Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Business, Finance, and Investing Making money, investing in markets, and running businesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2020, 01:23 PM   #6926
Kelhus100
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,500
Re: Coronavirus

I mean ultimately the death rate is going to be a function of the age of infected (and to a lesser extent comorbidities). but I think for any Western country with a lot of older people in poor health, IFR is always going to be above 1.

Iceland with an IFR of around 0.5% is probably a very best case scenario, where probably a lot of young travelers got infected, but they responsibly quarantined and didn't give it to older people in poor health.
Kelhus100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:25 PM   #6927
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,244
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
Ladies and gentleman, an expert. To recap:

- Claims to be an expert
- Makes horrible predictions and get proven wrong
- When completely wrong, goes into total denial
- When called on it, cites a study that's completely bogus and months outdated
- Ignores all the mountains of hard data that came after the study that make the study irrelevant even it wasn't bogus.

Did I mention you can't trust experts, and that most of them are morons? Thanks for another data point.
If the study is bogus, go on twitter and attack it. Post your id here and we will follow along.

It's really a simple challenge. You are good at those, right?
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:25 PM   #6928
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,094
Re: Coronavirus

Bro, it's not even worth debunking, it's far out of date. Like I said, this is better self owning than Brass did (see the early pages in this thread), and that was some amazing self owning.

If you want to claim you trusted the experts and were misled/got it wrong/should have listened to Tooth, hey, I'm good with that, but you're not claiming that. You're actually claiming that this isn't settled, which is comical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelhus100 View Post
You guys should really look at Worldometer. They basically used the exact logic as Toothsayer and crunched some numbers using NYC as an example, and there really is no way the IFR could be less than 1.

There is no way to look at NYC numbers and have an IFR below 1. You would need over 100% of the population to be infected.
Yeah no kidding. And it's not just NY...there are over 15 different data points between large states and countries, comprising hundreds of thousands of people tested, and NONE show an IFR below 1%.

Another (claimed) expert that's absolute trash, appealing to bogus authority (old studies, consensus, anyone?), more likely to be wrong than correct, extremely slow to adapt to new information, and butthurt to the teeth when their 'learned' opinion turns out to be a joke.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:28 PM   #6929
TooCuriousso1
Golden 2017
 
TooCuriousso1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: @TCfromUB
Posts: 6,256
Re: Coronavirus

jsb235 is an expert in what field?
TooCuriousso1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:30 PM   #6930
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,244
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
Bro, it's not even worth debunking, it's far out of date.
Look, if you have the time to post here 1,000 times a day, your time isn't so valuable that you can't spend 20 minutes posting a few tweets.

Or don't. Either way I don't care. The data is out there and people can judge for themselves.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:31 PM   #6931
Kelhus100
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,500
Re: Coronavirus

So Russia has an insanely low death rate.

And according to this article, China is claiming the virus symptoms of new cases in the NE coming from Russia are different (longer latency before symptoms, don't attack multiple organs)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-than-in-wuhan

It could of course be absolutely nothing, as we are talking about Russia and China, so take anything you hear or read with a grain of salt.

But it could also indicate the virus is mutating and weakening, as these things tend to do.
Kelhus100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:38 PM   #6932
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,094
Re: Coronavirus

I think >90% it's just China/local officials trying to PR damage control a new outbreak after they had it contained ("this virus takes longer to incubate, and is harder to control!").

As for Russia, they're doing an enormous amount of testing, and they're catching most, that's why caught cases/death is low.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:39 PM   #6933
thethrill009
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 786
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
Yup. You have lost and you don't even know it.

Look, you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with experts who have published a paper. Go after them. Create a twitter account, post that name here, and start bombarding them with your concerns. See how that goes.

That's a challenge. Let's see if you are up to the task. We can all follow along.

Ball is in your court.

You are bringing an aggregate model written 23 days ago to disprove real live testing data collected since then.

You can argue :
a) current data is wrong/incomplete or
b) TS’s basic math is wrong.

But no one would need to “disprove” that model on twitter. The authors will be the first ones to tell you that our additional info would move their range higher. That’s how models work.

(Of course, 23 days ago it was pretty clear from italy and NY anyway, but that’s a separate issue.)
thethrill009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:46 PM   #6934
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,244
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrill009 View Post
You are bringing an aggregate model written 23 days ago to disprove real live testing data collected since then.

You can argue :
a) current data is wrong/incomplete or
b) TS’s basic math is wrong.

But no one would need to “disprove” that model on twitter. The authors will be the first ones to tell you that our additional info would move their range higher. That’s how models work.

