re: Daily COVID Updated as of 11/2/20 8:00 PM

quote:

---

Seeing it went from 30 on 3/10 to 256 on 3/20. So, just over 9x in ten days.

---

I figured we would top out at the peak of this thing between 2000 and 3000, with possibly a Fall wave. But, we'll be a lot closer to a vaccine, have some herd immunity and the antiviral drugs will be in mass production by then.

I'm glad I was right that this was going to be (generally) a nothingburger here in the grand scheme of things.

Italy is still perplexing.

quote:

---

ROME (AP) — Italy’s tally of coronavirus cases and deaths keeps rising, with new day-to-day highs: 793 dead and 6,557 new cases.

---

Deaths have been growing my 28.6% daily for 25 days in Italy. At that pace, they’ll reach 100,000 in a little over 10 days.

quote:

---

I'm praying they can get that leveled out - obviously it cannot increase forever - what does the growth rate in their new cases look like?

---

I could probably do a similar graph for Italy a little later today if that helps

quote:

---

I could probably do a similar graph for Italy a little later today if that helps

---

I mean, if we want to see how much better we did than Italy, side-by-side, sure.

So fauci said don't get tested unless you show symptoms. Doesn't that advice completely skew the whole data? It will be skewed towards testing those that show signs of sickness...

Trump just said, "Pray to God", Incoming DimMedia Melt Storm.

quote:

---

If our efforts (which all the geniuses have said “are too late” and “not enough”) reduce the effect of the virus by 99.75% of the modeled prediction, then I feel pretty safe saying the model was shite.

---

If the first person who gets infected doesn't spread it to anyone else then the effect is reduced by 99.999999....%. In China they have undoubtedly reduced the spread by over 99.75%. That is just a consequence of exponential growth. Whenever something is growing exponentially, the percentage of cases in the last few periods of time is always going to be disproportionately high, so stopping it early will always have a massive effect.

quote:

---

i don't recall us doing any of this in 2009. pretty much everyone in their homes. entire industries halted.

---

We were talking about Ebola predictions, not H1N1. There was a massive international intervention that took place.

quote:

---

the us would not be one of those countries and the spread has not been catastrophic to this point. any social measures taken in the us were way late in the game, medically speaking. moreover, this is the not the only outbreak worldwide where entire nations did not shut down.

---

Once again you are changing the subject. You were quoting the worldwide statistics and characterizing the entire worldwide outbreak. My response was about the worldwide stats. The main reason why the worldwide stats are as decent as they are right now is because China went nuts and but over a billion people on an unimaginably severe lockdown.

quote:

---

again, context is needed here. from 3/7 to 3/16 the deaths did not rise exponentially. only if you look at the data with your head tilted a certain way is that the case.

---

I give up, dude. Go take a math class or something.

quote:

---

This creates an unfalsifiable theory. And unfalsifiable theories are shite.

---

I can agree with that. However it's only unfalsifiable if we take drastic actions. If we start ignoring their models then there wouldn't be any excuses and it could be falsifiable. I don't think the models are above scrutiny. I think we should be scrutinizing the hell out of them, but looking at past examples where people took drastic actions doesn't seem like the right way to do it. We probably need to look at the methods and math the models are using and judge them on that. One thing that emerged from a critical look back at the Ebola modeling was that deterministic modeling was inaccurate. We need stochastic modeling that takes into account the random and unpredictable nature of epidemics, and the models need to be able to communicate the uncertainty in their range of predictions.