SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242036)

SIGSEGV May 16, 2020 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8924405)
East London is hopping. I went over there by bike today and parks were packed, pubs doing beers in plastic pint cups to go, lots of street food available. The idea that you can keep people locked down in summer is just foolish.

All of that sounds fine as long as the parks aren't TOO crowded and people are wearing masks when getting close to others.

Maybe this pandemic will finally be the end of the US's ridiculous open container laws (I say this as someone who doesn't drink).

10023 May 16, 2020 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8924426)
All of that sounds fine as long as the parks aren't TOO crowded and people are wearing masks when getting close to others.

Maybe this pandemic will finally be the end of the US's ridiculous open container laws (I say this as someone who doesn't drink).

Definitely no masks and not much social distancing. Hackney is basically Euro-Williamsburg and everyone is like 28. Really no concerns about the virus.

Pedestrian May 16, 2020 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 8924340)
Many people (especially older) are afraid to take public transportation (buses, subways, light rail, planes etc) and until the outbreak subsides, the reluctance may continue. There are predictions of an increase in homeless, but so far no data.

I am and you bet it will. I used to get 2 or 3 bad colds a winter in SF, riding Muni. Since I've been going to Tucson and not taking Muni, I can't recall having a cold. SFMuni is a breeding ground for germs.

Pedestrian May 16, 2020 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 8924346)
Doc--What percentage of the population do you suspect have had or have the disease? Some estimates are maybe 5% or more in many areas (Bay area, maybe not--NYC, maybe). Assymptematic cases rarely get tested so we don't know. At what % does "herd immunity" start to reduce infections significantly--over 50% of pop?. Any tips on getting good surgical masks or even better N95s? Scary to go out & shop without a good mask. Of course the medical professionals should get the first crack at them, but older people should too Can masks from China be trusted? So many reports of flaws in them in the media. What is your opinion on when the national number of cases subsides--later this month? Looks like remdesivir helps but is in short supply.

I really have no idea and niether does anyone else. To know, you'd have to do antibody testing on a scientific sample of the population you are interested in--with enough people in the sample to be statistically significant.

You may already be familiar with this:

Quote:

COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
Eran Bendavid, Bianca Mulaney, Neeraj Sood, Soleil Shah, Emilia Ling, Rebecca Bromley-Dulfano, Cara Lai, Zoe Weissberg, Rodrigo Saavedra-Walker, James Tedrow, Dona Tversky, Andrew Bogan, Thomas Kupiec, Daniel Eichner, Ribhav Gupta, John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya
2020.04.14

Abstract

Background Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a community sample drawn from Santa Clara County. Methods On April 3-4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a sample of individuals living within the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We estimate weights to adjust our sample to match the zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity distribution within the county. We report both the weighted and unweighted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. We also adjust for test performance characteristics by combining data from 16 independent samples obtained from manufacturer's data, regulatory submissions, and independent evaluations: 13 samples for specificity (3,324 specimens) and 3 samples for sensitivity (157 specimens). Results The raw prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in our sample was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.1-2.0%). Test performance specificity in our data was 99.5% (95CI 99.2-99.7%) and sensitivity was 82.8% (95CI 76.0-88.4%). The unweighted prevalence adjusted for test performance characteristics was 1.2% (95CI 0.7-1.8%). After weighting for population demographics of Santa Clara County, the prevalence was 2.8% (95CI 1.3-4.7%), using bootstrap to estimate confidence bounds. These prevalence point estimates imply that 54,000 (95CI 25,000 to 91,000 using weighted prevalence; 23,000 with 95CI 14,000-35,000 using unweighted prevalence) people were infected in Santa Clara County by early April, many more than the approximately 1,000 confirmed cases at the time of the survey.

Conclusions

The estimated population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection may be much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. More studies are needed to improve precision of prevalence estimates. Locally-derived population prevalence estimates should be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20062463v2

But this was done in early April. Certainly it's more now.

In San Francisco, tests are now available to pretty much anybody who wants one though it seems likely that people would self-select for suspicion they are infected (symptoms, exposure to an infected person or something). The rate of positivity seems to have stabilized around 3% but that is for current infection using the PCR test and would miss people who were infected many weeks ago and recovered.

