The Coronavirus, not the beer

Metaphysicist said:
1) Didn't ignore the article. I read it and it said this:



2) You actually ignored the fact that the increase in NY flu numbers is based on lab-confirmed cases.

3) I absolutely acknowledge it is highly transmittable. I have literally never denied this. I have said that different people spread at different rates which is obvious. Isolated people/groups spread less; this is also obvious.

4) "Travelers from China had an infection rate" is not saying anything. It is axiomatically true that anyone who left Wuhan with the virus was at risk of spreading the virus to other wherever they went. No one denies that. But that does not automatically mean that wherever they arrived was immediately subject to a widespread pandemic. Initial person to person transmission rates among "seeders" can vary widely. That's why New Rochelle exploded - one dude went literally everywhere in the whole town. But the guy next to him on the plane might have just gone home and slept.
Click to expand...

1. Great...confirmation bias for you. As opposed to what has been vastly reported as a horrid flu season by multiple counties. Coincidences I guess. Wonder how much money china has donated to that university.

https://www.uea.su/opportunities/society/ueacssa/

Nice little program they have....

2. I havent seen anyonecsay coronavirus wasnt present prior it just wasnt tested for specifically.

3. Great so that should answer all your questions

4. I've said the same numerous posts prior.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Telling is not showing. Show me a possible curve that begins in October and has the current death totals.
Click to expand...

The curve is infections and the death lags. So you still dont seem to grasp how fast exponential functions grow and how long an incubation period exists.

What the heck do you want? For me go create a hypothetical database and map the aggregate function?

Do some damn research and visualize for yourself
 
Metaphysicist said:
Telling is not showing. Show me a possible curve that begins in October and has the current death totals. I'm not responding to any other of your gobbledygook until you do.
Click to expand...

I have tried and I can't visualize any possible curve where there is widespread infection from October, basically nobody dies for 4 months, but then there an exponential explosion in deaths (unless incubation is 4 months, which is not true). So I would love to see what you are visualizing.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I have tried and I can't visualize any possible curve where there is widespread infection from October, basically nobody dies for 4 months, but then there an exponential explosion in deaths. So I would love to see what you are visualizing.
Click to expand...

Who said widespread infection then? That is your issue. It takes a whole to grow and the fact we are being swarmed indicates it's been growing for months.
 
Metaphysicist said:
To repeat:
Click to expand...

Fine - Lets go basic.

Lets say only 1 seed infection came over on 11/1 and that based on pattern of behavior we assume every three days each new infected infects another 1.3 people. I think thats a conservative estimate based on the fact that some stay within very closed social settings while others are spreaders.

By Feb 1st an aggregate amount of infected is 14,755.

Using an assumed hopsitalization rate of 10% (very high) that gives us 1,475 that would have been hospitalized.

Then using what I believe the real death rate to be (.01%) an aggregate amount of 147 deaths would have been causes.


Fast forward these numbers to current day and you have:

1.659M aggregate infections
166K aggreagte hospitalization
16,600 aggregate deaths

So you can see it grows very quickly. My assumptions has only one seed infection (but assumptions to grasp an average spread rate) but it also has uncontrolled measures with no government intervention. Its not at all difficult to understand how this grows.

We can continue if you'd like.
 
Last edited:
Metaphysicist said:
something something perfect enemy good
Click to expand...

Lets work with someone that on January 15th stated there was no evidence to support human to human transmission of the virus.

How do you not see this?

We should get to the bottom of how infected our society is with CCP's money and then root out all their influence. Nobody seems to care about that but they get in an uproar about a few facebook ads purchased by Russia.

More CCP instruction. You guys are great lapdogs though.
 
I am seeing speculation the NFL season wont happen. If it wont start on time maybe they should do a season sudden death tournament style. Every game would be a playoff game.
 
Carp said:
I mean China mobilized treatment centers very quickly. As a result, and with the help of some questionable quarantine methods, COVID-19 cases have to plateaued in China and things are getting back to normal for them. We are 2 months into the first US case and we don't even have mass testing available and cases have seemingly doubled every week after Trump said we'd have "zero cases in a week or two." There absolutely ways in which China has been way better than the West at dealing with this virus.
Click to expand...

Exhibit A in people wanting to believe China so much in the spirit of criticizing Trump.

Now we are starting to see signs that this may have ravaged mainland China and everything that came out during this time period through our media was complete state propoganda.
 
Its one massive hysteria plot to the next for the cult.

The DNC propaganda machine used a damn pandemic to divide the nation. Disgraceful
 
thethe said:
Fine - Lets go basic.

Lets say only 1 seed infection came over on 11/1 and that based on pattern of behavior we assume every three days each new infected infects another 1.3 people. I think thats a conservative estimate based on the fact that some stay within very closed social settings while others are spreaders.

By Feb 1st an aggregate amount of infected is 14,755.

