patrick.net

:
Sometimes understanding tricky problem can best be done my making up a small example of the same problem. Imagine a tiny isolated community of 100, and suppose 8 people get deathly ill with something like CV. Everyone especially the the sick people go in to a lock down mode. Soon the sick people are better, and fewer people are sick. Then one or two more cycles later and nobody is sick. The little community is free of the virus.

It doesn't have to work out this way, the point is that the possibility of it working this way is the (extreme but obvious) counter example to the idea that the same number of people must eventually catch it. (and hence the same number die)

The idea of "flattening the curve" is that the total number of people getting infected would be the same. A lower daily new infection rate would result in the small percentage of the tested positive who need intensive medical care can be accommodated by hospital capacity.

If the hospital can cure 100% of people put on ventilators/intubation, then the total death rate would be 0%.

If the hospital can cure 0% of those put on ventilators/intubation, then the total death number would be the same as if there were no lock-down (assuming there is no negative consequences to lock-down and there is no negative consequence to being in hospital). 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

At the same time, according to CDC numbers, 100,000 Americans die every year from disease they pick up hospitals, in normal years, when there is not this allegedly more deadly and more contagious disease.

This particular disease is showing extremely high correlation between crowd flocking to hospitals vs. local death rate spiking. In fact, the only two cities/town in the world so far having seen spiking in local total daily death count, Wuhan (pop: 10,000k, 10 million) and Bergamo (pop: 120k) , involved massive crowding of hospitals prior to the spikes. Some real numbers: Wuhan likely saw 70k deaths in those 6 weeks of their peak body burning (as shown by the number of urns being handed out in recent days according to news reports), contrasting to about 10k in normal 6wk period for a Chinese city of 10mil; whereas the rest of China having seen what happened in Wuhan (crowding the hospital for the first 3 days before emptying out as the crowd figured out that was a bad idea during contagious disease risk) saw no spike in total daily death count for all reasons at all. Likewise for Bergamo and Italy: Italy routinely saw 3000+ daily deaths in the winter in years past, so the highest alleged Corona daily death count of 919 is not really a spike at all; in Bergamo however, a sleepy town that normally should see about 5 deaths a day saw the total daily death count jump to over 25 in the aftermath of crowding the hospital.

Hospital is not only not risk-free, but actually highly dangerous when there is a contagious disease around. It's not clear why the public health officials want to stuff more bodies through hospitals.

The lock-down of society at large but not locking-down hospitals is actively selecting the most deadly strains of the virus, as they get to spread to the other patients, the hypochondriacs arriving at the hospitals unnecessarily, the hospital staff and their families while the more benign strains are inhibited by the lock-down of the rest of the society. That artificially creates a very dangerous situation whenever the lock-down is lifted (and lock-down will have to be lifted or the society would end in chaos killing far higher percentage of people): the more deadly strains will be represented than the more benign strains than would have been the case had there been no lock-down. That more deadly 2nd hump was shown in the original graph comparing St. Louis vs. Philadelphia: St. Louis had a big 2nd hump that was bigger than its 1st hump whereas Philadelphia had none; the official explanation for lower total death per hundred-k made no sense: a frontier city at the time St. Louis had far lower population density and likely had less pharmacies to hand out Asprin (which was the real killer during the 1918-1919 flu) than the old established city Philadelphia.

The Chinese Communist Party solution lock-down (that is being copied by big-government proponents worldwide) is not only unproductive, but also counter-productive and outright murderous.

marcus says

Sometimes understanding tricky problem can best be done my making up a small example of the same problem. Imagine a tiny isolated community of 100, and suppose 8 people get deathly ill with something like CV. Everyone especially the the sick people go in to a lock down mode. Soon the sick people are better, and fewer people are sick. Then one or two more cycles later and nobody is sick. The little community is free of the virus.

Deathly ill but don't die? Or deathly ill and do die? 0% or 8% death rate from this CV like virus? Your implication was they all got over their flu without dying.

Lets finish your scenario. During the lock-down the local small business owners miss out on a couple of months of income but still have to pay expenses. A couple of them realize that they are not going to make it and commit suicide rather than face the heartbreak of losing all their hard work.

We did save Grandma for a couple more years until the next "CV" like disease takes her elderly life. Unless we do another lock-down for every novel virus that comes along.

At least Donald and Joe don't have to campaign against each other.

Reality says

The idea of "flattening the curve" is that the total number of people getting infected would be the same.

Yes, people could argue using a very simple premise, that EVEN IF THE NUMBERS WERE EVENTUALLY THE SAME, flattening the cure would take the pressure off hospitals in the short run, considering the highly contagious nature of this. That doesn't mean that the numbers are the some. They obviously aren't

As for your other theories, interesting, but extremely speculative.

Can you explain places that have limited the growth, such as Korea ? There is no good reason to think that we can't accomplish something similar, but starting from a later and much higher starting level, and still accomplish a huge difference compared to just letting it go.

marcus says

One of the biggest errors in thinking about the CV is the assumption that eventually the numbers of deaths are the same, regardless of social distancing or not.

