The Numbers Dont Work

[Mountain Man]

We can reduce spread while returning to our jobs.

The most reasonable course of action, I think, is to allow those who are low risk to get back to work and keep the economy from collapsing while those who are high risk (and we know who they are; they're the same people who are susceptible to serious complications from the common flu) take the necessary precautions to protect themselves.

Dr. Fauci's idea that we need to keep whole countries shutdown and their populations isolated until there are "essentially no new cases, no deaths" is absurd.

[Mountain Man]

The restrictions in place have helped slow the spread. That is why the numbers are low.

Hmmm...

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.

[oxmixmudd]

Sure. You know this how?

Because this is a virus with an R₀ of 2 to 3. If there are hosts available, it will spread. This is not magic, this virus doesn't hate the east coast and love the west coast. It does what it does if it can. The reason it did not grow as rapidly in California is because circumstances there kept it from being able to spread as readily there as it did in NY. There could be more than one factor contributing to keeping people apart, but the bottom line is R₀ is lower in California than NYC for reasons other than the nature of the virus itself.

The problem still is that we cannot live life like this. And this approach for the virus is theoretical.

No. it is empirical. The rate a virus spreads is dependent in it infection rate. We have measured that infection rate. R₀ is between 2 and 3. So if people are close together, it will spread from each person infected to 2 or 3 others. So you stop that by keeping people apart. If a person with covid-19 has no contact with other humans from before they begin shedding virus to after they stop shedding virus, that person does not spread the virus¹. So if you keep most people apart, and since most people exhibit mild symptoms, you then slow the spread in the general population and now you just have to worry about the more serious cases that have to go to the hospital.

We already tend to know that people were exposed at levels in California that should not be radically different from New York. Like mentioned before, California has hot international tour spots. People would have been infected and dying at high rates here too.

But California also early on adopted an aggressive social distancing posture². So those early cases had less opportunity to spread to other people in the population, slowing the growth in the number of cases and the number of deaths.

We are projecting severe situations (Italy, New York, Wuhan) onto places where the virus has not had any great number of deaths. Why pursue such isolation on purely speculative grounds?

It is not speculative. R₀ has been measured. The virus will spread like it has in NYC anywhere that people are in a similar proximity to each other as was the case in NYC. This is not magic. The virus is the virus. It does not prefer the Pacific ocean and hate the Atlantic. It does what it does and only the physical environment - the proximity of its hosts to other potential hosts - determines how fast or how slow it spreads.

If you have a way to show that California and other localities are facing the same doom and gloom, show how this works. Show why infections in California has not led to the scary deaths so far.

It is called epidemiology - the study of disease and its spread. Any pathogen with an R₀ greater than 1 will spread exponentially in whatever population it is introduced to. The only way to change that is to separate the hosts from the potential hosts - e.g. what we are calling social distancing. You could also do it by getting most people immune to the virus, (or perhaps by putting everyone in a perfect protective suit that could be perfectly decontaminated before and after use), but without a vaccine or some fanciful technology to prevent the virus from spreading, that means killing off 1 to 2% of our population.

Otherwise, the numbers don't work.

The numbers work just fine. You just don't understand how to apply them perhaps because you don't understand how exponential growth works or how a virus spreads into a population.

1) assuming the virus does not get onto a surface and live long enough for some other person to touch that surface without necessarily being in proximity to the infected person.

2) https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/us/ca...ner/index.html

[mikewhitney]

Because this is a virus with an R₀ of 2 to 3. If there are hosts available, it will spread. This is not magic, this virus doesn't hate the east coast and love the west coast. It does what it does if it can. The reason it did not grow as rapidly in California is because circumstances there kept it from being able to spread as readily there as it did in NY. There could be more than one factor contributing to keeping people apart, but the bottom line is R₀ is lower in California than NYC for reasons other than the nature of the virus itself.


No. it is empirical. The rate a virus spreads is dependent in it infection rate. We have measured that infection rate. R₀ is between 2 and 3. So if people are close together, it will spread from each person infected to 2 or 3 others. So you stop that by keeping people apart. If a person with covid-19 has no contact with other humans from before they begin shedding virus to after they stop shedding virus, that person does not spread the virus¹. So if you keep most people apart, and since most people exhibit mild symptoms, you then slow the spread in the general population and now you just have to worry about the more serious cases that have to go to the hospital.