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...670308/enhance
https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/d96w-cdge

SIGSEGV May 16, 2020 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8924446)
I really have no idea and niether does anyone else. To know, you'd have to do antibody testing on a scientific sample of the population you are interested in--with enough people in the sample to be statistically significant.

You may already be familiar with this:


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20062463v2

But this was done in early April. Certainly it's more now.

In San Francisco, tests are now available to pretty much anybody who wants one though it seems likely that people would self-select for suspicion they are infected (symptoms, exposure to an infected person or something). The rate of positivity seems to have stabilized around 3% but that is for current infection using the PCR test and would miss people who were infected many weeks ago and recovered.

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...670308/enhance
https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/d96w-cdge

They updated their initial numbers (after fucking up the binomial statistics), but their weighting is still very model dependent. It's probably best to just take the raw seroprevalence numbers to first order (an independent analysis gets somewhat close, see https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.e...-clara-county/ ). Their adjusted numbers are incompatible with excess mortality and seroprevalance data from other places (Spain, Italy, NYC).

I suspect the best estimator (will get you within a factor of 2 or so, due to various age distributions and levels of comorbidies) for a population will be to take the number of people who have died and multiply by ~100. So probably around 8 million people in the US (2.5% of the population) have probably been infected, with big error bars.

xzmattzx May 17, 2020 5:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by destroycreate (Post 8923446)
I'm admittedly getting impatient in CA. At first, it was about flattening the curve as to not overwhelm the hospitals which I supported. From what I can see, we've achieved that in California. The hospitals are nowhere near capacity. Now the narrative has shifted to having to achieve zero new infections in 14 days--in a state with nearly 40m residents--and saving all lives at the cost of shutting everything down and potentially putting everybody into poverty (which ironically will lead to thousands of deaths too). "Saving lives" seems to be conflated more and more with the hope of recording zero Coronavirus-related deaths. Sorry, but is that really even realistic?

I don't get it -- none of those measures will make the virus go away. As long as somebody on this planet has it, it's as contagious as it is, and there are no vaccines, we're going to deal with a constant risk of infection and unfortunately, fatalities. All we're doing at this point is prolonging the inevitable. The best we can do is mandate covered faces, wash our hands consistently, live as healthily as possible, reduce our social interactions, stay away from our elders, but try to live our lives. Require elders or immunocompromised to stay home, but allow restaurants/cafes to operate at reduced capacity etc. We need to accept this as our new normal. The current approach is way, way overboard.

Welcome to the dark side.... that is, compared to the people who say someone is a murderer for sitting down in the local park.

mrnyc May 17, 2020 6:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8924274)
Video Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0cqrzzDzLM

Looking on the most optomistic side, the scenario the people wanting to maintain lockdowns are aiming at is that if we get the R0 below 1 (in the Bay Area we are very close), the virus will actually nearly go away . . . gradually (the lower the R0, the faster). Then, at some point, new infections will be few enough that we can do effective tracking and quarantine of contacts and really control the disease.

thats what cuomo has been asserting. thats why he wants to open nys a little, wait two weeks, see what happened, if there were uptics or anything, then open a little more. the handful of different sectors of the state could move along a little faster or slower. seems reasonable. also its good practice for controlling it if it comes roaring back in the fall.

Kngkyle May 17, 2020 7:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8924274)
Looking on the most optomistic side, the scenario the people wanting to maintain lockdowns are aiming at is that if we get the R0 below 1 (in the Bay Area we are very close), the virus will actually nearly go away . . . gradually (the lower the R0, the faster). Then, at some point, new infections will be few enough that we can do effective tracking and quarantine of contacts and really control the disease.

Except all it takes is one person flying home from x-city to bring it all back, and then the time, money, and livelihoods ruined by the continued lockdown was all for nothing. The delay in symptoms makes contact tracing minimally useful, and basically impossible in a city like New York. How do you trace the hundreds or thousands of people you came into contact with on the subway? Especially when a significant number of the infected will never become symptomatic to even know they should be contact traced?

The more we learn the more evident our options are: herd immunity or vaccination. Eradication and contact tracing is not a realistic solution, and any actions in pursuit of that solution (like a continued lockdown) is folly, to say the least.

chris08876 May 17, 2020 9:30 AM

Found this interesting...


https://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpe...c-56-15May.jpg
Credit: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/his...ics-deadliest/

Yuri May 17, 2020 10:36 AM

Are there any estimates for the total death count in the US by the end of 2020? 200,000, 300,000?

