Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Jul 11 12:00:08 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Herd immunity
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 09:57:19
ONS stats for UK (one of the worst hit counties in the developed world) show only 7% have had the virus.

http://www...infectionsurveypilot/28may2020
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 10:06:26
N.b. this puts to bed the idea that our had a very low IFR. Puts the IFR around 0.7% - 1% for the UK demographic in line with most estimates globally.

Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 10:20:48
"Blood samples used to test for antibodies have been collected from 885 individuals so far, since the survey began on 26 April, to estimate the percentage of the adult population in the UK that has previously been infected with COVID-19."

Also specifically excludes individuals in the hospital or nursing homes.

Hmm
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 10:59:51
Your fatality rate is slightly higher, your antibody rate is a little lower than expected.

But stats from unreliable lesser entities, like the uk, need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Dakyron
Member
Thu May 28 11:54:18
So we can put to rest Seb's claim of an IFR well above 1%, and his claim that 4M+ people in the US would die of COVID-19. 1% of the US population is ~3.5M, and that is assuming every single person was infected.

See: http://uto...hread=85637&time=1589592387804



kargen
Member
Thu May 28 12:03:15
A story I listened to yesterday said in the US close to half the antibody tests are wrong. They didn't say if the tests were giving false positives or showing as negative when should have been positive.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 12:07:54
Dakyron:

I said IFR 1-1.5% for total pop.

That's not well above.

You were saying 0.5%!

Are you possibly confusing with IFR for plus 60s?

The claim of 4m wasn't mine, I did however point out that getting to the 3-4m ball park figure was quite consistent with the US demographic age breakdown and IFR estimates.

Full quotes from the thread below.



"
Dakyron, I don't know where the 4m comes from, but if it is "this is what happens if there is no mitigation", then it's not obviously crazy.

There are over 69m people in the US over 60. Death rate of 3.6% for those 60-69, 8% for 70-79 (those based on reports from well tested countries, so not inflated due to under testing of asymptomatics).

So average rate of 5.8%, 70m, if everyone over 60 got it, you'd get to 4m.

Obviously you need to adjust downwards for some realistic fraction (say 80%) but you also need to account for 0.5% of 30-60 year olds, adjust for pop health (obesity, diabetes etc higher in the US than the countries the best stats come from), and consider whether the healthcare system becomes overwhelmed.

But ultimately, if you are just saying "even an incompetent response would avoid 4m", you are ignoring the fact that the 4m almost certainly was based on no response to highlight the need for a response.

"Everyone who said if I stepped out the plane I'd fall to my death is stupid, obviously I'd wear a parachute, anyway, my rate of descent has slowed, so it's safe to take off my parachute" - Dakyron

"Dakyron:

How do you reach that conclusion of 0.5%?

For example, this paper

http://www.medrxiv.org › co...PDF
An empirical estimate of the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 from ... - medRxiv


finds infection rate mortality in Italy of 1.29%, over-60 infection fatality ratio is 4·25% and for over-80 it is estimated at 9·04%.

Just taking the over 60 element, given US demographics that would be in the 3-4m ball park if everyone got the disease.

This Lancet paper:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

Has 0.66% overall in mainland China (so, you know, probably worse than that of you think they've been fiddling the figures).

But mainland China is a younger and more healthy population.

Again, demographics show a different story:
Over 60 4.38% irf
Over 70 7.8% irf

Again, crudely, that's in the 4m ball park when you apply to US population.

So it really depends where you are getting this 0.5% figure from."
jergul
large member
Thu May 28 12:11:13
Kargen
False positives. Its inherent to low levels of communal infection.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 12:16:09
UK fatalities are around 36k confirmed hospital deaths, excess deaths are at 60k

So if 7% of the pop have had the disease that's between 1.28% and 0.77%. Slap bang in the range I quoted, and at least 25% higher than your 0.5% and perhaps 125% higher.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 12:18:39
*that's IFR between...
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 12:25:56
Dakyron, you really need to stop with the motivated reasoning.

You want it to be wrong so badly that it's affecting your memory.

