I hope these guys are just trolling

At best they are rationalizing to themselves that they alone are so effective in communicating to Trump not to decimate all of the US that they must appear to support him in front of the media so that they will not be replaced by complete sycophants. At best. It's disgraceful.

I'm also not into the idea of potentially permanent lung damage or other long term effects from this thing - which we have no idea about yet.

According to this the R0 of swine flu was 1.4 to 1.6.

I've heard R0 of up to 5.7 for covid in the right conditions. Which means herd immunity is 82% of the population. Or 800k dead at .3% IFR. .3% is probably best case scenario for IFR.

Best case scenario of R0 is probably 2. Which means 50% for herd immunity or about 500k dead.

However that many dead certainly overloads hospitals - which spikes IFR way up. And IFR could be a lot higher than .3% in some populations.

It’s only 800k dead if you assume that they 80% who get the virus are a random selection of the population, or that the IFR of 0.3% is constant across the population.

But we already know the IFR isn’t constant. So if we coordinate achieving herd immunity to minimize the number of the most vulnerable people who get the virus, you could have a much lower fatality rate.

I don't think you can assert the IFR will go down massively because we can somehow isolate the worst 20% of the population.

First of all, .3% IFR is still a best case scenario to begin with. In a population of older people, unhealthy people, overweight people, places with a lot of pollution, etc. it could be higher - and it's not like you're going to lock down the whole area. IE - herd immunity in Colorado isn't going to help Albany, GA.

How are you going to isolate nursing homes? Workers come and go. They work in multiple nursing homes. One asymptomatic spreader and the whole thing goes up like a tinder box. Maybe if you had constant testing. But oh yeah - we're not doing that. If there's a plan for nursing homes I haven't heard it.

What is the plan for obese people or younger people with comorbidities who still have to work? Are they just supposed to quit? Doubtless many of them will go ahead and risk it, which will keep your iFR up.

Sure trying to isolate the vulnerable will help some - but we won't have any idea how much until it happens - and even then it will be impossible to isolate amongst all the other variables from place to place.

Obviously. But under what scenario do you see yourself avoiding getting the virus? Like are we just going to shelter in place for 2+ years until a vaccine comes?

As long as we are telling fairy tales like IFR is only 0.3% across our population, why not just say the cases are gonna go down to 0 and just be gone


We are too far into this to be this naive.

0.2% of NYC has died.

So unless 67% of NYC is infected, the IFR is not 0.3%

I wish those policymakers who are advocating for “reopening the country” would clarify what they expect to happen after lifting restrictions.

Do they believe the restrictions have already worked (or that they were never needed), and thus the virus has already been effectively killed off in their jurisdiction?

Or do they believe that the restrictions are not working, and thus we might as well lift restrictions since almost everyone is going to get virus anyway, we might as well just go ahead and let people get it now (to more quickly achieve herd immunity)?

I.e. A person could hold a coherently favor lifting lockdowns because they either believe the virus is much LESS serious than most lockdown advocates believe, OR because they believe it is much MORE serious than lockdown advocates believe.

But I feel like a lot of people on this side seem to hold both positions simultaneously in a way that ends up being incoherent.

FWIW, this is also somewhat true of people favoring continuing the lockdowns (they look at any good news as evidence that the lockdowns are working, and any bad news as evidence that the lockdowns need to stay in place).

4/1 - 5157 (^26%)(1072 deaths)
4/2 - 6061 (^18%)(904 deaths)
4/3 - 7400 (^22%)(1339 deaths)
4/4 - 8500 (^15%)(1100 deaths)
4/5 - 9666 (^14%)(1166 deaths)
4/6 - 11,000 (^14%)(1334 deaths)
4/7 - 12,931 (^18%)(1931 deaths)
4/8 - 14,831 (^15%)(1900 deaths)
4/9 - 16,720 (^13%)(1889 deaths)
4/10 - 18,817(^13%)(2097 deaths)
4/11 - 20,650(^10%)(1833 deaths)
4/12 - 22,157(^7%)(1507 deaths)
4/13 - 23,674(^7%)(1517 deaths)
4/14 - 26,094(^10%)(2420 deaths)
4/15 - 28,605(^10%)(2511 deaths)
4/16 - 34,845(^22%)(6240 deaths)*
*-4k previous deaths tacked on
4/17 - 37,308(^7%)(2463 deaths)
4/18 - 39,116(^5%)(1808 deaths)
4/19 - 41,187(^5%)(2071 deaths)
4/20 - 42,965(^4%)(1778 deaths)
4/21 - 45,435(^6%)2470 deaths)

Highlighted Tuesdays for clarity.

