Beer Virus V

[Phase2]

Did you read the study yourself?

I did my usual (I'm not a medical nerd)- I read the full linked article, the first section of the study (up to the conclusion) and confirmed the chart showing more infection cases among those going through the mask protocol. I also skimmed the linked AEIR article which confirmed the idea. Is there anything in there that contradicts the point?

 

[HoughMade]

Did you read the study yourself?

I did. I don't know how the conclusion claimed in the clearly objective blog can be gleaned from the study.

 

[Phase2]

So Dusty88 and Hough. Did either of you read the link from the clearly objective blog for the American Institute of Economic Research?

 

[HoughMade]

So Dusty88 and Hough. Did either of you read the link from the clearly objective blog for the American Institute of Economic Research?

The study reported in the NEJM did not study mask vs. non-mask. Further, it simply tested the rate of transmission. Everyone was living under the same conditions with masks and separation whether they were a study participant or not.

 

[Phase2]

The study reported in the NEJM did not study mask vs. non-mask. Further, it tested quarantine at home versus social distancing and relative isolation on a campus.

From the study:

We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infections among U.S. Marine Corps recruits who underwent a 2-week quarantine at home followed by a second supervised 2-week quarantine at a closed college campus that involved mask wearing, social distancing, and daily temperature and symptom monitoring.

The stats are from the second 2 week period. If you look at the flow chart in the study, you'll see where the 51 positive tests are identified. If I'm missing something, please clarify.

 

[HoughMade]

From the study:


The stats are from the second 2 week period. If you look at the flow chart in the study, you'll see where the 51 positive tests are identified. If I'm missing something, please clarify.

ALL of the recruits were under the same preventative measures including masks. There was no A vs. B comparison. All we know is that it spread. There is no analysis of whether it was faster, slower, or the same as circumstances with none of those measures. That was not the purpose.

More straight-forward discussion of the study:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...read-among-marine-recruits-despite-quarantine

I suppose the purpose of the study was to see if spread can be contained 100%. It could not and this is no surprise. I doubt the study has any wider application at all to less controlled environments beyond the conclusion that more regular testing rather than simply waiting for symptoms is the only way to get infectious people out of the pool sooner.

I get the notion that unless some measure is proven to absolute certainty to be 100% effective in stopping transmission, there are those who will report it as "it doesn't work". That's not the way the world works.

 

[BugI02]

ALL of the recruits were under the same preventative measures including masks. There was no A vs. B comparison. All we know is that it spread. There is no analysis of whether it was faster, slower, or the same as circumstances with none of those measures. That was not the purpose.

More straight-forward discussion of the study:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...read-among-marine-recruits-despite-quarantine

I suppose the purpose of the study was to see if spread can be contained 100%. It could not and this is no surprise. I doubt the study has any wider application at all to less controlled environments beyond the conclusion that more regular testing rather than simply waiting for symptoms is the only way to get infectious people out of the pool sooner.

I get the notion that unless some measure is proven to absolute certainty to be 100% effective in stopping transmission, there are those who will report it as "it doesn't work". That's not the way the world works.

Does this mean we can finally stop having Japan held up as an example of why we should mask up? Asking for a friend

 

[drillsgt]

ALL of the recruits were under the same preventative measures including masks. There was no A vs. B comparison. All we know is that it spread. There is no analysis of whether it was faster, slower, or the same as circumstances with none of those measures. That was not the purpose.

More straight-forward discussion of the study:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...read-among-marine-recruits-despite-quarantine

I suppose the purpose of the study was to see if spread can be contained 100%. It could not and this is no surprise. I doubt the study has any wider application at all to less controlled environments beyond the conclusion that more regular testing rather than simply waiting for symptoms is the only way to get infectious people out of the pool sooner.

I get the notion that unless some measure is proven to absolute certainty to be 100% effective in stopping transmission, there are those who will report it as "it doesn't work". That's not the way the world works.

