Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Cogito, ergo sumthin'

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                 

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Pandemic Scale

Like a tornado scale but for disease
  (+3, -4)
(+3, -4)
  [vote for,
against]

I think its becoming clear that the death rate for Covid19 (SARS 2) is roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

Was it worth trashing the economy for a bad flu? Probably not. As many more people are going to also die from missed cancer diagnosis's, heart disease and other health problems that have been postponed. Not to mention those dying from poverty induced stress etc.

Thus we have the Pandemic Scale of severity -

1) The world will experience a mild wave of increased flatulence. To a minority of some old timers, the inability to stifle a fart may well induce a heart attack.

2) Typical low grade virus. One day of 'what the hell was that ?' The odd feverish brain day and not fancying the usual deep fried mars bar after the kebab, that kind of thing. It may be global, but nobody really notices.

3) Seasonal flu. Take some vitamins and get a pneumonia shot and you'll be fine.

4) A new highly infectious strain of Ebola. The real meaning of PPE now takes effect as once just the scourge of small regions of Africa become a mega city problem with a 50% death rate.

5) Airborne takes a whole new meaning with pollen co-opting virusses. Only concrete bunkers with a microfiltered air supply are safe.

There is no doubt that SARS Corona 2 is a new pandemic, but is it a 2-3 or is it a 4-5 worth sacrificing many low paid jobs ?

bigsleep, May 19 2020

Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework https://en.wikipedi...ssessment_Framework
A two-axis scale, transmissibility and clinical severity [kdf, May 19 2020]

Missing Man Formation https://en.wikipedi...ssing_man_formation
"Only The Brave... " [8th of 7, May 19 2020]

UK ONS Corona data https://www.ons.gov.../weekending8may2020
Number of deaths registered by week, England and Wales, 28 December 2019 to 8 May 2020 [bigsleep, May 20 2020]

Worldmeter Corona data https://www.worldom...navirus/country/uk/
[bigsleep, May 20 2020]

Unherd Youtube Channel https://www.youtube...FayY_3fU9loQ/videos
Interviews with experts from all sides. [bigsleep, May 20 2020]

Coronavirus deaths binned by agegroups https://www.worldom...e-sex-demographics/
[Loris, May 20 2020]

Worldometer on COVID-19 Mortality Rate https://www.worldom...navirus-death-rate/
a variety of calculations, and discussion of the systematic errors involved [Loris, May 21 2020]

dailymail on prof. Neil Ferguson's dodgy code https://www.dailyma...d-mess-experts.html
with bonus tabloid prurience because they can't help themselves. [Loris, May 21 2020]

[link]






       //I think its becoming clear that the death rate for Covid19 (SARS 2) is roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.//   

       This seems to be at least misleading, because it assumes flu isn't that bad. Seasonal flu may not be, but you won't have seen a really bad flu epidemic.
The CDC says the 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history, with a mortality rate of about 10%. (edit: infecting about a third of the world population.)
  

       Regarding your scale, it seems to be essentially integers representing: negligible, slight, mild, civilisation- ending, extinction-level? I'm not convinced that this scale has the nuance to capture the distinctions people care about without modification.
Loris, May 19 2020
  

       What is the purpose of the scale and who gets to determine where on the scale a given pandemic sits? Is the intention that the scale is used in the hazy calculus of weighing human life against economic impact?
calum, May 19 2020
  

       Ooooh. Controversial post!   

       I agree this is not sufficiently nuanced. Spanish Flu killed around 50M people. Covid has so far killed 'only' about 0.3M. The mortality rate of Covid is around 3-4%, which is low compared to Spanish Flu at around 10%. The main reason our death toll is lower than in 1918 is that we have seen fewer infections. It's hard to tell whether this is due to a less transmittable form of virus or whether a combination of lockdown and modern hygiene have controlled the infection rate, or both. However, if we had seen a similar infection rate to 1918 we would be looking at around 20M dead now instead of 0.3M.   

       Also, is the scale measuring the impact or the virus? If it is measuring the impact, then by the time you have declared a level 5 pandemic it's way too late to do anything about it. If it is measuring the danger of the virus then we have to trust scientific advice - which in this case was largely in favour of closing the economy before many millions died. We will never know what would have happened if we had let Covid take it's course, but I'm glad we didn't try to find out.   