Applying the UK numbers, assuming the age breakdown is comparable, the UK healine IFR would translate to 1.8m to 2.9m deaths in the US if 70% caught the disease.

Buuut, the majority of UK deaths come from London which is considerably younger than the US population as a whole. So the reality is the expected IFR that applies to 70% of the US pop (or UK pop) would be higher than the one derived from dividing UK deaths / cases.

Hence why I used IFRs per age bracket in the last thread.



sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 12:38:18
"You were saying 0.5%!"

And he was correct. The fatality rate is about 0.5%.

One study from a low-iq nation does not change this. Nor do the rantings of a failed mind from that failed nation.
Forwyn
Member
Thu May 28 12:52:20
"Blood samples used to test for antibodies have been collected from 885 individuals so far, since the survey began on 26 April, to estimate the percentage of the adult population in the UK that has previously been infected with COVID-19."

Didn't the Cali doctors get widely lambasted for this? lol
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 12:59:42
Sam:

There is no real source to validate this. Studies from numerous countries around the world, I cited only two obvious ones, give IFRs per age group and it's pretty clear that the US would not as a whole expect an overall IFR of 0.5%.

You and Dakyron keep stating this 0.5%, without source.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 12:59:54
I think we can ignore you both until you provide a source.
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 13:49:59
Seb you have been demoted from the standards and common decency afforded to thinking humans.

While i could bring up the stats and discussion from 23 prior UP threads and dig up a great many sources, this sort of thing is beyond the ability of your peasant level mind to understand.

So instead i will simply dictate to you the results: the best guess for fatality rate averaged across the entire population is 0.5%. Upon further evidence and discussion amongst thinking peoples this figure could be modified in the future, but it cannot be questioned by you.

So it is written. So it is done.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 13:54:48
Lol
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 14:49:41
I've cited a Lancet article.

Sam has never posted a source, and is once again blustering.

He can be ignored.


Dakyron
Member
Thu May 28 14:49:41
Seb, before data comes out - "4 weeks, 4M, 3%-5%."

Seb, after data comes out - "I never said 4 weeks/4M/3%-5%."

Just admit you overestimated and were horrible wrong.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 14:55:39
Stockholm data suggests a mortality rate of well less than 1%. 7.3% of residents had the presence of antibodies as of the end of April, while as of May 26 the county's death rate stood at 83 per 100,000.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 14:56:41
Dakyron:

You are just making stuff up now. Very trumpy.

I certainly never said 4m, the 4m figure is one you yourself produced, without source, as a straw man.

I never said a full population IFR was 3-5%. 5% applies to over 60s. Which given IFR for under 60s drops off very very quickly, is entirely consistent with 0.7%-1.5% that is found for total population in the literature.

And for US demographics is in the 3-4m range.


It's all in the thread, I've even cut and pasted. You can read it if you want.

You've generally been sane, you should calm the fuck down.
Dakyron
Member
Thu May 28 14:58:12
"I never said 4M, I said 3-4M range" - Seb
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 14:59:25
Rugian:

You are comparing Stockholm, one of their biggest cities where most deaths are concentrated, with a national death rate.

School boy error.

Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 14:59:58
So assuming that 12% of the population has been infected by the end of May, that's, what, a 0.7% mortality rate?

Maybe Covid is a lot more deadly in the UK because the NHS is garbage and you all subsist on godawful diets. Just a thought.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 15:00:01
Dakyron:

Exactly. Read the thread. I've reposted the relevant parts.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 15:00:53
Seb

Are you arguing the coronavirus is much more deadly in the suburbs?
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 15:03:39
Rugian:

Well 0.7% would be consistent with the low end estimate for UK and global figures.

But given the deaths to date are concentrated in areas that are disproportionately young, then the IFR is likely to be an underestimate if you try to apply it to the whole country, because the total population is older.

Though you appear to have made up the 12% figure.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 15:04:46
Rugian:

No I'm pointing out it is well known to be more deadly to old people, and suburbs and towns populations have more older people than the central cities.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 15:05:34
This is like explaining quantum physics to a duck...
jergul
large member
Thu May 28 15:08:56
To my way of thinking, covid-19 is the hair that broke the camel's back.

