patrick.net

:
Reality says

The current "Pandemic" is obviously showing that the "Pandemic Bureaucracy" doesn't work

Right. As if Trump gave that a chance (before like 5 days ago).

marcus says

I was referring to the implied theory that the real problem is over use of hospitals for Corona virus patients. I know for a fact that they prioritizing people self quarantining until it's deemed serious, at a point that there is little choice.

Hydroxychloroquine so far has proven the most effective medicine for preventing conditions getting serious . . . yet their initial objection showed their priorities. With so much money riding on hospital bed utilization rate (just like hotel occupancy rate), why is it so hard to see that the administrators of the industry would want high utilization/occupancy rate?

marcus says

Massively missing my point. My point about whether or not everyone gets the virus is that maybe, only maybe, but if some or a lot would occur in a later surge. I showed that graphic just as an example in the literature showing how it can recur - in that example many times.

Not missing your point at all. You have no instinct for safe-guarding liberty and freedom. Even if periodic lock-downs would save lives (it doesn't, as shown in posts earlier), anyone who doesn't want to become a slave/human-farm-animal would object to periodic lock-down as a normal aspect of life. The author of that paper was obviously a paid shill for totalitarianism. If the society were full of those "over-educated idiots" a century ago, the automobile would never have been legal: for fear of car accident deaths.

marcus says

Right. As if Trump gave that a chance (before like 5 days ago).

.

The entire CDC and NIAID should be disbanded, as they clearly show bureaucratic incompetence (and regulatory capture) in their recommendations. Dr. Mengele Fauci and Dr. Mengele Birx obviously don't understand science or math, but follow Communist China in their policy recommendations!

Reality says

Not missing your point at all.

Yes you are, I have no interest in periodic lock downs.

I'm talking about the fact that the only way that the amount of people that get the virus is the same with or without lockdown is if there is one recurrence or many recurrences later.

Reality says

Even if periodic lock-downs

I have no interest in periodic lock downs. If I have some credible literature showing a graphic of just one secondary surge that occurs next fall and winter, I would have showed that.

Clearly the number of deaths between now and say the end of June is WAY lower with the lock down than without.

marcus says

Yes you are, I have no interest in periodic lock downs.

I'm talking about the fact that the only way that the amount of people that get the virus is the same with or without lockdown is if there is one recurrence or many recurrences later.

Your theory is once again wrong: the tests are only 30-80% in accuracy, and the hospitals are not locked down at all. It's amazing how simple-minded people can be. Your "lock-down" model is about as silly as believing shooting offenders would stop corruption instead of making corruption worse because now officials have to amass even greater fortune to bribe their way out of death rolls.

I have no interest in periodic lock downs. If I have some credible literature showing a graphic of just one secondary surge that occurs next fall and winter, I would have showed that.

Prolonged lock-down would produce a more deadly secondary surge, as proven by the St. Louis case during the 1918-1919 Asprin-Flu.

Clearly the number of deaths between now and say the end of June is WAY lower with the lock down than without.

Not clear at all. The surge started in the US in late February to early March. The virus has burned itself out in less than 6-8 weeks everywhere else in the world (especially in places like Singapore, where no draconian policy was taken and the virus went away in 2-4 weeks). 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.

:
I would like to get out and get me some sun, but the beaches are closed. I haven't figured out yet how the powers that be are profiting on that one.

marcus says

I would like to get out and get me some sun, but the beaches are closed. I haven't figured out yet how the powers that be are profiting on that one.

They are trying to make themselves feel important, while literally killing people! Just like the evil bureaucrats in Communist China and Communist North Korea.

Reality says

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

Where'd these numbers come from?

IMO, the best case for social distancing is to buy time to find a current pharmaceutical treatment. Vaccines may work in future seasons but won't be available for at least 6 months and probably more like 18 months.

IF the malaria cocktails prove to work, then the relevant question is how many people didn't get sick and die before we figured that out? 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. IDK. 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?
www.youtube.com/embed/-UO3Wd5urg0 This Stanford professor suggests the lower standard of living could result in robbing many more living years than the social distancing saved.