I would argue that their mitigation strategy was actually pretty successful with such low numbers of infections. However the generalizability of this is to anything beyond this strict training environment is pretty low, in other words it doesn't have much real world application.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Now do the part where you prove the lockdowns in some way do anything to halt the spread of the disease rather than simply delay it. Going by todays worldometers data, and adding serious cases in with deaths, I calculate 'case fatality plus hospitalization rate' of ~0.0237 and a probability of a test being positive (total cases/total tests) of ~0.0678. The product of the two numbers would be an approximation of an individuals chances of a serious case or death based at least on constantly updating numbers, and that number is 0.0016 - 1.6 in 1000

For that we brought a healthy economy to the brink one time, and people with little skin in the game want to do so again. Please point out where the phased level system you approve of has a variable for or in any way takes into account economic harm and/or considers the level of that in relation to cases. The entire construct is driven solely by case numbers and ostensibly designed to minimize only that variable

The point would be to quantify how many economic lives per hundred are destroyed in order to prevent those 2.37 lives per hundred from being lost. Without even considering how many of those 2.37 would be lost to some other stressor like influenza or pneumonia or heart disease because of pre-existing morbidities, don't you think we should have the conversation about what level of economic damage is acceptable? 5 to 1 lives destroyed for lives saved? 10 to 1?

That is the point I wished to make, re-opening level is kept as a dependent variable of CFR and IFR. In such a scheme, how would you derive a solution that optimizes both simultaneously

TLDR except the highlighted part... so now do the part where you prove that if everyone gets this at the same time, the mortality rate doesn't drastically skyrocket when the seriously ill cannot get into the hospital for even oxygen therapy, let allow ICU care.

Wait, I did catch that you returned to the phased opening/closing:

That is the point I wished to make, re-opening level is kept as a dependent variable of CFR and IFR. In such a scheme, how would you derive a solution that optimizes both simultaneously​

I get what you are shooting for, unfortunately it's an un-possible feedback control loop... "fatalities" occur 6-8 weeks into the future after the infections you are attempting to control in the here and now.

For example, 5541 new cases yesterday... what is the CFR/IFR for those 5541 people? I would say we do not know until they either recover or the illness proves fatal, which we will not know with any precision until 6-8 weeks from now.​

 

[jamil]

TLDR except the highlighted part... so now do the part where you prove that if everyone gets this at the same time, the mortality rate doesn't drastically skyrocket when the seriously ill cannot get into the hospital for even oxygen therapy, let allow ICU care.

Wait, I did catch that you returned to the phased opening/closing:



[/COLOR]I get what you are shooting for, unfortunately it's an un-possible feedback control loop... "fatalities" occur 6-8 weeks into the future after the infections you are attempting to control in the here and now.

For example, 5541 new cases yesterday... what is the CFR/IFR for those 5541 people? I would say we do not know until they either recover or the illness proves fatal, which we will not know with any precision until 6-8 weeks from now.[/INDENT]

Do you support government mandating another shutdown?

 

[foszoe]

Do you support government mandating another shutdown?

I don't recall seeing any member advocating mandated shutdowns

 

[jamil]

I don't recall seeing any member advocating mandated shutdowns

I’m just asking.

 

[BugI02]

Again, using worldometers data because it is convenient, this time using the Total Active Cases interactive graph for the US as well as the Total Deaths interactive graph

I get the argument you want to make, but the predicted spike is always in the future and never shows up

The Total Deaths graph is highly linear from ~5/23 when it is ~100K to 11/13 when it is ~250k. The slope of that line is 150k/174days = 862 deaths per day

The Total Active cases has three portions within the above range that can be characterized as linear. From 6/22 to 8/3 when it rises steadily from 1.25m to 2.3m for a slope of 25kcases/day. From 8/29 to 10/8 when it is flat at 2.6m for a slope of effectively 0cases/day, and from 11/3 to 11/16 (end of current data) when cases increase from 3.2m to 4.27m for a slope of 82k per day

Throughout all three of those intervals, the rate of increase in death has remained constant and only one of them is outside of your 4 to 6 week latency. So I'm wondering why neither an interval embodying a significant increase in cases nor a period of near zero increase in cases resulted in a detectable change in the slope of that Total Deaths line. If your postulated direct relationship of cases to deaths was correct, one would expect a steepening of the total death lines slope when cases were rising and a flattening of the slope when cases were flat

Nary a wiggle shows up, suggesting that no amount of lag will lead to the spike in death rates that you predict in the current increase in case rate either

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Do you support government mandating another shutdown?