Even though the health system didn't collapse anywhere, daily numbers are insistently above 1,500 and as contention measures are incresingly unpopular, the virus will keep spreading there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, down here attacks on quarentine by the president is much stronger than in the US. The 2nd Ministry of Health resigned during the pandemic.

In a more personal note, after working from home, three weeks of vacations, i finally came back to the office since Monday. The city is half-empty, but every single person uses masks.

mhays May 17, 2020 3:44 PM

There are several but not necessarily for 12/31/20.

CDC projects "likely to exceed 100,000 by June 1st."

The UW's IHME projects 147,040 by August 4th.

It gets fuzzy very quickly. What sort of stay-at-home or social distancing will be in place? What level of compliance? Will we find better treatments? Will other strains arise? How many people already have it, or are carriers? And so on.

SIGSEGV May 17, 2020 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8924792)
There are several but not necessarily for 12/31/20.

CDC projects "likely to exceed 100,000 by June 1st."

The UW's IHME projects 147,040 by August 4th.

It gets fuzzy very quickly. What sort of stay-at-home or social distancing will be in place? What level of compliance? Will we find better treatments? Will other strains arise? How many people already have it, or are carriers? And so on.

Yes, all of the models are assuming the same level of social distancing as far as I know.

mhays May 17, 2020 5:44 PM

The earlier models assumed countries and people would act intelligently.

Then they started to react to the reality of the US' limited/disjointed response, and the public's lack of understanding/compliance. This has moved the projections up substantially.

Rather than topping out in (wild guess) the mid five figures, I'll make a guess of 150,000 to 200,000 by the end of the year assuming no big leap in treatment. We'll hit 100,000 next weekend, extrapolating from the 90,000 currently on WorldO.

chris08876 May 17, 2020 5:53 PM

This is a good shot to represent that pandemic in NYC.

Very suiting.

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...28?s=2048x2048
Credit: Getty Images

chris08876 May 17, 2020 5:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8924861)
The earlier models assumed countries and people would act intelligently.

They need to adjust the models. Folks never act intelligently. That's a massive error in the model that needs to be corrected ASAP. The parameter of folks acting intelligently. Especially in America, the coefficient is a lot higher in America. Might even be a parameter that "exponentially" increases any model figure of deaths or cases.

F(x) = T(o)F^3 where T(o) is the time of quarantine measured in weeks and F = Freedom cubed. More freedom an individual possesses, and the greater the ego is of freedom, the more likely we are to see cases in folks that don't wear masks or don't follow rules.

Rebels and folks that have AR-15's on their backs have a high freedom index.

Kngkyle May 17, 2020 6:19 PM

Where are the models calculating the lives lost as a result of the global lockdown?

Pedestrian May 17, 2020 6:28 PM

Quote:

Social distancing on Chestnut Street — what’s that?
Steve Rubenstein
May 16, 2020 Updated: May 16, 2020 8:21 p.m.

Dozens of people standing shoulder to shoulder in front of two Marina District wine bars drew a visit and an admonishment on Friday night from San Francisco police.

Police were called to the 2300 block of Chestnut Street where they found “people not complying with the health ordinance” to maintain social distance and wear face masks, said sergeant Michael Andraychak.

The proprietors of the two bars, Howell’s and Cultivar, were “admonished” by officers, Andraychak said. It was the first time the establishments had been the subject of complaints, he added.

Photographs of dozens of unmasked young people crowded onto the sidewalk and street circulated on social media, drawing angry comments . . . .

Under the state’s temporary coronavirus rules, bars and restaurants are allowed to serve alcoholic beverages for takeout.

The management of Howell’s, whose menu offers bottles of Chateau Mouton Rothschild wine for $5,000, did not return calls seeking comment . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...s-15275408.php

D*mned overpaid techies!

mhays May 17, 2020 6:30 PM

So far, total deaths appear to be higher than the Covid increase alone. But the general thinking appears to be that it's mostly underreporting Covid deaths and people not getting medical care for other things.

Pedestrian May 17, 2020 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8924878)
They need to adjust the models. Folks never act intelligently.

Define "intelligently". Usually it turns out to mean "doing what I'd do". Frankly, in this situation the "experts" have turned out wrong more often than right and I admit to behaving contrary to their recommendations. For example, I purchased a small supply of N95 respirator masks in January when they were all telling us that "intelligent" behavior did NOT include wearing masks.

