Lockdowns work.

[Fogdog]

Are you now claiming not to know about the widely distributed meme called "flatten the curve"? Are you also not aware that this very mainstream meme was pushed by governments? Are you really claiming that you don't fucking know which curve THEY were referring to?

This is nonsense authored by a guy who claims, with no evidence presented, that the curve we were supposed to flatten was not the spread of the virus, but the fatality rate.

That was never the metric. How many died was always a matter of how many we allowed to die. The way to decrease that number has been "flatten the curve" and lockdowns did not flatten the curve. The curve is and has always been growth of confirmed cases.

The CDC uses deaths per day as its metric. They use it because it's the best one we have. I keep showing you the CDC's tracking data and it in fact shows the curve is being flattened by these lockdowns. We have about another month to go. By then, if we have adequate testing, contact tracing and isolation processes in place we can start to open up the economy.

Who are "they"? I don't know who you are talking about. Name some names and help me put faces and statements to your claims that "they" are -- I can't even say what you mean because it seems so nutty without knowing who you are talking about..

As for the way you portray the data, I don't think you believe it yourself. In case you do, I'll just say -- Did you know that it snowed the other day on a mountaintop in the Andes? Yep, so much for global warming.

 

[Fogdog]

Actually, what I said was:

It seems that tracking deaths is not actually what any epidemiologist would track as a metric for the spread of the virus. That's why they track new cases in an effort to minimize the deathtoll.

So I wasn't citing it. I was demonstrating why citing that data is retarded. You love citing that. Also, I did so on the other thread, not this one, which was made just to troll me with memes and distortions. It's cool, if you can't debate without a handicap.

Again, the CDC is using deaths per day to track the progress of this epidemic because its the best metric we have. Agree that trying to defend the entire science of controlling epidemics by looking at how many died in a single day is stupid. That's not how the data are being used. I'll show you again how it's being used.

Note in the figure shown below that the units on the x-axis are in a log scale. If the exponential rate were constant, those lines would be straight and trend in a straight line upward to the right. The slope of that line could be used to calculate the exponential rate. That these lines curve and trend downward shows the exponential rate has lowered.

This is why we can say there is good evidence that lockdowns work. Logically, lockdowns should work. So here we have an example where theory and live data concur meaning that the theory behind lockdowns is a valid and useful one. Models based on that theory indicate we will be able to initiate effective containment strategies within another four weeks. If people don't stay at home, it will take longer. Doing that would keep the exponential rate of deaths per day higher, which means more people will die. But that's what we are trying to avoid.

 

[Fogdog]

I'll tell you why you won't find any direct evidence of this. It doesn't exist.

Actually, Sweden is on track toward being one of the first countries with herd immunity and they're getting there without having to self destruct their economy, so that's one price they didn't pay. This study from almost two weeks ago (samples taken even before) clearly shows that it is likely that one out of every eight in Stockhom has had the disease. Most didn't even know it.

https://europost.eu/en/a/view/at-least-11-out-of-100-stockholm-s-residents-have-virus-antibodies-research-shows-28299

Yeah, Sweden has something like 80% of the population remaining to be exposed. As of today, they have 217 dead per million population. The US probably has fewer exposed and 166 dead per million population. So, good for the US to keep the number of dead down.

In NYC, they found about 80% of the population remains to be exposed to the virus too. It was a fucking disaster there. I think it would be great if the US could learn how Sweden managed to handle their surge of cases without the same cluster fuck we had here. It wasn't because somehow Sweden missed out on the medical problems that virus caused. Their medical infrastructure was better. Good for them. I want that here too.

Why is it you say lockdowns don't work? Every which way I look at it, they do.

 

[abandonconflict]

The CDC uses deaths per day as its metric.

Again, the CDC is using deaths per day to track the progress of this epidemic because its the best metric we have.

Why is it you say lockdowns don't work?

No, the CDC tracks deaths per day. That does not mean the CDC uses deaths per day to track the progress of the epidemic. That has never been the case. Tracking the spread of the virus means tracking the spread of the virus. That means keeping track of how many people get the virus. That actually entails finding out how many people have the virus at a given time. What that means is knowing how many new infections there are everyday.

That means they actually track new cases per day. That is the stat that has always been the primary for tracking the spread of the virus. Because that is the spread of the virus.

The lockdowns are to flatten the curve. The curve is the logarithmic graph of new cases per day.