       Another reason the mortality rate may be lower for Covid is that we mostly controlled infections to the point where the vast majority of people who required ventilators and anti-virals has access to them. If the infection rate had been higher the mortality rate would likely have increased.   

       All in all, I'm thinking that we've narrowly missed a catastrophe here. Mind you, it's not over yet.
wagster, May 19 2020
  

       WKTE.   

       The Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework (link) is a two-axis scale, plotting both transmissibility and clinical severity. On this scale Covid-19 has passed the 1957-H2N2 but not 1918 ... yet.
kdf, May 19 2020
  

       As with many risk-measurements, the problem of reporting something simple is that risk is (at least) a two dimensional thing.   

       Generically for risk, there's two metrics; impact, and likelihood, which map onto a 2-d surface which you could imagine as a coloured map. High-impact, high-likelihood problems are often deemed critical and typically coloured in with an alarmingly sanguine red, while low-impact, low-likelihood issues might be classified as being Minimal and so betinted with a soothing shade of green. There's lots of arguments about how you carve up the landscape inbetween.   

       Specifically for viruses, there's a similar mapping in 2 dimensions, with perhaps the infection rate (R) being one axis (which might be imagined as the likelihood of any particular individual getting the disease), and the mortality or death-rate (impact) living on the other one. We can all agree on the extreme corners being Critical or Minimal, but everyone is going to have an opinion on exactly what shade of amber to shade everything inbetween.   

       2 dimensions is already a simplification - mortality is generally agreed as a bad thing, but what about life-changing illnesses, like leprosy, or neurological damage, like syphilis? Do we only care about the transmission vector being airborne, or should we watch out for other forms of transmission like with AIDS?   

       At the final point of your idea you get to the crux of the matter - Who gets affected by any policies put into place as a result of the risk-assessment. Right now (at least here in the UK, and there in the US) we seem to be operating under a kind of personally determined response where people are being encouraged to sort it out for themselves and make a personal choice depending on your political affiliation. I'm not convinced that's the best way to deal with the problem - at least in terms of keeping the death-rates low.   

       What's missing from any of these assessments is how much direct impact any policy of mitigation might have on the populations being affected - and that opens a self-referential complexity-can-of-worms that would be very difficult to distil into a single-digit, traffic-light encoded colour-metric.   

       We are used to living in societies where social norms continue to be defined by the mitigation strategies put in place due to risky behaviours such as drug taking, sexual abandon, owning an assault rifle, or gambling. Should the public be issued with nice colour-coded 1-5 charts covering these behaviours as well? I suppose perhaps the difference is that if I engage in any of those activities, it can be argued (to differing degrees of success) that any failure that befalls me as a direct result of my risk-taking will only impact me, and nobody else. There's a strong counter argument to the contrary - at least in some of those examples anyway. The fundamental question is; At what point is it appropriate for the individual to act (and expect others to act) in the wider interest of the community?
zen_tom, May 19 2020
  

       //Was it worth trashing the economy for a bad flu? // It seems like something much worse than a "bad flu", but no matter, America's stable genius has already announced the cure in the form of either bleach injections or swallowing UVc lights, then switching them on, so we can all rest easy.
xenzag, May 19 2020
  

       Wake me when this discussion is over.
RayfordSteele, May 19 2020
  

       Everyone is going to die!
pocmloc, May 19 2020
  

       //What is the purpose of the scale and who gets to determine where on the scale a given pandemic sits?//   

       Well obviously its to judge whether to trash an economy. Established protocols should evaluate outbreaks.   

       //The mortality rate of Covid is around 3-4%//   

       Or 0.3% depending on which expert you listen to, and those would have died anyway.   

       I'm beginning to think that businesses are going to have a case to sue the government for loss of business.   

       What really annoys me is that it is literally the full time job of the WHO and many national emergency preparedness groups, and all of them have such sketchy protocols that they've misdiagnosed the pandemic twice. 1) Reacting too late to declare a pandemic, and 2) Not advising that lockdowns are a stupid idea.   

       Most of the deaths (99.9%) are old or unhealthy people and the correct response would have been to protect them rather than lock everyone up. Now instead of 80 year olds dying, we are going to face a wave of 10,000s extra cancer deaths in people who are only in their 20's or 30's, and would have had a whole life ahead of them. Oh, and an economic depression. If a *serious* pandemic happens nobody is going to listen.   