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.

marcus says

If we were talking about Math or philosophy and I thought there was an error in your thinking, that I was interested in articulating, and if you were an emotionally stable person with an IQ over 80, you would probably tell me where I was wrong.

Ceffer says

"Errors in thinking" = Libbyfuck/Progressive sucker punch. The only error in thinking is to think it's your job to correct others' errors in thinking. Gulag, anybody?

Don't forget condescension!

Let's recall the experts already downgraded their model substantially in just a few days, and China completely fooled WHO (or corrupted them or both).

it's interesting that the same people wanting us to maintain harsher and longer SOCIAL DISTANCING are mostly the same people (and "Experts" including of "Health Law", though how somebody who specializes in Health Laws is a Public Health Expert, anymore than somebody who specializes in Patent Laws is a Damned Thomas Edison or Tesla or somebody who specializes in Admiralty Law is Jacque Cousteau or Francis Drake) who insisted it was neither EFFECTIVE nor MORAL to slow down on Human Movement between disease hotspots and areas not yet heavily effected.

Reality says

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.

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.

Reality says

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.

Keep in mind, more contagious is not necessarily more deadly. In fact often the opposite. The viruses just want to live, how does killing benefit them ?

CBOEtrader says

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.

Muh! Trust the experts....

Anyone that even suggests 10-20% more grandmas might die this flu season should be drawn and quartered. Somehow they found the fountain of youth and this silly virus just offed them from living forever.

Politics and emotions go out the window in situations like this. The pandemic is similar to things we've seen in the past. What we haven't EVER experienced is this level of shut down to benefit a minority of the population that would die falling in the shower. Death sucks. Get over it.

marcus says

Clearly the number of deaths between now and say the end of June is WAY lower with the lock down than without.

?
Stunning!

CBOEtrader says

Reality says

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

Where'd these numbers come from?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30633-4/fulltext

The survival rate for ventilation and intubation in that study of N=190+ is less than 5%! The extubation survival rate in NYC right now is also extremely low, only "a couple" according to an interview on TV, although no formal study has been done yet like that in the Lancet article. I was actually being very generous in giving 5-15% estimate for survival. The normal one-year survival rate for people who get put on the ventilator and intubated is only 30%; that's before this allegedly more deadly 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.

On the contrary: the lives saved for going to hospital when there is a massively contagious and deadly disease may well be negative! Just like 100 years ago, doctors prescribing and pharmacies handing out Asprins thinking they were saving lives actually cost millions of lives! and 200 years ago, doctors bled people to death after finding small amount of bleeding a great therapy for treating minor illness because it stimulates the immune system.

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?

Yes, that is a very important topic, and a far better way of thinking about the issue han "lives saved," which to the simpletons sounds like lives of infinite duration saved.

Comes to think of it: humanity having telomerase in our DNA pre-determine each one of us having to die at some point may well be the species strategy against virus: when dying of viral invasion also taking out the most deadly strains of the virus with us! So our offspring can be left with more benign strains of the virus.

marcus says

Reality says

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.

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.

That artificial selection phenomenon was actually shown in the graph of St.Louis during the 1981-1919 Asprin-Flu: the second surge killed more people than the first surge, thanks to the lock-down.

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 (due to the people carrying them being exempt from lock-down when going to hospital) would have a Darwinian advantage in communicating to new hosts (compared to strains that do not make people deathly ill).

Schools should be open. Workplaces should be open. For anybody under 60-65,life should be normal

For 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 Truckin'

:
Reality says

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).

Okay, if that's true then it would or will be very provable since they are tracking the different strains.

Suppose it is true.

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 ?

marcus says

How is this worse with a lockdown.

Are you not paid by the government? Anyone paid by the government can shut their fucking mouth on this topic. They clearly don't know or understand much about mental health considering their jobs are secure (for now) during this. You'll find out soon what we're all talking about. I appreciate Reality trying to explain it to people, but y'all just ain't fucking getting it.

1 dead person from CV-19 is one dead person. We'll never account for the 3 other dead people to the 1 CV-19 patient due to lockdown. But hey, enjoy Monday morning quarterbacking a pandemic and shutdown from a bullshit position.

ThreeBays says

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.

