The Numbers Dont Work

[mikewhitney]

But not because of a flu level response. Do you not understand that those numercial projections have been lowered only because of the observed effect of the shelter in place actions across the country on the growth in the number of infections? And that removing those restrictions will only result in a return to the previous expected mortality?

Yes of course. Mountain Man explains this

I suppose the argument would be that the deaths are down because of the quarantines, but there are obviously flaws in that sort of reasoning. It's like arguing that the magic rock I carry in my pocket keeps tigers away. How do I know it's working? Because I don't see any tigers around.

So, as long as we keep that magic rock in our pockets, the disease will stay away.

I could probably agree with the social isolation in a different spread of sickness, but the current model for the spread of this disease has not panned out. The numbers don't work in most states. More people would be dying from this in their homes or dying in the hospitals due to the virus. It seems that most people are not susceptible to widespread for Coronavirus to harm them (or more would have died, even at home -- in case you forgot the earlier point).

Recommendation: keep that magic rock in your pocket.

[carpedm9587]

But not because of a flu level response. Do you not understand that those numercial projections have been lowered only because of the observed effect of the shelter in place actions across the country on the growth in the number of infections? And that removing those restrictions will only result in a return to the previous expected mortality?

I think we are either being trolled, or simply engaging in a pointless discussion.


unsubscribing...

[mikewhitney]

I think we are either being trolled, or simply engaging in a pointless discussion.


unsubscribing...

I mentioned that there were lots of you who would not be convinced by anything that their expectations are wrong. Not even superlow numbers of deaths in most states is not convincing. Keep that magic rock in your pocket.

[demi-conservative]

I mentioned that there were lots of you who would not be convinced by anything that their expectations are wrong. Not even superlow numbers of deaths in most states is not convincing. Keep that magic rock in your pocket.

It's getting a little tiresome. All the parrots parroting the yuge numbers from useless models and thinking that they're being intelligent and informed. All the parrots parroting that ICUs and morgues are getting overloaded without thinking critically and asking question about the normal spare capacity and so on.

[Sparko]

But not because of a flu level response. Do you not understand that those numercial projections have been lowered only because of the observed effect of the shelter in place actions across the country on the growth in the number of infections? And that removing those restrictions will only result in a return to the previous expected mortality?

They are now saying the R value is around 5 or higher. Even if the mortality weren't much more deadly percentage wise from the flu (but it is), the infection rate is off the chart. We will have what the flu takes a year to kill, in a month.

[mikewhitney]

They are now saying the R value is around 5 or higher. Even if the mortality weren't much more deadly percentage wise from the flu (but it is), the infection rate is off the chart. We will have what the flu takes a year to kill, in a month.

Just a foonote ... the flu deaths in the States mostly happen from October to March -- so the deaths per day can roughly be calculated with number of deaths-per-year as being over a 6 month period. So a bad season has 61000 deaths per year -- but this can be decently stated as 61000 in 6 months. This then is 335 deaths per day. There would be some months or weeks that have a lower number and some that have a higher number.

But the Coronavirus deaths are augmented to include anyone suspected of having Coronavirus even if that was the primary cause.

[Sparko]

Just a foonote ... the flu deaths in the States mostly happen from October to March -- so the deaths per day can roughly be calculated with number of deaths-per-year as being over a 6 month period. So a bad season has 61000 deaths per year -- but this can be decently stated as 61000 in 6 months. This then is 335 deaths per day. There would be some months or weeks that have a lower number and some that have a higher number.

But the Coronavirus deaths are augmented to include anyone suspected of having Coronavirus even if that was the primary cause.

good point. but 60,000 flu deaths is a REALLY bad year. Mostly its around 20,000.

[Mountain Man]

...which we achieved by nationwide social distancing and other mitigation efforts. What is happening here is pretty straightforward:

Science: If we don't do something, we will have as many as 2 million deaths

Correction: "If we don't do something, and assuming all of our guesses and assumptions are correct, then we could have as many as 2 million deaths."

That's not science, it's speculation, but of course calling it "science" gives it a veneer of authority.

