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

1 hour ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

The models all took social distancing into account, so that doesn't explain why they were all so off. Their model was predicting 62,000 new cases per day at their peak without social distancing.

The models where off because they didn't focus on reality.  It was all based on assumptions and algorithms.  They never checked reality to see if their assumptions where accurate.  Modeling is hard to do.  Thus, we should look at them with a critical eye.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

The models all took social distancing into account, so that doesn't explain why they were all so off. Their model was predicting 62,000 new cases per day at their peak without social distancing.

The models all did not take the same amount of social distancing into place.  And we still do not know where the actual numbers will finish....we currently have one model that people are pointing to that is on the very low end of model estimates.  If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the numbers being higher than 60,000 (and would more than gladly take the loss on that bet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The models where off because they didn't focus on reality.  It was all based on assumptions and algorithms.  They never checked reality to see if their assumptions where accurate.  Modeling is hard to do.  Thus, we should look at them with a critical eye.  

Ha all modeling is assumptions. Every single model that has been put out there is an assumption. We have been saying that from the start!!!! But hey at least everyone in charge of the world limited many deaths to the best of their abilities. As I said yesterday, it is up to the president of the United States to take all of the data available and act. He doesn’t have a magic crystal ball that says if I don’t do this xxxx occurs. That’s called a model. That’s what has been determining his reaction. So yes, a critical eye was used.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mdn82 said:


Ha all modeling is assumptions. Every single model that has been put out there is an assumption. We have been saying that from the start!!!! But hey at least everyone in charge of the world limited many deaths to the best of their abilities. As I said yesterday, it is up to the president of the United States to take all of the data available and act. He doesn’t have a magic crystal ball that says if I don’t do this xxxx occurs. That’s called a model. That’s what has been determining his reaction. So yes, a critical eye was used.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Right but the models are only as good as the assumers.  If they don't check their assumptions against reality, they are wrong.  A model with unrealistic assumptions does us zero good.  Frankly, the models they have been using suck.     

Share this post


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

Right but the models are only as good as the assumers.  If they don't check their assumptions against reality, they are wrong.  A model with unrealistic assumptions does us zero good.  Frankly, the models they have been using suck.     

Isn't the fact that the models are adjusting show that they are checking the models against the reality and adjusting accordingly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right but the models are only as good as the assumers.  If they don't check their assumptions against reality, they are wrong.  A model with unrealistic assumptions does us zero good.  Frankly, the models they have been using suck.     

I disagree. They changed habits and saved lives. Look. It’s impossible to get perfect data from China. Our assumptions were always built on that. We have been saying that. But how do you know they are unrealistic if we did not start social distancing? Do you have numbers that some of the smartest people on the planet don’t? That’s been my issue with your stance. You are making assumptions about assumptions and complaining we shouldn’t have listened to assumptions. Like do you understand the irony? That’s why I am sitting back and trusting the president is getting the information he needs and basing his opinions on. He made a decision based on the information he has. He saved lives. Now, could he have saved more? That’s a debate I don’t care to jump into.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Golfman25 said:

The models where off because they didn't focus on reality.  It was all based on assumptions and algorithms.  They never checked reality to see if their assumptions where accurate.  Modeling is hard to do.  Thus, we should look at them with a critical eye.  

We should look at them with a critical eye, which is why I'm not as optimistic as the one saying 60,000 US deaths when it is based largely on Chinese data.  But saying 'models don't focus on reality' is just a silly statement.  Science adjusts as more is known.......models aren't set by hunches.

Also not sure why you lump 'assumptions and algorithms' in the same sentence when they literally are opposite things.

Share this post


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


Have you been to North Dakota? They pretty much practice social distancing 365. You can go hours driving while only seeing a house or two


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

That's my point though. A one-size fits all shelter-in-place order doesn't make much sense given how different parts of the US are from other parts. My parents' town has a thousand people in it. Why have it under the same kind of order as New York City? They're still packing subway cars in New York while businesses are all shut down in small towns.

