Precaution v. Paranoia

[+ Lucky]

@E.T.Bass "If you choose to ignore news that the virus is not diminishing, that's your business. But to me it seems critical."

 

 

I disagree. It's our business! The people ignoring the increasing peril of coronavirus are the ones more likely to get sick. They will burden the health system, taking money and resources from those who followed the rules.

An asshole at the grocery today wore his mask under his chin. He complained about being cold in the dairy department, so I told him that he would be warmer if he wore his mask. He didn't. Others who spoke to him got extended arguments. We are expected to treat him the same as others when he gets sick.

[xyz48B]

Oklahoma’s governor just tested positive for COVID-19.

[SirBillybob]

SNIP: The only thing we know for sure is we know nothing for sure.

I don’t think that reflects anybody’s deficiency in particular. As you suggest, it is mostly flying blind, no horseshoe bat analogy intended for insight or for batshit crazy mayhem.

 

Best case scenario guidance (essentially, underestimation and dismissiveness) failed miserably and worst case scenario response early on may have beat this thing, nipping it in the bud. Not surprising, then, that worse case scenario is now the predominant compass. Ambiguity sucks ... blood (there I go again).

 

Sure, no disease precursor offers the best comparator, but even within the relative scientific ignorance of 90 years ago common sense strategies made a big difference when and where applied. I wonder what analogy was possibly invoked then, if any. Perhaps European plagues, various pox and fever history. But contemporaneous major war at the time ... my gosh.

 

I think that people generally expect more from governance these days and are more reactive to loss of control and autonomy.

[SirBillybob]

Oklahoma! ... where the June bugs zoom.

[Rudynate]

True - interventions may alter the logarithmic progression

[+ E.T.Bass]

@E.T.Bass "If you choose to ignore news that the virus is not diminishing, that's your business. But to me it seems critical."

 

 

I disagree. It's our business! The people ignoring the increasing peril of coronavirus are the ones more likely to get sick. They will burden the health system, taking money and resources from those who followed the rules.

An asshole at the grocery today wore his mask under his chin. He complained about being cold in the dairy department, so I told him that he would be warmer if he wore his mask. He didn't. Others who spoke to him got extended arguments. We are expected to treat him the same as others when he gets sick.

They are also increasing the risk of infections and the amount of airborne virus.

So yes, I agree. My mistake. It is ALL of our business.

Sadly, many people are not able and willing to consider the impact on their community.

[gp0560]

Another metric that interests me is deaths per million. The impact of 10,000 deaths on a population of 100,000 must be substantially different from the impact on a population of 1,000,000. It seems to me that the COVID-19 virus would end up causing a much more altered society in the first case than it would in the second.

 

Our.world.in data.org has enough charts with enough user control to satisfy almost any data freak. Start with these two, and play around with the variety of ways you can look at the data.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-per-million-three-day-avg?tab=chart&time=2020-03-15..&country=BRA~CAN~FRA~ITA~MEX~GBR~USA

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-3-day-avg?tab=chart&time=2020-03-15..&country=BRA~CAN~FRA~ITA~MEX~GBR~USA

[Rudynate]

Another metric that interests me is deaths per million. The impact of 10,000 deaths on a population of 100,000 must be substantially different from the impact on a population of 1,000,000. It seems to me that the COVID-19 virus would end up causing a much more altered society in the first case than it would in the second.

 

Our.world.in data.org has enough charts with enough user control to satisfy almost any data freak. Start with these two, and play around with the variety of ways you can look at the data.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-per-million-three-day-avg?tab=chart&time=2020-03-15..&country=BRA~CAN~FRA~ITA~MEX~GBR~USA

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-3-day-avg?tab=chart&time=2020-03-15..&country=BRA~CAN~FRA~ITA~MEX~GBR~USA

 

 

Isn't that death rate or mortality rate? Usually expressed as deaths per thousand.

[SirBillybob]

A true death or mortality rate is per 100, as no additional calculation is required to obtain a standard percentage, if you are comfortable with some percentages being sub-one fractions. Otherwise, it is essentially ‘dealer’s choice’ and the denominator’s number of zeros is usually chosen to allow the best depiction on a graph or other measurement system where different subgroups are often compared. It is just common sense to adjust the metrics on each axis to enable easier reading and limit the merging of several graph lines. The usual best single denominator will hinge on the range of possible numerator values that are also the easiest to read, usually at least 1.0, and generally easiest to calculate a meaningful percentage.

Edited July 15, 2020 by SirBIllybob