Response: We do a lot - social distancing, shutting down communal collection areas, etc.
Result: Number of projected deaths is adjusted downwards radically

And what evidence do we have that the numbers wouldn't have decreased even without the radical, heavy-handed response? There was no control group, so we really don't know to what extent they mitigated the spread of the virus. Would a more limited isolation of only the most vulnerable population -- the elderly and those with existing illnesses -- have achieved the same results? Who knows?

Assuming a cause and effect without proof is not science and is no better than analogies involving magic rocks and tigers.

[mikewhitney]

I think we are either being trolled, or simply engaging in a pointless discussion.


unsubscribing...

Seriously now...

I am not a good debater but my original post should explain the oddity of the numbers given us. There are specialists in epidemiology and other fields who present a different voice, a different argument. We at tweb may not always/ever have the expertise on these matters, but we may still be able to see the logic of the broad viewpoints and see the weaknesses.

Are you wishing to only hear one side of what is said about the coronavirus or are you willing to hear contrary voices and see how the debate is going apart from what is said in the media? If your mind is strong enough, you can start to figure out who is worth hearing and who to put aside for now. We have people of good minds here. We should ask whether we are using these minds to the full potential when needed.

It is too easy to say "mike is goofy, don't look into the actual debate." Sorry, for that impression. I have other topics I would like to discuss without enabling such reputation to form. I broke with my caution because I see a need to get a balanced discussion on this Coronavirus which is affecting us all. Peace!

[mikewhitney]

I think there may some mathematicians and mathematical models that could eventually resolve the question whether self-quarantines helped or hurt matters. I heard Knut M. Wittkowski who mentioned that the self-quarantines is blocking herd immunity which then allows for the same viruses to hit next year.

[Mountain Man]

Are you wishing to only hear one side of what is said about the coronavirus or are you willing to hear contrary voices and see how the debate is going apart from what is said in the media?

carpe has been quick to latch onto the "SCARY!" numbers from the very beginning because he's hoping this situation will hurt Trump politically.

[mikewhitney]

carpe has been quick to latch onto the "SCARY!" numbers from the very beginning because he's hoping this situation will hurt Trump politically.

I certainly hope not. I have not decided whether Trump is helping or hurting the country, but I do know that we all are encountering negative effects of this self-quarantine.

[Starlight]

I heard Knut M. Wittkowski who mentioned that the self-quarantines is blocking herd immunity which then allows for the same viruses to hit next year.

Achieving herd immunity requires a large percentage of the population to get the disease. Herd immunity to influenza requires ~33% of the population to get it. This it thought to be 3x more contagious than influenza, which would require around 80% of the population to get it to achieve herd immunity.

If 33%-80% of the US population of ~330 million, gets the disease, that's ~100m to ~264m cases. And that's about 1 to 4 million deaths depending on what numbers you use for death rate from Covid.

So trying to achieve herd immunity seems an insane and callous strategy that would kill millions.

[mikewhitney]

Achieving herd immunity requires a large percentage of the population to get the disease. Herd immunity to influenza requires ~33% of the population to get it. This it thought to be 3x more contagious than influenza, which would require around 80% of the population to get it to achieve herd immunity.

If 33%-80% of the US population of ~330 million, gets the disease, that's ~100m to ~264m cases. And that's about 1 to 4 million deaths depending on what numbers you use for death rate from Covid.

So trying to achieve herd immunity seems an insane and callous strategy that would kill millions.

How deep have you examined alternative views regarding this virus situation that are by qualified people that are not making it to the news headlines?

As a scientist you should be able to investigate the issues debated rather than just reading the newspapers. Can you do that, in light of the severity of the shutdown of economies and ultimate effects on much of the population?

[Starlight]

How deep have you examined alternative views regarding this virus situation that are by qualified people that are not making it to the news headlines?

As a scientist you should be able to investigate the issues debated rather than just reading the newspapers. Can you do that, in light of the severity of the shutdown of economies and ultimate effects on much of the population?

Part of assessing alternative viewpoints is to sort the serious and plausible from the frothing at the mouth crazy. You seem to embrace the latter fervently.