We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while
-
@Loki said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
@Mik said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
Thanks. That is part of what I was looking for. I had already found 4%, but thought that was inexact. Now what I am looking for is how the percentage of serious cases in my age range. Still, while we have opened up a bit, we're being far more careful than most.
I think a lot of people are being more careful than what we believe from seeing pictures.
Not here, and anyone who implies otherwise is so completely full of shit they're walking fertilizer.
I drove around Annapolis over the weekend. There were thousands of people walking around the docks. Thousands and thousands. Both Main and West streets were closed to car traffic and absolutely packed with people.
I made three passes with my car and counted 12 people among the crowd wearing masks. Fucking 12.
Let me know if you want to see pictures.
-
It's not just old people and the course of the disease can be awful. 41 year old Broadway actor.
Eight weeks in a medically induced coma and a leg amputation. -
Yeah I saw that. Obviously an outlier but what a hellish one.
He left behind a one year old.
-
@Mik said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
It's not just old people and the course of the disease can be awful. 41 year old Broadway actor.
Eight weeks in a medically induced coma and a leg amputation.I'm not going to pay attention to that because I really like the idea that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Instead, I'm going to find studies that support my worldview and share those.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
@Mik said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
It's not just old people and the course of the disease can be awful. 41 year old Broadway actor.
Eight weeks in a medically induced coma and a leg amputation.I'm not going to pay attention to that because I really like the idea that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Instead, I'm going to find studies that support my worldview and share those.
You can’t make policy on an outlier. The odds of dying of so many other things are much greater. You do like to pick this fight but you seem to suggest that people are biased when the data says great than 99.8% and probably 99.9% chance this won’t happen.
What kind of bias is that.
-
@Loki said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
@Aqua-Letifer said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
@Mik said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
It's not just old people and the course of the disease can be awful. 41 year old Broadway actor.
Eight weeks in a medically induced coma and a leg amputation.I'm not going to pay attention to that because I really like the idea that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Instead, I'm going to find studies that support my worldview and share those.
You can’t make policy on an outlier. The odds of dying of so many other things are much greater. You do like to pick this fight but you seem to suggest that people are biased when the data says great than 99.8% and probably 99.9% chance this won’t happen.
What kind of bias is that.
Incredible bias. On your part. Because if I asked you to summarize for me what I personally think policies should be God only knows what you'd say. I doubt you have any idea what my opinions on policy are. As to your own, it's obvious you're cherry-picking based on what you like to hear and your confusion about CFR and IFR suggests a fuzzy understanding of the facts at hand, let alone the conclusions that could be drawn from them.
I'll give you an example:
The odds of dying of so many other things are much greater.
You don't seem to understand that unlike getting hit by a bus, having a stroke, getting shot and killed in a bad part of town and every other way you could die in America, death rates due to COVID-19 can and do grow exponentially when social restrictions aren't implemented. This has already been pointed out here many times in the past couple of months.
The risk of dying from COVID-19 is not linear over time, so I don't know why you continue to insist that it is. For about the third time now:
-
My bias is that the world has to open up and people need to wear masks to mitigate deaths. People will die and it could be me.
Shelter in home is not an option for employment, education or living one’s life. Full stop.
-
@Loki said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
My bias is that the world has to open up and people need to wear masks to mitigate deaths. People will die and it could be me.
Sounds like a sound plan to me.
Shelter in home is not an option for employment, education or living one’s life. Full stop.
That's exactly what I've been doing for months now, so I don't know how else to illustrate how wrong that is. Sure not everyone in America can work remotely, but obviously it's a viable option for the millions who are currently doing so, and have been doing so for the past quarter.
Same thing about education. Remote learning has already become the norm for many in grade school and college, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that it's impossible.
As for living one's life, we're all deciding on accepting the level of personal risk we're comfortable with.
-
@jon-nyc said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
@George None of those would explain the graph.
It's not sufficient for the death rate to have lowered. It must continuously fall at a perfect rate to offset the growth of cases.
Finally found the source for what I was talking about. Not saying I agree, just saying this is what some people think:
SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – As coronavirus cases continue to increase across the United States, health officials and Democrat politicians seem to be using that statistic to fear monger and justify closure orders.
Dr. Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institute, discussed why we don’t need to be scared of the increase spread of coronavirus on Good Morning San Diego with KUSI’s Paul Rudy.
Atlas said that he has done a superficial analysis of the numbers, and after analyzing them, he doesn’t get scared.
Explaining, “When you look all over at the states who are seeing a lot of new cases, you have to look at who is getting infected because we should know by now, that the goal is not to eliminate all cases, that’s not rational, it’s not necessary, if we just protect the people who are going to have serious complications. We look at the cases, yes there’s a lot more cases, by the way they do not correlate in a time sense to any kind of reopening of states. If you look at the timing, that’s just a misstatement, a false narrative. The reality is they may correlate to the new protests and massive demonstrations, but it’s safe to say the majority of new cases are among younger, healthier people.”
Furthermore, Dr. Atlas emphasized the fact that the death rates are not going up, despite the increase in cases. “And that’s what really counts, are we getting people who are really sick and dying, and we’re not, and when we look at the hospitalizations, yes, hospitals are more crowded, but that’s mainly due to the re-installation of medical care for non COVID-19 patients.”
Dr. Atlas used Texas of an example saying, “90+% of ICU beds are occupied, but only 15% are COVID patients. 85% of the occupied beds are not COVID patients. I think we have to look at the data and be aware that it doesn’t matter if younger, healthier people get infected, I don’t know how often that has to be said, they have nearly zero risk of a problem from this. The only thing that counts are the older, more vulnerable people getting infected. And there’s no evidence that they really are.”
Dr. Atlas then pointed out the hospitalization length of stay is about half of what it once was.
-
@jon-nyc said in We haven't beat on the IHME model in a while:
THey are not predicting a significant increase in the death rate even as the new case rate is doubling every 14 days.
Seems rather optimistic.
In the event, their optimism was unfounded. Daily deaths now are about double the maximum number they predicted.
