Covid-19

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Because that's not my position, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

That's what you said: "I'd rather have 10,000,000 Americans die from this rather than see the government take our rights away."

I did, but you're misstating my position. Again. For someone who keeps accusing me of using straw man arguments, you sure do it a lot yourself. I said at the outset, and have continued to say that the abrogation of rights is not warranted for this virus. If the numbers change, then my position gets re-evaluated. Honestly Zara, you're not reacting to this rationally at all. You're jumping all over my position which - while you may not like or understand - I've made very clear. If the healthcare systems of the country were overrun and people were dropping dead left and right, I would have amended my position and issued a massive mea culpa. But neither of those things has happened. You on the other hand have been banging the "overwhelmed" drum from the outset, it hasn't happened, and now you're banging it louder. It's time to re-evaluate your position, as what you're arguing over isn't reality. Because if it was, hospitals wouldn't be laying people off and wouldn't be ghost towns.

The argument: Do you think overwhelming our health care system would have been a crisis, even if 10 million people didn't die, or not?

Maybe that's your argument, it's not mine.

It's the reason for the current measures. If it's not "your argument," it's only because you're not arguing the issue at hand, but instead some strawman figment about death toll and pink eye.

There you are with your fallacious straw man accusation again. Zara, it's the reason the government and you gave at the outset. It's failed to materialize. Death toll actually does matter whether or not you choose to accept it. How contagious a disease is is meaningless if it doesn't create health issues that require medical care. You're ignoring reality rather than admitting that the crisis that was predicted has failed to come to pass.

But I'll play along. I don't think we were ever at risk for that. In certain high-density areas it's an issue, for the majority of the country it's not.

Based on what?? The "numbers" that you say we don't know? There's nothing special about New York, except population density. The rest of the country doesn't have some special immunity. What is happening there could have happened everywhere else, except slower. The reason it *didn't* happen is because of the extreme measures we've taken, not some imaginary "it's not that big a deal" logic you back up with unspecified numbers.

You're right, I have exactly the same logic that you are using. Neither of us have anything empirical to back up our positions. You can't post anything that supports your supposition that the measures taken are 100% responsible for ow much of a non-event this virus has been. Which is why I have taken the much more logically sound position that both the measures and the overstating of the virus's lethality are responsible for the low death count.

BTW, New York is nothing special. It's more of a problem there due to population density. Which is why it's illogical to prescribe the same policies for New York City as it is for Boise, Idaho. And yet here we are.

You've literally been making the same argument back when only 20 people had died. The numbers are meaningless to your points. 10 million or 20, the argument is the same, and it's not based on what's actually happening. Even with the extreme measures we've taken, infections are still going up, and our health care infrastructure is being stretched to the max--in some places. Without the extreme measures, many orders of magnitude would have been sick and flooded the hospitals.

Possibly, although infections aren't going up, they've effectively been plateaued for the last two weeks. My argument has been the same because I made a very good guess at the outset, which has been supported by reality. And because I believe that the Constitution means what it says, and it takes much more than a minor viral outbreak to violate the principles within it.

. . . when it became clear that this virus wasn't as lethal as initially feared (which is a good thing, not sure why you keep arguing against that), the feds and the states should have changed the way they were dealing with it.

You keep saying "it's clear," but I've outlined how your logic isn't clear at all. You are free to make it clear, but you don't. You just keep repeating how clear it is.

See above. The Constitution get thrown away because of a minor outbreak. That's crystal clear whether you think so or not.

Now, with that said, I do think it's time to move forward and get the economy going again.

There, now you're making some sense. Why is now the time? What's to prevent the hospitals from being overrun in a month when everyone gets out of self-quarantine? If you want to maintain your argument, then there would have to either be no new cases, or a drastic increase in hospital capacity.

The argument: The average lifespan in the US is 78. 75% of the fatalities from this virus are people over 65, with 50% of the total fatalities coming from those over 75. The vast majority of the remaining 25% had additional risk factors (smoking, obesity, other medical issues) that made them at-risk. Do you think that putting 22,000,000 (and counting) people out of work, making it a crime to be in a group of more than 10, and all the other extreme reactions were warranted?

