Coronavirus II

[Principal Skinr]

Why the heck does even Fox News keep referring to China's Covid-19 data as fact? I get why the rest of the MSM does, but even Fox? They're circling the drain with me. They fact check Trump more than they do the Chinese communist government. Unreal.

 

[T.Lex]

So, time for a little statistical accountability. On 3/23 I posted my own unfrozen caveman amateur pandemic model. For 3/31, it had suggested (I'm leery of saying "predicted" because that bestows a hint of credibility to it) deaths:

1.5x	~1.4x		1.25x
13,327	9,173	3/31/20	3,719

Yesterday, it looks like there were 4,053 deaths noted. So, somewhere higher than a 1.25x multiplier, but less than the ~1.4x that had been the average. The good news about that is that we're closer to the "best case" than the average. In that sense, each day is somewhat better than the previous day, math-wise.

With a couple caveats, I'll present the next 2 weeks, which may help illuminate the President's warnings last night about 100k-200k deaths. First, the numbers we're seeing now reflect infections that have happened AFTER 3/13. That is, based on how long it takes for the virus to take hold and how long the treatments can extend life, the deaths now should mostly be from infections during the "stay at home" period that was recommended by the White House. Second, these are simple computations. They don't take into account "time since first death" or experiences in Italy/Spain/France. Just the numbers in the US. Which leads to a reminder that this is also based only on reported numbers. There's alot that seems like isn't being reported yet. I'm not seeing consistent reports regarding number of critical patients. By the way, when you do see those, in your mind you can calculate that 75% or so of those critical patients will die in the next 5 days. That's just the ratio.

Another reminder: the 1.5x represents a linear worst case, the ~1.36 (now) is the average daily increase in deaths since 3/13 (which, by the way, is actually slowly dropping), and the 1.25x is supposed to represent a linear best case. Also, the average daily error rate for each is ~17%/~7%/~5%. (I'll probably drop the 1.5x soon - it has been awhile since it was anywhere close.)

1.5x	~1.36x		1.25x
6,080	5,514	4/1/20	5,066
9,120	7,502	4/2/20	6,333
13,680	10,207	4/3/20	7,916
20,520	13,886	4/4/20	9,895
30,780	18,893	4/5/20	12,368
46,170	25,704	4/6/20	15,460
69,255	34,971	4/7/20	19,325
103,883	47,578	4/8/20	24,157
155,824	64,732	4/9/20	30,196
233,736	88,069	4/10/20	37,745
350,603	119,820	4/11/20	47,181
525,905	163,017	4/12/20	58,976
788,858	221,789	4/13/20	73,720
1,183,287	301,749	4/14/20	92,150

With the mitigation strategies implemented since the middle of April, we should see the actual deaths drop further towards the 1.25x estimate, and ideally get below it. But, you can see how Trump's numbers really may not be that far off.

Again, not hysterical or panicking or rooting for the virus. Just sharing observations.

 

[smokingman]

This was one of the most tragic things you've ever read? I would label this 'click-bait'. Was it a shock that older adults with a median age of 83 years old with a laundry list of comorbidities died (plus one visitor with a mean age of 63)? No younger infected staff members died. I'll agree that the deaths are tragic but not shocking, all this was unfolding when the information on Covid-19 was just ramping up. I review manuscripts for a number of journals and what I find shocking is this largely observational puff piece was reviewed and published in about a week! It can often take me longer than a week just to agree to review a manuscript. When you submit a manuscript it can take a month, two, or longer to hear back and then you might be looking at one or two series of edits, then once accepted it could be over a year before a spot is available for in press publishing. I could see rush publishing for some new novel treatment but saying yeah Covid got into a rest home and wreaked havoc doesn't really add much to our knowledge at this point. It seems NEJM just wanted to have some more Covid work out there. Don't get me started on the fact there were forty authors on this thing.

I would not call it a puff piece,given it had one of 6 of the CDC's officially trained contact trace teams. I am certain their was a death of an employee at the facility. I remember reading about them. I believe they where 50 years old. I did not look at the one case and think oh this is the most tragic thing ever.

I looked at what it meant for the over 300 nursing homes in the USA that have at least one confirmed case,and thought about what this study likely meant for them.The science for the study was sound. Can you find any flaw in the study? Any flaw in the methods used to gather information and relate it? Short of a few pieces of language I can over look i did not find a flaw in it.

