In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak
-
@Mik said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Still, Jolly - it would be a really, really bad move to fire him. It would give more ammunition to those who say he doesn't listen to the scientists and would shake up an already scared population. This is a situation where a steady hand is needed, not management by chaos.
He's not going to fire him, but I think you'll see Fauci backtrack at today's briefing.
wrote on 14 Apr 2020, 12:32 last edited by@Jolly said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@Mik said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Still, Jolly - it would be a really, really bad move to fire him. It would give more ammunition to those who say he doesn't listen to the scientists and would shake up an already scared population. This is a situation where a steady hand is needed, not management by chaos.
He's not going to fire him, but I think you'll see Fauci backtrack at today's briefing.
Correctamundo, brother.
-
wrote on 14 Apr 2020, 14:22 last edited by
This sums it up:
Paula Reid, CBS. (To Fauci). Are you doing this voluntarily or did the President.—
F.auci: no, I am doing it—everything I do is voluntarily. Please don’t even imply that.
-
wrote on 14 Apr 2020, 14:24 last edited by Mik
What a stupid question to ask. Just trying to get him to say something clickbait..
-
wrote on 14 Apr 2020, 14:49 last edited by Aqua Letifer
@Mik said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
What a stupid question to ask. Just trying to get him to say something clickbait..
That's been the game for the past month.
It's like there are two tiers of journalism, otften within the same publication: the job of the political reporters is to gin up clickbait to rake in ridiculously diminishing ad returns (although with everyone being home, ad reach has been artificially inflated, no doubt giving the ad sales guys a false sense of security and justification), and then the content reporters investigate every potentially plausible theory they come across.
Neither are really all that great, but long story short, political coverage is clickbait and outrage pr0n masquerading as public interest.
-
wrote on 14 Apr 2020, 20:08 last edited by
@Mik said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Just trying to get him to say something clickbait..
He loves clickbait, he loves the attention and the TV ratings, and he seems naturally prolific at generating material for click bait.
-
wrote on 1 May 2020, 18:16 last edited by
Active cases in the US did not peak in April.
-
wrote on 1 May 2020, 18:18 last edited by
Here’s an interesting way of looking at the data. Proportion of cases that have resolved.
Seems to me we’re on track to exceed 100k deaths by summer.
-
wrote on 1 May 2020, 18:20 last edited by
What are the sources for those data, Jon?
-
wrote on 1 May 2020, 19:53 last edited by jon-nyc 5 Jan 2020, 19:54
The top one I cut from worldometers directly. The bottom one is from Branco Milanovic citing worldometers data.
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 11:49 last edited by Loki 5 Feb 2020, 11:50
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Active cases in the US did not peak in April.
What is an active case? Someone who tested positive? More tests= more cases? What am I missing?
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 15:30 last edited by jon-nyc 5 Feb 2020, 15:30
Total cases - (deaths + recoveries), IOW a case that’s still unresolved.
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 15:57 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 16:41 last edited by
Our case count is affected by testing capacity, yes. That’s always been the case.
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 16:43 last edited by
We’ve never ‘for sure’ been accurately measuring growth. That’s why the more serious attempts at estimating R do so with probabilities and confidence intervals, not simple ratios of case counts over time.
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 16:49 last edited by
@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?
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 16:50 last edited by
What particular logic. Tell me the thought you attribute to me that you would like me to defend.
-
What particular logic. Tell me the thought you attribute to me that you would like me to defend.
wrote on 2 May 2020, 16:55 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 2 May 2020, 17:01 last edited by jon-nyc 5 Feb 2020, 17:02
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.
wrote on 2 May 2020, 17:08 last edited by@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.
wrote on 2 May 2020, 17:14 last edited by@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.
-