Its time to permanently become more careful with transmittable diseases.

Sammy wonders why modern medicine is lagging. Its because in the West, preventive health science has always lagged about a century behind other technological advances.

It still is.

We have to permanently change population attributes in way that lowers the R0 of many diseases.

This automatically lowers the threshold for herd immunity. R0=2.5 gives herd immunity at 60% infected. R=1.5 gives herd immunity at 37.5% of the population.

Wear the fucking masks.
jergul
large member
Thu May 28 15:10:19
lol

Seb: "No, quarks, not quacks. How many times do I have to tell you this?"

:D
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 15:13:09
Seb

Stockholm's median age is 39, vs the national median of 41. Not a huge swing, though of course the concentration of age 70+ individuals is the key metric for determining Covid's deadlines in a particular area.

"Though you appear to have made up the 12% figure."

Well yes. Both the UK and Stockholm figures rely on tests dating back to April, so some extrapolation is required to make an apples to apples comparison to late-May death counts. It could conceivably be much higher than 12% at this point.

Forwyn
Member
Thu May 28 15:13:31
"Wear the fucking masks."

That's one approach. Probably not the end-all.
jergul
large member
Thu May 28 15:20:29
Forwyn
Its not the end-all. More a symbol.

Do not hand shake. Be careful about hugging after travel. Take sickleave if sick. Have sickleave. Do mini isolations after travel. Reduce travel a little bit. Wash hands when getting to work and getting home. Get a japanese toilet. Reduce clutter in home. Air out home mechanically or manually. Mask. Keep a scandinavian distance from other people if feasible. Work from home a day per week if feasible. Flexible work hours if feasible (avoid congestion times). Spend more time outdoors.

Stuff like that.
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 15:26:44
"Sammy wonders why modern medicine is lagging. Its because in the West, preventive health science has always lagged about a century behind other technological advances."

I agree that medical science is lagging behind what our tech level would otherwise suggest.
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 15:29:09
"Do not hand shake. Be careful about hugging after travel. Take sickleave if sick. Have sickleave. Do mini isolations after travel. Reduce travel a little bit. Wash hands when getting to work and getting home. Get a japanese toilet. Reduce clutter in home. Air out home mechanically or manually. Mask. Keep a scandinavian distance from other people if feasible. Work from home a day per week if feasible. Flexible work hours if feasible (avoid congestion times). Spend more time outdoors."

This is reasonable.
Pillz
Member
Thu May 28 15:39:59
Half of those are reasonable.

Nuking China would however solve most of our problems and not necessarily require any of those changes be implemented
jergul
large member
Thu May 28 15:43:50
We like to think of RO as static, but its not. It is valid only for a population with certain characteristics.

The characteristics are maleable. If we change what we do, then the RO of any infectious disease (and many pests such as lice or bedbug prevailance) also changes.

Its not hard to bring RO down a notch. Its hard if you are trying to contain an outbreak where R0 has been too high for too long.
jergul
large member
Thu May 28 15:46:11
Pillz
Preventive health science should not lag a century behind other advances.

It is now and you are being a luddite.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:00:36
Rugian:

From the ONS study site:
"Based on tests conducted between 11 May and 24 May 2020"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/05/23/swedens-gamble-on-coronavirus-has-it-paid-off/

"A few days later, however, on May 21st, it was revealed by independent modelers in Sweden that despite adopting more relaxed measures to control the coronavirus, only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had been exposed to the virus by late April."..."Moreover, it’s estimated that between 4%-7% of Sweden’s population has been infected to date."

I can't really imagine the proportion of people in Stockholm infected has gone to 12% in a month. Given the arrival time in Sweden was estimated at 24th January and the disease growth has been slowing, to increase by 5 percentage points (70%) in a month would be a dramatic acceleration on the 7 percentage points covered in the first three months.


sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 16:09:21
"I can't really imagine the proportion of people in Stockholm infected has gone to 12% in a month. Given the arrival time in Sweden was estimated at 24th January and the disease growth has been slowing, to increase by 5 percentage points (70%) in a month would be a dramatic acceleration on the 7 percentage points covered in the first three months."