It was not bad science,and calling it a puff piece? Why? Because so many died,so many where infected? Or is it the language used? I am just trying to understand your point of view.It also took over a month to complete,not sure where you got one week from.The CDC was involved with people on the ground from2/17/2020 The study was released 3/31/2020 well over a month.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2005412


I will add it was probably the preprint of this study that stopped visitors from being allowed in nursing homes and changed nursing home measures to counter covid-19

 

[SwikLS]

I am astounded at you law dogs in all this lockdown stuff. How is any of it constitutional?

Ok lets say you're driving through an area that is under lockdown but is riddled with all kinds of exceptions for essential this and essential that.

Now you get pulled over by police. What is the reasonable articulable suspicion for the initial detainment?

Police Officer comes up to your windows asks for DL and registration and proceeds to play 20 questions.

You decide to exercise your right not to self incriminate. You invoke your right to legal counsel.

Officer ends up deciding to arrest you for violation of this lockdown order.

Where is the evidence the prosecutor would present?

They cant prove or disprove you did or did not fall into one of the many exceptions for travel under the lockdown order.

(and thats assuming the governor or local officials have any authority to mandate a lockdown outside of declaring martial law anyways.)

 

[Ziggidy]

I have to admit that I've had a difficult time understanding where you're coming from. This post kinda informs me more about that than about any other. Most informative is the use of the cold calculations of an accountant to represent the evaluation of data around the corona virus. At least that's what I think you're describing.

Exactly. Thanks for reading it.

I thoroughly get the necessity of the data stuff and I strongly encourage it; however, I do have concerns about the obsessive drive it can create in the process. Not that I see that here, but I have to dig deep inside myself to try to understand why all the resistance to a "possible" resosolution that may work in some people. Instead of fillng the internet with all kinds of reports that "may" negate the effectiveness of a drug that may actually be working, express an explaination of concernes rather than data that argues against the use of a drug until the data people feel comfortable enough to give it a stamp of approval. (run-on) Some reports show a positive result and some show a not so positive result. If we waited to administer a drug based putely on positive results without side effects, we would not have any drugs at any time.

IMO, the argument against the use to the combo is not sufficient enough to deny its use today. The arguments made by data focused groups are interferring with life itself. That is not their place. We, as a society, cannot wait till all the evidence is in before we act. Historically, in any war we have fought, America has taken chances. There have always been naysayers along the way and although their reasons may have been valid for a moment, we cannot wait to have all the bases covered before we act. Nothing will ever het done. Unesscesarry lives will be lost.

Again, we have nothing to lose. Side effects of any drug we use cannot stand in the way of its use IF the benefit is greater than the side effect.

 

[T.Lex]

I am astounded at you law dogs in all this lockdown stuff. How is any of it constitutional?

Ok lets say you're driving through an area that is under lockdown but is riddled with all kinds of exceptions for essential this and essential that.

Now you get pulled over by police. What is the reasonable articulable suspicion for the initial detainment?

Police Officer comes up to your windows asks for DL and registration and proceeds to play 20 questions.

You decide to exercise your right not to self incriminate. You invoke your right to legal counsel.

Officer ends up deciding to arrest you for violation of this lockdown order.

Where is the evidence the prosecutor would present?

They cant prove or disprove you did or did not fall into one of the many exceptions for travel under the lockdown order.

(and thats assuming the governor or local officials have any authority to mandate a lockdown outside of declaring martial law anyways.)

Short answer: this isn't the time, IMHO.

Longer answer: don't be a dick.

Wait, I guess that's actually shorter.

Never mind, then.

 

[nra4ever]

I am astounded at you law dogs in all this lockdown stuff. How is any of it constitutional?

Ok lets say you're driving through an area that is under lockdown but is riddled with all kinds of exceptions for essential this and essential that.

Now you get pulled over by police. What is the reasonable articulable suspicion for the initial detainment?

Police Officer comes up to your windows asks for DL and registration and proceeds to play 20 questions.

You decide to exercise your right not to self incriminate. You invoke your right to legal counsel.

Officer ends up deciding to arrest you for violation of this lockdown order.

Where is the evidence the prosecutor would present?

They cant prove or disprove you did or did not fall into one of the many exceptions for travel under the lockdown order.

(and thats assuming the governor or local officials have any authority to mandate a lockdown outside of declaring martial law anyways.)

would you really want to play that game with the cops. I would not. So you play games the cop arrests you now u are in the jail with the virus. Who cares if you win or lose in court later you are locked up with the virus now. I would comply so I can fight a good fight another day.