You're just flat out wrong, and trying to push your own narrative. The fact is, there is no direct evidence that the lockdowns have had a significant impact on the growth of cases per day. You have been trotting out that graph showing deaths per day and it's nothing more than "urban epicenters". The number of deaths naturally decreases as more and more cases occur despite the lack of detection. The fact that you even mentioned "how long they have to go" shows that you're aware of this. In fact the number of deaths per day is significantly increasing and most urban areas have had to revise death counts more than once. That is why the CDC does not and has never used deaths per day as the primary stat to track the spread of the virus. Another reason is that different healthcare systems have different levels of treatment and therefore different death rates. Yet another reason is that a new treatment could hit the market and severely skew death rates. It's not a reliable stat for tracking the spread of the virus.

It's much better to track the spread of the virus, in order to know how much it has spread. That's why cases per day is and has always been...

THE CURVE.

 

[Fogdog]

No, the CDC tracks deaths per day. That does not mean the CDC uses deaths per day to track the progress of the epidemic. That has never been the case. Tracking the spread of the virus means tracking the spread of the virus. That means keeping track of how many people get the virus. That actually entails finding out how many people have the virus at a given time. What that means is knowing how many new infections there are everyday.

That means they actually track new cases per day. That is the stat that has always been the primary for tracking the spread of the virus. Because that is the spread of the virus.

The reason they track new cases per day as the primary stat in regard to flatten the curve, is because that is the stat in the curve we are trying to flatten with the lockdowns.

The lockdowns are to flatten the curve. The curve is the logarithmic graph of new cases per day.

You're just flat out wrong, and trying to push your own narrative. The fact is, there is no direct evidence that the lockdowns have had a significant impact on the growth of cases per day. You have been trotting out that graph showing deaths per day and it's nothing more than "urban epicenters". The number of deaths naturally decreases as more and more cases occur despite the lack of detection. The fact that you even mentioned "how long they have to go" shows that you're aware of this. In fact the number of deaths per day is significantly increasing and most urban areas have had to revise death counts more than once. That is why the CDC does not and has never used deaths per day as the primary stat to track the spread of the virus. Another reason is that different healthcare systems have different levels of treatment and therefore different death rates. Yet another reason is that a new treatment could hit the market and severely skew death rates. It's not a reliable stat for tracking the spread of the virus.

It's much better to track the spread of the virus, in order to know how much it has spread. That's why cases per day is and has always been...

THE CURVE.

The CDC tracks progress of the epidemic using deaths per day as it's main metric. That is what their model is based upon.

I'm sorry that this clashes with your sense of entitlement. I'm not even going to try to defend the CDC. You can rail against recommendations by the CDC to the US public from your beachhouse in the Philippines all you want but that's just how it goes, foreigner.

My narrative? What's that? All I'm doing is reading and trying to understand what our health experts are doing as well as what they ask of me. If it means that I occasionally snub somebody who tells us that drinking drano and cavorting in a crowded bar filled with people infected with Coronavirus is OK, then I'm all for it. OK, so the Drano part was an exaggeration.

We have about four more weeks to go before their models show that the rates of new infections and deaths is low enough to enact testing, contact tracing and isolation protocols so that we can open up without the massive death counts that you advocate. If people don't stay home, don't avoid crowed spaces, don't social distance then it will take longer and yes, we'll have a healthcare disaster that's entirely due to knuckleheads who do the wrong things.

At least 80% of the population are not immune to this virus. We already have 55,000 dead, so, what you advocate is something like 4x more within a matter of a few months. It's OK for you to say so just don't think your ignorant back of the envelope calculations matter to anybody but yourself.

Names, please. Who do you say are "they" that are -- what is it you say "they" are doing? I'm not good at fake conspiracy theories.

Oh, and last I checked, lockdowns are still working. Nothing new to show, just refer to an earlier graphic I posted. It's still valid and shows that the curve was flattened.

 

[abandonconflict]

Just a bunch of declarative statements repeated over and over in a mock thread full of memes and troll posts. Like 4 pages back I already showed how a recent spike in deaths demonstrates clearly why trackign deaths actually counters the notion that curves are flattened due to lockdowns.

As I said, the curve that the globe is tring to flatten is the logarithmic graph of new cases per day. It is a verifiable fact that anyone can look up.

We have about four more weeks to go before their models show that the rates of new infections and deaths is low enough to enact testing,

I'm just going to laugh at you for claiming we should all wait a month before testing. That's stupid as hell. Moron.