As one might expect from the mind of a peasant, the nonlinear nature of cases confuses him.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:22:05
Sam:

The evidence shows the rate of increase in infected and death in Sweden is slowing.

To extrapolate from 7% in April to 12% in March would require a dramatic acceleration of progress.

Non-linearity doesn't have anything to do with it. The implied sign of the first derivative is wrong.

Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:22:09
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:24:05
"Acceleration can be assumed from evidence suggesting deceleration because it's non-linear". -Sam
Dakyron
Member
Thu May 28 16:24:17
"Do not hand shake. Be careful about hugging after travel. Take sickleave if sick. Have sickleave. Do mini isolations after travel. Reduce travel a little bit. Wash hands when getting to work and getting home. Get a japanese toilet. Reduce clutter in home. Air out home mechanically or manually. Mask. Keep a scandinavian distance from other people if feasible. Work from home a day per week if feasible. Flexible work hours if feasible (avoid congestion times). Spend more time outdoors. "

Other than wearing a mask, I would agree. We have had roughly 2-3 pandemics that caused serious damage in the last 100 years. Even the current pandemic is not likely to have lasting damage to our infrastructure, only economic damage
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 16:35:18
"To extrapolate from 7% in April to 12% in March would require a dramatic acceleration of progress.

Non-linearity doesn't have anything to do with it. The implied sign of the first derivative is wrong."

Lol@seb trying to math with his peasant mind.

The first derative can be negative while case growth is still quite large compared with earlier months.

Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:38:31
Hmm, actually looking at the stats, even though it's been slowing they were going gangbusters before. Worse rate of growth than the UK, so total proportion of the population could have got as high as 10% if the rate of growth in Stockholm is as bad as the country as a whole, though I suspect now the rate of growth is faster outside Stockholm.

However, we still need to know what the actual death rate in Stockholm was per 100,000.

Mind you Sweden's policy is highly atypical so I am probably burying some false assumptions there.
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 16:39:36
By examining the actual data, you can see that growth from 7% in late april to 12% now exactly matches the shape of the curve of reported cases in sweden.

I declare rugian to be winner, and seb to me the loser.

So it is done.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:53:12
"The first derative can be negative while case growth is still quite large compared with earlier months."

Yes but it can't be greater than the growth over the previous months, which was less than 70%, unless the rate of growth is accelerating.

As it happens, the rate of growth in recorded cases in Sweden over the past month (i.e. from 1st April to 28th May) is about 50%.

Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:56:54
Sam:

No it doesn't.

I bet you are one of those people that approximate 11% to 1 in 10.

Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 16:57:26
Seb -

The ONS test dates of May 11-May 24 refer to the tests for infections. The antibodies study specifies that it is based on samples collected "since the start of the study on 26 April."

I don't think 12% for Stockholm is excessive. May didn't see a major slowdown in new cases for most of the month. Moreover, it takes some weeks for the antibodies to develop, so the 7% rate is really reflective of some point in mid-April.

For the record, Sweden's top epidemiologist thinks the rate is closer to 20%.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 28 16:57:37
lol I like Judge Sam
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 16:57:53
Actually, you'd probably round 12.5% down to 1 in 10 too.
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 16:59:13
That is 2 months, and neither month by itself nor the 2 month period as a whole saw 50% growth.

You are wrong in all aspects yet again.
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 17:02:14
From april 28th to may 28th, swedish reported cases grew by about 80%.

Rugian is declared victor.

It is done.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 17:08:01
Sam:

Should have read 30 April, not 1st April. I originally picked 1st May then altered it realising you would moan that's not April. The different is a few hundred infections, the increase is still 50%.

Rugian:

You are correct, yes, the anti-bodies run through from the 26th to present, I missed that part, but they have already applied the correction in the methodology.