 

[jamil]

Exactly. Thanks for reading it.

I thoroughly get the necessity of the data stuff and I strongly encourage it; however, I do have concerns about the obsessive drive it can create in the process. Not that I see that here, but I have to dig deep inside myself to try to understand why all the resistance to a "possible" resosolution that may work in some people. Instead of fillng the internet with all kinds of reports that "may" negate the effectiveness of a drug that may actually be working, express an explaination of concernes rather than data that argues against the use of a drug until the data people feel comfortable enough to give it a stamp of approval. (run-on) Some reports show a positive result and some show a not so positive result. If we waited to administer a drug based putely on positive results without side effects, we would not have any drugs at any time.

IMO, the argument against the use to the combo is not sufficient enough to deny its use today. The arguments made by data focused groups are interferring with life itself. That is not their place. We, as a society, cannot wait till all the evidence is in before we act. Historically, in any war we have fought, America has taken chances. There have always been naysayers along the way and although their reasons may have been valid for a moment, we cannot wait to have all the bases covered before we act. Nothing will ever het done. Unesscesarry lives will be lost.

Again, we have nothing to lose. Side effects of any drug we use cannot stand in the way of its use IF the benefit is greater than the side effect.

O don't think it's that there's an excessive drive. People study data to understand the world better. As far as this goes, I'm pretty libertarian on letting people take what they personally, as long as it doesn't harm others. I think at least they should let people get what treatment they want when there's nothing else to lose.

And I don't think they're just waiting for all the bases to be covered. I don't think they think everything has to be perfect. I think Doctors can prescribe it now, but I'm not sure they will given the threat of litigation if things go wrong. I don't really know much about that angle.

 

[jamil]

I am astounded at you law dogs in all this lockdown stuff. How is any of it constitutional?

Ok lets say you're driving through an area that is under lockdown but is riddled with all kinds of exceptions for essential this and essential that.

Now you get pulled over by police. What is the reasonable articulable suspicion for the initial detainment?

Police Officer comes up to your windows asks for DL and registration and proceeds to play 20 questions.

You decide to exercise your right not to self incriminate. You invoke your right to legal counsel.

Officer ends up deciding to arrest you for violation of this lockdown order.

Where is the evidence the prosecutor would present?

They cant prove or disprove you did or did not fall into one of the many exceptions for travel under the lockdown order.

(and thats assuming the governor or local officials have any authority to mandate a lockdown outside of declaring martial law anyways.)

Abe Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war. I doubt the courts will rule that the president doesn't have the authority to do what he's doing. And then there's the issue of States' authority. During an emergency the governor has a lot of power. Maybe he shouldn't have as much as he has. But that doesn't fix what it is now. I think you have to accept what is. You don't have to like it. But it is what it is. You can try to work to change it, but I doubt people will be on the side of liberty, given that they're jawing at the governor for not doing more. People WANT the cops to arrest you if you're out and about for no vital reason.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've been thinking more about this.

Here in the US, the pendulum does sometimes swing back toward freedom.

The AWB was allowed to expire (and had an expiration built into it). There's been de-regulation of everything from airlines to banks (with, let's say, mixed results). The US citizens of Japanese descent were allowed to leave their confinement and as a society, I think we realized that was probably a bad idea. We've even seen more states allow more freedom to carry weapons.

As long as we hold on to the value of freedom, I think we will be able to move back away from the momentary authoritarian steps.

Then there’s the Patriot Act, as an example. It was enacted at a time of fear and it’s never gone away.

As I’ve watched these governors “just do something!” to combat this disease, I can’t help but wonder the precedents that are being set and in what future emergencies we’ll see these (and many they haven’t even dared roll out yet) actions repeated.

 

[Trigger Time]

Short answer: this isn't the time, IMHO.

Longer answer: don't be a dick.

Wait, I guess that's actually shorter.

Never mind, then.

Dont be a dick works both ways.

Heres what it boils down to. Do you really want to be arrested during a freaking pandemic and thrown in a jail cell with NO protection where you are almost guaranteed to get something, hell maybe even shanked or other things? And you just left your family alone and without your protection and knowledge during a pandemic. Imagine how good they must now feel all because you didnt want to answer a couple of questions that didn't infringe on anything. So sure, it's your right to remain silent, and eventually you may go free without charges, but actions have consequences. Right or wrong doesn't change that.
I think this holds true in regular life, avoid police interactions unless its unavoidable. If you are out and not supposed to be out, dont go through a checkpoint.
If you are supposed to be out, answer the damn questions and be on your way. They dont want your germs on them anymore than you want to go to jail
Just my opinion of coarse.