       WHO - you had one job.
bigsleep, May 19 2020
  

       //I'm beginning to think that businesses are going to have a case to sue the government for loss of business.//
Good luck to anyone who tries to run this argument.
calum, May 19 2020
  

       // If a *serious* pandemic happens nobody is going to listen. //   

       <Smug misanthropic gloating/>   

       The populist democracies have achieved an epic fail on this one, and even better the media have also taken a crippling credibility hit. Suspicion, distrust, corrosive cynicism ... What could be more satisfying ?   

       Well, some small wars, of course. There's always money to be made out of small wars.
8th of 7, May 19 2020
  

       Personally, I avoid scales and charts and wooha. Data can be interpreted in a million different ways. I simply fly by the seat of my pants. It's more fun. Speaking of flying, I'll be in Idaho for a week if anyone is near Boise on Friday. Or even if you're not.
blissmiss, May 19 2020
  

       Make sure you have the bristles on your broomstick cleaned and straightened before takeoff. A crosswind landing with asymmetric thrust is no fun.
8th of 7, May 19 2020
  

       Very funny, 8th. If my broom crashes and I'm a goner, you will be soo... sorry.
blissmiss, May 19 2020
  

       Be assured that at your sendoff, there'll be a flypast in "Missing Woman" formation ...   

       <link>
8th of 7, May 19 2020
  

       //What really annoys me is that it is literally the full time job of the WHO and many national emergency preparedness groups, and all of them have such sketchy protocols that they've misdiagnosed the pandemic twice. 1) Reacting too late to declare a pandemic, and 2) Not advising that lockdowns are a stupid idea.//   

       You can't reasonably blame the WHO (or local groups) for the governments who didn't listen to them.
The WHO didn't say 'this is now a pandemic' until it actually was, according to the definition. That may seem odd, but even if it concerns you I suggest that it's not worth obsessing over.
But - they were definitely sending frantic messages about the potential seriousness of the situation very early on, which is exactly their job.
There were initially significant gaps in knowledge (which is to be expected with a 'new' disease), and I think it's entirely fair to say that covid19 has consistently surprised people with its ability to spread. It may be fun to predict the past, now we know better - but it's not routinely helpful.
That the CDC messed up testing - well, that's on them (and perhaps their funding body). With a special mention for the legal system which precluded other tests.
  

       //Most of the deaths (99.9%) are old or unhealthy people and the correct response would have been to protect them rather than lock everyone up. Now instead of 80 year olds dying, we are going to face a wave of 10,000s extra cancer deaths in people who are only in their 20's or 30's, and would have had a whole life ahead of them. Oh, and an economic depression. If a *serious* pandemic happens nobody is going to listen.//   

       I really wish people wouldn't tout made up statistics like that.
You keep mentioning young cancer patients. I certainly agree that for them the situation is dire. I'm not an expert, but if you're looking at indicators for e.g. the phrase "with an underlying health condition" then cancer seems like it should be one.
Given an expanding epidemic, would the vulnerable population be better served by a general lockdown to knock down disease prevalence, or isolating the most vulnerable and everyone else carrying on as normal while it rages out of control?
I suggest that a definitive statement such as yours can't possibly be made without a model with reasonable parameters, but must confess that my gut says the opposite to yours. Particularly since it seems to be a challenge to protect known vulnerable populations - e.g. the residents of care homes.
  

       Given that a lockdown is really bad for the economy (which is obviously is), if it were /also/ bad for health, why would a country do it? Maybe you might see one or two countries try it either out of ignorance, or for some internal nefarious reason. But the fact is, practically all countries have had some significant restrictions in place. Are all the governing bodies overcome with some wierd hysteria? Perhaps there's a mysterious conspiracy?
Or maybe there's just a general consensus that given the data available, overall that's the best thing to do.
  

