5 ms·

You are being downvoted because you are just plain wrong. What exactly do you think happened in Bergamo? NYC? SARS-CoV-2 is much worse than the flu. It is n

You are being downvoted because you are just plain wrong. What exactly do you think happened in Bergamo? NYC? SARS-CoV-2 is much worse than the flu. It is not overall a fairly mild virus. You don't see hospitals running out of ventilators and ICU capacity being overwhelmed every flu season. Once it passes through the entire population, we could very well see 5-10x the deaths we've seen already, or even considerably more. That's 5 MILLION people dead from a single NEW cause.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
Could you give me an example of a hospital in the US that ran out of ventilators? I'll wait. > Once it passes through the entire population, we could very well see 5-10x the deaths we've seen already, or even considerably more. That's 5 MILLION people dead from a single NEW cause. Are you speaking globally or in the US? If you think 5 million would die in the US, your upper bound is off by an order of magnitude.
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  Off by an order of magnitude if we take YOUR assumed IFR, which you literally admit you "pulled out of [your] ass." Off by an order of magnitude if we ignore the clear lessons of Bergamo, that once it gets roaring the healthcare system has to make suboptimal choices. In other words, I am not off by an order of magnitude. You want an example: watch this video https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw . A primary source that entirely refutes your ridiculous assertions.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    When I said I pulled it out of my ass, I mean I examined the totality of seroprevalence surveys at the time and chose it as a sane average to work off of. So yes out of my ass, but in the sense that my argument doesn’t change if the IFR is .1% versus .7%. That’s what I meant. Unfortunately people like to myopically fixate on IFR as if the way we respond to .6% is fundamentally different from .3%. It’s not. You’re off by an order of magnitude because your estimate is more than twice what Ferguson’s paper estimated. Ferguson modelled worst case scenario in US as .9% IFR with 82% of pop infected for 2.2 million dead. Taking that IFR and adjusting for a HIT closer to 20-25% due to the new findings is how I got the statement that you are off by an order of magnitude. You are. Again your estimate is larger than the craziest doomer epidemiologists (Ferguson). If you respond, please make sure to address the last paragraph. And go read Ferguson if you haven’t. The paper is “wrong” but it’s a great upper bound for worst case scenario with no t cell cross reactivity and absurdly high IFR (thus why it’s a worst case). Ventilators were not a problem and the hysterical NYT video has not proven that whatsoever.
    - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
      A calm ER doctor walking slowly through a COVID ward and mentioning the fact that they don't have enough ventilators is "hysterical." Whatever dude. Ferguson is the craziest doomer epidemiologist at estimating 0.9% IFR. Even though IFR in Bergamo was like 20%. Facts. Can you recognize them? Pulling IFR from spotty seroprevalence studies is a fine way of showing that you literally have no idea what you are writing about.
CWuestefeld 6y ago
You're being downvoted because __blockcipher__ presented a reasonable and rational argument, to which you responded with nothing but pathos, and nothing deeper than newsreel soundbites unsupported by actual science. __bc__ might be wrong, but an hysterical retort is not the way to prove that to the rest of us. And for my money, there's at least something in his comments that's worth considering.
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  There is nothing reasonable or rational in bc's arguments. He is admittedly assuming an IFR out of thin air that fits his murderous agenda. He is also assuming an absurdly high likelihood that actual herd immunity begins to kick in at like 20% seroprevalence, which no one who actually has technical expertise in these matters would suggest. Once you assume an absurdly low IFR and an absurdly high latent immunity, well sure everything else just falls into place. You can layer on all the citations you want after that, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire thesis is built on a foundation of sand.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    I agree with your criticism of his IFR assumption, but the way you're doing it ("his murderous agenda") is incompatible with rational debate. Stop resorting to pathos, and instead be dispassionate and back it up with facts. In this case, I actually did call him out, citing the CDC's most recent estimates of 0.65%. > absurdly high likelihood that actual herd immunity begins to kick in at like 20% seroprevalence, which no one who actually has technical expertise in these matters would suggest. You're the one in the wrong here, and that suggests to me that you've just latched onto popular media misunderstandings of the science - and your refusal to actually support your claims is allowing you to make these mistakes. To enlighten yourself on this topic, look at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immunity-coronavirus/614035/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immu... Quoting from that: It doesn’t make intuitive sense, Gomes admits, but “the homogenous models just don’t make curves that match the current data,” she said. Dynamic systems develop in complex and unpredictable ways, and she believes that the best we can do is continually update models based on what is happening in the real world. She can’t say why the threshold in her models is consistently at or below 20 percent, but it is. “If heterogeneity isn’t the cause,” she said, “then I’d like for someone to explain what is.” At Stockholm University, Tom Britton, the dean of mathematics and physics, thinks that a 20 percent threshold is unlikely, but not impossible. His lab has also been building epidemiological models based on data from around the globe. He believes that variation in susceptibility and exposure to the virus clearly seems to be reducing estimates for herd immunity. Britton and his colleagues recently published their model, demonstrating the effect, in Science. “If there is a large variability of susceptibility among humans, then herd immunity could be as low as 20 percent,” Britton told me.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

Could you give me an example of a hospital in the US that ran out of ventilators? I'll wait. > Once it passes through the entire population, we could very well see 5-10x the deaths we've seen already, or even considerably more. That's 5 MILLION people dead from a single NEW cause. Are you speaking globally or in the US? If you think 5 million would die in the US, your upper bound is off by an order of magnitude.

hcknwscommenter 6y ago
Off by an order of magnitude if we take YOUR assumed IFR, which you literally admit you "pulled out of [your] ass." Off by an order of magnitude if we ignore the clear lessons of Bergamo, that once it gets roaring the healthcare system has to make suboptimal choices. In other words, I am not off by an order of magnitude. You want an example: watch this video https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw . A primary source that entirely refutes your ridiculous assertions.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  When I said I pulled it out of my ass, I mean I examined the totality of seroprevalence surveys at the time and chose it as a sane average to work off of. So yes out of my ass, but in the sense that my argument doesn’t change if the IFR is .1% versus .7%. That’s what I meant. Unfortunately people like to myopically fixate on IFR as if the way we respond to .6% is fundamentally different from .3%. It’s not. You’re off by an order of magnitude because your estimate is more than twice what Ferguson’s paper estimated. Ferguson modelled worst case scenario in US as .9% IFR with 82% of pop infected for 2.2 million dead. Taking that IFR and adjusting for a HIT closer to 20-25% due to the new findings is how I got the statement that you are off by an order of magnitude. You are. Again your estimate is larger than the craziest doomer epidemiologists (Ferguson). If you respond, please make sure to address the last paragraph. And go read Ferguson if you haven’t. The paper is “wrong” but it’s a great upper bound for worst case scenario with no t cell cross reactivity and absurdly high IFR (thus why it’s a worst case). Ventilators were not a problem and the hysterical NYT video has not proven that whatsoever.
  - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    A calm ER doctor walking slowly through a COVID ward and mentioning the fact that they don't have enough ventilators is "hysterical." Whatever dude. Ferguson is the craziest doomer epidemiologist at estimating 0.9% IFR. Even though IFR in Bergamo was like 20%. Facts. Can you recognize them? Pulling IFR from spotty seroprevalence studies is a fine way of showing that you literally have no idea what you are writing about.

CWuestefeld 6y ago

You're being downvoted because __blockcipher__ presented a reasonable and rational argument, to which you responded with nothing but pathos, and nothing deeper than newsreel soundbites unsupported by actual science. __bc__ might be wrong, but an hysterical retort is not the way to prove that to the rest of us. And for my money, there's at least something in his comments that's worth considering.

hcknwscommenter 6y ago
There is nothing reasonable or rational in bc's arguments. He is admittedly assuming an IFR out of thin air that fits his murderous agenda. He is also assuming an absurdly high likelihood that actual herd immunity begins to kick in at like 20% seroprevalence, which no one who actually has technical expertise in these matters would suggest. Once you assume an absurdly low IFR and an absurdly high latent immunity, well sure everything else just falls into place. You can layer on all the citations you want after that, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire thesis is built on a foundation of sand.
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  I agree with your criticism of his IFR assumption, but the way you're doing it ("his murderous agenda") is incompatible with rational debate. Stop resorting to pathos, and instead be dispassionate and back it up with facts. In this case, I actually did call him out, citing the CDC's most recent estimates of 0.65%. > absurdly high likelihood that actual herd immunity begins to kick in at like 20% seroprevalence, which no one who actually has technical expertise in these matters would suggest. You're the one in the wrong here, and that suggests to me that you've just latched onto popular media misunderstandings of the science - and your refusal to actually support your claims is allowing you to make these mistakes. To enlighten yourself on this topic, look at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immunity-coronavirus/614035/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immu... Quoting from that: It doesn’t make intuitive sense, Gomes admits, but “the homogenous models just don’t make curves that match the current data,” she said. Dynamic systems develop in complex and unpredictable ways, and she believes that the best we can do is continually update models based on what is happening in the real world. She can’t say why the threshold in her models is consistently at or below 20 percent, but it is. “If heterogeneity isn’t the cause,” she said, “then I’d like for someone to explain what is.” At Stockholm University, Tom Britton, the dean of mathematics and physics, thinks that a 20 percent threshold is unlikely, but not impossible. His lab has also been building epidemiological models based on data from around the globe. He believes that variation in susceptibility and exposure to the virus clearly seems to be reducing estimates for herd immunity. Britton and his colleagues recently published their model, demonstrating the effect, in Science. “If there is a large variability of susceptibility among humans, then herd immunity could be as low as 20 percent,” Britton told me.