PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[JoeKitchen]

So he did?

Cheers,
Bernard

Not any worse then anyone else, but was better at accepting it then Biden!

PS, Biden's public health advisory committee repeatedly downplayed coronavirus threat

Interesting write up.  Biden's hand picked health task force downplayed C-19 well into March.  They dont call him Sleepy Joe for nothing. 

[BobShaw]

No, they were two main reasons for the lockdown, both aimed at saving human lives:
1. Indeed flatten the curve to reduce the peak and avoid saturating hospitals, you are right on this,
2. Give science more time to identify curative drugs that may be effective against the virus (and towards the creation of a vaccine as a longer time goal)

Cheers,
Bernard

I would add a third.
3. The virus like all viruses, flus, colds whatever, lasts for about 14 days. If you don't have any contact it pretty much goes away by itself. Then you can identify the hot spots and people still spreading it and gradually open up. A lot of countries have had no new deaths in days and are doing that.

If it is still rampant (like 2000 deaths per day) then how can any reasonable person consider opening up the country? I guess it helps if the government can afford to support people through the lockdown.

[faberryman]

His model is bunk and should be treated as such.

I wonder which model Trump will pick when he calculates the number of lives he saved.

[Craig Lamson]

I would add a third.
3. The virus like all viruses, flus, colds whatever, lasts for about 14 days. If you don't have any contact it pretty much goes away by itself. Then you can identify the hot spots and people still spreading it and gradually open up. A lot of countries have had no new deaths in days and are doing that.

If it is still rampant (like 2000 deaths per day) then how can any reasonable person consider opening up the country? I guess it helps if the government can afford to support people through the lockdown.

You need to consider the opening in the US is being done on a State level, not a national level.  There are varying levels of cases and such in every state.  Looking at the US as a whole and saying you have this many daily deaths is misleading. 

[armand]

No, you are just denying that you have been wrong on the lock downs, like a classic intellectual. 

...

Hospitals are literally going out of business due to the lock down in this pandemic.  Outside of NYC, nurses/doctors are being laid off due to lack of work.  Even the healthcare system, that was suppose to be over run (according to you) is failing now due to this lockdown.  Think of how this will effect the health of many, especially those in rural areas who are now living with a weakened healthcare system. 

...

1.Prove it! Prove that what I said then it's different than what I say now, otherwise it's just a smokescreen as before.

2. For various reasons that I described before and I won't do it again. As I said, at this point any choice will turn bad, the only question is how bad.

[armand]

I'm glad you got that off your chest and hope you feel better. 

I would expect no other answer from you Alan, it's unfortunate you are so consistent.

[BobShaw]

You need to consider the opening in the US is being done on a State level, not a national level.  There are varying levels of cases and such in every state.  Looking at the US as a whole and saying you have this many daily deaths is misleading.

Every country that has states that applies to as well. Certainly applies in Australia. We have different rules in each state about how many you can visit etc, but we have a National Cabinet which includes all of the states and now includes NZ and they generally come to logical conclusions.

Which part of 2000 deaths a day is misleading?
A lot of countries with significant populations have zero deaths per day.
Only 33 countries out of over 200 do NOT have single digit deaths per day.
After the top ten countries no country has more than 100,000 cases, let alone deaths.
If everyone says and does basically the right thing then it is manageable. If they don't you are stuffed.

[Alan Klein]

Every country that has states that applies to as well. Certainly applies in Australia. We have different rules in each state about how many you can visit etc, but we have a National Cabinet which includes all of the states and now includes NZ and they generally come to logical conclusions.

Which part of 2000 deaths a day is misleading?
A lot of countries with significant populations have zero deaths per day.
Only 33 countries out of over 200 do NOT have single digit deaths per day.
After the top ten countries no country has more than 100,000 cases, let alone deaths.
If everyone says and does basically the right thing then it is manageable. If they don't you are stuffed.

What does that mean?

[Craig Lamson]

Every country that has states that applies to as well. Certainly applies in Australia. We have different rules in each state about how many you can visit etc, but we have a National Cabinet which includes all of the states and now includes NZ and they generally come to logical conclusions.

Which part of 2000 deaths a day is misleading?
A lot of countries with significant populations have zero deaths per day.
Only 33 countries out of over 200 do NOT have single digit deaths per day.
After the top ten countries no country has more than 100,000 cases, let alone deaths.
If everyone says and does basically the right thing then it is manageable. If they don't you are stuffed.

It’s misleading because it includes the totals from all 50 States. If you say the United States has 2k deaths a day, but some states have none or very few and a State like New York is a mess is it indicative of what is really happening?    The States here control the actions within each State.  The Feds have very little control over things like health issues within those States.  That’s why you can say... you can’t open the country up yet because of the daily deaths...when some states are ready to open. 