(Of course, 23 days ago it was pretty clear from italy and NY anyway, but that’s a separate issue.)
Go find better data and post it here. No one's stopping you.

Or just accept what TS thinks.

It makes no difference to me.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 02:23 PM   #6935
vikthunder
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 441
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
Go find better data and post it here. No one's stopping you.

Or just accept what TS thinks.

It makes no difference to me.
Better data has already been presented like 20 times in the thread. The best data out there right now supports IFR >1%. Let's stop rehashing that and move on to more productive topics.

JSB, until you can find some new, relevant data that supports an IFR <1%, just drop it and move on.
vikthunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 02:30 PM   #6936
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,244
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikthunder View Post
Better data has already been presented like 20 times in the thread. The best data out there right now supports IFR >1%. Let's stop rehashing that and move on to more productive topics.

JSB, until you can find some new, relevant data that supports an IFR <1%, just drop it and move on.
I don't bring this up. TS does, over and over. I don't care one way or the other. As far as the IFR, present a study that has been published in a medical journal to support your claim of it being greater than 1 percent. I looked for one, and I posted the one I found. if there's a better one, please find it.

Or, like I suggested, go on twitter and tell the authors of the study that was published three days ago that you think their findings are wrong and that there is irrefutable evidence that the IFR is greater than 1 percent.

In fact, I dare you to do this.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 02:51 PM   #6937
thethrill009
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 786
Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
I don't bring this up. TS does, over and over. I don't care one way or the other. As far as the IFR, present a study that has been published in a medical journal to support your claim of it being greater than 1 percent. I looked for one, and I posted the one I found. if there's a better one, please find it.

Or, like I suggested, go on twitter and tell the authors of the study that was published three days ago that you think their findings are wrong and that there is irrefutable evidence that the IFR is greater than 1 percent.

In fact, I dare you to do this.

Post their twitter handles please.

Do you really want someone to ask:

“Dear COVIDBROS, can you help me? When you write “Conclusions: Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until the end of April, 2020” do you mean it’s possible for data to come out in May that can provide more accurate projections? Or do you really mean all future data is invalid until you personally publish a new study saying so?”

How much of a fool do you want him to look like?
What exactly would someone even ask them?

Fyi I’m all for proving TS wrong, especially on this important statistic, but you haven’t displayed any rational thought here.



P.s. it wasn’t published 3 days ago. Just updated. The original came out may 5, which makes sense because it doesn’t include any may data. I don’t know what they updated on the 18th but it was minor, certainly not adding additional data points from may.
thethrill009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 03:02 PM   #6938
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,244
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrill009 View Post
Post their twitter handles please.

Do you really want someone to ask:

“Dear COVIDBROS, can you help me? When you write “Conclusions: Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until the end of April, 2020” do you mean it’s possible for data to come out in May that can provide more accurate projections? Or do you really mean all future data is invalid until you personally publish a new study saying so?”

How much of a fool do you want him to look like?
What exactly would someone even ask them?

Fyi I’m all for proving TS wrong, especially on this important statistic, but you haven’t displayed any rational thought here.



P.s. it wasn’t published 3 days ago. Just updated. The original came out may 5, which makes sense because it doesn’t include any may data. I don’t know what they updated on the 18th but it was minor, certainly not adding additional data points from may.
Again, if you can find a better study with more recent data, have at it.

As far as twitter, he is more than welcome to ask them anything he wants. But the fact is that data from May is just going to be outdated by June, and that data will be outdated by July.

It's why you can't make any concrete conclusions about IFR right now, or anytime in the future.

TS may be right or he may be wrong. No one knows. That's the point I am trying to make.

But, like I said, I don't care one way or the other. And I am done posting on it. I will ignore all future takes on this and just wait for reliable figure, which should be available in two to three years.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 03:14 PM   #6939
grizy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
grizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 19,076
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.20089854v2

How about we split the difference? Any further argument on this matter and you will have to track down the scientists who wrote this paper and have it out with them.

My advice? Take the draw. It only gets worse for you from here.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3590771
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/fu...aff.2020.00455

You can find more.

There are a lot more studies, basically all "preprint" but still more authoritative than forum posters (I think this is obvious). The TLDR is if you ignore unknown asymptomatics, people are getting to just over 1%. There are a lot of methodologies for estimating undetected asymptomatics that really just amount to educated guesses at this point. But they basically all agree there are definitely a lot of undetected asymptomatic out there. Just how much "a lot" is in question.

