3 ms·

No one asked you to ignore anything, and my goal is certainly not to reassure you. Very silly or not, I'm not making predictions - I'm just keeping track of a

by xscott 7y ago

No one asked you to ignore anything, and my goal is certainly not to reassure you. Very silly or not, I'm not making predictions - I'm just keeping track of a few of you who are. Are you predicting 2 million Americans dead from COVID-19 by the end of May? If you feel confident in your predictions, make a strong claim. If you're less confident, put some error margins around your claim. If you need to put some caveats (i.e. "strict"), be specific. If you're uncertain, it would be more intellectually honest if you indicated that when you post.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
This isn't some little game. This is a serious situation. You're going around suggesting that maybe we can ignore basic epidemiology. There is a strong push right now in the United States to play down the epidemic and get people back to work. The best information available right now indicates an R_0 of between 2 and 3. With 0% preexisting immunity, that means that around 60% of the population will be infected, unless strict social distancing measures are implemented. With the observed doubling time of about 3 days, the epidemic will burn through the population by early May. The mortality rate is around 1%, based on the available information, meaning that about 2 million Americans will die. This can be averted, but not by pretending that epidemiology is potentially all wrong. It can be averted by things like the shelter-in-place orders made by certain governors.
- xscott 7y ago
  I didn't suggest ignoring anything. Please quit putting words into my mouth, it's dishonest. I'm currently much more concerned about what will happen economically and politically because of this thing. There are real and awful consequences to all of this panic that have nothing to do with dying from the virus. Several states have already issued shelter in place orders. From what I can see, my state (which has not) is taking it very seriously regardless. So you get to keep doing your fear mongering predictions of 2 million deaths, and then later you get to say, "well yeah, that didn't happen because we sheltered in place".
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    > I didn't suggest ignoring anything. You responded to DanBC's comment, which extrapolated the exponential by a few weeks, by suggesting that he might be wrong and that somehow a logistic curve will set in. I responded to you by pointing out that the only things that will break exponential growth are herd immunity or strict social distancing measures. > I'm currently much more concerned about what will happen economically and politically because of this thing. That's exactly what I suspected. I think your line of thinking, which is being pushed by a lot of people now (beginning with the President of the United States) is dangerous. You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that either the laws of epidemiology will cease to hold, or that the mortality will turn out to be much lower than is currently estimated. The available information indicates that the death toll in the US from business as usual will be around 2 million people by early summer. That merits a strenuous response, even if it does damage the economy. > There are real and awful consequences to all of this panic that have nothing to do with dying from the virus. We're at the beginning of a pandemic, with 0% immunity, 60% of the population expected to become infected within several weeks, and around a 1% mortality rate. A bit of panic is justified. Better than panic, however, are strong measures implemented quickly. Luckily some states have taken those measures now. > So you get to keep doing your fear mongering predictions of 2 million deaths, and then later you get to say, "well yeah, that didn't happen because we sheltered in place". You simply can't accept the number of 2 million deaths because it's outside of your experience. It is what epidemiology predicts will happen without measures like sheltering in place. How do you think we'll avoid 2 million deaths otherwise? This virus is going to infect ~60% of the population in short order if left unchecked. Do you think the virions will suddenly decide that they don't feel like infecting anyone else? I really do hope that I get to say in the end that "that didn't happen because we sheltered in place." That's what people are already able to say in China, because they sheltered in place and stopped the epidemic. You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that the best information about the R_0 and mortality rate of the virus is incorrect. I'm looking at what happened in Northern Italy, where the hospital system was overwhelmed in two weeks, and I'm not willing to do that.
    - xscott 7y ago
      > That merits a strenuous response, even if it does damage the economy. You say that as though it's "just some boomer's 401k", and not people becoming homeless or suicide rates going up. As for the political side of things, shutting all the stores and making a significant percentage of people unemployed is a good recipe for looting. If that happens, this could get really ugly. > You simply can't accept the number of 2 million deaths because it's outside of your experience. Please spare me your presumptuous psychoanalysis. I doubt you're qualified, and you don't know me from a hole in the wall. Is an extra 2 million US deaths in 2 months within your experience?!? I question your prediction because I've seen a lot of "the end is nigh" statements over the years and they've always been wrong. If 2 million people die from this in the US before summer, you're certainly right - extreme measures are/were justified. If 60 thousand die, it's no worse than a bad flu season and you're just another self righteous drama queen spreading fear. > You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that the best information about the R_0 and mortality rate of the virus is incorrect. You really should quit that. I'm not asking anyone to trust me on anything. However, I'm allowed to question whether all of this is justified. If it turns out to not be, we should know to be more skeptical/cynical towards people like you the next time.

by xscott 7y ago

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

This isn't some little game. This is a serious situation. You're going around suggesting that maybe we can ignore basic epidemiology. There is a strong push right now in the United States to play down the epidemic and get people back to work. The best information available right now indicates an R_0 of between 2 and 3. With 0% preexisting immunity, that means that around 60% of the population will be infected, unless strict social distancing measures are implemented. With the observed doubling time of about 3 days, the epidemic will burn through the population by early May. The mortality rate is around 1%, based on the available information, meaning that about 2 million Americans will die. This can be averted, but not by pretending that epidemiology is potentially all wrong. It can be averted by things like the shelter-in-place orders made by certain governors.

xscott 7y ago
I didn't suggest ignoring anything. Please quit putting words into my mouth, it's dishonest. I'm currently much more concerned about what will happen economically and politically because of this thing. There are real and awful consequences to all of this panic that have nothing to do with dying from the virus. Several states have already issued shelter in place orders. From what I can see, my state (which has not) is taking it very seriously regardless. So you get to keep doing your fear mongering predictions of 2 million deaths, and then later you get to say, "well yeah, that didn't happen because we sheltered in place".
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > I didn't suggest ignoring anything. You responded to DanBC's comment, which extrapolated the exponential by a few weeks, by suggesting that he might be wrong and that somehow a logistic curve will set in. I responded to you by pointing out that the only things that will break exponential growth are herd immunity or strict social distancing measures. > I'm currently much more concerned about what will happen economically and politically because of this thing. That's exactly what I suspected. I think your line of thinking, which is being pushed by a lot of people now (beginning with the President of the United States) is dangerous. You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that either the laws of epidemiology will cease to hold, or that the mortality will turn out to be much lower than is currently estimated. The available information indicates that the death toll in the US from business as usual will be around 2 million people by early summer. That merits a strenuous response, even if it does damage the economy. > There are real and awful consequences to all of this panic that have nothing to do with dying from the virus. We're at the beginning of a pandemic, with 0% immunity, 60% of the population expected to become infected within several weeks, and around a 1% mortality rate. A bit of panic is justified. Better than panic, however, are strong measures implemented quickly. Luckily some states have taken those measures now. > So you get to keep doing your fear mongering predictions of 2 million deaths, and then later you get to say, "well yeah, that didn't happen because we sheltered in place". You simply can't accept the number of 2 million deaths because it's outside of your experience. It is what epidemiology predicts will happen without measures like sheltering in place. How do you think we'll avoid 2 million deaths otherwise? This virus is going to infect ~60% of the population in short order if left unchecked. Do you think the virions will suddenly decide that they don't feel like infecting anyone else? I really do hope that I get to say in the end that "that didn't happen because we sheltered in place." That's what people are already able to say in China, because they sheltered in place and stopped the epidemic. You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that the best information about the R_0 and mortality rate of the virus is incorrect. I'm looking at what happened in Northern Italy, where the hospital system was overwhelmed in two weeks, and I'm not willing to do that.
  - xscott 7y ago
    > That merits a strenuous response, even if it does damage the economy. You say that as though it's "just some boomer's 401k", and not people becoming homeless or suicide rates going up. As for the political side of things, shutting all the stores and making a significant percentage of people unemployed is a good recipe for looting. If that happens, this could get really ugly. > You simply can't accept the number of 2 million deaths because it's outside of your experience. Please spare me your presumptuous psychoanalysis. I doubt you're qualified, and you don't know me from a hole in the wall. Is an extra 2 million US deaths in 2 months within your experience?!? I question your prediction because I've seen a lot of "the end is nigh" statements over the years and they've always been wrong. If 2 million people die from this in the US before summer, you're certainly right - extreme measures are/were justified. If 60 thousand die, it's no worse than a bad flu season and you're just another self righteous drama queen spreading fear. > You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that the best information about the R_0 and mortality rate of the virus is incorrect. You really should quit that. I'm not asking anyone to trust me on anything. However, I'm allowed to question whether all of this is justified. If it turns out to not be, we should know to be more skeptical/cynical towards people like you the next time.