Based on that criteria, no I don't think it's warranted. But, again, that's not the criteria I've repeated stated, and it's not the reason why the government(s) took the actions they have. So, it's not "the argument."

It's my argument, and it's the point(s) I've consistently and clearly been making for over a month.

I don't know about everywhere else, but here in Tennessee businesses started closing, operating under "carry out only," and sending employees to work from home WEEKS before the government made them do it. I think most of the economic harm would have happened anyway, on a strictly voluntary basis. Therefore, for multiple reasons, I think you present a false choice when you ask, "Was this worth it?" The government actions aren't the main reason it happened, and the risks you list weren't the things we were trying to avoid. Your entire argument is a strawman.

There you go again misusing that word.

You're staking your position on the novel idea that your suppositions are better than mine. Reality doesn't agree with you.

Now that doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been an economic cost had the government not intervened, but before you accuse me of that, let me be clear that I've never made that argument. The trillions of dollars in bailouts wouldn't have been necessary, although I'd wager that the current administration would have put together something.

[TheFallen]

How I'm getting those numbers is; I use only the ones who survived and the one who died. Can't use the others because they are still considered sick
and havn't died nor recovered. It skews the known deaths/recovered ratio.
As of today the death rate is still 20%

That is not how calculating a mortality rate works.

Agreed.

A much more reasonable way of calculating a mortality rate would be to divide the total number of deaths by the total number of identified cases. That would give a figure (currently) of 6.7%, looking at the global figures right now...

...but that's still wildly inaccurate and frankly almost totally irrelevant as a statistic. Why? Well first because while the pandemic persists, the numbers feeding that simple calculation are ever-changing, and second because although deaths are largely known and reported, cases of infection certainly aren't. For example, if 90% of infections are going unidentified and thus unreported, then current mortality rate is 0.67%.

Which is one of several reasons why I and others (Zee especially) keep saying that looking at mortality rates is pretty much entirely a complete waste of time - there's no value or enlightenment to be found in so doing. The only real data points worth looking at are the number and especially the rate of increase in infections.

On which subject...

What is the infection rate?

Globally or by country? Check the Johns Hopkins site--for global numbers divided "active cases" by the global population you can find at worldometers (just round to the nearest thousand, you can't keep up with the hundreds or tens) but that will give you a very small rate. Here in Texas the infection rate is 0.053428%; New York's rate is 1.067%--is is 20 times worse there than it is here,

That's a meaningless figure and calculation, Hashi. It's also potentially very misleading - because what is the term "rate of infection" intended to mean?

If, as you have calculated it, it is simply meant to mean "the percentage of the overall population in any given region that has been identified as having (or having had) coronavirus", then yes your calculations are no doubt accurate... but pointless. Because they necessarily only relate to a single snapshot in time and are helplessly fated to only ever rise. Example - a month ago using your methodology, you'd have reported (and in fact did report) a truly infinitesimal "infection rate". No doubt accurate at the time... but valueless.

Far FAR more significant is if one takes "rate of infection" to mean "rate of growth in infection", which is related to the R number, as epidemiologists call it. That "rate of growth in infections" is the core data point that will inform the strategic planning of governments. For info, currently the US (and the UK as it happens) are experiencing infection growth rates of around the 4.5% to 5% level on a daily basis.

[Gaius Octavius]

China is shutting down Wuhan again because people are getting reinfected (or more likely their problems with the virus never actually died down and they just wanted to lie in order to make themselves look better).

In other news, the communist ideological organization, the World Health Organization (which is literally run by a pro-China communist) has been defunded by the United States. People are melting down over it. Oh no! Let's just support a compromised organization, okay? It isn't like they lied about the virus being transmissible from human-to-human or anything like that.


It is now looking increasingly likely that the origin of the coronavirus pandemic is a virus lab in Wuhan.

[peter]

Glitch post!