Bottomline is this, if Chinese, South Korean, and pretty much data everywhere else, suggesting that many people are asymptomatic and undetected, can be relied upon, then it's almost certain the true IFR is sub 1%, and very possibly under 0.6% (where SK is now I think).

That's still terrible for a disease increasingly likely to sweep the entire human population, making the debate of over or below 1% pretty much an academic one.
grizy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 03:48 PM   #6940
despacito
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: $920. Funding secured.
Posts: 1,180
Re: Coronavirus

17% of people in London and 5% in England have had COVID
- British Health Secretary
despacito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 04:00 PM   #6941
rafiki
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
rafiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 37,120
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle View Post
Everyone gets schooled sometimes.

Tooth, you gotta learn to take the L man. PTPro ripped you a new one, can't believe you fell for that Moderna pump and dump.
Ugh I dunno. Watching tooth get schooled here was like watching James Bond die.

Rattles you a bit.
rafiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 05:52 PM   #6942
Shuffle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Shuffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,420
Re: Coronavirus

The virus disables interferons that mitigate its replication, but unlike any other virus that has ever been studied, it makes no attempt to fight back against chemokines, practically begging for a cytokine storm to kill its host.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/21/...n-unique-ways/

No government or the CCP-backed WHO will ever admit it, but I think this is further proof that the virus is a biological weapon and was produced in a lab.
Shuffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 07:27 PM   #6943
TooCuriousso1
Golden 2017
 
TooCuriousso1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: @TCfromUB
Posts: 6,256
Re: Coronavirus

‘How Could the CDC Make That Mistake?’
The government’s disease-fighting agency is conflating viral and antibody tests, compromising a few crucial metrics that governors depend on to reopen their economies. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, and other states are doing the same.

https://twitter.com/alexismadrigal/s...688215552?s=20

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/611935/

TooCuriousso1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 08:04 PM   #6944
RikaKazak
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,552
Re: Coronavirus

So I went and got an antibody test to see if I had covid (they did a blood draw...needle in the arm, administered by quest), and the result came back negative for antibodies.

I'm super confused by this because to the best of my knowledge the flu only lasts for 1-2 weeks, and I was sick for a SOLID 5.5 weeks earlier this year. I coughed so much I coughed up blood, I spent 3 days in bed, I had a fever, trouble breathing, and my daughter's best friend's family just got back from china and was sick.

But I guess I didn't have covid, wtf? I was at least hoping I had it and would be immune from here on out so I could get "semi" back to normal, but with the way I'm running I'll probably catch covid now too...fml.
RikaKazak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 08:21 PM   #6945
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,094
Re: Coronavirus

When you posted your symptoms the odds were near zero you could have caught it. There weren't enough infected.

Your experience makes me wonder how reliable the antibody tests are and even showing >1% IFR, if they're not still underestimating. I realize they're supposed to be random but there's still a selection bias. If they choose random people but they have to say yes, people who's had flu like symptoms will say it more than people who's never had any and therefore cannot have it. And even without this bias it's sampling people more frequently out in public. For example in New York where they asked for shoppers to test, if you go out shopping 10 times a weeks, vs a cautious person one time a week, you'll be 10x more likely to be picked and much more likely to have gotten corona (because you're out and about a lot). Add that to the bias of saying yes. Where it's based on self-choice drive up testing sites this is even worse. If it's based on lab-taken blood, this selects for people in medical environments/hospitals where covid tends to spread. No way blood donors aren't more likely to get it for example.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 09:43 PM   #6946
somigosaden
adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: sean-a-paul, somigosaden
Posts: 738
Re: Coronavirus

I came across that meta-study that jsb posted that estimates the IFR at 0.74% (but didn't post it because it seemed too flimsy) because its author shared it as a counterpoint to a new study from the Stanford professor who was behind the Santa Clara study, and who continues beating the drum that the true IFR is 0.1% or some such preposterous number. It's kind of funny that jsb got ridiculed for posting the Stanford guy's study, and then—for the same reason—is getting ridiculed for posting a study from a guy refuting the Stanford study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy View Post
true IFR is sub 1%, and very possibly under 0.6% (where SK is now I think).
Link to antibody data on South Korea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelhus100 View Post
Iceland with an IFR of around 0.5% is probably a very best case scenario, where probably a lot of young travelers got infected, but they responsibly quarantined and didn't give it to older people in poor health.
Here's Iceland's data. Their disease burden isn't really from young travelers. The median age of infected is well over the median age of the country. It's convenient to ignore the Iceland data when there's so much other data pointing to a higher death rate, but I think that's a mistake. In Iceland, 869 people between 40 and 69 had the virus, including 212 over age 60, and only two people died.