But California also early on adopted an aggressive social distancing posture. So those early cases had less opportunity to spread to other people in the population, slowing the growth in the number of cases and the number of deaths.

It is not speculative. R₀ has been measured. The virus will spread like it has in NYC anywhere that people are in a similar proximity to each other as was the case in NYC. This is not magic. The virus is the virus. It does not prefer the Pacific ocean and hate the Atlantic. It does what it does and only the physical environment - the proximity of its hosts to other potential hosts - determines how fast or how slow it spreads.



It is called epidemiology - the study of disease and its spread. Any pathogen with an R₀ greater than 1 will spread exponentially in whatever population it is introduced to. The only way to change that is to separate the hosts from the potential hosts - e.g. what we are calling social distancing. You could also do it by getting most people immune to the virus, (or perhaps by putting everyone in a perfect protective suit that could be perfectly decontaminated before and after use), but without a vaccine or some fanciful technology to prevent the virus from spreading, that means killing of 1 to 2% of our population.



The numbers work just fine. You just don't understand how to apply them perhaps because you don't understand how exponential growth works or how a virus spreads into a population.

1) assuming the virus does not get onto a surface and live long enough for some other person to touch that surface without necessarily being in proximity to the infected person.

If California was susceptible to the virus, we would have been the first to suffer with it before the outbreaks in other places. California has a lot of business and tourists from other countries.

The spread of the virus is not as likely in the moderate temperature regions like California.

No reasonable prediction would see a 1 to 2% death rate of the population. That concept has long disappeared. Even a 0.1% death rate is the top end new guess.

People are already willing to keep their distance. So again, we have to recognize that we are doing more damage to lives by shutting down the economy than by having people go back to work. Plus, there are plenty of offices where people normally have separation possible.

Do you have links for the R0 numbers you are using? I suspect this again depends on population densities and favorable climate zones for the virus to spread.

The numbers don't work.

[Sparko]

I think you're undercounting - it should be about 15,000 per day (population/lifespan)

Covid-19 has increased that number of deaths by 10%.

from
https://www.indexmundi.com/blog/inde...day-in-the-us/

According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, approximately 7,452 people die every day in the United States. In other words, a person dies in the US approximately every 12 seconds. You can see a live clock keeping track of how many people have died today at https://www.indexmundi.com/clocks/in.../united-states. You can compare the number of deaths in the US to the number of deaths in other countries at https://www.indexmundi.com/clocks/indicator/deaths.

[Sparko]

The infections should not be high at the store since there is minimum pathways for spreading it. People are already told to keep their distance. People already are washing their hands more. We are never guaranteed the idea that the virus will disappear through this. The purpose ostensibly was to slow the spread so that hospitals could handle the load. But California is not overloading the hospitals, nor are many other places.

People are idiots. They wear gloves, touch things in the store, then touch their face with the glove. Then they go through lines, each person moving into the airspace occupied by the person in front of them. Then they touch their wallets with their gloves, and their money or credit card, then go outside, toss their gloves away and when they get home and change clothes they touch their wallets again.

It slows down the spread but doesn't stop it. You would have to isolate every single person in the USA for a month with no contact with anyone to stop the spread.

[KingsGambit]

The infections should not be high at the store since there is minimum pathways for spreading it. People are already told to keep their distance. People already are washing their hands more. We are never guaranteed the idea that the virus will disappear through this. The purpose ostensibly was to slow the spread so that hospitals could handle the load. But California is not overloading the hospitals, nor are many other places.

Just because people are told to keep their distance does not mean that this is being universally followed. Going out in public, there are still ample opportunities to come into contact with others. You seem to be assuming a sense of universal compliance, unless I'm misunderstanding your post.

[mikewhitney]

Just because people are told to keep their distance does not mean that this is being universally followed. Going out in public, there are still ample opportunities to come into contact with others. You seem to be assuming a sense of universal compliance, unless I'm misunderstanding your post.

Even if some people don't follow all the guidelines, people will be more cautious. I just heard that two-thirds of the people would not want to return to work this time. So this suggests people are taking precautions. The additional precautions means that the virus would spread less. Everything being done is experimental on hopes that we don't overload the hospitals. But the hospitals are not overloaded in California.