[peter]

Don't understand why Trump is talking about opening up America again in the face of a still rising average weekly death toll? I know (and understand) why he wants to get trade up and running again (getting the economy back on track before the election not withstanding) - but a presumptive lifting of the lockdown before the virus spread is under control would seem to be ill-advised to say the least. The American people have put in the hard slog and deserve to know their efforts will be rewarded, but not by throwing the advantages gained thus far into the wind surely?

I don't know shit about the WHO to be honest Nano, but isn't it possible that maybe they just didn't know that there was human to human transfer when/if they made this pronouncement? (Like I say, I don't know zilch about what they have and haven't said on the pandemic.) What would be the gain in deliberately delivering a falsehood on the transmissibility that was bound to be exposed?

[TheFallen]

Here we go again... Obi, you are so insistent on trotting out three separate arguments for your position. Of these horses you keep switching between, two are credible thoroughbreds... but the third that you keep jumping into the saddle of is a worthless old nag that needs to be sent to the glue factory.

I can respect the logic behind any position that states "regardless of severity, our rights should never be abrogated". I'd firmly disagree with it, sure, but it would be logically tenable.

Equally I can respect the logic behind any position that states "regardless of severity, the economic impact of current imposed measures is far more damaging than the benefit of what those measures are intended to achieve". I'd still disagree with that - albeit less firmly - but again it's a logically tenable position.

However, there is no logic at all behind any position that starts off from the premise "Look at the current numbers - this virus is not at all a big deal", because that opening premise is at best unprovable... and at worst flies in the face of the initial numbers.

And it's that final and entirely specious argument which you continually make that sticks in my (and obviously Zee's) craw and demands debunking.

You've been advancing this third argument since day one, being massively dismissive about the effects of coronavirus. I'm not going to quote from the wide selection of your comments available to evidence this again, because I've already done that, but this synopsis I wrote from three days ago suffices to make the point:-

Obi, you know that initially you were far too dismissive about the virus. You even admitted this after nigh on 4 weeks of maintaining that the virus was variously "an annoyance", "a non-event", "no worse than the regular flu" and "the sniffles" (all terms you used to describe the coronavirus and its impact, prior to April 3rd).

And if I could be bothered to trawl this whole thread, I'd find where you grudgingly conceded that you might have initially been too nonchalant about COVID-19. It's unfortunate that your unwarranted dismissiveness has returned.

Can we instead look at what data is available. There was very sharp growth in identified cases of infections that started to become apparent in both the US and the UK from March 15th onwards. Yes the numbers themselves were small initially, but growth rates in both nations were from that point well in excess of 30% per day for a week or so. This was actually a faster growth rate than had been seen in Italy and Spain two weeks prior

And so a raft of social distancing measures were put in towards the end of March by both the US and the UK - some suggested and some imposed. Just as they had been two weeks prior by Italy and Spain. Having initially limited itself to making firm recommendations, the UK government imposed its mandatory social distancing measures on March 23rd.

Now I am well aware that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. However, within three weeks or so, the growth rate in coronavirus infections in both the UK and the US has fallen from the 30% per day level, down to the current sub 5% level per day - and is continuing (albeit more slowly now) to lessen. This again matches the Italian and Spanish experiences but two weeks in arrears - and for info, both latter countries are experiencing coronavirus case growth rates of less than 3% for over a week now.

It is therefore logically justifiable to maintain that there does seem to be a connection between social distancing (which includes both recommended and imposed) and suppression of infection growth rates - as you yourself have acknowledged:

As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do

However, you've just posted this:

Zara, it's the reason the government and you gave at the outset. It's failed to materialize. Death toll actually does matter whether or not you choose to accept it. How contagious a disease is is meaningless if it doesn't create health issues that require medical care. You're ignoring reality rather than admitting that the crisis that was predicted has failed to come to pass.

Firstly yet again you refuse to even consider the possibility that the reason the coronavirus pandemic is having its current suppressed levels of effects is precisely and solely because of social distancing measures imposed. And that's despite your having conceded that "social distancing is doing what it's meant to do"...