Given that the death rate for those put on ventilators and intubation is 85% to 95% (and the remainder are likely to die in a few more months), hospital capacity is almost meaningless as all hospitals are essentially hospices for this disease; the only difference is running up a 6-figure to 7-figure bill before the patient dies, to be paid by the taxpayers or the estate.

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.

Lock-down gets in the way of building herd immunity among the low-risk population, which is realistically the only solution in the long run. Also, as getting sick is dependent on viral load during initial exposure, being exposed to a small amount of virus in normal social setting, especially on a sunny beach under intense UV, may well get a person exposed and build immunity without ever getting sick . . . whereas hospital air viral load is likely to be high and therefore dangerous!

Lock-down also artificially select the more dead strains of the virus.

While the total number of people exposed to the virus will be the same in the long run (it will go on until 66-70% have been exposed), the number of people getting sick (and potentially dying) will actually be higher in a lock-down (while hospitals not being locked down) compared to no lock-down at all for the society.

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.

That won't work for a disease that has initial R0 close to 3 while fatality rate as low as < 1%. This is not Ebola, where initial R0 is 1.x and fatality rate is over 50% (i.e. most people getting Ebola would die and taking the virus with them). As soon the lock-down is lifted, the high R0 low FR virus would resume the initial spread (only this time with more deadly strains emphasized), rendering the lock-down a complete waste of time (and counter-productive).

marcus says

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 ?

Hospital staff are out-numbered in the society by non-hospital persons by something like 1000:1. If the society is not locked down, people would have their initial exposure to the new type of coronavirus by non-hospital personnel in 99+% cases, and likely to be in low viral load, especially on sunny beaches under the intense UV light. The best initial exposure is indeed to a small load of dead virus . . . that's exactly what most vaccines are: virus bred in vats then killed by irradiation. That's how flu season ends every year: natural vaccine produced by the Sun's UV light in Spring and Summer.

Once a person is exposed to a strain of the virus and recovers, the person is immune to many similar strains of the same year. That's how flu vaccines work (or hope to work) every year.

When there is no lock-down, the people dying in hospitals would give the deadly strains a Darwinian disadvantage as the dying hosts take the virus out along with them. 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).

When there is a lock-down, however, the probability of first exposure being to the most deadly strains increases dramatically, as the most deadly strains are given a Darwinian advantage to spread by government policy! The hospital setting is also likely to have high viral load.

:
Reality says

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.

If it is more about who gets it than how deadly the strain is, then a lot of this argument falls apart.

Are you a software developer of some sort ? (that is if you're not Steve Bannon?)

marcus says

Pretty well thought out. Backing your way from the conclusion you wish to reach. As I see it, the following is the biggest flaw.

Not backing away at all. Are you trying to lie deliberately? Marcus?

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.

People not working at hospitals out-number people working at hospitals by a factor of greater than 1000:1, that means when not locked down if even 10% of the general population has exposure to the virus, chances are 99+% that someone outside the hospital would have first exposure to the virus from someone else outside the hospital instead of first exposure to a medical worker. If even 1% of the general population has exposure, chances are 90+% that someone outside the hospital would have first exposure to the virus from someone outside the hospital instead of getting first exposure from hospital staff. The disease/virus started outside the hospital before reaching hospital (i.e. not like Ebola a few years ago, where the government deliberately flew in an extremely rare patient having the disease from overseas), earlier generations of the virus must have been communicated to population outside the hospital, before the more deadly strains land someone into the hospital. Furthermore, even if a virus starts at a hospital, in the absence of lock-down, the social interactions outside the hospital among people who don't go to hospitals far out-numbering hospital interactions would select the more benign new strains evolving from an initially more deadly strain: simply due to the evolutionary advantage for a virus not to kill the host, in the absence of lock-down.

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.

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. Viral mutation and selection via host sickness/death is a matter of statistics / law of large numbers. The lock-down policy (while not locking down the hospitals) is effectively evolution by perverse-selection: shunning the healthy while letting the deathly ill to be more social via hospitals! Evolution-by-perverse-selection is actually quite a common result for government policies (e.g. welfare policies resulting in the breakup of families and the evolutionary emergence of thugs as young women are paid by government to have babies with thugs), eventually resulting in totalitarian societies, which are all about evolution by perverse selections.