 

[Fogdog]

Just a bunch of declarative statements repeated over and over in a mock thread full of memes and troll posts. Like 4 pages back I already showed how a recent spike in deaths demonstrates clearly why trackign deaths actually counters the notion that curves are flattened due to lockdowns.

As I said, the curve that the globe is tring to flatten is the logarithmic graph of new cases per day. It is a verifiable fact that anyone can look up.

I'm just going to laugh at you for claiming we should all wait a month before testing. That's stupid as hell. Moron.

I never said we should all wait a month before testing. I do wish you'd stop with the strawman crap. When did you stop beating your wife, btw?

You are all mixed up when it comes to the difference between metrics and objectives regarding this epidemic.

First of all "the globe" isn't trying to flatten a logarithmic graph of new cases per day. Each and every country is dealing with this epidemic differently. We are all at different starting points. In the US, we are still under-testing and so we have no idea now many new infections there are or have been each day. This is why deaths per day in the US is the best metric. About the only place I know of where enough tests are being conducted is South Korea. Here, we are fucking Neanderthals and the best we can do is count the dead.

How is it going in the Phillippines? From what I gather, it hasn't been as lethal there as it is in the US or Sweden, in terms of number of dead per million population. 5 dead per million there compared to 170 per million here. Are those believable numbers coming from Duterte's government?

 

[abandonconflict]

Here is the CDC position statement.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf

Nowhere does it state that the number of deaths due to coronavirus is the primary method for tracking the development of the pandemic.

 

[abandonconflict]

From that CDC position statement:

Introduction of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), into the United States has resulted in the need for standardized surveillance to assist in understanding the transmission and epidemiology of the disease in U.S. jurisdictions. Public health agencies are investigating reported respiratory illnesses and identifying infected people (cases) through laboratory testing. Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification, measure the potential burden of illness, characterize the epidemiology of medically attended and moderate to severe COVID-19 in the United States, detect community transmission, and inform public health response to clusters of illness and efficacy of populationbased non-pharmaceutical interventions on the epidemic.

That's from the section titled "I", the Roman numeral 1, indicating that it is the first statement of the synopsis.

 

[Fogdog]

CDC surveilance report.

COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review

The week’s key data, narrative interpretations, & visualizations.

www.cdc.gov

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

Coronavirus models the Trump administration has been looking at suggest an initial surge in hospitalizations and deaths in April or May.

As I said, we have been grossly under-testing here and have had no accurate estimate of new cases per day. Testing in the US has been constrained to to aid in diagnosis of people who are in need of hospitalization. In the NPR interview with the head of the CDC (you posted this one yourself) they referred to models the Trump administration uses. If you click on that link, you'll see it uses deaths per day as a metric. I totally agree that in a perfect world, with large volumes of testing, other metrics such as new cases per day would be better.

We don't have that capability yet.

 

[Fogdog]

From that CDC position statement:

That's from the section titled "I", the Roman numeral 1, indicating that it is the first statement of the synopsis.

It's a nice ideal. I want that. How long before we can have good data from testing?

 

[abandonconflict]

From that CDC position statement:

Introduction of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), into the United States has resulted in the need for standardized surveillance to assist in understanding the transmission and epidemiology of the disease in U.S. jurisdictions. Public health agencies are investigating reported respiratory illnesses and identifying infected people (cases) through laboratory testing. Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification, measure the potential burden of illness, characterize the epidemiology of medically attended and moderate to severe COVID-19 in the United States, detect community transmission, and inform public health response to clusters of illness and efficacy of populationbased non-pharmaceutical interventions on the epidemic.

That's from the section titled "I", the Roman numeral 1, indicating that it is the first statement of the synopsis.

 

[Fogdog]

From that CDC position statement:

That's from the section titled "I", the Roman numeral 1, indicating that it is the first statement of the synopsis.

Yeah, I read lots of stuff from the government that would be nice if they actually followed through on it. When are they going to run enough tests so that statement (Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification), can be acted upon?

As I showed earlier, at this time, the CDC isn't using testing to track the progress of this epidemic. They are and have been using deaths per day because that is the best information they have at this time. Are we just arguing about what is possible vs what is real?