Secondly, I'd dispute that "death toll actually does matter". It obviously does to some extent of course, but it's the most lagged stat... the one that becomes visible the latest. Surely you'd allow that the following statement is true?

Healthy population -> number of infected -> number of infected requiring hospitalisation -> number of hospitalised requiring intensive care -> number of deaths.

It's just a list of the progression of subsets - and yes it's not exact, but it makes the point that the first and the earliest visible data point is the number of infected (and obviously the growth rate in that number is particularly significant). Especially since the primary concern that I and others - definitely including Zee - have is solely about the potential overwhelming of health systems. Which if occurring, would also impinge on those requiring hospital healthcare for non-COVID related reasons.

And then there's this that you've previously said:

It is, of course, impossible to judge whether the virus isn't all it was cracked up to be, or if the repressive government actions are the reason the numbers have dropped.

Correct. You've just reaffirmed this by pointing out that there's no categoric empirical evidence for either side. Having said that, there is at least some evidence - see above and which you've acknowledged - for social distancing succeeding in suppressing the growth rates in infections...

So I do not see any justification whatsoever for you to assert the intellectual and logical superiority of your position. There's just no reason for you to do so. It's utter unsubstantiated bullshit for you to claim that you've taken a "much more logically sound position" and that you "made a very good guess at the outset, which has been supported by reality. That latter is in particular a posteriori reasoning of the most spurious kind. The reality that you claim as evidence for your case that measures taken were inappropriate is the the reality that has been occasioned by those measures. A point which you've already agreed with. Why can you not see the blatant gaping flaws in what you're saying?

Speaking of your insistence on claiming that your position is "much more logically sound", I note with huge irony that you then go on to say this to Zee:

You're staking your position on the novel idea that your suppositions are better than mine. Reality doesn't agree with you.

I think you'll find that you're at least every bit as guilty in claiming supremacy of supposition... and re reality disagreeing? See the point above. The reality of currently suppressed coronavirus rates is a result of the measures taken, as you yourself have conceded. I'm going to try laying this out simply and concisely one more time...

It is a glaring fallacy then to use those successfully suppressed numbers as proof that the demonstrably effective measures taken to suppress them were therefore not necessary in the first place.

That is the circular logic you're repeatedly using which Zee has been doing his level best to point out to you. The position you're adopting is literally no different to this:-

Bob's taking a trip to sub-Saharan Africa. He pays $100 for anti-malarial injections before he goes. Upon his return, he incessantly bitches about the $100 he spent, solely on the basis that he hasn't come down with malaria and so the injections must clearly have been utterly unnecessary and a complete waste of time...

And finally...

The Constitution gets thrown away because of a minor outbreak. That's crystal clear whether you think so or not.

As you have phrased it, it is not "crystal clear" in the least. There is a blatant value judgement within your deliberately emotively phrased statement, namely the use of the word "minor". That is assumption presented as fact... in spades. Here's another way of phrasing things that is at least every bit as justifiable.

Elements of the Constitution get suspended in order to permit measures to keep a viral outbreak down to manageable levels. That's crystal clear whether you think so or not.

Obi, I do wish you'd put that third and unbackable horse out of its misery and restrict yourself to arguing from logically tenable positions...

[SoulBiter]

Don't understand why Trump is talking about opening up America again in the face of a still rising average weekly death toll?

The death toll will continue unabated for weeks after the new infections have declined significantly. We cant use that as our measure for when to open up. I also have to ask, did you watch the news conference? Trump and his team are not opening up everything nor opening everything all at once. But in areas of the US where the risk is small, he is going to work with the Governors of those states to open for business. There are significant portions of the midwest where there are few new instances and few deaths. There is no reason to keep those closed. As we see the declines in new cases along with the ability to measure and react to a new resurgence, other states will be opening up.

At the end of the day, the shutdown was never to stop the virus in its tracks. That was never going to happen. Instead it kept the peak from being uncontrollable, gave us time to get things like masks, sheilds, gowns, respirators, etc etc in enough qty to deal with this. In 3 months there wont be enough left of the economy to save in any short term. We could literally throw the US (and perhaps the world) into a full on depression. Add to that, the govt is over-extended financially. Too many bailouts over too many years. Add another 4 trillion, then another 4 trillion and before you know it we have devalued the dollar and inflation takes over.