Are you a software developer of some sort ? (that is if you're not Steve Bannon?)

Neither. Just an intelligent person with solid math and science background, and capable of independent thinking.

What are the biggest errors in thinking about the Corona virus ?

We won't know this for at least several weeks, possibly month.

Booger says

What are the biggest errors in thinking about the Corona virus ?

We won't know this for at least several weeks, possibly month.

This is very true. We do know urban hospitals are gonna see a lot of action. If someone needs to be intubated though, it's a new virus, they're likely dead when they rolled in. Why waste the time?

If people want to keep equating this to a war, Trump, Cuomo, both sides politically, etc., then sacrifices will need to be made by some of the living. Just as a soldier would in war. If anything it's easier as it's not young people with bright futures ahead regarding the fatalities in the vast majority of cases. Quarantine isn't the answer.

I'd guess most people don't want to die. But making it to 70-80 is a pretty solid life. I also don't think most people understand what your body feels like and your jumbo weekly pill box expands to 10 cubic inches (exaggeration) a day at that age to stay alive.

So what are we going to do to prep for the "next time?"

Require all households to have a propositioned supply of masks?

Require all old age facilities to have a quarantine plan, including how to keep staff sanitized from outside exposure?

Have laws requiring medicines and medical equipment to be made in the US?

Start now with medical academies and medical ROTC style programs to increase the supply of doctors?

Take the temperature of all non-US Citizens traveling to the US at the debarment point, and refuse boarding to any with a fever? Just like they check for a passport before you can board the plane.

:
Reality says

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.

Reality says

Not backing away at all. Are you trying to lie deliberately? Marcus?

I didn't say backing away, I said backing your way, as one often does in a proof. Nothing wrong with that per se.

So many assumptions about things we don't know.

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, becasue 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 to how deadly it is, as well as how fast the evolution occurs in both settings and so much more.

Reality says

Just an intelligent person with solid math and science background

Creative too. Do you have any sources of others with similar theories ?

EVERYTHING
https://reason.com/video/when-it-comes-to-coronavirus-nobody-knows-anything/?itm_source=parsely-api

It's a cross-post, but relevant to the question of "biggest errors in thinking about CV":

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ (scroll down to the graphs)

We're about to hit the 0.0003 (a.k.a., 10,000 deaths) by the end of the weekend. The US is continuing its exponential climb in both infections and deaths -- a rate higher than either Italy's or Spain's -- without any downward shift.

Conservatives, please take this seriously. There's a "nothingburger" denialism on the right, similar to the left's "hug a Chinese person / fight xenophobia" laxity. The US is doing none of the mitigation efforts, beyond "self-quarantine," that east Asian countries have. We may doubt China's numbers (and I do, to some extent), but South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore report similar successes in keeping COVID under control. It wasn't herd immunity, either, accounting for the low infection and death rates -- S Korea tested 338,000 as of March 24th, and only 3% were positive. Additionally, the numbers flattened too quickly to reflect population-scale immunity.

We in the US must adopt what worked in E Asian countries: widespread availability of masks, medications (HCQ, azithromycin, zinc), testing, mandatory quarantine of positives, and urban spraying.

I see the CDC's weak response -- no foresight on masks, defective tests, no clinical trials of promising medication (apart from the most expensive, Gilead's Remdesivir), no availability of hydroxychloroquine -- as the fault of the CDC. Trump can be blamed insofar as he keeps worthless hacks like Anthony "masks don't work / hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal" Fauci on his task force.

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. 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 the quick and sustained action by its leaders, St. Louis experienced one of the lowest excess death rates in the nation, just 358 per 100,000 people.
YMMV...

EBGuy says

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.

I think one is best off considering his posts an extended April Fool's joke. Almost nothing comports with "reality."

:
I didn't see this before.

Reality says

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.

marcus says

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.

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.

In my view, the number of deaths would be less without the lock-down of society (while not locking the hospitals), for two reasons: (1) The lock-down of society while not locking down the hospitals resulting in artificially selecting the more deadly strains of the virus (already explained several times, but you insist on pretending not being able to understand, will make one more attempt later in this post); (2) The economic devastation resulting from locking down the society will put stress on people and cause more deaths than the virus does.

marcus says

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).

