Lockdowns work.

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The growth and apparent plateau correlates with testing. The fact is, it took a national effort to produce enough beds in New York and people are still dying at home there. What about when the next city spirals out just like New York? The doubling rate in the country is above the 6.4 days estimated by the WHO at 6 days. Even if you only count the confirmed cases in the country with the current doubling rate, everyone in the country will have the virus in less than two months. What I am saying, and you also know this, is that the current strategy is not working and if we continue trying to do it, we're going to still have far more sick people than we can deal with AND a famine. That will drive up the death rate far higher than letting people decide. People with antibodies need to get back to work and produce the world's food.

Nobody is going to make you go outside.
Click to expand...
What you claim is contradicted by people who do that stuff for a living.

for example:

www.npr.org

CDC Director On Models For The Months To Come: 'This Virus Is Going To Be With Us'

After weeks of keeping a low profile, the CDC's Dr. Robert Redfield tells NPR that data will determine future recommendations for wearing masks or easing back on social distancing.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

Their model for deaths during the disease currently assumes "Current social distancing assumed until infections minimized and containment implemented"

So, if we open up without "containment implemented", we have a shitstorm to deal with.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What you claim is contradicted by people who do that stuff for a living.

for example:

www.npr.org

CDC Director On Models For The Months To Come: 'This Virus Is Going To Be With Us'

After weeks of keeping a low profile, the CDC's Dr. Robert Redfield tells NPR that data will determine future recommendations for wearing masks or easing back on social distancing.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

Their model for deaths during the disease currently assumes "Current social distancing assumed until infections minimized and containment implemented"

So, if we open up without "containment implemented", we have a shitstorm to deal with.
Click to expand...
He's just describing the "flatten the curve" strategy. The idea being that it could be controlled to the point that new cases would not outpace outcomes such that the number of active cases is not unmanageable. At that time, it was believed we could do so all the way until there's a vaccine. Look at the date on that. He's already arguing on how to open the economy now.

Did you think they'd just come forward and say their previous strategy had failed?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
He's just describing the "flatten the curve" strategy. The idea being that it could be controlled to the point that new cases would not outpace outcomes such that the number of active cases is not unmanageable. At that time, it was believed we could do so all the way until there's a vaccine. Look at the date on that. He's already arguing on how to open the economy now.

Did you think they'd just come forward and say their previous strategy had failed?
Click to expand...
I don't think they are covering up, I think the model is holding up pretty well and we should hew to the main assumption they made when they published it. By their estimation, we are about 4 days past the worst of this wave. In about three or four weeks the numbers dying from this disease will be pretty low, single digits nationwide. We can proceed about daily affairs when that happens and continuing with this assumption: Current social distancing assumed until infections minimized and containment implemented
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I don't think they are covering up, I think the model is holding up pretty well and we should hew to the main assumption they made when they published it. By their estimation, we are about 4 days past the worst of this wave. In about three or four weeks the numbers dying from this disease will be pretty low, single digits nationwide. We can proceed about daily affairs when that happens and continuing with this assumption: Current social distancing assumed until infections minimized and containment implemented
Click to expand...
But they quietly switched from tracking the curve of new cases to tracking deaths. Meanwhile hundreds, maybe thousands are dying alone at home.

According to this German peer-reviewed study:

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de

1 in 33 US residents had been infected by two weeks ago. Let's try that estimate with a focus solely on New York today with conservative math such that my number will be an under-estimate:

So 1.6% of actual infections are "confirmed cases". New York City has 129,788 confirmed cases. Product = roughly 8.1 million. There are 18.8 million people in New York City.

/thread
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
But they quietly switched from tracking the curve of new cases to tracking deaths. Meanwhile hundreds, maybe thousands are dying alone at home.

According to this German peer-reviewed study:

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de

1 in 33 US residents had been infected by two weeks ago. Let's try that estimate with a focus solely on New York today with conservative math such that my number will be an under-estimate:

So 1.6% of actual infections are "confirmed cases". New York City has 129,788 confirmed cases. Product = roughly 8.1 million. There are 18.8 million people in New York City.

/thread
Click to expand...
Read the linked article, I understand what you are saying. They also say up front, that word "may". But OK, Actual number of infections may already have reached several tens of millions . Just looking at the numbers for the US, 1 in 33 residents is 3% of the population. 97% percent left to go. I'm not sure we have a disagreement here.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Read the linked article, I understand what you are saying. They also say up front, that word "may". But OK, Actual number of infections may already have reached several tens of millions . Just looking at the numbers for the US, 1 in 33 residents is 3% of the population. 97% percent left to go. I'm not sure we have a disagreement here.
Click to expand...
Then apply the math. The doubling rate is 6 days. That means that 6 days before everyone has it, only half of them have it. 6 says before that, a quarter. well not exactly, it flattens as it saturates. It means at this rate, we're less than two months from everyone having it. Indeed, the curve, nationwide is FAR from flat, but in NY, it's starting to flatten. That's because, by the very virtue of it going from 1 in 16 to 1 in 8 to 1 in 4 (in twelve days which is almost as long as we've been having this conversation I think) each infected individual has fewer people who are not infected to pass it to. Lockdown or no.