Frankly, I don't think this one is too hard. There's this "thing" in the air emanating as much as 12 ft or more from other people (you can't tell which ones) indoors in still air, and on surfaces in public places and you don't want to breathe the air (unfiltered) or touch the surfaces. Generally certain masks clean the air (but it can still get into your eyes so you might want to protect them too) and certain liquids get rid of the "thing" on surfaces.

If you aren't very stupid, you should be able to figure out ways to avoid the "thing".

mhays May 17, 2020 7:14 PM

It can be put very simply: "Intelligent" would involve following the basic advice of your state.

Since many people don't, tens of thousands more have died in the US than would have.

They're figuring out the nuances of the rules as more information comes in, as more supplies are available, and so on. That doesn't change the point.

SIGSEGV May 17, 2020 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8924878)
They need to adjust the models. Folks never act intelligently. That's a massive error in the model that needs to be corrected ASAP. The parameter of folks acting intelligently. Especially in America, the coefficient is a lot higher in America. Might even be a parameter that "exponentially" increases any model figure of deaths or cases.

F(x) = T(o)F^3 where T(o) is the time of quarantine measured in weeks and F = Freedom cubed. More freedom an individual possesses, and the greater the ego is of freedom, the more likely we are to see cases in folks that don't wear masks or don't follow rules.

Rebels and folks that have AR-15's on their backs have a high freedom index.

Another issue is that the models predict ranges (presumably derived from variations of model parameters, or, for more sophisticated models, perhaps quantiles of different monte carlo realizations),, but if the distribution of deaths is fat-tailed, that can be a severe underestimate with non-negligible probability. Taleb loves to toot his own horn, so of course he put out a preprint on this topic that is worth reading (if you can stand his writing style). I found it remarkably readable even with very little prior knowledge of extreme-value theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08658

iheartthed May 17, 2020 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8924861)
The earlier models assumed countries and people would act intelligently.

Then they started to react to the reality of the US' limited/disjointed response, and the public's lack of understanding/compliance. This has moved the projections up substantially.

Rather than topping out in (wild guess) the mid five figures, I'll make a guess of 150,000 to 200,000 by the end of the year assuming no big leap in treatment. We'll hit 100,000 next weekend, extrapolating from the 90,000 currently on WorldO.

Since we're on track for 100K before June 1, I'd expect 3x - 4x that number by end of the year with no scientific intervention. It took less than a month to double from 45K to 90K, so we could easily see 200K deaths in July.

As I see it, the variables are 1) whether more awareness of the virus helps to slow the spread absent the strict government mandates, and 2) whether warmer weather will naturally slow the spread. I think we've seen enough evidence that warmer weather doesn't really slow the spread. The jury is still out on whether education alone will dampen the infection rate, but it seems extremely unlikely.

10023 May 17, 2020 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8924939)
It can be put very simply: "Intelligent" would involve following the basic advice of your state.

Since many people don't, tens of thousands more have died in the US than would have.

They're figuring out the nuances of the rules as more information comes in, as more supplies are available, and so on. That doesn't change the point.

Nonsense.

the urban politician May 17, 2020 8:55 PM

^ Yep

Actually, I have yet to see a shred of evidence anywhere that across the board Stay at home orders have reduced deaths.

I am not saying that they don’t work. I just wonder what the evidence is. More likely stay at home orders come from a “let’s play it as safely as possible mentality”

Yuri May 17, 2020 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8925031)
^ Yep

Actually, I have yet to see a shred of evidence anywhere that across the board Stay at home orders have reduced deaths.

I am not saying that they don’t work. I just wonder what the evidence is. More likely stay at home orders come from a “let’s play it as safely as possible mentality”

You are claiming the virus spreading rates weren't reduced while people were distancing themselves?

The US has 3-5 million cases for 100k-120k deaths (guessing the undercounting). You would rather have 50 million and 1 million deaths instead? Considering the number of deaths would be much higher as many people who might survived would die as hospitals wouldn't be treated them.

I don't understand where all this anger and anti-social feeling come from. Whatever happen to the US civic sense, patriotism and self-abnegation? If one can't have small adjustments to deal with a pandemic, God forbids what would result if the US faced a doomsday scenario. Governments would collapse instantly and people would kill each other to extinction.