You are arguing for the locking down of hospitals during pandemic. Locking down hospitals (not allowing anyone (including all medical workers and patients) there to leave without passing a positive antibody test showing immunity) while not locking down the rest of the society is actually a position that I can support and have been advocating: locking down the hospitals during pandemic, not locking down the society outside hospitals.

I'm very shocked that an alleged math teacher like you has shown inability to understand what amounts to the law of large numbers, a very basic statistics/probability concept, and how it works in evolution. Perhaps you teach elementary school or public school in school districts where the teacher's primary function is being a warden (which may also explain why you advocate lock-downs). The basic idea behind why lock-down of society while not locking down hospitals would promote the more deadly strains is the same as the idea behind vaccines: vaccine works by exposing a wide cross section of the population to a relatively impotent strain of the virus. That's what people are more likely to be exposed to in normal social setting that do not involve medical personnel (because whoever falls ill or dead is more likely to be taken out of the normal social circle as they get carted off to hospitals). Flocking birds have evolved the natural instinct of killing whichever bird that looks sick as their anti-pandemic strategy; that's why birds spend so much preening themselves in order to make themselves looking healthy, so as to avoid being pecked to death quickly. Locking down hospitals while not locking down the society at large is a good strategy of giving evolutionary advantage to the less harmful strains while further isolating the more deadly strains. Locking down the society while not locking down the hospitals (which is the current government policy) would perversely give the more deadly strains an evolutionary advantage to spread over the more benign strains.

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 ...

You don't seem to understand the law of large numbers. Mutations in a RNA-virus like the Coronavirus are random and relatively frequent.

marcus says

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.

The strategy in the contrived example would work for a virus like the Ebola virus a few years ago: when the government flew in a single patient from Africa, and the virus had relatively low R0 while having extremely high fatality rate (well over 50%). The high FR naturally helps the elimination of the virus.

However, for a virus like the coronavirus, with much higher R0 and very low fatality rate, the strategy wouldn't work at all: for a starter, having only tests that are 30-80% accurate, you wouldn't even be able to find all of the 8 people in the 100 with high degree of certainty without running thousands of tests on the 100 people, much less finding all 800k people in 10mil. The lock-down strategy doesn't scale at all.

EBGuy says

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.

The lower excess death per 100,000 count in St. Louis was likely due to lower population density in a relatively frontier city (contrasting too heavily built-up urban Philadelphia back then) and less Asprin use than in cities with easier access to Europe and east coast industrial drug makers. Interesting to note that, at least back then American public (and consequently media catering to their appetite) had enough clue to focus on "excess death" instead of just counting deaths as if nobody ever dies in normal time. For all the cries of end-of-world apocalypse, neither Italy (outside the tiny town of Bergamo) nor the US is showing significant excess deaths compared to the total number of deaths of whatever cause government bureaucrats assign during the same winter weeks in years past. The bureaucrats in NYC have to resort to banning funerals to force the piling up of bodies.

Reality says

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.

That was me editorializing about this graph.

The whole "excess death" question is interesting. I'm sure it was a bit more obvious with the Spanish Flu as it hijacked the immune system, with healthier, young people being more susceptible.
Even today, NYC Health is showing less than 2% of the deaths attributed to individuals having "No Underlying Conditions" (numbers juiced a bit by including 380 deaths with Underlying Conditions Pending).

Reality says

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.

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 says

DO 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.

marcus says

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 ?

It was an indication that you were resorting to mis-attribution and lies. I used to have more respect for your integrity.

marcus says

Reality says

DO I have the following right ?

You wrote that sentence. I didn't.

marcus says

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.

I not only did not write what you put between the quotation marks, I hadn't even read anyone writing that before reading your words between the quotation marks. What you put between the quotation marks had little to do with what I wrote. Your words between those quotation marks were projecting your own murderous proclivities, whereas I was pointing out removing the lock-down would save lives even without considering economic effect.

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, whereas in reality crises tend to galvanize support for sitting presidents . . . and the overwhelming majority of the public see through the scam quite readily and lay the blame on the scammers.