Furthermore, that 3%, yeah that was two weeks ago. It's doubled twice and then some since then.

There's another study, from Stanford, which is yet to be peer reviewed, showing that the infection numbers in California could be 50-85 times higher than they thought. So this is well supported. Meanwhile that famine is looming. The governments have been warned by the experts, they just don't know how to explain it to you yet. They're reopenign the economy. Even Italy did a week ago and 1 in 12 of them have the virus.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Then apply the math. The doubling rate is 6 days. That means that 6 days before everyone has it, only half of them have it. 6 says before that, a quarter. well not exactly, it flattens as it saturates. It means at this rate, we're less than two months from everyone having it. Indeed, the curve, nationwide is FAR from flat, but in NY, it's starting to flatten. That's because, by the very virtue of it going from 1 in 16 to 1 in 8 to 1 in 4 (in twelve days which is almost as long as we've been having this conversation I think) each infected individual has fewer people who are not infected to pass it to. Lockdown or no.

Furthermore, that 3%, yeah that was two weeks ago. It's doubled twice and then some since then.

There's another study, from Stanford, which is yet to be peer reviewed, showing that the infection numbers in California could be 50-85 times higher than they thought. So this is well supported. Meanwhile that famine is looming. The governments have been warned by the experts, they just don't know how to explain it to you yet. They're reopenign the economy. Even Italy did a week ago and 1 in 12 of them have the virus.
Click to expand...
So, it's a moving target without any means of verifying because test data are unavailable. The doubling you project is without lockdown, so, what is it really?

We should stick to the assumptions behind the CDC model that has held up quite well during this crisis

Current social distancing assumed until infections minimized and containment implemented
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The doubling you project is without lockdown
Click to expand...
That's incorrect and the graph you posted lacks context and is generally a horrible stat which is not actually used in any model with any value. They don't track deaths to say a logarithmic curve is flattening. That's never been the way it was supposed to work. From the beginning, the curve was always argued to be new cases per day. In Italy, total cases increased 17-fold during the lockdown and the doubling rate never appreciably changed until around the time they actually lifted the lockdown. That's not to say lifting the lockdown caused the flattening. It's more complex than that, but I'm going to bed and I would very much appreciate waking up to an argument that isn't so half-assed and flippant. I know you're scientifically literate and can do better. The "flatten the curve" argument has always been based on a logarithmic graph of new cases per day. You should know that since you defend it so vigorously.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That's incorrect and the graph you posted lacks context and is generally a horrible stat which is not actually used in any model with any value. They don't track deaths to say a logarithmic curve is flattening. That's never been the way it was supposed to work. From the beginning, the curve was always argued to be new cases per day. In Italy, total cases increased 17-fold during the lockdown and the doubling rate never appreciably changed until around the time they actually lifted the lockdown. That's not to say lifting the lockdown caused the flattening. It's more complex than that, but I'm going to bed and I would very much appreciate waking up to an argument that isn't so half-assed and flippant. I know you're scientifically literate and can do better. The "flatten the curve" argument has always been based on a logarithmic graph of new cases per day. You should know that since you defend it so vigorously.
Click to expand...
The data are correct. The rate of deaths is decreasing in hot spots. The CDC model is tracking with the data quite nicely.

Who says "It was always supposed to be new cases per day"? That statistic has been unreliable from the beginning up to the present because it is completely dependent on the availability of tests, which are still too constrained and the willingness of the government to publish accurate data. Even the "deaths per day" metric isn't great but is better than the alternative cases per day. But even that metric shows a decline.

It is a fact that if people don't come into contact with an infected people, they aren't infected. That is irrefutable. The people dying today were infected weeks ago. Since then, we greatly cut the chances of new infections through social distancing, staying at home and shutting down gathering places We are just days past the projected peak of deaths per day and the data shows an inflection downward in deaths per day. It's going to be a week or two before the rates drop sharply. Within three or four weeks, the number dying in the US per day will be in the single digits. Even so, we need implement a system of wide spread testing, contact tracing and isolating infected people before we can open up our economy and end the very effective lockdown.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cdc model vs actual on April 19

US data:

CDC model projected deaths per day: 2159 people
Actual deaths on April 19: 1539 people

CDC model projected total number dead: 37.056
Actual total dead: 40,553

The CDC model is based on the assumption:

Current social distancing assumed until infections minimized and containment implemented

Lockdown is working. The model is holding up. I'm sorry you can't have your cheeseburger just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top