Posted on 05/27/2020 2:58:38 AM PDT by JohnRand
There are multiple stories out regarding the coding of the Ferguson model and all of them are about how terrible it was.
You misspelled, "to suit their political needs."
Not saying it was perfect or even all that great, just pointing out that it wasn’t really that crazy either. People judge the numbers we’re at now against the 2.2 million figure and laugh at it. That ignores the fact that we’re still in the middle of this thing, the fact that the model was based on the little bit of data available at the time, and the fact that the model was for no changes in anyone’s behavior in response to the new virus.
None of that means that a lockdown was the right move (Sweden has proven otherwise). Just that the model isn’t really laughable, even with the benefit of hindsight.
“That ignores the fact that we’re still in the middle of this thing,......”
Disagree and strongly. I believe we are in the end game and that within 2 weeks this sham will be all but over. My guess (which is all anybody has been doing) is that the numbers of asymptomatic cases is monstrously high and going forward we will be seeing a rapidly shrinking number of cases while the number cured will rise at a rapid pace.
This China Virus is known to be very infectious but also not particularly dangerous except to a very specific group of people and it is those people (elderly with pre existing conditions) who should be counselled to remain at home while the rest of the country should be allowed and encouraged to carry on.
The lib media will continue to spread their panic porn but as we already see it will be ignored and wind up causing the media to lose even more credibility.
[The left has already been trying to portray his handling of the crisis as inept; the last thing we need is for him to adopt any policy that doesn’t continue to curtail the spread of virus.]
Amen. But we cannot address vanity here. Many folks think wearing a face mask makes them Muslim. There are plenty of people with some silly ideas.
[Amen. But we cannot address vanity here.]
Ridiculous. Trump is a 2-term President because Democrats insist on this sublimely self-defeating "next-in-line" nomination paradigm, and that has resulted in not one but two Democrat nominees back-to-back that were cripples, a wonderfully old word that conveys an inability to care for oneself, and still communicates the warning that any 'cripple' is instinctively understood by Americans THAT VOTE, as not just incapable but unworthy of being President of the United States.
My "model" utilized actual case data and the mathematical formula of case growth derived from the case data. The mathematical formula closely matched case growth until April 2. After April 2, the growth of new cases slowed, so the mathematical formula tells me what the cases numbers would look like without the quarantines/lockdowns/etc. The quarantines, etc., were put into place during the last two weeks of March. We see a slowing of the growth of new cases after an incubation period passed.
Covid-19 spread at the rate of each person infected 2.5 others within a period of 9 days. The mathematics of this is pretty straightforward.
You still don’t understand the limits of the math and you still think you are smarter than the virus and all the environmental factors involved. I warned you about extrapolation but you continue to insist you know the outcome of things that never happened or will come to be. 90% off from prediction? Give me a break Karnak. I ain’t no entomologist but I know snake oil when I see it.
You want to continue the lockdown? Be my guest and lock yourself away.
I really think people don't think this one through.
Under age 40, the death rate is a little higher than that of seasonal flu. Looking at Maryland numbers only as a proxy for the worldwide impact of the disease: Between age 40 and 49, one out of every 162 infected people dies. Between age 50 and 59, one out of 60 dies. Then one out of 18 dies in the 60 to 69 age range. , or about 6 times the influenza death rate. One out of eight in the 70-79 age bracket dies, and for 80 and up, one out of 4 dies. Add in all of the people who have preexisting conditions, and you could be talking about imprisoning half or more of the country. And you really think THAT is going to improve the economy?
So, who are you going to sacrifice in order to let entitled millennials indulge themselves as they want? Who are you going to lock up permanently "for their own protection"? What is the effect on the economy of letting such a deadly disease circulate freely?
And so on. Really not a good idea.
So, with everyone getting COVID in Sweden AND with no “Flatten The Curve” to help hospitals ever handle the waves of infected, Sweden can honestly show the world that on a worst case basis, only “0.0004” of any population will die from COVID.
Your assumptions and projections are both terrible.
So, what you are showing me is that Sweden has not eradicated Covid-19 with its lack of quarantine measures. "Everyone" in Sweden has not contracted Covid-19, only 35,088 have as of this morning. That is 0.348% of the population. Even if herd immunity is (theoretically) possible with Covid-19, that is not even close to the number of people who would need immunity in order to establish herd immunity. On the other hand, the Swedish death rate from Covid-19 is unusually high at 12%. That is double the US death rate. And only 14% have recovered, compared to the 23% recovery rate in the US. When I look at the graph of daily cases in Sweden at the Johns Hopkins Covid-19 tracking website, I see that the spread has remained fairly constant through the month of May, in contrast to other countries with similar case numbers, where the spread has been dropping steadily this month.
Most blog writers, especially if they are staff for a news organization, are not scientists and do not know how to access, read, or interpret data. I might see a blog and use it as a guide to do further research within the medical literature, tracking sites, and so forth. But I would never take a blog as an authoritative source without verifying and validating the blogger's assertions. The story of Sweden and Covid-19 is not what the blogosphere has portrayed.
The only thing antibody testing will tell you is how many people have had a coronavirus infection this year. It won't tell you which coronavirus they have had, because the antibodies can't tell the difference. Coronaviruses are responsible for about 1/3 of all colds.
I know that the narrative that Covid-19 spread impossibly fast but most people never had symptoms is popular, but it is not scientific, nor is it a desirable situation. Studies of people who have been tested for actual virus have shown that about 3/4 of those who initially have no symptoms develop them later. And also that about 8% initially test positive without symptoms. These are numbers I want to explore more fully, since this narrative is dangerous for a number of reasons.
Let's imagine that Covid-19 is somehow spreading yet not causing symptoms. That means that you cannot ever assume that anyone you meet is safe to approach. There is nothing to tell you they are sick, and no way to protect yourself. And no way to know if you'll be one of the few who has no or mild symptoms, or be one of those who ends up on life support in the ICU. And asymptomatic does not mean harmless; I just read about a monkey study that showed that the infected monkeys had lung lesions, yet still appeared healthy. There are plenty of diseases that do not cause symptoms yet harm your body. HepC, for example, can cause liver damage and cancer but no one knows they have it until they are tested.
Oh, I remember you now. You're the one who doesn't understand that if something is on a trajectory, it is a simple enough calculation to project where that trajectory is going unless and until something happens to change it.
So, forget it. I'm not wasting my time with you.
“Studies of people who have been tested for actual virus have shown that about 3/4 of those who initially have no symptoms develop them later.”
What “studies”? Show me a link to a credible well known source. And when does “asymptomatic” mean only asymptomatic in the beginning but later show symptoms? A person is either asymptomatic or they are not.
You seem to insist on coming up with different “facts” to suit your preconceived idea about this sham of a “Pandemic.”
You are clearly too close to this issue to be rational. Your home page describes you as conservative, but on this issue you are anything but.
Oh but you can and you can show us all how its done.
Thank you, Thank you very much. Thank you
Good excuse to stay locked down, eh?
Because delusional liberal power hungry nuts rule there. But I’m prejudiced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.