Not my fault you don't understand how science works. If you want someone to make a prediction such as 20k, 60k, 200k, that's fine, but from a scientific perspective, it is very unreliable.

Why am I being asked for my device location? Also, how do I turn it off it is on? You leftys are deranged in the head.

https://www.businessinsider.com/quar...ckdowns-2020-1

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/lo...ns-says-expert

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nd-fear-stigma

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soci...icle-read-more

We know, or at least should know, from painful history with tens of millions of dead bodies lining disease control literature, that incremental measures, taken in fairly rapid succession if necessary, while assuring the public at large and preventing panic are the way to go. Mass lockdowns and quarantines have not done very well. Even in cases, such as Wuhan, where the lockdown had some marginal benefit in slowing down the spread, the human cost (including increased death rates) have been tremendous.

It’s sad, and a bit funny, to me that we so readily abandon all reason and all the hard lessons humanity have paid dearly to learn.

you missed my point completely buddy but keep on inventing narratives anytime someone pokes fun with you

Grunch.

I've been trading for nearly 10 years (as a job) and this seems like the easiest short ever. (sold on Thursday, Friday, and added some yesterday after the recovery). Looking at the rate at which it is spreading and the incompetence of certain governments, I don't see a slowdown. The only solution would be a coordinated global lockdown for 2 weeks, which would cause the markets to tank anyway. When I speak to people, nobody seems to be taking it seriously. This is the only trade I have taken where I want to lose money, because the alternative is incredibly scary and sad.

What's the general consensus on here?

Wuhan worked. How is this not clear to you? The deaths peaked at 4 weeks after lockdown and rapidly declined. The mean time from infection to death is 4 weeks. Prior to the lockdown it was spreading rapidly; after lockdown it ceased spreading rapidly. The death numbers make that a lock. The numbers before lockdown (rapidly going up) for both Italy and Wuhan show that lockdown was necessary. Once they locked down in Wuhan, they peaked immediately (which we can tell from the death numbers; detected infections lagged because of testing).

How are you wrong about absolutely everything you post? It's an amazing gift, you should fade yourself.

Massive quarantine camps Spanish flu style can spread the infection, but they're not doing that in Italy. We're in 2020, not 1918. Your take is completely ******ed. Stopping people interacting and traveling is the only thing that works once the infection density reaches a certain stage, as it did in Wuhan and as it has in Italy.

Those four articles seemed analytically underwhelming to me as well: larded with "could" and "might" and virtually no serious analysis.

I could be slightly off here but the general gist is:

grizy is socially connected to some chinese expats who fled to live in nyc or something so he's regularly getting inundated with extreme anti CCP viewpoints which he then confuses as representative of what the average Chinese person believes

essentially, imagine a russian who hung out with the americans who renounced citizenship and moved to moscow during the cold war and then believing their viewpoints both more reliable than NYT and representative of the average guy in Des Moines or Pittsburgh - that's grizy in a nutshell

he means well and knows more about China than most but the source of his information is so absurdly biased and filtered and he refuses to look at other sources as valid because he believes he has exclusive access to the truth while we're all reading lies printed by government propaganda departments

the chinese people who shape his opinions on the matter happen to be a group who hate the CCP so much they'll find a fault with anything they do - he refuses to believe the CCP could actually care about preventing a pandemic in China because in his mind they are so evil they wouldn't mind if millions of Chinese died so instead he'll find faults and ulterior motives for the lockdown instead of realizing it may actually be about saving lives

Interesting take but emotions don't cover what is bad analysis at is core. I'm worried about China a lot too and think the government is more evil than the Third Reich - they're more dangerous than Germany in 1935 and as likely to try to take over the world and several times more likely to succeed in doing that and establish a permanent global subjugation system thanks to the coming tech revolution. They're the greatest threat free society faces.

So I certainly share grizy's biases. And their actions before the Wuhan lockdown were terrible, and in pressuring the WHO to keep borders open, also terrible and helped spread it around the world (which they want). But their actions inside China since the Wuhan lockdown have been absolutely perfect and their ability to bring this to zero spread so quickly is commendable. This was well handled after Jan 24, almost perfectly handled. I don't see how you can read the data any other way. They responded brilliantly to a crisis.

I agree completely with this. China has responded very well to the outbreak. The questions is, will countries take similar measures? I personally think they will, but we shall see.

Rickroll, you are the equal but opposite force to grizy

That's intellectual honesty.

Try something like this then: Toronto quarantines during SARS did more harm than good.

http://downloads.hindawi.com/journal...004/521892.pdf



Or a broader model based analysis:
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/163/5/479/61137

Quarantines are effective if:
R_0 is high
p (amount of transmission that's asymptomatic) is high
q (ability to identify and quarantine asymptomatic people) is high

We don't have high p. Though there does seem to be some asymptomatic transmission, consensus, and this is consistent with what we know of other flus and coronaviruses, is that asymptomatic transmission is not a significant contributor.