       Seriously. You can bitch about a lockdown damaging the economy. Or you can claim that it may not be the best option overall for health. But doing both simultaneously, without reference to any evidence? That just makes you look stupid.
Loris, May 20 2020
  

       I really like the idea, but it didn't come with a longer list of increasingly menacing, horrible, and imaginative ways to die, so [-]. Where's the version of guinea worm that tunnels up and makes people choose between horrible, torturous headaches and sticking their heads underwater until they nearly drown while a worm the size of your thumb slowly crawls out of their ear?
Voice, May 20 2020
  

       //trump trump trump trump//   

       I don't like Trump. Not at all. But people like you make me want to take a shining to him. This cognitive dissonance is annoying. Please stop.
Voice, May 20 2020
  

       //You can't reasonably blame the WHO (or local groups) for the governments who didn't listen to them.//   

       I'm just amazed there weren't concrete plans like for example in case of a nuclear attack. Protocols in brown paper envelopes. "Lockdowns - double check the evidence. If threshholds X,Y,Z are exceeded then proceed to full lockdown." Instead we find most governments had no preparedness plan and were just winging it.   

       One protocol element should have been to lockdown the care homes, this should be done for flu epidemics anyway so it should be well established. Instead the NHS flushed lots of old people out of hospital beds back into care homes and many of them had already caught covid19 in hospital. By making room for a massive influx of covid19 patients they virus bombed the care homes.   

       //I really wish people wouldn't tout made up statistics like that.//   

       The death demographics clearly show 90% of deaths are above retirement age, but there are significant numbers of morbidly obese, heart disease patients etc below the age of 65 (UK ONS data). These at risk groups could be put up in hotels and given 5 star protection treatment for a fraction of the money the lockdown is costing.   

       //You keep mentioning young cancer patients. I certainly agree that for them the situation is dire. I'm not an expert, but if you're looking at indicators for e.g. the phrase "with an underlying health condition" then cancer seems like it should be one.//   

       I was referring to the post epidemic cost to life of the lockdown. Many missed cancer screenings and routine treatments that are going to present as much more serious conditions after months of neglect. These are deaths directly caused by the lockdown.   

       //Are all the governing bodies overcome with some wierd hysteria?//   

       Yes. There are definitely some nefarious players. Neil Ferguson who produced the now discredited "scare study" received funding from vaccine companies. Again, a brown envelope with flow-charted protocols would prevent any kind of lobbying or scaremongering getting through a fixed protocol. And the media hasn't helped by finding the scariest and most dramatic footage.   

       //But doing both simultaneously, without reference to any evidence? That just makes you look stupid.//   

       I get most of this stuff by looking at the Worldmeters pages, the UK ONS data and by watching a load of videos, most with experts in the field. I'll link some stuff [links].   

       One of the things I found interesting is that scientists have no idea how children and some adults are shaking the disease off or just not getting infected. Most don't even show anti-bodies after being exposed - they just shake it off with a different mystery front line defence. Allowing for that mechanism could mean that 50% of people have already been exposed the virus.   

       All said and done, roughly 2500 people die a week in an average year in the UK from the flu or about 25,000 total per year (UK ONS). At the peak of the pandemic that death rate was triple at about 7500, and the total is likely to be 50,000. Most of those deaths will be from infirm people with little life expectancy. Next year we could we see flu deaths far below the average.   

       Absolutely bottom line, it looks like double the number of people are going to die from corona virus or the flu in 2020. Many of the additional deaths could have been prevented by protecting the infirm rather than shutting healthy people up. Virus bombing the care homes is inexcusable.
bigsleep, May 20 2020
  

       "Hi Michael, take a seat. I'd like to let you know that we have selected you to head up our new infectious disease response team."
"Great. When do I start ?"
"Well, you'll be on a zero hours contract until we need you."
"What do you mean ?"
"We're waiting for our first pandemic. This is a learn on the job position."
bigsleep, May 20 2020
  

       //I get most of this stuff by looking at the Worldmeters pages, the UK ONS data and by watching a load of videos, most with experts in the field. I'll link some stuff [links].//   

       Spamming links by themselves isn't very helpful. A quick scan suggests that they don't have in them what you claim. I'm not about to read a tonne of crap and watch an entire youtube channel to work out what you want to say.
Make a statement, and provide a link supporting it.
For example - I found a webpage with a table which suggests that about three quarters of coronavirus deaths are in the elderly (65+). This was for cases in New York, and /obviously/ will vary quite a bit. (n.b. I decided this in and of itself wasn't particularly pertinent, and cut this from my previous comment, but it illustrates the point here.)
  

