So you are disputing that fact I'm guessing? Large new infections on a date does not indicate spread for the months prior?
Just want to make sure we go on record here.
The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
So you are disputing that fact I'm guessing? Large new infections on a date does not indicate spread for the months prior?
Just want to make sure we go on record here.
1 funeral caused 1,000 cases in less than a month. But sure, let's pretend lockdowns would have no affect.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I am disputing that literally anything you are saying is in the article.
Good lawyering here.
One small community in GA spread over 1000 cases in less than a month, so.....
Great avoidance.
This is irrelevant to what should have been done which was targetted mitigation.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There is a point in the Imperial College report that I found confusing when I first read it, but now think is important:
Introducing such interventions too early risks allowing transmission to return once they are lifted (if insufficient herd
immunity has developed); it is therefore necessary to balance the timing of introduction with the scale
of disruption imposed and the likely period over which the interventions can be maintained. In this
scenario, interventions can limit transmission to the extent that little herd immunity is acquired –
leading to the possibility that a second wave of infection is seen once interventions are lifted.
This is why I'm curious as to what people think the number of people infected in mid-March (when the various interventions such as social distancing were introduced). A plausible case can be made that in New York City the virus had spread enough so that we have a certain level of herd immunity that is kicking in. For the rest of the country, it looks a bit less likely.
I would add that the lack of testing (as of mid March) really handicapped policymakers as far as knowing when the right time was for introducing these interventions. And I'm not sure even now we have the data to have much insight into this issue.
Introducing such interventions too early risks allowing transmission to return once they are lifted (if insufficient herd
immunity has developed); it is therefore necessary to balance the timing of introduction with the scale
of disruption imposed and the likely period over which the interventions can be maintained. In this
scenario, interventions can limit transmission to the extent that little herd immunity is acquired –
leading to the possibility that a second wave of infection is seen once interventions are lifted.
This is why I'm curious as to what people think the number of people infected in mid-March (when the various interventions such as social distancing were introduced). A plausible case can be made that in New York City the virus had spread enough so that we have a certain level of herd immunity that is kicking in. For the rest of the country, it looks a bit less likely.
I would add that the lack of testing (as of mid March) really handicapped policymakers as far as knowing when the right time was for introducing these interventions. And I'm not sure even now we have the data to have much insight into this issue.
Last edited:
Of course we are close to herd immunity in NYC. OVer 4M people ride the subways daily.
But the other areas are not dense enough to need 50%.
Remember, the whole idea is to prevent strain on hospitals.
A full re-open would not impact the hospital capacity at all BUT WE STILL NEED TO PROTECT AT RISK.
Always can rely on you to take the most extreme take possible, that nobody ever mentioned.
sturg33
I
Read the thread dude.
Yall are justifying the lockdown bc of outbreaks.
That risk doesnt go away next month.
What does sav suggest
sturg33
I
I think the markets are completely irrational right now. Although the fed has decided they cant go down anymore
No, but it does buy us time to develop measures for when the 2nd outbreak occurs, lessening the strain on hospitals and reducing the amount of people that die. It allows time for more information to be gathered and more trials to take place and see what methods work best for treating the virus.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
You know, because I'm a masochist, I went and read the actual study from the article in question. They explicitly say they are using a Jan. 15 start date, which is about the time of the first recorded infection.
So there you go, confirmation from thethe's own source that his "LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT IT WASN'T OCTOBER, NO MODEL CAN DO THOSE NUMBERS" position is wrong. These guys are modeling waaaay more infections than anyone else, but still managing to start their timeline in January.
I fully expect thethe will graciously ponder the implications.
The study in question actually provides an interesting scenario of hyper-contagion to try and show a "safer" path that gets us to the same place. Not sure they really have good enough data to be actually convincing, but it's a good attempt to show a plausible "everybody has it" path.
The whole country will be open in 3 weeks and we will all realize that hte hysteria was for nothing.
The economy won't be where it was in January right away but I would expect a steady increase back to early Feb levels by September.
Nice 250% pop on my investment.
Can't wait to go on vacation!
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I've been assured that we actually have a cure.
I fully expect lots of potential seed infections to be used in these analysis.
It will never be proven until China gives us real access.
My bet is on China hiding the infection for months and allowing their infected population to travel all around the world. Its a very communist thing to do.
I can't wait to have my pocket hydroxychloroquine bottle handy in my pocket next to my mini purell hand sanitizer bottle.