High Sierra Topix

The 2 million deaths were based on the assumption that only 50% of the population would actually obey the stay at home order. The government initially made this assumption because nobody had any idea if people would follow the rules. The actual fraction is about 90% of people are obeying, so a much lower actual death count.

caddis wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:19 am I'm no longer convinced this virus is as lethal as we were lead to believe. When models go from 2 million deaths to 60,000 it makes you wonder who the experts are

Cars just aren't as deadly as they lead us to believe. I just don't think we should have to pay for seatbelts and airbags when cars aren't nearly as deadly as the so-called experts warned us.

TurboHike wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:58 am The 2 million deaths were based on the assumption that only 50% of the population would actually obey the stay at home order.

This can't be correct. Stay at home delays the impact it doesn't prevent it.

You basically have two curves...a steep one and a stretched out one. The area under both curves (total deaths) is the same.

I more reasonable explanation is that all of their assumptions were off by a magnitude + I understand that all models are wrong because they are extrapolations but good models are supposed to be useful. As I see it, these models were only useful in stoking a fear pandemic which has caused more long term harm than the Wuhan pandemic

rayfound wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:52 pm

caddis wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:19 am I'm no longer convinced this virus is as lethal as we were lead to believe. When models go from 2 million deaths to 60,000 it makes you wonder who the experts are

Cars just aren't as deadly as they lead us to believe. I just don't think we should have to pay for seatbelts and airbags when cars aren't nearly as deadly as the so-called experts warned us.

wut?

I guess this was an analogy.
Do we shut down all highways because 40,000 people will die on them?

If you don't feel safe in your car than take the damn bus, don't tell the rest of the world they can't drive

caddis wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:59 pm

TurboHike wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:58 am The 2 million deaths were based on the assumption that only 50% of the population would actually obey the stay at home order.

This can't be correct. Stay at home delays the impact it doesn't prevent it.

You basically have two curves...a steep one and a stretched out one. The area under both curves (total deaths) is the same.

I more reasonable explanation is that all of their assumptions were off by a magnitude + I understand that all models are wrong because they are extrapolations but good models are supposed to be useful. As I see it, these models were only useful in stoking a fear pandemic which has caused more long term harm than the Wuhan pandemic

The IHME model is projecting only through August 4th. I believe the numbers where we saw like, 2,000,000 were based on an unconstrained spread with no mitigation (social distancing) protocols.

That said, I find their modeling of the post-peak tail somewhat problematic on being optimistic - which has been borne out some as the last couple weeks have seen its deathtoll estimates increase from a low of about 58,000(a number we've now eclipsed), to now over 74,000.


Now, the thing is: modeling is an exploration of "What will happen if"... if we do nothing, let the virus run away until it reaches natural herd immunity (assuming it works), at roughly 60% of the population:

328,000,000*.60*.01= 1,968,000 deaths (That's with 1% IFR, which I think is about the midpoint of the credible range 0.5%-1.5%)


"The area-under-curve is the same" - assuming no interventions this is true! I think you're confusing short term and medium/long term goals.

In the short term, flattening the curve primarily works to prevent overrun of resources, but if we get it right, we can push disease transmission down to a level where we can go back to "containment" - where we track and extinguish localized clusters. If we maintain some mitigation efforts (masks, travel reductions, large gatherings limitations), we can ramp up other normal activities without re-starting a runaway outbreak.

caddis wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:59 pm

TurboHike wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:58 am The 2 million deaths were based on the assumption that only 50% of the population would actually obey the stay at home order.

This can't be correct. Stay at home delays the impact it doesn't prevent it.

You basically have two curves...a steep one and a stretched out one. The area under both curves (total deaths) is the same.

I more reasonable explanation is that all of their assumptions were off by a magnitude + I understand that all models are wrong because they are extrapolations but good models are supposed to be useful. As I see it, these models were only useful in stoking a fear pandemic which has caused more long term harm than the Wuhan pandemic

Staying at home does prevent it, it gives sick people time to get well so they do not spread the virus. That's the whole point of what we are now doing.

TurboHike wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:49 pm Staying at home does prevent it, it gives sick people time to get well so they do not spread the virus. That's the whole point of what we are now doing.

You're talking about quarantining the sick. That's sound science. The problem is, we have quarantined the healthy

rayfound wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:44 pm "The area-under-curve is the same" - assuming no interventions this is true! I think you're confusing short term and medium/long term goals.

Again, this also can't be correct. 1) flattening the curve implies interventions. Why would one assume no interventions? 2) We were told that flattening the curve was a delay tactic to relieve our health resources. we were never told it was a method to end the pandemic.

Someone is lying. Either on the front end of this or the back end

rayfound wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:44 pmIn the short term, flattening the curve primarily works to prevent overrun of resources, but if we get it right, we can push disease transmission down to a level where we can go back to "containment"

How so? We aren't locking down all of society. and all of society is still interacting at certain choke points (i.e. every "essential" business)

If you ask me, one would think walmart and costco employers should all be sick or dying by now. Strange how they can come in contact with the general public all day yet but going to the beach is going to reverse our gains

I am glad that some states are opening up earlier and more robustly while others are being more conservative. It is good test if what we are doing is really making much difference.

But, each state, each county and each neighborhood is different. It is quite easy to 6-foot-distance in my neighborhood and still get outdoors several hours every day. Others, not so. "Going to the beach" is a pretty general statement; could be 10 people spread out on a beach on the Lost Coast, or a mob sitting side-by-side at popular beaches adjacent to urbanization.

I too am frustrated at the "one size fits all" approach. I can legally go to the store every day, or twice a day, but cannot take my totally self-contained trailer once a month to a State Park with sufficiently spread out campsites. I rarely meet more than a handful of backpackers at Henry Coe State Park and I do not stop anywhere on my way there or back. Easy to step off the trial or cross the road if I pass anyone. Yet I cannot go there because it is closed.

There was a statement from some French leader today, saying now that we have flattened the curve, we need to get on with learning how to live with the virus in a less disruptive way, which eventually will include a vaccine.

c9h13no3 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:11 pm

rayfound wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:01 pm I'm optimistic that there is a pathway to achieve this.

I'm with you on this, but I don't think our politicians want to put their butts on the line to implement it. Hospitals have had excess capacity in California for a while, but we're still giving tickets to people on the beach.

I'd say there is a difference in transmission risk between crowds of people on a public beach, like we saw in So Cal, and solo or small group hiking in the wilderness. However, earlier this week, we saw a prime example of why they just have to totally shut down outdoor spaces; people can't be counted on to behave sensibly to prevent the spread of the virus. I railed against it initialy because it affected me negatively, and I knew a lot of the restrictions were unnnecessary. However, several weeks of seeing the behavior of people around me, I understand the "over reaction" now. I still don't like it, but I understand it.