Jump to content
bornontheblue

Corona Virus - How bad is it going to be?

Recommended Posts

86B7C3CE-54B1-4982-A001-A4F1B0E901B5.jpeg.a206185300442e1733ef49a3d309492a.jpeg

  • Haha 3
  • Cheers 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Can we stop with this particular refrain?

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

There doesn’t seem to be any letup in New York. The number of positive tests and deaths is ongoing and pretty consistent from day to day. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheSanDiegan said:

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. 

First off, that isn't true. There is a whole bunch of interesting fodder for very good discussions on the politics of math... of the actual math itself. Politics in that case is not necessarily related to the current American partisan situation, but politics existed before America did.

Second, even if it were true that math is apolitical, saying that math is or should be apolitical is, in and of itself, a highly political act. 

Third, that is especially evident from the fact that the refrain is being use entirely in heated political conversations right now. 

Let's be clear - I think @Bob is wrong with his take on the models. I disagree with him profoundly politically. But math is not apolitical, and ironically we are making it more political the more we assert that it is apolitical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bob said:

Enlighten me. Exactly why were the models off by at least a factor of 10 pertaining to all predictions? What did the 'experts' not understand or fail to build into their models?   Oh, and you were dead +++++ing wrong about this whole situation. A tiny fraction of the deaths, infections and hospitalizations will occur that you said would occur. Own it that you were wrong.

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. :shrug:

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. :o

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. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bob said:

Everyone thinks this is them concerning coronavirus :

EU-JHpXXYAAXoc4?format=jpg&name=900x900

The Me would be more north for me.  I am in my 30's and have already went through one recession fine, so it is not that concerning to me as it just means cheaper shares for my long-term investments.  I also hunt, fish, and can grow plants, and don't live in a large city.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

First off, that isn't true. There is a whole bunch of interesting fodder for very good discussions on the politics of math... of the actual math itself. Politics in that case is not necessarily related to the current American partisan situation, but politics existed before America did.

Second, even if it were true that math is apolitical, saying that math is or should be apolitical is, in and of itself, a highly political act. 

Third, that is especially evident from the fact that the refrain is being use entirely in heated political conversations right now. 

Let's be clear - I think @Bob is wrong with his take on the models. I disagree with him profoundly politically. But math is not apolitical, and ironically we are making it more political the more we assert that it is apolitical.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bob said:

Everyone thinks this is them concerning coronavirus :

EU-JHpXXYAAXoc4?format=jpg&name=900x900

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.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheSanDiegan said:

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.  

Oh yes, you are absolutely right about partisans ignoring science when it suits their purpose. If anything, I am saying that means - at least on the back end - math and science are political... especially as soon as they are incorporated into any public discourse such as pandemic response. It's ignoring the realities of the human experience to suggest otherwise, or it is a political and rhetorical act to suggest otherwise. 

In terms of the math itself, saying something emerged in a particular political and cultural context, in my opinion, is not something that reflects poorly on that thing. It just helps us better understand knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

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. 

If only the people doing the science/math and presenting the findings were devoid of bias too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob said:

Everyone thinks this is them concerning coronavirus :

EU-JHpXXYAAXoc4?format=jpg&name=900x900

Actually it is quote possible this is everyone.  I doubt you would find anyone except perhaps yourself that isn't concerned about all 3 things.   How people try to balance these competing priorities may be different but I doubt anyone with a brain isn't concerned about all 3.

BTW, if you were really concerned about authoritarian government I would expect to hear more from you about Trumps attacks on the Inspector General, Rufusal to allow Congress to perform oversight, and Barr's request to suspend Habeas Corpus.  So really your sole focus is the economic circle.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

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. :shrug:

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. :o

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. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post. You are able to type fast and put information into an easily comprehensible format in not much time. Well done. With all due respect you could have stopped at 2. The modellers didn't have sufficient data (or didn't interpret correctly what data was available), made assumptions that were wildly incorrect and mislead billions of people about the danger of the virus. Important decision that affected everyone on the planet were made based on these models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So at my wife’s work they are having an emergency meeting and they are going to test everybody in the building. If anybody tests positive my wife is going to self-quarantine at a hotel and won’t be home for 2 weeks. Fun times. 

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bob said:

Thanks for the thoughtful post. You are able to type fast and put information into an easily comprehensible format in not much time. Well done. With all due respect you could have stopped at 2. The modellers didn't have sufficient data (or didn't interpret correctly what data was available), made assumptions that were wildly incorrect and mislead billions of people about the danger of the virus. Important decision that affected everyone on the planet were made based on these models.

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound?

man-shrugging_1f937-200d-2642-fe0f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bob said:

Thanks for the thoughtful post. You are able to type fast and put information into an easily comprehensible format in not much time. Well done. With all due respect you could have stopped at 2. The modellers didn't have sufficient data (or didn't interpret correctly what data was available), made assumptions that were wildly incorrect and mislead billions of people about the danger of the virus. Important decision that affected everyone on the planet were made based on these models.

And you have the correct data or you know its insufficient how? You have been calling out all the scientists and modelers for being wrong(which they haven't been) without providing any basis for your why your predictions were right. Its like I said a couple weeks ago when this started, if things continue to go in an upward trajectory and things turn out to be better than was predicted(which isn't a given, its stil early) you get to crow about being right while ignoring the reason you were right was because people reacted aggressively and cut down on the transmission of the virus. So heres to you crowing like an asshole for the next coming months claiming to be right because that means we came out of this pretty well.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Los_Aztecas said:

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound?

man-shrugging_1f937-200d-2642-fe0f.png

That all depends on your definition of the word "sound..."

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FresnoFacts said:

The Chinese are in clinical trials using Viagra.

Viagra increases nitric oxide in the blood.

Those little blue pills might be a miracle drug in more than one way. :Clapping:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304313?term=sildenafil&cond=COVID-19&draw=2&rank=1

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

So at my wife’s work they are having an emergency meeting and they are going to test everybody in the building. If anybody tests positive my wife is going to self-quarantine at a hotel and won’t be home for 2 weeks. Fun times. 

I could see this becoming commonplace when when people return to work. It’s the only way to minimize a second Cvirus surge. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

I could see this becoming commonplace when when people return to work. It’s the only way to minimize a second Cvirus surge. 

Well it’s particularly important at her work since it is a skilled nursing facility. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×