Using an assumed hopsitalization rate of 10% (very high) that gives us 1,475 that would have been hospitalized.

Then using what I believe the real death rate to be (.01%) an aggregate amount of 147 deaths would have been causes.


Fast forward these numbers to current day and you have:

1.659M aggregate infections
166K aggreagte hospitalization
16,600 aggregate deaths

So you can see it grows very quickly. My assumptions has only one seed infection (but assumptions to grasp an average spread rate) but it also has uncontrolled measures with no government intervention. Its not at all difficult to understand how this grows.

We can continue if you'd like.
Click to expand...

Alright, thank you for posting something that gives some sense of what you are thinking about. It really clears up where you are going wrong, and the error is extremely ironic based on how many times you've used the word "math" in this thread.

A) No subtle way to say it: your math is just wrong, on the most basic level. If you have 1.6M infections and 16K deaths, that's a 1% death rate not 0.01%. At a 0.01% death rate you'd expect 160 deaths. You have unwittingly demonstrated that a 0.01% doesn't get you anywhere close to what we are seeing, even given a very long interval of transmission.

B) Over the past 8 days, Italy has averaged 750 deaths per day. With a 0.01% death rate, that means ~7.5m new infections per day, or 60m infections to get those 8 days of deaths. Italy only has 60m people. The math on why that doesn't work should be clear.

C) Deaths in NYC are up over 500 since March 14. At 0.01% death rate, that's already bumping up against the entire city population.

D) A 0.01% death rate would mean if literally every single American (unlikely) got it, we'd see 33k deaths. A few pages back you were estimating 100k-200k. Just FYI if you were worried about consistency
 
Metaphysicist said:
Alright, thank you for posting something that gives some sense of what you are thinking about. It really clears up where you are going wrong, and the error is extremely ironic based on how many times you've used the word "math" in this thread.

A) No subtle way to say it: your math is just wrong, on the most basic level. If you have 1.6M infections and 16K deaths, that's a 1% death rate not 0.01%. At a 0.01% death rate you'd expect 160 deaths. You have unwittingly demonstrated that a 0.01% doesn't get you anywhere close to what we are seeing, even given a very long interval of transmission.

B) Over the past 8 days, Italy has averaged 750 deaths per day. With a 0.01% death rate, that means ~7.5m new infections per day, or 60m infections to get those 8 days of deaths. Italy only has 60m people. The math on why that doesn't work should be clear.

C) Deaths in NYC are up over 500 since March 14. At 0.01% death rate, that's already bumping up against the entire city population.

D) A 0.01% death rate would mean if literally every single American (unlikely) got it, we'd see 33k deaths. A few pages back you were estimating 100k-200k. Just FYI if you were worried about consistency
Click to expand...

1 - Fine - My decimal was wrong that I into my spreadsheet. Clearly I dont understand the difference between the two figures. I also have repeatedly said I thought the death rate was .1% so nitpick my actual post all you want. Re-ran the projections using the right decimal (.001) and changed it to seed infection at 10/15 since the premise here is that it was around for a while.

Feb 3rd:

71.2k infected
7.1K hospitalized
71 deaths

March 28th:

8M infected
800k hopsitalized
8K dead

b) Death rate depends on where you are and based on amount seed infections which cause the spike to be higher which results in less resources. Italy always gets hit hard by the flu and have had high deaths in many reported years.

c) Cuomo has said that hte amount of hospital admisssions have feel in two consecutive days. THat is the leading figure as the deaths lag. If that becomes the trend the worst is behind us.
 
Other than that, your numbers actually showcase the problem very well, and I don't understand why you would be happy about them? In your scenario we have seen 16,453/16,600 death just since the beginning of February (and the vast majority in March, which seems right. Using your 1.3/3 days numbers, that puts us at 22M infected and 220,000 dead just over the next month. Which seems bad and makes the case very well for why we have taken measures to limit the R0.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Other than that, your numbers actually showcase the problem very well, and I don't understand why you would be happy about them? In your scenario we have seen 16,453/16,600 death just since the beginning of February (and the vast majority in March, which seems right. Using your 1.3/3 days numbers, that puts us at 22M infected and 220,000 dead just over the next month. Which seems bad and makes the case very well for why we have taken measures to limit the R0.
Click to expand...

THat is the whole purpose of the social distancing measures and hte quarantines. To buy us time to ramp up capacity and find treatment measures.

As more successful trials come on on Hydroxychloroquine we will see that it will be the key factor in not having death rates in excess of .1%.

In addition to slowing the curve you are actually killing infections in the infected population without transmission to a new host. That resets the curve back tremendously.

What we have done already can buy us another month or two of regular business (with simple social distancing aspects adopted) until we have to consider another form of extreme measure.

But the continuation of our econcomy is essential and if the hydroxychloroquine is as good as reported then we won't have to stop at all and then the next step is an approved vaccine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top