Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Class of '66 Old Fart

Coronavirus and Its Impact

Recommended Posts

The problem is that if "leadership" reacted full bore to everything intelligence reported, where do we stop?  Intelligence frequently misses things and is never 100% right.  They missed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.  Overplayed WMD.  Etc.  We don't even know what was reported -- so let's see the reports.  Right now, everyone who "predicted" a pandemic is being stood up as a genius.  A prediction without a time frame is meaningless.  It's easy to be a Monday morning QB.  

Well that’s what the president gets paid for. Fair or not. You don’t like it being like this because it’s Trump as the president. If it were Obama you would be on here screaming at the top of your lungs in the polar opposite direction. Guaranteed. Sorry your president is in office in a time this happened. In spite of the “overplays” you spoke of they used intelligence to fit their agenda. Much like Trump is using the “anti-media” approach to fit his. It’s what a president is there for. Sorry you want a full picture before determining anything. That just isn’t the way it goes.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

The problem is that if "leadership" reacted full bore to everything intelligence reported, where do we stop?  Intelligence frequently misses things and is never 100% right.  They missed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.  Overplayed WMD.  Etc.  We don't even know what was reported -- so let's see the reports.  Right now, everyone who "predicted" a pandemic is being stood up as a genius.  A prediction without a time frame is meaningless.  It's easy to be a Monday morning QB.  

If CAM attacks, belittles, and disagrees with his own scouting team in front of his own players I can't imagine how his team would react.  Yet alone his scouting team.  And if half of the fan base agrees with CAM and the other half doesn't the only thing that would get everybody on the same page would be wins and losses.  Anyone that has ever played competitive team sports understands the toxic ticking time bomb of a losing season in an environment like that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death projections have dropped again. 
And before anyone says "see, social distancing works," this model was created assuming full social distancing in effect through the end of May.
[/url]  

Yep most previous models didn’t anticipate people would actually listen to the social distancing. Glad it’s working.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:


We can guarantee it’ll be spun by both sides to show how their solution worked. ****, I hate self promoting POS politicians. I wouldn’t trust half of these mother ****ers to lead us out of a wet paper bag.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

But how do you really feel?  :103:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can guarantee it’ll be spun by both sides to show how their solution worked. ****, I hate self promoting POS politicians. I wouldn’t trust half of these mother ****ers to lead us out of a wet paper bag.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

But how do you really feel?  :103:

Aloha said it so much more eloquently than I ever could of.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


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

Another day closer to sports


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Today was supposed to be the start of playoff hockey!  It looks like the final month of the nhl season will just be cancelled with the playoffs starting as soon as this pandemic ends with the teams that had the 16 most points.

I'm so freaking ready

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mdn82 said:


Yep most previous models didn’t anticipate people would actually listen to the social distancing. Glad it’s working.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I had seen that some of the models were using 50% of people abiding by most of the rules.  There isn't a good way to quantify it, but most reasonable estimations show that as a nation we are well above that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Death projections have dropped again. 

And before anyone says "see, social distancing works," this model was created assuming full social distancing in effect through the end of May.

 

Which model (or is it both)?  Are you saying the 81,000 estimation was if we had full social distancing until the end of May and now it predicts 61,000 if we had full social distancing until the end of May?  Just asking so I can get a grasp on the estimates.  If that's the case, the numbers would rise if we stopped the distancing before the end May.....do they have projections on different dates of stopping full social distancing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the lowered projected death totals hold true, but there are some very concerning parts to it:  most significantly, it relies on trend data from China.  This data I think we would all say can't be trusted.  And in using Wuhan as a model, it works under the assumption that all in shelter orders match Wuhan's

Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the IHME model embraces an entirely different statistical approach, taking the trending curve of deaths from China, and “fitting” that curve to emerging death data from U.S. cities and counties to predict what might come next.

For that reason, many experts saw IHME as overly optimistic when it was launched March 26. Few U.S. states or cities are taking action as drastic as what was adopted in Wuhan, China — the birthplace of the coronavirus pandemic — or even Northern Italy in locking down residents.

Another big difference between IHME and other models is a fundamental assumption about how effective social distancing can be. The creator of IHME’s model, Christopher Murray, said many state models assume that social distancing will only slow or reduce transmission to some degree. The IHME model, drawing from the example of Wuhan, assumes policies such as social distancing and stay-at-home orders, can effectively reduce transmission to the point where an epidemic — at least in its first wave — is actually brought under control by authorities.
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

My worry is that with more favorable data coming out re:  cases and deaths, the push will be to return to normalcy too quickly and that could bring about a second spike.  

Nonsense! Everyone knows Americans are patient and will gladly wait this thing out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

I had seen that some of the models were using 50% of people abiding by most of the rules.  There isn't a good way to quantify it, but most reasonable estimations show that as a nation we are well above that.  

I hadn't seen that, and it's really good information.  Where did you see that posted?   Models are just that.  They're not concrete and they're not close.  Alex Berenson is a really good follow on Twitter if you haven't seen him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

I hadn't seen that, and it's really good information.  Where did you see that posted?   Models are just that.  They're not concrete and they're not close.  Alex Berenson is a really good follow on Twitter if you haven't seen him.