       Look. This is what I have an issue with:
//Most of the deaths (99.9%) are old or unhealthy people and the correct response would have been to protect them rather than lock everyone up. Now instead of 80 year olds dying, we are going to face a wave of 10,000s extra cancer deaths in people who are only in their 20's or 30's, and would have had a whole life ahead of them.//
  

       The 99.9% is a made up number, unless you can directly point to a table which says otherwise.   

       But apart from that - my point is that group refuges for the vulnerable are clearly not giving good protection. They're not working because if the number of infections in the community is high, care-workers are a vector for infection.
It might be possible to set up isolated communities with a decent level of safety. That's not going to be done easily or quickly, however; you'd be condemning the existing vulnerable to exposure.
If you do actually care about the current vulnerable, or perhaps just the young vulnerable, the way to protect them is to actually get the population infection rate down (as well as firewalling them as best you can). And then you can do the WHO reccomendation of testing - as much as you can manage - and contact tracing. This seems to have been a big factor in the countries which have broadly avoided or averted a large epidemic. It works really well if, and only if, infections are rare.
  

       In the UK, my understanding is that the reason for the change in strategy and hence 'lockdown' was the realisation that the NHS would be overwhelmed. If that were to happen, the death rate would go up - I've not seen any firm statements on how much... but I think it's unlikely to be beneficial.
Failing to take that into account is an error, equivalent to whining about how much is spent on flood defences even though damage caused by flooding is so limited (because of the flood defences).
  

       //All said and done, roughly 2500 people die a week in an average year in the UK from the flu or about 25,000 total per year (UK ONS). At the peak of the pandemic that death rate was triple at about 7500, and the total is likely to be 50,000. Most of those deaths will be from infirm people with little life expectancy. Next year we could we see flu deaths far below the average.//   

       I think you've garbled that, but what I believe you're saying is that covid19 has had only a somewhat bad death toll (in the UK) - somewhat comparable to a typical flu season in magnitude?
The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the mitigation factors taken. Perhaps if we'd let it run wild it would have killed maybe a million or so. Quite a few of them young adults who couldn't be treated satisfactorily because the NHS was overwhelmed.
  

       ... points missed:   

       //I'm just amazed there weren't concrete plans like for example in case of a nuclear attack. Protocols in brown paper envelopes. "Lockdowns - double check the evidence. If threshholds X,Y,Z are exceeded then proceed to full lockdown." Instead we find most governments had no preparedness plan and were just winging it.//   

       In the UK, at least, my understanding is that there were plans. But the group which ran the numbers didn't factor in NHS limitations, and this lead to a fairly abrupt U-turn towards lockdown when that was pointed out. So a bit of a cock-up, and not really admitted to... but we're at least in a better situation than if they'd stuck the course.   

       //One protocol element should have been to lockdown the care homes, this should be done for flu epidemics anyway so it should be well established. Instead the NHS flushed lots of old people out of hospital beds back into care homes and many of them had already caught covid19 in hospital. By making room for a massive influx of covid19 patients they virus bombed the care homes.//   

       Smells dodgy - did you read that in a tabloid?
To be fair, to the extent that happened (which I imagine was actually quite limited), it probably wasn't intentional.
I'd say it's a pity testing wasn't ramped up like it should have been; it could have prevented that.
  

       //Yes. There are definitely some nefarious players. Neil Ferguson who produced the now discredited "scare study" received funding from vaccine companies. Again, a brown envelope with flow-charted protocols would prevent any kind of lobbying or scaremongering getting through a fixed protocol.//   

       A search suggests you read the daily mail and/or telegraph. Not something I'd heard of elsewhere. To be honest I really doubt it's as scandalous as you propose, though.   

       Guy writes bad code - plausible; ubiquitous.
Researcher makes mistake and/or publishes irreducible work - plausible; happens all the time.
Epidemiologist gets money 'doing work' (i.e. research) for, or involving funding from 'vaccine companies'. - entirely likely. That's essentially the primary funding model forced on researchers nowadays.
These being linked in a nefarious manner - massively unlikely.
I mean, think about it. Why don't you explain to me what 'vaccine companies' have to gain there, exactly?
Loris, May 20 2020
  

       The point of the idea and my elaborations is that there is going to be a huge price to pay for these lockdowns, and it won't just be financial. Admittedly, some of the numbers are from memory and averaged over a few sources.   