There are now 3000+ different strains of "Covid-19" having been genetically sequenced. Obviously, much of whatever are tossed under "Covid-19" umbrella have been in existence among human population for many years if not decades; what used to be called Flu, Cold and Pneumonia in years past are all being tossed under the "Covid-19" label.

:

Some people just aren't good at losing arguments.

Me, when I'm wrong I admit it.

marcus says

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."

I can be accused of trying to make sense of what largely didn't make sense to me. Or of using quotation marks for what very obviously was not a quote, otherwise why would I say "have I got this right ?"

I was arguing in good faith and not attacking you. But when someone is too self absorbed to even care or listen to a person they are arguing with, or when they are triggered becasue they realize their argument doesn't make sense, I guess this is what happens:

Reality says

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,

Well at least now I get the goal of your word games. I tried to cut through the crap and make sense out of them, and right when I had dug deep enough to see it was a conclusion looking for an argument, and your logic completely falls apart, somehow I'm a liar that's attacking you.

Have a little honesty and read the exchange up to and including comment number 46. I know you have neither the honesty nor the integrity to admit that I was arguing in good faith. If it's wrong to use quotes on an attempted paraphrase. fine - but how can you not know what I was saying was not a quote quote.

Read what you said before. How is my paraphrase not an honest attempt to succinctly paraphrases a part of your argument ?

Such a childish tactic, but then again you are a Trump fan boy.

NoCoupForYou says

 

Schools should be open. Workplaces should be open. For anybody under 60-65,life should be normal

For 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

This is a test run for the next inevitable pandemic that kills children and babies... people would be losing their minds x100 if this virus targeted kids new immune systems.

marcus says

But when someone is too self absorbed to even care or listen to a person they are communicating with

Speak of yourself. You are way too self-absorbed in your "petri dishes" and "buffer" (treating people/population like livestock in your mind) while keep twisting my words instead of trying to listen. Virus doesn't recognize "petri dishes" or "buffer" assignment. Virus only face opportunities vs. lack of opportunities. If the government locks down the healthier human population that statistically carry the less lethal virus strains, while not locking down the hospitals where dying patients go and statistically the more deadly strains are over-represented, the result is that the more deadly strains get more opportunities to find new hosts and replicate than the relatively benign strains do. As the virus continues to mutate (as RNA virii always do), the perverse selection continues at every generation, yielding more and more deadly strains at the expense of less deadly strains. It's really not complicated.

I know you have neither the honesty nor the integrity to admit that I was arguing in good faith.

You were not arguing in good faith. It's astonishing that a self-claimed math teacher would have no inkling about the Law of Large Numbers. It's astonishing that such a person would have so little inkling about how evolution / artificial-selection works. It's astonishing that such a person would have no idea that RNA virus mutates frequently, and therefore a survey of the relative lethality of different strains snap-shot at a particular time is nowhere nearly as important/fundamental as statistical dynamics in ongoing generations. 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. My argument did not at all assume them to be expendables; it's simply a statistical Law of Large Numbers argument, pointing out the effective artificial-selection under the societal lock-down while not locking-down the hospitals.

ThreeBays says

I found this video useful for explaining more of the viruses' lifecycle that we should be considering here.

Admittedly I didn't watch this. Understand you're looking at a YouTub channel with over half a million subscribers with content that can make them money. This does appear to be a medical channel. But, every YouTube channel on the planet has come out with a Corona video. Why do you think that is? And would you necessarily believe that information?

I'm not a pilot, but a few aviation channels I watch had subscription rates double when Kobe Bryants chopper went down putting out daily updates. People need to open their eyes and understand generating revenue does not equate to truth anymore. Probably never has anyway. This is a moment of opportunity for tons of people that know dick about a virus.

The only people I'd trust right now are nurses and doctors. In my area bordering 2 of the largest cities/town in IL, things have been relatively tame. Rely on Youtube for entertainment, not medial advice. It's almost certainly clickbait. During the Trump era I'd also be HIGHLY skeptical of government, especially from parties that don't agree with Trump. We've seen it time and time again that they'll eat their young to try and take Trump down.