I'm trying to find it again to link it, but basically the point was that the models used widely differing amounts of people adhering to social distancing, with some as low as 50% and others as high as 80 to 90%.  And you probably do need to keep in mind that as time of the first early models, states (or very few states) were on stay in place guidelines and therefore predicted higher number of deaths.  It's pretty hard to predict the rate at which states would go into these guidelines.  Take Indiana, for example.  I had tickets to the Big Ten tournament on a Thursday;  on Wednesday, it was announced that the games would be in front of fans;  on Thursday, the games were cancelled;  on Friday, schools were started to close in Indiana to buy time and by the next Monday, the governor was officially giving an order to close schools.

The only thing I've seen from Berenson's tweet above where he is citing the 60,000 number asking if we can "PLEASE talk about opening the country up now".  Considering the model that is being cited is one that is assuming we have the social distancing in place until the end of May and we aren't even to its estimated peak date (which is earlier than other cited sources), have to say I'm already not a fan.  It's way too early to assume that the most optimistic model is correct.  Also have to keep in mind that the the model that IMHE is applying that has the lower end projection of deaths assumes that with some pretty aggressive business (and school) closures for quite some time.

Here is a pretty good article on different methods used, and it's one you can't really cite as just 'liberal spin' -- it's from the very conservative news source Washington Free Beacon.

https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/a-popular-covid-19-model-just-got-rosier-dont-read-too-much-into-it/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

I had seen that some of the models were using 50% of people abiding by most of the rules.  There isn't a good way to quantify it, but most reasonable estimations show that as a nation we are well above that.  

Yay ‘Merica!!!

The universal adherence to social distancing has been anecdotally really good around where I live.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

Which model (or is it both)?  Are you saying the 81,000 estimation was if we had full social distancing until the end of May and now it predicts 61,000 if we had full social distancing until the end of May?  Just asking so I can get a grasp on the estimates.  If that's the case, the numbers would rise if we stopped the distancing before the end May.....do they have projections on different dates of stopping full social distancing?

Yes both estimates assumed full social distancing until the end of May. The IHME model has been revised twice in the past week, once on Sunday and once on Wednesday. Before the revisions, I believe it was predicting over 100k deaths. Even Fauci came out today and said they expect deaths to end up below 100k deaths.

Even if it is the 'most optimistic' model, it is still overestimating things like hospital beds and ICU beds after two revisions. Outside of the NYC metro area, hospitals are perfectly fine and are not overflowing. California, Texas, and Florida, the 3 most populated states in the US with 89 million people, have a combined 942 deaths. When I checked earlier today, 33 of the 50 states have fewer than 100 deaths. What's happening in the tristate area is tragic, but we shouldn't be treating the rest of the country the same way we're treating that area. It doesn't make sense to completely shut down a state like West Virginia with 4 deaths or a state like Utah with 13.

On March 12, the Ohio Health Department director said that they have over 100,000 cases in their state. It's now April 8, and Ohio has had 193 total deaths. Their original model predicted 9,600 new cases per day at Ohio's peak, with strict social distancing. Today they revised it to 1,800 new cases per day at their peak, 6x fewer new cases per day. My money is on that also being an overestimate. At a certain point we have to start questioning what these 'experts' say because they have consistently gotten it wrong and their mistakes have led to 10 million newly unemployed people in the past two weeks, with an estimated 5.5 million more coming in tomorrow's weekly report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Friend said:

I hadn't seen that, and it's really good information.  Where did you see that posted?   Models are just that.  They're not concrete and they're not close.  Alex Berenson is a really good follow on Twitter if you haven't seen him.

The doomers won't like his Twitter account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

The doomers won't like his Twitter account.

Don't know if you are linking me with 'doomers', but if you are,  I certainly don't fall in that category.  I'm on the end of examining all of the models.  I am going to say the talk of 'opening the country' up when even the most optimistic model say we haven't reached our peak is not something we should be doing yet.

In terms of cases/death counts, this is the best account I've seen.  Every source is documented and linked.  The # of new cases per day has been getting more consistent over the past week -- around 30,000 cases per week.  Still hard to tell how accurate this is to the full picture as the number of cases isn't consistent with past testing -- some places not testing because they are short so they assume positives if the treatment isn't different, other places have gained access to tests that didn't have them before so which would increase positive tests.

The death count hasn't really leveled off yet;  the leveling of the death count/day is going to occur after the # of cases per day have peaked.  The last seven days the death counts have been:

April 2:  974

April 3:  1,046

April 4:  1,330

April 5:  1,165

April 6:  1,255

April 7:  1,971

April 8:  1,940

So we have seen that in a week's time, the death count per day has doubled, which is why I think the suggestion that now is the time to talk about opening the country up is premature.  We have doubled the death count per day in a week's time WITH a lot of restrictions on businesses/schools/travel/etc......and in the last couple of days we have seen a significant jump.  The next week IMO is going to tell quite a bit.

BTW.....Baltimore popping up as a hot spot.  Maryland's confirmed cases grew by 25% in the last day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×