We don't have high q, at least not yet. And if we do high high q, isolation also becomes more effective in containing the virus. We observe this in South Korea.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...4067369190673D

Yet another case, this one on Cholera, about the ineffectiveness of mass quarantines in containing the disease in Latin America decades ago.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/197893

That's straight from Beijing CDC and US CDC researchers in the aftermath of SARS talking about Beijing's measures (more social distancing, no outright lockdown) in response to SARS.

"Improvements in infection control practices, use of PPE, grouping of patients with SARS in the hospital, establishment of designated fever clinics, quarantine of high-risk close contacts, and improved public information and awareness of SARS likely played important roles in controlling the outbreak. Some interventions, in retrospect, such as quarantine of low-risk contacts and fever checks at transportation sites, seemed to have less direct impact in curbing the outbreak. The lessons learned from controlling this outbreak can hopefully serve to inform future responses to SARS, if it were to reemerge in Beijing or elsewhere."

Some of the measures they found to be effective are rendered impossible once you create a panic that causes runs to hospitals and people to hide/flee.

I believe that p-SARS << p-Wuhan virus, but please check me on that.

I'd guess so as well. But p-Wuhan is still small (data, WHO, and CDC all say so and it would be consistent with other flu/coronaviruses and what they know of asymptomatic patients so far.) Furthermore, q is also small.

That study doesn't even take account of the negative effects of mass quarantine such as causing people to flee (basically an unintended negative impact on R_0, at least at time of implementation). It just models whether quarantines even stops the spread given a specific set of assumptions that are kind of on the generous side.

you seem to be fixated on making a massive extrapolation on something that could plausible y happen. some people will break quarantine or lockdown...but it is surely less transmission than allowing free flow of undiagnosed disease.

the only barrier is free health treatment. Im in Canada so noone here will avoid calling the hospital for fear of cost. if thats an issue in us maybe it will backfire, but there is no way a lockdown fuels the fire and to assert otherwise is delusional. - its so far off the reality as to be an asinine assertion. just give up spewing it

several data points already...lets go with china korea, singapore, hk...the only successful containers - proven to beat it already. every grizy-like naive country gets ass pounded until they get it into thier thick skull that its been proven whats needed and then it goes away.

watch italy. i will 100% gaurantee cases drop in a week. how many data points do u need to abandon your ultra liberal bs

South Korea locked down apartment buildings (in the study I cited earlier, this would be "isolation"), not entire regions.

More people already died in Italy than in South Korea, and at fatality rates not seen anywhere except Hubei/Wuhan.

Good luck with improving that situation.

Yeah, new infections will slow and buy us some time. But at what costs? It sure looks like a lot of dead bodies for relatively little gain.

see this is what I don't get, I spent several years working with dissidents and worked for the us government in Beijing for my first job post-poker

i'm no friend of the ccp, the one thing I admire about trump he at least attempted to fix the economic rape prior administrations have looked the other way on because of the previous official US stance on China which was "lol they are third world if they get rich they'll be our best ally and democratic"

but because I happen to point out their government would rather not let millions die in a pandemic or that no, they don't actually have concentration camps then I get labeled as someone with a pro china bias

ive seen you forecasting dire situations, yet for some insane reason thats no case to lockdown. there is no way a lockdown results in worse numbers than you project. and its orders of magnitude. when you are orders of magnitude off you are completely out to lunch.

sorry its a bit in congruent to forecast insane spikes in cases then promote a "no need to panic, dont lockdown" approach.

it has been proven that a lockdown prevents the dire scenario that you forecast. what is wrong with your brain that you can accept that a massive spread is inevitable yet not accept that staying home unless its an emergency for a couple weeks pretty much wipes this out or slows it to a trickle.

you are embarrassing yourself

I really can't believe the NCAA tournament isn't getting more heat to have no crowds. It seems like a great plan to lock 10s of thousands of people from all over the world in rooms all over the country next week.

grizy,
One simple question.

How are you blaming Italian fatality rates on lockdown when every single death right now was at a critical stage in hospital before the lockdown began?

Is there something legit mentally wrong with you? Can you not put two and two together? This is really bizarre.

It's not meaningless if someone is curious about the correct over/under line on deaths within a certain period.

Quarantine measures without a doubt work. China only has 3k deaths, this is clear evidence that quarantine does work, unless of course, you believe they are lying about the true death rate in there country.

How do we know it works? very simple. Had China went on with normal life and did not take draconian measures, we would currently see 10s of thousands of deaths in there country right now, have not crunched the numbers down, but the point is that they would be nowhere close to only 3k.

Italy's population is also much older than Korea's, so this may not be an apples-to-apples comparison. I'd wager that Italy's numbers drop starting in a few days. I'd also wager that China and Iran are lying outright about current numbers, but that's complete speculation on my part.