       I'll try to justify your main bone -   

       //"Most of the deaths (99.9%) are old or unhealthy people//   

       For the link you provided a table pops up with all the information we need. Firstly, in the over 65 years olds, we have 3788 + 7419 = 11207 or 11207 / 15230 = 73.6% of deaths for the elderly above the retirement age.   

       When considering the infirm below 65 years there is uncertainly about underlying conditions.   

       With underlying conditions: 6 + 476 + 2851 = 3333, or an additional 3333 / 15230 = 21.8 %.   

       Additional who many have underlying conditions: 0 + 108 + 490 = 598 or 598 / 15230 = 3.9%   

       73.6% + 21.8% = 95.4% are elderly and/or have underlying conditions.
95.4 + 3.9 = 99.3% are elderly and may have underlying conditions.
  

       So with the data you have provided-   

       Most of the deaths (95.4% to 99.3%) are old or unhealthy people. There is also a table further down clearly showing only 0.9% of people die without preexisting conditions.   

       QED   

       //refuges for the vulnerable are clearly not giving good protection//   

       That was my point. Stick the resources into protecting the infirm and let the healthy go back to work. Instead they botched the protection and caused a great depression. Seriously if you were at all cynical you should think such incompetence was deliberate to cover an unsustainable share market.   

       //Perhaps if we'd let it run wild it would have killed 1, 2... maybe 4 million.//   

       It was already known in early February that the mortality rate was below 1% (its in a couple of the unherd videos). This was based on observing the infection rate drop rapidly.   

       In the UK the exponential growth was +30% per day in the early days, but if you go to the Worldmeter UK page linked, look at the graph of total cases, and click 'logarithmic scale', you'll notice that its not a straight line - exponential growth is dropping off immediately. Now lets look for the discontinuity where the lockdown happens on March 18 and 2 weeks later - nothing. It may only be circumstantial proof that the lockdown did nothing, but there is certainly potential that it did absolutely nothing. There was certainly no merit in causing another great depression by locking up the 99% of people of working age who would not be affected. The government could have spent the money posting the army with machine guns outside care homes.   

       A bad flu season is not a good reason to cause another great economic depression.   

       Anyway, the damage is done now. All that remains is to fight off any fascist style lockdowns of freedom in the "new normal".   

       Incidentally, and this will make you laugh. One of the worst outbreaks of corona was at an indoor festival in Germany. Lots of shouting and singing spraying droplets everywhere. If *any* social restrictions are going to be maintained as a 'new normal' it will certainly exclude indoors sports, music concerts and probably most stadium events.   

       Or you can look at the data and wonder why 99% of healthy people are being punished ? Was there something else really behind it ? The whole situation begs some crazy conspriacy theories you can indulge in at your own leisure. It's why I posted the Corona News in the HB section 2 months ago.
bigsleep, May 21 2020
  

       //Reading tabloids//
//A search suggests//
  

       No to both. Give me a little credit for working above a copy paste level. These are researched and considered opinions. I proved the 99% with the dataset that *you* pointed to.   

       The lockdowns were a mistake. The question to ask is "Were the lockdowns and economic depression a deliberate 'mistake'. ?"
bigsleep, May 21 2020
  

       For the British government, it's certainly a fortuitous opportunity to hide any negative consequences of the Brexit process under a welter of force-majeure obfuscation.   

       But "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." The fact is that those in authority are a bunch of small-minded incompetent witless dolts. This is a nice opportunity to highlight that fact, destroy their reputations and credibility, and ruin their future prospects.
8th of 7, May 21 2020
  

       //But "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."//   

       But then again there are powerful lobbies in the US who tread way over the line, if the line is their own natural domains. For example if the meat industry could sell a few more percent, they'll spend a fortune trashing vegetarianism. I'd call that capitalist stupidity, but its also somewhat malicious.   

       When it comes to Trump and Boris, they are both leaders before thinkers and so its obvious its just a few scaremongers that add the extra nudges so the switches get flipped. Brown envelopes with flow charts is the way to manage a disaster.   