On the other hand we have societies that went through a strict lockdown like Norway, pretty much stopped deaths and are already planning to open cinemas. Little or no harm on the economy. The US, on the other hand, will have to deal with this for the rest of the year while unemployment skyrocketed. Needless to mention the political unrest that makes the country even weaker.

the urban politician May 17, 2020 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8925080)
You are claiming the virus spreading rates weren't reduced while people were distancing themselves?

I pretty much stopped reading your rant of a post after this sentence.

Go back and reread my post. I said absolutely none of what you claimed.

Crawford May 17, 2020 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8925080)
You are claiming the virus spreading rates weren't reduced while people were distancing themselves?

No, that isn't the issue. The issue is causation, not correlation.

There's presently no evidence that the enforced lockdowns have decreased deaths. It's just wild guesses, and the safe default for politicians.

The North One May 17, 2020 10:26 PM

lol wow, the delusion has reached a new high in crawfordland.

Crawford May 17, 2020 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 8925094)
lol wow, the delusion has reached a new high in crawfordland.

Which of course means you're ready to post the peer-reviewed studies that suggest a causal link between enforced shutdowns and Covid-19 transmission, correct? :uhh:

Yuri May 17, 2020 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8925090)
I pretty much stopped reading your rant of a post after this sentence.

Go back and reread my post. I said absolutely none of what you claimed.

I reread your post and to me enforced or self-imposed quarentine are the same for the purposes they are happening. I don't care about those delusions of "freedom", "tyranny", etc.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8925092)
No, that isn't the issue. The issue is causation, not correlation.

There's presently no evidence that the enforced lockdowns have decreased deaths. It's just wild guesses, and the safe default for politicians.

:haha:

Ok then. Everything should work as usual, restaurants, nightclubs, sports events, why to bother? Let's have 100 million Americans (or more) simultaneously getting infected. Assuming 5% of cases require hospitalization, what might go wrong?

Crawford May 17, 2020 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8925110)
Ok then. Everything should work as usual, restaurants, nightclubs, sports events, why to bother?

Not my fault if you refuse to read. Nothing you're writing is in response to my posts.

At no point did I ever imply that we should do absolutely nothing.

Yuri May 17, 2020 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8925118)
Not my fault if you refuse to read. Nothing you're writing is in response to my posts.

At no point did I ever imply that we should do absolutely nothing.

Again, to me it's a mere technicality between enforced or advisable lockdowns. The purpose is set people apart to break the virus transmission chain. It's only political extremists and conspirationists making a big deal out of it.

P.S. On my country there's only advisable lockdown and anti-governors/mayors hysteria are probably even bigger than in the US. Clearly enforced lockdown is not the issue.

SIGSEGV May 17, 2020 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8925092)
No, that isn't the issue. The issue is causation, not correlation.

There's presently no evidence that the enforced lockdowns have decreased deaths. It's just wild guesses, and the safe default for politicians.

This is why science depends on modeling. Or see the famous paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

iheartthed May 17, 2020 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8925101)
Which of course means you're ready to post the peer-reviewed studies that suggest a causal link between enforced shutdowns and Covid-19 transmission, correct? :uhh:

Social distancing has been around for hundreds of years. There is a ton of academic research on the subject. Also, the absence of academic research (obviously a function of timing) does not mean that there isn't strong evidence that stay-at-home orders have reduced the rate of transmission. I think it's pretty obvious that the orders have done just that.

mhays May 17, 2020 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8925000)
Nonsense.

Says the person who has precisely zero knowledge.

I bet you're a climate-change denier, a smoking-causes-cancer denier, and a flat-earther too. Cause the people who know stuff are all wrong!

mhays May 17, 2020 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8925031)
^ Yep

Actually, I have yet to see a shred of evidence anywhere that across the board Stay at home orders have reduced deaths.

I am not saying that they don’t work. I just wonder what the evidence is. More likely stay at home orders come from a “let’s play it as safely as possible mentality”

Then you're not paying attention.

Death and new-infection rates have PLUNGED in all of the big former hotspots that cracked down...Italy, Spain, New York, Seattle.

Kngkyle May 17, 2020 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8925122)
This is why science depends on modeling.

The modelling you are obsessed with is forecasting one particular cause of death - COVID-19. There is no consideration given to what other causes of death may be impacted by changing the variables used in the model.