RE 12%, I'd point out the difference between 10% and 12% implies a 20% difference in IFR, but we still don't actually know the number of deaths in Stockholm, and quoting the deaths per capita for the country is just a meaningless figure if a disproportionate number of the deaths in the country happened in and around stockholm; and again if the population of stockholm is young, the IFT for stockholm would not reflect the actual IFR of the country as a whole.

But in the end, the real question is why are you engaging in this piss poor study when loads of journals have articles that have done this much better than you or I can? There are a range of IFR estimates drawn from data all over the world, broken down by comorbidity, sex, and age.

If you plug them in even crudely to US demographics you can see the IFR you would expect for the US population is significantly higher than 0.5%

sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 17:15:43
Fact check: seb is not correct. The us fatality rate is about 0.5%.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 17:27:48
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3590771

"Further, we analyze the deaths and infections in New York City to estimate an overall IFR for the United States of 0.863 percent."
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 17:28:11
Writing fact check does not make something true sam.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 17:34:10
And remember, the overall population of the US is older than NYC, so if 60% of the population of the US caught the disease, the IFR you would observe would be higher than NYC.
Seb
Member
Thu May 28 17:36:11
That one of many studies, and meta studies... bottom line, .5% is pretty implausible. And nobody has provided a source for 0.5%.

I suspect it is because someone is looking at figures like 0.7% and rounding down, not appreciating the difference between .7% and.5% is a lot.
sam adams
Member
Thu May 28 21:57:22
Intelligent people have looked at sufficient sources to settle on 0.5%. That is all you need to know, seb.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 01:31:38
Intelligent people would speak of a range and 0.5% would be at the bottom of it.

Truly intelligent people would wait a few years before commiting.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 01:46:37
The mask part seems the greatest leap for some reason. I would focus on either dual purpose or large crowd scenarios.

Large public gatherings would be a good place for using masks. Demonstrations, sporting events, clubs, stuff like that. Also, anywhere that has particulate matter issues. Like outdoors in urban environments. People with allergies might consider wearing masks more broadly.

Get designer masks. MAGA masks or South-State flag masks if that is what you need to make yourself feel ok about it.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 02:26:41
And for God's sake wear a mask if you have something you think is a cold or allergy.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 05:17:21
Jergul:

If you mean lowest possible extent of the error bar associated with the lowest central estimate, yeah.

The fact is all the meta-analysis shows that given total US populations age and co-morbidity breakdowns, 0.5% isn't likely.

Because the major outbreaks started in urban areas with younger populations, you have a degree of selection bias.

Pillz
Member
Fri May 29 05:38:48
Masks are never going to catch on in north America.

Because corona is going to be forgotten soon.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 06:53:29
Seb
Yes, well, we don't really know yet. I would not fall over in shock if it ultimately was 0.5% mortality (particularly as even a slight focus on viral load might lower the rate though simple precautionary stuff like increasing air turnover in residences).

1.5% would not shock me either. 0.2% or 2% would.

I worry more about the permanent dehabilitation. Which will hit 4-8 times as many people as those that die.

Pillz
Masks should have caught on long ago. Without Covid-19. Its the 100 year lag on preventive health sciences.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 06:54:54
Seb
I was expecting more of a response on the quark-quack joke btw :).
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 07:26:15
Jergul:

If you undertook those measures, you won't get to 60% of the population etc.

The "worst case scenario" figure the Covidiot Troika dispute is the projection (apparently 4m but nobody has actually sourced where this comes from) of what would happen if the US did nothing and everyone got infected.

So yes, you can probably do things to reduce IFR (be very good at sequestering the elderly, wear masks so infections are with low viral loads) but it would be inconsistent to model a worst case scenario using IFRs that rely on assumptions of actions that, so far, many appear not to wish to take, precisely because they think the worst case scenario is impossible.

shroedingers moron
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 07:28:52
Oh, hit enter accidentally. That's not invective, I was working on a joke about the paradoxical nature of the conflicting assumptions needed to support modelling deaths if 60% of the population was infected in order to justify inaction, using IFR for much smaller population and countermeasures.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 07:39:28
Seb
Airing out residences is not much of a measure. I am not thinking so much of primary infection as an infected person being loaded from the environment he spends most time in.