I've said it before. If I have an emergency NO ONE will keep me in my home if I need to go out.
Risk vs reward.
Start looking at things like this in a survival situation and you will live longer.

 

[SwikLS]

People WANT the cops to arrest you if you're out and about for no vital reason.

which is crazy

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think we should follow another path personally.

Get our testing really up and running. There is no reason for the United States to be number 31 per capa in testing. None. Get it done.
Find cases,and isolate them.
Get everyone else back to work,and wearing a mask.

Not sure if you saw my post the road back home. But it would take much longer than what I would like to see.

I keep thinking of possible good things that may come from all of this. Here’s another: maybe this will be a few more nails in the coffin for government run healthcare and the myriad regulations that have slowed the roll out of testing, treatments, and vaccinations.

 

[smokingman]

I keep thinking of possible good things that may come from all of this. Here’s another: maybe this will be a few more nails in the coffin for government run healthcare and the myriad regulations that have slowed the roll out of testing, treatments, and vaccinations.

It certainly had better remake our manufacturing base. This crap of counting on nearly everything we need and use to be imported,well it is not working at all.
Loads of regulations have fallen away. Did you see the EPA emission rules where rolled back yesterday? Just one example. So that is a bit of good news in my opinion.

The article of course claims Trump just killed the planet because auto emission rules rolled back. I do not believe that though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/climate/trump-fuel-economy.html

 

[HoughMade]

I am astounded at you law dogs in all this lockdown stuff. How is any of it constitutional?

Ok lets say you're driving through an area that is under lockdown but is riddled with all kinds of exceptions for essential this and essential that.

Now you get pulled over by police. What is the reasonable articulable suspicion for the initial detainment?

Police Officer comes up to your windows asks for DL and registration and proceeds to play 20 questions.

You decide to exercise your right not to self incriminate. You invoke your right to legal counsel.

Officer ends up deciding to arrest you for violation of this lockdown order.

Where is the evidence the prosecutor would present?

They cant prove or disprove you did or did not fall into one of the many exceptions for travel under the lockdown order.

(and thats assuming the governor or local officials have any authority to mandate a lockdown outside of declaring martial law anyways.)

What question do you want answered? "How is any of this constitutional?" I've answered that. Feds don't have the power. States have "general police powers" which is essentially any power not prohibited them by law, their own constitution of the U.S. Constitution. Indiana, for instance, has a statute that allows the Governor to issue the orders he has. Under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, states can, essentially, regulate public health in this manner as long as their restrictions are reasonable related to a genuine health issue.

Now, are local governments (Howard County comes to mind) doing stupid things that are probably illegal? Seems like it.

Now, you hypothetical scenario? Get back to me when it's not hypothetical. Too many variables.

 

[jamil]

which is crazy

Well. Agreed. But there we have it. There's not a big calling for liberty right now. People get mad at people who they think aren't doing their part to help society. And they want those people to suffer consequences. They want those people arrested and punished. They think those people are putting the rest of us in danger.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It certainly had better remake our manufacturing base. This crap of counting on nearly everything we need and use to be imported,well it is not working at all.
Loads of regulations have fallen away. Did you see the EPA emission rules where rolled back yesterday? Just one example. So that is a bit of good news in my opinion.

The article of course claims Trump just killed the planet because auto emission rules rolled back. I do not believe that though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/climate/trump-fuel-economy.html

I don’t recall that specifically. I’ve read articles about various regulations being waived but I couldn’t tell you a specific one now, if my life depended on it. As we roll these back, it should cause us to reconsider just how much we really need it/them in the first place.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well. Agreed. But there we have it. There's not a big calling for liberty right now. People get mad at people who they think aren't doing their part to help society. And they want those people to suffer consequences. They want those people arrested and punished. They think those people are putting the rest of us in danger.

Which is silly...if they’re staying home.

 

[longbow]

I had to pick up meds yesterday. Noticed some strange temporary fencing installed in the east parking lot by Baxter in Bloomington and about 8 refrigerated trailers at IVY Tech.

 

[hoosierdoc]

yesterday was the slowest day I can recall ever at my ER. we had 3 patients at 10a. normal is 30. we are down 50% on volume. so many staff, so few patients

indiana hunkered down before it was bad here. let's hope it works