Posted on 04/09/2020 1:31:25 PM PDT by grundle
There was no additional decline after lockdowns were implemented. The whole rationale for lockdowns is to #StopTheSpread better than through social distancing.
Perish the thought that people might look at this elite research team’s findings and ask their elected leaders to justify life-ruining, economy-destroying, health-worsening lockdowns with actual evidence that they #SlowTheSpread by themselves, not just piggybacking on less draconian measures.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecollegefix.com ...
Ought O, Dr. Scarf Lady won’t like these findings.
The “Oxford model” claimed that the UK had already been exposed in December and January, and based on that data concluded that the maximum UK deaths per day would be 250.
The UK blew past that projection last week.
881 UK deaths today.
That model is dead and awaiting burial at an overcrowded London morgue.
What am I missing here? I believe infection rate is defined as New Cases Today divided by Cumulative Total Cases Yesterday.
I use a 7 day moving average to compare the change in this rate. Here are some numbers:
March 7 48.6%
March 15 32.1%
March 23 38.5%
April 1 18.5%
April 8 10.4%
Trump issued his 15 day plan on March 15. The infection rate grew for the next 8 days to 38.5% and has declined daily since that date. A week is about how long it takes to realize you just might have the Coronavirus.
So you can argue that the rate was coming down naturally but arguing that the rate never changed is just nonsense.
And at the 10% rate we are finding 32,000 new cases every day. And that number is slowly increasing. And we are still under the Trump “quarantine”. That rate, which is falling needs to keep falling.
Reminds me of a paper I once had to grade in which the author was arguing that the Death penalty caused more murders.
Completely contrary to common sense.
More like deliberately manipulating the data to come to the conclusion they want.
Okay, But if that's the conclusion they want to come to, then...
Possibilities: These researchers are stupid.
Been saying that their evidence that social distancing is working is “anecdotal”. But I guess that’s the “good anecdotal”, not the bad kind like HCQ.
There you go again with the hyperbola.
I believe that the Wu Flu models are equally inaccurate as the climate change models.
But you have to give the pandemic modelers credit where it is due. They are just beginners and the climate changers have been at this for 50 years.
Go pandemic fraudsters, Go!
A lot of Swedes are staying home with the sickness, and therefore not being counted among the infected.
This is just common sense. Pathogens infect one population the same as it infects another. There is some genetic data out there showing white women and whites in general are less prone to infection, but for the most part, it goes through every population in the same manner.
+1.
Predicting the effect or lack of effect of lock downs or any non medical policy on Covid-19 has more built in error because of the range of time to show symptoms is wider than with the cold or flu. Longitudinal studies have to have a long enough time line to work. There is a risk that is is too early for a study like this to give any meaningful result.
read it. it looks solid. puzzlement for the researcher at the end though. he apparently expected to see a different result. something like implementation of the lockdowns clearly showed additional decreases in the rates.
sadly for him and for us suffering Americans, it was the opposite, the good effects are more likely due to simple, individual social distancing and hygiene measures taken by reasonable American citizens.
Any data model, for any purpose, has to be based on accurate data. In this case, there wasn’t much, although the data from South Korea was probably as close as one could/can get to definitive stats because of mandatory testing of people in infected areas, not just those who were suspected of infection due to related symptoms. As of today:
Total tested: 494,711
Negative: 468,779 (95%)
Positive: 10,423 (2%)
In-progress: 15,509 (3%)
Active: 3,246 (31%)
Recovered: 6973 (67%)
Deaths: 204 (1.95% of positive, .04% of those tested - an approximation of infection rate by percentage; feel free to compare it to the infection rate of the six influenza viruses currently tracked by CDC)
Possibilities:
These researchers are stupid.
-
If you read the article, the researchers themselves say this.
They can’t believe they found all this rigaramole amounted to very little effect. That wasn’t their intention.
My program is : Open up areas that aren’t densely populated. Keep the large metros locked down. This one size fits all is killing us.
Our governor pulled the handle too quickly but he is a Democrat.
I’m not saying that isn’t true, but what proof or evidence do you have to support this? And please, don’t tell me about refrigerated trucks parked outside of hospitals (unless you can show me actual pictures of actual trucks with actual bodies “stacked” inside), and don’t tell me about Mark Levine, who suggested that we might need to temporarily bury corpses in Central Park.
I think the take away is the lockdowns on average came 10 days after social distancing measures were put in place. By then people had already "locked down" and the formal decree didn't have much additional effect.
"The mean daily case growth rate had _already_ been declining at this point. There was no additional decline in mean daily case growth after implementation of statewide restrictions on internal movement ("lockdowns")"
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.