No, its time to re-open for business in a thoughtful way. People love to give Trump crap no matter what he does, but this is the right move at the right time in the right way.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

TF, I'm don't know why you can't wrap your head around the idea that multiple things can be true. Social distancing does work to slow the spread of a contagion. This virus is not nearly as deadly (or as serious a threat to health, if that sits better with you) as we initially thought. Both of those statements are true, and we've avoided the doom and gloom that was initially predicted precisely because both of those things are true. You can continue to argue one or both of those points, but at this point you're tilting at windmills.

[TheFallen]

TF, I'm don't know why you can't wrap your head around the idea that multiple things can be true. Social distancing does work to slow the spread of a contagion. This virus is not nearly as deadly (or as serious a threat to health, if that sits better with you) as we initially thought. Both of those statements are true, and we've avoided the doom and gloom that was initially predicted precisely because both of those things are true. You can continue to argue one or both of those points, but at this point you're tilting at windmills.

Of course multiple things can be true. Here's what you are missing - or avoiding the possibility of.

Here are your two statements:-

A. Social distancing does work to slow the spread of a contagion.

B. This virus is not as serious a threat to health as we initially thought.(I took out your word "nearly" because it's an irritating value judgement that serves no purpose).

You present those two statements as if they are discrete, unrelated and thus each happily true in its own right and on a stand-alone basis. Doing that is predicated on a very large (and I would say, false) assumption.

I suggest to you that your two statements are absolutely not discrete and unrelated. I suggest that the second is subordinate; it's entirely conditional and dependent upon the first. It is only true because the first statement is true. It would not be true if the first statement was not true.

You refuse to accept even the possibility of that, despite data-based evidence - albeit not 100% conclusive - to the contrary. To me, that shows close-mindedness (or confirmation bias, if you'd rather).

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

TF, I'm don't know why you can't wrap your head around the idea that multiple things can be true. Social distancing does work to slow the spread of a contagion. This virus is not nearly as deadly (or as serious a threat to health, if that sits better with you) as we initially thought. Both of those statements are true, and we've avoided the doom and gloom that was initially predicted precisely because both of those things are true. You can continue to argue one or both of those points, but at this point you're tilting at windmills.

Of course multiple things can be true. Here's what you are missing - or avoiding the possibility of.

Here are your two statements:-

A. Social distancing does work to slow the spread of a contagion.

B. This virus is not as serious a threat to health as we initially thought.(I took out your word "nearly" because it's an irritating value judgement that serves no purpose).

You present those two statements as if they are discrete, unrelated and thus each happily true in its own right and on a stand-alone basis. Doing that is predicated on a very large (and I would say, false) assumption.

I suggest to you that your two statements are absolutely not discrete and unrelated. I suggest that the second is subordinate; it's entirely conditional and dependent upon the first. It is only true because the first statement is true. It would not be true if the first statement was not true.

You refuse to accept even the possibility of that, despite data-based evidence - albeit not 100% conclusive - to the contrary. To me, that shows close-mindedness (or confirmation bias, if you'd rather).

Once again you're putting your spin on what I've typed. I've told you exactly what I believe, and you keep ignoring it.

But on top of that, you're wrong.

A contagion is not more or less fatal based on whether or not people social distance. As a by-product, fewer people may get seriously ill or die if the rate of infection is slowed, but that is not due to the primary lethality of the contagion.

Using the pink eye example (or poison ivy if you prefer). Both are very contagious. The spread will be slowed by keeping your distance from people. But even if you don't, neither is going to kill or hospitalize that many people because they're not that dangerous. Similarly, this virus is dangerous to a small subset of the population. It is not that dangerous to the bulk of the population. The initial reports of hundreds of millions dead were wrong. Why you can't or won't accept that truth is beyond me.

But I'm not going to call your arguments bullshit.