[BobShaw]

It’s misleading because it includes the totals from all 50 States. If you say the United States has 2k deaths a day, but some states have none or very few and a State like New York is a mess is it indicative of what is really happening?    The States here control the actions within each State.  The Feds have very little control over things like health issues within those States.  That’s why you can say... you can’t open the country up yet because of the daily deaths...when some states are ready to open.

Delusional is all I can say.
You have FIFTEEN states with over a 1000 deaths. 38 states with over 100 deaths. There is NOT A SINGLE STATE with no deaths or with less deaths per million (12 in Wyoming) than at least a third of the countries of the world. Three times the good ones. (But it is not serious, just the flu.)

[Jonathan Cross]

This is now on the web!

[Jim Pascoe]

Second, yes, he would fit right in and I think actually already is.  I believe Imperial College projections are common references climate activists use.  Given the total failure of his model here and in the past references I provided, any Imperial College model I see from now on I will take with a huge grain of salt.

In the UK the saying is "with a pinch of salt" - but I understand your meaning.  And I think quite rightly much scientific thinking about climate and the Coronavirus needs to be seen as a work in progress and not gospel.  But what better approach is there?  Most human progress has been a matter of trial and error over thousands of years - but science tries to explain and predict based on observation, to short-cut the long wait.  I exercise some scepticism whenever I hear 'experts' on a subject.  But I don't dismiss them just because they have been wrong once before.  I remember in the 1970's the prediction of a coming ice-age......

Jim

[JoeKitchen]

In the UK the saying is "with a pinch of salt" - but I understand your meaning.  And I think quite rightly much scientific thinking about climate and the Coronavirus needs to be seen as a work in progress and not gospel.  But what better approach is there?  Most human progress has been a matter of trial and error over thousands of years - but science tries to explain and predict based on observation, to short-cut the long wait.  I exercise some scepticism whenever I hear 'experts' on a subject.  But I don't dismiss them just because they have been wrong once before.  I remember in the 1970's the prediction of a coming ice-age......

Jim

Well there are plenty who insist we do take it as gospel.

[elliot_n]

Well there are plenty who insist we do take it as gospel.

What do you think the death toll would be if you let the virus rip in the US?

[JoeKitchen]

What do you think the death toll would be if you let the virus rip in the US?

Not a 2M+.  Ferguson's model predicted 40K dead in Sweden without a lock down by May 1st.  It is obviously a flawed model. 

The issue is, Ferguson has not just been wrong every time in the past but wildly wrong every time in the past.  He has never made anywhere near an accurate prediction.  At some point in time you have to say this guy is a horrible scientist and we need to stop listening to him. 

But no, you keep on getting this silly argument of well this just shows the lock downs work because we did not get that many deaths, which is not correct logic.  That's like saying a placebo worked because the sickness went away. 

We need to start ignoring those modelers who drastically over predict repeatably as well as those who drastically under predict too. 

[JoeKitchen]

This is now on the web!

The problem with this is if you catch C-19, your survival rate is 99+%! 

If you are bitten by a shark, your survival rate is a lot less. 

[Robert Roaldi]

The problem with this is if you catch C-19, your survival rate is 99+%! 

If you are bitten by a shark, your survival rate is a lot less.

You seem awfully sure of that 99+ number.

[JoeKitchen]

You seem awfully sure of that 99+ number.

It's what all the data says!  See below.  FYI, source Our World Data; Mortality Risk of COVID-19


NOTE: if you go to the link, you will notice that they explain why the actual fatality rate is lower since case fatality only takes into account those diagnosed with the disease.  So actual fatality is much lower since many more people are presumed to have caught this without being diagnosed then what the below graph takes into account. 

Of course rates change based on age, as with any disease, and, likewise, on the available healthcare system in the country you are in.  So for me, I have as much to worry about as dying in a car accident, which means I am not worrying at all. 

So, like I said before, catching C-19 is very survivable, especially compared to getting bitten by a shark (in water, of course, without the wound being able to close). 

With that being said, dying of exsanguination while in shock is probably less horrible then of respiratory complications.     Although I'd still choose death by respiratory complications over scaphism. 

[Craig Lamson]

Delusional is all I can say.
You have FIFTEEN states with over a 1000 deaths. 38 states with over 100 deaths. There is NOT A SINGLE STATE with no deaths or with less deaths per million (12 in Wyoming) than at least a third of the countries of the world. Three times the good ones. (But it is not serious, just the flu.)

Gee the stats I looked at last night effective May 6 showed 12 states with zero new deaths and 14 states with single digits.  All the rest but 4 in double digits.  I guess it depends on whos stats you are viewing.

Delusional? Like I said some states are very ready to open and others not so much, which is way when you says, the US cant open because there are 2k deaths a day is misleading.  And the kicker is at least 25-30% of deaths have been nursing homes. 

[kers]

Nursing homes protection has been neglected - almost in any country. In the netherlands 40% of the nursing homes had some infected resident.