rallison

11 ms·

31.
by rallison 5y ago
I'm not sure what California has to do with the point I was making? Anyway, it's problematic because around half of the total recorded deaths for New York state, for the entire pandemic up to now, likely resulted from infections t
32.
by rallison 5y ago
New York ends up being a problematic comparison point, because they were at zero restrictions until mid March 2020, so most of the infections through near the end of March were effectively a "no restrictions" test case. I.e. peopl
33.
by rallison 6y ago
If the downsides weren't so significant, then sure, the pro side makes sense. But the downsides are incredibly significant - that you have huge numbers of people who spend time in jail or spend money for a bail bond, who are indeed inn
34.
by rallison 6y ago
This is an odd resource, at least with respect to IFR. I didn't look to see if the CFR section was more reasonable. They don't date the commentary in the IFR section, but it seems like it's mostly March/early April? If s
35.
by rallison 6y ago
It's worth noting that Sweden is actually more strict than a number of states in the US - 50 person limit on any gatherings, and that limit applies to restaurants as well. They were also better positioned than almost any country to pot
36.
by rallison 6y ago
I think this is misunderstanding the point. It's not that we can't protect the most vulnerable, it's that we can't protect them particularly well IF community spread is high. We are partially effective in protecting the
37.
by rallison 6y ago
> Any number of different things Yes, it can mean lots of different things, potentially, which is why it is useful to look at factors that may have impacted implied IFRs. E.g. is the population you are studying older than the national av
38.
by rallison 6y ago
> Downvoting and brigading don’t change them. Just to be clear, I did not downvote, nor brigade. > No, it doesn’t. You’re cherry-picking old data, and ignoring the links I gave you, which tell you the updated numbers: I think you may
39.
by rallison 6y ago
> 2 - First image in this collection: https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ This site seems entirely untethered to reality? E.g. "2) Covid mortality vs. flu mortality" section appears to put
40.
by rallison 6y ago
> Another interesting question is, what is the economic impact of those high risk people not being able to leave their homes? What happens to the schools and workplaces where they normally serve? Exactly. This is something I've pond
41.
by rallison 6y ago
For sure. Massachusetts seems especially high as a percentage re nursing homes. I believe the national average is ~40%. So, absolutely, a priority should be to focus on nursing homes. And that's also part of my point - nursing homes we
42.
by rallison 6y ago
> You skipped the part about how it was right. Current IFR estimates are on par with the flu: For some reason, I assumed that once we got to hundreds of thousands of dead in the US, that people would move on from this. Even the CDC puts
43.
by rallison 6y ago
> I live in Contra Costa County (east bay, SF area), with a lot of retired people. 1.1 million residents. We’ve had 224 deaths with COVID so far. > Does that sound like a pandemic? It sounds like a region that has handled the pandemic
44.
by rallison 6y ago
This seems incredibly hand-wavey in actually accomplishing "focused protection." > Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes s
45.
by rallison 6y ago
Florida as a whole enacted mask recommendations in late June. Miami Dade county enacted a mandatory mask mandate on July 2nd: https://www.miamidade.gov/global/initiatives/coronavirus/eme... Palm Beach county
46.
by rallison 6y ago
Not the original commenter, but no, I'd hope not, in its current state. It's a shallow analysis, and it does a poor job of analyzing the data to try to understand causality in explaining case trends. For example: > Why would Fl
47.
by rallison 6y ago
> They aren't being more careful now than they were in early June. Source? This is a significant claim. Early June was a low point in cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Lots of states were at peak reopening around then, as things
48.
by rallison 6y ago
That dataset is super useful and interesting, but it has a huge caveat, assuming we're talking about the same dataset ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregion/new-york-city-an... ). Oh, I see w
49.
by rallison 6y ago
I think using herd immunity to apply to temporary network states is going to be more confusing than helpful. There will be some fuzziness at the edges - some of the changes and adaptations we make during this pandemic will probably persist
50.
by rallison 6y ago
The fundamental issue I see in the piece is a conflation of what herd immunity means. Normally, it's used in the context of normal activity levels - as in, if everyone went back to normal pre-pandemic routines, would we see cases go up
51.
by rallison 6y ago
Great read. And scary, and frustrating. What might be entirely coincidence, but I found interesting, was that this was a JetBlue flight from JFK. The one time I triggered the explosives detection machine was a JetBlue flight from JFK. I had
52.
by rallison 6y ago
It's also possible many of these colleagues had concerns, but weren't previously airing them publicly. Just searching academics I follow, the one thread that popped up from a year ago was this https://twitter.com/G
53.
by rallison 6y ago
Nobody likes that these protests are likely to lead to increased transmission. It's a truly terrible choice. People are making that choice because these protests get to such a fundamental problem in our society that they are still wo
54.
by rallison 6y ago
I think your broad point is accurate. It's going to be a spectrum. Many people will want that social interaction in some form that is not just virtual, but the form it takes will vary a lot. Sure, some people will go right back to indo
55.
by rallison 6y ago
> Ascribing all excess deaths to coronavirus is a mistake. I worded my statement intentionally. > It's also most likely still an undercount Some of the excess deaths will be other things. It will take more careful analysis to com
56.
by rallison 6y ago
The 2009 H1N1 Pandemic killed in the ballpark of 10k people in the US. I don't recall ever seeing mainstream news outlets reporting in the ballpark of 100k recorded deaths. It's been 7 weeks since the Imperial College model that p
57.
by rallison 6y ago
1) The healthcare system barely handled the load, and that was with heroic efforts to reposition ventilators and build up temporary capacity. We barely handled it because most of the country was not nearly as hard hit, so we could still shi
58.
by rallison 6y ago
That's not how that works. It's also most likely still an undercount. Confirmed plus probable cases are thousands short of total excess deaths for that period for New York City.
59.
by rallison 6y ago
> Further, any variance of susceptibility or contact density means you don't need to reach 60% for herd immunity. Some estimates say that the real threshold may likely be 25% or less: e.g. https://www.medrxiv.org/con
60.
by rallison 6y ago
Edit: more Carl Bergstrom commentary on IHME: > (That's not to let IHME off the hook; once they started promoting the ability for their model to do anything else, they became responsible for its predictions at other stages of the pa

More ›