Lovely world, we can’t even decide state to state what constitutes a new case etc...we all fugged

This is a really fascinating time imo. We’re at an inflection point where all the models, which rely on trends, are basically useless. It’s obvious cases aren’t going to plummet. We know a lot of people are going to die and states are going to lie about it. Those are a given.

But to me the $billion question is will the #s keep muddling for a few months - or will the hospitals get overloaded again to the point where govts have to act?

No one knows what R0 looks like for “sort of opened up, in summer, but with some masks and new rules, no big events, and a lot of behavior changes”. Anyone who says they know what’s going to happen is FOS imo. But the picture should get a more clear with every week that goes by.

I think it’s a given a lot of places will have to shut down by fall at the latest. But no one thinks that far ahead.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/us/ca...rnd/index.html

Singing in church. What could go wrong?

It's hard to compare different places but IMHO

1) Whether Sweden's approach is a good idea or not depends on one's political philosophy. People who support it aren't really open to persuasion with data-driven utilitarian arguments, because that's not why they support it and they don't think those arguments are admissible.

2) If you aren't doing a Sweden, and you're doing things to restrict Covid-19, one the main patterns is that if you do a lot early then you can actually do less in the long-run. Xenoblade in post 9286 is wrong to say there is a possible equilibrium between death and economics - really messing it up just means you're dealing it for longer and have more economic pain.

3) It's hard to analyse these things with data - as people ITT know I'm very pro-masks, but Slovakia's mask law which came into effect on 25 March had zero impact - because (I say but can't prove) almost everyone had already been wearing a mask for the previous 10 days, hence the popularity of the law. It's not going to be easy for a PhD to come along and later unpick what was caused by legislation and what was caused by social behaviour changes, because there's very little hard data that could pass peer-review on how and when social behaviour changed.

FWIW, not all models rely on trends in the same way as the ridiculously flawed UW model that has received so much attention. Models known as SEIR models are generally the way epidemiologists have modeled disease in the past and are not just curve fitting exercises. However it is nearly impossible to accurately model how social contact will increase because we've literally never seen anything like this before, so everyone is guessing.

Right - your model is only as good as the R0 you put in, or the assumptions you put in to get to it. And no one has any idea what that is right now with all the novel factors. I'd guess something between 1 and 3 in most places (not including a meat-packing plant, distribution center, or singing in church).

Seems like US-style lockdown-lite got us somewhere between .5 and 1 in most places. Maybe lower in a few like SF.

It was insanely easy to get an antibody test in Virginia this week. 5 mins of googling, 10 min trip to the lab, no symptoms needed to qualify, got results in 12 hours.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Was it a pin-prick or did they take a vial? I have a lot more faith in the places that take a vial.

Gotta get that sweet sweet tithe.

One outbreak and all those churches will shut right down again. Probably best just to let them run their course.

They took a vial

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

I disagree with your prediction.
I agree with your proposed course of action.

sunshine kills it!

My thoughts and prayers are weaponized and ready at the wait.

no, not a lot at all, some people have that, and you hear all about it in the media so it gives you the impression that a lot of people have that, but that's not the case

Xeno, it's incredibly annoying when you try to correct suzzer's speaking-with-certainty, by doing the exact same thing.

We don't even know how many people have COVID, or have had it, or have actually reported as such. You're speculating as much as anyone else.

Bickering between "a lot" and "some" is just bickering at this point.

Hard to take that map seriously when states with large decreases in hospitalizations and deaths are colored purple.

I can set a line and we can bet

anyway I'm done posting here, I'll let the bottom tier of 2p2 posters debate

Some ****ing doofus is standing in front of our station waving an American flag around (no mask). Is that you, Xeno?

Says the guy who knows he's at risk, but expects the rest of us to go out there and risk long term lung damage or death to save the economy.

Pretty much every article I've read about potential signs of long term lung damage - like the ground glass nodules, or scarring of the lungs - the doctor they quote is saying "we're seeing this a lot" or something similar.

I did say "hit hard". But maybe I should have been more clear: no one knows the prevalence of long term lung damage if you get hit really hard with this thing - which at 51 and overweight it's not like I'm in the zero danger zone.

Rsigley got a severely herniated lung out of it.

suzz I'm with you bro. I don't want to get this and be all 'welp, let's see what happens...hope for the best...'

Thank god!
You've been even more insufferable than DaveT, NMPK, and MerryXmas combined

Let the 19-year-olds, Karens and their goateed husbands, and religious nutters go out and get the economy going.

Not that it really matters but why won't Trump wear a mask? Is he afraid the orange will come off?

If he wears a mask it shows he thinks things are as rosy as he wants them to be.