You're exactly right. Deaths will likely be higher overall because of social distancing. Not from any virus though. You haven't lost your job (yet). Imagine grandma dying. That would be tough enough. Then you lose your job. Even tougher. Then you can't pay your bills. Then you cannot even hang out with good friends and family to cope with all this tsunami of shit.

Not sure what your point is. Besides the debt we just piled on, we're actually killing productive people with our actions. You're going to lose your grandma or mom at some point. It sucks. It's emotional. You can't pile it on with job losses and not being able to even see a good friends or remaining family to cope. History will show we took the wrong path I think.

Reality says

This particular disease is showing extremely high correlation between crowd flocking to hospitals vs. local death rate spiking.

Not surprising considering how contagious it is. IT would be happening even more without social distancing, and more cases out in public.How would they lock down a hospital ?

Reality says

It's not clear why the public health officials want to stuff more bodies through hospitals.

I'm pretty sure they don't. That only occurs when they are at high risk of getting to the ICU stage. Patients are being dealt with at home over the phone as they self isolate.

marcus says

Yes, people could argue using a very simple premise, that EVEN IF THE NUMBERS WERE EVENTUALLY THE SAME, flattening the cure would take the pressure off hospitals in the short run, considering the highly contagious nature of this. That doesn't mean that the numbers are the some. They obviously aren't

Not sure what you are trying to say. Total infected/exposed would have to be the same if the virus doesn't change, as it would spread until herd immunity is built up to where the remaining vulnerable is roughly equal to the inverse of its natural R0. e.g. if natural R0 = 3 (eventually lock-down is lifted), then the population can not have more than 1/3 being vulnerable before the net transmission would be greater than 1; i.e. 2/3 or nearly 70% would have to have been exposed and survived therefore immune.

As for your other theories, interesting, but extremely speculative.

Not speculative, but far more scientific than anything you have heard from Dr. Mengele Fauci and Dr. Mengele Birx so far.

Can you explain places that have limited the growth, such as Korea ? There is no good reason to think that we can't accomplish something similar, but starting from a later and much higher starting level, and still accomplish a huge difference compared to just letting it go.

Korean data is showing far lower fatality rates than what the two Dr. Mengeles were speculating initially. However, Korean has not actually contained the disease despite their extremely intrusive spying on their citizens. When the disease gets to Seoul, and it is starting to get there, their situation won't be much better than NYC, possibly worse! Their highly intrusive monitoring of the sick is pointless once the disease is community-spreading.

marcus says

Not surprising considering how contagious it is. IT would be happening even more without social distancing, and more cases out in public.How would they lock down a hospital ?

The difference is that viral load in normal social settings (especially on sunny beaches under the Sun's UV light) would be much lower than in hospitals, so people would be initially exposed to small quantities of the virus and/or dead virus so that they can acquire immunity without getting sick. Right now, with the society locked down but the hospitals not locked down, people (including medical personnel) are exposed to high doses of the virus and the most deadly strains of the virus during their initial exposure.

Locking down a hospital can be done this way: whenever a pandemic is declared by WHO or CDC or NIH, all medical facilities servicing more than 10 patients in a day can not take on new patients, so that existing patients and staff can be safe. Hospitals are for treating normal injuries and surgeries when there is no highly contagious disease around. The once-a-century global-cooling-temperature-valley low solar activity therefore low-UV-caused pandemic is an entirely different type of medical condition that the normal hospitals are simply not set up to handle. Patients need to go south and expose themselves to the Sun and fresh air created by UV.

marcus says

It's not clear why the public health officials want to stuff more bodies through hospitals.

I'm pretty sure they don't. That only occurs when they are at high risk of getting to the ICU stage. Patients are being dealt with at home over the phone as they self isolate

Yes they do. That's literally what fitting to hospital capacity means. It is best to view the government bureaucracy as regulatory-captured by the industries.

Reality says

Not sure what you are trying to say. Total infected/exposed would have to be the same if the virus doesn't change, as it would spread until herd immunity is built up to roughly the inverse of its natural R0. e.g. if natural R0 = 3 (eventually lock-down is lifted), then the population can not have more than 1/3 being vulnerable before the net transmission would be greater than 1.

You should read my first comment in this thread. You're missing something key. Even the curves that show the recurring breakout every several months due to whats implied with this kind of thinking, don't take in to account that the virus may evolve to being less lethal, which is good for it's survival. But also, the recurring curves may be shut down by vaccines and deaths can be reduced with treatments developed over a years time.

This is not the exact scenario, but I would expect a variation on this, resulting from social distancing. We don't really know, but we know that we greatly reduce the number in the first several months.



https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615370/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/

marcus says

Sometimes understanding tricky problem can best be done my making up a small example of the same problem. Imagine a tiny isolated community of 100, and suppose 8 people get deathly ill with something like CV. Everyone especially the the sick people go in to a lock down mode. Soon the sick people are better, and fewer people are sick. Then one or two more cycles later and nobody is sick. The little community is free of the virus.

