In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak
-
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Total cases - (deaths + recoveries), IOW a case that’s still unresolved.
But with so many asymptomatic people once you identify them by testing at scale you really aren’t for sure accurately measuring growth right? It seems so obvious to me so I feel like I must be still missing something.
-
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Our case count is affected by testing capacity, yes. That’s always been the case.
I am honestly trying to understand your logic. How do you account for deaths declining?
-
What particular logic. Tell me the thought you attribute to me that you would like me to defend.
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
What particular logic. Tell me the thought you attribute to me that you would like me to defend.
You keep showing growing case counts. I keep asking you what does it mean? I tried to ask you what growth in testing and declining deaths mean as a way of asking what your growing case count means.
-
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
-
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
Got it. Yes when we open up R will increase. I have yet to see R versus economic impact (broad definition of economic impact). Keeping us in lockdown makes sense if waiting helps but waiting for how long and for what? Let’s make some assumptions about what might come along and put it in that model to see what is the optimal strategy for opening vs lockdown. Lockdown is certain death if it doesn’t end.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
Got it. Yes when we open up R will increase. I have yet to see R versus economic impact (broad definition of economic impact). Keeping us in lockdown makes sense if waiting helps but waiting for how long and for what? Let’s make some assumptions about what might come along and put it in that model to see what is the optimal strategy for opening vs lockdown. Lockdown is certain death if it doesn’t end.
@Loki said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Keeping us in lockdown makes sense if waiting helps but waiting for how long and for what? Let’s make some assumptions about what might come along and put it in that model to see what is the optimal strategy for opening vs lockdown. Lockdown is certain death if it doesn’t end.
Our state has a very clear plan for this—we have been told many times since about 10 days ago exactly how and when the lockdown is going to be phased out. Most states that are in the midst of rising cases either have a similar plan, or are actively developing one in conjunction with the NGA. "There's no plan to reopen, we can't keep doing this forever" is a very weak argument at this point.
-
-
@Loki said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Keeping us in lockdown makes sense if waiting helps but waiting for how long and for what? Let’s make some assumptions about what might come along and put it in that model to see what is the optimal strategy for opening vs lockdown. Lockdown is certain death if it doesn’t end.
Our state has a very clear plan for this—we have been told many times since about 10 days ago exactly how and when the lockdown is going to be phased out. Most states that are in the midst of rising cases either have a similar plan, or are actively developing one in conjunction with the NGA. "There's no plan to reopen, we can't keep doing this forever" is a very weak argument at this point.
@Aqua-Letifer said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Loki said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Keeping us in lockdown makes sense if waiting helps but waiting for how long and for what? Let’s make some assumptions about what might come along and put it in that model to see what is the optimal strategy for opening vs lockdown. Lockdown is certain death if it doesn’t end.
Our state has a very clear plan for this—we have been told many times since about 10 days ago exactly how and when the lockdown is going to be phased out. Most states that are in the midst of rising cases either have a similar plan, or are actively developing one in conjunction with the NGA. "There's no plan to reopen, we can't keep doing this forever" is a very weak argument at this point.
Okay so we start back up spreading from a lower base of active cases, what does twhat really get us- longer ramp up to catastrophe again? Or do you think having less cases means it won’t spread?
And the latest news is the anti viral is not so effective and Covid spreads even by merely talking and summer makes no diff...
-
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Education is extremely important.
-
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Loki said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Keeping us in lockdown makes sense if waiting helps but waiting for how long and for what? Let’s make some assumptions about what might come along and put it in that model to see what is the optimal strategy for opening vs lockdown. Lockdown is certain death if it doesn’t end.
Our state has a very clear plan for this—we have been told many times since about 10 days ago exactly how and when the lockdown is going to be phased out. Most states that are in the midst of rising cases either have a similar plan, or are actively developing one in conjunction with the NGA. "There's no plan to reopen, we can't keep doing this forever" is a very weak argument at this point.
Okay so we start back up spreading from a lower base of active cases, what does twhat really get us- longer ramp up to catastrophe again? Or do you think having less cases means it won’t spread?
And the latest news is the anti viral is not so effective and Covid spreads even by merely talking and summer makes no diff...
@Loki said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Aqua-Letifer said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Loki said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Keeping us in lockdown makes sense if waiting helps but waiting for how long and for what? Let’s make some assumptions about what might come along and put it in that model to see what is the optimal strategy for opening vs lockdown. Lockdown is certain death if it doesn’t end.
Our state has a very clear plan for this—we have been told many times since about 10 days ago exactly how and when the lockdown is going to be phased out. Most states that are in the midst of rising cases either have a similar plan, or are actively developing one in conjunction with the NGA. "There's no plan to reopen, we can't keep doing this forever" is a very weak argument at this point.
Okay so we start back up spreading from a lower base of active cases, what does twhat really get us- longer ramp up to catastrophe again? Or do you think having less cases means it won’t spread?
And the latest news is the anti viral is not so effective and Covid spreads even by merely talking and summer makes no diff...
