BS: Coronavirus statistics

Subject: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: EBarnacle
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 01:33 AM

Here's why the projections are all over the place. Fuzzy data.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-comic-strip-tour-of-the-wild-world-of-pandemic-modeling/?ex_cid=story-facebook&fbclid=IwA

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 08:05 AM

We Are ALL Just A Number Now

A vacation in a foreign land
Airlines do the best they can
You're just a number now
Oh, oh, You're just a number now
Now you remember what the TV said
Nothing to do all day but stay in bed
You're just a number now
Oh, oh, you're on the frontline now
You'll be the hero of the neighborhood
Nobody knows that you've left for good
You're just a number now
Oh, oh, You're just a number now
Smiling faces as you wait to land
But once you're there who gives a damn
You're just a number now
Oh, oh, You're just a number now
You have gloves and masks nd maybe a hood
One mistake and you're gone for good
If you want to survive, just stay in bed
You're just a number now
Oh, oh, You're just a number now
There is no cure until the end
You go for a drive and try to pretend
You're NOT a number now
Oh, oh, you're a statistic now
Oh, oh, You're a statistic now
You've got your orders to stay indoors
Your hands's on your phone
But it sounds like a groan
You're feelin sick
or is it just a trick
Oh, oh, You're just a number now
Oh, oh, were all in the same boat now
Night is falling and you just can't see
Is this illusion or reality
Some don't want to believe TV
You're just a number now.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 08:30 AM

Because of a loophole in the medical privacy law and state regulations Nursing homes are exempt from reporting deaths. As a result when the police get inside tips they go and find 17 bodies stacked inside and some in gardening sheds. The care takers just stop showing up and all hell breaks loose. This may be going on in epidemic proportions without much awareness all accross the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 12:34 PM

This is true. We DON'T know, and will never know, the true extent of infections or the true statistics on cause of death anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 07:30 AM

Realistic mitigation and testing efforts may keep deaths under 1 million in the US.

Just going back to business as usual projects deaths to 2 million.


Conservatives say thats only a difference of 2 or 3 % or letting 1 million old people die which is going to happen sooner or later anyway.

Democrats say thats 1,000,000 PEOPLE needlessly killed.


Conservatives see fortunes lost and Democrats see lives lost.

We need to see both sides now. Can we compromise with testing?

I see angry conservatives passing out candy to children with thier bare hands at public demonstrations and not socially distancing,

Unemployment is hard, hunger is hard, death is hard. Perhaps it is too much to ask of people to be civil on their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 07:34 AM

This is assuming a vaccination is succesful.
If not, the sky is the limit for many deaths for many years,

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 12:19 PM

If you add heart disease deaths and cancer deaths you exceed the number of ~ 40,000 US Covid deaths. However now Covid 19 deaths exceed Cancer or heart attack deaths individually.

By the end of the year, Covid 19 will be the all time supream reaper among all other causes of death.

Trump Tweets this hour..
Liberate Minesota
2nd Tweet
Liberate Michigan
3rd Tweet
LIBERATE VIRGINIA SAVE YOUR GREAT 2ND AMENDMENT. It is under siege.

(will we be in a shooting civil war again?)-Donuel

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 12:38 PM

53% of households have pets

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: gillymor
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 01:24 PM

Until we get uniform wide-spread testing statistics are fairly useless. I suspect President Dumbshit is hesitant to move on this because he doesn't want people to see the real numbers. A competent adult would have moblized the federal government and implemented a Manhattan Project approach to all aspects of testing and PPE supply for this pandemic more than a month ago but instead we've got a spineless ninny who's more concerned about the coming election and shifting and dodging blame. Let's hope this sub-human creature gets what he deserves come November.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: EBarnacle
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 05:16 PM

Unfortunately, testing medications and sera is a lengthy process. The original estimate of 18 months is probably still accurate, if optimistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 05:30 PM

All the more reason to federalize the production of the weapons the states need to fight this war.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 02:57 AM

George Canning UK Prime Minister said:   I can prove anything with statistics, except the truth

Which is typical politicianspeak for "denial". And speaks volumes of how politicians use stats. Real stats would include the question in full, and what wasn't asked also.

The UK COVID-19 figures on-line are split into the constituent countries for confirmed cases for eg England yet shows the total UK deaths. We know care homes figures are not included because of the fiasco of testing. And Only cases in hospitals are collected, though maybe medical staff would be included because of the testing currently.