With a 1% increase in unemployment, at least one study showed there would be 58,000 more deaths as effects related to that unemployment. We are going to be having lots of divorces and drinking problems. Everything will get worse in the country, in our lives.

The numbers don't work.

[carpedm9587]

If California was susceptible to the virus, we would have been the first to suffer with it before the outbreaks in other places. California has a lot of business and tourists from other countries.

The spread of the virus is not as likely in the moderate temperature regions like California.

No reasonable prediction would see a 1 to 2% death rate of the population. That concept has long disappeared. Even a 0.1% death rate is the top end new guess.

People are already willing to keep their distance. So again, we have to recognize that we are doing more damage to lives by shutting down the economy than by having people go back to work. Plus, there are plenty of offices where people normally have separation possible.

Do you have links for the R0 numbers you are using? I suspect this again depends on population densities and favorable climate zones for the virus to spread.

The numbers don't work.

So I've now read all your posts on this thread and I have a simple question.

Are you isolating and social distancing or are you living life as usual?

[mikewhitney]

So I've now read all your posts on this thread and I have a simple question.

Are you isolating and social distancing or are you living life as usual?

That does not address the numbers. Do you have something to make sense of the numbers?

[mikewhitney]

People are idiots. They wear gloves, touch things in the store, then touch their face with the glove. Then they go through lines, each person moving into the airspace occupied by the person in front of them. Then they touch their wallets with their gloves, and their money or credit card, then go outside, toss their gloves away and when they get home and change clothes they touch their wallets again.

It slows down the spread but doesn't stop it. You would have to isolate every single person in the USA for a month with no contact with anyone to stop the spread.

Is there a reason to think that one month is long enough? Will it help at all? All the numbers are speculative.

Nor has this process has not been tested.

[carpedm9587]

That does not address the numbers. Do you have something to make sense of the numbers?

Interesting. Why are you not answering a simple question, I wonder?

In answer to YOUR question, however, I have nothing to offer that has not already been offered. As numerous other people have noted, you are making a lot of assumptions and ignoring a lot of realities in your analysis. And you seem to not understand exponential growth. Reiterating what so many others have already told you does not seem productive.

As for my question, if you find the numbers do not make the case for you, and you are social distancing, then your actions do not align with your apparent beliefs. I suggest that everyone here that is still questioning the seriousness of the situation simply return to life as normal. Go shopping. Shake hands with your friends. Go home and hug your elderly Mom. Bring a gift to that person with the oxygen tank. Take your kids to a Chucky Cheese ball pit. Yuk it up and enjoy as you did prior to this pandemic.

If you are not going to do those things, then something about the numbers is actually speaking to you and this entire thread is just an exercise in argumentation for the sake of argumentation.

[mikewhitney]

Interesting. Why are you not answering a simple question, I wonder?

In answer to YOUR question, however, I have nothing to offer that has not already been offered. As numerous other people have noted, you are making a lot of assumptions and ignoring a lot of realities in your analysis. And you seem to not understand exponential growth. Reiterating what so many others have already told you does not seem productive.

As for my question, if you find the numbers do not make the case for you, and you are social distancing, then your actions do not align with your apparent beliefs. I suggest that everyone here that is still questioning the seriousness of the situation simply return to life as normal. Go shopping. Shake hands with your friends. Go home and hug your elderly Mom. Bring a gift to that person with the oxygen tank. Take your kids to a Chucky Cheese ball pit. Yuk it up and enjoy as you did prior to this pandemic.

If you are not going to do those things, then something about the numbers is actually speaking to you and this entire thread is just an exercise in argumentation for the sake of argumentation.

As I expected, you make assumptions with little grounds. No need to discuss things with you

[KingsGambit]

So I've now read all your posts on this thread and I have a simple question.

Are you isolating and social distancing or are you living life as usual?

I'm living life as usual because I work an essential job and have no social life in the first place.

[Sparko]

Is there a reason to think that one month is long enough? Will it help at all? All the numbers are speculative.

Nor has this process has not been tested.

If you had total isolation it would be enough. The disease takes about 2 weeks to progress to either living or death. So if everyone were completely isolated for a month it would be enough time for it to die out.

Of course total isolation is impossible.