Share this post


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

That's my point though. A one-size fits all shelter-in-place order doesn't make much sense given how different parts of the US are from other parts. My parents' town has a thousand people in it. Why have it under the same kind of order as New York City? They're still packing subway cars in New York while businesses are all shut down in small towns.

You are arguing that the experts don't know what they are talking about and we should abandon the stay at home approach adopted by every other country effected by this (whether by order or practice) and deemed to be the best way to slow the spread of the disease and flatten the curve from our own government. 

Also, your second argument doesn't make sense. Is NYC under the same order or are they out and about like you claim? Because it can't be both. You will always have people not complying with something like this, but that is the case for people in New York or the group of people hanging out in my subdivision. Additionally, they have the same "essential" rule that we have and most people in NYC don't have a car and HAVE TO take the subway to get to work.

I have friends in NYC and I know for a fact that most businesses in NYC are closed. You are willfully ignorant or getting your information from a bad source if you think people in NYC aren't hurting from this just as bad (probably more so) than people in small towns.

Share this post


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

I disagree. They changed habits and saved lives. Look. It’s impossible to get perfect data from China. Our assumptions were always built on that. We have been saying that. But how do you know they are unrealistic if we did not start social distancing? Do you have numbers that some of the smartest people on the planet don’t? That’s been my issue with your stance. You are making @$$umptions about assumptions and complaining we shouldn’t have listened to assumptions. Like do you understand the irony? That’s why I am sitting back and trusting the president is getting the information he needs and basing his opinions on. He made a decision based on the information he has. He saved lives. Now, could he have saved more? That’s a debate I don’t care to jump into.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Here is what I said on another site with regard to the model's prediction of Alabama fatalities:

April 2nd:  "Here is why I don’t agree with the model. They just updated the projected deaths in Alabama by 6000, predicting 5000 by may 1. Alabama has 1000 cases and 28 deaths now. Using a 5 day incubation, and a 3 week resolution to death — everyone sick today would need to die and at least 4000 would need to get sick and start dying, like today. Nobody anywhere is seeing those kinds of rates."

That is what I mean by testing against reality.  A few days later they dropped Alabama total fatalities to about 600.  I don't know if that makes me the "smartest people on the planet" but I did graduate from IU and stay frequently at the Holiday Inn in B-town.  

And any model based on China data is a fraud.  We knew they where lying weeks ago.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Andowen1990IU said:

You are arguing that the experts don't know what they are talking about and we should abandon the stay at home approach adopted by every other country effected by this (whether by order or practice) and deemed to be the best way to slow the spread of the disease and flatten the curve from our own government. 

Also, your second argument doesn't make sense. Is NYC under the same order or are they out and about like you claim? Because it can't be both. You will always have people not complying with something like this, but that is the case for people in New York or the group of people hanging out in my subdivision. Additionally, they have the same "essential" rule that we have and most people in NYC don't have a car and HAVE TO take the subway to get to work.

I have friends in NYC and I know for a fact that most businesses in NYC are closed. You are willfully ignorant or getting your information from a bad source if you think people in NYC aren't hurting from this just as bad (probably more so) than people in small towns.

Density affects the spread.  The worst place  you can be is in a bus or a subway car.  IF it does hang in the air for a while, on cough on a subway car can infect the whole car.  We see that in NYC -- where everyone takes public transportation.  Less so in LA, where everyone drives. 

Smaller counties can control it by testing and contact tracing.  Going forward, masks, testing and contact tracing will be key.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I’ve read some articles that have circulated and they seem to make a lot of since. They are saying that new information suggests that this is more of a blood issue instead of respiratory issue in a since. They are saying that it looks like the virus is attacking the oxygen in the hemoglobin of red blood cells and that is why organs start shutting down because of a lack of oxygen. That would also explain why in some cases the malaria drug has helped but not all. This also suggests that ventilators might not actually be helping that much. Just interesting to think that this new information coming out might lead to better ways to attack the virus if this is proven in the coming days or weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Share this post


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

Also deaths by CoronaVirus not a 100% correct figure. Plenty of info out there, including Dr. Birx that any Corona Virus positive patient dying is being classified as Corona fatality.