       I'm actually getting to be a fan of the positivism of Trump. There's a lot of psychology there, but if you see a small child saying "Can we inject bleach?" it kind of begs that adults try harder. It's odd that the 'leader of the free world' is offering duff advice, but then again he's also encouraging people to think for themselves. When people insult Trump, they don't realise that the feeling they have is "I am better than that!" and that for the first time in their life they are thinking for themselves.   

       Despite that, there are obviously malicious players as in IRAQ 2. I don't think players like that are absent from this disaster with the money to be had in various industries.
bigsleep, May 21 2020
  

       //there are obviously malicious players as in IRAQ 2/   

       I'm curious, how do you imagine these players operating?   

       For example, one of the biggest financial winners so far has been Jeff Bezos. Do you think Bezos picked up the phone to the Oval Office and bribed, threatened or seduced its occupant to do something more than usually cruel or stupid? Seems unlikely, since those two, I thought, were not getting along. And if it's not like that, then how do you think it works?   

       And what about the infamous Big Oil? They were accused at length in relation to Iraq, but they've hardly prospered out of this virus business, have they? Have the alien lizard people belatedly decided to move against them?
pertinax, May 21 2020
  

       He didn't say the same malicious players.
Voice, May 21 2020
  

       //I proved the 99% with the dataset that *you* pointed to.//   

       Um, yes. So thanks for finally admitting your initial claim of 99.9% was wrong.
Now, you might say that 0.9% (or more strictly, 0.8%) isn't very much. But that's a change of almost 10-fold in the value we're interested in.
  

       n.b. the 0.9% "no pre-existing conditions" mortality risk is risk of dying if infected, not share of the overall death toll.
Presumably most old people have one or more of the listed preexisting conditions (or something else).
  

       Thought experiment. Imagine a population of 1000, of which 20% (200) have preexisting conditions.
If the death rate on infection is 1% for healthy individuals, and 10% for the ill, and everyone is infected, then the expectation is:
200 * 0.1 = 20 deaths "with preexisting conditions"
800 * 0.01 = 8 deaths "with no preexisting condition"
-over a quarter of deaths in this imaginary outbreak had no preexisting condition, even though individually their risk is lower.
  

         

       //It was already known in early February that the mortality rate was below 1%//   

       This is very much dependent on the population and environment (i.e. standard of medical care).
Worldometer (paged linked) says 1.4% for data based on New York - and that just about managed to avoid its medical system being overwhelmed. Further, the WHO estimated a worldwide 3.4% mortality rate as of 3rd March.
It seems like you're just working to a much more forgiving set of assumptions - lower overall mortality rate, and infinite medical resources.
  

         

       ///Reading tabloids// //A search suggests//   

       //No to both. Give me a little credit for working above a copy paste level. These are researched and considered opinions.//   

       So what actually are you talking about for Neil Ferguson then?
searching for variants on >> Neil Ferguson -resigns << I found a couple of articles - one in the dailymail online (linked), and a mostly paywalled article in the telegraph - both about the quality of his code - and nothing much else apart from chaff about him resigning for an irrelevant reason.
Seriously, I'm very much interested in what you think was so nefarious there.
  

         

       //Or you can look at the data and wonder why 99% of healthy people are being punished ? Was there something else really behind it ? The whole situation begs some crazy conspriacy theories you can indulge in at your own leisure. It's why I posted the Corona News in the HB section 2 months ago.//   

       Ah, so you're just trolling then. I thought you were serious. Forget it.
Loris, May 21 2020
  

       Soooo... for the sake of peace can we all agree this is simply a global cluster fuck, and move on?
blissmiss, May 21 2020
  

       //Now, you might say that 0.9% (or more strictly, 0.8%) isn't very much.//   

       But isn't there a 99% elephant in the room you are not engaging with somewhere in that sentence ?   

       //Have the alien lizard people belatedly decided to move against them?//   

       Hollywood is probably behind it. The number of bad actors seems to be increasing.
bigsleep, May 21 2020
  

       //But isn't there a 99% elephant in the room you are not engaging with somewhere in that sentence ?//   

       I'm perfectly fine with the elephant.
I just have a problem with you gilding it.
Loris, May 21 2020
  

       Dammit!!   

       I couldn't read a thing past [bliss]'s reference to the seat of her pants!!   

       <here's GROG throwing away his magazine collection; but not before awarding [bigsleep] a BUN>
Grogster, May 23 2020
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle