Disfunction is an illusion created by people who cant understand why the world is rejecting the previous orthodoxy
The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Disfunction is an illusion created by people who cant understand why the world is rejecting the previous orthodoxy
How can you be this obtuse? That literally has nothing to do with what you said. If Fauci gives an update on his projected death rate, then you can talk ****.
There is no way to know who has been infected. You realize we will never know the real death rate right?
They can develop an antibody test I suppose but you'll still have to hope the antibodies remain for a long period of time and get sufficient testing of the general population.
I gave a death count based on what I believed the transmission rate and death rate was.
I was mocked for this and yet again I've proven to be more right than the educated on this board.
I mean, how many more things can you all get wrong?
That is irrelevant to the discussion.
If Fauci is projecting 100-200k deaths based on a 1 percent death rate (basically assuming 10 million infections) then this doesn't support your argument at all.
No way 10m is the amount infected based on all we know of the virus. Pure lunacy to suggest this.
That is absolutely a possibility.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The alarm system was ready. Scarred by the SARS epidemic that erupted in 2002, China had created an infectious disease reporting system that officials said was world-class: fast, thorough and, just as important, immune from meddling.
Hospitals could input patients’ details into a computer and instantly notify government health authorities in Beijing, where officers are trained to spot and smother contagious outbreaks before they spread.
It didn’t work.
After doctors in Wuhan began treating clusters of patients stricken with a mysterious pneumonia in December, the reporting was supposed to have been automatic. Instead, hospitals deferred to local health officials who, over a political aversion to sharing bad news, withheld information about cases from the national reporting system — keeping Beijing in the dark and delaying the response.
The central health authorities first learned about the outbreak not from the reporting system but after unknown whistle-blowers leaked two internal documents online.
Even after Beijing got involved, local officials set narrow criteria for confirming cases, leaving out information that could have provided clues that the virus was spreading among humans.
Hospitals were ordered to count only patients with a known connection to the source of the outbreak, the seafood market. Doctors also had to have their cases confirmed by bureaucrats before they were reported to higher-ups.
“According to the rules, this of course should have been reported,” Yang Gonghuan, a retired health care official involved in establishing the direct reporting system, said in an interview. “Of course they should have seized on it, found it, gone to understand it.”
Aggressive action just a week earlier in mid-January could have cut the number of infections by two thirds, according to a recent study whose authors include an expert from Wuhan’s municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Another study found that if China had moved to control the outbreak three weeks earlier, it might have prevented 95 percent of the country’s cases.
“I regret that back then I didn’t keep screaming out at the top of my voice,” Ai Fen, one of the doctors at Wuhan Central Hospital who spotted cases in December, said in an interview with a Chinese magazine. “I’ve often thought to myself what would have happened if I could wind back time.”
Others tried to fill the void of information when the early warning system failed. The medical community found other, informal ways to alert others, disclosing government directives and hospital reports on the internet. During a rare burst of relative transparency early in the epidemic, Chinese journalists did much to expose the problems, but censors closed that window.
Word of the outbreak started to reach disease control officials in Beijing after rumors and the leaked documents began to spread online. The national center for disease control has pointedly avoided saying in announcements that it had been notified by Wuhan, instead noting that it had “learned of” the outbreak. Local officials have hedged over when and how they told Beijing.
The leaked documents were two internal Wuhan government directives, which emerged online on Dec. 30, possibly released by worried medical workers. The directives, marked “urgent,” ordered hospitals to send the city health commission information about cases of the mysterious pneumonia, improve treatment of patients and avoid infection in hospitals. At the same time, doctors alerted colleagues to the outbreak in private group chats on social media, which prompted official reprimands.
Gao Fu, the director of the Center for Disease Control, spotted the information circulating online and raised alarms, according to an account by Hua Sheng, a prominent Chinese economist who has defended the center. Dr. Gao declined to answer questions. The center ordered teams of experts to rush to Wuhan, and the first group arrived by the next morning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/...action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Hospitals could input patients’ details into a computer and instantly notify government health authorities in Beijing, where officers are trained to spot and smother contagious outbreaks before they spread.
It didn’t work.
After doctors in Wuhan began treating clusters of patients stricken with a mysterious pneumonia in December, the reporting was supposed to have been automatic. Instead, hospitals deferred to local health officials who, over a political aversion to sharing bad news, withheld information about cases from the national reporting system — keeping Beijing in the dark and delaying the response.
The central health authorities first learned about the outbreak not from the reporting system but after unknown whistle-blowers leaked two internal documents online.
Even after Beijing got involved, local officials set narrow criteria for confirming cases, leaving out information that could have provided clues that the virus was spreading among humans.