Why? Let the doctors decide what the COD is.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

That’s kind of a misrepresentation of what she said. 
 

She said that in some countries if somebody has a prexisting condition and it Covid exacerbates it and causes it to kill them then that is being counted as a death. Unlike some other countries where that’s counted towards the condition  

Which is hardly something that is unreasonable. 

Share this post


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

Density affects the spread.  The worst place  you can be is in a bus or a subway car.  IF it does hang in the air for a while, on cough on a subway car can infect the whole car.  We see that in NYC -- where everyone takes public transportation.  Less so in LA, where everyone drives. 

Smaller counties can control it by testing and contact tracing.  Going forward, masks, testing and contact tracing will be key.   

Everyone agrees that population density is a factor and reducing person to person interactions is the whole point of the stay at home order.

All those things you listed are what we are already doing. How are counties better equipped to control this than the State? Who is to say that the county wouldn't come to the same conclusion? How would counties pay for all those tests? Counties health departments are branches of the State department, so unless they have some rainy day fund most of that money would come from State funds or people will have to pay for it themselves. What if the County is wrong and rural communities get hit hard? Those people will be sent to the larger hospitals, and we would have an influx of patients which is what we are trying to avoid.

The State wants people to stay home to fight the curve now so we don't have to worry about all of those scenarios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s kind of a misrepresentation of what she said. 

 

She said that in some countries if somebody has a prexisting condition and it Covid exacerbates it and causes it to kill them then that is being counted as a death. Unlike some other countries where that’s counted towards the condition  

Which is hardly something that is unreasonable. 

: DR. DEBORAH BIRX: So, I think in this country we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality. And I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that when there wasn't testing in January and February that's a very different situation and unknown.

 

There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem some countries are recording as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now we are still recording it and we will I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to market as COVID-19 infection the intent is right now that those if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.

End quote

 

I didn’t misrepresent anything.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
: DR. DEBORAH BIRX: So, I think in this country we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality. And I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that when there wasn't testing in January and February that's a very different situation and unknown. 
There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem some countries are recording as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now we are still recording it and we will I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to market as COVID-19 infection the intent is right now that those if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.
End quote
 
I didn’t misrepresent anything.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Her final line says it all. If they die “with” Covid19 it’s counted. Not, if they die “by” Covid19.

Doctors aren’t allowed to determine COD on Covid patients.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:


Her final line says it all. If they die “with” Covid19 it’s counted. Not, if they die “by” Covid19.

Doctors aren’t allowed to determine COD on Covid patients.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Dr. Michael Baden, a Fox News contributor, said it’s reasonable to include the death of someone infected with the virus, who also had other health issues, in the COVID-19 body count.

“In the normal course, autopsies would then determine whether the person died of the effects of the COVID virus, whether the person had a brain tumor or brain hemorrhage, for example, that might be unrelated to it and what the relative significance of both the infection and the pre-existing disease is,” Baden told Fox News.

However, the number of autopsies being performed could be low due to the danger of infection, he said.

“Then you will include in those numbers some people who did have a pre-existing condition that would have caused death anyway, but that’s probably a small number,” Baden said.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/04/07/feds-classify-all-coronavirus-patient-deaths-as-covid-19-deaths/amp/


Not sure why people seem to think there are a great number of covid patients dying from something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

Also deaths by CoronaVirus not a 100% correct figure. Plenty of info out there, including Dr. Birx that any Corona Virus positive patient dying is being classified as Corona fatality.

Why? Let the doctors decide what the COD is.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

I had read (I don't remember where or if it's true) that they do the same thing when recording influenza deaths.  Is this true?

Share this post


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

×