Now, no...

And how about you... is there no scenario in which a shutdown/lockdown is appropriate in your opinion? I.e. are you #NeverLockdown?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Again, using worldometers data because it is convenient, this time using the Total Active Cases interactive graph for the US as well as the Total Deaths interactive graph

I get the argument you want to make, but the predicted spike is always in the future and never shows up

The Total Deaths graph is highly linear from ~5/23 when it is ~100K to 11/13 when it is ~250k. The slope of that line is 150k/174days = 862 deaths per day

The Total Active cases has three portions within the above range that can be characterized as linear. From 6/22 to 8/3 when it rises steadily from 1.25m to 2.3m for a slope of 25kcases/day. From 8/29 to 10/8 when it is flat at 2.6m for a slope of effectively 0cases/day, and from 11/3 to 11/16 (end of current data) when cases increase from 3.2m to 4.27m for a slope of 82k per day

Throughout all three of those intervals, the rate of increase in death has remained constant and only one of them is outside of your 4 to 6 week latency. So I'm wondering why neither an interval embodying a significant increase in cases nor a period of near zero increase in cases resulted in a detectable change in the slope of that Total Deaths line. If your postulated direct relationship of cases to deaths was correct, one would expect a steepening of the total death lines slope when cases were rising and a flattening of the slope when cases were flat

Nary a wiggle shows up, suggesting that no amount of lag will lead to the spike in death rates that you predict in the current increase in case rate either

Ok, as you like, using WorldMeters graphs, Indiana daily cases started rising the last week of September, leading to our current cases spike, after we went to Phase 5:

And the current rise in weekly COVID deaths started about 3 weeks into October, about 4 weeks later.

In the current spike, we've seen the spike in cases lead to large increases in hospitalizations, then in ICU utilization for COVID and finally, fatalities.

 

[Phase2]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is now requiring that people sign in when they eat out for contact tracing. Looks like some people are giving it all the respect it deserves.

 

[BugI02]

I have posted on this to you before. I have no idea why Indiana is behaving this way, but your particular state's behavior doesn't extrapolate to similar areas. I've already done a precis for the whole US, now I'll do Ohio first in the daily trend graphs that I find quite noisy and then in the cumulative graphs I prefer

View attachment 93446

View attachment 93447

Daily cases steady state from mid July through late September, when a strong uptrend begins. This strong uptrend, although within your preferred 4 to 6 week latency, results in no appreciable increase in deaths.

View attachment 93448

View attachment 93449

Cumulative charting shows the same thing, flat through the summer and then a strong case spike starting in late September; and again the rate of deaths remains quite linear and unaffected by the spike in cases, even though it has been six or seven weeks since it started

The national data is essentially the same pattern exhibited by Ohio, with case number spikes having no appreciable affect on death rate

Indiana has roughly 2/3 the population density of Ohio, as well as being adjoining and similar in terrain and climate. I can't tell you why Indiana is acting the way it is but I can tell you the behavior appears unique to Indiana and I don't believe the current ramp in the case rates will result in a spike in the death rate nationally

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is now requiring that people sign in when they eat out for contact tracing. Looks like some people are giving it all the respect it deserves.

Surprised there aren't a lot of 382-5633 numbers.

Or 867-5309

or BR549

 

[jamil]

Now, no...

And how about you... is there no scenario in which a shutdown/lockdown is appropriate in your opinion? I.e. are you #NeverLockdown?

For covid? No. Not justifiable.

 

[churchmouse]

Now, no...

And how about you... is there no scenario in which a shutdown/lockdown is appropriate in your opinion? I.e. are you #NeverLockdown?

Not for Covid. Absolutely no.