It doesn't have to work out this way, the point is that the possibility of it working this way is the (extreme but obvious) counter example to the idea that the same number of people must eventually catch it. (and hence the same number die)

This story is completely ridiculous. Virus become more benign over time only because when people/hosts die they take the most deadly strains with them.

Why would lockdown magically cure those 8 people? How would tests that have 30-80% accuracy be able to find those exact 8 people out of the 100? How would they even stop transmitting if the hospital is still open and accepting new patients and the staff keep going home every night? What would the 100 people eat during the lock-downs? Where would the tax/funds come from to support the hospitals? Do we need gun-toting soldiers standing next to each medical personnel to force them to work?

marcus says

You should read my first comment in this thread. You're missing something key. Even the curves that show the recurring breakout every several months due to whats implied with this kind of thinking, don't take in to account that the virus may evolve to being less lethal, which is good for it's survival. But also, the recurring curves may be shut down by vaccines and deaths can be reduced with treatments developed over a years time.

And you had the nerve to call my theory speculative? There has never been an effective vaccine against corona-virus, ever! even after decades of research. Coronavirus is an RNA virus. It doesn't have the genetic stability of DNA virus. The most that can be hoped for is a flu-vaccine like annual guess-work. Nothing like the smallpox vaccine is possible against an RNA virus.

As for your dreams of frequent lock-downs, LOL, I'm afraid your dream is missing the crucial conclusion: hanging upside down on a lamp-post is the usual historical answer to those dictators and wannabes/advocates.

Tim Aurora says

Until then, chill out and let the experts promote theories and recommendation.

It's a new virus... please let us know who the experts are? The modeling is absolutely abysmal so far. We have ranges of 20k to 500k dead. And in some cases higher in the states, as high and 2M without SD. How in the fuck is that expert or science? It's a pure guess based off of shit data, from shit sources.

We won't have good data until 100k are dead here in the states. But hey, keep believing what you want. We'll see if it even gets that high.

"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?

Reality says

And you had the nerve to call my theory speculative?

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.

Reality says

As for your dreams of frequent lock-downs, LOL

Massively missing my point. My point about whether or not everyone gets the virus is that maybe, only maybe, but if so, 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 getting it, is a choice.

Ceffer says

The only error in thinking is to think it's your job to correct others' errors in thinking. Gulag, anybody?

I live in a world where people make mistakes all the time, myself included.

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.

My assumption is that there are many errors in thinking about this situation. Including not comprehending exponential growth.

I thought other people might want to share other errors, or refute mine. I'm not trying to control you. Do you see what Trump has done to you ? It's fucking awkward being in the position of defending that vote.

Tim Aurora says

You need to heed " Little knowledge is dangerous" .

Speak of yourself, and all the public-massacring bureaucrats-"experts" that you worship.

Not sure why you come up with these theories.

Because the Exposure-to-the-Sun therapy was proven highly successful during the 1918-1919 Asprin-Flu.

You need to chill as you are not a pandemic expert . While there eems to be a correlation between distance from equator and Virus deaths, it is not clear what the cause is. Is it heat, UV, malaria resistance etc. Someone will do a regression analysis and figure that out. Until then, chill out and let the experts promote theories and recommendation.

Pandemics are by definition rare. Nobody is a real expert (at least nobody is an expert and not heavily biased by personal financial/professional interest at the same time). The alleged "experts" in treating minor individual cold-like illness have a long history of linearly projecting their usual solution for small problems into making pandemics much worse: 100 years ago, they thought Asprin was a magic cure for cold and fever, and after taking the patent from German firm Bayer at the end of WWII as war spoils, they prescribed and handed out Asprin like candies at the onset of the 1918-1919 flu season, resulting in 30x death rate compared to patients who received Hydro(thermo) Therapy; that was the core reason behind the 1918-1919 Asprin-Flu (misnomered as "Spanish Flu"). 200 years ago, the experts in treating minor illness believed in blood-letting, as small amount of blood-letting would stimulate immune system, so they bled men like Mozard and George Washington to death! in the belief that if a little is good, a lot must be better!

The established "experts" in any field is accustomed to using their usual solutions to extrapolate simplisticly when confronted with a Fat-Tail / Black-Swan event. That's when they fail miserably, just like those Nobel-Prize winning economist during the blow-up of LTCM. Rare dislocations is precisely when outside intelligent people are needed to solve a problem that an industry is not accustomed to. The current "Pandemic" is obviously showing that the "Pandemic Bureaucracy" doesn't work, and the way normal hospitals are set up is horrendous at dealing with highly contagious diseases, as they have proved to be the leading vector of disease spreading while they can render very value in saving patients who need intensive care at hospitals . . . effectively making going to the hospital a net negative when there is highly contagious diseases running around.

:
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.