The Coronavirus, not the beer

nsacpi said:
You should read the article. Russia is getting slammed. I don't know if they will ultimately end up like Italy/Spain/Belgium but things are going pretty badly there.
Click to expand...

But that's the comparison isnt it? Virus was allowed to enter prior to shutdown and then it grew. Just depends on how many seed infections for ultimate impact.
 
LA County Population 10M

4% = 400k

Confirmed cases = 12,341
Deaths = 600

Fatality Rate = .15%

Multiple of approx 30

We are clearly seeing that this was widespread and therefore the 'hunch' was right.
 
thethe said:
But that's the comparison isnt it? Virus was allowed to enter prior to shutdown and then it grew. Just depends on how many seed infections for ultimate impact.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't understand this argument that the ultimate impact depends on the number of seed infections. R naught is driven by a country's internal conditions. Thinks like social habits (kissing and hugging), housing density, travel patterns.
 
nsacpi said:
Actually I don't understand this argument that the ultimate impact depends on the number of seed infections. R naught is driven by a country's internal conditions. Thinks like social habits (kissing and hugging), housing density, travel patterns.
Click to expand...

That is one factor I agree with you.
 
thethe said:
LA County Population 10M

4% = 400k

Confirmed cases = 12,341
Deaths = 600

Fatality Rate = .15%

Multiple of approx 30

We are clearly seeing that this was widespread and therefore the 'hunch' was right.
Click to expand...


Interesting data from the antibodies tests.

The estimate for LA county is 2.8 to 5.6%.

From the Stanford study, the estimate for Santa Clara county is 2.5 to 4.2%.

We are starting to get some visibility into this.

That would be good news if those numbers hold up.
 
nsacpi said:
Interesting data from the antibodies tests.

The estimate for LA county is 2.8 to 5.6%.

From the Stanford study, the estimate for Santa Clara county is 2.5 to 4.2%.

We are starting to get some visibility into this.

That would be good news if those numbers hold up.
Click to expand...

Agreed - Can't wait till NYC is done.
 
i have

i know you have your perception

but it doesn't make it true FB

but hey, thank God we have you and the other idiot patriots fighting the good fight
 
I wouldn't mind it if the fear was rational.

There is absolutely no reason to fear the virus. Its an easy strategy moving forward to protect people.
 
thethe said:
LA County Population 10M

4% = 400k

Confirmed cases = 12,341
Deaths = 600

Fatality Rate = .15%

Multiple of approx 30

We are clearly seeing that this was widespread and therefore the 'hunch' was right.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna spit on good news, but I think these results are pretty much in the same "wait and see" camp as the Santa Clara ones. Looks like they used the same test, so it is gonna have the same specificity question (don't see this study published online anywhere yet?). If anything, this study is even more dependent on that question, since they used a sample about 4 times smaller (863 people v. 3300 in SC); that means 2.8% is literally just a couple dozen folks in the original sample. That's gonna make the question of "Are there false positives" huge.

If this test turns out to be 100% accurate, then great news.
 
Smarter Statman than me (Andrew Gelman) on the Stanford study:

Summary

I think the authors of the above-linked paper owe us all an apology. We wasted time and effort discussing this paper whose main selling point was some numbers that were essentially the product of a statistical error.

I’m serious about the apology. Everyone makes mistakes. I don’t think they authors need to apologize just because they screwed up. I think they need to apologize because these were avoidable screw-ups. They’re the kind of screw-ups that happen if you want to leap out with an exciting finding and you don’t look too carefully at what you might have done wrong.
Click to expand...

That's an incredibly hot take from a stat nerd.
 
Using the ratio of cases in past 7 days to cases in prior 7 days as a proxy for R naught, the following states have numbers at or below .5 and probably should be in the first wave to ease restrictions on business and school closures:

Alaska, Montana and Vermont

The states in the .6-.7 range are:

Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Alabama and Louisiana

They're getting close, although I'd be careful with Louisiana.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I see you missed Georgia as your obvious first mover.
Click to expand...

Their case numbers are coming down, but yeah they are jumping the gun.

The states with the highest R naught right now appear to be North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Ohio. All above 1. Somewhat good news that not a single state is above 2.

Ohio is kind of interesting. They've done a lot of things right. But they border on Michigan, Indiana and Pennsylvania. The virus doesn't respect borders. I'm glad to see governors working together in regional groups.
 
Last edited:
You guys realize that no matter how this next month or so plays out there WILL be a 2nd wave coming some time this Summer or early Fall, right?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
You guys realize that no matter how this next month or so plays out there WILL be a 2nd wave coming some time this Summer or early Fall, right?
Click to expand...

that's what the experts say with their big words and maps and models and fancy degrees from fancy schools
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top