Pretty terrible imo

I stopped taking it seriously at this point. Everything else hinges on this assumption which is turning out hilariously wrong.

He expands on that later, taking into account currently rising case count in some states. I do find the concept of 'disease break point' vs herd immunity quite interesting.

WTF is a "disease break point"?

We have the antibody data from Europe. Only 4.4% of France has been infected despite massive deaths. 5% of Italy/Spain. "Disease break point" is utter fantasy. Maybe in some parts of New York (Kings and Queens) the spread rate can never peak again due to the incredibly high infection rate (30%). But 0.3% (as high as 0.5% in some neighborhoods) are already dead there, there's nothing comparable to that outside of some NY districts.

Yeah I thought that was weird also. I assumed they wouldn't use such terms unless it actually existed. But no, they just invented it.

I liked the bit on CLX though. That could turn into a good short later on.

Weird that David Capital Partners, does not have a website.

Not that I read the paper, since you could tell from the first two lines that it was going to be low-value pontificating, but I flipped through a few pages and my eye caught this beauty:

Thanks for the "must read," CoolTimer.

It would make sense if the 5% were all the superspreaders/supercatchers with huge social contacts who skew the average Reproductive rate higher. And once they're immune the remaining population has such low social connection that the reproductive rate among them is less than 1. That's the theory behind his idea. It's basically another way of calculating the immune population percent required for herd immunity by taking into account the non-homogeneity of reproductive rates for individuals based on how much contact they have with other people.

I never heard of this before reading the link but I don't think it's a bogus idea nor is it difficult to understand. However, I think there is probably a lot of devil in the details of making the calculation.

The scatter point display he gives "proving" no correlation between social distancing and death rates is bogus imo. If you ignore the horizontal line drawn in and pick the horizontal line second from the bottom as separating low death rates from high death rates, you see a definite correlation. As you move between cohorts from lower social distancing to higher social distancing (left to right) you see a definite trend toward a lower percentage of dots with high death rates in the cohort. Not to mention the confounding factors of age and high overall social-distance areas where you might find seniors in care homes.


PairTheBoard

Re-opening: all across the country, all 300+ million of us, most states are allowing gatherings of hundreds of people outside, and decent numbers inside in enclosed spaces for weeks now. Many states/localities not requiring masks, and the ones that do, do not have a high percentage of compliance (obviously variable). Many people stopped caring about social distancing as of Memorial Day weekend.

BLM protests: Anywhere from a handful to thousands of people protesting outside around the country for weeks. Little to no social distancing but pretty high prevalence of mask wearing.

It's silly to say that the protests would not have caused spreading. It's also silly to say that massive changes in what is allowed in again pretty much all the states wouldn't be a much higher contributing factor solely based on the massive difference in number of protesters vs number of people going back out and trying to re-establish some normalcy. There's tons of evidence that Memorial Day weekend, the country said F it.

Given we've had this type of spread in the sun belt during the summer, is a true 2nd wave in the fall almost a lock at this point?

You mean a 3rd wave?

I still consider right now to be in the 1st wave, don't see why it wouldn't be considering the states with cases rising the most have just begun to grow. That is semantics though I suppose.

Just saying, could the rona get a lot worse in the fall since the weather will be much worse, unless habits change drastically (which they likely won't since Americans are pretty much over this thing)

I personally would classify a wave as any period of sustained exponential growth.



Was unable to edit photo, but you can clearly see where exponential growth is occurring. I would say we are technically in the 2nd wave, and if the median-age of the infected is similar to what it was in the first wave, this wave should be much worse then the first one. By the way, I am not saying the median-age is the same, I am instead speaking theoretically. EDIT: Forgot about vitamin D, that should also at least in theory have a causative impact on the fatality rate, not sure too what degree though.

Stop the Panic, End the Isolation

Article’s Author - Dr Scott Atlas

Quote:

Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

Seedless00,
I'd say there are probably far fewer cases in this wave (so far - maybe not for long) due to many more being tested. The real late March case count is several hundred K per day I'd say at the peak. We're far below the original wave so far. Thread needs more mspaint:



Black = infections, red = deaths, scaled to their own scale. That's probably close to the real infection graph. 130K dead at a 1% death rate means 13 million infected, so huge daily infections at the peak seems likely (a few hundred K added a day).

You should be the official hurricane chart guy for 2+2


After seeing your graph/chart, there is no way Trump drew that circle,
the circle is much too fluid/steady for Trump to have drawn it.

Yeah the paper wasn't that bad and your summary of the "disease breaking point" is correct.

That being said it had some bad lines and points it should have clarified more. This being a particularly bad example:
It is pretty well established and communicated at this point that outside>inside so it is not the "prevailing narrative." Perhaps it was in the beginning and this should have been clarified especially since they are using it as evidence that the lockdowns were ineffective.

It's a hedge fund. Not unusual.

I think that is where it is at now and a lot of the rest of the world will adopt. We can't stop it, you know the risks and how to protect yourself and live accordingly. Too much of an "inconvenience" to protect the at risk population.
France cinemas open with no social distancing or masks required.

I'd gladly take a 14 day quarantine in a place like New Zealand if they will grant me amnesty.

Not to get too political as I try to leave that out of BFI, but since there has been some talk here, Trump has completely blown this and continues to make it worse, he has to make wearing masks political instead of for the common good or being any type of leader. TS had some good points early on but any defense at this point is inexcusable. Luckily Biden is a lock but probably too little too late.

Now picture the south were maybe 10-15% ARE WEARING masks outside and 25-30% inside. Tons of people jamming bars n clubs and no social distancing. AMURICA will be fighting this for 5 years.

Flattening the curve is fine but it's bound to come back.

Its bound to come back is such a generalisation that it means nothing.

Well it wasn't eradicated and now they're giving people the option to go to movie theaters with no social distancing or masks. Seems like taking that line is not one that is too interested in keeping that curve flattened. It's fend for yourself ala Floridaland, just the residents may not be as braindead in France.

This is some hilariously dumb logic. Democrats contradicting their own premises!

Let's follow Democrat voter logic:

Premise 1: The place with the most Trump hating people on earth (LA county, that votes 72% Democrat, 90+% among the young who spread it, who would never listen to Trump), has the most cases on Earth

Premise 2: The population is stupid and selfish (maybe get out of a Democrat county??) and hence the US will spread it regardless of leaders

Premise 3: This is Trump's fault and he continues to make this worse by not wearing a mask



You people are freaking insane. There's a thing called facts and evidence. If >80% of the people spreading are selfish young Democrats, you can't blame Trump and Trump's lack of wearing a mask for the vast majority of the problem, which is Democrat voter behavior. How does your brain not instantly understand this basic logic?

Those are two different posters you are quoting to get your checkmate, TS.