather than an injection.