For example, I can create a model for eradicating my house of termites. The model would certainly agree that a fast solution to this problem would be to burn the house down. Per your logic then this is a valid solution and anyone questioning it is just ignoring the models/"science".

There is far more nuance in the world than any single model can account for. I don't reject the COVID-19 modelling, but it's just one of the many pieces of data that we should use to determine what the proper course of action is.

the urban politician May 17, 2020 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8925150)
Death and new-infection rates have PLUNGED in all of the big former hotspots that cracked down...Italy, Spain, New York, Seattle.

Compared to what? What’s the control?

Pedestrian May 17, 2020 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8924939)
It can be put very simply: "Intelligent" would involve following the basic advice of your state.

Since many people don't, tens of thousands more have died in the US than would have.

They're figuring out the nuances of the rules as more information comes in, as more supplies are available, and so on. That doesn't change the point.

That's the problem. It's easy to site an awful lot of examples of highly unintelligent advice from various states and the federal governments and that's why "intelligent" people are increasingly skeptical and unwilling to follow government advice uncritically.

Examples:

- Masks don't do anything and shouldn't be worn

- Let's send people leaving the hospital but still infectious back to the nursing homes whence they came

- It's risky to enjoy, and therefore you will be banned from all manner of solo outdoor activities or activities involving just you and the people with whom you live (like sitting in the middle of a lake fishing in your family boat)

- Group activities involving 10 or fewer strangers are fine and permitted.

- If the feds don't hand us 30,000 respirators people are gonna DIE (actually, it turns out, avoiding putting people on invasive ventillation may be the better way to manage them).

And they are NOT changing these policies inspite of more information. In too many cases they are stubbornly sticking to the ridiculous orders they've promulgated.

Pedestrian May 17, 2020 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8925142)
Says the person who has precisely zero knowledge.

I bet you're a climate-change denier, a smoking-causes-cancer denier, and a flat-earther too. Cause the people who know stuff are all wrong!

No, he's just a business as usual, don't mess with my income and the ways I enjoy spending it self-centered plutocrat.

Crawford May 18, 2020 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8925150)
Then you're not paying attention.

Death and new-infection rates have PLUNGED in all of the big former hotspots that cracked down...Italy, Spain, New York, Seattle.

Death and new-infection rates simulatenously plunged in the non-hotspots, too. Even those that didn't have strict lockdowns.

There's zero academic literature; politicians are just choosing the safest political option. To be fair, it would be impossible to have scholarship at this point, but it's disingenuous to claim that the lockdowns have had a measurable positive effect absent evidence.

SIGSEGV May 18, 2020 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 8925161)
The modelling you are obsessed with is forecasting one particular cause of death - COVID-19. There is no consideration given to what other causes of death may be impacted by changing the variables used in the model.

For example, I can create a model for eradicating my house of termites. The model would certainly agree that a fast solution to this problem would be to burn the house down. Per your logic then this is a valid solution and anyone questioning it is just ignoring the models/"science".

There is far more nuance in the world than any single model can account for. I don't reject the COVID-19 modelling, but it's just one of the many pieces of data that we should use to determine what the proper course of action is.

Yes, economic modeling would be good too. I don't dispute that. But economic modeling is even more difficult because it basically is completely dependent on policy decisions, which are in principle completely controllable (whereas we don't really get to change the properties of a disease), but also very political. Economic policy in the US has led to a lot of unemployment. In other countries (e.g. Germany), not so much. Would that indicate that a lockdown may be the correct course of action in Germany but not the US?

SIGSEGV May 18, 2020 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8925207)
Death and new-infection rates simulatenously plunged in the non-hotspots, too. Even those that didn't have strict lockdowns.

There's zero academic literature; politicians are just choosing the safest political option. To be fair, it would be impossible to have scholarship at this point, but it's disingenuous to claim that the lockdowns have had a measurable positive effect absent evidence.

What places were hotspots, with infection rates >10% (like NYC or Lombardy), but didn't institute any restrictions? Possibly Stockholm?

I'm very curious to see what happens in Belarus, although I don't know that we can trust data coming out of there.

mhays May 18, 2020 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8925165)
Compared to what? What’s the control?

I don't think you understand the concept of a control group. What you're asking for would literally require an alternate reality...science fiction.