Atlanta cannot become New York nor can any other American city. NYC was a unique powderkeg due to its combination of population density and international travel.

I'm not going to restaurants or bars, and I'm wearing a mask wherever I do go until there's no more cases popping up in my area.

Basically not much different than now although I may risk a haircut and I get to go hiking again. I may risk the gym, with a mask, just to do deadlifts - then burn my clothes and give myself a silkwood shower afterwards.

At least I have the luxury of living in a state where I don't have to worry about them actively suppressing testing - like happened early on in a lot of midwestern and southern states. I could see that happening again leading up to the election. But as they learned - you can only hide it for a couple weeks befr

FWIW - I think we may actually get a summer pause - between weather, sun, masks and the riskiest places still shut down. Although I could also see us ****ing it up by opening up too soon in a lot of places. But I'd lay major odds it's coming back in the fall even if we do get a summer pause.

NYC could easily be closer to 1. There's pollution and a lot of people with other health issues in the boroughs getting hit hardest - Bronx, Queens, Staten Island.

I was giving an absolute best case IFR just to illustrate the point. 500k deaths to herd immunity is like absolute minimum and it goes way up from there.

I guess I was more speaking to the idea of everyone, not you specifically. Maybe you work from home and can weather it out pretty easy until a vaccine comes. But from a societal standpoint, under what scenario do you see the majority of people not getting infected? This is an honest question, I just can't envision a scenario.

Assuming a 99% test accuracy, here are the results using Bayes':



P(sick) is the fraction of the population infected (column F).

If 5% of the population is infected, then the probability that the person is not sick given that he tests positive is 16.1%.

If 10% of the population is infected, then the probability that the person is not sick given that he tests positive is 8.3%.

The formula in A3 is:

=C3*D3/(C3*D3+E3*F3)

and the corresponding inputs are in row 3.

BTW, good explanation Juk.


EDIT:

I need a refill of refill jokes.

I guess shut down long enough until cases die down, hope for a decent summer pause, try to ride it out as long as possible until you have to shut down again. Don't open the super-risky stuff until it's gone gone. Basically not much different than what we're actually doing except with much much more testing, and hopefully not botched timing.

"A majority of people getting infected" in any kind of short time frame involves completely overloaded hospitals, massive spikes in CFR due to no ICU/ventilators, massively traumatized front line healthcare workers, bodies in hallways, bring out your dead wagons driving through neighborhoods, etc.

I can't see that happening either, can you? And if it starts to happen, I think people will shut themselves in w/o being told to. Once pretty much everyone has had to say goodbye to a loved one over facetime, these protests will stop imo.

Looks like Tuesday sets the level for the following week. More pain.

nice post, everyone here should read The Drunkard's Walk as it talks about things like this in depth, but it uses Aids instead of covid for obvious reasons as an example

I'm talking out of my ass a little but why does overwhelmed hospitals spike the fatality rate an appreciable amount? As I understand it, the mortality rate of CV people who are put on ventilators is about 66%. So the difference between an overwhelmed hospital and a one that's not is in the worst case, the 1/3 of ventilator survivors will die. How big is that number?

Once they're overwhelmed not everyone gets a ventilator, necessary drugs, or a sponge bath.

Exactly my point. There isn't any real treatments for the virus. Outside of oxygen and ventilators, the other stuff is palliative.

27 sorry to ask because I know you already mentioned it way back in this thread but where are you getting your numbers? I'd thought that you said you were using worldometers.info but their numbers are completely different from yours.

Also, on a side note, it appears that that site has now filtered in those extra 4k deaths from last week into the days that they are being attributed to happening, so each day now more accurately reflects its actual number, instead of being underreported and then there being a huge 6k spike one day.

https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en

Some people avoid going on ventilator from hospital treatment (oxygen, iv hydration, prone position, etc)

And if 33% can be saved from ventilators, then that lowers death rate by 1/3 if everyone gets on a ventilator in time.