Adequate hospital capacity drastically reduces the mortality rate. That's why the entire reopening plan in this state centers on waiting until the inevitable influx of cases doesn't overwhelm hospitals, and getting serious safety measures in place so that the acceleration of cases doesn't screw us. Once hospitals hit capacity again, they're going to tighten back up.
No that's not a perfect solution but this is a state plan to combat a global pandemic, with an emphasis on saving lives. If you think the plan is crap, write to the governor's office. I'm sure after hearing so they'll turn the ship right around.
-
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
@Horace said
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Indeed.
It's time to cut the BS.
This virus isn't going away soon. It's rather unlikely that there'll be a vaccine soon. It doesn't matter much whether the "R value" is 1.5 or 0.5. That shouldn't even be a target of the policy. The policy should be "What is the best we can do with measures we can sustain for years without everyone ending up in the psych ward and the economy in the stone age?". Every measure that isn't sustainable but is only effective if it would be sustained indefinitely is hurting, not helping.
Over here, everything's on the path to being re-opened. I predict that infections will rise again, but the lockdown will still not be re-instantiated, regardless of what the politicians say now. Reality will kick in.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
I can repeat my logic from above, but yesterday I was just sharing data.
My logic from above:
-
our shutdown measures were insufficient to get the reproductive rate down below 1. That was based on data from Wuhan and Europe.
-
a sharp drop in R but to a level greater than 1 will only lead to a temporary decline in cases/deaths, then they start rising inexorably from a new, lower base.
-
the temporary decline will be interpreted as victory and will lead to a loosening of mitigation measures, which then increases the reproductive rate even more.
That was my logic above. Unfortunately it seems to be playing out.
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
@Horace said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Temporary is a feature and if you get substantially below 1 there's no need to sustain because new cases will be manageable through contact tracing.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
-
@Horace said
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Indeed.
It's time to cut the BS.
This virus isn't going away soon. It's rather unlikely that there'll be a vaccine soon. It doesn't matter much whether the "R value" is 1.5 or 0.5. That shouldn't even be a target of the policy. The policy should be "What is the best we can do with measures we can sustain for years without everyone ending up in the psych ward and the economy in the stone age?". Every measure that isn't sustainable but is only effective if it would be sustained indefinitely is hurting, not helping.
Over here, everything's on the path to being re-opened. I predict that infections will rise again, but the lockdown will still not be re-instantiated, regardless of what the politicians say now. Reality will kick in.
@Klaus said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Horace said
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Indeed.
It's time to cut the BS.
This virus isn't going away soon. It's rather unlikely that there'll be a vaccine soon. It doesn't matter much whether the "R value" is 1.5 or 0.5. That shouldn't even be a target of the policy. The policy should be "What is the best we can do with measures we can sustain for years without everyone ending up in the psych ward and the economy in the stone age?". Every measure that isn't sustainable but is only effective if it would be sustained indefinitely is hurting, not helping.
Over here, everything's on the path to being re-opened. I predict that infections will rise again, but the lockdown will still not be re-instantiated, regardless of what the politicians say now. Reality will kick in.
So you're in favor of basically nothing, then?
-
@Klaus said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Horace said
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Indeed.
It's time to cut the BS.
This virus isn't going away soon. It's rather unlikely that there'll be a vaccine soon. It doesn't matter much whether the "R value" is 1.5 or 0.5. That shouldn't even be a target of the policy. The policy should be "What is the best we can do with measures we can sustain for years without everyone ending up in the psych ward and the economy in the stone age?". Every measure that isn't sustainable but is only effective if it would be sustained indefinitely is hurting, not helping.
Over here, everything's on the path to being re-opened. I predict that infections will rise again, but the lockdown will still not be re-instantiated, regardless of what the politicians say now. Reality will kick in.
So you're in favor of basically nothing, then?
@Aqua-Letifer said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Klaus said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Horace said
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Indeed.
It's time to cut the BS.
This virus isn't going away soon. It's rather unlikely that there'll be a vaccine soon. It doesn't matter much whether the "R value" is 1.5 or 0.5. That shouldn't even be a target of the policy. The policy should be "What is the best we can do with measures we can sustain for years without everyone ending up in the psych ward and the economy in the stone age?". Every measure that isn't sustainable but is only effective if it would be sustained indefinitely is hurting, not helping.
Over here, everything's on the path to being re-opened. I predict that infections will rise again, but the lockdown will still not be re-instantiated, regardless of what the politicians say now. Reality will kick in.
So you're in favor of basically nothing, then?
No. I'm in favor of "What is the best we can do with measures we can sustain for years without everyone ending up in the psych ward and the economy in the stone age?". I said that pretty unambigously a few lines above, hence I have no idea why you choose to misrepresent what I said.
-
@Horace said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Getting below 1 is a meaningless threshold when you employ temporary and unsustainable measures to get there.
Temporary is a feature and if you get substantially below 1 there's no need to sustain because new cases will be manageable through contact tracing.
@jon-nyc said in [In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak]> > > >
Temporary is a feature and if you get substantially below 1 there's no need to sustain because new cases will be manageable through contact tracing.
Wuhan supposedly got their R down to about 0.3. At that number you could go from 10k new cases a day down to under 100 in just 4 weeks. We've been locked down for about 6 weeks now.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
