• 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

dude, you don't even know how to identify the numerator of a fraction, so please kindly shut the fuck up
 
Rafi said:
2&2, what victory are you trying to claim here? That the virus has a high rate of asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases? That was already known - probably the best study showing this is from the diamond princess (because almost all 3700 passengers and crew were tested). And there are other good studies (the nursing home in VA, homeless shelter in MA, etc).

If you think that results in a “milkwich,” then you’re wrong. Look at New York, Italy, Spain, etc. if you want an idea of what could happen without early social distancing.
Click to expand...

No victory, other than that my math was correct. If the rate of asymptomatic infection is higher than the rate of symptomatic infection, then with exponential growth of overall infection the asymptomatic infection, over time, will dwarf the symptomatic infection. Which validates my anecdotal evidence about the numbers not matching what would have originally been predicted given the lack of social distancing. And which contradicts the so called "experts" who predicted the end of life as we know it just as they do every snowpacalypse.

And okay, look at NY for what happens without early social distancing. They have 10,000 deaths. Assume that goes to 50,000 deaths, which sucks. But they also have 8.7 million people in NYC (assuming all NY deaths are there, which they aren't). So that is 0.574% of the City's population, in the most densely populated area in the county with factors that would lead to the virus spreading worse than anywhere else. Which again, sucks, but does worst-case 0.574% warrant the complete mass hysteria and shutdown of the country, with all of its associated side effects, that has been experienced?

I think it is okay to say that this is real and not a hoax and should be taken seriously, but also recognize that it is not the end of life as we know it and those who want to start to return to normal in a reasonable fashion should not be dismissed as ignorant rubes (at least not all of them).
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No victory, other than that my math was correct. If the rate of asymptomatic infection is higher than the rate of symptomatic infection, then with exponential growth of overall infection the asymptomatic infection, over time, will dwarf the symptomatic infection. Which validates my anecdotal evidence about the numbers not matching what would have originally been predicted given the lack of social distancing. And which contradicts the so called "experts" who predicted the end of life as we know it just as they do every snowpacalypse.

And okay, look at NY for what happens without early social distancing. They have 10,000 deaths. Assume that goes to 50,000 deaths, which sucks. But they also have 8.7 million people in NYC (assuming all NY deaths are there, which they aren't). So that is 0.574% of the City's population, in the most densely populated area in the county with factors that would lead to the virus spreading worse than anywhere else. Which again, sucks, but does worst-case 0.574% warrant the complete mass hysteria and shutdown of the country, with all of its associated side effects, that has been experienced?

I think it is okay to say that this is real and not a hoax and should be taken seriously, but also recognize that it is not the end of life as we know it and those who want to start to return to normal in a reasonable fashion should not be dismissed as ignorant rubes (at least not all of them).
Click to expand...

Agree that (as usual) the answer is somewhere in the middle. Taking your worse case rate and cutting it in half (~0.3%) and applying to the US population gets you to 1 million deaths. So there's that I guess
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No victory, other than that my math was correct. If the rate of asymptomatic infection is higher than the rate of symptomatic infection, then with exponential growth of overall infection the asymptomatic infection, over time, will dwarf the symptomatic infection. Which validates my anecdotal evidence
Click to expand...

If the rates of asymptotic vs symptomatic doesn’t change, then exponential growth doesn’t matter - those rates will stay the same. Your math assumes that asymptomatic people only pass on a asymptomatic version of the virus and symptomatic people only pass on a symptomatic version. That’s not how this works.
 
NYC clearly isn't the worst case when they have been social distancing for over a month.
 
tzwkosK.jpg
 
DistrictDeacon said:
If the rates of asymptotic vs symptomatic doesn’t change, then exponential growth doesn’t matter - those rates will stay the same. Your math assumes that asymptomatic people only pass on a asymptomatic version of the virus and symptomatic people only pass on a symptomatic version. That’s not how this works.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't assume that that there are different versions of the virus, it assumes that different people are predisposed to be symptomatic or asymptomatic going forward to the same degree as has been seen from the past. The virus, presumably, is the same no matter who gets it, but it is the reaction in different people that is different.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, it doesn't assume that that there are different versions of the virus, it assumes that different people are predisposed to be symptomatic or asymptomatic going forward to the same degree as has been seen from the past. The virus, presumably, is the same no matter who gets it, but it is the reaction in different people that is different.
Click to expand...

Which means that the symptomatic rate would be the same if 100 people had it or if 10,000 people had it
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Which means that the symptomatic rate would be the same if 100 people had it or if 10,000 people had it
Click to expand...

No, that would only be the case if the presence of whatever is causing the asymptomatic/symptomatic distinction was tracking the exact same growth line within the infected people. Which I hypothesize it is not, and which is what I think the numbers are bearing out.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, that would only be the case if the presence of whatever is causing the asymptomatic/symptomatic distinction was tracking the exact same growth line within the infected people. Which I hypothesize it is not, and which is what I think the numbers are bearing out.
Click to expand...

So what do you think causes that distinction?
 
WhatUTalkinBout Willis said:
Watching people untrained in virology and public health play epidemiologist is almost as fun as watching people untrained in law and history play constitutional lawyer. In case you're wondering how tragedies happen... this is it.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the tragedy of watching people trained in virology and public health safety play epidemiologist? So far what we've gotten from the "experts" over the last few months are wildly inaccurate projections and the sage advice of "stay out of sneezing range". Solid work, chief.

Has a full profession every been so grossly inept? They have to be in the running with snow forecasters, the Y2K movement, the Roanoke settlers, and Ron Wellman. At least when actual constitutional lawyers play constitutional lawyers they are pretty good at it.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
As opposed to the tragedy of watching people trained in virology and public health safety play epidemiologist? So far what we've gotten from the "experts" over the last few months are wildly inaccurate projections and the sage advice of "stay out of sneezing range". Solid work, chief.

Has a full profession every been so grossly inept? They have to be in the running with snow forecasters, the Y2K movement, the Roanoke settlers, and Ron Wellman. At least when actual constitutional lawyers play constitutional lawyers they are pretty good at it.
Click to expand...

You as an employer exceeds any level of ineptitude. Just ask your child-bearing ex-employees.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Could be a variety of things. Genetic predisposition, existing health conditions, existing immunity to something else related, the age distinction seems to have some general legs. Who knows.
Click to expand...

You’re still misunderstanding how things work. The ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic is not going to radically change, because the factors you listed above aren’t changing in the general population. If 20% of 1000 infected people are symptomatic, then it’s almost certain that 20% of 10000 infected people will be too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top