The UK TV press briefings showed curves that implied the situation had plateaued, and even dipped. Let us wait and see how that picture changes when restrictions allow (say) just workers to return.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 03:24 AM

Fourier analysis of UK COVID (reported) deaths shows a periodicity that peaks quite strongly at 6 days. With peaks at half the level at 9 and 11 days. I would expect to see something going on at the 7 day frequency but it is a trough, the 14 day level barely shows.

This is based on the most recent 32 days (a restriction of Excel/FFTs) so it shows only qualitative indications, nothing more. When there are 64 day's worth of stats it may be more relevant but I suspect the 6 day periodicity to be still there. As to why will be a mystery. But if it could be reasoned, it would be a tool to reduce the numbers.

(because I am an engineer, in lock-down and I can do these things, that's why!)

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 04:26 AM

Fourier analysis of UK COVID (reported) deaths shows a periodicity that peaks quite strongly at 6 days,
would you mind putting this in laymans language thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Iains
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 05:08 AM

When there is uncertainty as to the accuracy of antibody tests and uncertainty as to whether catcthing the virus gives subsequent immunity, there would seem to be quite a mountain to climb. Lockdown reduces infection rates it does not prevent it.
Until a vaccine is made available for all, a degree of permanent lockdown would appear to be a feature of life for the near future. Either that or perhaps swamp medical facilities and have a heightened death rate.
It seems to me a immediate profitable line of research would be to isolate those that have/have had the virus asymptonatically and determine who shares the same characteristic in the entire population. Answer this and lockdown could be focused on those that do not posess this apparent immunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 05:33 AM

would you mind putting this in laymans language thanks
- Yea, you would expect a weekly frequency showing more or less deaths in one part of the week because we live & move on a 7 day cycle - normally. Reportage might also be affected by the weekly cycle.

OK we are not so strongly governed by 7 day activity at the moment, but the analysis, such as it is, shows almost no 7 day cycle. As to why a 6 day cycle is appearing - it is interesting as a puzzle, albeit beyond reasoning (for us mortals).

Early days, but we humans like to see patterns.

Answer this and lockdown could be focused on those that do not posess this apparent immunity.
- The problems with that are getting enough infection testing to make that reliable, and as for anti-bodies tests, the only ones available (in small numbers too!) - the number of false positive and negative mean it is reckless to use. Early days, given the seriousness of the situation, there is a lot of activity to address these aspects.

And a vaccine would be lovely, but ya gotta test first, and a good cross-section of the populous. Stats again - how often are adverse effects? And to whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 05:52 AM

The only 'safe' predictive models are those that project trends based upon empirical data. The biggest problem is that the modelling has to take into account a feedback loop that takes into account of how mass behaviours change reactively as the trends progress. Over a long enough time frame that also can be predictable. The biggest curveball is the impact of proactive measures, these can be predicted by overlaying trends of localities that has different measures in place.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Iains
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 06:36 AM

Interesting that valid comments are made about the possible drawbacks of interpreting models in the case of covid-19, but a blind faith is shown in predictions based on climate models. ?????

---

STOP IT. This isn't a UK politics thread - your attempt to mangle this discussion won't be tolerated. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 18 Apr 20 - 12:53 PM

There is a lot more long-term peer reviewed science and consensus on human climate impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Apr 20 - 03:12 AM

but a blind faith is shown in predictions based on climate models. ?????

Which is of course a false statement. Like all sweeping generalisations if fails to take into account the caveat that climate predictinS (there are many) are based on modelling that already predicts what has happened up to the present day, qualitatively, numbers are plus. You have a model you have data that are indisputable. You take a subset of data up to (say 10 years ago) and run the model. And you get a qualitative answer that understates the actual. Is that a failure or a warning that your model is incomplete. Or that you don't understand the severity of the situation? If YES then GOTO "denier". Then there is chaos theory that says small changes in starting conditions defeat any prediction because the calculations are many.

COVID-19 predictions were that lock-down would produce a stablisation of cases. AND????? The mathematical model predicted it without stating numbers. It also predicts numbers will rise when restrictions are lifted, so we are hearing limited easing. Would you deny Lock-Down? You see - deniers are dangerous in some situations. Did I mention Trump?

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 Apr 20 - 08:58 AM

Missing from the statistics is just how many foul smoking individuals have died - strange that!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Apr 20 - 09:33 AM

The complex job of modeling can be as complex as fluid dynamics but we are not there yet. All we have that works is HIDE.

The behavior of this infection is maddingly variable.

It is like an FBI profiler only able to identify a serial murderer as someone who murders.