Hospitals were ordered to count only patients with a known connection to the source of the outbreak, the seafood market. Doctors also had to have their cases confirmed by bureaucrats before they were reported to higher-ups.
“According to the rules, this of course should have been reported,” Yang Gonghuan, a retired health care official involved in establishing the direct reporting system, said in an interview. “Of course they should have seized on it, found it, gone to understand it.”
Aggressive action just a week earlier in mid-January could have cut the number of infections by two thirds, according to a recent study whose authors include an expert from Wuhan’s municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Another study found that if China had moved to control the outbreak three weeks earlier, it might have prevented 95 percent of the country’s cases.
“I regret that back then I didn’t keep screaming out at the top of my voice,” Ai Fen, one of the doctors at Wuhan Central Hospital who spotted cases in December, said in an interview with a Chinese magazine. “I’ve often thought to myself what would have happened if I could wind back time.”
Others tried to fill the void of information when the early warning system failed. The medical community found other, informal ways to alert others, disclosing government directives and hospital reports on the internet. During a rare burst of relative transparency early in the epidemic, Chinese journalists did much to expose the problems, but censors closed that window.
Word of the outbreak started to reach disease control officials in Beijing after rumors and the leaked documents began to spread online. The national center for disease control has pointedly avoided saying in announcements that it had been notified by Wuhan, instead noting that it had “learned of” the outbreak. Local officials have hedged over when and how they told Beijing.
The leaked documents were two internal Wuhan government directives, which emerged online on Dec. 30, possibly released by worried medical workers. The directives, marked “urgent,” ordered hospitals to send the city health commission information about cases of the mysterious pneumonia, improve treatment of patients and avoid infection in hospitals. At the same time, doctors alerted colleagues to the outbreak in private group chats on social media, which prompted official reprimands.
Gao Fu, the director of the Center for Disease Control, spotted the information circulating online and raised alarms, according to an account by Hua Sheng, a prominent Chinese economist who has defended the center. Dr. Gao declined to answer questions. The center ordered teams of experts to rush to Wuhan, and the first group arrived by the next morning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/...action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Last edited:
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
You were mocked for giving those numbers as what we'd see just letting the virus run its course without intervention. You gave those numbers in a discussion of "getting the economy back going by Easter" or whatever dumb Trump plan you were parroting. You generated 100-200k by saying something like let 50% of the country get it (165M) and a death rate of 0.1% (165M *.1% = 165k). It is facially obvious that is not what Fauci is saying, since he talks in the same interview about "millions of cases", not tens or hundreds of millions. He certainly hasn't made any new statements to match your invented death rate numbers.
If what you actually meant was 100-200k under the condition of "following the restrictions Dr. Fauci recommends and letting the virus make the timetable" then you have once again wasted your own and everyone else's time by arguing against a point no one was making. Congrats.
I'm going back to ignoring your ever-more obvious trolling now. For anyone else who is skeptical of the models (skepticism is generally a reasonable starting point), but would like to actually think critically about them instead of furiously masturbating into a red MAGA hat, here is a good article about how to actual engage with modeling instead of being a contrarian troll like thethe:
https://rexdouglass.github.io/TIGR/...unkvG1M7NxlVWB7BTy80Ws1YGgV3i56RyKVyGkWHUF3II
Last edited:
The idea of going back to work was because we implemented mitigation measures already and learned the virus is less deadly.
Nice try on the back pedal but you have been dead wrong on this from the beginning.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I think it would be better for everyone if you posted less in this thread. This is a serious issue and we should probably stick to actual news.
Yeah like appropriate forecasting and not absurd policies based on foolish analysis.
You'll still need me.
Remember when iran was going to attack us?
Remember when the FBI wasnt bias?
Remember when the FISA system was abused?
Remember when general flynn was railroaded?
Man, when are you guys right?
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Here in the real world, I've actually found it kind of heart-warming that wikipedia has been one of the most comprehensive and up-to-date repositories of information about the outbreak. The nerds running things over their have kept up with daily updates on pretty comprehensive and accessible data, with separate articles for different relevant locations. For example:
Worldwide
United States
New York
Thanks, sad lonely nerds of the world.
Worldwide
United States
New York
Thanks, sad lonely nerds of the world.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
In less fortunate news, it looks like the "gold standard" death rate in South Korea has been slowly creeping up. The seem to have new cases under control, but existing cases keep dying.
9,583 cases, 152 deaths = 1.59% CFR, and probably rising at this point.
9,583 cases, 152 deaths = 1.59% CFR, and probably rising at this point.
Last edited:
