Coronavirus Numbers

[+ bigjoey]

SK keeps mentioning 1918 and the Spanish Flu and social and economic collapse. May I suggest two better, more recent comparisons:

1- The 1957 Pandemic (H2N2 Virus)

116,000 American dead

(Adjusted for today’s population, that

Is the equivalent to 230,000 people)

2-The 1968 Pandemic (H3N2Virus)

100,000 Americans dead

(Adjusted for today’s population, that

Is the equivalent to 165,000 people)

Some of us here may remember these. There was nothing like today’s indiscriminate lock downs and the destruction of the economy and personal issues created (destruction of education, abuse, depression for no jobs, etc.). Today, we may be destroying lives for years to come from the after effects of the lock down.

 

Google these more recent pandemics for their history and what was done to combat them and the aftermath.

 

Single variable thinkers can not get past their distorted lens and take a step back for a broader picture. The “flatten the curve” is one way to cut deaths by keeping the outbreak within the capacity of the healthcare system. However, unless a very effective treatment materializes, the virus may be slowed down but will continue to work its way through our population.

 

While it is nice to talk about South Korea and other places, that is not where we are at. Talking about those places is magical thinking. We need to deal with America as it is today in relation to the virus and take into account the “American personality.”

 

Lengthy, repeating posts do not equal truth. “Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve” is a nice parlor game but that water under the bridge does not help us moving forward.

 

The destruction of our economy with the typical Washington solution of throwing trillions at the problem is going to leave us with a very bad hangover when this is done. Note: we have not stopped the equivalent deaths to the 1957 and 1968 pandemics but only delayed them while we destroy our economy, the livelihoods of millions of people and create new issues for years to come.

 

As I posted earlier, a multivariate analysis goes beyond the single variable of lives lost. Like trading highway deaths for faster transit times, we have balanced lives with time. With this pandemic, we need to balance lives with all of the other factors; this is what we did in 1957 and 1968; that history is instructive.

[+ tassojunior]

Whatever effect on the economy that is largely fixed by the government. But the extent of the infection is now not collapsing our healthcare system (except for non-coronavirus healthcare). Rather the extent of infection, not the lockdown, is collapsing our food and materials supply chain.

Edited May 2, 2020 by tassojunior

[+ WilliamM]

SK keeps mentioning 1918 and the Spanish Flu and social and economic collapse. May I suggest two better, more recent comparisons:

1- The 1957 Pandemic (H2N2 Virus)

116,000 American dead

(Adjusted for today’s population, that

Is the equivalent to 230,000 people)

2-The 1968 Pandemic (H3N2Virus)

100,000 Americans dead

(Adjusted for today’s population, that

Is the equivalent to 165,000 people)

Some of us here may remember these. There was nothing like today’s indiscriminate lock downs and the destruction of the economy and personal issues created (destruction of education, abuse, depression for no jobs, etc.). Today, we may be destroying lives for years to come from the after effects of the lock down.

 

Google these more recent pandemics for their history and what was done to combat them and the aftermath.

 

Single variable thinkers can not get past their distorted lens and take a step back for a broader picture. The “flatten the curve” is one way to cut deaths by keeping the outbreak within the capacity of the healthcare system. However, unless a very effective treatment materializes, the virus may be slowed down but will continue to work its way through our population.

 

While it is nice to talk about South Korea and other places, that is not where we are at. Talking about those places is magical thinking. We need to deal with America as it is today in relation to the virus and take into account the “American personality.”

 

Lengthy, repeating posts do not equal truth. “Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve” is a nice parlor game but that water under the bridge does not help us moving forward.

 

The destruction of our economy with the typical Washington solution of throwing trillions at the problem is going to leave us with a very bad hangover when this is done. Note: we have not stopped the equivalent deaths to the 1957 and 1968 pandemics but only delayed them while we destroy our economy, the livelihoods of millions of people and create new issues for years to come.

 

As I posted earlier, a multivariate analysis goes beyond the single variable of lives lost. Like trading highway deaths for faster transit times, we have balanced lives with time. With this pandemic, we need to balance lives with all of the other factors; this is what we did in 1957 and 1968; that history is instructive.

 

I remember School closing in the Northeast during the 1957 flu.

 

As to multiple posts here, the same information is available in newspapers, especially in New York City where the pandemic has taken an enormous toll.

 

Journalists are there every day as valuable witnesses. Learn from them.

 

Thanks, @samhexum

[Guest]

SK keeps mentioning 1918 and the Spanish Flu and social and economic collapse. ...

Lengthy, repeating posts do not equal truth. “Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve” is a nice parlor game but that water under the bridge does not help us moving forward...

 

Amen to that!

[Guest]

I remember School closing in the Northeast during the 1957 flu.

...

Dear, but you remember the landing of the Mayflower...

Just kidding!

Reminds me the famous gaffe Bush, Jr. made when the Queen of Canada visited the White House during his term, as recounted by the Toronto City News:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2007/05/07/bush-gaffe-the-highlight-of-queens-visit-to-white-house/

"There were the usual diplomatically dull speeches, until Bush made one of his famous gaffes. Or was it planned? “The American people are proud to welcome Your Majesty back to the United States, a nation you’ve come to know very well,” he told her. “After all, you’ve dined with ten U.S. Presidents. You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 — in 1976.”

[Guest]

I remember School closing in the Northeast during the 1957 flu.

 

All kidding aside, if you're as old as you say you are, you remember measles before we had the measles vaccine. According to the CDC, the case fatality rate of measles isn't that far off from Covid-19's; it's at 0.2% today (worse in the 50s):

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

And that was before there was direct fluorescent antigen testing, and so on. Measles is one of the few viruses more contagious than Covid-19 in that you can get it just by breathing the same air (Covid-19 is usually contracted when you touch something a carrier has touched or breathed on, such as a shopping cart, keyboard, phone handle, elevator button, etc.). A school closing is not as radical as an almost complete economy shut-down. A big difference seems to be that the most vulnerable in this case are people of retirement age who don't have to worry about being out of work and having an income.

This doesn't mean I believe we should turn off all mitigation measures at this time. But we should be pulling back gradually and observing.

[samhexum]

This doesn't mean I believe we should turn off all mitigation measures at this time.

 

Well... maybe just in Trump strongholds.

 

Here are some happy numbers...

 

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. investment firm posted a quarterly net loss of $50 billion Saturday and reported that a number of its 90 operating businesses have been “severely affected,”according to Reuters.

 

Buffett, 89, is nicknamed the Oracle of Omaha because of his Nebraska roots and investment savvy. He is the fifth-wealthiest billionaire, according to Forbes, with a personal net worth of about $72 billion. The other top four: Jeff Bezos, $138 billion; Bill Gates, $104 billion; Bernard Arnault, $94 billion; and Mark Zuckerberg, $75 billion.

 

Berkshire saw two of its biggest businesses take particularly hard hits.

 

BNSF Railway, North America’s largest freight railroad network, saw shipping volumes of consumer products and coal plummet, while insurance giant Geico set aside money for car premiums it probably won’t collect.

 

The smaller operations cut salaries and furloughed workers, and retailers such as See’s Candies and Nebraska Furniture Mart closed stores.

 

Berkshire reported buying a net $1.8 billion of stocks in the first quarter but selling a net $6.1 billion in April. The investment firm repurchased $1.7 billion of its own stock in the first quarter, but that was less than the prior quarter.

 

The pandemic also has forced Buffett to cancel “Woodstock for Capitalists,” a weekend festival that normally draws tens of thousands of people to Omaha.

Edited May 2, 2020 by samhexum

[+ sniper]

Just a thought on this: Was not the first NY State outbreak of Covid-19 in Westchester County (New Rochelle?), bordering The Bronx? Which is, perhaps not incidentally, the only NYC borough attached to the mainland. Perhaps there is a geographical factor in the viral spread, i.e., that islands often have more restricted points of ingress. E.g., New Zealand.

It's really not unexpected at all when you think about it. People from the Bronx are more likely to commute by train to Manhattan, AND more likely to be essential workers and have to go to work. People in Manhattan usually work in Manhattan, so even if they still have to work they have the option to walk if they want and can avoid the congested disease vector of the subway. Staten Island residents who work in Manhattan take the ferry which is open-air and not as big a transmission vector.

[+ WilliamM]

All kidding aside, if you're as old as you say you are, you remember measles before we had the measles vaccine. According to the CDC, the case fatality rate of measles isn't that far off from Covid-19's; it's at 0.2% today (worse in the 50s):

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

And that was before there was direct fluorescent antigen testing, and so on. Measles is one of the few viruses more contagious than Covid-19 in that you can get it just by breathing the same air (Covid-19 is usually contracted when you touch something a carrier has touched or breathed on, such as a shopping cart, keyboard, phone handle, elevator button, etc.). A school closing is not as radical as an almost complete economy shut-down. A big difference seems to be that the most vulnerable in this case are people of retirement age who don't have to worry about being out of work and having an income.

This doesn't mean I believe we should turn off all mitigation measures at this time. But we should be pulling back gradually and observing.

 

I started kindergartnen in Bedford, Massachusetts in1948. And I remember listening to Harry Truman's inauguration in January 1949.

 

Ok, doctor.

 

I definitely remember polo n Summer

In Massachusetts.

 

I had a mild case of the 1957 flu and earlier measles.

[+ stevenkesslar]

 

While it is nice to talk about South Korea and other places, that is not where we are at. Talking about those places is magical thinking. We need to deal with America as it is today in relation to the virus and take into account the “American personality.”

 

 

First, in fairness

 

 

Honestly, though, I think there's a better one

 

 

The caveat to that quote is history is always open to interpretation and multivariate analysis. It's complicated.

 

In this case, though, it's very easy. It's not a question of whether we are doomed to repeat history. We are repeating it. So you are a logical person. The conclusion that follows is simple. We are doomed.

 

200,000 to 2 million Americans. That's how many are going to die. It really depends on which states do what. If more states are like California and Ohio, it's closer to 200,000. If we embrace the idea that we really can't be bothered with blah blah blah, it's closer to 2 million. What happened in 1918, or China, or Austria, or Iceland, or South Korea, or Japan, or Singapore, or Australia, or Thailand, or Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or really anywhere just really doesn't fucking matter. Blah blah blah. That's fine with me.

 

The good news now is we will get to see the consequences of "harmonious balance". So all the people saying that we really should not have lock downs will get what they want. If two million die, so be it. It was going to happen anyway. The rest of the world is just stupid. Or at least different.

 

And I completely agree with you that this is about "the American personality". The word I used was individualism. And I'll repeat, that's value neutral. Individualism can be a great thing, or a problem. From a scientific perspective only, in a pandemic, it's a problem. What matters is a pandemic is what the herd does. Not the individual herd member.

 

So you don't have to worry about the fact that all over the world, countries that have few deaths and have this under control will be thinking, and saying among themselves, "Well, there you have it. American individualism," I say you don't have to worry about it because, out of respect, they won't say it to you. So there's no problem. They don't have to worry about hurting your feelings. And you don't have to worry about listening to useless facts and learning useless stuff. Stated differently, no sound multivariate analysis would include data from other countries. Why even think of it, really?

 

There's another word you should add to your multivariate analysis. American exceptionalism. It is a strong part of what you call "the American personality." So we will prove we can do it differently. We are proving we are the exception quite nicely, already. 67,444 deaths and counting.

 

It follows from your argument that these coronavirus numbers are the unique result of the American personality, And American exceptionalism, if I may add. Therefore, we can't blame the numbers on anyone else. No one else in the world has similar numeric outcomes. And why would we blame these numbers on anyone else, anyone? We should embrace it, and be proud of it. I'm going with your argument. This is the exceptional outcome of America's personality. Woo hoo! Let's give ourselves a big hug!

 

The destruction of our economy with the typical Washington solution of throwing trillions at the problem is going to leave us with a very bad hangover when this is done. Note: we have not stopped the equivalent deaths to the 1957 and 1968 pandemics but only delayed them while we destroy our economy, the livelihoods of millions of people and create new issues for years to come.

 

So the good news is we now get to test your premise. I give you credit for this. There is a fervent commitment on your part to certain principles. One could reach exactly the opposite conclusion based on the what lots of other countries just demonstrated. But you are having none of it. Your theory is clear, and - sorry to say - you keep repeating it too:

 

We have not stopped death. We have simply delayed it.

 

That would be news to people all over the world, who think they prevented the kinds of deaths we are seeing in America. But you are having none of it. Do you care to put a number on it? Shall we go for 2 million or bust?

 

If you are right, we know what the numbers are in California: 28 million infections, and over 800,000 deaths.

 

https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/coronavirus-numbers.156870/page-11#post-1904821

 

Your theory is that this can not be stopped. It can only be delayed. And the cost of delay is the "destruction of our economy" and "throwing trillions at the problem".

 

I have good news and bad news. Good news is @Epigonos is on your side. He articulated early in March that closing down restaurants and other things in California was a "dip shit" strategy. And he doesn't go for the blah blah blah stuff. So you guys can pioneer how to avoid "the destruction of our economy" and expedite progress toward herd immunity free of "dip shit" decision making. I'll even spring for the beer. It might take a while.

 

Bad news is that 85 % of California believes the opposite. They seem to think 800,000 deaths can be prevented. So the leadership policies they approve of include things like mass testing, "throwing" money at 10,000 contact tracers, and all manner of other nonsense that will likely just lead to a "bad hangover". Worse, this toxic cocktail was developed in places like China, New Zealand, and even Iceland.

 

Call it magical thinking on my part. But I'd bet money we'll learn before too long that even Bill and Melinda Gates had a hand in it! And, no, they don't count as American. They're from Seattle.

 

So here's my suggestion. Which beach should we meet at? Or would you prefer a bar, or a crowded restaurant? I'm Catholic, but I'd be up for a synagogue. Wherever you choose. Let's just make it some place very crowded, where we have the best chance of doing our part and pushing herd immunity along.

 

Since it's all about delay, and delay costs trillions, we can at least do our patriotic party to help get the virus out of the way. And since 70 % means at least one and a half of the two of us, I'd say we do it together. That way we don't have to decide whether you go first, or I do. Work for you?

Edited May 3, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[+ tassojunior]

It is a peculiarly American notion that we have a constitutional right or civil right or something not to wear a facemask to protect others in public during an epidemic. The way I see it is no one has a right to breathe their germs on me in public during an epidemic. Some people have their rights reversed.

[+ sniper]

It's not really true that it can only be delayed. We are not one big unbroken chain of contacts. Different regions could stamp it out. And distancing measures short of total lockdown could reduce the transmission rate substantially and possibly to a point where it dies out before getting to everyone. R0 is a number assuming no measures are taken. R(eff) is something else and what we are dealing with now, and it varies by location and measures taken.

[Guest]

 

 

 

We have not stopped death. We have simply delayed it.

...

The entire point of the "flattening the curve," once again, is to slow things down, not to eliminate Covid-19, which cannot be done in Europe and North America. It could be done, I suppose, in Australia, NZ, and some island nations. I just looked up Madagascar, and they've had only 200 confirmed cases and no deaths. Hmmm. Maybe some support for my inference that Covid-19 is less dangerous in hot places. From the best data we have now, 0.5% seems to be a worst-case scenario case fatality rate, which puts the death toll in the US at far under 2 million. That best data we have comes from NY, which has the highest mortality, and assumes no reduction in the case fatality rate from the change in the weather or remdesivir. And I don't know of any virus which attacks the respiratory tract which is just as deadly in the late Spring and Summer as it is in the Fall and Winter. Do you? Delaying things too long--until late October, for instance--will probably result in more deaths (in Europe and North America).

Edited May 3, 2020 by Unicorn

[+ stevenkesslar]

SK keeps mentioning 1918 and the Spanish Flu and social and economic collapse. May I suggest two better, more recent comparisons:

1- The 1957 Pandemic (Adjusted for today’s population, that is the equivalent to 230,000 people)

2-The 1968 Pandemic (H3N2Virus) (Adjusted for today’s population, that Is the equivalent to 165,000 people)

There was nothing like today’s indiscriminate lock downs and the destruction of the economy and personal issues created (destruction of education, abuse, depression for no jobs, etc.).

 

It's not me. Fauci keeps saying 1 %. Again, no one knows. It's an estimate.

 

I'll repeat the argument you don't want to hear. We do now have a 2020 set of numbers. We know the number of deaths in New York City and New York state. We know the implied infection rate from antiboy testing: 20 % in New York City, and 14 % in New York State. We know the death rate in New York state is 7.63 % based on the number of deaths divided by the number of confirmed cases, which we know is a fraction of the number of actual infections.

 

So there's four unique ways we can go at this, all of which confirm each other.

 

1. We can say Fauci is smarter than you or me, and we'll just go for a ballpark 1 % death rate as correct. It's the doctor knows best theory.

 

2. We can say that the 319,213 confirmed cases in New York are 12 % of the actual 2.7 million or so infections in the state, if that 14 % statewide infection rate is correct. In other words, every known case really 8.3 means infections, if that statewide antibody study is valid. If you scale down the 7.63 % death rate based on the fact that the actual number of infections is really 8.3 times higher, it leave you with a 0.91 % death rate.

 

3. You can make the same assumption, that there is a 14 % "herd immunity" in New York State and a 20 % "herd immunity" in Nerw York City. You can then divide the actual number of deaths into the presumed number of infected individuals, which is 2.7 million for the state and 2 million for the city. I did that a week ago, when the study came out. At that point, it was just under about 0.88 % for the city and about 0.6 % for the state, if I remember right. If I recalculated it today, the death rate would of course be higher, since there are more deaths.

 

4. I think the best scientific studies, like this one The Lancet, are actually pretty close. Granted, the difference between a 0.9 % death rate and a 1 % death rate in the US is 330,000 Americans, or about 5 times the number that have died so far. So decimal points matter. That study, which reviewed most of what we knew a month ago, said the death rate based on total infections is 0.657 %. They didn't spell out all their assumptions. But my view would be that, whatever assumptions they made, the scientists like Fauci and the ones who get published in The Lancet know more than you or me.

 

That said, if you think it's more like 1957 or 1968, which would average out to about 200,000 total deaths, you're entitled to your view. Even more reason to think we should be rushing to herd immunity, right?

 

For America's sake, I hope you are right. For Fauci's sake, I hope you are wrong. Brad Pitt's prediction will be right, and Fauci is gonna be fired. because what you are arguing is that the death rate from COVID-19 is actually lower than flu. Fauci's basic idea is that instead of the 0.1 % death rate with the average annual flu, this has an annual death rate of 1 %. You're actually arguing that with 200,000 dead, COVID-19 has a death rate of 0.087 % or so, right?

 

Just so it's clear, you are saying herd immunity (or, if you prefer, "harmonious balance") is inevitable, and will be achieved when 70 % of Americans are infected. That's 230 million Americans. It's simple math. 200,000 deaths are 0.087 % of 230 million infections. Correct me if i missed something, but that's what you are saying.

 

The reason the 0.1 % flu death rate is higher than your calculation is that in any given year the flu infects maybe 30 million Americans. That's because we have: 1) natural immunity, via antibodies to prior flu strains; and 2) induced immunity, through flu shots. COVID-19 is lethal precisely because we have none of that right now. So you might want to double check your multivariate analysis. Given that at 67,444 dead we are already at 163 % of the average flu number of deaths, it just doesn't make sense that COVID-19 is less lethal than the common flu. Good news is, if you are right, you can take Fauci's place. He's kind of around retirement age anyway.

 

Today, we may be destroying lives for years to come from the after effects of the lock down.

 

You're way better at multivariate analysis than me.

 

So how does your multivariate analysis account for how lives get destroyed from the impact of 200,000 to 2 million Americans dying?

 

In other words, what long term impact does 200,000 to 2 million dead have on the living over the long term? As a specific example, a lot of children were orphaned in 1918.

 

I'm detecting that your may have a cognitive immunity to history. So as a current example, Nick Cordero, 41, is near death, He has an infant baby. So whether that baby is immunized for the measles is an important thing. That said, whether that baby has a father is arguably more important. And if we have hospitals jammed with COVID-19 patients for the next year, whether a baby can even be born in a hospital may be a question.

 

Could you share with us how your multivariate analysis factors in these types of things, that may occur after these lock downs are ended?

[+ stevenkesslar]

The entire point of the "flattening the curve," once again, is to slow things down, not to eliminate Covid-19, which cannot be done in Europe and North America. It could be done, I suppose, in Australia, NZ, and some island nations. I just looked up Madagascar, and they've had only 200 confirmed cases and no deaths.

 

Really, I get it. To use @bigjoey's phrase, you are committed to the idea of the American personality, and American exceptionalism. Good for you.

 

More or less, facts from China, or New Zealand, or Australia, or Iceland, or Austria, or Hong Kong, or Japan, or Singapore, or wherever, don't matter. You didn't read The Hammer And The Dance, and you clearly won't. You are committed to the idea that there is something exceptional about the US that has nothing to do with anything else. The idea that a scientific community posited a theory about how the coronavirus numbers work, which is basically in the ballpark of Fauci/Birx, and the countries that complied with some version of that theory pretty much all had similar positive outcomes, which were the outcomes predicted, is all irrelevant.

 

Your argument about Madagascar has nothing to do with anything, other than your point is to find some exception. This was an island, that was smaller, this was bigger, and then there's Madagascar. I don't disagree with your core point, which is that nothing is ever simple. This virus and its lethal path of destruction and death is as complicated as it can get, actually. So I'm good with the idea that we'll start by dismissing what actually worked anywhere else. And with the idea that lock downs hurt the economy, but the mass death needed to achieve herd immunity would not hurt the economy even more. @bigjoey's multivariate analysis about how the numbers work does not seem to allow for the outcome that ending the lock down will lead to greater economic destruction. His analysis actually seems to be based on an immutable principle, rather than a variable: these lock downs will lead to the worst possible outcome. Even though about 80 % or so of Americans seem to think that is not the case.

 

If this were a real drug study, I could tell you that there were 98 % fewer deaths in one group, that received the drug, than there were in another group, which got the placebo. You could argue that some people in the medicated group died, so there was death anyway, so what's the point? Or you could argue that you checked, and people in Madagascar died, so what's the point? Or you could simply argue since that group is made up of 1000 specific people, what happened to them isn't relevant to anybody else.

 

I know how this is working out. It will not be a controlled scientific study. But the US is choosing to be the global placebo. (As are several others, such as Brazil, at least so far.) At 67,000+ deaths, we already are the global placebo. It's actually charitable to the planet that every other country can point to us and say, "If you don't do this, we think what's happening in the US is the potential outcome." Fortunately, they won't say it to our face, so we won't have the burden of hearing it.

 

We're now at a point where individuals in California are saying their right to not have to be kept from surfing for a month or two is more important than some 75 year old's right to not contract a virus that has a good chance of killing them. So as a numerical pattern in an epidemic, which is the point of the thread I am sticking to, the verdict is in. I agree that if we don't do what people in other countries did that worked, even if it was based on the recommendations of a lot of US scientists, then the outcome of what they did is irrelevant to the US. What is much more relevant in the US is that 15 to 20 % of the US herd is predisposed to make it easy for the virus to infect them. You know more about this stuff than I do. So I think we agree that we are headed (or, in my view, "doomed") to achieve herd immunity - the very hard way.

 

Hopefully, @bigjoey knows more than Dr. Fauci, and he's right that the death rate is 0.087 or so. If he's also right that 70 % of Americans get infected, we're about one third of the way towards 200,000 deaths. Woo hoo!

 

Tomas Pueyo, who predicted accurately what would happen in all those others countries - the prevention of mass death - predicted far worse for us if the US follows the course of herd immunity. His prediction - over 10 million dead - was based on zero mitigation. So we know that's wrong, thank God, because we have been practicing unprecedented forms or mitigation. So we have a range of 200,000 dead Americans to 10 million dead Americans. Time will tell.

Edited May 3, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[+ bigjoey]

Looking at the 1957 flu pandemic, adjusted to our population today, there was the equivalent of 230,000 dead Americans and the economic and social collapse did not occur. That is history.

 

Yes, every death is a tragedy. I have maintained that. Also, I have maintained that “flatten the curve” is necessary to reduce the deaths from Covid19 and I am in favor of that. There are things that can be done to reduce deaths and I am in favor of that.

 

Right now, there are no medical therapies beyond “supportive therapies.” The Gilead drug Remdesivir is some help in shortening hospital stays but it is not a cure or even close to a cure. Until there are medical therapies, Covid19 will continue to work its way through the population, even given social distancing, masks and other slight behavior changes.

 

Multivariate analysis looks at factors besides deaths and does a balance. Not a hard concept. Different people will come to different conclusions and balances. My example of highway speeds and the balance of lives lost and travel time is an easy to understand example. Where the speed limit is set be it 65 or 60 or 55 or 50 or.....30 miles per hour, an actuary can tell you how many lives will be lost. We balance deaths with time of travel. Extremists could eliminate automobile travel all together and save lives (mass automobiles are just over a century of our history).

 

What balance means in our current case is neither extreme of no restrictions (which is madness) or total restraint which some places like China can do or geographical circumstances can help or culture can help.

 

I accept our current situation as it is. If this was just the beginning of the appearance of Covid 19 and we could have a do over, looking in the rear view mirror we know what could have been done differently. That is no help today.

 

Rather than one extreme or the other, balance is finding a middle ground. Denmark is opening up but people over 65 are still sheltered in place. Schools are opening up but for the lower grades. There is a middle ground.

 

Advocacy for what is the destruction of our economy and people’s mental health, education, etc reminds me of Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

 

As I have posted, “flatten the curve” does buy us time to learn more about the virus and reduce deaths in addition to controlling the inflow into the medical system. I have posted about the relationship between vitamin D and the virus and this morning another study is out showing how vitamin D seems to help (and explains part of the racial disparity of the virus). Sunshine (those crazy California beach goers) and vitamin supplements can cut deaths. Expect to see a rush and hoarding of vitamin D supplements (and overdosing of vitamin D which can cause death).

 

It should be clear, I am not in favor of either extreme in this debate despite the accusations leveled at me.

 

For the younger ones here who do not remember the 1957 flu pandemic with the equivalent of 230,000 American dead, I suggest learning that history.

[+ tassojunior]

"America's Cassandra" says it will be years.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-prediction-laurie-garrett.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

 

pandemic experts say 2 years at least:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/01/pandemic-experts-sobering-warning-coronavirus-future-john-barry-marc-lipsitch-ebof-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/coronavirus/

 

 

and yesterday was America's highest death day yet.

Edited May 3, 2020 by tassojunior

[BgMstr4u]

No one else in the world has similar numeric outcomes. And why would we blame these numbers on anyone else, anyone? We should embrace it, and be proud of it.

 

I suppose by "numeric outcomes" you mean raw numbers. In terms of raw numbers, this would appear to be true: the RCP table at this point (a little after 7 am PDT, 5/3/2020) has the US death count at 67,505, more than twice the next two raw numbers countries, Italy (28,710) and the UK (28,131).

 

But. BUT -- and this is a big but: the US has something like 328.2 million people, Italy has 60.36 million and the UK 66.65 million. The deaths per 1 million population in the US are 206.1, in Italy 475.1 and the UK 423.1. Germany, Brazil and Iran are the outliers among the top 10 countries in terms of these numbers. The question that emerges out of this data to me is, What is Germany doing differently, assuming its statistics are reported on the same basis as the others?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/

 

In other words, the US, relative to the size of its population, is actually doing "better" (if such a thing could be said) than most of the others. I might also speculate that because the NYC region (NY, NJ and CT) currently accounts for more than half the raw numeric US death total, a valid narrative about the US situation needs to factor in that anomaly. The rest of the US is nowhere near what is going on in the NYC metro region.

 

One other thought about statistics. Probably no reporting system is 100% perfect, but there is good reason not to trust the statistics from China, Russia and Iran, because their totalitarian/authoritarian regimes control data for their own purposes. I imagine their numbers are wildly under-reported, which throws the analysis way off. Also Brazil seems low, perhaps because its health infrastructure, including statistitical reporting, may not be as well developed as it could be. Perhaps other third-world countries are in a similar situation.

 

So, Steven, the incendiary comment above is not entirely justified. Commenting on raw numbers without reference to population size is next to meaningless. I think you get carried away with your rhetoric.

Edited May 3, 2020 by BgMstr4u

[+ tassojunior]

The soon-approaching opening. In DC the smug young are chafing for the bars to reopen.

[MEDIA=twitter]1256926404433846273[/MEDIA]

Edited May 3, 2020 by tassojunior

[+ bigjoey]

I suppose by "numeric outcomes" you mean raw numbers. In terms of raw numbers, this would appear to be true: the RCP table at this point (a little after 7 am PDT, 5/3/2020) has the US death count at 67,505, more than twice the next two raw numbers countries, Italy (28,710) and the UK (28,131).

 

But. BUT -- and this is a big but: the US has something like 328.2 million people, Italy has 60.36 million and the UK 66.65 million. The deaths per 1 million population in the US are 206.1, in Italy 475.1 and the UK 423.1. Germany. Brazil and Iran are the outliers among the top 10 countries in terms of deaths. The question that emerge to me is, What is Germany doing differently, assuming its statistics are reported on the same basis as the others?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/

 

In other words, the US, relative to the size of its population, is actually doing "better" (if such a thing could be said) than most of the others. I might also speculate that because the NYC region (NY, NJ and CT) currently account for more than half the raw numeric death total, a valid narrative about the US situation needs to factor in that anomaly. The rest of the US is nowhere near what it going on in the NYC metro region.

 

One other thought about statistics. Probably no reporting system is 100% perfect, but there is good reason not to trust the statistics from China, Russia and Iran, because their totalitarian/authoritarian regimes control data for their own purposes. I imagine their numbers are wildly under-reported, which throws the analysis way off. Also Brazil seems low, perhaps because its health infrastructure, including statististical reporting, is perhaps not as well developed as it could be. Perhaps other third-world countries are in a similar situation.

 

So, Steven, the incendiary comment above is not entirely justified. Commenting on raw numbers without reference to population size is next to meaningless. I think you get carried away with your rhetoric.

 

Exactly correct. Figures need to be something like deaths per million of population:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

 

These figures should only be considered as approximate due to differences in collection, definition, etc. Also, the pandemic did not start everywhere at the same time and it is just hitting some places.

 

In addition, you are correct the the NYC area skews the US figures. Removing the NYC area, the results are different. In fairness, the same could be said of other countries where the removal of a single area can affect the total.

[BgMstr4u]

Since I brought up the question of the US Covid-19 death rate per million factoring out NY-NJ-CT, here are some numbers:

 

Population: NY: 19.45 million + NJ: 8.882 million + CT: 3.565 million = NY/NJ/CT total population: 31.897 million

Total US population: 328.2 million - NY/NJ/CT (31,897 million) = 296.303 million

 

Deaths from Covid-19:

NY: 24,368 + NJ: 7,742 + CT: 2,436 = 34,546

Total US deaths from Covid-19: 67,552 Total US deaths less NY/NJ/CT: 33,006

 

Total US Covid-19 deaths per million: 206.5/million

US less NY/NJ/CT deaths per million (33,006/296.303) = 111.392/per million

 

I'm not a statistician, so please let me know if I have goofed on this. But the message is clear: without the NY/NJ/CT cluster, the US death rate per million is just a little over half.

 

Note: these numbers are always being updated. They are based on the RCP data from 8:00 am or so PDT, 5/3/2020.

 

ADDENDUM:

The death rate per million for NY/NJ/CT:

Total population: 31.897 million. Number of deaths: 34,546. (34,546/31.897) = 1,083.85/million.

My eyes popped out of their sockets on this number. I hope I got it wrong.

Edited May 3, 2020 by BgMstr4u

[+ bigjoey]

Since I brought up the question of what the US Covid-19 death rate per million of the US factoring out NY-NJ-CT, here are some numbers:

 

Population: NY: 19.45 million + NJ: 8.882 million + CT: 3.565 million = NY/NJ/CT total population: 31.897 million

Total US population: 328.2 million - NY/NJ/CT (31,897 million) = 296.303 million

 

Deaths from Covid-19:

NY: 24,368 + NJ: 7,742 + CT: 2,436 = 34,546

Total US deaths from Covid-19: 67,552 Total US deaths less NY/NJ/CT: 33,006

 

Total US Covid-19 deaths per million: 206.5/million

US less NY/NJ/CT deaths per million (33,006/296.303) = 111.392/per million

 

I'm not a statistician, so please let me know if I have goofed on this. But the message is clear: without the NY/NJ/CT cluster, the US death rate per million is just a little over half.

 

Note: these numbers are always being updated. They are based on the RCP data from 8:00 am or so PDT, 5/3/2020.

 

ADDENDUM:

The death rate per million for NY/NJ/CT:

Total population: 31.897 million. Number of deaths: 34,546. (34,546/31.897) = 1083.85/million.

My eyes popped out of their sockets on this number. I hope I got it wrong.

 

An exact number will never be know but the greater NYC metro will be higher for a number of reasons. Density and transportation (subway); other areas hit later could take preventive steps and learn from what happened in NYC; state and local leaders aggravated the situation with poor leadership choices; people coming from overseas and bringing the virus with them; etc.

 

Every locality with have different facts and in NYC, they created a perfect storm.

 

Again, NYC distorts the picture for the entire US. Remove NYC and you get a truer picture for the country as a whole. But much could be said for other countries when doing comparisons that they have single areas that skew the results.

 

Better testing will give us better statistics. Unfortunately, until or time is history and future historians look back, we will just not know the full extent of the pandemic and the full results.

[+ WilliamM]

An exact number will never be know but the greater NYC metro will be higher for a number of reasons. Density and transportation (subway); other areas hit later could take preventive steps and learn from what happened in NYC; state and local leaders aggravated the situation with poor leadership choices; people coming from overseas and bringing the virus with them; etc.

 

Every locality with have different facts and in NYC, they created a perfect storm.

 

Again, NYC distorts the picture for the entire US. Remove NYC and you get a truer picture for the country as a whole. But much could be said for other countries when doing comparisons that they have single areas that skew the results.

 

Better testing will give us better statistics. Unfortunately, until or time is history and future historians look back, we will just not know the full extent of the pandemic and the full results.

 

You can't exclude New York City. If so, we might as well exclusive Massachusetts because of a conference in Boston early in 2020 with men and women from all over the world.

 

Everyone I have talked to in Massachusetts mention that conference as the reason the numbers of novel coronavirus are so high there.

[+ bigjoey]

From The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/world/asia/coronavirus-spread-where-why.html

 

At the end of the story, they say we just do not yet know for sure and why some places were hit and others spared comes down to “a roll of the dice.”

[+ bigjoey]

You can't exclude New York City. If so, we might as well exclusive Massachusetts because of a conference in Boston early in 2020 with men and women from all over the world.

 

Everyone I have talked to in Massachusetts mention that conference as the reason the numbers of novel coronavirus are so high there.

 

I said as much because if we are comparing our rates to other countries, those other countries have a similar hit spot that distorts their totals as well.

 

It is helpful to exclude NYC when looking at how the country as a whole is doing. In statistics, in doing an analysis, often outlier data points are often omitted to avoid skewing the result. Sometimes the results are run keeping the outlier data point and omitting it so the reader can make up their mind about that data point inclusion.