Ultimately, most victims that become seriously ill have probably been boosting the viral load with virii their body has managed to expell (no, this is not an argument against masks. If you are sick, then stay at home without a mask on).

My workaround for the paradox is to consider certain measures to be permanent. So changes in behaviour change R0 instead of crisis management changing R(effective). I actually cleared it with a epidemiologist.

RO is after all a measure for a population with specific characteristics.

RL people are sometimes burdened with jergulthink too :-).
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 07:43:23
The genious of permanent change is of course that herd immunity occurs at a much lower % of the population infected.

RL example? Sure. The bubonic plague. It lives happily on most continents. Several people a year die even. But advances in preventive medicine since 1347-50 prevent outbreaks even before we consider antibiotics (which are lifesaving, not epedemic control).

More of that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri May 29 09:06:27
"Intelligent people would speak of a range and 0.5% would be at the bottom of it.

Truly intelligent people would wait a few years before commiting.."

^This.

Nobody will fault anyone for making predictions, predictions are overrated anyway, especially when there is no bet or money to be made. It is when you speak, not only as if you are a expert in the field, but the cult leader of some new religion that we raise an eye brow. People we doing this in March! "pfff cancer kills more people". Uhm yea "cancer" (like all cancer) kills more people every year than an entirely new disease we discovered 2 months ago. Great news!
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 10:03:32
Nim:

In context, we are talking about rough estimation to inform policy decisions that must be taken now. So waiting years isn't an option.

Obviously any estimate comes with a range, but the key point is the central estimate that are coming up in the literature now are consistent with millions of dead Americans under do-nothing circumstances.

The decision to lift, relax, continue or tighten measures to reduce the spread can only be taken on the evidence to hand, however imperfect.

Attempting to wish it away as Rugian, Dakyron and Sam seek to, isn't a sound strategy. The same has been done here by the right wing media, particularly the telegraph, that have sought to discredit scientists including Ferguson and his work, even via his character, but the reality is their numbers (250k-500k) aren't wildly different from initial naive estimates nor are they that different in terms of what a no-response would be given the emerging actuals on key parameters.

The benefit of such models is in increased precision and the ability to interrogate where and how the disease spreads and what the impact of measures might be.

Tl;Dr the evidence doesn't support the idea that the lockdown was unnecessary. And those worrying about the economic impact might look to what could have been done to mitigate the economic impact of lockdown. The US has made very poor policy choices, hence the higher unemployment arising there.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri May 29 10:32:27
Seb
Yes, but no one here is engaging in think tank level analysis for policy decision. The way some people are throwing around these numbers, as if like a football game the match is over and the results and methodology are solid and unambigious. For that purpose you have to indeed wait for years. What we deploy here to solve an emergency is another matter, it’s always based on the information we have at the moment, right down to the individual level and our usage of heuristic short cuts.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 10:59:10
Nim:

Rugian, Sam and Dakyron think they are! Their entire point is that with a 0.5% IFR, and assuming that a substantial proportion of people have been affected, it is therefore objectively better to end lockdown and indeed, lockdown was always the wrong policy.

Realistically the uncertainty in IFRs is a cause for extremely cautious behaviour, but in any case the central estimates available now not only don't support such blasé attitudes they tend to support the idea that lockdown was not only correct on a rush reduction basis, but certainly saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

The numbers may go up, down and their spread reduce over time. But in the here and now, the IFR ain't 0.5%, wasn't 0.5% when the decision to lock down was taken, and are in fact broadly consistent with a death rate in the millions for the US had the disease been allowed to spread widely without shut downs.

And really, knowing the numbers is only valuable for informing action.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri May 29 11:35:12
"lockdown was always the wrong policy."

Wrong. There was a period of time... march mainly... where the lockdown was correct. We were less certain of the mortality then, thought we might be able to isolate it, and had hopes for a solution.

Now that it is certain the mortality rate is around 0.5%, that medical science cannot hope to get us a solution soon enough, and that isolating the spread has failed, lockdowns can be relaxed.

