• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Non-Political Coronavirus Thread

I work at a hospital so I am still leaving the house. But we are not having in person meetings and I am not sitting near coworkers for lunch or to conference about patients. I either come straight home or pick up some takeout food and beer at curb side without being within 6 feet of a service worker. The number of contact points for virus transmission in my day are vastly lower than a month ago, but since my car is in a parking lot somewhere then 2&2 assumes I am not social distancing.
 
Junebug said:
The bigger problem, though, is that you are running exponentials on the subsets. 5 cubed is 75, not the 35 you came up with. You’re missing 40 people, and you’re making the symptomatic rate drop by doing bad math.
Click to expand...

Maybe you all should just stop mathing right now.
 
Junebug said:
If you are asking how many people out of the five are infected, the infection rate is 100%.

But that’s just semantics. I know you meant “symptomatic” rate. The bigger problem, though, is that you are running exponentials on the subsets. 5 cubed is 75, not the 35 you came up with. You’re missing 40 people, and you’re making the symptomatic rate drop by doing bad math.
Click to expand...

5 cubed is 125
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Okay, let's take it back to sixth grade and make it as simple as possible so you can follow along. I'll show my work, you show yours (and by yours I mean yours, not a copy and paste from someone else).

We start with 5 people with the virus. 2 are symptomatic and 3 are asymptomatic. So that is a 40% infection rate.

Now let's run it exponentially for 3 cycles: 2x2x2=8. 3x3x3=27. That is an infection rate of 23%.

The asymptomatic are growing exponentially as well. So as long as the asymptomatic rate starts higher than the symptomatic rate, the total infection rate will drop over time as both sets grow exponentially.

Which goes to my point about the Mecklenburg County numbers given the lack of social distancing. They indicate that, at least here, the asymptomatic rate is much higher than the symptomatic rate. Because otherwise, the number of serious cases would have grown much faster.
Click to expand...

Your math assumes that symptomatic and asymptomatic people are completely separate and that one group is not infecting the other group. Asymptomatic carriers can infect somebody who turns out to be symptomatic. It’s not an either or.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Okay, let's take it back to sixth grade and make it as simple as possible so you can follow along. I'll show my work, you show yours (and by yours I mean yours, not a copy and paste from someone else).

We start with 5 people with the virus. 2 are symptomatic and 3 are asymptomatic. So that is a 40% infection rate.

Now let's run it exponentially for 3 cycles: 2x2x2=8. 3x3x3=27. That is an infection rate of 23%.

The asymptomatic are growing exponentially as well. So as long as the asymptomatic rate starts higher than the symptomatic rate, the total infection rate will drop over time as both sets grow exponentially.

Which goes to my point about the Mecklenburg County numbers given the lack of social distancing. They indicate that, at least here, the asymptomatic rate is much higher than the symptomatic rate. Because otherwise, the number of serious cases would have grown much faster.
Click to expand...

Lol this is nuts.

First, there is a lot of disagreement between scientists about how many people are truly asymptomatic, in most cases where studies have found a significant # of people that are asymptomatic those people have gone on to develop symptoms in the next few weeks. More outlets need to be careful using that word when they really mean presymptomatic. Most studies backed by real #'s indicate that at best case the # of asymptomatic carriers falls in the 30% range (Diamond Princess studies adjusted for age etc. -- some good links here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...asymptomatic-silent-carrier-spread-contagious)

Second, with that point made, where is your evidence for "They indicate that, at least here, the asymptomatic rate is much higher than the symptomatic rate"? That honestly seems like wishful thinking. It would be great if it were the case, but I would be seriously surprised if there was any real evidence.

Third, addressing your, uh, math: when an asymptomatic carrier gives the virus to someone else that person isn't automatically going to be asymptomatic. Assuming 30% of people are asymptomatic, which is about the highest number we can reasonably assume (for now!). If 3 asymptomatic carriers infect 24 new people, at most probably 8 of those are also asymptomatic. So now you'd have 11 asymptomatic carriers and 24 symptomatic carriers. Not 27 and 8.
 
it was a good good troll but the viruses being allergic to pollen thing kind of gave it away 2&2
 
2&2 is the galaxy brain meme personified.
 
if 2&2 can squeeze out another post this could beat my favorite worst argument on the boards: Ph's Giannis PG arg
 
RJKarl said:
That was PH.
Click to expand...

Yes, I wasn't indicating that argument was from 2&2, but rather it was up there with worst board arguments of all time, irrespective of poster. Pirsig used Ph's Giannis point guard argument as an example.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Okay, let's take it back to sixth grade and make it as simple as possible so you can follow along. I'll show my work, you show yours (and by yours I mean yours, not a copy and paste from someone else).

We start with 5 people with the virus. 2 are symptomatic and 3 are asymptomatic. So that is a 40% infection rate.

Now let's run it exponentially for 3 cycles: 2x2x2=8. 3x3x3=27. That is an infection rate of 23%.

The asymptomatic are growing exponentially as well. So as long as the asymptomatic rate starts higher than the symptomatic rate, the total infection rate will drop over time as both sets grow exponentially.

Which goes to my point about the Mecklenburg County numbers given the lack of social distancing. They indicate that, at least here, the asymptomatic rate is much higher than the symptomatic rate. Because otherwise, the number of serious cases would have grown much faster.
Click to expand...

wow
 
CHillDeac said:
Boston recently tested 397 homeless people for COVID. 146 people tested positive. Not a single one had any symptoms.

The 146 people who tested positive were immediately moved to two different temporary isolation facilities in Boston. Only one of those patients needed hospital care, and many continue to show no symptoms.

https://www.boston25news.com/news/cdc-reviewing-stunning-universal-testing-results-boston-homeless-shelter/Z253TFBO6RG4HCUAARBO4YWO64/
Click to expand...
Similar story in an NC prison: 259 inmates tested positive, 98% asymptomatic
https://www.wxii12.com/article/coronavirus-outbreak-north-carolina-prison/32191325
 
So between those two stories it means everyone’s gonna either start getting symptoms in 2 weeks and we’re all gonna die or it means it’s a lot less deadly than we thought ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top