2 hours ago, w6kd said:

I believe they are comparable, at least macroscopically.  Yes, apples-to-apples comparisons are really problematic, but I haven't seen any credible suggestion that these adjustments are skewing the numbers so far that ROM comparisons are without merit.

Emphasis mine.

But that's exactly what the two articles I linked to presented.

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

without committing socio-economic hari-kari in response.

Concerning that... and as another attempt to find common ground... a hospital physician friend just posted to Facebook a link to this new study, which is a serious attempt to find a point where public health needs and economic impacts are ideally balanced.  It's in German - translations and English-language coverage will probably be forthcoming - but for the moment I'll quote her commentary:

 

Quote

 

With so much lively 'discussion' about weighing economic concerns against public health concerns with regard to “re-opening America” in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to note that these 2 do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

The key is to use sound data, indices and parameters as guidance - specifically the R0 - and to judiciously but consistently adjust to flares and apply the brakes.

 

This morning, I came across a very interesting study that is getting a lot of attention in Germany.

 

This study was conducted by experts from both “opposing” perspectives - Economists and Med/Public Health/Epidemiologists.

It was developed in collaboration by the IFO Institute, one of Germany’s most prestigious economic research institutes (Munich) and HZI, one of the leading centers in infectious disease research (Braunschweig).

 

ACHTUNG!

The study was released just 2 days ago and is currently available only in German, so if you can’t read German, you are out of luck.

 

Since I assume many of you are not German speakers, I will summarize:

 

There appears to be a sweet spot that may be acceptable to both sides, the Med/PH/Epi world as well as the Business/Econ-world.

 

Completely opening the economy now would wreck both the economy itself and would overwhelm our healthcare system.

 

On the other hand, continuing the US pseudo-“lockdown” until the disease is no longer spreading would place high burdens on both the economy and domestic peace, civility and security (Democracy, really- see Michigan).

 

Note, in this analysis and in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, the Reproduction Number (R0) is key.

 

By now many of you have probably heard of it. R0 is the number of people infected by one infectious person.

 

In other words, if R0 is 1, then the pandemic is at a stage where one infected person spreads the virus to one other person.

If it is 2, one person infects two others etc.

 

Note : Rt in the article is the German equivalent to R0 here in the US.

 

The simulation models of this study concluded that a Reproduction Number R0 of 0.75 is the best possible compromise for both Health/PH/Epi and Business/Economists.

The study assumes that a vaccine is available by July 31, 2021.

 

As expected, the number of deaths goes up exponentially with increasing reproduction numbers R0.

 

Also interestingly, the number of lives saved with reproduction numbers < 0.75 is almost insignificant.

 

So what’s the bottom live/takeaway?

 

To save lives, our healthcare system, AND the economy, put your mask on, stay home, social distance and act responsibly ** until we have reached R0=0.75 **

 

So where are we now and when will we get there?

 

It depends where you are.

 

See link in comments for the current R0 across the United States.

 

Wide spread testing coupled with rigorous contact tracing could minimize our need for future lock downs AND keep businesses open while maintaining an R0 around 0.75, BUT thus far our country has been unwilling/incapable of implementing these measures.

 

 

This is the link she refers to with data on R0 throughout the US.  She notes that the data at the link is benchmarked to R0=1, whereas the German study finds that R0=.75 should be the target.

 

Hope this is helpful - and hope it establishes that we really do have common goals.

58 minutes ago, w6kd said:

or even better as ~$91,500 for every man, woman, and child in America.

but it isn't $91,500 for every man, woman, and child in America.  Its a small check to most with large sums going to 'job creators' and 'too big to fail' types that will soon be seen as "debt we must get rid of by cutting the safety net for the bottom half of the country".  It happens over and over again.  bailouts for the top followed by cuts for those at the bottom.

I again refer you to the fact that household net worth has been increasing by over 5 trillion dollars per year for the last ten years and its mostly gone to the top ten percent.  We just provided 150 million checks at $1200 each which comes to $180 billion.  The bill provided 2 trillion if I recall and 4 trillion possible from the Fed.  Where did all this money go and who will be asked to pay it back?

As always, cuts to safety net programs with the claim "we can't afford it".

When it comes to reforming the American healthcare system, we really can't afford not to.

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by sightseer

49 minutes ago, bobbyjack said:

Where I live has the highest infection rate in the county. And that's just known cases.

You must be living in Chula Vista which is reporting 795 cases? I'm also in San Diego.

Stay safe!

Martin

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

It *is*, however, possible to manipulate the presentation of the data...or, giving the benefit of the doubt as Alan_A proposes, to innocently misrepresent it.  Someone without the training and insight to look past the graphics could be led to drawing the wrong conclusions, though.

 

Of course it's easy to manipulate data and present it to those who were not privy to the actual gathering of the data.

There was once a race between two top long distance runners; one Russian and the other an American.  The race was run in Iceland so not many people actually witnessed it.

The Amercan runner won the race and all the news outlets in the free world wrote the American won and the Russian lost.

However in the Russian block countries it was printed a bit differently.  "The Russian runner came in second.  The American runner was next to last."

Noel

3 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

You must be living in Chula Vista which is reporting 795 cases? I'm also in San Diego.

Stay safe!

Martin

Wasn't there a big immigration detention center there that was in trouble with covid? I would wonder if that factored in.

7 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Wasn't there a big immigration detention center

Yes, here is a summary from the news "Voice of San Diego"

The bleak picture in the South Bay has been influenced by a host of factors, from the region’s comparatively lower socioeconomic status to the presence of the Otay Mesa Detention Center, home to one of the country’s largest outbreaks in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. But the unfolding crisis in Baja California has played a role, too, Gross said.

“I don’t think anyone can say with certainty what the absolute influences are,” he said. “I think we can extrapolate the known variables that influence the South Bay experience, and one of those things is Tijuana.”

Martin

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

7 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

Yes, here is a summary from the news "Voice of San Diego"

The bleak picture in the South Bay has been influenced by a host of factors, from the region’s comparatively lower socioeconomic status to the presence of the Otay Mesa Detention Center, home to one of the country’s largest outbreaks in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. But the unfolding crisis in Baja California has played a role, too, Gross said.

“I don’t think anyone can say with certainty what the absolute influences are,” he said. “I think we can extrapolate the known variables that influence the South Bay experience, and one of those things is Tijuana.”

Martin

So the next thing to wonder, is if those places could/should be cleared out like so many prisons were, to help stop the spread......?

Just now, HiFlyer said:

if those places could/should be cleared out like so many prisons were, to help stop the spread.

Good question, not sure how they are handling the Detention Center, hopefully they have found a place to isolate and treat everyone. There has been talk on the national news or early release for some detainees, not sure if that has happened here? 

Martin

3 hours ago, Luke said:

There is a long-standing tradition of suspicion of education and complicated concepts in American society.

Yes, and it makes for a fascinating story, and I'll leave it at that!

Martin  

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

14 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

Good question, not sure how they are handling the Detention Center, hopefully they have found a place to isolate and treat everyone. There has been talk on the national news or early release for some detainees, not sure if that has happened here? 

Martin

Just found this. Not surprising. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/nyregion/coronavirus-ice-detainees-immigrants.html

2 hours ago, Luke said:

This is fascinating. I remember a time when we trusted scientists and society progressed. Then again, I'm not surprised that we are now turning against infectious disease specialists - a few years back it was climate scientists and before that evolutionary biologists that had the evil plots about global warning and evolution.

I have a book on my shelf written a half-century ago by Richard Neustadt titled "Anti-intellecutalism in American Politics". There is a long-standing tradition of suspicion of education and complicated concepts in American society. This is just the latest incranation.

Cheers!

Yes, it is unfortunate that we cannot entirely trust scientists any more. 

What is even more unfortunate is that there are scientists who have either very selfish motives or political agendas.  I worked with quite a few of them for nearly 20 years.

Mind you, I still think that most scientists are truly in search of knowledge and truth and are impartial and apolitical, but there are just enough bad apples that it puts the credibility of the scientific community in doubt.

Dave

4 hours ago, MartinRex007 said:

You do know the actual data is their, so pretty hard to manipulate the data when it's right in front of you. It is a visual relative depiction, nothing more nothing less. If you don't like the visuals look at the numerical data.

Martin 

Ah, but they also manipulate the numerical data by not putting the total number of deaths in perspective and not breaking it down by age, pre-existing health problems, etc.

It is akin to lying by omission, or telling a half truth.

Dave

2 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

puts the credibility of the scientific community in doubt.

Not at all, the scientific community has always maintained its credibility, even with a few who have strayed off course. And if you look at the reason most scientist have been reprimanded, it it usually because they were trying to further their own career, not some political agenda.  The community in doubt are those who choose to ignore them!

Martin

 

14 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Ah, but they also manipulate the numerical data by not putting the total number of deaths in perspective

Any data you want about COVID-19 is online, google is your friend, use it!

Martin

What exactly is the criteria for a scientist with an "agenda", beyond being in disagreement with them?

Is there any factual data, not prone to being shot down with the simplest of google searches, that Identifies them?