At this point statistics is still almost meaningless. It will be years before the patterns will reveal its secrets.


In an airborn virus think of a smoker inside by a sunlight illuminated window. The light makes the smoke more visible. Watch the behavior of the smoke. It doesn't stop at 2 meters.

By Occams Razor my opinion is that one factor may be that a threshold exists that a sufficient viral density is met for serious infection.

Sensing the existence of cigar smoke is different than it making you choke in a cloud of smoke.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Mr Red
Date: 21 Apr 20 - 03:46 PM

Think perfume.
A lady passes you (or a man these days) and you get a trail top notes that hits you, unmistakably. How big are those molecules cf viruses?
Not that it matters, it demonstrates how far airborne particles can carry in the eddies of a wake. Wake being an unfortunate word.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Apr 20 - 10:39 AM

Solving the Mysteries of Coronavirus With Genetic Fingerprints

SEATTLE — As the coronavirus outbreak consumed the city of Wuhan in China, new cases of the virus began to spread out like sparks flung from a fire.

Some landed thousands of miles away. By the middle of January, one had popped up in Chicago, another one near Phoenix. Two others came down in the Los Angeles area. Thanks to a little luck and a lot of containment, those flashes of the virus appear to have been snuffed out before they had a chance to take hold.

But on Jan. 15, at the international airport south of Seattle, a 35-year-old man returned from a visit to his family in the Wuhan region. He grabbed his luggage and booked a ride-share to his home north of the city.

The next day, as he went back to his tech job east of Seattle, he felt the first signs of a cough — not a bad one, not enough to send him home. He attended a group lunch with colleagues that week at a seafood restaurant near his office. As his symptoms got worse, he went grocery shopping near his home.

Days later, after the man became the first person in the United States to test positive for the coronavirus, teams from federal, state and local agencies descended to contain the case. Sixty-eight people — the ride-share driver at the airport, the lunchmates at the seafood restaurant, the other patients at the clinic where the man was first seen — were monitored for weeks. To everyone’s relief, none ever tested positive for the virus.

But if the story ended there, the arc of the coronavirus’s sweep through the United States would look much different.

As it turned out, the genetic building block of the virus detected in the man who had been to Wuhan would become a crucial clue for scientists who were trying to understand how the pathogen gained its first, crucial foothold.

Working out of laboratories along Seattle’s Lake Union, researchers from the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center rushed to identify the RNA sequence of the cases from Washington State and around the country, comparing them with data coming in from around the world.

Using advanced technology that allows them to rapidly identify the tiny mutations that the virus makes in its virulent path through human hosts, the scientists working in Washington and several other states made two disconcerting discoveries.

The first was that the virus brought in by the man from Wuhan — or perhaps, as new data has suggested, by someone else who arrived carrying a nearly identical strain — had managed to settle into the population undetected.

Then they began to realize how far it had spread. A small outbreak that had established itself somewhere north of Seattle, they realized as they added new cases to their database, was now responsible for all known cases of community transmission they examined in Washington State in the month of February.

And it had jumped.

A genetically similar version of the virus — directly linked to that first case in Washington — was identified across 14 other states, as far away as Connecticut and Maryland. It settled in other parts of the world, in Australia, Mexico, Iceland, Canada, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. It landed in the Pacific, on the Grand Princess cruise ship.

The unique signature of the virus that reached America’s shores in Seattle now accounts for a quarter of all U.S. cases made public by genomic sequencers in the United States.

With no widespread testing available, the high-tech detective work of the researchers in Seattle and their partners elsewhere would open the first clear window into how and where the virus was spreading — and how difficult it would be to contain.

It's a long article, but you should be able to read the rest of it free online during the coronavirus coverage from the New York Times.

Subject: Reopening US Corona virus Hot Spots
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Apr 20 - 11:32 AM

Old Confederate States are reopening after much critical thought.

South Carolina and Georgia are reopening some business' that promise social distancing. Shops known for social distancing like Tattoo parlors and hair salons will be the first to have a grand opening.

Republican Govenors are taking a nuanced and customized approach to reopening and claim there is no political factor involved.
While Schools are not reopening more strategic openings are on the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Coronavirus statistics
From: Mossback
Date: 22 Apr 20 - 12:26 PM

I would urge everyone to support the Neo-Confederate States in their suicide pacts and the fundagelical churches/pastors as well.

The more of these feeble-minded assholes with the collective intelligence of a nematode that die, the better place the world will be.

Efforts should concentrate on insuring that these morons don't infect sentient beings.