[TheFallen]

Where am I putting my spin on what you typed? You presented two statements as both being true... I pointed out that the second of those statements being able to be true could well be entirely dependent on the condition of the first statement. That's all. It's not a complicated logical concept.

Plus I am not ignoring what you believe - I am challenging it.

And who's talking about fatality or lethality here? I've already stated God knows how many times that looking at coronavirus's lethality is almost entirely an irrelevance right now and explained why. However if you insist that lethality is important, here's your current mortality rate stat for the US...

5.3% currently, that being the number of US deaths attributed divided by the number of US cases identified...

Utterly ridiculous, right? And we all know why... so what's the point of looking at mortality rate? Or even pointing to it like it's some measure of anything relevant? And because it's unknown and unknowable right now, how for the love of God can you claim that the "lethality" on which you insist on focussing is only "minor"? On what data are you basing this claim of yours? Where are your numbers?

And please don't come back with an answer that states "Look - only 35k Americans have died of COVID-19 right now", because if you've understood the question, you'll know that is no answer to it at all.

A contagion is not more or less fatal based on whether or not people social distance.

I am perhaps unsurprisingly well aware of that. I was not referring to how fatal COVID-19 may be. Instead I simply used your own offered words. Look, here they are... you posted them earlier today:-

This virus is not nearly as deadly (or as serious a threat to health, if that sits better with you) as we initially thought.

I chose the "not as serious a threat to health" option you offered.

Why am I having to quote your own words back at you from posts you've literally only just made?

[Gaius Octavius]

I don't know shit about the WHO to be honest Nano, but isn't it possible that maybe they just didn't know that there was human to human transfer when/if they made this pronouncement? (Like I say, I don't know zilch about what they have and haven't said on the pandemic.) What would be the gain in deliberately delivering a falsehood on the transmissibility that was bound to be exposed?

It's possible, but it's also pretty coincidental in light of the other shit WHO has done during this pandemic, isn't it? Dr. Aylward of the WHO blatantly stated that Taiwan was a region of the People's Republic of China and seems to be on the CCP payroll. WHO refuses Taiwan membership in the organization because the PRC objects. They also IGNORED Taiwan when Taiwan tried telling the WHO back in December that the atypical pneumonia cases that were popping up everywhere had the potential to become a major pandemic and should be taken seriously. Taiwan has released an email that corroborates this.

As to motivation why they would do this, it's quite simple. One, they are either directly getting kickbacks from the CCP or two, they are supporting the CCP because of shared ideology. The head of the freaking WHO is a communist. Look it up. It's public information. Dr. Tedros. Dr. Tedros, like any Marxist, feels an obligation to support other dear communists no matter what, even if it kills people. This is Chernobyl on steroids.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Moving on from a pointless argument, here's a rather interesting article about Sweden from a Swede. Link

[Hashi Lebwohl]

A much more reasonable way of calculating a mortality rate would be to divide the total number of deaths by the total number of identified cases. That would give a figure (currently) of 6.7%, looking at the global figures right now...

...but that's still wildly inaccurate and frankly almost totally irrelevant as a statistic. Why? Well first because while the pandemic persists, the numbers feeding that simple calculation are ever-changing, and second because although deaths are largely known and reported, cases of infection certainly aren't. For example, if 90% of infections are going unidentified and thus unreported, then current mortality rate is 0.67%.

What if, what if, what if--what if only 70% are unidentified, or 20%, or what if there are no unidentified cases at all? You cannot guess as that, so the only numbers you can cite are "the number of confirmed cases" and "the number of people who have died from it"; those will give you, by definition, the mortality rate: deaths/cases.

If, as you have calculated it, it is simply meant to mean "the percentage of the overall population in any given region that has been identified as having (or having had) coronavirus", then yes your calculations are no doubt accurate... but pointless. Because they necessarily only relate to a single snapshot in time and are helplessly fated to only ever rise. Example - a month ago using your methodology, you'd have reported (and in fact did report) a truly infinitesimal "infection rate". No doubt accurate at the time... but valueless.

Far FAR more significant is if one takes "rate of infection" to mean "rate of growth in infection", which is related to the R number, as epidemiologists call it. That "rate of growth in infections" is the core data point that will inform the strategic planning of governments. For info, currently the US (and the UK as it happens) are experiencing infection growth rates of around the 4.5% to 5% level on a daily basis.

No, my calculations are not pointless--they are correct. You know that logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"? When it comes to the subject of math, I am the authority.

The rate of growth of infection is a completely different statistic and has nothing whatsoever to do with the mortality rate.

*************

More protests against the stay-at-home orders are occurring--a crowd of people attended a beach in Florida which had been ordered closed. Other people, including some talking heads, are starting to take the position I have taken, that the infringement of liberty is now more deadly and insidious than corona.

[Zarathustra]

I don't have time for the point-by-point today, except for this:

Death toll actually does matter whether or not you choose to accept it. How contagious a disease is is meaningless if it doesn't create health issues that require medical care. You're ignoring reality rather than admitting that the crisis that was predicted has failed to come to pass.

As TF says, you can overwhelm the health care system with less than fatal results. In your words, you can "create health issues that require medical care" without those issues being lethal in the first place, or if the intervention saves the lives in question, mitigating the lethality to some degree. I'm sure you understand this. Not sure why you pretend not to.

Healthy population -> number of infected -> number of infected requiring hospitalisation -> number of hospitalised requiring intensive care -> number of deaths.

Exactly. Overwhelming the health care system starts at the third subset, not the fifth.

So I do not see any justification whatsoever for you to assert the intellectual and logical superiority of your position. There's just no reason for you to do so. It's utter unsubstantiated bullshit for you to claim that you've taken a "much more logically sound position" and that you "made a very good guess at the outset, which has been supported by reality. That latter is in particular a posteriori reasoning of the most spurious kind. The reality that you claim as evidence for your case that measures taken were inappropriate is the the reality that has been occasioned by those measures. A point which you've already agreed with. Why can you not see the blatant gaping flaws in what you're saying?

Hell yes! I hate to admit it, but I literally could not have said it better myself. I'm quite jealous, actually, of your ability to make my point better than I have. Well said!

[SoulBiter]

Moving on from a pointless argument, here's a rather interesting article about Sweden from a Swede. Link

Good article. I have said a couple of times on this thread. Sweden is the Canary in a coal mine as far as knowing if everyone else went overboard.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Moving on from a pointless argument, here's a rather interesting article about Sweden from a Swede. Link

Good article. I have said a couple of times on this thread. Sweden is the Canary in a coal mine as far as knowing if everyone else went overboard.

Indeed. It's frustrating that they too are counting all deaths that test positive as COVID deaths, but that just means that every nation's death totals are artificially inflated.

There's a very good point made about the second-wave deaths from other countries as they relax their lockdowns. Sweden won't have that, so while their deaths per million might be higher than their neighbors now, it'll be interesting to see how they compare in 6-9 months.

[TheFallen]

A much more reasonable way of calculating a mortality rate would be to divide the total number of deaths by the total number of identified cases. That would give a figure (currently) of 6.7%, looking at the global figures right now...

...but that's still wildly inaccurate and frankly almost totally irrelevant as a statistic. Why? Well first because while the pandemic persists, the numbers feeding that simple calculation are ever-changing, and second because although deaths are largely known and reported, cases of infection certainly aren't. For example, if 90% of infections are going unidentified and thus unreported, then current mortality rate is 0.67%.

What if, what if, what if--what if only 70% are unidentified, or 20%, or what if there are no unidentified cases at all? You cannot guess as that, so the only numbers you can cite are "the number of confirmed cases" and "the number of people who have died from it"; those will give you, by definition, the mortality rate: deaths/cases.

Hashi I am in complete agreement with you. That is the only way to calculate the mortality rate. And as I just posted in reply to Obi, that would give a current mortality rate in the US of...

5.3%

BUT despite that number being quite properly and correctly calculated from the currently available data, I do not buy for one second that it is in any way representative of wider reality. And I bet you don't either. It is just way too high.

