In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:

No, if the models don’t hold up they’ll learn from that and adjust them. Try looking at this through a lens of science instead of politics. Turn the TV off if necessary.

Jon, try considering this. IMHE uses actual deaths as the basis of the model and not cases which are way underreported.

But this is your thread and you have set the goal posts and are apparently calling the shots at the skeptics. Should be fun.

[jon-nyc]

I’m not ‘calling the shots’ I’m thinking out loud.

Why is all of this a ‘who’s up, who's down’ question for you? Don’t you have any native curiosity in the underlying topic?

[jon-nyc]

The testing lag is a good point.

But other countries‘ data should also lag, no?

Taiwan and SK had about a 10-14 day gap from peak new cases to peak active cases, testing lags and all. Why wouldn’t we see that in our data?

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:

I’m not ‘calling the shots’ I’m thinking out loud.

Why is all of this a ‘who’s up, who's down’ question for you? Don’t you have any native curiosity in the underlying topic?

Ok

[Loki]

Jon. Are you looking at the R(0) data by country, trended.

Also have you looked at it by state?

I can show you where to find that if it will help.

[jon-nyc]

Please do!

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:

Please do!

https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/

The second chart.

[jon-nyc]

No R0 estimates there.

[Mik]

The trend is still up pretty much everywhere.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:

No R0 estimates there.

Sorry, I thought you were looking for cases by state, not R0.

[Loki]

@George-K said in 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:

No R0 estimates there.

Sorry, I thought you were looking for cases by state, not R0.

I continue to look for the native source for R(0) estimates and can’t find but they are out there by country and state and being used in many models. Check out Quartz I think their recent article might get you there.

[Loki]

As of April 6 the effective reproduction number for the US was 1.16 and 1.1 for NY

On March 19 it was 2.33 and 3.76 respectively

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc “experts may be wrong, but usually not in a manner that’s obvious to the layman”

But that’s exactly what happened with the IMHE Models. I’ve pointed out multiple issues for over a week, and the actual numbers have supported my case so far, and they still haven’t adjusted for properly. Here are a few:

1. Population Density (take NYC out of the equation)

2. Public transportation vs private cars... NY became the epicenter it did because of the trains and subway.

3. Timing of the outbreak. We will cover this more seriously latet

[jon-nyc]

I want to clarify something that might not have been clear from my earlier post.

If the effective R after social distancing measures is still greater than 1, we will see a decrease in the number of daily cases and active cases but it will only be temporary. Both new cases and active cases will decrease during the time the effective R is decreasing, but then will continue to grow indefinitely from the new, lower base.

I've attached here a stylized example. This shows R0 = 3.5 up through time interval 12, then it decreases to 1.5 over time intervals, then stays at 1.5 indefinitely. Don't worry about the actual case count, I just started with a random number. It's the trendiness that are important. Note that both new and active cases take a dive, then begin climbing again.

If our lockdown measures result in an R0 > 1, this will in fact happen to us, as sure as night follows day.

What's worse, is people will see that initial decrease and assume we're out of the woods. At that point people will begin to take lockdown less seriously, lobby hard for things to open again, etc. So the new R0 won't even stay at its 1.5 level very long before rising again.

I think odds are high that this is going to be our situation.

[jon-nyc]

I’m officially doubling down on this.

Not only are we not below 1 now, but we aren’t going to go there any time soon.

In fact we’ll go the other way. People will think we beat this and start to relax.

When we look back from, say, the end of the year, we will not see April as the month with the most cases or the most deaths.

[Aqua Letifer]

So what would be a good month to just drop everything and kill thousands in ritual economic sacrifice? Those Temple of Doom guys have a pretty good model if you wanna do it with flair, I guess.

[Loki]

Today the effective reproductive number for the US is 1.07 and for NY it is 1.08. Today or tomorrow NY peaks. The entire country is forecasted need 1/2 of the ventilators Cuomo direly called for a week ago. That’s where we are now. Very different picture than the media had us believe not long ago.

What period are we doubling down on?

[Mik]

Those R rates are with the whole nation effectively shut down. And it still points to growth, not reduction. Going back to normal isn't going to help that.

[jon-nyc]

1.07 doesn’t do the job, and we’re only going up from there.

[jon-nyc]

IOW, what Mik said. lol