 

[abandonconflict]

From that CDC position statement:

Introduction of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), into the United States has resulted in the need for standardized surveillance to assist in understanding the transmission and epidemiology of the disease in U.S. jurisdictions. Public health agencies are investigating reported respiratory illnesses and identifying infected people (cases) through laboratory testing. Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification, measure the potential burden of illness, characterize the epidemiology of medically attended and moderate to severe COVID-19 in the United States, detect community transmission, and inform public health response to clusters of illness and efficacy of populationbased non-pharmaceutical interventions on the epidemic.

That's from the section titled "I", the Roman numeral 1, indicating that it is the first statement of the synopsis.

 

[Fogdog]

From that CDC position statement:

That's from the section titled "I", the Roman numeral 1, indicating that it is the first statement of the synopsis.

Yeah, I read lots of stuff from the government that would be nice if they actually followed through on it. When are they going to run enough tests so that statement (Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification), can be acted upon?

As I showed earlier, at this time, the CDC isn't using testing to track the progress of this epidemic. They are and have been using deaths per day because that is the best information they have at this time. Are we just arguing about what is possible vs what is real?

 

[abandonconflict]

Yeah, I read lots of stuff from the government that would be nice if they actually followed through on it. When are they going to run enough tests so that statement (Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification), can be acted upon?

As I showed earlier, at this time, the CDC isn't using testing to track the progress of this epidemic. They are and have been using deaths per day because that is the best information they have at this time. Are we just arguing about what is possible vs what is real?

I just showed you proof and you continue to repeat the false claim. The CDC does not use deaths as the stat tracked in order to ascertain the extent of the spread of the virus. They do try to track deaths. They are aware that it is even more difficult to do so than to track lab confirmed cases.

I know you want to try to express your deceit with volume, but it's not going to make it true.

 

[abandonconflict]

CDC surveilance report.

therefore, the percentage of specimens testing positive across laboratory types can be used to monitor trends in COVID-19 activity

COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review

The week’s key data, narrative interpretations, & visualizations.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Fogdog]

I just showed you proof and you continue to repeat the false claim. The CDC does not use deaths as the stat tracked in order to ascertain the extent of the spread of the virus. They do try to track deaths. They are aware that it is even more difficult to do so than to track lab confirmed cases.

I know you want to try to express your deceit with volume, but it's not going to make it true.

What you posted was a position statement, not what the CDC has been using. At this time, new cases are only officially identified in a fraction of actual infections. What puzzles me is that you know this. I can't help but think that you are being disingenuous because I've seen you post articles that say exactly that.

I don't disagree that it would be nice if we conducted enough tests so that we can start tracking number of new cases. I'm simply stating the facts, no deceit. For some, the facts aren't enough, I guess.

Now then. About the "they" statement you made earlier. Provide some names that I can associate with your claim about how "they" are somehow nefariously manipulating data to keep us all indoors?

 

[Fogdog]

Do you really want to keep doing this?
[/QUOTE]

CDC surveilance report.

COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review

The week’s key data, narrative interpretations, & visualizations.

www.cdc.gov

Yeah, I read lots of stuff from the government that would be nice if they actually followed through on it. When are they going to run enough tests so that statement (Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification), can be acted upon?

As I showed earlier, at this time, the CDC isn't using testing to track the progress of this epidemic. They are and have been using deaths per day because that is the best information they have at this time. Are we just arguing about what is possible vs what is real?

 

[abandonconflict]

What you posted was a position statement, not what the CDC has been using. At this time, new cases are only officially identified in a fraction of actual infections. What puzzles me is that you know this. I can't help but think that you are being disingenuous because I've seen you post articles that say exactly that.

I don't disagree that it would be nice if we conducted enough tests so that we can start tracking number of new cases. I'm simply stating the facts, no deceit. For some, the facts aren't enough, I guess.

Now then. About the "they" statement you made earlier. Provide some names that I can associate with your claim about how "they" are somehow nefariously manipulating data to keep us all indoors?

Do you really want to keep doing this?

I posted two statements by the CDC clearly demonstrating how they collect data and which data are relevant to ascertaining the spread of the disease. I highlighted the relevant lines in those statements and linked the source. I literally proved to you that you are flat out wrong in your claim regarding which fucking curve they're trying to flatten. You tried to truncate and clip it so I posted it again and you clipped it again.

You have cited nothing to back up your obviously very false claim that the spread of the disease is ascertained by tracking deaths. All you have done is to distort and lie.

I'm sure you'll feel like it was worth it when you get your likes on a pot forum while your $1200 from the gov't is enjoyed but that is not proof. What I cited was proof. Yeah, we can keep going. I'm enjoying revealing your bullshit.