What's annoying about these IFR discussions is that it's super difficult to prove anyone wrong unless they're off by an order of magnitude. If jsb wanted to be a dick, he could continue trotting out Iceland, or Qatar, and proclaim IFR is well under 1%. It obviously changes by population, but what I don't see mentioned hardly ever here is that it changes over time. Not just in terms of who has died so far—have younger people been disproportionately infected, and seniors are an IFR time bomb, or is NYC's IFR so high because Cuomo insisted COVID-positive seniors be sent back into nursing homes and dying seniors skewed the IFR upward—but in the fact that treatment gets better over time. A huge number of deaths are from when we were venting patients right away, thinking this was all about ARDS, but now that has shifted dramatically and we're treating the systemic endothelial damage much better. It wouldn't surprise me if the IFR were cut in half just from the change in treatment protocols over the past month or two. That was much of why when TS and I talked about the IFR several pages ago, I said I would take the under on 1% by the end of the year. So I think discussions on a precise IFR even for a particular country or time period are pretty moot. The value in IFR estimates is knowing whether herd immunity is viable, or whether a vaccine is worth administering given its side effects. Even if you think IFR is 0.5%, which may be true in Iceland, going back to a pre-COVID lifestyle with no contact tracing or mask wearing results in too many deaths.
somigosaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 10:33 PM   #6947
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,094
Re: Coronavirus

Yeah man, 1800 people infected in a young country - most of them healthy travelers before it was nipped in the bud - disprove >200,000 data points.

You're not being serious. IFR is 0.5% even in this population, and a single nursing home infection would have made it 1.5%. So jsb could trot out Iceland, but he'd be correctly mocked there as well.

Cuomo's nursing homes don't matter because they're a small percentage of all very-high-death old people. They're more than offset in an IFR calculation by the fact that old people in population level samples have 1/3 the antibodies of the middle aged.

the data is completely overwhelming that the IFR is greater than 1%. It's amazing to see people argue it, actually.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:20 PM   #6948
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,094
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by despacito View Post
17% of people in London and 5% in England have had COVID
- British Health Secretary
So that another 1% IFR data point (without hospital overwhelming and with death undercounting).

Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy View Post
Bottomline is this, if Chinese, South Korean, and pretty much data everywhere else, suggesting that many people are asymptomatic and undetected, can be relied upon
The antibody tests are population level samples. Your only out is that the infected asymptomatic aren't making antibodies, which the data proves false.

Most likely is that the "asymptomatic" are false positives from non-infected very low doses (in the nose but not the lungs, could easily catch it with proper dosing) or actual false positives from the tests (some earlier tests had terrible reliability).
Quote:
then it's almost certain the true IFR is sub 1%, and very possibly under 0.6% (where SK is now I think).
South Korea is at 2.37%, and they aggressively contact traced and tested everyone they found infected, early and fast (before the first death and sufficient to halt the infection), so the odds that they caught the bulk are very high. Where on earth are you getting 0.6%? South Korea only just announced antibody testing will be undertaken and I'm unaware of any results yet.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2020, 02:26 AM   #6949
thethrill009
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 786
Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by somigosaden View Post
I came across that meta-study that jsb posted that estimates the IFR at 0.74% (but didn't post it because it seemed too flimsy) because its author shared it as a counterpoint to a new study from the Stanford professor who was behind the Santa Clara study, and who continues beating the drum that the true IFR is 0.1% or some such preposterous number. It's kind of funny that jsb got ridiculed for posting the Stanford guy's study, and then—for the same reason—is getting ridiculed for posting a study from a guy refuting the Stanford study.


That is funny, and it’s also a good thing - shows a consistent interpretation of data.

That study gave a range- .75% was the high end. I’d say that’s right around the low range of the true IFR given current data and projecting optimistically that improved treatment this year will significantly improve the IFR trajectory.


Most recently, the bigger issue was his blind rejection of May data because the most recent study he could find on google didn’t reference it. Just a bad look.
thethrill009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2020, 03:03 AM   #6950
despacito
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: $920. Funding secured.
Posts: 1,180
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
So that another 1% IFR data point (without hospital overwhelming and with death undercounting).
Approximately 1.5%?

England (approximate):
36,000,000 people
5% infected = 1,800,000 people
27,000 deaths
IFR = 1.5%

Assuming the antibody tests accurately represent actual infections.
despacito is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online