It is known.
Pillz
Member
Fri May 29 11:48:29
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/new-study-suggests-wearing-a-face-mask-at-home-could-help-limit-spread-of-covid-19-1.4959360

Experts tell the Seb & jerguls of the world to wear masks at home too.

Lmao
Dakyron
Member
Fri May 29 12:30:12
"Rugian, Sam and Dakyron think they are! Their entire point is that with a 0.5% IFR, and assuming that a substantial proportion of people have been affected, it is therefore objectively better to end lockdown and indeed, lockdown was always the wrong policy. "

This is not correct. I objected to Seb wanting 8 MORE weeks of lockdown after already locking down for 8 weeks, which is what he was proposing despite his pleas that it was not. When the virus first struck the western world, there was a lot of unknown and the potential for a disease spreading like the flu and killing 15% of the people it infects was scary enough to merit such a response, as bungled as it was.

The point I made repeatedly was that further evidence pointed to a much less severe disease that mainly affects the very old who are probably going to die in the next few years anyway, so it was safe to reopen in a responsible way.

Also, lol @ being told to wear masks in your own home while WHO is saying you don't need to wear them at all.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 14:18:23
Dakryon:

"I objected to Seb wanting 8 MORE weeks of lockdown after already locking down for 8 weeks, which is what he was proposing despite his pleas that it was not"

No, 8 *more* weeks is accurate. 16 weeks is innacurate. Try to keep it straight.

"When the virus first struck the western world, there was a lot of unknown and the potential for a disease spreading like the flu and killing 15%"

IFR was never estimated at 15%, it was known well before it had been recognised as having spread globally that the IFR was around 1%. If 1% justifies lockdown then, it does so now. If you supported lock down because you thought it was 15%, then you were ill informed then and ill informed now.

"The point I made repeatedly was that further evidence pointed to a much less severe disease that mainly affects the very old who are probably going to die in the next few years anyway, so it was safe to reopen in a responsible way.

The US has a shorter life expectancy than other OECD countries, but not that short.


Dakyron
Member
Fri May 29 14:21:40
"No, 8 *more* weeks is accurate. 16 weeks is innacurate. Try to keep it straight. "

IT HAD ALREADY BEEN 8 WEEKS, YOU STUPID FUCK!

8 + 8 = 16. Are you incapable of kindergarten level math? Maybe you are, and if so, I apologize.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 14:28:56
It really matters what people do now that emergency shutdowns are ending.

There is a huge difference between R = 1.5 and R = 2.5 in terms of when herd immunity comes into play.

Do you want 37.5% of your population infected, or do you want 60% of your population infected?

Up to you.
Dakyron
Member
Fri May 29 14:30:15
"Do you want 37.5% of your population infected, or do you want 60% of your population infected?

Up to you. "

Even doing nothing 60% is improbable. 40% is the realistic max for infection in spring 2020.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 14:33:06
Shutdown was incredibly important because it gave the option of achieving herd immunity at lower levels than 70-80% total infected.

Right now, many places in the west have R less than 1. Its obviously going to increase somewhat shutdown ends.

So rugged individualism time. What infection rate do you want your country to have in order to achieve herd immunity?

Masks fucking matter.
Dakyron
Member
Fri May 29 14:34:27
Not according to the WHO.
Dakyron
Member
Fri May 29 14:35:12
http://www...atients/ar-BB14JBI4?li=BBnb7Kz

The World Health Organization is recommending healthy people, including those who don't exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, only wear masks when taking care of someone infected with the contagion, a sharp contrast from the advice given by American public health officials who recommend everyone wear a mask in public.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 14:38:27
Daky
No time limit.

Covid-19 is obviously going to stay endemic. Population behavior will determine how many people need to be infected before herd immunity comes into play.

Vaccinations may have a role to play, but with 20% effective vaccination, you just lower herd immunity to 17.5% of a population infected with one behavior and 40% of a population infected with a different behavior.
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 14:41:35
WHO advice is acceptable.

I think masks are good for either high risk environments, or when you have symptoms of something you think is a cold or allergy, or if their is dual use benefit (for example polution protection).

