Jump to content

TheSanDiegan

Members
  • Content Count

    9,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheSanDiegan

  • Rank
    Arrogant Bastard

Profile Information

  • Team
    San Diego State
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Locked up naked with socks

Recent Profile Visitors

9,302 profile views
  1. And thank you in kind for the respectful reply. We may choose to disagree as to whether or not the modelers (myself included) possessed sufficient data, but in the interest in carrying this hospitality forward, I think we can agree that we both want them to be wrong by orders of magnitude.
  2. That's is a fair point. Hence the critical need for peer reviews as a mechanism of self-policing.
  3. It is a fascinating take, I'll tell you that. Tbh, I really need to sit down with a cigar and a couple beers and really give it the contemplation it deserves.
  4. Ffs Bob, if you post one more thing I actually agree with, I'm worried our proton packs will cross streams and end the universe as we know it.
  5. I appreciate what you're saying, but I would push back and say there are significant partisan factions who reject science- and fact-based information that does not dovetail with their ideology. Take paleontology for example. Just because a biblical literalist ignores or otherwise dismisses the science is not, in any way, an indictment of the science itself, but rather a reflection on the dismissive individual.
  6. Well, Bob, on one hand since you asked nicely, I am inclined to answer. But then you go off half-cocked with the whole second half the post indicating there is no room in your cup for me to pour any knowledge. So in the interest of playing nice, I struck through the back half of your barrel of bullshit and will pretend you simply asked me a couple questions in good faith. 1. Mathematical models give you an output. That output is wholly dependent on the data fed into the model. 2. That data fed into the model is dynamic, and may change, or shift, as more data becomes available, or if there are any changes to the causal factors that produce the data used as input into the models. 3. In this instance, the key factor is transmissibility, which is represented by a variable we all "R-naught," represented by R0. R0 represents the number of people infected by someone who is carrying the disease; and R0>1 indicates a pathogen is spreading through a population. 4. The Diamond Princess was a perfect environment for measuring the R0 of SARS-CoV-2, for several reasons: i) it was a closed environment with a fixed population, ii) the day the first ten passengers presented symptoms the ship went into quarantine, iii) passengers were instructed to self-isolate (as much as is possible on a boat), and iv) infected passengers were quickly removed and isolated from the ship's population. The following weeks allowed infectious disease specialists to estimate the R0 with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. Additional studies of populations in China, ROK, and Europe confirmed the R0 within a range of 2.2-3.58 depending on the form of transmission, meaning that, on average, an infected individual infects between 2.2-3.6 people. 5. Okay Bob, here's where shit might get a little tough for you... this R0 value is one of the data points used as input in the epidemiological modeling. Thus, all the model runs from Feb through March (save one I believe) were predicated on this measured factor of transmissibility. But remember that salient point from #2 above? Well, as it turns out, when you keep two people apart - better sit down for this one, Bob - THEY'RE UNABLE TO INFECT EACH OTHER. 6. So, by implementing these f*cking painful stay-at-home orders and other hard social distancing policies, it reduces the R0 to a significantly lower value. It has been measured <1 in several places that have had these policies in place for several weeks, indicating the epidemic in those locations is now under control. 7. If you reduce the R0 low enough, then it reduces the number of transmissions, thus reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths, regardless of how deadly a disease is, even for one that has shown itself to be anywhere from 15x to 125x more deadly than the seasonal flu as SARS-CoV-2 has. I sincerely hope this helps you understand the situation a little more. I also hope you appreciate the effort that went into this post, as I have a shitton of work to do today and this is keeping me from it.
  7. But in a sense that's a good thing, actually, as the lack of increase indicates things have leveled off after which the + tests and resultant hospitalizations and deaths should soon begin to decrease.
  8. Hellsno. Science and the mathematical structures that support it are entirely devoid of partisan politics. In an increasingly tribal society, math provides the one oasis from the never ending cascade of subjective bullshit.
  9. While true, remember that the outbreak is impacting different communities on different timelines. While NYC (and the whole tri-state area I suppose) was seemingly hit the hardest, it also entered the second phase of the pandemic ahead of other areas. Look for Detroit and Louisiana to peak next, followed by...? As responses were state-driven and varied from state-to-state, so will the presentation of the respective epidemic curve for each. Hopefully tho no place else will be as bad as New York - I think that's something we can all get behind.
  10. Eh, not really. Apparently this is the New and Improved Bob, now 50% more resistant to fact-based information. I guess I could try to explain what epidemiologists were able to take away from the (DP) cruise ship, or how atmospheric dynamics are far more complex to model than infectious disease, or how math is apolitical, or how the output of mathematical models is dependent on the datasets used for input, or how transmissibility is qualitatively and quantitatively impacted by social distancing, or how unlike his Limbaugh-licking face hole I can actually run the models myself, or any of a number of things I've touched on, glossed over, or deep-dived over the past hundred pages or so in either of two threads... But why bother? From checking upthread to see what gave him a rage boner in the first place, it looks like it's more fun just to trigger his tilted snowflake ass anyway. Boob has consistently shown himself to incapable of internalizing, processing, and/or considering information that runs contrary to his predisposed belief system. And as such, Boob is as ignorant as they come, with his Full Stupid on display 24/7. If only bats could carry a virus that only infected the ignorant among us, then I could totally get on board with a 'let it ride' mentality. tl;dr: There is no cure for the depth and degree of ignorance embraced by a f*cktarded clown penis like Bob.
  11. It would be more accurate to say 1% .1% of the population has tested positive. If we start with yesterday's total of approx. 10,000 deaths and use Germany's baseline CFR of 1.5% (lower than has been realized elsewhere), than it can be assumed there were over 650K infected people in this country 3-4 weeks ago. Our case doubling rate has been about once every three days, but if we were to assume social distancing has cut that to a national average of once every 7 days, then it can be roughly estimated there are approx. 5.2 million to 10.4 million infected people in our population, both which would be remarkably low considering the estimates of 10-20% infection rates even with social distancing policies in place.
  12. The wahine say that it's looking really soft and shriveled cuz. Kind of like a sad shitake mushroom suffering from clinical depression. Zoloft? More like #SoSoft.
  13. Not really. Remember, they hang C... they hang CB... they hang CBI banners in Reno.
×