But we can certainly track infection rates based on what we know...hence the rules and advice coming from the CDC and others.

mhays May 18, 2020 2:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8925207)
Death and new-infection rates simulatenously plunged in the non-hotspots, too. Even those that didn't have strict lockdowns.

There's zero academic literature; politicians are just choosing the safest political option. To be fair, it would be impossible to have scholarship at this point, but it's disingenuous to claim that the lockdowns have had a measurable positive effect absent evidence.

The evidence is there. You just aren't paying enough attention.

Take a look at the UK, Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador, and come of the low-compliance US states.

I realize you'll never change your view...Crawford latches onto an idea and never gives up.

mhays May 18, 2020 2:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8925168)
That's the problem. It's easy to site an awful lot of examples of highly unintelligent advice from various states and the federal governments and that's why "intelligent" people are increasingly skeptical and unwilling to follow government advice uncritically.

Examples:

- Masks don't do anything and shouldn't be worn

- Let's send people leaving the hospital but still infectious back to the nursing homes whence they came

- It's risky to enjoy, and therefore you will be banned from all manner of solo outdoor activities or activities involving just you and the people with whom you live (like sitting in the middle of a lake fishing in your family boat)

- Group activities involving 10 or fewer strangers are fine and permitted.

- If the feds don't hand us 30,000 respirators people are gonna DIE (actually, it turns out, avoiding putting people on invasive ventillation may be the better way to manage them).

And they are NOT changing these policies inspite of more information. In too many cases they are stubbornly sticking to the ridiculous orders they've promulgated.

They've gotten some things wrong, and learned as they've gone. But the need for social distancing and staying at home etc., have been right all along.

If some places let you meet in groups of 10, that's MUCH safer than groups of 50. Contact danger is exponential, and the models show this clearly. The debate is more about the nuances.

10023 May 18, 2020 6:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8925142)
Says the person who has precisely zero knowledge.

I bet you're a climate-change denier, a smoking-causes-cancer denier, and a flat-earther too. Cause the people who know stuff are all wrong!

No, I’m none of those things.

Crawford May 18, 2020 9:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8925254)
The evidence is there. You just aren't paying enough attention.

What evidence? How is that even possible, to create peer-reviewed studies in a matter of weeks?

Again, if there's any evidence, let's see it. Show us the academic literature suggesting that relative lives saved are postively correlated with relative stringency of lockdown.

10023 May 18, 2020 10:45 AM

People think lockdowns work because logically they think they should work. But there’s obviously no way to assess the counterfactuals. We don’t know how much hygiene or masks or reduced physical contact plays a role. We don’t know how much self-isolation of people who know they are vulnerable matters, or how little it matters what anyone else does.

And we can never really lock everyone down anyway. You have millions of “essential” workers out and about, people still shop, people still get deliveries carried by drivers who are potential carriers. People are not going to stop meeting friends in “small groups” (which tomorrow will be different groups of 3-4 people, until the number of contacts grows exponentially anyway).

So all any of this is doing is slowing the rate at which the virus spreads. Which is good, and important to the extent that, we we were all told, there was a risk that the health system would be overwhelmed and lots of people would die who could otherwise be saved. But as long as it stays below that crisis level, it doesn’t actually benefit us to slow the spread further. That just prolongs the other damage caused by this whole situation.

This thing is going to kill a lot of people, it was always going to kill a lot of people. There is a cost/benefit analysis to be done and you can’t spend unlimited amounts of money and impose serious damage to everyone’s career, happiness, etc in a futile attempt to save every life.

mhays May 18, 2020 3:47 PM

Crawford, this peer review thing is your latest "latch onto" idea, I get it. For one, CDC's recommendations come from the sum total of available information and analysis...including a massive amount of peer review. Two, much of this stuff CAN'T be peer reviewed, unless we have access to parallel universes, since there are too many other variables...even if you're willing to sacrifice a city or two.

But let's hear your plan anyway. What cities should have served as controls, not shutting down, with the known extreme likelihood that this would kill probably more than 1% of their populations? Who do you want to sacrifice?

10023, you're right that it's about slowing. But it's also about greatly reducing the number of infections period. The US' reported infections are about 0.5% of the population, and we can guess (with sampling) about the real rate, which is likely north of 1%. We don't need to hit 70%...why not keep it to a small fraction of that?

Smarter people than you or me are on this.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.