What I said earlier sort of overlaps WHO guidelines.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 14:45:01
Dakyron:

Yes, as I noted at the time.

But as I also said, I did not call for 8 weeks of lockdown. I called for lockdown two weeks earlier which would have meant much less than a total of 16 weeks lockdown, because the disease would never have go the level it got to.

Having failed to lockdown on time, the 8 weeks is sunk. Recognising that at that point in time, a further 6-8 weeks on average was necessary to get to the point we would need to be at to open safely isn't the same thing as "calling for a 16 week lockdown", as you described it.

Perhaps you should simply have been accurate and reflected what I called for: a further 6-8 weeks of lockdown, rather than engaging in unsound rhetorical arguments that amount to a straw man argument?
jergul
large member
Fri May 29 14:46:58
I dont think we fundamentally disagree if you agree with WHO guidlines.

There is a decent chance of someone spraying covid-19 at you in clubs and sports arenas. So high risk environment where both the infected and non-infected should wear masks.

Otherwise, wear the mask if you have cold symptoms, though self-isolate as much as possible.

Consider the habitual use of masks where there is a health benefit anyway, even when discounting disease infections.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 14:48:17
I have never denied that I suggested a further period of lockdown was necessary, as you claimed earlier in this thread. 4-6, 6-8, I forget now. It was a range based on getting below 100 daily deaths.
Dakyron
Member
Fri May 29 14:50:46
Its incredibly simple logic. If it has been 8 weeks, and you ask for 8 more weeks, then that is 16 weeks.

My dog gets it. The bird outside the window understands. WHy cant you?
sam adams
Member
Fri May 29 14:54:22
UP FACT CHECK. Seb said 6-8 more weeks to implement track and trace and solve the problem completely. Now he is giving the far more useless and far easier "100 daily deaths."


"I called for lockdown two weeks earlier"

Seb did not actually call for this at the time, but made it up later.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 15:01:24
Dakyron:

Yes, indeed, you are incredibly simple.

If someone calls for 8 weeks of lockdown, it does not follow that they called for the previous 8 weeks.

If what they are calling for is 8 weeks to get track and trace in place and deaths below 100 per day". This could have been achieved in 10-14 weeks if done earlier.

So yes, 8 + 8 is 16, but you don't get to add 8 weeks on just because it is rhetorically convenient for you to do so. This is also a very simple truth.

For example calling for that police office in Mineapolis to face charges of murder isn't the same as calling for him to have knelt on that fellow head until he was dead, even though having him face a murder charge *requires* that he have knelt on his head.

Having fucked up, and delayed going into lock-down, and then enacted weak lock-down resulting in a relatively shallow decline in daily deaths - that's why you then needed 6-8 weeks further.
Those countries that acted effectively are now leaving lockdown.

Sam:
At the time, I said 6-8 weeks explicitly because that is about how long it would take to get deaths below 100 a day, and track and trace would be in place. You even had a hissy fit at the time as you thought it would take government bureaucrats much longer than that to get track and trace in place.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 15:05:25
Sam:

"Seb did not actually call for this at the time, but made it up later."

I think it you go back you might see me saying when the Italian's went into lockdown, we should. But I may have not been doing that here. I honestly can't recall. I may have been too busy on other platforms where my fellow countrymen congregate, and lobbying MPs, and preparing my local community support group to assist in shielding efforts for those already self isolating (I know, Dakyron and Rugian think they will die soon, but the three imunocompromised 30-45 year olds that I do supply runs for don't agree). Actually productive things.
sam adams
Member
Fri May 29 15:39:31
"that I do supply runs for"

Good for you. That is indeed a good way to help your community, that a person of your intelligence can handle.
Seb
Member
Fri May 29 16:37:11
Sam:

Aside from organising the mobilisation of 400 people and setting up a functional call centre, triage process and fulfilment process that is GDPR compliant, and organising marketing in under two weeks. Those are just the three I took on personally.

Your idea of helping the community is, what, putting some nuts out for the squirrels?
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share