If, as you have calculated it, it is simply meant to mean "the percentage of the overall population in any given region that has been identified as having (or having had) coronavirus", then yes your calculations are no doubt accurate... but pointless. Because they necessarily only relate to a single snapshot in time and are helplessly fated to only ever rise. Example - a month ago using your methodology, you'd have reported (and in fact did report) a truly infinitesimal "infection rate". No doubt accurate at the time... but valueless.

Far FAR more significant is if one takes "rate of infection" to mean "rate of growth in infection", which is related to the R number, as epidemiologists call it. That "rate of growth in infections" is the core data point that will inform the strategic planning of governments. For info, currently the US (and the UK as it happens) are experiencing infection growth rates of around the 4.5% to 5% level on a daily basis.

No, my calculations are not pointless--they are correct. You know that logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"? When it comes to the subject of math, I am the authority.

The rate of growth of infection is a completely different statistic and has nothing whatsoever to do with the mortality rate.

To quote from a recent post of Obi's... you do know that two things can be simultaneously true? A calculation can be both utterly correct and utterly pointless. Utterly pointless in that it either reveals no useful information or it is not representative of wider reality - as per above.

And yes, the rate of growth of infection is of course a completely different statistic (which obviously has a direct relationship with the amount of eventual deaths)...

But it actually *could* have a relationship with the mortality rate too... and that's kinda the key point here. Zee has just re-iterated this eloquently, but let me try a step-by-step approach.

1. You'd agree that the rate of growth of infection directly influences both the overall number of infections and in particular how quickly those occur, right?

2. You'd therefore presumably also agree the rate of growth of infection directly influences both the overall number of hospitalisations and in particular how quickly those occur, right?

3. So what happens if the number of hospitalisations and the speed at which they occur exceeds the availability of healthcare resources to provide appropriate treatment for those hospitalisations? More people will then die... and that will then affect the mortality rate, pushing it up.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

And as I just posted in reply to Obi, that would give a current mortality rate in the US of...

5.3%

28,998 deaths/662,045 cases = 4.378%. Caveat: Johns Hopkins numbers always run one day behind.

[wayfriend]

The coronavirus fight demands unity. But Republicans just want to own the libs.

The GOP was built to fail on coronavirus.

[...] One of the most striking elements of the coronavirus crisis is how easily the response has been folded into America's partisan culture war. From the earliest days of the outbreak, Republicans in Congress, party-aligned media, and voters have tended to play down the pandemic and treat the push for social distancing skeptically - while also positing nefarious motives for liberals and public officials who take opposite positions.

[...] But it also means that the GOP is less able to shift its policy approach to adapt to specific policy problems: It is so consumed by ideology, so preoccupied with the war on Democrats and liberals, that it cannot countenance cooperating with them to address a shared national problem. The Republican party needs a perpetual liberal enemy.

[...] Owning the libs is the raison d'etre of the current Republican party. It's not a governing strategy in normal times. But in a crisis, it's downright catastrophic - and quite possibly self-defeating. [link]

Trump's denial of his coronavirus failings will be "one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history"

Americans are scared and confused about how to respond to the coronavirus pandemic. That's only going to get worse, journalism critic Jay Rosen explains.

Americans don't trust the government, and they don't trust the media. That trend has been evident for years, but the Trump era has accelerated it.

Now we can see the worst-case scenario that trend could create, playing out in front of our eyes: Confronted with a paralyzing coronavirus pandemic, there's deep confusion about the steps the country should be taking to respond.

Don't expect it to get better, says journalism critic Jay Rosen. That's in large part because the Trump administration uses confusion as one of its primary political tools. Right now, it is employing it to create cover for the president, who wants to argue that he shouldn't be blamed for a litany of missteps as the virus moved from China to the US and exploded across the country.

"The fight to keep Americans from understanding what happened from December to March is going to be one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history," he told me recently. "The Republican Party and the Trump campaign and the MAGA coalition are going to have to produce confusion and doubt on a scale that is unlike anything you've ever seen before." [link]